Homeopathy is everywhere!

[Rolfe]

There have been several studies of homeopathy which report statistical significance. This should be studied more to see if they are spurious or not.

The statistical effect that distinguishes some homeopathy medicines from placebo. Is it real, or not?

This has been studied LOTS. You have been pointed to the studies which fail to replicate the handful of statistical flukes (see above) or just plain biassed studies you are so fond of repeating. I repeat, no matter how often these things are shown to be baseless and irreproducible, the original papers will still be there. Nothing will erase them from history. So nobody can stop you from coming back again and again and asking this question.

Which is what it appears you're determined to do.

Just a quick recap:

Prescrire International (1996)
The relevant section of Mahlon Wagner's 1997 article
David Ramey's 2000 article
Stephen Barrett's HomoeoWatch summary
A very recent meta-analysis
Bandolier

Most of these are critiques or overviews of the earlier stuff you're so fond of trotting out.

For the most recent original work I've seen, try this one. This is an attempt to replicate David Reilly's asthma study, which is one of those the proponents just love, but they do it better. Guess what. No effect. There are quite a few more where that came from, including the arnica one I linked to earlier.

Even the homoeopaths themselves are realising that there's nothing there when controlled trials are done, and are heading further into woo-woo land looking for an explanation.

There's nothing there. This is like going back to 1988 or so and quoting the original cold fusion papers, and insisting that this effect needs to be fully investigated.

So either read the links people keep giving you, or give it up. (And on the matter of asking for pro-homoeopathy sites after someone very sensibly sent you to HomeoWatch, there is a whole set of pro-homoeopathy links there, just to be even-handed.)

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

There is no study that shows homeopathy performing better than the placebo effect. I'm willing to be show otherwise of course.

There are a few. See my post (some way) above regarding what this means, though, and the Bandolier section I just linked to.

The point is the effects were marginal, much less than would be any clinical use, and they could not be replicated by independent researchers.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Most of these "quacks" are trained MD's in addition. This was even more so in the past, but the trend still continues to the present day.

Not "most". I don't have the statistics for medics, but there an awful lot of lay woo-woos out there. Yes, there are some trained doctors, these are often the less irrational ones, but it's a tiny minority of the doctors and an awful lot of weirdos.

I do have some figures for vets, though. On hard figures, 0.7% of the veterinary surgeons registered in the UK practice some homoeopathy (140 members of the BAHVS compared to 20,000 registered vets). They shout a lot, but it's a very minority interest. No figures on non-vets treating animals homoeopathically for the very simple reason that it's illegal.

A lot of harm has also been done in the non-homeopathic medicines obviously. Do you disagree with that? You talk like homeopathy has done only harm. Do you think that?

If you try to do SOMETHING, sometimes harm will result. Active remedies which have an actual effect may sometimes have an effect you don't want or even didn't expect. Sometimes it's a question of accepting the side effects because the disease is even worse. Of course harm has resulted from real medicine. But the cost/benefit ratio is massively in real medicine's favour.

On the other hand, if you do nothing at all, there's little chance of causing active harm. Homoeopathy harms because it often prevents real help from being given. And where there is no benefit (I mean NONE, unless you count the temporary placebo benefit of beng fooled into thinking you're better), the cost/benefit ratio is zero.

Now be a good chap and go read your way through the links I posted above. You've looked at a lot of pro-homoeopathy stuff, so you need to look at the scientific view of their claims.

Rolfe.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Most of these "quacks" are trained MD's in addition. This was even more so in the past, but the trend still continues to the present day.



Any statistics to back this claim up?


A lot of harm has also been done in the non-homeopathic medicines obviously. Do you disagree with that? You talk like homeopathy has done only harm. Do you think that?

Homeopathy certainly hasn't helped anyone medically. It has helped alot of people's finances though. Water costs... very little. The profit margin is huge on homeopathy.

 

[T'ai Chi]

There is no study that shows homeopathy performing better than the placebo effect. I'm willing to be show otherwise of course.

Such studies have already been posted. You can find these studies by doing a search on PubMed for 'homeopathy' and 'significant', and find some.

 

[TLN]

Such studies have already been posted.

No. You posted links to anecdotes of studies, not studies we can scrutinize.

You can find these studies by doing a search on PubMed for 'homeopathy' and 'significant', and find some.

No thanks. Again, I'm not going Leprechaun hunting because I have no expectations of finding one. However, as an open-minded individual, I'd be happy to examine one if you have one to show me. (This is not a joke, as you previously called it, but an analogy.)

 

[T'ai Chi]

Not "most". I don't have the statistics for medics, but there an awful lot of lay woo-woos out there. Yes, there are some trained doctors, these are often the less irrational ones, but it's a tiny minority of the doctors and an awful lot of weirdos.

I bet there are more "lay woo-woos" out there in many fields. In any case, when I said homeopath, I am referring to the professionals, which are mainly the ones who are also MD's.

Homoeopathy harms because it often prevents real help from being given.

From what type of homeopathic treatments is the harm coming from? I'd say most people take homeopathy in conjunction with conventional forms of treatment, rather than in replacement of them.

Now be a good chap and go read ...

I'm already a good chap, thanks. And I have read your links. They are pretty interesting.

 

[T'ai Chi]

A very recent meta-analysis

Thanks for the other links. They were interesting, but I have a question on this one.

So a meta-analysis is only valid when the results show no effect in homeopathy? But meta analysis isn't valid in areas like psi research??? Where is whats his name saying that meta analysis is the last resort of a statistical scoundrel, or whatever he said??

 

[T'ai Chi]

However, as an open-minded individual, I'd be happy to examine one if you have one to show me.

You can't be very open minded if you are referring to abstracts of peer reviewed journal articles of randomized controlled experiments as "anecdotes", in my opinion.

 

[TLN]

You can't be very open minded if you are referring to abstracts of peer reviewed journal articles of randomized controlled experiments as "anecdotes", in my opinion.

The links you posted may be randomized, controlled, replicated experiments, but we can't tell that from the links themselves. You're speculating that those links are science, but without the data and the testing protocol we don't actually know. You're making a leap of faith I'm unwilling to make.

Produce something complete and we'll talk. But don't point to incomplete "studies" and claim they’re science.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I bet there are more "lay woo-woos" out there in many fields. In any case, when I said homeopath, I am referring to the professionals, which are mainly the ones who are also MD's.


How much do you have to bet? So far, you have given no reason for anyone to believe you about this claim.


From what type of homeopathic treatments is the harm coming from? I'd say most people take homeopathy in conjunction with conventional forms of treatment, rather than in replacement of them.

Did you want to bet on this one as well? Why is it that you don't support your claims?


I'm already a good chap, thanks. And I have read your links. They are pretty interesting.

Ahh.. you've dismissed them already in preference for your emotional beliefs.

 

[T'ai Chi]

How much do you have to bet? So far, you have given no reason for anyone to believe you about this claim.

I don't care if you don't believe me that most homeopaths are MD's. If I wanted this to be a persuasive report I'd write it like one.

Did you want to bet on this one as well? Why is it that you don't support your claims?

LOL. I was asking for someone else to support their claims! From what type of homeopathic treatments is the harm coming from?

Ahh.. you've dismissed them already in preference for your emotional beliefs.

Not quite... I read pro and con, and am constantly 'balancing' these reports.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I don't care if you don't believe me that most homeopaths are MD's. If I wanted this to be a persuasive report I'd write it like one.


Then you are a troll. I am going to suggest to all skeptics to stop interracting with you because you refuse to support your claims.


LOL. I was asking for someone else to support their claims! From what type of homeopathic treatments is the harm coming from?

No one suggested that homeopathic treatment itself causes harm. It's the lack of real medical treatment that the harm comes from. Of course, you do love to build strawmen AND make unfounded claims.


Not quite... I read pro and con, and am constantly 'balancing' these reports.

Bullhockey, you argue for the sake of arguing and you believe based on your emotions.

Troll.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

MOST homeopaths have only training in homeopathic 'colleges'. Have you looked at the tuition they charge? Of course it all seems very legite even though you're learning crap. I looked over prices and classes. Then I go learn what people say about their education being superior and blah blah.

That's when they start talking about their 'cures' and crap. When you ask them for proof they call you names and tell you how uneducated and brainwashed you are by the 'mainstream'.

Their knowledge of parasites is laughable. Anyone that says the polio virus is natural to the human gut is a freak. I don't care if they learned that in 'college'.

Do a search on their educational instutions and course outlines. Then go and see what they actually learn in those classes. It's like having a creationut write a book on evolution. They're going to poke fun at the science end and teach their own version of things.

That's why chiropractors think vaccines shouldn't be given to kids under one. They hear more about 'reactions' than about the human immune system and how viruses replicate. They hear about 'balance' and 'energy', 'alignment', not about genetics.

If a person is not willing to learn how a body actually works and find out why a peanut gene in a fish won't cause allergies to peanuts, then yeah, a whacky quacky troll is just standing on a shaky platform made of straws.

(Why would anyone bother putting a gene in a fish that only codes for the protein that people react to? What benefit is that to a fish?)

If you think you can come to a board like this and tell educated skeptics that they don't know anything, then think again. I rely on the brainy folks around here to stomp out unsubstantiated claims about woo wooism. I'm glad to see they're doing a pretty good job

 

[T'ai Chi]

Then you are a troll. I am going to suggest to all skeptics to stop interracting with you because you refuse to support your claims.

No, not a troll. We simply have different opinions on the topics we are discussing it seems.

It also simply isn't my goal to persuade anyone. However, it is my goal to present other sides to debates to be fair and balanced (thanks Fox channel!).

No one suggested that homeopathic treatment itself causes harm. It's the lack of real medical treatment that the harm comes from.

Fair enough. So what real medical treatments are homeopathy users lacking when they decide to, supposedly, take homepathic treatment instead of conventional treatments?? I'd really like to see some list. (mainly because I think most homeopathy users are taking homeopathic treatments in conjunction with convention medicine, so aren't lacking anything.)

Bullhockey, you argue for the sake of arguing and you believe based on your emotions.

Uh, no, I really do read pro and con articles, I'm fairly certain of that. Would you like a list of the con articles that I've read? Just let me know.

Troll.

I'll add your comments to my fan mail....... "for me to poop on!"

 

[T'ai Chi]

MOST homeopaths have only training in homeopathic 'colleges'.

I disagree with that. I think most of them are MD's. I guess we both can't present evidence for our beliefs though.

Have you looked at the tuition they charge?

The money angle is not a sound argument.

If you think you can come to a board like this and tell educated skeptics that they don't know anything, then think again.

Um, who said I think that? And did I say that skeptics don't know anything??

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Other 'sides' need to be presented with legitimate arguments and support. Otherwise it's just fluff and 'oh yeah'. A kid trying to tell an adult they could drive a car better than the adult when they are unexperienced and can't even see over the wheel (aren't equipped) because he has just played need for speed on the computer a million times.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

I've looked into the background of tons of homeopaths/naturopaths and that is why I say the vast majority lack any actual medical training.


http://pub151.ezboard.com/fsciencethroughtheeonsfrm7.showMessage?topicID=3.topic

I found some "MD's" that were even so whack they had their medical licenses retracted.

One of their supporters whined about it.

The publication of the Medical Mafia (--Dr Lanctot MD) caused quite a stir. On its way to becoming a best seller it landed its author before the Medical Board.

After a drawn out hearing, which saw most of her witnesses set aside, not surprisingly, the verdict was unequivocal - "Guilty" for having dared to speak out. The medical establishment takes a very dim view of any member who dares to speak out, all this under the guise of protecting the public. Free speech is replaced by the party line....

Guylaine Lanctot was banned for life from practicing medicine. And if that wasn't enough, she was to pay for the expenses the establishment had incurred in bringing her to trial. Her reaction to that, as reported in one newspaper, was also unequivocal: "Over my dead body!"
.

Here is Lanctot quoted:

Why this lethal relentlessness?
by Guylaine Lanctot, M.D.

2. Vaccination stimulates the immune system, the body's defense mechanism. Repeated, vaccination exhausts the immune system. It gives a false sense of security and, in doing so, it opens the door wide to all kinds of illnesses. Notably, to those related to AIDS, which can only develop on ripe ground, where the immune system has been disturbed. It causes AIDS to explode. It ensures that the illness flourishes perpetually.

I used to be in the practice of holistic medicine and chelation therapy and to those activities and dealing with vitamins and alternative methods I learned to know the wrath of the establishment.

www.whale.to/vaccines/lanctot.html
Let me ask thirdtwin just how much is wrong with that statement!

Homeopaths love Lanctot. Her philosophy is similar to theirs. That is why she made such a horrible MD She was a 'holistic' practitioner that went to medical school. It didn't help her though.


Just because homeopaths like to call themselves "Dr.", they don't have MD's. Look into the credentials of any homeopath. Give me a name.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I've looked into the background of tons of homeopaths/naturopaths and that is why I say the vast majority lack any actual medical training.

Me too, and I've come to the opposite conclusion.

I found some "MD's" that were even so whack they had their medical licenses retracted.

Oh, I certainly agree that there are some out there as you describe.
(in any discipline)

Look into the credentials of any homeopath. Give me a name.

"any"?? You are making a very bold claim here. If you do a Google search for 'homeopath' and 'MD', you can find many I'd think.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

You'd think? Did you even go to what I linked to see what I ACTUALLY found? Stop making claims and start finding out if what you claim actually has any merit. I have, and I posted the findings. I'm not just saying "I think", I'm saying I know and I found out.

That's what got me here in the first place. Finding all this out about homeopaths in the first place. It makes me sick, and these forums offer much needed common sense and most often relief from ridiculous claims. So stop making them and go look.