Do Homeopathy patients know the "theory"

Psiload said:
And after doing your own research, there is no good excuse for concluding that homeopathy is anything other than a foolish delusion.
Click to expand...
Since it works very well for me and my pets and quite a number of people that I know, I would be beyond foolish to conclude it was anything of the sort.
 
Bowser said:
Since it works very well for me and my pets and quite a number of people that I know, I would be beyond foolish to conclude it was anything of the sort.
Click to expand...


Foolish delusions can work quite well for a given value of "works". Of course any attmept to try them on something such as appendicitis will have undesirable effects.
 
I can confirm that most people in the west also do not know anything about homoeopathy. My in-laws are from Austria and here normal G.P.s prescribe homoeopathic remedies, you get them at the pharmacy and of course in the health shops.

Nobody I have spoken to knew anything about homoeopathy. Most think that "it has something to do with herbs", and people do not believe me when I tell about like-cures-like or serial dilutions. I actually have to show them the "30C"-marking on the bottle in order to convince them that I am not pulling their leg!
 
geni, I can easily see a value in both homeopathy and convention medicine, and for a combination of the two, depending on the circumstances. I have never had appendicitis, but I expect I would be seeking the best of both because I would not want to die. It would not be "foolish" to use homeopathy as a supplement to post-operative healing. It is a matter of understanding where both approaches can be effective and where they can be even better working together.
 
In a homoeopathy booklet at the local pharmacy where we live in Austria there was actually a one-page article about the scientific view of homoeopathy. The general idea was that some scientists have reservations but the evidence for homoeopathy is overwhelming, and more and more studies show that there is an effect. The booklet ended with a note that a definite large-scale test was performed in Germany.

The booklet was some years old, and I have no idea what German tests were in the making at that time, but I do notice that the scientific world has not been rocked lately.
 
Bowser said:
I have never had appendicitis, but I expect I would be seeking the best of both because I would not want to die.
Click to expand...
But, as far as I know, homoeopaths claim that their miracle water can heal anything so why should you die if you chose to be treated solely by homoeopathy?

Besides, "homoeopathy cures, allopathy suppresses", and if you believe that crap, you definitely should not chose an "allopathic" solution that could also have *shudder* side effects!
 
Bowser said:
geni, I can easily see a value in both homeopathy and convention medicine, and for a combination of the two, depending on the circumstances. I have never had appendicitis, but I expect I would be seeking the best of both because I would not want to die. It would not be "foolish" to use homeopathy as a supplement to post-operative healing. It is a matter of understanding where both approaches can be effective and where they can be even better working together.
Click to expand...

Kindly explain, then, where drinking tiny amounts of water as "medicine" can be "effective".

Rasmus.
 
Bowser said:
geni, I can easily see a value in both homeopathy and convention medicine, and for a combination of the two, depending on the circumstances. I have never had appendicitis, but I expect I would be seeking the best of both because I would not want to die. It would not be "foolish" to use homeopathy as a supplement to post-operative healing. It is a matter of understanding where both approaches can be effective and where they can be even better working together.
Click to expand...
No, it is not a matter of understanding where both can be effective.

Homeopathy builds on three theories (vital force, like cures like, potentized medicine), none of which have any observational backing whatsoever, and it has not been verified in experimental settings.

Homeopathy is not a matter of understanding, it is a matter of belief.

Hans
 
Bowser said:
geni, I can easily see a value in both homeopathy and convention medicine, and for a combination of the two, depending on the circumstances. I have never had appendicitis, but I expect I would be seeking the best of both because I would not want to die. It would not be "foolish" to use homeopathy as a supplement to post-operative healing. It is a matter of understanding where both approaches can be effective and where they can be even better working together.
Click to expand...
Shouldn't they just give you a very dilute tincture of inflamed appendix?
 
steenkh said:
In a homoeopathy booklet at the local pharmacy where we live in Austria there was actually a one-page article about the scientific view of homoeopathy. The general idea was that some scientists have reservations but the evidence for homoeopathy is overwhelming, and more and more studies show that there is an effect. The booklet ended with a note that a definite large-scale test was performed in Germany.

The booklet was some years old, and I have no idea what German tests were in the making at that time, but I do notice that the scientific world has not been rocked lately.
Click to expand...
How old was the booklet? It couldn't have been referring to this. could it?
 
Bowser said:
It would not be "foolish" to use homeopathy as a supplement to post-operative healing. It is a matter of understanding where both approaches can be effective and where they can be even better working together.
Click to expand...
Homeopaths will tell you that using “allopathy” negates or suppresses the effects of homeopathy. They are not meant to be used together.

Homeopathy is not meant to be a complementary therapy; it’s truly alternative medicine, or more strictly speaking, an alternative to medicine.

Using homeopathy is fine as long as there’s nothing seriously wrong with you. If you ever rely on homeopathy for something serious however, it will let you down – guaranteed.
 
Mojo said:
How old was the booklet? It couldn't have been referring to this. could it?
Click to expand...
I doubt it.

In recent years there have been a number of so-called controlled trials published by a group in Germany, showing positive effects for homoeopathy. The protocol is very clever. Instead of using an inactive placebo as a control, they use a licensed medicine. This seems justified because many new trials of real drugs take this approach - first, because it may not be ethical to leave a group of people suffering from the condition in question without treatment of any kind, and second, because you really want to know if the new stuff is as good as or better than the regular stuff, rather than just trying to show it does something.

However, the homoeopaths then get very clever. They choose vague conditions for which there is a licensed treatment which possibly has very little effect. There are things like that around. Serc for dizziness was one stroke of genius. I've also seen a homoeopathic back-rub shown to peform just as well as a non-homoeopathic back rub. That sort of thing. Thus, even if the homoeopathic treatment does nothing, it will perform as well as the licensed medicine! Whoopee!

Then they get even more machiavellian. They compare not just the remedies themselves, but the whole approach. Thus, the homoeopathic patient gets his hour-long symptom-matching ritual, plus a prescription for an inactive medicine. While the orthodox medical patient gets a quick five minutes and a presctiption for an inactive medicine. Done this way, you can often justify a claim that homoeopathy performs better than real medicine.

They did a series of similar trials using that approach, and then published a meta-analysis of all of them. You'd believe that homoeoapthy was the secret to eternal life after reading that lot, I believe (I haven't seen it all).

We had a thread about this, and a lot of links were given and papers cited, and I can't for the life of me remember how to link to it. But it does sound as if it was this brilliantly conveived PR job that the booklet was referring to.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
We had a thread about this, and a lot of links were given and papers cited, and I can't for the life of me remember how to link to it. But it does sound as if it was this brilliantly conveived PR job that the booklet was referring to.
Click to expand...
This one?
 
Bowser said:
geni, I can easily see a value in both homeopathy and convention medicine, and for a combination of the two, depending on the circumstances. I have never had appendicitis, but I expect I would be seeking the best of both because I would not want to die. It would not be "foolish" to use homeopathy as a supplement to post-operative healing. It is a matter of understanding where both approaches can be effective and where they can be even better working together.
Click to expand...

So when suffering from something wich could potenialy kill you you turn to real medicine but when dealing with something that will get better on it's own you use homeopathy. What more need I say.
 
Bowser said:
geni, I can easily see a value in both homeopathy and convention medicine, and for a combination of the two, depending on the circumstances. I have never had appendicitis, but I expect I would be seeking the best of both because I would not want to die. It would not be "foolish" to use homeopathy as a supplement to post-operative healing. It is a matter of understanding where both approaches can be effective and where they can be even better working together.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I made a note of this post because it somewhat awnser question in my signature. Also my dream.:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom