Homeopathy is everywhere!
- Thread starter Dub
- Start date
-
- Tags
- homeopathy
Rolfe
Adult human female
Hmmm, I went over to the Science and Medicine forum and started the homoeopathy hare running again, because I didn't quite realise it was still running here.
Now I've seen the current state of the argument, it strikes me that a clean break and a new start might have something going for them. So, if anybody wants to play on a cleaner slate, see you in the other forum.
On this one, I have sympathy with the view that we shouldn't still have to be wasting time, money and energy demonstrating that diluted water has no therapeutic effects. The trouble is, we're pretty much over-run by people who are not only convinced that it does, they're promoting their point of view aggressively, misrepresenting facts, charging lots of money for said diluted water, and compromising both child and animal welfare by inducing parents and owners to treat their charges with the useless stuff. I haven't seen the flat-earthers quite that active recently.
Heck, I just saw a free supermarket magazine with a glossy pitch advertising a homoeopathic vet, including some claims I flat don't believe, all aimed at persuading the gullible to buy the supermarket's pet insurance policy because, yes, you got it, they'll fund this pernicious lunacy.
And did I mention our own dear Prince Charles and his bidie-in?
We do have to keep challenging these people, if only to see what new brand of lunacy they come up with to explain why the latest test was a complete negative.
Now I've seen the current state of the argument, it strikes me that a clean break and a new start might have something going for them. So, if anybody wants to play on a cleaner slate, see you in the other forum.
On this one, I have sympathy with the view that we shouldn't still have to be wasting time, money and energy demonstrating that diluted water has no therapeutic effects. The trouble is, we're pretty much over-run by people who are not only convinced that it does, they're promoting their point of view aggressively, misrepresenting facts, charging lots of money for said diluted water, and compromising both child and animal welfare by inducing parents and owners to treat their charges with the useless stuff. I haven't seen the flat-earthers quite that active recently.
Heck, I just saw a free supermarket magazine with a glossy pitch advertising a homoeopathic vet, including some claims I flat don't believe, all aimed at persuading the gullible to buy the supermarket's pet insurance policy because, yes, you got it, they'll fund this pernicious lunacy.
And did I mention our own dear Prince Charles and his bidie-in?
We do have to keep challenging these people, if only to see what new brand of lunacy they come up with to explain why the latest test was a complete negative.
T'ai Chi said:Maybe you could explain for us all how I am totally wrong?
Maybe you aren't a scientist though, so you don't know.
Was waiting to see when you'd try this dodge. Nice try.
Let me know when you find the answer and we can discuss it and why testing homeopathy is worthless.
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,605
TLN said:
Oh, I don't think it's completely worthless. Rolfe pointed out that as long as the homoepath idiots keep promoting their "product", there is a need to debunk it.
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,605
T'ai Chi said:
TLN has already stated that it's not completely worthless, that the need to debunk the homeopaths will exist until they stop promoting their nonsense. That need to debunk does not, however, in any way mean that homeopathy needs to be tested to see if it really works or not. We already know that it does not work, so does Randi.
T'ai Chi said:
Where does Randi state that homeopathy isn't worthless and not a fraud?
Here's a few quotes of Randi from this site (all from april 25, 2003 newsletter):
"That's where they've got it quite wrong: in homeopathy, there is no level of activity, at all! Zero is not merely, "low."
"About 2,000 homeopathic remedies are presently available in Britain, half of them derived from leaves, flowers, berries, fruits, and roots. Two of the most popular and better known are arnica and belladonna. The first is a European plant, arnica montana, the homeopathic preparation of which has now been shown by Exeter University, to be useless, despite endorsements by several attractive actresses. The other, atropa belladonna, is a very highly poisonous plant: all parts — the leaves, bark, berries, roots — are toxic to all forms of life. But not to worry: in homeopathy, there's nothing left by the time those zany bottle-shakers get it diluted down to zilch.
Understandably, the quacks are up in arms over the facts, which are pressing in on them more and more every day, a fact that Windsor seems able to disregard. Dr. Peter Fisher, homeopathic doctor to the Queen and clinical director of Royal London Homeopathic Hospital, has dismissed Professor Atkins' comments: "Pompous professors have been saying homeopathy doesn't work for a very long time, and it's still around and growing," he says. "People are using it in large and ever-increasing numbers." Ah, there's the proof! Lots of people have fallen for the swindle, therefore it must be the real thing….?"
The only thing Randi agrees with you is that more testing should be conducted, not to prove that homeopathy works, but to conclusively prove that it is a complete sham. The problem with this is, no matter how many times such a study is conducted, the homeopaths and their followers will contend the study was invalid in some manner and go their merry way. The sad fact is there will always be purveyors and believers in quack medicine of all sorts, no matter how much evidence there is against them. Fortunately, the vast majority of scientists in this country know it is nothing but placebo medicine, never worked, never will, and do not give it another thought.
Lord Kenneth
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2002
- Messages
- 2,604
Just ignore Whodini. He's just spouting off crap to get attention/being an idiot. Remember when he defended scientology the exact same way?
Lord Kenneth said:
I'm relatively new here and do not know of whodini. I would actually be relieved to learn that this person is just causing trouble and really doesn't think there is anything to homeopathy. After all, how could any rational person think otherwise?
Lord Kenneth
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2002
- Messages
- 2,604
It's useless to ask anything of Whodini, he will just tell you to do your own research.
TLN said:
May you look for them yourself, please?
In any case, here are a few interesting studies, obtained from a very quick search:
Treatment of acute childhood diarrhea with homeopathic medicine
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entr...eve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8165068&dopt=Abstract
"The statistically significant decrease in the duration of diarrhea in the treatment group suggests ..."
Homepathy and menopause
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entr...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12804324&dopt=Abstract
Effects of ultrahigh dilutions...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entr...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12787922&dopt=Abstract
"There is a great need for research in the field of homeopathy for laboratory test systems to investigate the actions of ultrahighly diluted biological effectors."
Antibiotics
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entr...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12725252&dopt=Abstract
"Clinical research suggests that homeopathy is effective in the treatment of upper respiratory tract infections in children,.."
Controlled clinical trials, HIV, AIDS
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entr...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12676041&dopt=Abstract
Homepathic treatment for PMS
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entr...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12626176&dopt=Abstract
"..confirms the clinical experience of homeopathic physicians that homeopathy is helpful in PMS."
Chronic low back pain
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entr...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12226773&dopt=Abstract
Dermatitis, dandruff
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entr...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11896746&dopt=Abstract
"...provides significant improvement in seborrheic dermatitis and dandruff after 10 weeks of dosing."
Chemotherapy induced stomatitis
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entr...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11505416&dopt=Abstract
"...may reduce significantly the severity and duration of chemotherapy-induced stomatitis..."
Treatment of pain due to unwanted lactation
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entr...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11431615&dopt=Abstract
"The homeopathic combination studied was therefore effective on the pain of lactation and should be integrated into the therapeutic armamentarium."
Treatment of otitis media
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entr...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11224838&dopt=Abstract
"These results suggest that a positive treatment effect of homeopathy when compared with placebo in acute otitis media cannot be excluded and that a larger study is justified."
rhinitis
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entr...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10948025&dopt=Abstract
"The objective results reinforce earlier evidence that homeopathic dilutions differ from placebo."
There are also many studies that report no significant effects of homeopathic treatment.
MANY report say that further study is needed.
I'm also not recommending any of these treatments. I'm simply reporting that there are many scientists who feel the need to test homeopathy, and there are some well designed studies with significant results.
So I guess I'm not the only one saying that it is a good idea to continue to scientifically test homeopathy...
T'ai Chi said:
You claim to be a statistician. Read the complete article - I have. These studies (there are two or three by the same homeopathic researchers) are poorly designed and conducted.
T'ai Chi said:
Article from a homeopath who claims observational results. No clinical trial.
T'ai Chi said:
Poorly designed study from a homeopath.
T'ai Chi said:
Homeopath musings. No clinical trial.
T'ai Chi said:
Literature review from a homeopath. Cites one poorly conducted study on AIDs patients.
T'ai Chi said:
Homeopath article states may help PMS symptoms. Placebo effect very strong here.
T'ai Chi said:
Small study by homeopath on subjective pain relief.
T'ai Chi said:
Manufacturer study on true high potency (i.e. very low dilutions or therapeutic concentrations). This is not homeopathy!
T'ai Chi said:
Small study by homeopath, does not say what the treatment was. Really homeopathy?
T'ai Chi said:
Poory designed, combination ethical drug and homeopathy study.
T'ai Chi said:
Poorly designed and conducted - same homeopath researcher as diarrhea studies.
T'ai Chi said:
Poorly desgined and conducted by homeopaths.
T'ai Chi said:
As is plainly evident, the vast majority of positive studies are by homeopaths trying to justify their existence. They are the only ones clamoring for more research.
BTox,
Simply dismissing them because they were done by a "homeopath" is NOT a good critique.
(gee, who would have thunk that homepaths test homeopathy...
)
Neither is saying "poorly designed and conducted". If you are saying poorly designed and conducted, show exactly how and where.
(and BTW, the one review you said was not homeopathy, was.)
Simply dismissing them because they were done by a "homeopath" is NOT a good critique.
(gee, who would have thunk that homepaths test homeopathy...
)Neither is saying "poorly designed and conducted". If you are saying poorly designed and conducted, show exactly how and where.
(and BTW, the one review you said was not homeopathy, was.)
Now this one is bizarre :
Can homeopaths detect homeopathic medicine by dowsing?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entr...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11934908&dopt=Abstract
On to some more interesting studies:
Homepopathic gel for osteoarthritis
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entr...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10908688&dopt=Abstract
" The homeopathic gel was at least as effective and as well tolerated...
... may provide a useful treatment option for patients with osteoarthritis."
Meta analysis of pollinosis
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entr...eve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9381725&dopt=Abstract
Meta analysis of homeopathy for post-op ileus
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entr...eve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9451677&dopt=Abstract
Is evidence for homeopathy reproducibile?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entr...eve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7983994&dopt=Abstract
Do you disagree that scientists are still studying homeopathy?
Do you disagree that there are many scientists who think it is important to further study homeopathy?
:Can homeopaths detect homeopathic medicine by dowsing?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entr...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11934908&dopt=Abstract
On to some more interesting studies:
Homepopathic gel for osteoarthritis
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entr...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10908688&dopt=Abstract
" The homeopathic gel was at least as effective and as well tolerated...
... may provide a useful treatment option for patients with osteoarthritis."
Meta analysis of pollinosis
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entr...eve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9381725&dopt=Abstract
Meta analysis of homeopathy for post-op ileus
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entr...eve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9451677&dopt=Abstract
Is evidence for homeopathy reproducibile?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entr...eve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7983994&dopt=Abstract
Do you disagree that scientists are still studying homeopathy?
Do you disagree that there are many scientists who think it is important to further study homeopathy?
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,605
BTox,
Simply dismissing them because they were done by a "homeopath" is NOT a good critique.
(gee, who would have thunk that homepaths test homeopathy...)
Yes it is, the reason is because the "positive" tests conducted by homeopaths cannot/have not been duplicated by real scientists that use the homeopaths same protocols and methods.
Neither is saying "poorly designed and conducted". If you are saying poorly designed and conducted, show exactly how and where.
You are claiming that these are real tests that use real science, shouldn't you be the one showing us that they are? Maybe you should contact those particular homeopaths and have them reproduce their results for the JREF.
(and BTW, the one review you said was not homeopathy, was.)
It wasn't, BTox is correct. You really are stupid.
Simply dismissing them because they were done by a "homeopath" is NOT a good critique.
(gee, who would have thunk that homepaths test homeopathy...
)Yes it is, the reason is because the "positive" tests conducted by homeopaths cannot/have not been duplicated by real scientists that use the homeopaths same protocols and methods.
Neither is saying "poorly designed and conducted". If you are saying poorly designed and conducted, show exactly how and where.
You are claiming that these are real tests that use real science, shouldn't you be the one showing us that they are? Maybe you should contact those particular homeopaths and have them reproduce their results for the JREF.
(and BTW, the one review you said was not homeopathy, was.)
It wasn't, BTox is correct. You really are stupid.