1,800 Studies Later, Scientists Conclude Homeopathy Doesn’t Work

steenkh said:
It is not a question of belief. Show an example of a regulating agency that bans stuff for being ineffective as opposed to being ineffective and dangerous. You cannot, so the argument that homoeopathy is valid because it is not banned, is busted.
Click to expand...

It is surprising that an ineffective drug do not come under the purview of causing indirect adverse effect and not controlled by regulating agencies.
 
Kumar said:
Read homeopathic theory. Well discussed many many times.
Click to expand...


The speculations of homoeopaths are not evidence.

Can you claim homeopathic indicated effects are at por to indicated modern medicine effects?
Click to expand...


No, because it isn't coherent English.

ETA: I think you mean "at par". The reason that the effects of homoeopathy are not "at par" to those of modern medicine is that homoeopathy doesn't work.

If can't, it will be a proof of "peculiar and different".
Click to expand...


No, evidence that potentised remedies have "peculiar and different" effects would be the results of tests that have detected these effects and demonstrated that they are "peculiar and different".

Given that your claim that the effects are "peculiar and different" is nothing more than an ad hoc excuse for them being undetectable, it seems unlikely that you can produce any evidence for them.
 
Last edited:
Kumar said:
Then, as you said elsewhere, rules are rules, and if rules permit homeopathy, rules need to be accepted and followed.
Click to expand...

Be careful what you wish for. Homeopathy is getting increasingly banned.

Hans
 
Kumar said:
I meant that when a medicine is ineffective, it can be withdrawn by regulating agencies. Like it, how regulating agencies are not withdrawing homeopathy if proven to be fully ineffective?
Click to expand...

A real medicine gets authorization by the regulating agencies. It is actively approved and allowed, based on efficacy tests.

Later, it may turn out that the effect is not as good as expected, or rare but serious side effects turn up in practical use. Or better and safer medicines are invented for the same purpose. Then the authorization is revoked.

Homeopathic remedies are not authorized. They are tolerated as long as producers don't make specific efficacy claims, because the remedies in themselves are considered harmless.

That's the difference.

Hans
 
Kumar said:
Read homeopathic theory. Well discussed many many times. Can you claim homeopathic indicated effects are at por to indicated modern medicine effects? If can't, it will be a proof of "peculiar and different".
Click to expand...
The peculiarity and difference of homoeopathic effects compared to the effects of real medicine is that homoeopathy does not work.
 
MRC_Hans said:
Be careful what you wish for. Homeopathy is getting increasingly banned.

Hans
Click to expand...

Yes vested interests and influences is damaging to the other sides and to nature. Few odds can not be all odd otherwise we can easily find much more odds in conventional systems. But convention or popularity effect. More of these more the influence and more the possible damage to others,:o
 
MRC_Hans said:
A real medicine gets authorization by the regulating agencies. It is actively approved and allowed, based on efficacy tests.

Later, it may turn out that the effect is not as good as expected, or rare but serious side effects turn up in practical use. Or better and safer medicines are invented for the same purpose. Then the authorization is revoked.

Homeopathic remedies are not authorized. They are tolerated as long as producers don't make specific efficacy claims, because the remedies in themselves are considered harmless.

That's the difference.

Hans
Click to expand...

Pray for Consistency and least side effects for getting reality, as anticipated by Dr. Wilhelm Schuessler, you remember. Reality persists.
 
Pixel42 said:
It has no active ingredients. It's harmless by definition.

The only way homeopathy can do harm is by persuading people to waste their time and money on its remedies when they could be taking medicine that actually works.
Click to expand...
I don't know about where you live, but here in Germany it's extremely difficult to get a health insurance plan that doesn't cover homeopathic remedies. That is, I'm paying for the habits of idiots, and I'm not sure I can do anything about it.
 
Mojo said:
The speculations of homoeopaths are not evidence.



No, evidence that potentised remedies have "peculiar and different" effects would be the results of tests that have detected these effects and demonstrated that they are "peculiar and different".

Given that your claim that the effects are "peculiar and different" is nothing more than an ad hoc excuse for them being undetectable, it seems unlikely that you can produce any evidence for them.
Click to expand...

Speculations are usually non visible.

Yes, side effects can make a substance more apparent than a substance having least direct side effects. Therefore "peculiars & differents".
 
catsmate said:
Link.
Not really a surprise, homeopathy has been disproved numerous times before, but a major Australian meta-study which analysed more the 1,800 papers has shown that homeopathy is completely ineffective.

Washington Post
The Guardian
Click to expand...

In short,

1.No absolute and individual data about studies taken into account, of negative and positive outcomes is available. We simply need to believe the agency conducted this meta study/review considering 1800 0r 225 scientific papers. Pls give link if available.

2.Thousands of odds can also be easily found relevant to any side but that do not mean these can invalidate any side in A&F.

3. Information presence in higher potencies remained a big cry and big thought on science side due to sub-molecular scale. What about molecular scale part of homeopathy? Whether studies using molecular based remedies were done or not? It is need to check each and every study.

Best wishes.
 
Kumar said:
In short,

1.No absolute and individual data about studies taken into account, of negative and positive outcomes is available. We simply need to believe the agency conducted this meta study/review considering 1800 0r 225 scientific papers. Pls give link if available.
Click to expand...
Your English seems to improve suddenly and in patches. Is your cover slipping?

2.Thousands of odds can also be easily found relevant to any side but that do not mean these can invalidate any side in A&F.
Click to expand...
Yes it does. This is how things are indeed decided A&F.

3. Information presence in higher potencies remained a big cry and big thought on science side due to sub-molecular scale. What about molecular scale part of homeopathy? Whether studies using molecular based remedies were done or not? It is need to check each and every study.
Click to expand...
No such thing. Proven time after time, and you know it. Repeating the same tired and utterly disproven mantra is either a sign of mania, or it means you are not posting here in good faith. Which is it?
 
Kumar said:
Speculations are usually non visible.

Yes, side effects can make a substance more apparent than a substance having least direct side effects. Therefore "peculiars & differents".
Click to expand...


You have provided no evidence that homoeopathic remedies have "least side effects" while still actually having effects. The only reason that homoeopathic remedies have "least side effects" is that they have been diluted so much that they have no effects of any kind.
 
Kumar said:
2.Thousands of odds can also be easily found relevant to any side but that do not mean these can invalidate any side in A&F.
Click to expand...

Kumar why is it that you discard science because it is not A&F, but you believe homeopathy because proof against it is not A&F.

Is that equianimous?

If science has to be A&F, then homeopathy must, too.

Hans
 
Kumar said:
Speculations are usually non visible.

Yes, side effects can make a substance more apparent than a substance having least direct side effects. Therefore "peculiars & differents".
Click to expand...

Ehr, no. "Peculiar and different" comes from Hahnemann. The expressions are a little strange, probably because they were translated from Hahneman's somewhat old-fashioned and formal German language. We must remember, that he wrote his books in around AD 1800.

What Hahnemann means is that one should look for distinct and characteristic symptoms, both in "provings" and when "taking" a case *). This was to avoid having all substances and diseases characterized by "Nose, slight sniffle" and "Ass, some itch".

- And, of course, it adds a nice air of mystery to the whole business. :p


Hans

*)
Proving: Trying a substance on healthy test persons and recording any symptoms presumably caused by the substance.

"Taking" a case: The individualized investigation recording all symptoms of a patient. Hahnemann prescribes a very extensive procedure, often taking hours. Few modern homeopaths do this, and Hahnemann would blow several fuses if he knew that these days homeopathic products are often sold OTC.
 
Mojo said:
You have provided no evidence that homoeopathic remedies have "least side effects" while still actually having effects. The only reason that homoeopathic remedies have "least side effects" is that they have been diluted so much that they have no effects of any kind.
Click to expand...
Good point. In order to have a side effect it must have an main effect. If there is no effect at all, it does not make sense to talk of side effects.
 
H'ethetheth said:
I don't know about where you live, but here in Germany it's extremely difficult to get a health insurance plan that doesn't cover homeopathic remedies. That is, I'm paying for the habits of idiots, and I'm not sure I can do anything about it.
Click to expand...

Well, the thing is, insurance companies sell what people buy. If enough people want insurance against being run down by a stampede of elephants while walking down Kurfürstendamm, insurance companies will sell that. They don't give a damn about science.

And, homeopathy is nice, cheap, and relatively harmless, so the covering probably only costs you a few cents extra.

Hans ;)
 
Kumar said:
It is surprising that an ineffective drug do not come under the purview of causing indirect adverse effect and not controlled by regulating agencies.
Click to expand...

It is not a drug if it has no effect. It is a sugar pill.

anyway, if it amazes you so much, why don't you read up on relevant legislation?

(Ah, wait. I know why)

Hans
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom