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

MRC_Hans said:
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 ;)
Click to expand...
Sure, and it hasn't caused me to take any actual action, but it's the principle that counts.
 
ddt said:
In a time with rising health costs, you'd think that insurers would want to shave off every penny of their premiums to stay competitive.
Click to expand...


Except it doesn't work that way. If you want to make money, you don't want to sell cheap, simple solutions.

When you go into that burger chain, they don't want to sell you a small simple burger and a glass of water, they want to sell you a monster double-pounder with french fries on the side and half a gallon of cola.

Insurance companies bundle as much stuff as they can.

Hans
 
Last edited:
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...
Not surprising to anyone who knows about the real world, Kumar, e.g. that the FDA regulations were influenced by a pro-homeopathy senator to explicitly not require that homeopathic remedies be effective or safe :eye-poppi!

In general, homeopathic remedies are not regulated as medical drugs. They can be exempt from being effective or safe. They can be treated as supplements or herbal remedies or acupuncture. They can be ignored in regulations like other woo.
 
Kumar goes on about "least" side effects:
Society for Science-Based Medicine: Comment to FDA on homeopathic drug regulation has
According to the FDA, Americans now spend about $3 billion a year on homeopathic drugs, which contain ingredients derived from plants, healthy or diseased animals or humans, minerals and various chemicals. These drugs can cause, and have caused, side effects, some of them serious. Yet, there is no reliable scientific evidence that these drugs are efficacious for any use. As FDA historian John Swann, Ph.D., noted, prior to Congress giving the FDA authority to regulate drugs, products on the market “were, at a minimum, useless remedies that picked the pocket of the user, but they could also be downright harmful,” an observation that describes perfectly homeopathic products today.
Click to expand...
Homeopathy; what's the harm?
Unfortunately, homeopathy can have surprising and dangerous side-effects. These have nothing to do directly with any particular homeopathic remedy, but rather they are an indirect result of what happens when homeopaths replace doctors as sources of medical advice.

For example, many homeopaths have a negative attitude towards immunization, so parents who are in regular contact with a homeopath may be less likely to immunize their child.
Click to expand...
Adverse Effects of Homeopathy
Results: In total, 38 primary reports met our inclusion criteria. Of those, 30 pertained to direct AEs of homeopathic remedies; and eight were related to AEs caused by the substitution of conventional medicine with homeopathy. The total number of patients who experienced AEs of homeopathy amounted to 1159. Overall, AEs ranged from mild-to-severe and included four fatalities. The most common AEs were allergic reactions and intoxications. Rhus toxidendron was the most frequently implicated homeopathic remedy.

Conclusion: Homeopathy has the potential to harm patients and consumers in both direct and indirect ways. Clinicians should be aware of its risks and advise their patients accordingly.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Mashuna said:
How about 99.9999999%? Would you be satisfied with that?
Click to expand...

Yes it is also not A&F.

What is the problem of skeptics and of science advocators in prefixing to their claims--subject to current state of science which is not yet 100%(A&F)?;)
 
Mashuna said:
Depends on which studies you read. . .
Click to expand...

Outcome on field applications of any medicine can come different even ineffective and toxic inspite of somewhat 99.99% perfect studies. How?

When things are not A&F, we may also need to use our logic alongwith in accepting that. Otherwise even .01% can also be potent for bringing odds.
 
Kumar said:
Outcome on field applications of any medicine can come different even ineffective and toxic inspite of somewhat 99.99% perfect studies. How?

When things are not A&F, we may also need to use our logic alongwith in accepting that. Otherwise even .01% can also be potent for bringing odds.
Click to expand...

When variable are controlled, actual medicine performs with consistent replicable results.

Under no circumstances are homeopathic "treatments" able to provide any results, even slightly, even inconsistent or difficult to replicate results.

They provide no results whatever, because there is no such thing as "imprinting" any kind of "information" on water. Magical thinking is not science.
 
Jrrarglblarg said:
When variable are controlled, actual medicine performs with consistent replicable results.

Under no circumstances are homeopathic "treatments" able to provide any results, even slightly, even inconsistent or difficult to replicate results.

They provide no results whatever, because there is no such thing as "imprinting" any kind of "information" on water. Magical thinking is not science.
Click to expand...

If so, hormesis would had not been existed even scientifically.

Absolute negative outcomes in studies and on observations is not there. Many studies with positive outcome are already quoted by me. May thiose not be in majority but still justify efficacy upto some extent. Like I said before, %:20:100 apples on naturally grown: Organically grown: inorganically grownapple trees, do not invalidate fact that those are apple trees. Numbers may not matter but substance can matter for declaring reality.
 
Fine, just to be nice I'll grant you hormesis but that's not "submolecular" anything.

There is no mechanism of any kind by which "information" is "imprinted" on water. It doesn't exist. Nobody but homeopaths claims there is. If it existed as a real phenomenon, it would exist outside of homeopathic claims and someone would figure out how to make money with it. Homeopaths skipped the first part and concentrate on the second.
 
Jrrarglblarg said:
Fine, just to be nice I'll grant you hormesis but that's not "submolecular" anything.

There is no mechanism of any kind by which "information" is "imprinted" on water. It doesn't exist. Nobody but homeopaths claims there is. If it existed as a real phenomenon, it would exist outside of homeopathic claims and someone would figure out how to make money with it. Homeopaths skipped the first part and concentrate on the second.
Click to expand...

Yes, therefore I have taken molecular side of homeopathy for the time being till sub-molecular side either die in itself, if fake in A&F or science could know its science. I feel, It should be in the interest of homeopaths to divide homeopathy in two parts--molecular and sub-molecular and to take molecular part of homeopathy separately to ensure persistence at least of one part.
 
Kumar said:
Absolute negative outcomes in studies and on observations is not there.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Most studies on homeopathy show no difference from controls, so they are negative.

Many studies with positive outcome are already quoted by me. May thiose not be in majority but still justify efficacy upto some extent.
Click to expand...

Meta analysis, where outcomes of many studies are taken together, shows zero effect. That is negative.

Like I said before, %:20:100 apples on naturally grown: Organically grown: inorganically grownapple trees, do not invalidate fact that those are apple trees. Numbers may not matter but substance can matter for declaring reality.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant.

Hans
 
Kumar said:
Yes, therefore I have taken molecular side of homeopathy for the time being till sub-molecular side either die in itself, if fake in A&F or science could know its science. I feel, It should be in the interest of homeopaths to divide homeopathy in two parts--molecular and sub-molecular and to take molecular part of homeopathy separately to ensure persistence at least of one part.
Click to expand...

Kumar, homeopaths in general don't agree with you. If you want to discuss homeopathy, you must include it all. You can't just pick whatever suits you.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
Kumar, homeopaths in general don't agree with you. If you want to discuss homeopathy, you must include it all. You can't just pick whatever suits you.

Hans
Click to expand...

I am very sceptical with hopes to be the believer. Your above post justify that I am not jusu one sided. Thanks.
 
MRC_Hans said:
Wrong. Most studies on homeopathy show no difference from controls, so they are negative.



Meta analysis, where outcomes of many studies are taken together, shows zero effect. That is negative.



Irrelevant.

Hans
Click to expand...

Most not all. Somewhat like 20 organically grown apple in my example. Then what, if this number is not 100. Lesser outcome should also be seen with least direct side effects.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom