• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Should Homeopathy be illegal?

radiating-sunflower said:


Hey u back :D


Oh yes ;)

If that was the case i would be a wealthy woman, I would have sued codine etc manufacturers.

Well, codeine does work as a painkiller. It might not have been sufficiently potent for your requirements, and it might have left you hooked. But it has nevertheless undergone plenty of trials - proper, double-blind ones - and has been shown to work.


Come on not treallyi n the same context, we live in rip off britain for one, nothing works(ahem MR gates) as such it either muddles through, disgusies it.

Well, perhaps. But there's a difference, I think, between selling something that you know has flaws, and selling something that just plain doesn't work. If you brought a Windows CD home and found that it was actually an empty box, you'd hightail it back to the shop and demand your money back, and quite rightly. The "Rip-off Britain" we read about is more to do with us paying twice as much for our empty boxes as people do elsewhere :D

What should be protected is there should be more information available and more medical help and more qualifed people to give support .

Absolutely...

Yes there are schemers out there they should be smacked and sent to bed with no tea but, homeopathy works for a lot of people regulate the industry, learn about it and study it to find out why it helps people would be a far better road to take than no its water ban it that only serves to casue detrimental effect those in need. This is one thing you cant dismiss it is one of those feel good things how can yu measure or assess that?

The problems are that 1) There have already been plenty of studies on homeopathy that show it has no clinical value (which is why it is no longer mainstream). 2) Just because it might make people feel good doesn't mean you should pretend that it is making them better. Pretending that it is is not nice, I think.
 
One test does not advocate faliure or does it infer all subsequent products are the same

I can't help being a litera-nazi - you meant "nor does it imply" (either that or you meant "nor should the experimenter infer"). I won't even try and guess what you meant by "advocate".

How many tests should we do before we dismiss completely a purported therapy that is, according to current science, impossible?

David
 
In my opinion, these days to prove anything to the great unwashed you need a prominent soap star, film star or athlete to say it.

The great majority of people are insufficiently educated to understand the scientific basis of the research and have relied so long on gut feel (after all they are functionally illiterate and innumerate) that they will not respond to reason.

Another way would be to engineer a "Homeopathy scandal" which would be reported in the news
 
radiating-sunflower said:
Dragon I said I made a mistake its codine/heroin and not nurfoen above already.


NO I wont go into a mine worse than yours either, for 1 its pointless 2 thresholds to pain vary in people, 3 I' ll kick your shins in:D

You cannot dismiss my experience and then use your own to back up with. sorry dragon my experience i will use as i have been there, same as anybody elses.

YOU cant stand there and say rubbish to mine but in your experience , no sorry, I am going to be pendantic on that front.

I will get back to the rest. my data is huge and vast, and still trawling through it all.

OTC drugs are addictive and is the latest growing one to.




Where did I say "rubbish" to your experience? You have obviously been through a lot and I don't seek to diminish that in any way.
I called your claim that Nurofen was more addictive than heroin "rubbish". You now say that you made a mistake and were thinking of codeine.
Well, OK, up to a point - codeine is an opiate, derived from the opium poppy (as are heroin and morphine, of course). I'd always understood that it was the least addictive of the opiates - but let's see what you've got on the subject.

On a more general point, the opiates are very good pain killers which have been in use for many years and whose benefits, side effects and risks are well understood and documented.
All the scientific and medical evidence tells us that homeopathic dilutions are nothing but water.
They might not, of themselves, do you any harm but they cannot, in principle, do you any good either beyond the placebo effect.
(If, of course, you stop taking a coventional drug which might save your life, and take a homeopathic remedy instead, well...)
 
davidhorman said:


I can't help being a litera-nazi - you meant "nor does it imply" (either that or you meant "nor should the experimenter infer"). I won't even try and guess what you meant by "advocate".

How many tests should we do before we dismiss completely a purported therapy that is, according to current science, impossible?

David

David dont even try to get in my head you wont suceed you will however lose all your hair and teeth :D

Infer.. to conclude from evidence deduce :P =as in I am in science term time
Imply... suggest.
Advocate... To speak in favour of, recommend= again science term time

One test does not advocate(recommend, speak of) faliure or does it infer(conclude from evidence or deduce) all subsequent products are the same

works still for me.

Ok dismiss it, pure and simple it doesnt work all the people who it has well explain that. THE FEEL GOOD FACTOR, take a break from traditional medicines and stops the overload of the body/resistence built up happening.

If I was to say to you sorry David I am stopping your pain relief pills, and your not having anything else how do you feel?

Same again but adding take this for a while its ahomeopathic remedy that does this and that, blah blah, lessens this and does that.

You going to go with nothing?

me
 
radiating-sunflower said:

THE FEEL GOOD FACTOR, take a break from traditional medicines and stops the overload of the body/resistence built up happening.

If I was to say to you sorry David I am stopping your pain relief pills, and your not having anything else how do youfeel?

Same again but adding take this for a while its ahomeopathic remedy that does this and that, blah blah, lessens this and does that.

You going to go with nothing?

... so, you'd sell these homeopathic pain relief pills to David in the full knowledge that there is no evidence they will work and plenty evidence that they won't, but it would still be ethical just so long as David believes that they will work? :confused:

If they don't work, is that David's fault for not believing in them?
 
Dragon said:


Where did I say "rubbish" to your experience? You have obviously been through a lot and I don't seek to diminish that in any way.
I called your claim that Nurofen was more addictive than heroin "rubbish". You now say that you made a mistake and were thinking of codeine.
Well, OK, up to a point - codeine is an opiate, derived from the opium poppy (as are heroin and morphine, of course). I'd always understood that it was the least addictive of the opiates - but let's see what you've got on the subject.

On a more general point, the opiates are very good pain killers which have been in use for many years and whose benefits, side effects and risks are well understood and documented.
All the scientific and medical evidence tells us that homeopathic dilutions are nothing but water.
They might not, of themselves, do you any harm but they cannot, in principle, do you any good either beyond the placebo effect.
(If, of course, you stop taking a coventional drug which might save your life, and take a homeopathic remedy instead, well...)

No dragon I said, nurofen takes longer to get out the system than heroin I meant codine does take longer not nurofen, I knew it ws one I called wrong, I admittied it. ITS CODINE that takes olnge ot go cold turkey on than heroin.

Rubbish bit you misread me, I didnt say you did, I really loathe having things taken out of context.
I said if you rubbish my experience as part of my own view on homeopathy from my indivdual experience of both sides of the medicine world, then you cant include your own either. Well I knew what I meant.:D

You not listening placing to much on small parts, not focusing on the whole, now you say your on ibropfen(if thats wrong pill I change it later) your not an addict, canyou be so sure bearing in mind alladdicts dont say they are until they wake up to it and admit it?(not saying your a liar either so dont go down that road, its a valid point raising issue)

As for the opiate did you read the article above I put up? My point is yes they are addictive ok not everyone will succumb but it is happening, Taking anything over a long peiod of time the body becomes dependent on it, you increase the amount to gain same relief Addiction has alrady taken hold,and bingo the body shuts down.

Nobody said Vallium/Prozac was and now look at the zombies it left in its wake?

Homeopathy yes its diluted, the feel good factor plays a big part in its not cure but healing, why?
Rough guess because you stop poisioning your body with normal medication taken after along period of time. No even I dont agree stop normal medication of its for a particular dangerous illness that is lunacy.
I aslo suggest talking to your own GPS. My own GP suggested I try it I did, did it work, made me sleep better, made me feel calmer than I had in along time, so yes it did for somethings. Then my body was filled with poisions for overdosing on pain killers and that includes morphine which doesnt even take the edge off my pain anymore.

You have the right to your view I respect each one, but when your backs against the wall and this is an alterative to at least try where is the harm if it is with a GP's knowledge granted to try?

Me
 
richardm said:


... so, you'd sell these homeopathic pain relief pills to David in the full knowledge that there is no evidence they will work and plenty evidence that they won't, but it would still be ethical just so long as David believes that they will work? :confused:

If they don't work, is that David's fault for not believing in them?

Richard I wouldnt sell them in the first place and dont say it like that either.

NO if they didnt work they didnt regardless of Davids belief, out of context.

Define feel good factor?

Me
 
Richard ethics ok... try this. how is it ethical to mass produce modern medine knowing full well the side effects can be detrimental to health and cause more problems?

Where is the ethics in producing modern medicines with talc or other unecessary fillers?

If I was to say to you eat this its talc then I will give you the active ingrediant you would refuse, wheres the ethics then?

Herbalism you views?

Me
 
radiating-sunflower:

Do you have anything to back up these two claims of yours:

  1. ”you treat same with same that cures the whole “
  2. ”Half of all illnesses around are caused by the side effects of modern medicines”[/list=1]

    Thanks
 
radiating-sunflower said:


Richard I wouldnt sell them in the first place and dont say it like that either.

NO if they didnt work they didnt regardless of Davids belief, out of context.

Define feel good factor?


Well, sorry if that came out sounding a bit blunt, but I'm not really sure how else I could put it! I do feel strongly that people should not be misled into buying products that don't work. Simple as that.

You ask me to define the "feel good factor" - I'm guessing because you feel that if it makes someone feel better to be doing something rather than nothing, then it's okay.

I don't happen to agree with this. I really don't. It doesn't matter whether it's homeopathy, or magnetic shoe pads, or laundry balls, or fuel additives, or any one of the zillions of scams that get flogged around - I'm sure you know a few.

I think that if you buy something that a claim is made for, then that claim should be borne out. Perhaps I'm just naive ;)
 
RichardR said:
radiating-sunflower:

Do you have anything to back up these two claims of yours:

  1. ”you treat same with same that cures the whole “
  2. ”Half of all illnesses around are caused by the side effects of modern medicines”[/list=1]

    Thanks

  1. I can but so far nobodies listening.

    Is there any sodding point, so far my grammers and terminologies inadequate, my experience in this side of things isnt acdemic enough, you all pick on one point ignoring the rest, oh and I apperetenly talk gibberish.

    If your not going to listen and think is there any point in trying?

    :( :( :(

    difference between me and you lot it appears I look at the whole not just at some points and am willing to see it from another view point, not so dismissive as you all are.

    me and i didnt claim anyway.
 
radiating-sunflower said:
Richard ethics ok... try this. how is it ethical to mass produce modern medine knowing full well the side effects can be detrimental to health and cause more problems?

Well, obviously you have to weigh the alternatives up. If you have a chemotherapy drug that might stop cancer, you would put up with side-effects like nausea, hair loss, and worse. But you wouldn't release a toothache pill with those side effects.

It's ethical to produce drugs that are dangerous so long as they work and are administered carefully. The alternative is to produce drugs that are not in any way dangerous, which for the most part means that they don't work at all.

Where is the ethics in prodicing modern medicines with talc or other unecessary fillers?

The fillers are just that - they are inert substances there to fill the tablet up to a manageable size. Homeopathic remedies do the same thing.

If I was to say to you eat this its talc then I will give you the active ingrediant you would refuse, wheres the ethics then?

That would be a bizarre thing to ask ;) Why would you do that? I don't think it would be unethical, but I would certainly think it odd.

Herbalism you views?

Herbalism? The root of modern Pharmacology. If you'll pardon the pun ;)
 
r-s,

I'm happy to to move on and "focus on the whole" as you put it.
[shinguards]Reserving the right to point out any particular errors of yours. :D [/shinguards]

I think we can probably agree on this -
Medicines vary in their efficacy and potential for harm. The medical profession does not have a monopoly on wisdom nor do doctors always understand exactly what they are doing.

From your posts on this thread your general position seems to be "Modern Medicines Bad, Natural Medicines Good"
Please correct me if I have misread you.

My position is that all medicines need to come up to scratch and that means proper testing whatever the original source.

Proper testing is, ideally -
  • Double blind
  • Peer reviewed
  • Replicated (e.g. by other labs/teams)

I have yet to see these criteria fully applied to homeopathic remedies. Therefore no-one should be allowed to make false claims as to their efficacy. They should not be marketed as medicines.
 
richardm said:



Well, sorry if that came out sounding a bit blunt, but I'm not really sure how else I could put it! I do feel strongly that people should not be misled into buying products that don't work. Simple as that.

You ask me to define the "feel good factor" - I'm guessing because you feel that if it makes someone feel better to be doing something rather than nothing, then it's okay.

I don't happen to agree with this. I really don't. It doesn't matter whether it's homeopathy, or magnetic shoe pads, or laundry balls, or fuel additives, or any one of the zillions of scams that get flogged around - I'm sure you know a few.

I think that if you buy something that a claim is made for, then that claim should be borne out. Perhaps I'm just naive ;)

Not naive:)I wouldnt say that. You want written assurances thats how you interact with things and feel comfortable with them in that form, but not all of life is like that.

Yes there are scams(religion for one)I do know of some, but if it helps somebody gain one minutes releif and happiness can you so eaily deny them that?

I'm off as said before pm me carry on whatever email me if you wish me to continue right now I am about to explode.

me
 
richardm said:
The alternative is to produce drugs that are not in any way dangerous, which for the most part means that they don't work at all.

Just to clarify that: Most drugs, I think, operate by changing the way your body is working in some way or another. Inevitably that means that if you take enough of them at one time, most of them are going to be able to change the way you're working so much they start breaking things.

Somebody please correct me if I'm gibbering.
 
radiating-sunflower said:
I can but so far nobodies listening.
Well, I’m listening but you don’t appear to have answered either of those questions.

radiating-sunflower said:
Is there any sodding point, so far my grammers and terminologies inadequate, my experience in this side of things isnt acdemic enough, you all pick on one point ignoring the rest, oh and I apperetenly talk gibberish.
Excuse me but I don’t think that I have commented on your grammar or anything else.

radiating-sunflower said:
If your not going to listen and think is there any point in trying?

:( :( :(

difference between me and you lot it appears I look at the whole not just at some points and am willing to see it from another view point, not so dismissive as you all are.
I would just like to know if you have anything to back up your claims, which were:

  1. ”you treat same with same that cures the whole “
  2. ”Half of all illnesses around are caused by the side effects of modern medicines”[/list=1]

    Can you answer these or not? Thanks.
 
radiating-sunflower said:
Richard ethics ok... try this. how is it ethical to mass produce modern medine knowing full well the side effects can be detrimental to health and cause more problems?


Whenever I get a prescription filled, I get a sheet from the pharmacy which describes what the medicine is, instructions from taking it, and what the side effects are .

The side effects are always less severe than the disease itself.
 
One test does not advocate(recommend, speak of) faliure or does it infer(conclude from evidence or deduce) all subsequent products are the same

Tests cannot speak or recommend, nor can they conclude or deduce anything. People do that. Tests simply provide the evidence, the implications of which others will infer. The word "failure" isn't really appropriate either, when you're talking about the vailidity of homeopathy as a whole.

"One test does not imply the overall falsehood of homeopathy, nor does it imply that all subsequent products are the same."

But, we digress.

If I was to say to you sorry David I am stopping your pain relief pills, and your not having anything else how do youfeel?

Same again but adding take this for a while its ahomeopathic remedy that does this and that, blah blah, lessens this and does that.

You going to go with nothing?

If what you're saying is would I rather take homeopathic medicine or nothing if I was in pain, I'd take the homeopathic medicine (assuming it was at no cost to me) - because I know the worst it could do is nothing. However, since I doubt I'll ever be in a situation where homeopathic medicine is the only option, I'd chuck the pills in the bin and go out and buy some real painkillers.

David
 
Just out of interest and knowing nothing about homeopathy...

How are these compounds diluted? Is there a set procedure or does someone buy the dilute stuff and just dilute it further? or what?

Sou
 

Back
Top Bottom