Homeopathy is Witchcraft

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

So, although my brain is often stuffed with fluff

So can we call you Pooh Bear, then?

 

[StormFeather]

So can we call you Pooh Bear, then?

Ah, but we don't want to offend The bear now do we . . .

 

[Ursa major]

. . . or The Procrastinator, for that matter.

 

[j d worthington]

Agreed: the placebo effect definitely has its benefits; and also agreed that it would be unlikely to cause a swelling, etc., to heal noticeably faster (though there is still some slight possibility it can have some effect, it is unlikely to be a drastic one). And, as I said, that particular "homeopathic" medication may actually be closer to something that is pharmacologically sound. My beef is with the practice itself, and the nonsense its adherents spout in the attempt to sound scientific. While some of the products out there are likely to have actual benefits, the vast majority, following the practices mentioned above, are worse than useless because they have no actual scientific basis, have no actual medicinal value, and nonetheless cost money which could be better spent on something which does have some genuine effect.

"Alternative medicines", as has already been noted, is a wide umbrella term for a vast number of things, some of which are genuinely sound but simply have not yet met requirements not only for efficacy but for safety; some which are in a grey area where they may or may not be actually beneficial, but seem to be successful in some cases; and others which are simply totally worthless but riding on the coattails of the other two... and the gullibility and uninformed state of the majority of the public (and, sometimes, doctors). And, of course, some are genuinely harmful but just haven't yet stepped enough over the law to be curtailed.

Bottom line: before taking on board any "alternative medicine", research. And, though it seems an obvious caution, please keep in mind to not accept anything from sources linked to supporters of such practices without an enormous amount of salt (ditto goes for those representing rabid opponents of same), as anyone with a vested interest in such issues is prone to fudge (or outright fabricate) results either consciously or unconsciously. Look for genuinely objective and respected medical and scientific sources to see what's what. Yes, they, too can make mistakes; but the results are much, much more likely to be accurate than in the other instances; and it is your health (or that of your loved ones) you're dealing with here.

The above is a general statement, not aimed at you in particular Stormfeather; that below is in response to your posts specifically:

If you have found something which works -- whether placebo or not -- by all means, stick with it in such cases. As a parent myself, I know how important it is to be able to a) comfort your child when they are hurt; and b) find something which they will take and which does seem to have a beneficial effect. As long as it is something which does no harm and provides some form of help, then in dealing with such minor affairs, it is well worth it....

 

[The Procrastinator]

My ears are burning...too close to the candle again I suppose...bother...

On the actual subject of homeopathy, the very concept (dilution until its immeasurable) has always seemed to me to be whacko. To each their own, but I prefer to stick with something a little more concrete. It would be nice if something so mystical could be found to be generally effective, but I don't think they'll ever be able to prove it, and I don't think they should market it as if its a reliable medicine.

Having said that I often try "natural remedies" rather than the purely synthesised stuff. I'm after what works, and what has the least side effects. I have to say that the most effective muscle tonic/pain killer/anti-inflammatory stuff that I've ever found (and I've checked out quite a few in my time) is a mix of herbal origin - Asian and Western together (arnica is in there). Works better than anything I've found. I also wear a haematite bracelet (I was desperate to find an alternative to regular doses of painkiller) and its a marvel. The proof is in the pudding as they say. It works for me.

Scepticism in these matters is a very healthy thing - but giving different things a go (within reason) can also be good.

 

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

Scepticism in these matters is a very healthy thing - but giving different things a go (within reason) can also be good.

Well, nobody here is arguing against THAT matter, Proc, but I do firmly believe that anyone who believes homeopathy, the very concept of it, needs to have their heads checked, really. As JD said, there ARE alternative styles of medicine that DO work other than pharmacy synthesized-chemical pills and such. They just aren't, over here in the United States at least, recognized as safe enough usually as to be legally recognized by the FDA. (Acupuncture is one that has been recognized by the FDA as a safe treatment to relieve certain kinds of pain, if I am thinking correctly, however.)

But you also have to realize, Proc, that sometimes the only way to go IS with the hospitals. (Usually in terms of the need of surgery or with a dire microbial infections, or on the treatable brink of organ failure.)


Which is not to be confused with mental health, of course, which is an entirely different kettle of kittens. But that's another thread.

 

[The Procrastinator]

But you also have to realize, Proc, that sometimes the only way to go IS with the hospitals. (Usually in terms of the need of surgery or with a dire microbial infections, or on the treatable brink of organ failure.)

No disagreement from me! Thats why I said try things out - within reason. There are times when you can get a bit experimental, and times when you have to get serious and go with standard medicines/procedures.

I also agree with you about homeopathy. Really its like faith. People can believe in it if they want, but marketing miracles to suck people into church is one thing, marketing miracles and calling it medicine is another. I don't know if homeopaths are required to make the unproven nature of their medicines plain (never been to one) but they should be.

 

[J-WO]

They are! The "squeak like a mouse" trick always works on the cats that visit my garden (except the deaf one) and when you pretend to throw a ball for a dog, it gets them running nine times out of ten. And racehorses! They run their hearts out thinking they're the ones who are going to get the prize money. No wonder humans rule the world.

I email-scam Wildebeest.

 

[ktabic]

(as are many medicines in high doses).

To paraphrase one of the fathers of modern medicine, Paracelsus, "the dose makes the poison".

I tend to apply a very simple rule to deciding if "alternative medicines" work. If an "alternative medicine" works, it's given a special name to show that it does. "Medicine".

She swore that neither of her kids had had any kind of vaccinations and they were strong and healthy, as she'd treated everything homeopathically.

She might well be right, her kids might never have caught anything. That would be because many, many more responsible and sensible parents did get their kids immunised, rather than anything she was doing (in fact, inspite of what she was doing). The effect is known as Herd Immunity (I think it's an unfortunate name).

 

[Allegra]

If homeopathy means when my dog has diarrhea I have to feed her laxative then no, I don't believe it. But alternative medicine has a wide range, according to wiki - Alternative medicine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

The American National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) cites examples including naturopathy, chiropractic, herbalism, traditional Chinese medicine, Ayurveda, meditation, yoga, biofeedback, hypnosis, homeopathy, acupuncture, and nutritional-based therapies, in addition to a range of other practices.

Without some of those helping our ancestors survive perhaps we won't even be here.

 

[Moonbat]

Just reading what you guys have been discussing has made me wonder about the 'arms race' between medicine and bacteria/viruses.
We all know that MRSA has evolved to combat modern antibacterial medicines and liquid cleaners, but what kind of arms race is happening against the 'alternative medicines'
will it be a case (in the future) where scientific medicine has failed in the arms race agaisnt viruses and alternative/natural remedies will have to take over?

 

[ktabic]

Without some of those helping our ancestors survive perhaps we won't even be here.

Or possibly inspite of those, our ancestors managed to survive.
Great-great-(many more)-great-granddad wasn't super healthy and wasn't long-lived.
He was short lived. Minor infections where terminal. Most children would be dead long before they left childhood. Pretending that water was a mystical cure-all or a bear's liver could fix a limp. About the only one of those 'alternative medicines' that work is herbalism, but the working parts of that where incorporated into real medicine long ago.
Compared to the Classical Era Greeks and Romans, I'm ancient. I should have been dead 10 years ago. I'm looking good to avoid dying at the average age of just a century ago (which is about now for me). People are living longer, healthier - by a really large margin - because we don't use 'alternative medicines'.

but what kind of arms race is happening against the 'alternative medicines'

There won't be an arms race between viruses/bacteria and 'alternative medicine'. The viruses and bacteria evolves to overcome threats to themselves and since 'alternative medicines' have no real effect, there is no need for an arms race.

 

[Ursa major]

...will it be a case (in the future) where scientific medicine has failed in the arms race agaisnt viruses and alternative/natural remedies will have to take over?

Bacteria and viruses evolve for no particular reason at all, they just do. However, sometimes the result of the evolution allows a bacterium or virus to survive better than it would have done.

Given this, natural remedies (which, one assumes, would be either anti-bacterial or anti-virus in your example) would be in the same position.

And if "natural" remedies (which would, as ktabic says, become medicines or medical treatments) are allowed to be used in the haphazard** way that, say, anti-biotics are, the same ill-effects (no pun intended) are bound to ensue.




** - with the stress on hazard

 

[Peter Graham]

will it be a case (in the future) where scientific medicine has failed in the arms race agaisnt viruses and alternative/natural remedies will have to take over?

Alas! It's probably the case that alternative remedies already lost the battle, which is why modern medicine had to take up the baton.

I suspect that one big issue here is that some on both sides of the debate draw an entirely arbitrary line between scientific medicine (things made by GSK which GP's prescribe) and alternative or complementary medicine (things prescribed by overweight hippies with horned toes).

In reality, the divide is between things that work and things that don't. For example, it is doubtless the case that certain herbal remedies do work. And there are jolly good scientific reasons as to why that is. There are also reasons as to why drug companies peddle products which don't really work that well, or have such vile side effects as to make usage seem rather questionable.

But none of this takes away from the basic, underlying principle which is that the only sort of remedy which one can genuinely say does what it says on the tin is the remedy which has been proven to have the claimed effect in blind (or double blind) objective and independent scientific tests. Such tests discount other factors unrelated to the substance which might have an effect on the patient (such as someone spending time with them and being nice to them). Such tests also look at the results of the treatment, rather than the rationale behind it. The efficacy of homeopathy, or crystal healing or whatever can be tested without anyone having to consider whether or not water really can retain memories, or whether crystals really do vibrate at certain frequencies.

Regards,

Peter

 

[Parson]

It is clear from this thread that I had no idea what homeopathy was. I understood it to be the prescription of herbal medicines. I now understand it is a lot more, and possibly a lot more foolish, than that. Thanks for the "enlightenment." (pun intended -- just so the bear could catch on.)

 

[Vladd67]

For a slightly cynical look at homeopathy
YouTube - That Mitchell and Webb Look: Homeopathic A&E

 

[Ursa major]

In these times of budget restraints, perhaps we could strongly dilute any NHS funding for homeopathic "treatments".


And why have no homeopathists complained about the cleaning up of our water supplies over recent years? Surely this could only lead (npi) to something horribly poisonous coming out of our taps.

 

[ktabic]

Recommendations recently put forward regarding funding for homeopathic treatments by the NHS is that they should become so diluted as to cease to exist.

 

[Ursa major]

* Expects that, after much lobbying (including from HeirBrain ), those recommendations are likely to be watered down. *









Sorry, but I couldn't resist.

 

[j d worthington]

You may want to take a look at this:

YouTube - Richard Dawkins vs Homeopathy

Of course, "alternative medicines" which don't actually work can win an "arms race" where people are concerned because, as has been proven again and again throughout history, people are much more likely to be led by what they wish to believe, and what feels good, and, yes, by a sort of "herd instinct", than by genuine evidence or reason. In that sense, homeopoathy (for instance) could, conceivably, win out over genuinely effective medicine in the "popularity vote" -- and this is something which is going on in science across the board, the battle between seeing science as something which should be judged on that sort of basis which is sheer nonsense.

Science -- including scientific medicine -- takes a long, hard look at genuine efficacy before it approves something as effective... a lesson learned through a great deal of history where common curatives were often, when objectively examined, proved either ineffective or outright harmful (bleeding for everything from catarrh to bile in the waste; wearing masks and burning purgative herbs to clear a house of the effects of tuberculosis; etc., etc., etc.). Now, people believed in these curatives; they held on for an incredibly long time in many cases. It took an enormous amount of work, study, and losses to even begin to make a dent in the belief in such things... and a fair amount of the populace seems determined to return to such beliefs despite all evidence to the contrary now; just as numerous other pseudoscientific or mythic beliefs are seeing a resurgence as based in fact (rather than simply something one chooses to believe regardless of fact or fallacy), even though nearly every one of these has been long exploded or exposed for the pure fiction they are... comforting fictions they may be, but fictions nonetheless.

So it is with many "alternative medicines". Does this mean we should stop investigating new forms of such? By no means. But those which have been so studied and found to be wanting, should be given short shrift, for the reasons I mentioned first off: even where they do not do actual positve harm, they do often cause passive harm by reinforcing the belief that they are helpful and therefore getting people to rely on them rather than genuine medical science, and at the very least by taking money (often from people who can least afford it) while doing absolutely nothing more than can be achieved by a true "sugar pill" treatment or other placebo. If the practitioners/supporters of these methods wish to gain any credence for their favored practices, they need to bring forth evidence (other than their favorite, the anecdotal kind) of their genuine beneficlal effects. Otherwise, they deserve no more respect or support than do the claims of witchcraft as an excuse to murder people (still happening in some places even now) or the use of divining rods, tea leaves, or other pure forms of superstitious nonsense.