Oh, you silly people! Don't you know that homeopathic medicine works better the less you take of it? By taking an 'overdose' you rendered it totally ineffective! If you really wanted to prove it works you should have taken none at all!

Oh, hang on a minute...

A good couple of articles, with more links in them

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/22/science-homeopathy-clinical-trials?INTCMP=SRCH

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/may/23/letsnotfundquacksinournh?INTCMP=SRCH

Ah well here is where you went wrong. Did you try dissolving the tablets in water, stirring vigorously while sitting naked looking at the full moon?

Human beings are good at self-delusion and it is very hard to shake an entrenched 'belief'.

At best the placebo effect might help with the minor ailments, not so of course for the terminally ill and that is where the real harm lies. You wonder why people make these sorts of choices when very ill, is it reaching out for that last hope when there is a sense of nothing more to lose? Or is it a general distrust of the mainstream, which in other circumstances might not be a bad thing.

The information is out there for everyone, it is just what happens in our heads next that determines choices made.

Did anyone else notice the ironic Google ads at bottom of the forum page offering Homeopathy courses?

I wonder how many people know that homeopathy can be studied in a so-called degree program, approved by a government accreditation body, where students are eligible for government support. This is a travesty of higher education.

Then there's the issue of health insurance companies that package non-evidence based therapies aka "trick therapies" such as homeopathy with evidence-based therapies. Consumer demand demands we all end up funding these useless treatments.

The British Royals

Are apparently fans of

Homeopathy

I am in total admiration of the manner in which the pharmaceutical industry has brainwashed the general public to simultaneously believe that i) their products work and ii) other, less "scientific" remedies do not.

But for every "homeopathy doesn't work" story - complete with all the sneers and snide remarks in this little offering - I can counter with "look what pharmaceuticals do".

Let's start with Ritalin:

http://www.ritalindeath.com/

Make no mistake, Ritalin is big business - Novartis doesn't publish up-to-date data, but sales in 2007 were estimated at $375 million.

That's wholesale, of course. And they (and the drug's inventor, Celgene) are vigorously defending their patents so that they can make even more money.

"Experts are worried that many parents and doctors are turning to Ritalin as a quick-fix for behavioral problems, exposing countless children to pill-induced high blood pressure rates, weight loss and even growth retardation."

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-18355499.html

And please, don't get me started on statins.

"Some 13 million Americans take them to reduce their LDL levels. Unfortunately, many are not aware of the adverse side effects that comes from continued use of these drugs. Liver damage, muscle pain, weakness, fatigue and even heart failure are the result of extended use. Statins are notorious for robbing the heart of CoQ10, an important enzyme required for the proper functioning of the heart muscle. Repeated use of statins over time depletes this natural enzyme and leads to a weakened heart that becomes vulnerable to heart attack."

http://www.suite101.com/content/the-dangers-of-statin-drug-use-a119858#ixzz1DbV0P1EC

I don't happen to believe that homeopathy "works as advertised" either. But smug, ain't-I-smart articles like this, which simply take free hits without even an attempt at balance of any kind, are thoroughly annoying and completely unhelpful

There are many 'Natural' remedies with good medicinal value which are better choices than 'conventional' treatment in some cases or complement them in others. Good examples are chiropractic, acupuncture, massage therapies, dietary and many 'herbal' remedies. Remember - many powerful and widely used medications were 'discovered' in concoctions used in traditional medicine before mass production in Pharmaceutical factories

However I'll agree - there is little 'science' in Homeopathy and I wouldn't recommend it. Haven't tried it myself but my youngest son has - and it did nothing except lighten his wallet.

Bit of background - said offspring suffered near fatal viral illness leaving him with multiple after effects, most serious being chronic fatigue and gastro-intestinal problems including food allergies and sensitivities. Following discharge from hospital (weighing 57kgs - at 6ft2) advised "Can't do anything more for him. Just needs rest and feeding up." He tried many 'natural therapies' since 'conventional' medicines only approach was - "Take these anti-depressants. You'll feel better" FAIL!

Best results came from a Naturopath, also a 'conventional' Pharmacist, whose potions, supplements and dietary advice did much to restore a degree of well being. The following 'therapies' were, in my opinion, pretty much rip-offs: Reiki, Homeopathy, Light Saunas and one or two others I can't remember ....

Having said that, as much as we are the same, we are different. We suffer the same conditions and diseases with varying symptoms and degrees of severity and respond diversely to medications used in treatment.
It's possible the most 'unscientific' approaches work for some individuals even if only via psychosomatic effect. Otherwise it's difficult to explain how these practitioners remain?? (But then I say that about whacky religious cults ...)

Each to his/her own! - Every adult has the right to undertake the course of health care they believe in.
Provided accurate and truthful information about their diagnosis, treatment options and pros and cons have been provided, it is ultimately their responsibility to choose the method and accept the outcome. Malpractice excluded.

Pericles,

The reason most of these remedies are not regulated is precisely because they have little or no active ingredient.

For someone with high cholesterol the choice is to take statins to reduce the levels of LDL or die. The side effects for 99% are negligible. While most drugs have some side effects, for the conditions they are prescribed, the good vastly outweighs the bad.

Ok, let me be the only person who actually knows what homeopathy actually is to help explain it to you all.

The practice is, essentially, nothing more than a primitive form of vaccination or drug therapy, on the basis of treating symptoms with symptom-catalysts in small doses to stimulate the immune system.

What that means is that if I had a runny nose, I would go to a homeopath that would make me take drugs that would give me a runny nose (that the homeopath ASSUMES is the cause of my runny nose), until my immune system made me immune to whatever substance I have been taking (Assuming that it was the same substance that had been causing my runny nose before).

The main obvious forms of criticism is that it is clearly useless for non-pathogenic illnesses, such as viruses or cancers, as it only, allegedly treats symptoms.
The second is that many homeopaths use contentious methods such as water contaminated with the pathogenic solution have little evidence of working.

That aside, I really don't see why this is a big deal if chemists stock homeopathic products.
If people want to medicate themselves that way (especially those whose only alternatives are a dangerous specific drug, or cold turkey), certainly it is no more risky than any normal options.

The worst thing about Homeopathy only becomes obvious when your wife believes, & you don't.

It's a bit like all those books, "How to become a millionaire in seven & a half minutes" for example.

Is there a homeopathic cure for addiction?

The proposal that homoeopathy is a primitive form of vaccine is a false one - it is not.

The notion of symptom-catalysts has no basis in reality.

It is a waste of consumers money and time; time that can risky in terms of a progressive condition.

Chiropractic, naturopathy, and 'herbal' remedies fall into the same camp.

That's exactly what the drug companies say, Shadow Minister.

>>For someone with high cholesterol the choice is to take statins to reduce the levels of LDL or die<<

There is no doubt, of course, that high cholesterol is a danger signal My own is astronomic, for example, so I have had many and long discussions with my GP, regular specialist check-ups including the "how much gunk is collecting in your valves" imaging, and the whole nine yards.

There is also no doubt that statins lower cholesterol levels. It's what they do.

The drug compamies use these two factors - high cholesterol is a signfier in heart disease, statins lower cholesterol - to sell huge volumes of the stuff. Their pitch is simple:

More people with high cholesterol levels die of heart disease, than people with low cholesterol levels. Therefore, a drug that lowers cholesterol levels must be A Good Thing.

What they don't tell you is whether there is any reduction in the incidence of heart disease in statin-takers, as opposed to statin-non-takers, where cholesterol levels are an issue.

Believe me, I have asked. Many times.

The real survey, though - and the one no-one is ever going to finance - is "Is the mortality rate of statin-takers higher, or lower, than that of statin-non-takers"

This would take into account the lowering of the incidence of heart disease in statin-takers - if any - as well as the impact of any of the side-effects.

And realistically, it is the only statistic that is at all relevant.

'The practice is, essentially, nothing more than a primitive form of vaccination or drug therapy, on the basis of treating symptoms with symptom-catalysts in small doses to stimulate the immune system'

I'm sure that sounds quite impressive to the gaping rubes on the bench seats, King Hazza, but unfortunately it's unmitigated bullsh!t. There aren't 'small doses' in homeopathy - there are no doses at all! Simple chemistry, recognized since the 19th century, shows that there is not one single molecule of the original substance left in a homeopathically diluted substance.

Don't start with the pseudo-scientific rubbish about 'water memory', either.

Pericles - 'I know you are, but what am I?' is not a valid argument. No-one is saying that the pharmaceutical industry are angels, but at least they have to prove that their products actually work. When they lie - as they too often do - they *are* caught out.

However, just as nitpicking at evolution doesn't automatically make Creationism right, nor does the mendacity of the pharmaceutical companies mean that the snake oil salesmen of CAM are right, either.

divine_msn - chiropractic and acupuncture are not 'good' examples: time and again, they've been proven beyond doubt to be nothing more than expensive, and often dangerous, placebos.

As for herbalism - well, what is it but chemicals? The only difference is that with herbalism, the active ingredient - if there is one - is adulterated with hundreds of other chemicals, and dosages are not controlled at all.

More to the point, your story shows typical 'post hoc, ergo promptor hoc' fallacious reasoning.

Note that your son was treated extensively with proper medicine. As with many similar illnesses, he took a long time getting better, but get better he eventually (and somewhat inevitably - look up 'regression to the mean' some time) did.

Of course, the concept of convalescence is not a fashionable one nowadays, so growing impatient with proper medicine, you turn to quackery. Upon - inevitably, as I said - getting better, you fallaciously attribute this to the quackery, not the extensive treatments with proper medicine that preceded it.

Pericles, stop telling lies: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=10170

Sorry McReal, I can't agree with you on chiropractic, although I do believe many practitioners are incompetent.

In the days when I did real work for a living, I had a lot of trouble with my back. One disc in particular did not like loading sacks of potatoes & such stuff onto boats.

I found a chiropractor who could send me from agony to ecstasy, well from hobble to dancing anyway, in about 5 minutes.

I do believe if I could then have taken the 2 weeks off lifting stuff, I would have been fixed.

What I liked about him particularly was his method. He would stretch you out on your stomach, saying don't tell me where you hurt, I'll tell you.

He would, & then he'd fix you. Never found another one like him.

My the barbarians ARE out in force today.

Why not check out some work on the more than horrible truth about what happens in USA hospitals via references to the book Death By Medicine by Null, Dean,Feldman,Rasio,& Smith.

There are some good references to this book via the Doctor Mercola newsletter.

Check out the work of Rudolph Ballentine MD via his book Radical Healing.
Ballentine actually bothered to really do his homework re homeopathy etc etc. He did this because he saw first-hand that conventional allopathic medicine does not heal any one. It is good at removing symptoms but does not, and indeed cannot ever really heal anyone at any fundamental constitutional depth level - what depth level?

Also references to the remarkable book The Science of Homeopathy by George Vithoulkas

And an essay re how a Nobel Prize winner has recently endorsed homeopathy, while at the same time criticizing the closed-minded-dogmatism (and their political machinations too) of the so called skeptic.

http://naturalnews.com/031210_Luc_Montagnier_Homeopathy.html

Pericles,

Read this:

http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/circulationaha;107/14/1848

This is one example where patients using statins had only 22% of the chance of mortality that non users had.

There is plenty more.

Also check out references to a book titled Rediscovering Real Medicine by Dr Jean Elmiger MD.

Dr Elmiger is a remarkable Swiss doctor and highly accomplished Homeopath who developed his own unique method of Sequential Therapy. A method based on both empirical application and observation, and profound intuitive insight into the subtle mechanisms of dis-ease and healing.

It is one of the most remarkable books on dis-ease, health-and-healing, that I have ever read. The case studies are extraordinary.

Onya Chrys. Well done.

Nice article.

Homeopaths are hitting back this year, using terms like "stunt" and that 10.23 is proof that participants fail to understand homeopathy.

The British Homeopathy Ass'n stated:
http://www.britishhomeopathic.org/media_centre/news/10.23_response_2011.html

I think the silliest thing I read was that skeptics were misguided because homeopathic sleeping pills were "contraindicated for overdose".

Victorian/Melbourne Skeptics 10.23:
http://vicskeptics.wordpress.com/2011/02/08/the-1023-event-in-melbourne/
YouTube;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvgRMcfo0Yk

Paul Willis in Antarctica;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQzOidQKafA

Indomitable James Randi;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMukj31qw1U

Paul Offit on dilution of duck liver and heart to prepare Oscillococcinum - a homeopathic cold/flu pill. More dilute than 3x10 to the 80th. Which = more than volume of universe. Been sexed up with some images:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4_Vu7juiok

The overdose experiment is invalid:

1. Taking more of a homeopathic remedy makes no difference. It is binary: either the body receives the signal, or it doesn't.

2. Coffee as a homeopathic? Certain substances antidote all homeopathic remedies, including coffee, menthol, camphor and mercury sourced from ocean-fish (due to nuclear experiments). Were the experimenters alert to this fact and made sure these substances are out of their system? Were they also alert that they must take the remedy at least one hour after any food and half an hour before eating again?

3. Homeopathic remedies are meant to cure in the deepest sense of the word - not to create effects, such that making one sleepy when one is not tired. How is being awake a malady?

4. One has to accept a homepathic remedy, that is either believe it works or be sceptical about it, but if one denies its effect to begin with, one's body doesn't accept it.

5. Water contamination is a serious issue that could void the remedy. During preparation The water must be absolutely pure with not a single foreign molecule. It is therefore preferable to use alcohol instead, but that of course makes the remedy much more expensive.

The best homeopathic remedies carry the blessings of the practitioner who made them. That of course requires a high moral and spiritual stature on their behalf. I would be quite hesitant to pick a mass-produced remedy off the shelf in a pharmacy, not even knowing the person who made it.

Homeopathy is not about achieving instantaneous results. Regarding Penelope Dingle, she should have been made aware of the choice whether her priority is to be cured, or to get rid of her cancer, as these are not the same. According to homeopathy, things usually get worse before they get better and death is but a symptom. Once the crisis of death is over, the remedy would have made her healthier in her next lifetime. If all she wanted was to remove the critical cancer instead of its root-cause, then homeopathy was not for her.

Ok, so it is "pick a study" time.

I quite liked yours, Clownfish. Permit me to quote from it:

"...the results of this study can be spun to a variety of conclusions."

Yours was pretty good too, Shadow Minister.

"This case-controlled study provides evidence that statin use reduces perioperative mortality in patients undergoing major vascular surgery."

I'll buy that. But "what to do after major surgery" wasn't quite what I had in mind.

Here's one that I found just now..

http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/170/12/1024

>>Statins have been shown to reduce the risk of all-cause mortality among individuals with clinical history of coronary heart disease. However, it remains uncertain whether statins have similar mortality benefit in a high-risk primary prevention setting... Conclusion This literature-based meta-analysis did not find evidence for the benefit of statin therapy on all-cause mortality in a high-risk primary prevention set-up.<<

It's all good fun isn't it?

"The overdose experiment is invalid:

1. Taking more of a homeopathic remedy makes no difference. It is binary: either the body receives the signal, or it doesn't...' etc, etc, dodge, evade, dodge.

You really have drunk the homeopathic Kool-Aid, haven't you? Does the word 'unfalsifiability' ring any bells?

Clownfish, those may be your viewpoints from experience? yet I took my childrens father to an Acupuncturist [beautiful Chinese lady still practicing in her 60's to date]20 years ago suffering from migraines he had endured for 10 years prior to the 'one' visit with this Acupuncturist.

ALL cured! Not one migraine or aura after his appointment.

Either the Acupuncturist scared the hell out of him with the needles [a bloke who does not visit doctors or medical practitioners] unless an emergency, or simply 'mind over matter' or the Acupuncturist, according to other peoples success stories, did in actual fact 'cure' him of his long term migraines.

No other changes to his lifestyle were noted at all.

I have recommended many work people to this lady over 20 years, many of whom have been cured of their ailments in a short period.

I should add that there are reasons I mentioned that the Acupuncturist is a 'Chinese' lady which are the following;
(a) the Acupuncturist advertises that she follows her chinese traditions in both Acupuncture and herbal remedies and;
(b) all of the remedies have been successfully recognised and acclaimed through the Chinese centuries.

Acupuncture works

Biomed can't explain it

Patient knows better

Sorry, OT

I'm grateful to Chrys

For clarifying something

That was misconstrued

S

Yes, I agree with weareunique in that there are a FEW very talented alternative medicine practitioners around that seem to defy modern scientific reason at times.

However, I have also seen many spontaneous 'cures' or remissions that happened with no help from 'natural' medicines or conventional medicines...so how can we be sure of all these 'natural' cure claims?

Marijuana is 'natural', as are toadstools- that doesn't mean they are good for you.

Pericles, if you have high cholesterol AND at least one other medical/risk problem, such as high blood pressure, obesity, diabetes or family history of heart problems, strokes, or high blood pressure, then I humbly suggest you listen to your doctor.

My husband's mother dropped dead of a heart attack in a shop at age 61. Her father died young too, but the cause was unknown (long ago).
His mum never saw a doctor, and was on no medications.
My husband was found to have high cholesterol at age 44. He was slim and very active, and had a good diet.
He didn't need it treated by pills until he then developed high blood pressure at age 46.
Before then, he tried to have almost no fat in his diet and tried everything known to man to get the cholesterol levels down 'naturally'.

It was no good. He is on statins and anti-hypertensive meds now. Everything is now normal, and he is as fit as can be.

If you have any of these other problems too Pericles, please listen to your Doctor.
Or would you rather prove them 'right' and end up with even more problems that will require a vastly increased number of pills anyway?

Interesting Clownfish you assume I'm a homeopathy advocate when I largely explained the clear shortcomings of the practice in general (of which the 'water memory' is only one method).

To be fair, even though most internet discussions are nothing more than binary divisions between either the "I think it's real and we should all use it instead" crowd and the "I think its a placebo, and a scam, and should be banned" side, don't assume we all fit ourselves neatly into categories.

I appreciate your concern, suzeonline...

>>Pericles, if you have high cholesterol... then I humbly suggest you listen to your doctor<<

As I mentioned, we have discussed it on several occasions. (My doctor is a fan of statins, by the way). We have agreed - and we have tried them out - that they are not for me, and have taken a different approach.

We also agree, incidentally, on the lack of any conclusive study on with/without statin mortality rates. And I can guarantee that if there were to appear such a study, it would be waved triumphantly in my face with many an "I told you so".

Modern conventional drugs and surgery medicine is very good at crisis intervention, patching people up after accidents, and more often than not, diagnosis of dis-ease conditions.
Apart from that it is largely a failure. The general state of the health of the population is living, or perhaps half-dead, proof of that.

It is also quite barbaric in that it is informed by the reductionist world-view of scientific materialism which reduces every one to matter only.

Human beings have thus been reduced to little more than thinking/talking assemblages of meat molecules

It is interesting to notice the organized groups of people that actively campaign against "alternative therapies".

First we have the atheists and so called skeptics. They are really dogmatic true believers in the "religion" of scientism, who are fundamentally intolerant of all other perspectives.

Which is quite strange really. Because until the rise of the culture of scientism EVERY other culture in the world was informed by a magical shamanistic perspective. Even original Christianity. In one way or another the majority of the worlds population still adhere to such a magical perspective.

Then there are right-wing religionists such as the odious "catholic" author of the book and website Counterknowledge. A book which has much in common with the old-time "catholic" church that used to have the power to define what was acceptable knowledge, and to thus deal with "heretics" - anyone for the inquisition! Much as totalitarian states always do, including of course the current Islamic theocracies of the Middle East.

Thirdly there are dim-witted Protestant fundamentalists who are always railing against anything to do with the New Age movement.

I remember reading parts of a large book published by the Christian Medical Association which contained critiques of the various "new age" healing methods now available. I forget the title.
The basis of their criticism of each and every technique was that it was not mentioned in the Bible
It was counter to their obviously reductionist Biblically based (mis)understanding of what we are as human beings
It had its origins in Eastern religion concepts such as Chi or Prana

Cholesterol levels are 75% due to hereditary factors, and only 25% diet.

If your levels are slightly high, then a change of diet is often sufficient. However, if your levels are 8 or higher there is no chance that diet alone will do the job.

There is a clear link between Cholesterol and certain forms of heart disease. The use of statins has prolonged millions of lives and there is endless evidence to show this. And simply denying the evidence is sticking your head in the sand.

Pericles, if your doctor is a fan of statins, it is probably for a good reason, and he can only advise you. If you choose to ignore his advice he has no choice but to agree. The same would apply if you wished to smoke.

A homeopath on the loose?
Phwoar, dangerous times, these (munches on fish finger sandwich).
Lock up your daughters.

[Deleted for abuse.]

[reposted to avoid offence]

weareunique - no, my viewpoints are based on evidence. Acupuncture has been exhaustively tested in randomised, double-blind studies, and the results are always the same: it doesn't work any better than placebo.

You also make the mistake of assuming that because something has been done for a long time, that lends it validity: doctors practised bloodletting for centuries, too. And miasma theory - no-one believes that anymore, either ... actually, homeopaths still actually believe miasma theory!

It's interesting to note that people in China overwhelmingly choose western, science-based medicine to 'traditional' medicine (less than %20 of Mainland Chinese use 'traditional' medicine).

'Traditional' in China is the province of the poor and ignorant - in the West, it's the province of the wealthy and ignorant.

King Hazza, I assumed nothing: I merely pointed out that your statement was totally factually wrong.

Pericles, you misunderstand: I'm not 'picking a study'. The Cochrane Review conducts meta-studies of *all* the available literature. It is probably the most highly-regarded, gold-standard of evidence in the medical literature.

In any case, I posted the link, not to make any claims for or against statins, merely to show that you were either being economical with the truth, or utterly ignorant when you claimed that no-one had or ever would conduct a study into whether 'the mortality rate of statin-takers [is] higher, or lower, than that of statin-non-takers'

Interestingly, you quickly replied to me with a link to just such a meta-study as you claimed no-one had or ever would do. I'll generously assume that you suddenly did the research that had previously eluded you (even though you stated, 'Believe me, I have asked. Many times.').

I leave others to draw their own conclusions.

'Nothing' in it - a sweeping denouncement of homeopathy, Chrys, and in a five-page article you’ve really provided very little of any substance to back it up.

A bottle of pills bought from a corporate conglomerate like Boots is hardly indicative of the work being done by the many thousands of dedicated and experienced homeopaths the world over. And one extreme example of negligence is not enough to damn the whole profession. Many thousands die every year due to medical malpractice. Let’s have a little perspective here.

I haven't used homeopathy myself, but I do look to natural alternatives in preference to pharmaceutical quick-fixes. I know from cold hard experience that my health wouldn't be as good as it is now if I'd confined myself to conventional western medicine.

I do take my dog to a homeopathic vet though and would never go back to a conventional practitioner. I’ve had two dogs (both the same breed) and both developed a heart condition at about the same age. The older one was treated conventionally, and the younger one homeopathically and with natural supplements. He is now fifteen and his general health and quality of life has been far superior to that of my other dog, who was killed accidentally but who was sicker then than this dog is now, even though she was four years younger when she died than he is now. I realise there are other variables that come into play, but this certainly convinces me that, contrary to Chry's derision and that on show in some of the comments here, there is definitely 'something' to homeopathy.

BTW, Pericles is wise to avoid statins. A simple web search will bring up pages of warnings. There are natural alternatives, but of course with statins being one of its biggest milking-cows, Big Pharma goes out of its way to ensure any such information is either derided or suppressed. Cholesterol levels can actually be too low. They should be between 5.1 and 7.7 and it's the ratio between the LDL and HDL components that is significant, rather than the overall level.

Bronwyn, it's got nothing to do with opinion, it's simple chemistry, arithmetic and logic.

When a substance has been diluted homeopathically, there is no possible chance that one single molecule of the original substance remains. What you have is pure water and nothing else.

There is no evidence whatsoever to back up homeopathic claims of 'water memory', and a good deal of evidence to disprove it.

Besides, simple logic leads to the inevitable question: every single molecule of water on Earth has been recycled endless times - so why would water choose to retain a 'memory' of arnica rather than, say, a memory of Winston Churchill's bladder?

Oh, silly me, I forgot - one has to bang it ten times on a horsehair & leather stool to make the water 'remember'. To neglect that scientific procedure would just make homeopathy look silly, now wouldn't it?

Before you take your dog to your homeopathic 'vet' again, you might like to know that Britain has banned homeopathic water from being given to animals as 'medicine'. If only humans were so well protected.

Also, before you deride 'Big Pharma' (as they often deserve, I might add), you should also consider that Homeopathy is likewise a multi-billion dollar industry, only unlike 'Big Pharma', it is almost totally unregulated.

Apologies, Clownfish, I mistakenly assumed that you posted your study in order to prove a point about statins.

>>Interestingly, you quickly replied to me with a link to just such a meta-study as you claimed no-one had or ever would do. I'll generously assume that you suddenly did the research that had previously eluded you (even though you stated, 'Believe me, I have asked. Many times.').<<

I simply pointed out that of the studies themselves, none is foolish enough to claim that they work, and none is brave enough to say they don't.

Even your report, that you say is the "gold standard", comes to no clear conclusion.

As my GP agrees.

Who is, by the way, the person who "believe me, I have asked. Many times". You don't have consistently high cholesterol levels as I do without taking as much advice as you can get.

>>The use of statins has prolonged millions of lives and there is endless evidence to show this.<<

Thank you for pointing that out, Shadow Minister. If indeed statins have prolonged "millions" of lives, and if indeed there is "endless evidence to show this", I'm sure my GP would have heard about it.

Interesting article I am confused though as the intent of the article may be to help inform people of the plights of homeopaths? However I do not see a valid position put forward as to why homeopathy is sold by large pharmaceutical companies world wide.

They do it to make money nothing else, large pharmacies that have discount medicines make so much money from selling remedies that do not actually do much other than fool some people. Homeopathy since its interesting inception in Germany has always had controversy around it.

As Edzard Ernst has said a former Homeopath "My plea is simply for honesty. Let people buy what they want, but tell them the truth about what they are buying. These treatments are biologically implausible and the clinical tests have shown they don't do anything at all in human beings. The argument that this information is not relevant or important for customers is quite simply ridiculous."

People will take it as we are all aware some will believe anything and like to go against the grain. However my issue is when children are harmed I do not care if a adult chooses this course of treatment by this solely for a child is dangerous thinking and people need to be prosecuted, it does not work and most have known this since conclusive tests came out of WW2.

10:23 is a silly way to get peoples attention solutions and correct information is the only key.It will only make those trying to show valid reasons to not take homeopathic treatments as foolish and not get a point across. Practitioners say of course it will not harm you that is why we take it, sad but people will valid their positions. This is what all of us do when we have been presented with something that does not fit into our schema.

This is information for Bronwyn which I am sure she will not bother with as she has her own anecdotal evidence so it must be real. It will be dismissed right away.

http://www.vetpath.co.uk/voodoo/edwards1.html

http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=it_works_in_animals.php
direct cut and paste for Bronwyn who I am sure is not interested in points of view. Correlation must be causation.

"What is really happening, is that the vet who is using homeopathic remedies, is using his authoritative position to convince the animal owner that the animal being treated with homeopathy is getting better.

Vets, like doctors, hold a lot of power over their clients. This can lead to a placebo effect by proxy where the animal’s owner is assured that the treatment will work, the owner de-stresses and becomes less anxious, the animal senses this and de-stresses itself and responds more positively to its owner’s more positive attitude. Illusion: the treatment is working! But of course the animal remains medically untreated."

This is possible irrelevant however a friend suggested I read more about the day and watch a video and sent me the author's blog address to get some more information. I went to read this

http://thatsmyphilosophy.wordpress.com/2011/02/11/homeopathy-theres-nothing-in-it/

and then found this

http://thatsmyphilosophy.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/my-free-speech-fiasco/

I now confused :/

Pericles <"If indeed statins have prolonged "millions" of lives, and if indeed there is "endless evidence to show this", I'm sure my GP would have heard about it."

Your GP may not be as bright as you think Pericles! Or maybe he/she is bright, but you are just not 'hearing' what they are saying? :)

Pericles, check out this website that provides info from several large studies that prove the worth of statins.
http://www.ispub.com/journal/the_internet_journal_of_cardiovascular_research/volume_3_number_1_10/article/statins_and_coronary_artery_disease.html

Read it and let me know what you think.

People have to make their own decisions about natural remedies. I have been to a naturopath about three times all with good results. But these were not homeopaths and the concoctions that I downed were not diluted. Most of the treatment was lifestyle and diet related.

I doubt the dilution in most homeopathic remedies does any good but it also does no harm unless the person taking the preparations believes that is all they have to do to treat their illness and forgo any other form of assistance.

Bottom line is we all choose. Many so called modern pharmaceuticals come with their own scary looking list of possible side effects.

A healthy diet with as many freshly grown food (no chemicals) is the best bet with a mixture of high antioxidant foods, raw and cooked food etc.

Good food is the best natural remedy - the basis from which health is determined. The food we put in our mouths and the locations we live in (high voltage power lines, pesticide spraying, pollution etc) and genetic propensities will determine how well we fare on the health or longevity scale.

One of the best and most balanced authors on food is Michael Pollan.

Best quote: "But if real food — the sort of food our great grandmothers would recognize as food — stands in need of defense, from whom does it need defending? From the food industry on one side and nutritional science on the other. Both stand to gain much from widespread confusion about what to eat, a question that for most of human history people have been able to answer without expert help. Yet the professionalization of eating has failed to make Americans healthier. Thirty years of official nutritional advice has only made us sicker and fatter while ruining countless numbers of meals."

http://michaelpollan.com/books/in-defense-of-food/

Pelican, I too have seen an alternative healer, but she had also trained as a registered nurse before she trained in homeopathy. She did help me to raise my energy levels again. I would go back to her again.

I have also seen medically trained doctors practice homeopathy.

To my mind, these practitioners are ideal, because they can recommend 'natural' medications or preparations that will not cause any harm, and can also refer you back to other appropriate medical practitioners if they are aware that homeopathy would not be of any help.

Actually Clownfish the explanation I gave is exactly what homeopathy actually is- and this is according to any medical journal or dictionary as the definition for 'homeopathy'.
What you (and of course I) cited was only one practice among others where the homeopath simply gives the patient a dose of the actual substance directly, or even in a tablet. Feel free to google 'homeopathy, definition'.

yes yes I forgot water has memory like a brain and it then helps heal you along the same principals as vaccinations. It has been a valid treatment method for many many years and has even cured people of Aids and cancer and other serious conditions. Many doctors these days are drawn to the benefits of homeopathy and other qualified medical practitioners. They are not after your money they just want to help and heal you. We should demand all our doctors are trained in homeopathy as patients will benefit. Homeopathy works best when used alongside Reiki and ear candling. Sick children are the ones who benefit from all this alternative healing as they are cured in 6 years time or possibly longer as these things take time. Older people do not benefit so much as the immune system has already been damaged.so really please only use homeopathy on babies and young children. We do not want Big Pharma to get them and need to keep them safe from those nasty people who are controlled by a reptilian race sorry that is David Icke. He to loves homeopathy

King Hazza, I'm beginning to suspect that you're not actually reading a damn thing anybody writes.

Let me state it again, quite plainly, just in case you missed it:

When you dilute something as much as homeopaths do, then there is NOT ONE MOLECULE of the original substance left. It is not diluted: IT IS GONE.

HOMEOPATHIC REMEDIES ARE WATER. NOTHING ELSE. THERE IS NO OTHER 'SUBSTANCE'. IT. IS. GONE.

(Sorry for the caps, people, but he just doesn't seem to be getting it)

Pelican, I suggest you study some elementary biology, botany and chemistry, because you're statement about 'freshly grown food (no chemicals)' seems to show that you know nothing about either. Food is made up entirely of chemicals.

Clownfish,

Do your messages here in this forum affect anybody? Do they ever cause people to do something differently in the physical world?

Yet where are they? all virtual - there is not a single molecule in them?

Clownfish you are being disingenuous. It seems I must state the obvious - chemicals in the form of pesticides and artificial fertilisers. Everything is made of of chemical elements but if you did not discern my meaning, may I suggest you need to approach the subject more honestly and do a double-check on your analytical abilities.

Suze
One of the naturopaths I saw also had a medical background, one was a research scientist, the other two were natural therapy college trained but came at it from a sensible POV (from my interpretation).

My former GP was also open to alternative medicine when the situation demanded. People have to make a judgement on the validity of what their therapist/Dr proposes and the reasons why.

Appreciate your concern, suzeonline.

>>Read it and let me know what you think.<<

This is one of the (many) papers that my GP and I have discussed over the years. The key - as we decided between us - was to understand more specifically the groups that were being surveyed.

Bear in mind that, as your paper states, "Australian data has also demonstrated that the combination of high blood cholesterol, high blood pressure, and cigarette smoking are responsible for 75% of the cases of coronary artery disease that occurs"

We determined between us that in the absence of secondary considerations - my blood pressure is normal, my resting heart rate is sixty, I am still an active sportsman and a non-smoker - I should be concerned when, and if, the evidence pointed to statin benefits for a cohort where cholesterol was the only adverse indicator.

If you look into the studies in more detail - WOSCOPS, for instance - you will find that their claim to a "randomized" sample would probably exclude me.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199511163332001#t=articleMethods

Read the section on "Recruitment and Follow-up", which begins the selection process for the study with "[a]pproximately 160,000 men ranging in age from 45 to 64 years were invited to attend the clinics to assess their coronary risk factors."

Follow the logic through from there, via the 81,161 who appeared for the first visit, through the 20,914 who returned for the second visit, down to the final 6,595. I would suggest that, right from the start - where only 50% of those invited actually turned up - that there could be a significant element of self-selection happening, and that this self-selection would be substantially lifestyle-driven.

As in "I don't smoke, my blood pressure is normal, my parent both lived to a ripe old age, I don't see myself as being in the danger zone."

Hey, you could well be right, and I could be kidding myself. But I have tried statins, under doctor's orders, and their side effects on me convinced me to give them away. With my GP's - conditional - blessing.

Yuyutsu - I have nothing to say but ... *head-desk*

Pelican - I'm not being disingenuous, simply pointing out the bleeding obvious. What's the difference between a chemical if it's produced naturally or artificially?

Clownfish are you arguing that the chemicals in DDT are the same as the beneficial chemicals in brocolli? Chemicals are everywhere and they are not all harmful, everything is made up of chemicals, but you know very well the intent of my earlier post despite blustering protestations to the contrary.

There is a huge difference between chemicals that do harm and chemicals that are beneficial or neutral.

I am not sure of what your point is but there are numerous articles and programs by scientists that reveal the damaging effects of some chemicals that are causing harm to human and animal health; and to environments.

Clownfish

"Before you take your dog to your homeopathic 'vet' ..."

No need for the inverted commas. The vet in question is fully qualified. He just happens to have added homeopathy and acupuncture to his traditional qualifications. Why would he bother to do this? He lives in a high growth area where demand for vets is high. He didn't have to reinvent himself. The reason he looked to alternatives is that he was observing firsthand and with growing frustration the limitations of conventional treatment.

I had no personal experience with homeopathy until I visited this particular vet. I only did so after having witnessed the sad deterioration in my first dog and deciding there had to be a better way. I turned to the yellow pages and his was the only alternative veterinarian practice I could see. I actually had a strong degree of scepticism toward homeopathy at that particular point, but I was so disillusioned with what I'd experienced up to that time that I was willing to give him a try.

"Also, before you deride 'Big Pharma' (as they often deserve, I might add), you should also consider that Homeopathy is likewise a multi-billion dollar industry, only unlike 'Big Pharma', it is almost totally unregulated."

I'm not defending any multi-billion dollar industry. I'm defending the work of dedicated professionals whose knowledge of alternative treatments can and does make a valuable and legitimate contribution to the health of the nation. As I've already made clear, I'd treat any homeopathic concoction from Boots with the same degree of scepticism I'd apply to most bottled 'solutions' on their shelves.

unicornP

"This is information for Bronwyn which I am sure she will not bother with as she has her own anecdotal evidence so it must be real. It will be dismissed right away."

An arrogant and unwarranted assumption on your part.

" <<What is really happening, is that the vet who is using homeopathic remedies, is using his authoritative position to convince the animal owner that the animal being treated with homeopathy is getting better>>."

Again, another insulting and patronising assumption. My defence of this vet's treatment is based on hard cold evidence - things like ECGs, coughing, breathlessness, lethargy, fluid retention, etc. It is definitely not, as you so arrogantly assume, all in my head. Apart from the observable physical differences in my dog's health, the other way this vet impresses me is the time he takes to question me on all areas of my dog's life. His approach is holistic, caring and thorough, much more so than any other vet I've been to. The other thing I like is his cost effectiveness.

"... direct cut and paste for Bronwyn who I am sure is not interested in points of view."

I wouldn't read OLO if I wasn't interested in others' points of view. I am. But what speaks to me in this instance, far more effectively than the most persuasive of rhetoric, is the clear unambiguous state of my dog's health.

Sorry Clownfish it is you who is unable to read properly:
"When you dilute something as much as homeopaths do, then there is NOT ONE MOLECULE of the original substance left. It is not diluted: IT IS GONE."

And I am explaining to you, in words even YOU will understand, THAT NOT ALL HOMEOPATHS DILUTE THEIR SUBSTANCES IN WATER.

(I even used big words for your benefit)
I even recall explicitly stating that in some cases "the homeopath simply gives the patient a dose of the actual substance directly, or even in a tablet"
and that
"The practice is, essentially, nothing more than a primitive form of vaccination or drug therapy, on the basis of treating symptoms with symptom-catalysts in small doses to stimulate the immune system."
Both of these are stated as such on plenty of medical index sites.

So, to say it in a slightly different way: is that ANY treatment involving trying to relieve symptoms (runny nose) by administering small doses of the raw allergenic pathogen (things that cause a runny nose) to someone to stimulate their immune system, is essentially, a homeopathic treatment.

You anger is blinding you to the point of being unable to read properly it seems, which makes me wonder why you are even trying to discuss this topic?

King Hazza, I'm beginning to suspect that you don't know the first thing about homeopathy.

Nice try at sophistry, btw: 'Not all homeopaths dilute their substances in water', huh? So what do they dilute them in? Because whatever it is they dilute them in, that's all you have. Nothing else.

If they're *not* diluting them at all, then they're not homeopaths. Dilution by factors of hundred at a step is the foundational practice of homeopathy - they call it 'potentising'.

'the homeopath simply gives the patient a dose of the actual substance directly, or even in a tablet' - no they don't. They give them a dose of water, or whatever base it was that they diluted the original substance in. Time and again, it has been proven by simple chemistry and arithmetic that there is not a single molecule of the original substance left, once it has been 'potentised'.

On that basis alone, your analogy to vaccination fails completely.

'essentially, nothing more than a primitive form of vaccination or drug therapy, on the basis of treating symptoms with symptom-catalysts in small doses to stimulate the immune system.'

No it isn't. I'm sorry, but that's just so much bullsh!t. At best, homeopathy *apes* vaccination, but that's like saying believing that demons can possess one's body is a primitive form of psychiatry.

Homeopathy is founded on the primitive, magical belief that 'like cures like'.

'Homeopathy is a vitalist philosophy which interprets diseases and sickness as caused by disturbances in a hypothetical vital force or life force. It sees these disturbances as manifesting themselves as unique symptoms. Homeopathy maintains that the vital force has the ability to react and adapt to internal and external causes, which homeopaths refer to as the law of susceptibility. The law of susceptibility implies that a negative state of mind can attract hypothetical disease entities called miasms to invade the body and produce symptoms of diseases.'

Ahem... errr, Clownfish?

>>the homeopath simply gives the patient a dose of the actual substance directly, or even in a tablet' - no they don't. They give them a dose of water, or whatever base it was that they diluted the original substance in. Time and again, it has been proven by simple chemistry and arithmetic that there is not a single molecule of the original substance left, once it has been 'potentised'.<<

Excuse me for butting into your lively disagreement with King Hazza, but I'm afraid that he is perfectly correct.

They are called "remedies", by the way. And they frequently are delivered in tablet form - or, as the homeopath likes to call them, "pillules"

A simple Google search will unearth many examples - there's a whole page of 'em on eBay, would you believe - but here's just one example.

http://www.amazon.com/Ipecac-30C-Homeopathic-Pillules-60/dp/B003XKI4LG

What the heck - here's the eBay page.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Thuja-30C-Homeopathic-Pillules-x-60-Warts-Sarcoids-/180610806631?pt=UK_Health_Beauty_Natural_AlternativeTherapies&hash=item2a0d3e3367

If you are still in any doubt, ask a homeopath. Most of them are highly intelligent, and very articulate. Very few actually drag their knuckles along the ground.

Pericles, like King Hazza, you just don't get it. Have a look at the link you posted - the substance is 30C. For those of you who apparently understand neither homeopathy nor genuine chemistry, that means that:

'[a] patient would need to consume 10^41 pills (a billion times the mass of the Earth), or 10^34 gallons of liquid “remedy” (10 billion times the volume of the Earth) to consume a single molecule of the original substance. Moreover, since even in a 15C solution there would very likely be no molecules of the original substance left, the 30C solution would probably contain no molecules of water that had come into contact with the original substance.'

Please explain to me how a vial of water that contains not one molecule of the original substance, nor most likely a single molecule of water that has even been in contact with the original substance, is in any way, shape or form akin to vaccination?

As for Pelican, I'm arguing nothing of the sort: merely pointing out that blanket condemnation of 'chemicals' is just silly. As you acknowledge, 'chemicals are everywhere and they are not all harmful, everything is made up of chemicals'.

'There is a huge difference between chemicals that do harm and chemicals that are beneficial or neutral' - absolutely; I'm glad we're getting that far at least. So, your original statement regarding 'a healthy diet with as many freshly grown food (no chemicals)', is clearly nonsense.

All food is chemicals. Now we've established that some chemicals can be harmful, others beneficial: On what criteria do you distinguish the two?

'Natural' vs 'artificial', perhaps? Well, that won't do: many 'natural' substances are very harmful; many 'artificial' ones are extremely beneficial.

I'm curious to know now what chemicals are verboten in your healthy diet, and which aren't.

"Please explain to me how a vial of water that contains not one molecule of the original substance, nor most likely a single molecule of water that has even been in contact with the original substance, is in any way, shape or form akin to vaccination?"

No molecule of your brain is present here in this message, not even a molecule that has been in contact with your brain is present on my screen. Your message has gone through your keyboard, your computer, your home-network, outside cables, your ISP, more cables, my ISP, my computer, my screen, and over the thin air into my eyes: how could it possibly affect me if it contains no molecules? yet it does!

Such is the nature of information!

"everything is made up of chemicals"

Nowadays when physical science discovers a host of sub-atomic particles and a 10-dimensional string theory underlying our limited perception of its 3-dimensional shadow, isn't that a bit old-fashioned view?

'There is a huge difference between chemicals that do harm and chemicals that are beneficial or neutral' - absolutely; I'm glad we're getting that far at least. So, your original statement regarding 'a healthy diet with as many freshly grown food (no chemicals)', is clearly nonsense.

You are most certainly being disingenuous Clownfish. Clearly I was not talking about naturally occurring plant chemicals otherwise I would be dead not being able to survive purely on oxygen alone.

To make it simple for you I would eat a brocolli sprig from my own back garden but not one exposed to DDT (for example) or pathogens like E.Coli. Does that help in your comprehension or understanding?

Or is it more fun being obtuse?

For your further elucidation:

http://www.apvma.gov.au/publications/fact_sheets/docs/chemicals_food_safety.pdf

Clearly the governments can discern the difference.

Some groups think these exclusions do not go far enough - both those claims and the counterargument linked below:

http://www.wwf.org.au/publications/alistofaustraliasmostdangerouspesticides/

http://www.apvma.gov.au/news_media/our_view/2010/2010-09-17_dangerous_pesticides.php

Hi,
I am a Homeopath practicing in Canada. I have read the article and wanted to comment, hope U all take it in right spirit.
let us understand the following:
1] what made the author of this post and others think of doing this experiment?
2] was this experiment done to prove that Homeopathy does not act OR to genuinely know whether Homeopathy acts
3] are all those doing this, knowledged in Homeopathic system of medicine. do they know the principles and theory of this science?

first point - i think this was a half knowledge act; and others have just followed
and i am sure u all agree that half knowledge is dangerous. like it is said "In ROme do as Romans do", similarly in Homeopathy do the experiment as Homeopaths do, and that too under supervision of Experienced Homeopath. Then only such experiments will have some value.
i also feel it is waste of time to prove a medicine which has no side effect as having no effect. what big help it will be to the common man! it is better to take out time to tell people what dangerous side effects are taking place from use of other types of medicine.

second point - if the experiment was done to prove that Homeopathic medicines do not act then i believe it has some bad motive to spoil name of Homeopathy and IT IS NOT DONE FOR WELFARE OF people at large. reason mentioned is only a fasad to hide that motive.
- if the experiment was done to genuienly know whether Homeopathy acts then do it according to rules of Homeopahty. And i am sure there are many Experienced Homeopahts to help u do it. Anyone ready to volunteer for this! [to continue ...]

third point - it is essential to walk in the shoes of the person whom u want to mimik or criticize and then only u know where the shoe pinches. similarly it is necessary here that one should first understand the Homeopathic science and then and then only anyone has the right to comment on it.

so please do not get misled with mere talk. we in Homeopathy have seen miraculous with the same so called "placebo" medicines, and those who are not convinced, so be i, at least Homeopathy is not doing any HARM as others are doing.

Good luck to all and may you know the truth and experiment the truth and then act for or against. Long live Homeopathy

At various times in my life, for one reason or another, I have had to have teeth pulled. On one occasion the gum had to be surgically "peeled back". Each time the various dentists told me that I would suffer considerable pain for a few days afterwards.

Each time I took Anica 30C pills and had no pain whatsoever.
I have also recommended the same to my family, relatives and friends, including a Greek cleaning lady who could hardly speak any English. I gave it to her (with instructions) via her English speaking daughter who was also a cleaner where I was working at the time. The next day she was all thankful smiles - no pain.

Each and every time none of these people have suffered any pain.

Next time you or any of your relatives and friends have are going to have a tooth pulled out etc, why not try it and find out if Arnica 30C works or not. Even Arnica 6C is sufficient.

You can buy it at your local health food shop. Or order it in. You can also get it in drop (liquid) form. The Weleda range is easily available in Oz-land.

Oh no I am so convinced that homeopathic treatment is a science. I mean it is made from things that help cure us. I love anecdotal evidence, Homeopaths sell a scam even to themselves. Richard Dawkins has proven that it does not work and James Ranidi has a offer of money for those who can bring him proof and evidence that it does. Maybe Brownyn would do a great thing for her vet and where they get their stuff from if she raised the offer of money by James Randi.

Here is a link: http://www.deal24.co.uk/search/result/query/star+wars+room+wallpaper/

I am sure it will be ignored or not followed up by Brownwyn.

Also to the homeopath in Canada follow that link maybe you can pocket yourself some extra money to then out back into your business to then help more people. I am sure none of the people who profess to the wondrous homeopaths or the like will take up the challenge they will just stick with well I know it works and just use circumstantial or anecdotal evidence. Good luck would be interested in the the results as I am sure the whole world is.

Actually Clownfish you will find that dilution too is variable and not always set to the 30C, and mostly a matter where the homeopath varyingly designates only the minimum dose required to trigger a reaction in the patient (although the popular theory that greater dilution makes stronger medicine is indeed contestable).

Sorry Pericles, I didn't realise (or maybe I missed it?) that you had no other medical problems to add to your' high cholesterol.
I agree that if all you have is a cholesterol problem, then you shouldn't take statins as a general rule.

Good luck with keeping the other problems at bay :)

There are good and bad homeopaths, just as there are good and bad in any other occupation.

Having watched homeopaths make up a 'natural' concoction in front of me though Clownfish, I can assure you that it wasn't just water I was given!

Do you know what they call alternative medicine that works?

Medicine.

From my favourite beat poem:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujUQn0HhGEk&feature=fvst

So many fools, so little space ...

Yuyutsu - I'll remove the desk from my forehead briefly, to observe that your analogy is simply beyond ridiculous. You're seriously comparing the most advanced information network in human history to ... a bottle of water?

Pelican - so 'naturally occurring plant chemicals' are okay? Does this include, perhaps, pyrethrum? Rotenone? Foxglove? Belladonna? All naturally occurring plant chemicals or plants. Chow down, pal!

Ho Hum, didn't you read my comment about 30C dilutions? When you take your 30C 'Arnica' pills, you're not getting a single molecule of arnica. All you're getting is sugar. Any painkilling is purely in your own mind.

King Hazza, once again you seem to display your ignorance of what homeopathy actually is.

'You will find that dilution too is variable and not always set to the 30C'.

The high priest of homeopathy, Hanneman himself, recommended 30C as a matter of course, but even a smaller dilution of 12C is 'equivalent to a pinch of salt in the Atlantic Ocean'. Wow, strong stuff!

Of course, you say, the homeopath varies the 'dose' to suit the patient? Perhaps they use 'constition types' to determine the matter?

Perhaps you're a Pulsatilla type: 'often fair color in hair and skin and eyes. Sensitive and emotional, easily brought to tears of joy or sympathy. Pulsatilla people find they feel better with sympathy and fresh air.'

An Arsen. Alb. Type? 'Usually thin or slim. Often well groomed and stylish. Fine facial features with fine, delicate skin. Frown lines can appear on the forehead.'

Ignatia Type? 'Slim build. Prone to dark circles under eyes. Expression may be tired and drawn and may also suffer from involuntary twitches of mouth or eyes. Dry lips. Dark to mid range colour hair. Sighs a lot.'

If you think I'm making this rubbish up, to make homeopathy look silly, well, sorry, but this is taken verbatim from a homeopathy guide.

You can't make something that dumb up.

Clownfish

"Pelican - so 'naturally occurring plant chemicals' are okay? Does this include, perhaps, pyrethrum? Rotenone? Foxglove? Belladonna? All naturally occurring plant chemicals or plants. Chow down, pal!"

Do you think they are okay? Do you seriously think I would be chowing down on Foxglove or Oleander? Do you think that is what I inferred?
I see you have ignored the list of dangerous chemicals in the previous links.

You are still being disingenuous but I don't expect you to own it, better just to keep blundering on about the difference between good and bad 'natural' chemicals. Chances are you will avoid the point made about pesticides and other introduced contaminants in some of the food we eat.

Good luck chowing down on some DDT pal.

However, I have only myself to blame in assuming a certain level of ability in the readership. Let me rephrase for you - "harmful chemicals". That is harmful to human health or to environments (which ultimately affects human health). Simple enough for you.

Divert the intent in my post by all means, it is always an individual choice to be an ostrich or an informed consumer.

Clownfish- so?
Hanneman lived during the 19th century where absolutely no medical knowledge except basic surgery and magic were known, and could only make sense of the need for diluting the pathogen to make it manageable for a sick patient-

If someone were to approach a modern homeopath that were still following Hanneman's practice of expecting a .00001% of a gram of substance in a fluid of supposedly augmented water would help their immune system, that should be their fault and their right as a consumer to try as an alternative treatment
-which of course is the tradeoff- either homeopathic drugs that are too mild to do anything- or conventional drugs that are more than potent at fixing the problem, but may be too potent for some bodies to handle (and believe me, cutting a tiny pill into tinier but somewhat equal fragments to match a fitting dosage per-interval isn't exactly the easiest thing to- and understandably many people would get the impression that this being the case- their own bodies are mild enough for even a diluted substance to have an effect on).

King Hazza, I'm not sure how you managed to keep a straight face with your last reply, or is it straight-out cognitive dissonance?

'If someone were to approach a modern homeopath that were still following Hanneman's practice of expecting a .00001% of a gram of substance in a fluid of supposedly augmented water would help their immune system, that should be their fault'.

Which is exactly what homeopaths *do*. That's their whole schtick in a nutshell, and, as you unwittingly concede, it's nonsense.

Well, Pelican, as it seems you're having trouble following where I'm going, here it is plainly: what I'm pointing out is that your chemophobia is irrational and nonsensical.

You deride 'chemicals' in food. I point out that food *is* chemicals, so you instead dodge around, arguing that man-made chemicals are harmful, while naturally occurring plant-based chemicals are fine and dandy.

You then get stroppy when I list just a few of the harmful naturally occurring plant-based chemicals, which makes a nonsense of your irrational dichotomy between 'natural' and 'introduced' chemicals.

The truth is that blanket labelling pesticides as bad is foolish and uninformed. In fact, you have more to fear from the natural chemicals found in nearly all plant-based foods than you do from synthetic pesticides. Which in both cases, is pretty much nothing to fear at all.

So put the organic broccoli down and get over your silly chemophobia.

Let's leave the last word to researcher Bruce Ames:

'The effort to eliminate synthetic pesticides because of unsubstantiated fears about residues in food will makefruits and vegetables more expensive, decrease consumption, and thus increase cancer rates. The levels of synthetic pesticide residues are trivial in comparison to *natural chemicals* [my emphasis], and thus their potential for cancer causation is extremely low.'

Except that they don't Clownfish- many do in fact set different potencies and reduced dilutions to suit patients' capacity.
http://abchomeopathy.com/help/potency.htm

Again, for some with low substance thresholds, it's either waste money on that stuff, hope there is a low-potency mainstream alternative, or again, divide a normal tablet with a kitchen knife and remember to take the fragments at the intervals.

King Hazza, I'm not sure you even read your link. If you did, you'd notice that it not only follows the stupid homeopathic fallacy of believing that the more diluted something is, the more potent it is, but also that they recommend 30C or 200C dilutions as a matter of course.

Even their 'low potency dilutions' are so diluted as to approach the allowable levels of lethal poisons in drinking water.

Thank you for proving my point, however unwittingly.

Clownfish now you are just twisting my words ignoring the spirit and context in which they were posted ie. stirring the pot for some unknown pro-chemical agenda no doubt - not sure, your intention is not clear.

Yes, I am to blame for assuming a level of intellect in the readership. My fault entirely.

I believe most people would discern I was talking about 'harmful' chemicals but you can still choose to play dumb and act the martyr as much as you wish. You probably prefer to play word games and one does tend to get stroppy in the presence of intentional misconstruction.

It is completely up to you - you can choose to be an informed consumer or not - completely your choice, all the information is out there.

dear All,
again there is so much point less discussion.

those who don't believe should test and experiment on themselves under guidance of an experienced Homeopath. and that too in the potency which he/she does not believe in / and / it should be very clear and end this waste of time.
like, "proof of the puding is in tasting it"

Homeopathy acts and that is sure.
Anyone saying against it will not make it stop acting.

Yes, lets shelve the pointless discussion and watch some light entertainment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0

Wow, that's strong stuff.

Dear Akshay,

"Homeopathy acts and that is sure.
Anyone saying against it will not make it stop acting."

I'm afraid that a leading homeopath has told me otherwise:

Nobody can force you to cure.

A chemical medicine can force itself on the body by brute force, creating the desired effect (but then it will not actually heal because the person was not involved, it would only remove the symptoms temporarily and push the disease further deeper into the future), but a homeopathic remedy works by sending a subtle message to the brain/body/spirit. One is always at choice to refuse that message, to shut their ears to it, and then it will not work. Belief is not necessary - being sceptic while allowing the possibility of the remedy working is sufficient, but actively rejecting it will void any remedy.

The King (Hazza) has spoken therefore it must be so!

Which of course, Yuyutsu, is exactly how a placebo works.

The mistake is dismissing the placebo effect as not being real. It is certainly real, but is very difficult to pin down and not many research organistations will fund study of the effect in and of itself.

I think you all should read Bad Science by Ben Goldacre (especially anyone who is a sceptic), it will give a great insight into the marvellous things that the placebo effect can do.

For instance did you know that just by changing the colour of the pills or capsules that the efficacy of a particular drug can change? Weird huh?

And this one: did you know that a great many Naturopathic/Homeopathic medicines and vitamins etc sold are actually produced by the large pharmaceutical companies? They don't really care of you don't believe in the efficiacy of their drugs or not. They get your money either way, and the profit margins on homeopathic treatments are far higher.

After all, most of them are just water.

Bugsy,

How can a placebo work on babies or on the elderly or on a sleeping patient who are not even aware that they received it? The requirement for homeopathic remedies is only that one does not actively resist it.

I do have great reservations about the sell of homeopathic "medicines" by large pharmaceutical companies. These are indeed probably nothing but placebos and as you say, most of them are just water - unqualified water (or sugar or alcohol).

As I see it, the best homeopathic remedies (not "medicines") carry with them the love of the doctor that prepared them, where the specific essence being used, though probably chemically absent by now due to potentisation, helps to concentrate and focus that love in a particular direction. They are best given by hand from the same doctor. It is of course hopeless to try to explain this to someone who does not believe in love, only in chemistry.

Such people who do not believe in anything but chemistry would deny any non-chemcial qualification, not just homeopathy. For example, they would deny the "holiness" property of water taken from the Jordan river, which is special to most Christians. Such people would be happy, if given the opportunity, to cheat and sell ordinary local water for "Jordan-river water" with great profit (an interesting question is whether you believe this should be considered legally criminal even if you believe there is "no difference"), so such people would similarly refuse to recognize the quality of the doctor's love present in his/her remedies. I could not trust such anonymous, heartless big companies to be on the straight and narrow in that regard, nor do I know what kind of doctor they employed in the first place and what is his/her capacity to love, that is if they had a human doctor there in the first place and not just machines.

Clownfish (and Ho Hum)
It doesn't change the fact that this source backs up my claim that homeopaths still adjust dosages to the alleged minimum required to suit patients, and increase or decrease dilution to match sensitivity to medicines.

I don't really know why you are getting so bent out of shape about this, I'm merely pointing out some simple points, still without actually endorsing the practice at all.

Actually, King Hazza, your original claim (which I admit we have somewhat wandered from - the sheer lunacy of homeopathy offers so many tempting side paths of crazy) was that homeopathy was a primitive form of vaccination. This is most certainly bunkum.

Vaccination basically works by exposing the immune system to a small dose of a pathogen to stimulate an immune response.

Homeopathy does not, nor has ever, operated on such a premise. In fact, homeopathy often actively denies the germ theory of disease. Homeopathy is predicated on the belief that substances that mimic the symptoms of a disease are capable of curing it.

Homeopaths don't adjust dosages to suit patients: that would imply some sort of evidence-based approach, which homeopathy entirely lacks. Homeopaths dilute substances, usually beyond the point of actually being present, to satisfy a nonsensical magical formula, including among other things, the crazy notion of 'constitution types'.

Yuyutsu, I can see where you're heading, so a little heads-up: Masaru Emoto has been comprehensively debunked. 'Focusing love' on a substance makes no difference to its chemistry.

Pelican, if my intention is not clear to you by now, there's not a lot of hope (I stated it clearly in my last post). Just admit it: you draw an irrational divide between naturally occurring chemicals (good) and human-introduced chemicals (bad).

I have no 'pro-chemical agenda' (you mean you're *against* chemicals? All of them? :p ), I have a pro-evidence agenda. As you urge, I *do* choose to be an informed consumer - and the science-based information is that, contrary to your claims, pesticides are not all intrinsically harmful, nor are all naturally occurring plant-based chemicals beneficial.

It would seem that the ill-informed consumer is yourself. Your original statement, 'freshly grown food (no chemicals)' is still nonsense.

Looking back, I've also just noticed your reference to 'high voltage power lines': apparently we can add electrophobia to chemophobia on your shopping list of irrationalities.

You do know that there is no evidence (the claims of the usual quacks notwithstanding) that high voltage power lines have any adverse affect on human health?

Oops, slight point of correction to my last sentence. It *should* read:

'You do know that there is no evidence (the claims of the usual quacks notwithstanding) that *EMF from* high voltage power lines have any adverse affect on human health?'

Obviously if one were to, say, whizz on a high voltage power line, the adverse affect on one's health would be immediate and probably quite spectacular.

Clownfish,

Have I ever claimed anywhere that love changes chemistry?

All I said, is that water (or alcohol, sugar, etc.) can be qualified by the fact of having been instilled with love by a homeopathic doctor who used some specific tincture in the process.

This is no different than claiming, for example, that a bottle of water is qualified "by having been in the Jordan river (and in no other water-body since)". I suppose you would be one of those who would find nothing wrong with cheating and replacing that bottle with ordinary water so long as the chemistry is the same.

Obviously, the claim that the water is qualified is not identical with the claim that it is chemically-qualified (another simple example of non-chemical qualification would be heating/cooling). There is more information there, other than in the water's chemical structure, but then if one is colour-blind one also thinks that two pictures are identical only because they look exactly the same to them even while others see different colours in those pictures.

True to a reasonable extent Clownfish

"Vaccination basically works by exposing the immune system to a small dose of a pathogen to stimulate an immune response.
Homeopathy does not, nor has ever, operated on such a premise.
In fact, homeopathy often actively denies the germ theory of disease. Homeopathy is predicated on the belief that substances that mimic the symptoms of a disease are capable of curing it."

It does and it does not: It followed the premise that exposure to the pathogen in small doses would help the immune system build up (which in itself is quite true- minus they had no idea why)- except that, exactly like you said, they assumed that whatever would cause symptoms would be the same sickness, and assumed only that an altered dose of hayfever tablet would cure it's more serious cousin, the flu.

-
"Homeopaths don't adjust dosages to suit patients: that would imply some sort of evidence-based approach, which homeopathy entirely lacks. Homeopaths dilute substances, usually beyond the point of actually being present, to satisfy a nonsensical magical formula, including among other things, the crazy notion of 'constitution types'."

They do cater dosages- but it's mainly based on old-fashioned, crude measurements and assumptions based on symptoms. As such, they view the severity of the symptoms, guess the fragility of the patient and diagnose entirely based on that and a few other considerations that only made sense back in the 1800s.

Now, King Hazza, there you go taking all the fun out of it! We're almost in agreement :(

Yuyutsu, sadly I cannot say the same, mostly because your answers almost no sense at all.

How can water be 'instilled with love'? What mechanism can you put forward for any such thing to happen? What evidence do you have that any such thing *can* happen? (no anecdotes, please: real evidence only).

What do you mean by 'qualified'? The only sense that I can think of is, 'modified, limited, or restricted in some way' (however, although this sense does include 'modified', it's not in the usual sense of merely being changed, but in a specific sense of being restricted or limited).

How can water carry information? What physical mechanism do you propose for it do so?

Clownfish you can accept you were being disingenuous in not taking my meaning about (harmful) chemicals in the food chain or you can continue to play game of semantics.

You know it, I know it, it is transparent. As I said you can choose to be an informed consumer or not - simply it is your choice. I have given you the links above to start you off on your journey of exploration and learning.

Are we having fun yet?

Clownfish,

I am not aiming for agreement: all I aim for is respect, which ultimately means to prevent the government, acting as an agent of the AMA, from prohibiting spiritual practices and life choices on the supposed grounds that they are "not scientific".

How can water be instilled with love? isn't the fact that someone in the past instilled them with love sufficient? in other words, that someone performed a procedure with that water and with a loving intention?

You see, the past of an object, its timeline, is a physical part of it: even if there are no discernable differences in an object's 3-dimensional appearance, there still are differences in the 4th dimension - Time. How many more possibilities exist then when frontier science discusses the presence of 10 dimensions, where matter is connected by invisible strings.

Though I do not propose to claim to know how it works, or how exactly is the information carried, still apples used to fall from trees also before Newton's times.

The question is whether or not you accept that differences in the Time-dimension are material. For example: suppose by some fluke of nature 2 babies are born to two sets of parents at the same hospital at the same time and have exactly the same set of genes. They look like identical twins, but they are not. Would it be right by your standards for the doctor to tell the mother: "just take any of them at random, they are exactly the same - after all, the fact that one baby came from your womb and the other did not is only a matter of history and therefore immaterial"?

Or suppose you kept your teddy-bear since you were small. Would it be right for someone to replace it with someone else's teddy-bear that looks and smells exactly the same? Wasn't the reason you kept that bear that it was YOUR childhood-teddy-bear, not just any teddy-bear? Is this reason illegitimate? Does it give grounds for the government to forbid you to keep your bear?

(continued...)

(...continued)

'Qualified' simply means that it has a quality, an attribute, an adjective if you like. The fact of having been somewhere at a certain time, or of having had some procedure done to it in the past, is a perfect case of qualification. It restricts for example the possibility of the object in question being in a different place at that time.

Homeopathy does not stand on its own - it is a part of a way of life, of a spiritual approach to life, of a philosophy that looks beyond the materialistic single-life-span approach, taking a longer-term approach where one's current body, though of importance, is not everything. This is opposed to conventional medicine which offers quick fixes, but often at the expense of the longer-term spiritual well-being, which means that illness will sooner-or-later need to be revisited, if not in this lifetime then in a subsequent one. Call this even a religion if you like, although no deities are necessarily involved.

If you do not recognize the spiritual, or anything beyond the physical/material, or care not for it, then indeed there is no sense for you to turn to homeopathy. I think that people who try to convince you to use homeopathy without the accompanying perspective may mean well, but are in the wrong. It is your choice whether you prefer an immediate fix or a more painful but enduring one. Similarly, I think that the purpose of Chrys Stevenson and his like in writing this article, is not to promote science, but to promote religious persecution.

Well, Yuyutsu, that's an interesting new meaning of the word 'qualified' that you've made up out of thin air. I'm reminded of Humpty Dumpty: 'When *I* use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less'.

Still, why stick with appending new or erroneous meanings to existing words, when you can make up your own? Worked for Shakespeare.

For instance, yours is a prime case of what I call 'Sci-co babble', a fun little term of my own devising, similar to the term 'psychobable'.

Essentially it means: 'using jargon, buzzwords and highly esoteric language to give an impression of plausibility through mystification, misdirection, and obfuscation. The term implies that the speaker of sci-co babble lacks the experience and understanding necessary for proper use of a given scientific term'.

Which is exactly what your last two replies consisted of - lots of scientific terms, used with no apparent understanding of what they actually mean, and with no relevance to the topic at hand.

Interestingly, though, you unwittingly give the game away by (in a rather circular way) admitting that homeopathy has no evidence, no validity and no genuine medical value, because it is not medicine, it is mysticism.

Calling homeopathy out as pseudo-scientific quackery is not 'religious persecution', though, it's consumer protection.

Finally, Pelican: you just can't admit that your statement revealed an uninformed, irrational chemophobia, can you? Of course there are harmful chemicals, but that's not what you said, is it?

What you originally implied, and later clarified abundantly, is that you consider all non 'naturally occurring' chemicals used in food production to be harmful. Which is patent nonsense.

Basically Clownfish;
The principles of stimulating the immune system with diluted pathogens is perfectly sound, but the methodology of achieving this is completely insubstantiated;
And evidence to success (mainly Swiss studies), at best points to about a half or quarter of Swiss patients in the survey- which is made more difficult to gauge as, either way, their own immune system was ultimately responsible for their recovery.

Nonetheless, I can't say I would oppose over-the-counter homeopathy drugs being permitted- labelled as a water-solution, and as un-confirmed medicine.
For the main reason is aside from the principles of letting patients shop around for whatever options are possible, is that market forces might highlight various treatments that patients would sooner drink "magic water" than undergo more clearly, and as a result help medical researchers identify which areas of treatment need to be looked into (or institutions put more funding into research).

As it is, people suffering from cancer aren't exactly spoiled for choice- with only a few drugs available, their only real options are to either have the cancerous part surgically removed (at the moment, the best option by far), or undergo chemotherapy- (or refuse both and let the cancer remain). For them I'd say if they want to take a shot at homeopathic drugs, there really isn't any reason why they should not.

I'm actually with you there Hazza, I also think terminally ill patients should be able to choose the manner of their death.

Clownfish
"Finally, Pelican: you just can't admit that your statement revealed an uninformed, irrational chemophobia, can you? Of course there are harmful chemicals, but that's not what you said, is it?"

Your claim that I have an irrational chemophobia is just wrong and you know it - you are continuing a game of semantics. Clearly anyone with a skerrick of brain matter who is aware of my posting history would know I would not give the same status to DDT as I would to a naturally occuring plant chemical that does no harm. The key here is 'harm'.

I did not use the term "harmful chemical" but I assumed the readership had an intellectual capacity that would discern my intent. Clearly in that I was wrong - you have my apology for that.

One very good reason, King Hazza: you can get water from the tap pretty much for free; why pay substantial amounts of money to a quack who believes in 18th century mysticism, for water?

Oh, and Yuyutsu, I was heartily amused by your statement about 'matter is connected by invisible strings'. Is that your understanding of string theory? How quaint ... but wrong.

String theory, in essence, hypothesizes that different elementary particles are in fact manifestations of 1-dimensional 'strings' vibrating in 10 or more dimensions.

Modern vaccinations do not actually expose the person to any pathogens. The immune system kills viruses by destroying their protein coat, and modern vaccines generally contain proteins either the same or similar to the protein coat, and contains non of the actual pathogen.

Clownfish,

Mockery and language-righteousness are no substitute for facing the actual issues. I believe that my question was clear enough, but it seems that you pick on the word "qualified" just as you picked on "chemical" with Pelican.

My proposition is that the Past, an object's timeline, its history, is one of its qualities and is valid as any other physical quality. So far you have evaded stating whether or not you accept this idea, or whether otherwise it is fine by you to freely swap Jordan-waters, identical-babies, or teddy-bears.

The 10-dimensional space adds myriads of other possibilities for hidden physical attributes of matter, where information can be stored even while all molecules of a tincture have gone, but let that alone for now, how about answering whether or not you accept Time/History as an attribute?

Homeopathy is indeed not medicine in the sense that a medicine DOES something to a patient, who is often passive about it, whereas homeopathy tries to enlist the patients own will and resources. Since free will is involved, no scientific evidence can be drawn.

So calling homeopathy "non-scientific" is fine (but not being scientific does not imply that something does not work), and if someone presents it as such, then indeed consumer protection is called for. I am however convinced that the author and his like would not stop at innocent consumer-protection and their real intent is to prohibit the practice of homeopathy as a matter of religion-bashing, drive it to the underground, and throw those who are found practicing it to the lions (what a healthy prospect indeed!)

Clownfish
"One very good reason, King Hazza: you can get water from the tap pretty much for free; why pay substantial amounts of money to a quack who believes in 18th century mysticism, for water?"
To be honest it's not very hard to get your hands on most of the substances they dilute in the water either.

Except the Twenty million-dollar duck: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/970217/archive_006221.htm

Yuyutsu, you employ lots of scientific terms, but you don't seem to actually understand any of them. In many respects, reading your posts is like listening to that grand sham, Deequack Chopra, rabbiting on about quantum physics and other such things he clearly knows nothing about.

Your argument about 'timelines' and 'history' is not a winner for you, you do realise?

In the case of a homeopathic 'remedy', its history is that, over time, any trace of anything other than water (or, in the case of a pill, sugar) has been completely and utterly removed. Therefore, any effect the original substance may or may not have had is completely erased. There is no other mechanism by which it can possibly have any effect. Claims about 'water memory' are absurd on simple logic alone, and have been utterly debunked experimentally.

Using babies or suchlike as an analogy is absurd and irrelevant: 'identical' babies are anything but, being exceptionally complex organisms. One molecule of a given element or compound, however, is to all intents and purposes exactly the same as another.

Your claims about string theory are likewise utterly foolish. The 10 dimensions you seem to have vaguely heard of are relevant only to strings themselves.

You also try to have the typical woo's each-way bet: you claim your particular slice of crazy really works, but in the same breath assert that it cannot be tested.

Either it works or it doesn't. If it works, it can be tested, and there will be evidence to show that it works. If the evidence shows that it doesn't, then it doesn't work.

It's not that hard to grasp, is it?