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