Homeopathy; the new wallet inspector.

_Dara_

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

That would be the same Kate O'Connell who runs a pharmacy I take it? Big Pharma globally hates homeopathy because more and more people find that it works and it's threatening their monopoly.

Without "big pharma", I would have been dead within six months of receiving my cancer diagnosis. I'm still going to die from it because because it was metastatic from the get-go but have been given a long reprieve, coming up on three years shortly.

Meanwhile, anyone who recommends homeopathy over "big pharma" medicine to an early stage cancer patient who had a chance to be cured has blood on their hands.

Sardonicat

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Most people who use it find their way naturally to it in their search for a cure, usually when front line treatments have failed.

"Find their way naturally to it. .."
What does that even mean?

kylith

Sardonicat wrote: »

"Find their way naturally to it. .."
What does that even mean?

Turn to it in desperation because their illness is too far advanced to have any hope of survival.

Ipso

Natural is also a magic word that is thrown around, if something is natural then it has an advantage.
Of course there are a lot of natural things that aren't good for you; uranium, mercury, dog sh1t etc

Has the detox craze taken of in Ireland yet?

Corruptedmorals

Homeopathy may not be actively pushed but it is dangled as an attractive, natural miracle cure to people who are at their most fragile and vulnerable and who will grasp at anything.

I generally think that when it comes down to it, even the most vociferous supporters of homeopathy will want the best painkillers and sedatives produced by Big Pharma in their last days and not IV's of memory-water.

I hate hearing stories of people abandoning medicine for it or other alternative therapies, hoping this or any other legislation will go through to control the industry and what they can claim.

Sardonicat

Homeopathy is also very attractive to people with feck all wrong with them who crave a bit of attention and validation as a "sick" person.

currants

Its popular with people with chronic illness to as the pharma company drugs often have side effects- got arthritis, take a dmard, your kidneys and liver may suffer but you'll be able to walk again...for a while anyway. There are lots of diseases pharma cant cure, people cant live their lives as they once did, get depressed, get desperate and the quacks and charlatans wait on the sidelines patiently. Of course many of these chronic illnesses follow paths of flare ups and remission throughout your life, dopes and the gullible will say it was the homeopath that cured them, then they stopped taking it and their illness got worse again. Chronic pain and associated lack of restful sleep impairs your judgement too.
Herbalism is totally different and has been proven to work. Acupuncture works for pain management for some too, that's totally mad!

jh79

currants wrote: »

Its popular with people with chronic illness to as the pharma company drugs often have side effects- got arthritis, take a dmard, your kidneys and liver may suffer but you'll be able to walk again...for a while anyway. There are lots of diseases pharma cant cure, people cant live their lives as they once did, get depressed, get desperate and the quacks and charlatans wait on the sidelines patiently. Of course many of these chronic illnesses follow paths of flare ups and remission throughout your life, dopes and the gullible will say it was the homeopath that cured them, then they stopped taking it and their illness got worse again. Chronic pain and associated lack of restful sleep impairs your judgement too.
Herbalism is totally different and has been proven to work. Acupuncture works for pain management for some too, that's totally mad!

Herbalism is a load of nonsense too . About a handfull of the tens of thousands of herbal remedies for sale have any proven efficacy.

Acupuncture is just palcebo effect.

Walter Bishop

currants wrote: »

Herbalism is totally different and has been proven to work. Acupuncture works for pain management for some too, that's totally mad!

Citation needed.

currants

jh79 wrote: »

Herbalism is a load of nonsense too . About a handfull of the tens of thousands of herbal remedies for sale have any proven efficacy.

Acupuncture is just palcebo effect too

Its not a load of nonsense if even a handful of them work- St John's Wort, milk thistle, chestnut extract, willow bark for salicylic acid-these things work for mild illnesses. the pharma versions are just standardised dosage wise. They dont actually know how acupuncture works-some guess its placebo, others guess it works on the mind's perception of pain. but it definitely works for some conditions:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jul/26/acupuncture-sceptics-proof-effective-nhs

Zascar

So my sister is mad into this and constantly tries to convince me. What is the best way to provide her of evidence that proves its rubbish once and for all?

mikhail

jh79 wrote: »

Herbalism is a load of nonsense too . About a handfull of the tens of thousands of herbal remedies for sale have any proven efficacy.

Acupuncture is just palcebo effect.

Goldacre has written a bit about acupuncture. Apparently, it's a hoor to do double-blind trials on (you can control against a group the practicioner just sticks needles in randomly, but he/she has to know they're not doing it right), so it's hard to measure the placebo effect. The short version appears to be that it's no better than placebo all right.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2007/sep/29/acupuncture

jh79

currants wrote: »

Its not a load of nonsense if even a handful of them work- St John's Wort, milk thistle, chestnut extract, willow bark for salicylic acid-these things work for mild illnesses. the pharma versions are just standardised dosage wise. They dont actually know how acupuncture works-some guess its placebo, others guess it works on the mind's perception of pain. but it definitely works for some conditions:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jul/26/acupuncture-sceptics-proof-effective-nhs

The pharma versions have a dose that works the herbs don't have near enough to have a clinical effect. There are exceptions but as i said already a handfull out of 10's of thousands.

nozzferrahhtoo

currants wrote: »

Its not a load of nonsense if even a handful of them work

It depends how you define "work" though. The simple fact is that when testing the efficacy of a drug on serious conditions one of the things we have to account for is there is a %, it varies but usually around 5%, who are simply going to get better anyway even if you do nothing.

So if you randomly give 1000 people herbal remedies about 50 people will come back (there is your handful) claiming it worked. But it did not work. They just got better like they were always going to without the treatment.

The less serious the condition the more % of people who will just get better anyway. Down to the common cold or general headaches where pretty much 100% of people will get better anyway.

So to claim a handful of these things "work" one has to first show what condition it works on, how many people it "worked" on, and how many people can be expected to get better anyway for that particular condition and in what time frame. A lot of work and figures alas, but thankfully people out there ARE doing that work and finding out which treatment actually do something, and which do not appear to do anything.

Zascar wrote: »

So my sister is mad into this and constantly tries to convince me. What is the best way to provide her of evidence that proves its rubbish once and for all?

As someone else on the thread said, you can not reason people out of a position the did not reason themselves into. You could get all the most powerful (that is to say the most dilute) remedies homeopathy offers and simply massively over dose on them all. The fact nothing at all will happen to you will not give any pause to the people who hold to homeopathy on faith.

All the evidence is there. Paper, after paper, showing that the efficacy of homeopathy does not differ at all from Placebo. But all the evidence in the world will not convince someone who holds a position that was never based on evidence in the first place.

One thing you could possibly try, though you can debate the ethics of it yourself, is spend 6 months of a year replacing all her treatments with tap water. Then after a year of her claiming the treatments have been helping her, reveal she has been having nothing but tap water for a year. That MIGHT shake the foundations of a persons faith, but even then I would be interested to see what narrative they come up with to cling to that faith anyway.

mikhail wrote: »

Goldacre has written a bit about acupuncture. Apparently, it's a hoor to do double-blind trials on (you can control against a group the practicioner just sticks needles in randomly, but he/she has to know they're not doing it right), so it's hard to measure the placebo effect. The short version appears to be that it's no better than placebo all right.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2007/sep/29/acupuncture

Yes it has been shown that placebo is more effective if the practitioner administering it believes in it themselves. With a drug you can mediate for this by not letting the person administering a tested drug know if they are administering the placebo or the real drug (double blinding).

I have heard it is claimed this is not so easy with acupuncture as the practitioner would KNOW they are administering the real thing or a fake version and so this would affect the result.

But I wonder if with a certain amount of imagination could this not be overcome. For example having practitioners trained in many sequences of acupuncture, one of which is entirely fake but THEY do not know which one could do it.

Another one is to keep the practitioner blind to the condition they are treating. Give them for example 100 patients with back pain. But tell HALF the practitioners they are treating something totally different to back pain so they implement a different sequence. But they will still do it with all the confidence the other group would. And if there is any significant difference in the alleviation of back pain between the "correct" treatment and the "wrong" one..... then you would know there is something to acupuncture.

And so on. Often in epidemiology and treatment testing, one simply needs to sit down and use ones imagination. I do not think testing acupuncture need be as hard as some people think.

Mrs Shuttleworth

Homeopathy is prescribed by overall symptom picture and patient history emotional not just the physical so you can't prove the efficacy or otherwise in a controlled clinical trial. Two patients with the exact same symptom could be prescribed different homeopathic remedies whereas the conventional medicine prescription is likely to be the same.

The better homeopaths are those who use kinesiology to prescribe the remedy, it nails the right one to use straight off.

SATSUMA

I discovered homeopathy about 5 years ago. I took a remedy not knowing what it was and could not believe the results. When i read into it I became so curious. How could this work? I now take it when necessary, I visit my homeopath when necessary, i know a large proportion of people who use it. I recommend it whole heartedly. I do not think it will cure terminal cancer or reverse any deep pathology but I do believe it has its benefits. For Me, the proof is in the pudding. It works for me and my ailments. Let people make their own choices. Don't hate on them because it's not your choice or your belief. I'm not defending homeopathy, i dont care enough and I can absolutely see why people think it can not work.

But it does.

Greentopia

currants wrote: »

Its not a load of nonsense if even a handful of them work- St John's Wort, milk thistle, chestnut extract, willow bark for salicylic acid-these things work for mild illnesses. the pharma versions are just standardised dosage wise. They dont actually know how acupuncture works-some guess its placebo, others guess it works on the mind's perception of pain. but it definitely works for some conditions:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jul/26/acupuncture-sceptics-proof-effective-nhs

Add agnus castus to that list for PMS and regulation of female hormones.
I took it for the latter not wanting to take synthetic hormones indefinitely so I tried it and it worked.

I was pretty sceptical but it started working to change the duration and frequency of my cycle pretty much straight away and I wasn't taking anything else or doing anything outside my normal routine that the change could be attributed to.

It does have some clinical trial evidence for it's efficacy: http://ebmh.bmj.com/content/4/3/88

But that's herbal. Homeopathy is a different story...complete horse manure at worst, harmless placebo at best. Unfortunately I know some otherwise sensible people who take it and refuse to believe it's just water, especially here in Germany-the home of homeopathy.

I can get a prescription for homeopathic pills from my GP here if I want and it's covered by my private insurance. It annoys me that in a medically and scientifically advanced country with a generally very logical and educated populace that homeopathic BS is taken seriously by many and part of my money is used to fund its use.

Ipso

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Homeopathy is prescribed by overall symptom picture and patient history emotional not just the physical so you can't prove the efficacy or otherwise in a controlled clinical trial. Two patients with the exact same symptom could be prescribed different homeopathic remedies whereas the conventional medicine prescription is likely to be the same.

The better homeopaths are those who use kinesiology to prescribe the remedy, it nails the right one to use straight off.

Do they then dilute the right one down to nothingness?

Kurtosis

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

The better homeopaths are those who use kinesiology to prescribe the remedy, it nails the right one to use straight off.

Charlatans. Everyone knows astrology is the only genuine complement to homeopathy.

Mrs Shuttleworth

Bizarre the amount of people engaging in verbally abusive posts about a topic they have no direct experience or knowledge of.

In particular I would understand the terminal cancer patient's diatribes on here if he tried homeopathy and was promised the earth and it failed but where the established treatment has not been successful may I logically suggest he give homeopathy a go via a good homeopath rather than bashing those of us who politely recant that we have found it useful.

YFlyer

jh79 wrote: »

Herbalism is a load of nonsense too . About a handfull of the tens of thousands of herbal remedies for sale have any proven efficacy.

Citation needed.

currants

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Bizarre the amount of people engaging in verbally abusive posts about a topic they have no direct experience or knowledge of.

In particular I would understand the terminal cancer patient's diatribes on here if he tried homeopathy and was promised the earth and it failed but where the established treatment has not been successful may I logically suggest he give homeopathy a go via a good homeopath rather than bashing those of us who politely recant that we have found it useful.

How insensitive of you to make that post. There's nothing logical about homeopathy as all of the properly conducted trails have demonstrated. There is a good chance your condition regulated itself/burnt out or you are in remission.

SATSUMA

"There is a good chance your condition regulated itself/burnt out or you are in remission.[/quote]"


Heard it all now...

jh79

YFlyer wrote: »

Citation needed.

Here's one for lower back pain;

"Low to moderate quality evidence shows that four herbal medicines may reduce pain in acute and chronic LBP in the short-term and have few side effects. There is no evidence yet that any of these substances are safe or efficacious for long-term use"

http://www.cochrane.org/CD004504/BACK_herbal-medicine-for-low-back-pain

Cookie_Monster

SATSUMA wrote: »

Heard it all now...

you're actually questioning the ability of the human body to repair itself or fight disease by itself?

Heard it all now...

Canis Lupus

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

you're actually questioning the ability of the human body to repair itself or fight disease by itself?

Heard it all now...

You're talking about someone who said 'I took a remedy not knowing what it was'.

Jawgap

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Homeopathy is prescribed by overall symptom picture and patient history emotional not just the physical so you can't prove the efficacy or otherwise in a controlled clinical trial. Two patients with the exact same symptom could be prescribed different homeopathic remedies whereas the conventional medicine prescription is likely to be the same.

The better homeopaths are those who use kinesiology to prescribe the remedy, it nails the right one to use straight off.

Clinical trials are not the only way the efficacy of a treatment can be discussed and demonstrated.

Longitudinal studies would work to demonstrate or explain efficacy - are there any articles, papers describing, in an objective non-circular way, the treatment and resolution of a condition in a person suffering from a disease or illness?

btw, are there any homeopathic vaccines?

Jawgap

SATSUMA wrote: »

I discovered homeopathy about 5 years ago. I took a remedy not knowing what it was and could not believe the results. When i read into it I became so curious. How could this work? I now take it when necessary, I visit my homeopath when necessary, i know a large proportion of people who use it. I recommend it whole heartedly. I do not think it will cure terminal cancer or reverse any deep pathology but I do believe it has its benefits. For Me, the proof is in the pudding. It works for me and my ailments. Let people make their own choices. Don't hate on them because it's not your choice or your belief. I'm not defending homeopathy, i dont care enough and I can absolutely see why people think it can not work.

But it does.

Homeopaths are charlatans - simple as.

It's fine when it's just a bit of messing around to 'cure' a cold, a general feeling of malaise, or a Norovirus infection, but when 'practitioners' are preying (and that is exactly the right word) on the desperation of people who are suffering from serious chronic or life limiting illnesses then they deserve the the most detailed scrutiny. If they can't prove their claims then they absolutely deserve to be called out.

Their cocked up advice kills people, and deprives families of time with loved ones.

tringle

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

One thing you could possibly try, though you can debate the ethics of it yourself, is spend 6 months of a year replacing all her treatments with tap water. Then after a year of her claiming the treatments have been helping her, reveal she has been having nothing but tap water for a year. That MIGHT shake the foundations of a persons faith.

I'm confused. Any homeopathic remedy I have ever used has been in teeny tablet form, mostly arnica but also thuja and merc Sol. None have been liquid form. I have also used arnica gel which has been pointed out to me is not a homeopathic remedy but a herbal preparation

currants

Canis Lupus wrote: »

You're talking about someone who said 'I took a remedy not knowing what it was'.

Who me? I don't use homeopathy, or herbalism or acupuncture for that matter. But I'm open to scientific evidence either way. I've found nothing for homeopathy and some for herbalism and acupuncture (pain management only- no "cures")

Mrs Shuttleworth

tringle wrote: »

I'm confused. Any homeopathic remedy I have ever used has been in teeny tablet form, mostly arnica but also thuja and merc Sol. None have been liquid form. I have also used arnica gel which has been pointed out to me is not a homeopathic remedy but a herbal preparation

It was probably the remedies available on the shelf in chemists you were using. They tend to be in tablet form and are the potency for superficial minor physical ailments. If you have it you will probably see "30c" written on it.

The remedies can also be given in "wet dose" i.e. the water form where you take a capful or a few drops on the tongue. These tend to be the higher potencies such as the LM potencies that work on a deeper level on chronic conditions. You'll usually only get these from a health store with a homeopath working there or from the homeopathic chemists and suppliers in London, or directly from your homeopath here.

Jawgap

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

It was probably the remedies available on the shelf in chemists you were using. They tend to be in tablet form and are the potency for superficial minor physical ailments. If you have it you will probably see "30c" written on it.

The remedies can also be given in "wet dose" i.e. the water form where you take a capful or a few drops on the tongue. These tend to be the higher potencies such as the LM potencies that work on a deeper level on chronic conditions. You'll usually only get these from a health store with a homeopath working there or from the homeopathic chemists and suppliers in London, or directly from your homeopath here.

What makes them potent?

TheAnalyst_

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Bizarre the amount of people engaging in verbally abusive posts about a topic they have no direct experience or knowledge of.

In particular I would understand the terminal cancer patient's diatribes on here if he tried homeopathy and was promised the earth and it failed but where the established treatment has not been successful may I logically suggest he give homeopathy a go via a good homeopath rather than bashing those of us who politely recant that we have found it useful.

We've all decades of experience with water.

nozzferrahhtoo

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Homeopathy is prescribed by overall symptom picture and patient history emotional not just the physical so you can't prove the efficacy or otherwise in a controlled clinical trial.

How convenient for you. Invent unsubstantiated nonsense, then invent excuses why substantiation will not ever be forthcoming.

But no, there is nothing in what you wrote above that puts it beyond controlled trials. At all.

SATSUMA wrote: »

How could this work?

Lots of ways. Placebo. Return to the mean. There are plenty of explanations as to why a treatment appears to "work" when in fact it did nothing at all.

SATSUMA wrote: »

Don't hate on them because it's not your choice or your belief.

Where are you seeing hate? Or is disagreement a hate crime now?

SATSUMA wrote: »

But it does.

Nope. No reason to think it does at all.

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Bizarre the amount of people engaging in verbally abusive posts about a topic they have no direct experience or knowledge of.

Bizarre how few posts you appear to have actually read and replied to. Bizarre also how few posts contain "verbal abuse" on this thread at all, yet you seem to be seeing "an amount" of it. Perhaps you think mere disagreement is abusive now, like the guy above who thinks disagreement is hate?

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

where the established treatment has not been successful may I logically suggest he give homeopathy a go via a good homeopath rather than bashing those of us who politely recant that we have found it useful.

Yes, that is indeed the MO and target audience of homeopathy. Find the people who are most desperate and pitch to them. However people who have found treatments have failed them have already likely spend a lot of time and money in doing so. Exploiting them with something that is literally over priced water in their last days really is low.

SATSUMA wrote: »

Heard it all now...

Meaning what? You do know that pretty much every condition has a remission rate right? And that a certain % of people suffering from a condition will simply get better whether they take treatments or not? So that when a group of people who have a condition take a nonsense treatment, like over priced water, some of them will get better. And those people, like yourself, will be easily convinced the non-treatment they took is the reason.

tringle wrote: »

I'm confused. Any homeopathic remedy I have ever used has been in teeny tablet form

That would ruin my plan for sure Over here in Germany there is a homeopathy section in the chemist beside my work. And it is all liquid form. I guess when it is just water, the delivery methodology is not as relevant as with actual medicines.

But the general approach I suggested is still possible. Replace the pills with placebo versions that look the same. Then a year later reveal the switch. I only recommend that with homeopathy however. Do not do it with someone taking ACTUAL medicine.

Harika

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Bizarre the amount of people engaging in verbally abusive posts about a topic they have no direct experience or knowledge of.

In particular I would understand the terminal cancer patient's diatribes on here if he tried homeopathy and was promised the earth and it failed but where the established treatment has not been successful may I logically suggest he give homeopathy a go via a good homeopath rather than bashing those of us who politely recant that we have found it useful.

Steve Jobs might have reduced his chance of survival, because he trusted those quacks, lost important time to treat his cancer that became terminal. And this is just one of the many examples where those alternative treatments cause more harm then good.
Oh and I was treated with homeopathy when I was younger, in reality what was helping was that the "doctor" didn't just stamp me through in five minutes, but took an hour to talk things through. When I think about it, it feels a lot like psychotherapy with some weird elements of like "So you have Asthma, which colour do you like out of this book" and based on that I got different Globoli, where when I think again he just had a big tub of them where it took them out. And you know what, I got rid of it, it might have been those sugar pills or the medicine or the combination of psychotherapy with the medicine.
Edit: Further things I had to go through
Some creep was reading out of my eyes and found I was a horny teenager and that caused my issues. I **** you not!
Dog meat was ordered out of Switzerland for me to eat.
Flowers diluted in alcohol was given

_Dara_

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Bizarre the amount of people engaging in verbally abusive posts about a topic they have no direct experience or knowledge of.

In particular I would understand the terminal cancer patient's diatribes on here if he tried homeopathy and was promised the earth and it failed but where the established treatment has not been successful may I logically suggest he give homeopathy a go via a good homeopath rather than bashing those of us who politely recant that we have found it useful.

That would be me and may I logically suggest that you fuck right off? Diatribes? The cheek of you. I haven’t tried homeopathy because I have a science background and could swiftly parse that it was bunkum. You know that this isn’t make believe theatre here? This is my life.

Whatever ban I get for posting this will be well worth it. Bring it.

kylith

tringle wrote: »

I'm confused. Any homeopathic remedy I have ever used has been in teeny tablet form, mostly arnica but also thuja and merc Sol. None have been liquid form. I have also used arnica gel which has been pointed out to me is not a homeopathic remedy but a herbal preparation

Those tablets would be sugar pills.

_Dara_

YFlyer wrote: »

Citation needed.

Countless studies? Pubmed is your friend. Though I suspect you don’t want a logical response.

Canis Lupus

currants wrote: »

Who me? I don't use homeopathy, or herbalism or acupuncture for that matter. But I'm open to scientific evidence either way. I've found nothing for homeopathy and some for herbalism and acupuncture (pain management only- no "cures")

Unless you're Satsuma then no.

Mrs Shuttleworth

Harika wrote: »

And you know what, I got rid of it, it might have been those sugar pills or the medicine or the combination of psychotherapy with the medicine.

Good for you - glad it worked.

kylith

Harika wrote: »

Oh and I was treated with homeopathy when I was younger, in reality what was helping was that the "doctor" didn't just stamp me through in five minutes, but took an hour to talk things through.

It has been found that when doctors spend more time with patients those patients do better because they feel they have been cared for more.

Harika wrote: »

And you know what, I got rid of it, it might have been those sugar pills or the medicine or the combination of psychotherapy with the medicine.

Some kids with asthma will just naturally grow out of it as their lungs get stronger. Some will have their symptoms vanish for years. Some have their symptoms drastically lessen. As you say yourself; there was more to it than just the homeopathy.

Of course, on the flip side I know a guy whose parents brought him to a homeopath when he was a child for his many allergies and it made not a jot of a difference. He still has to do a hell of a lot of research before he can go out for dinner anywhere.

Jawgap

kylith wrote: »

Some kids with asthma will just naturally grow out of it as their lungs get stronger. Some will have their symptoms vanish for years. Some have their symptoms drastically lessen. As you say yourself; there was more to it than just the homeopathy.

Of course, on the flip side I know a guy whose parents brought him to a homeopath when he was a child for his many allergies and it made not a jot of a difference. He still has to do a hell of a lot of research before he can go out for dinner anywhere.

My own two kids were diagnosed with asthma when they were younger - the doctor at the time explained that the definition of asthma had been broadened over the years and they had what would previously have been described as a "bit of a wheeze" - he said they'd probably grow out of it and said that despite the mention of the word "asthma" no inhaler was needed.....he suggested just monitoring them to see if the condition progressed......guess what? They grew out of it.....

.....but I know at least once or twice they drank water so maybe there is something in this homeopathy lark

Akrasia

SATSUMA wrote: »

"There is a good chance your condition regulated itself/burnt out or you are in remission.

"


Heard it all now...

Really? Spontaneous remission of cancer has been observed for hundreds of years.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3312698/

The fact that the human immune system can adapt to fight a disease (either permanently, or temporarily) is a lot less difficult to believe than the nonsense attached to Homeopathic cures (water memory, like cures like, the more it's diluted, the more potent it is etc etc)

nozzferrahhtoo

Jawgap wrote: »

he suggested just monitoring them to see if the condition progressed......guess what? They grew out of it.....

Whats really cool is they are now looking into treating asthma by doing things like intentionally giving you things like tape worms

Actually my brother lost his asthma with age too, and his bad eye sight got better, and he went off vegetables almost entirely and eats barely anything but meat. All of which are meant to be symptoms of a large tape worm. I keep telling him this, since he is very squeamish, it freaks him out.

Jawgap

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Whats really cool is they are now looking into treating asthma by doing things like intentionally giving you things like tape worms

Actually my brother lost his asthma with age too, and his bad eye sight got better, and he went off vegetables almost entirely and eats barely anything but meat. All of which are meant to be symptoms of a large tape worm. I keep telling him this, since he is very squeamish, it freaks him out.

.....that perhaps explains it - as two strapping rubgy-palying lads well over 6 foot they have appetites that suggest they have entire families of tapeworms industriously filling their hollow legs!!! (I look forward to the day when a sliced pan lasts more than a day!!!)

....quite inspirational really when you consider that they've overcome everything that's been thrown at them - vaccinations, antibiotics, ibuprofen, paracetamol, aspirin etc

nozzferrahhtoo

Never thought of those things as anything to over come They have all done me well at least.

But you can freak them out that they have 20 year old tape worms now or something. Which would be rather large by now

Harika

kylith wrote: »

Some kids with asthma will just naturally grow out of it as their lungs get stronger. Some will have their symptoms vanish for years. Some have their symptoms drastically lessen. As you say yourself; there was more to it than just the homeopathy.

Of course, on the flip side I know a guy whose parents brought him to a homeopath when he was a child for his many allergies and it made not a jot of a difference. He still has to do a hell of a lot of research before he can go out for dinner anywhere.

I should have included the grow out option, as personally I think I just grew out of it and homeopathy had nothing to do with it. But it was paired with allergies and when they tested me first from 40 possible allergies I had 36 positive. My arm was swollen in red, nowadays only the lame grasses and dust. Ran half marathons and last Asthma attack is 20 years back. But I don't think you can easily do something against allergies, without googling I think you can use some Sprays like I use for hayfever or so some sensitivities therapy where your body is slowly exposed to allergens to get used to them and not overreact. This is just a very long therapy and won't work for every allergy.

But I also think, and you will stone me for that, that a trained doctor would be good as homeopath, as he or she can easily distinguish if the medical issue needs real attention or a placebo. I understand that morally it is wrong, but could take pressure from the health system.

nozzferrahhtoo

Harika wrote: »

But I also think, and you will stone me for that, that a trained doctor would be good as homeopath, as he or she can easily distinguish if the medical issue needs real attention or a placebo. I understand that morally it is wrong, but could take pressure from the health system.

Not sure what part of it you think morally wrong. Certainly it is often morally wrong to prescribe a placebo, like homeopathy, without medical training.

It is a point of ethical debate about whether doctors should be able to prescribe a placebo at all. I think they should myself but I have never debated deeply on the issue, so I could easily be dissuaded from that.

HOW a placebo is administered is also important. Placebo has been shown to be much more effective when injected than when taken on a spoon for example. And I think some medical training important when both deciding on, and actually administering, a needle injection is warranted.

But certainly the mark up on homeopathy, given it is essentially just water that has been shaken around a lot, is unethical. I think we could prescribe placebos in a much more economically minded way if we were to be doing so without giving millions to a water-industry.

But no the basic idea of allowing trained medical doctors to use placebo is not something I think you should be stoned for. In fact I have a suspicion a condition I had as a young child....... where I seemed unable to swallow meat..... was treated with a placebo and cured within 2 weeks. I must go back and ask my mum about that one actually. Always meant to, never got around to it.

kylith

Harika wrote: »

But I also think, and you will stone me for that, that a trained doctor would be good as homeopath, as he or she can easily distinguish if the medical issue needs real attention or a placebo. I understand that morally it is wrong, but could take pressure from the health system.

Not going to stone you, in fact I said the same myself upthread. Doctors can't ethically prescribe a placebo so some will give harmless vitamin injections and some will prescribe visiting a homeopath as a few drops of water rarely hurts anyone. This way the patient feels that they've been taken care of and the placebo effect takes pace.

Jawgap

Harika wrote: »

....

But I also think, and you will stone me for that, that a trained doctor would be good as homeopath, as he or she can easily distinguish if the medical issue needs real attention or a placebo. I understand that morally it is wrong, but could take pressure from the health system.

Let me ask you - if you were unfortunate enough to break a bone, rupture an internal organ, rip a ligament or suffer some kind of laceration would you prefer a fully trained, all singing all dancing homeopath of 40+ years experience or a mid-career non-consultant doctor with a couple of years A&E experience?

....or another one - you experience chest pain, as you are blacking out which would you rather hear "out of the way, I'm a homeopath" or "out of the way, I've the defibrillator"?