Hi r-s
radiating-sunflower said:
Richardm try it from another angle how would you clinically trial the feel good factor and how it works? Let alone explain it?
Well, just because something makes you feel good doesn't mean you're not being ripped off. Suppose for a moment that you had no sense of smell. I sell you a large bottle of Chanel #5 for £100. You can't smell the perfume, but you know that it's an expensive and well-respected brand, and you're happy going out wearing it. You feel good! Except you don't know that all I sold you was cold tea in a Chanel bottle.
You don't know that.
You feel great about it! Would you say that just because you don't know what I've done, it is an acceptable thing for me to do?
Then how would you clinicaly trial the patients who found themselves taking homeopathic remedies and found it "helped" them? how would that be explained?
"Placebo". Seriously.
Could you tell a person who has exhausted all modern medicines tough you cant have homeopathy deal with it, as that is what you are advocating.
It's a difficult one. However, at the bottom line this is like saying "If people are sufficiently desperate, they'll try anything, no matter what. Should we allow them to do this?".
Well, yes, I suppose we should. But at the same time, I think we should advise them that what they are trying is very likely to be an expensive waste of time.
Not only that, but I don't think that manufacturers should be able to convince these desperate people that they have something to offer that will help, when they are saying so on the flimsiest of evidence. I think that if you say "If you take x number of our pills it will cure what ails you", then you should have to prove it before you say so. Like drug manufacturers have to.
A peice of paper does not help a person in need, soemthing they belive in does, and you cant clincally trial that.
Actually, you can, and it has been done. You'll find lots of references to experiments where prayer, for example, has been trialled.
You could also ask yourself why are modern pharmicuticals so insistent on rubbishing any other form of healing?
If the modern pharmacutical industry thought that it could make money out of homeopathic remedies, don't you think it would? (Some of them possibly do!). In fact, I can't remember such a company ever rubbishing other forms of healing.
Then again ask why is talc powder used in some pills?
As I said above, the active ingredient in many pills isn't always very large - 10 mg for my example, although I also have some 500mg (half a gram!) paracetamol. So the talc is there to bulk up the pill to make it a manageable size.
The end of the day yes homeopathy is diluted, nobody disputes that. At the end is a person who needs relief and if homeopathy provides it how can you advocate dey that right its free choice to do so,
Don't people also have a right to be protected from frauds and rip-offs? Don't you have the right to expect that things you are sold should work as advertised?
Hippocrates first inferred that ther are 2 ways to heal the body, 1st is by opposites and the 2nd by similars, homeopathy heals by similiars, modern by opposites.
Hippocrates also believed that a woman’s flesh was warmer and softer than that of a man, and that its spongy character allowed it to absorb excess blood to the point of pain. Menstruation permitted the surplus to dissipate.
Hippocrates was writing 2380 years ago. He couldn't be right about everything.
(Edited (Twice!) to fix formatting)
gotta love those toxic plants) would never have been developed or any plant based medicine.