barbc56 said:
I'm a bit confused here. What is your definition of homeopathy?
The definition is not mine.
Simply read how homeopathic dilutions work. For example here.
http://homeopathyplus.com.au/tutorial-4-three-scales-of-potency/
The process doesn't necessarily imply that the active substance disappears out of existence.
This argument is usually brought up by critics to say that there's not even a single molecule of the original principle. In that case we're talking about remedies with a dilution > C12 or D24, a subset of the many dilutions available.
Science, however, is a work-in-progress, it's never "done". What we know about anything is absolutely temporary and often imprecise or entirely wrong. The process of science is to continuously refine and correct what we already know and explore new territories.
Until a few years ago the idea of "memory of water" proposed by homeopathy was deemed preposterous. Now with more sophisticated instruments (and new studies) we're learning that we might have been wrong. Water is a simple, yet extremely advanced molecule with astounding properties, many of which science is still investigating.
Studies are now showing that water has "memory" of ultra-high diluted substances.
See my previous post:
http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...anything-report-says.36169/page-3#post-571641
See this one also:
http://www.britishhomeopathic.org/how-does-homeopathy-work/
I would certainly be open to looking at any studies if you post them.
The list would be very long. If you're interested you should probably do some reaserch on the web. In any case I have kept a few links in my browser:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11212085
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23622262
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23714686
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/12/S1/P223
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9708713
The problem with those who take a radical position against homeopathy is that
they need that each and every positive study must be wrong or must have methodological flaws. This no longer science, it's just the most basic form of prejudice and it won't take us anywhere.
Many of the negative studies / meta-analyses often cited by critics also have methodological problems, which are typically glossed over.
It goes without saying that we could similarly cherry pick hundreds of negative studies for anti-depressants, cancer cures, you-name-it, and generalize that the whole field of medicine is worthless.
I don't find this very productive.
I'm not sure how any money wasted on the Tamiflu "scam" is related to the homeopathy "scam".
Put in perspective, the amount spent by governments in homeopathic research is ultra-highly diluted
The amount of money wasted in medicine thanks to bad practices, useless drugs and corruption is insanely larger than the bread crumbs that homeopathy gets.
The whole TamiFlu / Relenza scam costed the UK government over 600 Million pounds, which roughly corresponds to what homeopathy research gets in 600 years!
Which IMHO, is still too much if you consider all the studies already done on homeopathy. It would be nice if that money was spent on our condition instead.
Please go on PubMed and search for homeopathy. You will get approximately 5000 entries.
Now search for a relatively popular prescription drug. E.g. Lexapro --> 5300 studies
Now search for Vitamin C ---> 53000 studies
Basically the amount of studies for the whole field of homeopathy is less than those for one, single prescription drug and 1/10th of a commonly used vitamin.
It seems to me that a double standard is being applied.