Homoeopathic preparations not homoeopathic...

[Blue Wode]

Someone should tell Boots about this.

Perhaps Dr Nick Avery, ‘a Boots Consultant Homeopath’, could help. See right-hand side bar of this link:
http://www.talkeczema.com/webpages/features/feature_homeopathy.htm

He also gets an interesting mention here:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Pharmacology/dc-bits/quack.html#lewith1

 

[Mojo]

Someone should tell Boots about this.
I was browsing their homeopathic "remedies" the other day and noticed that they do not tell you what symptoms/illnesses they are supposed to be used to treat.

I don't think they're allowed to.

 

[Qureshi1_78]

Mojo there is hell of difference in your ideas and what you quoted from the link.

1) To become a homeopthic remedy, a serially diluted remedy needs to be prescribed to homeopathic standards.

2) A serially diluted remedy not prescribed to homeopathic standards is not a homeopathic prescription.

3) Research on the effectiveness of serially dilluted remedies which are not prescribed to homeopathic standards is not a test of homeopathy.

- Jerome Whitney, London UK

There is no confusion at all.

 

[Psi Baba]

Wonder what excuse(s) they’ll use when it yields a negative result.

I took the liberty of correcting a tiny typo in your post.

 

[RationalVetMed]

...I've just found this amazing excuse for homoeopathic remedies not showing effects in controlled trials. Apparently the diluted preparations are not homeopathic unless they have been properly prescribed by a homoeopath. The diluting and succussing are not what potentises the remedy. Apparently something happens to potentise the remedy when the homoeopath prescribes it.

This is a real old chestnut; the fundamental problem is that there is no definition of the impressive sounding phrase “homoeopathic standards”. The term is a completely elastic one allowing the results of some trials to be accepted as long as the results are favourable to homoeopathy even if they have a ludicrous methodology by scientific or even homoeopathic standards whereas other, more robust trials are rejected when the results are negative or show no effect of homoeopathy.

For instance in Mark Elliott’s laughable Cushing's disease: a new approach to therapy in equine and canine patients. Br Homeopath J. 2001 Jan;90(1):33-6 diagnosis is made and improvements are measured on clinical signs alone (contrary to conventional practice), remedies are selected using dowsing, uniform remedies are given to each subject in the study (contrary to the homoeopathic principal of individualisation) and more than one remedy is used concurrently in each patient (contrary to the principals of classical homoeopathy). Yet the results of this trial are touted on a regular basis as evidence that homoeopathy can be used to treat Cushing's syndrome in animals.

On the other hand trials such as Ernst’s asthma paper which go to great lengths to involve homoeopaths and to individualise each patient and to employ what any reasonable person would regard as “homoeopathic standards” are ignored by those only interested in positive evidence supporting their dogmas.

The idea that homoeopathy works independently of the remedies is not a new one, at least one leading homoeopath believes the effect is due to magic (PDF download).


Yuri

 

[hipparchia]

Well, see the study cited in posts #14, #16 and #18.

Also, remember that there are remedies which homoeopaths claim can be used consistently in emergency situations, for example arnica for pretty much any kind of bruising. Where's the individualisation there?

Yep, the arnica medication. I guess no one still discovered what it will NOT treat. Otherwise, a pet phrase of homeopathy fans is- but this is not real homeopathy, this is Boiron homeopathy...

 

[wollery]

Mojo there is hell of difference in your ideas and what you quoted from the link.

There is no confusion at all.

I'm afraid that there quite definitely is confusion.

Is Jerome Whitney saying that, in order to be homeopathic, the remedy must be;
1) prescribed by a homeopath,
2) prepared by a homeopath,
3) prepared exactly the way a homeopath would prepare it.

Of course, these three options are not mutually exclusive, but which one or combination is very important. Please clear this up.

 

[RationalVetMed]

There is no confusion at all.

Please define "homoeopathic standards"

Yuri

 

[Mojo]

Mojo there is hell of difference in your ideas and what you quoted from the link.

There is no confusion at all.

Please define the word "prescribed" as it is used in the link. If my interpretation of what Whitney wrote is not correct, he is not using the same definition of the word as is generally used by the English-speaking world.

 

[Qureshi1_78]

that is according to the symptoms and drug picture.

 

[Donks]

that is according to the symptoms and drug picture.

So a remedy is not hemeopathic unless, according to a homeopath, it suits the symptoms and drug picture? Why?

 

[Mojo]

that is according to the symptoms and drug picture.

Not anything to do with how the remedy is prepared?

 

[rjh01]

Poor Qureshi1_78. We are all giving him a hard time. That is to be expected as he is the first person who has made any attempt to answer our questions on the subject.

Please compare our reaction to Qureshi1_78 with the reaction of what happens when we go over to visit other forums. (We get banned for expressing for expressing certain points of view). I think that says a lot. Yet here Qureshi1_78 is allowed to express any opinion he likes. And we will be very happy if he can justify his opinions with evidence.

 

[wollery]

that is according to the symptoms and drug picture.

That doesn't answer the question, which I am reposting. Please be specific.

Is Jerome Whitney saying that, in order to be homeopathic, the remedy must be;
1) prescribed by a homeopath,
2) prepared by a homeopath,
3) prepared exactly the way a homeopath would prepare it.

Of course, these three options are not mutually exclusive, but which one or combination is very important. Please clear this up.