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

[MRC_Hans]

Refer post #23 by ddt.

No you are doubting as under:-

1. Doubting Integrity of Regulating, Government and other Competent agencies.

No. As already explained.

2. Doubting Integrity of well educated(at par) Homeopaths.

Yes.

3. Doubting the proving & Integrity of Patients.

Yes.

4. Doubting Hospitals & Regular Colleges of Homeopathy.

Yes. Their teachings are worthless.

5. Discouraging the homeopathic medical students, studying homeopathy at par to med science, doing lot of hard work by spending lot of time.

No matter how hard they work, they can't make homeopathy work.

6. Doubting & discouraging Homeopathic pharmacies.

Yes. They are making money on cheating people, and they know it. Note how big homeopathic pharmacies are never behind any of the efficacy studies, even though they have the fundss to do it: They know what the results will be.

7. Doubting the positive controlled studies.

Yes. Poorly designed studies or spurious results. Some are parobably fsimple fraud.

8. Others.

Funny how you have taken to incluse "others" as your argument.

Is it appropriate option.

Considering the evidence, yes.

For science & humanity, you should try best to know its science so that millions can be benefitted due to least direct side effects.

I have studied its science. There is none. It cannot benefit people, it can only waste their money and give them false hopes.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

....2

I am the best--it is self confidence but I am the ONLY best--it is ego.

This study is not A&F in study and in observations. Read Limitation part.

5 apples on a naturally growing apple tree, 20 apples on an organically grown tree and 100 apples on an inorganically grown tress, do not make apple tree as a wild non fruiting tree. Moreover there can be difference in taste & nutrients.

Hahr, Kumar. Did you ever taste a wild apple? Small, hard, bitter and sour.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

How then, many medicines are withdrawn if found ineffective on field applications?

What has this to do with homeopathy?

Hans

 

[Mojo]

They were claiming that it was important to not dismiss "small" studies in favor of larger ones. Really? REALLY? Hint hint: if it only appears in a SMALL study but DISappears in a LARGE one, then it's probably a statistical fluke or error. REAL effects don't shrink with more data. They only become ever more and more sharply clear and distinct.

Homoeopaths dare not admit this, because it was the whole basis of the Shang et al analysis that they are still desperately trying to discredit. One objection I've seen is that it based its conclusion on just 8 trials of homoeopathy. In fact, what it did was to look at 110 trials of homoeopathy and 110 matched trials of conventional medicine. Looking at all the trials, both homoeopathy and conventional medicine seemed to work, with smaller and lower quality trials showing greater effects. When they restricted the analysis to the highest quality trials (8 of homoeopathy and 6 conventional) they found that the result for homoeopathy was no longer significant while the result for conventional medicine still was.

 

[steenkh]

Misguided treatment, if really there, is also dangerous. Regulating agencies should consider it. It is quite surprising that inspite of many meta-studies since last 20 years, even by respectable agencies, homeopathy is not getting effected. Either people feel it to be really effective or there is some odd in doing the studies. Quite logical.

Well, you may think so, but it is a fact that the regulating agencies do not ban ineffective remedies at all. You and I may find it right or wrong, but this lack of action cannot be used as an argument that homoeopathy is valid.

You are welcome to press the agencies to ban homoeopathy, if you want.

 

[ddt]

OK, that may be your opinion, but the regulating agencies do not view it this way, they only forbid remedies that are dangerous in themselves. Effectiveness is not necessary. On the other hand, health insurances sometimes demand effectiveness of the stuff they pay for.

IIRC, the EU regulations basically say that any quack remedies are OK as long as the active substance is present in a negligible concentration.

In Denmark, for instance, the state health insurance does not pay for homoeopathy, or for acupuncture (another ineffective treatment), but the biggest private health insurance company does in fact pay for acupuncture, even though they do not pay for homoeopathy. The reason is that the private insurance company exists to earn money, and there is a big demand among their customers for acupuncture (it is generally not known that is dangerous), but homoeopathy is not as popular in Denmark.

Dutch insurers put various alternative medicine in their add-on packages they sell on top of the legally mandated base package. So you buy add-on insurance because, say, you want coverage of physical therapy increased from 6 to 12 sessions a year and you also buy coverage for acupuncture, homeopathy etc. in the same package.

When this system was introduced in 2006, our current Interior Minister Ronald Plasterk - back then "just" a respected biologist and columnist - ripped his insurer one for recommending him, and others, such an add-on package. Text (in Dutch) here on the site of the Dutch Society against Quackery.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

modern people are well educated and well informed.

Evidence?

 

[Kumar]

People like to believe all kinds of stuff- I have already told you several times that authorities don't ban useless medicines, only dangerous ones. You are also allowed to believe that prayer, drinking your own urine, and other nonsense can heal you.

What most coutries can and do forbid is making actual claims about efficacy.



Kumar, acomplished homeopaths don't make this distinction. Historically, homeopaths have not made it. Its just a new rule you recently invented.

Hans

Then, as you said elsewhere, rules are rules, and if rules permit homeopathy, rules need to be accepted and followed.

Sooner or later, unless sub-molecular potencies and efficacy from these is proven in science, they may need to opt this two part strategy to sustain. Obviously It will also be dependent on specific controlled studies about efficacy from these molecular remedies. I shall be very much interested in finding these type of studies using molecular remedies.

 

[Kumar]

I've discussed homeopathy with many supposedly well educated and informed people, both irl and online, the level of ignorance about it never ceases to astonish me. Most don't even know what it is, they're usually under the impression that it's some kind of ancient herbal remedy. Those who have tried it at some point, or know someone who has, often do know so little about the scientific method that they think anecdotal evidence is sufficient to establish that it's at least potentially effective. So, as usual, you couldn't be more wrong.

This is your personal experience. My personal observations are different and got mixed responses.

 

[Kumar]

What has this to do with homeopathy?

Hans

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?

 

[Kumar]

Hahr, Kumar. Did you ever taste a wild apple? Small, hard, bitter and sour.

Hans

Still that is an apple.

 

[Kumar]

Homoeopaths dare not admit this, because it was the whole basis of the Shang et al analysis that they are still desperately trying to discredit. One objection I've seen is that it based its conclusion on just 8 trials of homoeopathy. In fact, what it did was to look at 110 trials of homoeopathy and 110 matched trials of conventional medicine. Looking at all the trials, both homoeopathy and conventional medicine seemed to work, with smaller and lower quality trials showing greater effects. When they restricted the analysis to the highest quality trials (8 of homoeopathy and 6 conventional) they found that the result for homoeopathy was no longer significant while the result for conventional medicine still was.

Point.

Yes using Nat Mur remedy with a glass of water with one tea spoon kitcken salt, will not show results. These are peculiar and different, not at par to do at par studies.

 

[Kumar]

Well, you may think so, but it is a fact that the regulating agencies do not ban ineffective remedies at all. You and I may find it right or wrong, but this lack of action cannot be used as an argument that homoeopathy is valid.

You are welcome to press the agencies to ban homoeopathy, if you want.

I believe in or have to believe in regulating & competent agencies. If we do not believe in them, we should also not believe in the study mentioned in OP and in studies elsewhere. Quite justified.

 

[Kumar]

Evidence?

Well Apparent or universal fact need no evidence. Improvements in education and information technology is well apparent fact.

 

[Kumar]

No. As already explained.



Yes.



Yes.



Yes. Their teachings are worthless.



No matter how hard they work, they can't make homeopathy work.



Yes. They are making money on cheating people, and they know it. Note how big homeopathic pharmacies are never behind any of the efficacy studies, even though they have the fundss to do it: They know what the results will be.



Yes. Poorly designed studies or spurious results. Some are parobably fsimple fraud.



Funny how you have taken to incluse "others" as your argument.



Considering the evidence, yes.



I have studied its science. There is none. It cannot benefit people, it can only waste their money and give them false hopes.

Hans

Ok tks. Let these comments be universal alike changed impression about earth's shape.

 

[Kumar]

New trolling style again, Kumar, putting words in people's mouths. You know, you used to get some respect because you were generally polite in your style. Doing the above will get you into far hotter fray than you are used to. Just friendly advice...

Hans

Sorry, may be but also may also be backed by factual basis.

 

[Mojo]

Sorry, may be but also may also be backed by factual basis.

You aren't.

 

[Mojo]

Point.

Yes using Nat Mur remedy with a glass of water with one tea spoon kitcken salt, will not show results. These are peculiar and different, not at par to do at par studies.

Please provide some evidence that these "peculiar and different" effects actually exist. If you can't, you're just using special pleading here.

 

[steenkh]

I believe in or have to believe in regulating & competent agencies. If we do not believe in them, we should also not believe in the study mentioned in OP and in studies elsewhere. Quite justified.

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.

 

[Kumar]

Please provide some evidence that these "peculiar and different" effects actually exist. If you can't, you're just using special pleading here.

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".