Understanding homeopathy

[Chris Haynes]

I only find it mildly annoying... and a bit hypocritical. They seem to only like one way communication, especially since anything that questions their beliefs may actually put a dent in their income.

I am keeping my hotmail account just "in case". I've used it to post on Healthfraud. I find that certain lurkers on Healthfraud send nasty notes to some who post there, and I have already had enough emails from them on an old account.

Oh... something from there this evening... "Homeopaths Without Borders":
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/index.php?sty=35904

 

[Zep]

From that article:

Homeopathic remedies have a successful track record of treating mosquito and water-born diseases in areas hit by the tsunami, as well as disaster-related mental health issues, Udell said

I would be asking them to publicly substantiate that claim. Perhaps via the same newspaper that published the article?

 

[Zep]

Well...

Since Murthy seems to have taken a powder (dissolved homeopathically in pure water, no doubt), I think it may be fair to draw a conclusion about the title of this thread:

Understanding homeopathy
1. Homeopaths don't.
2. Skeptics do.

 

[Chris Haynes]

From that article:I would be asking them to publicly substantiate that claim. Perhaps via the same newspaper that published the article?

Excellent way to use my hotmail account... sent to [email protected] ...

From your article:
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/index.php?sty=35904 ... a "Dr" Udell claims that "Homeopathic medicine uses natural substances tailored to individual health needs. Homeopathic remedies have a successful track record of treating mosquito and water-born diseases in areas hit by the tsunami, as well as disaster-related mental health issues, Udell said."

Well, that is interesting since homeopathic "remedies" contain NO active ingredients. Please see http://www.skepdic.com/homeo.html .

I think you need to ask exactly where it has been shown that homeopathy helps with mental health issues (especially since a relative of mine has had her mental health deteriorate considerably since stopping her real meds prescribed by a psychiatrist in favor of homeopathy).

 

[BillyJoe]

From skepdic....

Dynamization [succussion] was for Hahnemann a process of releasing an energy that he regarded as essentially immaterial and spiritual. As time went on he became more and more impressed with the power of the technique he had discovered and he issued dire warnings about the perils of dynamizing medicines too much. This might have serious or even fatal consequences, and he advised homeopaths not to carry medicines about in their waistcoat pockets lest they inadvertently make them too powerful. Eventually he even claimed that there was no need for patients to swallow the medicines at all; it was enough if they merely smelt them.

I have to agree with others who have said that the more you read about homoeopathy, the crazier it sounds.

I wonder if it ever occurred to him that he should have been concerned about the effect of molecules previously in contact with the water molecules in his remedies?

BJ

 

[Kumar]

Kumar,

There do not seem to be any controls! What a surprise!!
In other words, there is no way of telling whether the homoeopathic treatments caused these side-effects or whether they would have occurred anyway. Now, if there had have been a control group and the effects occurred in the treated group but not the control group and provided the control group was randomly selected and provided the assessment were double blind......but, hey, we're talking homoeopathy here!!!

BillyJoe

You will always say like this. Anyway these effects were in accordance with homeopathic mentionings as aggravations.

 

[Donks]

You will always say like this. Anyway these effects were in accordance with homeopathic mentionings as aggravations.

Kumar, it is truly dissapointing that you can't tell the difference between a simple survey and a controlled study.

 

[Kumar]

Kumar, it is truly dissapointing that you can't tell the difference between a simple survey and a controlled study.

The differance between simple survey of mass.....experiances & observations AND controlled studies can be as practical & theory. Practical may never fail but theories can fail(as in several medicines). So I am repeatedly mentioning mass........

Moreover, controlled studies may be needed for substances having side/adverse & toxic effects to avoid & assess any risk.

 

[Donks]

The differance between simple survey of mass.....experiances & observations AND controlled studies can be as practical & theory. Practical may never fail but theories can fail(as in several medicines). So I am repeatedly mentioning mass........

Moreover, controlled studies may be needed for substances having side/adverse & toxic effects to avoid & assess any risk.

Thanks for pointing out the obvious yet again: You have absolutely no idea what the difference is between a simple survey and a controlled study.

 

[Kumar]

Thanks for pointing out the obvious yet again: You have absolutely no idea what the difference is between a simple survey and a controlled study.

Since, you always say that in simple survey these are effective but in controlled DB studies these are not effective. Can't it mean that there is some defect & weakness of controlled studies esp. in non toxic healing substances?

 

[Donks]

Since, you always say that in simple survey these are effective but in controlled DB studies these are not effective. Can't it mean that there is some defect & weakness of controlled studies esp. in non toxic healing substances?

No, it means the exact opposite, that there is a defect and weakness in the simple survey. Namely, the lack of controls.

 

[Kumar]

No, it means the exact opposite, that there is a defect and weakness in the simple survey. Namely, the lack of controls.

Believer's & skeptic' understandings can be 'just opposite. But I can't assess 'nature gives more benefits to whom'.

 

[Donks]

Believer's & skeptic' understandings can be 'just opposite. But I can't assess 'nature gives more benefits to whom'.

Ok, lets take this step by step: You have three groups of people with the same illness. You give the first group a placebo. You give the second group a homeopathic remedy. you give the third group the real treatment, one that has shown to be effective and safe. None know which they got. Now, how do you think these 3 groups will respond to treatment?

 

[Kumar]

Ok, lets take this step by step: You have three groups of people with the same illness. You give the first group a placebo. You give the second group a homeopathic remedy. you give the third group the real treatment, one that has shown to be effective and safe. None know which they got. Now, how do you think these 3 groups will respond to treatment?

First, all three are real treatments. Second, Depending upon immunity & self healing capability of a person, he can be well sooner or later, with or without side/adverse/toxic depending upon type & effect of treatment. Healing of any disorder can be 'self healing power dependent'. However, stonger the chemical eary can be its initiation of this self healing power so early can be the treatment/cure but at the cost of side/adverse/toxic effects which in other types can be avoided. However. if self healing power is weak, late initiation can result risks or discomforts.

 

[Donks]

First, all three are real treatments.

Ok, if you say so.

Second, Depending upon immunity & self healing capability of a person, he can be well sooner or later, with or without side/adverse/toxic depending upon type & effect of treatment. Healing of any disorder can be 'self healing power dependent'. However stonger the chemical eary can be its initiation so eary can be the treatment/cure but ar the cost of side/adverse/toxic effects which in other types can be avoided. However if self healing power is weak, late initiation can be at risk or discomfort.

Fantastic.

Now, with that out of the way, will you answer the question?

 

[Mojo]

First, all three are real treatments.

No. The placebo is, by definition and intent, not a real treatment. We have to assume that the homeopathic remedy may be a real treatment otherwise there would be no point in carrying out the test (although I strongly suspect that in fact it would be indistinguishable from the placebo).

Second, Depending upon immunity & self healing capability of a person, he can be well sooner or later, with or without side/adverse/toxic depending upon type & effect of treatment. Healing of any disorder can be 'self healing power dependent'.

This is precisely why controls are necessary.

 

[Kumar]

Ok, if you say so.

Fantastic.

Now, with that out of the way, will you answer the question?

Depending upon self healing power & immunity, effects and/or other effects can be noted in all three groups sooner or later.

 

[Kumar]

No. The placebo is, by definition and intent, not a real treatment. We have to assume that the homeopathic remedy may be a real treatment otherwise there would be no point in carrying out the test (although I strongly suspect that in fact it would be indistinguishable from the placebo).This is precisely why controls are necessary.

Whether fasting(long practiced healing technique since our evolution by all animals), meditations, will power healings etc. are not treatments?

 

[Mojo]

Depending upon self healing power & immunity, effects and/or other effects can be noted in all three groups sooner or later.

Changes may well be observed in all 3 groups, but these are not necessarily caused by the treatments. If the changes observed for a particular treatment are not significantly different from the changes observed in the placebo group, it means that the treatment has no effect. Remember, the placebo group has not been given a real treatment: the placebo is a dummy.

 

[Mojo]

Whether fasting(long practiced healing technique since our evolution by all animals), meditations, will power healings etc. are not treatments?

I find that fasting has unpleasant side-effecs, such as, well, feelings of hunger and lowered blood sugar. And remember, just because something has been believed in for a long time it doesn't necessarily make it true. The other two don't sound like real treatments. They may well work as well as a placebo though.