Homeopathetic gains PSA accreditation

[Tippit]

Read about all the deaths that have been prevented by modern drugs, they are out there too and there are many many times more of them than there are the stories you are talking about. Educate yourself on the benefits of western medicine and surgeries.

Nothing is perfect and everyone makes mistakes, but the fact that average life expectancy has more than doubled in the last couple of centuries is not down to homeopathy and other so called 'alternative' medicines. It wasn't very long ago that even the wealthiest and most privileged of families expected to lose at least one child in infancy, now it's a rare exception.

Open your mind and look at all the facts, not just the ones that support what you want to believe.

Most of the advances in 20th and 21st century public health and longevity can be correctly attributed to sanitation, not medicine. And bad drugs and surgical procedures offset gains in public health and longevity provided by the safe drugs and procedures.

 

[Pixel42]

Most of the advances in 20th and 21st century public health and longevity can be correctly attributed to sanitation, not medicine.

Improved hygiene and sanitation, also products of steadily accumulated scientific knowledge and understanding, did indeed make a significant contribution. As did the identification of essential vitamins and minerals, the foods that contain them, and the use of supplements for those deficient in them. The point is that unevidenced 'alternative' medicines like homeopathy made no contribution whatsoever.

And bad drugs and surgical procedures offset gains in public health and longevity provided by the safe drugs and procedures.

Drugs and procedures have been a net benefit in all but a handful of cases.

 

[Tippit]

The point is that unevidenced 'alternative' medicines like homeopathy made no contribution whatsoever.

This is a dubious, yet easily falsifiable claim. There are numerous natural herbs and vitamins that have clinically established medical benefits, and which fall under the category of homeopathic, or at least naturopathic remedies. To suggest that the only medical health and longevity contributions have been made by peer-reviewed proprietary allopathic pharmacological drugs is not only ridiculous, it's arrogant and ignorant beyond belief. Furthermore, there is a myriad of pharmacological drugs as well as surgical procedures which are scientifically documented to have caused great harm, and which are currently the subject of numerous class-action lawsuits.

Start here:

https://www.classaction.com/lawsuits/drugs

Note that I am not endorsing homeopathic medicine, for which I believe most of it is a waste of time and money, I am refuting your specific claim that none of it has made any contribution whatsoever.

Drugs and procedures have been a net benefit in all but a handful of cases.

Drugs and procedures have been a net benefit overall, but you have far too much skepticism for non-pharmacological remedies, and too little for pharma. I'm not sure it's been as little as a "handful" of cases. I can give you two life changing personal anecdotes, knowing full well your history of dismissing the personal experience of other human beings. My aunt suffered severe trigeminal neuralgia, probably related to a problem with her birth. In her late forties, she consented to an experimental "balloon" surgical procedure on her trigeminal nerve. The result of this "procedure" left what was already excruciating pain for her and made it unbearable. She suffered unecessarily for the rest of her life. She made the wrong decision to trust the so-called science, and it cost her. My own mother was diagnosed with Crohn's disease in her late thirties. She was recommended to undergo a total colonectomy, which would have left her wearing a colostomy bag for the rest of her life. She flatly refused, altered her diet, and consumed Sulfasalazine on the opinion of a 3rd doctor, and the Crohn's went in remission. Two decades later, a GI specialist told her it was the best decision she ever made.

While it's wise to be skeptical of everything, it's doubly wise to be skeptical of drugs and medical procedures for sale.

 

[Pixel42]

This is a dubious, yet easily falsifiable claim. There are numerous natural herbs and vitamins that have clinically established medical benefits

And which therefore do not fall into the category of "unevidenced 'alternative' medicines". Indeed I specifically mentioned vitamins in my list of contributors.

Homeopathy, the subject of this thread, does fall into that category because not only is there no evidence that it works there is plentiful evidence it does not.

 

[Tippit]

And which therefore do not fall into the category of "unevidenced 'alternative' medicines". Indeed I specifically mentioned vitamins in my list of contributors.

Homeopathy, the subject of this thread, does fall into that category because not only is there no evidence that it works there is plentiful evidence it does not.

You don't get away that easily. Your threshold for evidence, is exclusively none other than peer-reviewed "science", the same peer reviewed science that has resulted in untold death and destruction from bad drugs and surgical procedures. Not only has peer reviewed medical science failed to fully protect the victims of the above, it's also failed by selection bias to fund studies about unpatentable naturopathic remedies and procedures, for which the only interest, is the public interest.

 

[Pixel42]

Peer reviewed science (no scare quotes required) is indeed the minimum acceptable standard. That does not mean it can be 100% trusted, of course it doesn't, because nothing and no one is perfect. But the subject of this thread is 'medicine' (scare quotes justified) like homeopathy, which fails to meet that standard.

It's the responsibility of those who make the claims for such remedies and procedures to fund the studies that test them, though it's almost always public funds that are actually used. Dozens of such studies have been done on homeopathy, that's how we know it doesn't work.

 

[Tippit]

Peer reviewed science (no scare quotes required) is indeed the minimum acceptable standard. That does not mean it can be 100% trusted, of course it doesn't, because nothing and no one is perfect. But the subject of this thread is 'medicine' (scare quotes justified) like homeopathy, which fails to meet that standard.

No, it clearly isn't the "minimum acceptable standard". The minimal acceptable standard, is what is efficacious, and unharmful. For instance, I don't need to consult peer-reviewed science to know that Vitamin B12 cured my depression and improves my mood, and that Zinc, Vitamin D, and Vitamin C strengthen my immune system. I don't need to consult peer-reviewed science to know that I need sunlight, water, rest, and exercise. I didn't need peer-reviewed science to lose 40lbs of visceral fat by intermittent and extended fasting. I didn't need to consult peer-reviewed science to know that I cured hemorrhoids with a squat toilet attachment. I didn't need peer-reviewed science to reverse my progressive myopia via reduced lens therapy.

Yet, there is science behind all of these remedies, whether or not there are controlled studies done by pinheads, and reviewed by pinheads.

It's the responsibility of those who make the claims for such remedies and procedures to fund the studies that test them, though it's almost always public funds that are actually used. Dozens of such studies have been done on homeopathy, that's how we know it doesn't work.

There have not been studies on every possible homeopathic remedy such that you can reasonably categorically dismiss the effectiveness of all of them. It's your prerogative whether you want to filter all possible remedies by whether there is a controlled study on the subject or not, but this is irrational, considering the inherent bias that causes the lack of funding for non-patentable drugs and surgical procedures. That which carries no or little potential for profit, generally goes unstudied, and the hypotheses behind the patentable drugs and procedures is usually woefully insufficient with the objectives of treating specific symptoms without addressing root causes in a holistic approach while being inconsistent with the Hippocratic oath.

 

[hecd2]

.
There have not been studies on every possible homeopathic remedy such that you can reasonably categorically dismiss the effectiveness of all of them.

You haven’t looked very far into homeopathic remedies if you don’t realise that they are all identical.

 

[rjh01]

Most of the advances in 20th and 21st century public health and longevity can be correctly attributed to sanitation, not medicine. And bad drugs and surgical procedures offset gains in public health and longevity provided by the safe drugs and procedures.

I will also add antibiotics to the list. The effects of this are far-reaching. A lot of surgery is only possible because of antibiotics. Plus if you had a serious infection from a wound, you had about a 50% chance of dying from the infection.

Then you can add in all the painkillers as well. Before that, a good surgeon was one who could operate quickly. Now it is the one who can give the best results.

 

[Pixel42]

No, it clearly isn't the "minimum acceptable standard". The minimal acceptable standard, is what is efficacious, and unharmful.

What is efficacious and unharmful cannot be reliably established without eliminating the effect of the cognitive biases which can inadvertantly fool us if we rely solely on anecdotal evidence. There's nothing to stop anyone taking a remedy for which no such studies have been done, but the risk that it will be ineffective or harmful will be significantly greater. Where such studies have been done, as is the case with homeopathy, to ignore them and continue to waste your money is simply foolish.

There have not been studies on every possible homeopathic remedy

Every study on any homeopathic remedy tests them all, as hecd2 says they are all identical. Not even an electron microscope could distinguish between them. Even homeopaths admit the only way to do so is the label.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

If "efficacious" is part of any minimum standard (and why not?) then homeopathy has been shown, I don't know how many times, to fail that. And that's before we get to its lack of any sound basis to its supposed mechanism.

Unless a certain other poster has found that "science" they say backs it all up, for which we have been waiting very patiently for some time now.

 

[Mongrel]

I like this infomatic for disproving the "It wasn't the vaccines, it was the sanitation!".
It shows clear relationships between reported cases before & after the vaccine

 

[Tippit]

I will also add antibiotics to the list. The effects of this are far-reaching. A lot of surgery is only possible because of antibiotics. Plus if you had a serious infection from a wound, you had about a 50% chance of dying from the infection.

Then you can add in all the painkillers as well. Before that, a good surgeon was one who could operate quickly. Now it is the one who can give the best results.

Good point about antibiotics, but that is coming full circle as the overuse is resulting in the evolution of monstrously resistant bacteria. This isn’t necessarily about science but about physicians maximizing the short term health of individuals over the long term health of the general population.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

This is a dubious, yet easily falsifiable claim. There are numerous natural herbs and vitamins that have clinically established medical benefits, and which fall under the category of homeopathic, or at least naturopathic remedies....snip....

Ah, I see the problem. You clearly don't know what homeopathy is or are deliberately muddying it with 'natural' medicine (and none of the examples you quote in your follow on post are homeopathy). The two are as different from each other as homeopathy is from 'normal' medicine.

Natural remedies can, of course, have an effect (beneficial or harmful) because they have an active ingredient(s) - often the same active ingredient that is extracted or synthesised into pill form for 'normal' medicine. No one disputes eg that Willow bark (to take one of the most quoted examples) can help with headaches, because it contains the same active ingredient as aspirin. I can even understand (and sometimes agree with) arguments that taking such things in a more natural form may be better (other elements may aid digestion, absorbtion etc or the body may be more used, over millennia, to taking them as such, less concentrated and so on).

Homeopathy on the other hand is nothing. It relies on no active ingredient but somehow the sugar pill or water, remembering what was in it (in which case tap water should cure everything). This would be patent nonsense even if not disproved repeatedly. You yourself then go on to talk about 'some of them' might be effective. Some natural remedies? Of course. Some homeopathic remedies? Er no, how, even if the whole principle of homeopathy wasn't illogical to start with (the less ingredient the stronger the effect is counter-intuitive at best let alone once you get to no ingredient), would some work and not others? Does the water only remember some things but is forgetful of others?

 

[Tippit]

What is efficacious and unharmful cannot be reliably established without eliminating the effect of the cognitive biases which can inadvertantly fool us if we rely solely on anecdotal evidence. There's nothing to stop anyone taking a remedy for which no such studies have been done, but the risk that it will be ineffective or harmful will be significantly greater. Where such studies have been done, as is the case with homeopathy, to ignore them and continue to waste your money is simply foolish.


Every study on any homeopathic remedy tests them all, as hecd2 says they are all identical. Not even an electron microscope could distinguish between them. Even homeopaths admit the only way to do so is the label.

If peer-reviewed science is the minimal acceptable standard for you making minor health care decision about remedies, then I pity you, because you are almost certainly unhealthy, and/or dependent on pharmaceuticals, and soon to be unhealthy.

Your health resides in your ability to make clear, effective and healthy decisions about your diet and exercise, the same decisions made by your ancestors, in the absence of physicians. It does not reside in your ability to consume a mostly toxic laundry list of proprietary pharmaceuticals that you have been sold, or, to avoid well-known safe and effective remedies for lack of authority peer-review.

Peer-reviewed medical science with its special interests has its place, but should not be a religion. Neither should its purported methods necessarily be confused with the scientific method, nor should all of its hypotheses be assumed to be automatically sufficient, or relevant to human health.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Darat]

If peer-reviewed science is the minimal acceptable standard for you making minor health care decision about remedies, then I pity you, because you are almost certainly unhealthy, and/or dependent on pharmaceuticals, and soon to be unhealthy.

Your health resides in your ability to make clear, effective and healthy decisions about your diet and exercise, the same decisions made by your ancestors, in the absence of physicians. It does not reside in your ability to consume a mostly toxic laundry list of proprietary pharmaceuticals that you have been sold, or, to avoid well-known safe and effective remedies for lack of authority peer-review.
Peer-reviewed medical science with its special interests has its place, but should not be a religion. Neither should its purported methods necessarily be confused with the scientific method, nor should all of its hypotheses be assumed to be automatically sufficient, or relevant to human health.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Such as what?

Certainly not homeopathy because 1) it would have to work in some manner totally at odds to how we know the world around us works 2) It has been tested many times and always fails to be shown to be effective.

 

[Tippit]

Ah, I see the problem. You clearly don't know what homeopathy is or are deliberately muddying it with 'natural' medicine (and none of the examples you quote in your follow on post are homeopathy). The two are as different from each other as homeopathy is from 'normal' medicine.

Natural remedies can, of course, have an effect (beneficial or harmful) because they have an active ingredient(s) - often the same active ingredient that is extracted or synthesised into pill form for 'normal' medicine. No one disputes eg that Willow bark (to take one of the most quoted examples) can help with headaches, because it contains the same active ingredient as aspirin. I can even understand (and sometimes agree with) arguments that taking such things in a more natural form may be better (other elements may aid digestion, absorbtion etc or the body may be more used, over millennia, to taking them as such, less concentrated and so on).

Homeopathy on the other hand is nothing. It relies on no active ingredient but somehow the sugar pill or water, remembering what was in it (in which case tap water should cure everything). This would be patent nonsense even if not disproved repeatedly. You yourself then go on to talk about 'some of them' might be effective. Some natural remedies? Of course. Some homeopathic remedies? Er no, how, even if the whole principle of homeopathy wasn't illogical to start with (the less ingredient the stronger the effect is counter-intuitive at best let alone once you get to no ingredient), would some work and not others? Does the water only remember some things but is forgetful of others?

I may be guilty of confusing the criticism of homeopathy with naturopathy. After consulting the wiki, it is patently ridiculous.

One thing I am, however, is skeptical of pharmaceutical drugs and questionable surgical procedures sold by allopathic medicine, because I have seen first hand the devastation they’ve caused - from bad hip surgeries, to bad hernia mesh implants, to opioid abuse, to toxic SSRIs.

I have also had the pleasure of seeing bad drugs and surgeries avoided, which gives me a rich context for my skepticism.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Pixel42]

If peer-reviewed science is the minimal acceptable standard for you making minor health care decision about remedies, then I pity you, because you are almost certainly unhealthy, and/or dependent on pharmaceuticals, and soon to be unhealthy.

I am 67, in excellent health, and am taking no 'pharmaceuticals' whatsoever. I take Vitamin D in the winter months but I do not waste my money on remedies/supplements for which no objective evidence of benefit exists, preferring to eat a healthy diet, keep my weight down and stay active (all of which have been shown to aid health).

 

[Carrot Flower King]

I'd still like to know how my cardiac problems would have been prevented, given that I was fit and active and my diet and weight were fine. Aside from picking my parents better, of course...

I suppose it could be said that I "depend" on pharmaceuticals (at least one derived from plants), but that's preferable to death just now.

 

[Norman Alexander]

I may be guilty of confusing the criticism of homeopathy with naturopathy. After consulting the wiki, it is patently ridiculous.

One thing I am, however, is skeptical of pharmaceutical drugs and questionable surgical procedures sold by allopathic medicine, because I have seen first hand the devastation they’ve caused - from bad hip surgeries, to bad hernia mesh implants, to opioid abuse, to toxic SSRIs.

I have also had the pleasure of seeing bad drugs and surgeries avoided, which gives me a rich context for my skepticism.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Allopathy is just another variant of homeopathy, and is just as invalid. It was disproved alongside homeopathy because it advocates exactly the same process as homeopathy except that different remedies are selected for the symptoms. Allopathy and homeopathy are just "dialects" of the same stupidity.

You must never substitute the term "allopathy" for "modern medicine", nor consider those terms interchangeable. They are not even the slightest bit the same, regardless of prevailing naming conventions. It is like referring to the English language as "Japanese". It is not just wrong, but ridiculously wrong.

If you mean "modern medicine" then say so.

Thanks for your consideration. Carry on.