Homeopathy "not good for anything" report says

[Violeta]

Pharmaceutical politics. No use wasting your time trying to debate against it.

 

[barbc56]

A spokesperson for Australian Homeopathic Association has released a statement today conceding that they are “baffled” by the concept of cordial.
“It just doesn’t add up,” says AHA spokesperson James Douglas, “the more water you put in, the more it tastes like water, at 1 part cordial to 10,000 parts water, it tastes indistinguishable from water and nothing like the ‘super cordial’ we anticipated.”

I just reread the last few pages of this thread.

Evidently, I forgot to say thank you for the website. I always enjoy new reading material while drinking my morning tea and I've been reading it off and on since you posted. I now have so much reading material bookmarked, I rotate them. Unless it's one of those days which is about every other day lately or I'm in denial about other things I really should be doing.

I do not take mine diluted!

I like my tea strong, lots of sugar and milk. Isn't that the way the British drink theirs? Maybe some other countries?

Sorry, didn't mean to get off topic.

Barb

 

[barbc56]

Pharmaceutical politics. No use wasting your time trying to debate against it.

Hi Violeta! I'm a bit confused about this comment. I think I know what you are saying but would you mind elaborating?

Thanks

Barb

 

[skipskip30]

Just to mention, homeopathy does not depend on "molecules" for its effectiveness. It's based on vibrational frequencies, so it doesn't matter (to those who believe in homeopathy and/or vibrational medicine) whether there are any original molecules left in a preparation.

I find it interesting that so many people cannot imagine vibrational frequencies being able to work, but have no problem believing prayer, meditation, and/or other forms of spiritual endeavor do. It may have to do with varying degrees of sensitivities people experience. Perhaps the more aware people are of energies in their environment, the more likely they are to believe in the efficacy of homeopathy. Though I'm not Jewish, I myself like to tune into the uplifting energies in the air during the fasting day of Yom Kippur.

What about vibrations from music, or sound, or colors, or even love? Certain music relaxes me and I experience it as being very healing and therapeutic. I’ve noticed that bright red colors (cars) actually make me cringe in the pit of my stomach and temporarily make me feel ill. And I believe a huge reason many people prefer "home cooking" is because of the love that goes into the food by the preparers (usually the mothers). None of these experiences are based on molecules.

I’ve heard about people who’ve used vibrational and energetic principles to recover from CFS. But they just go back to their normal lives, and choose not to set themselves up for ridicule on an online forum. Whether a person believes in homeopathy or any thing else, I think it's incumbent on us to not be overly critical of their beliefs, as it often parallels their own spiritual experiences and orientations.

Why then have no proper double blind studies found that homeopathy has any effect at all beyond placebo? Im open to anything but once you have a mountain of good evidence saying something doesn't work its time to start listening. I realise you will just label me as another closed minded denier but it really is just maddening sometimes to read this stuff.

Frankly it starts to get insulting that we seem to be pitied and looked down on because we cant open our minds to the possibilities when in fact we have made a logical evidence based choice based on hard reliable data.

 

[Woolie]

@Wayne, I'm sympathetic with your view. Some people might like to explore all sorts of things, see if they work. Keep the hope up. Others might prefer to try only those things that have been validated to work in systematic studies. Its a personal choice.

I have tried some things for which there's not a lot of evidence, and the experience crushed me a little, because I had read some very persuasive that it would work. So for me, I have had enough of hope that is crushed when reality kicks in, and now I want some validation before I wade in. I am mad about some of the claims that were made to me along the way that turned out not to be true, so feel pretty strongly that people should not make idle promises until there's lots of strong evidence. But other people might take an entirely different view, and keep pressing on, trying new things. For them, keeping their hopes up may be worth more to them than the odd disappointment.

If you want my view on whether homeopathy works it would be "probably not" based on the studies out there. But if you want my view about people who want to try it, I'd say "Go for it!" Just don't give away a fortune until you know for sure it works for you.

Still, the other things you mention - home cooking made with love, music, colours, sound even better to me, and are much cheaper!

 

[SOC]

For me, a lot of this kind of thing gets down to integrity in the presentation of the evidence base. If people were honest in saying that their treatment is based on mind-body philosophies, belief systems, placebo effect, and other mental or psychological factors and that it seems to work for some people based on anecdotal evidence, I would be fine with that. Let patients decide for themselves whether they buy into those philosophies, believe the anecdotal evidence, and/or are willing to take a chance on the therapy. Freedom of choice.

Where I draw the line is when advocates for various therapies try to present them as scientific without a logical scientific basis or solid scientific research to back it up. They are not being honest about what they are asking patients to pay them for. If they believe in their therapy, they should be honest about it and present it for what it is.

The memory of water, for example, has absolutely no scientific basis theoretically or in research. It is at best a theoretical construct, a theory about some possibility that doesn't fit any current scientific paradigm. It might be true if we discover something that significantly alters our understanding of basic science. Such things have happened. If sellers want to be clear that their therapy is based on an unsubstantiated theory not scientific fact, and someone chooses to believe the theory and try the therapy, no harm done (assuming the therapy is not dangerous).

I take Equilibrant. I know there are no double-blinded placebo-controlled studies confirming it's efficacy in ME/CFS. The manufacturers don't claim it is a magical cure, nor have they manufactured fake scientific studies making unrealistic claims. IMO they are honest about what they have -- a product based on a limited understanding of certain herbal products which appear to have been of some benefit to ME/CFS patients. My specialist has seen it to be effective in some limited situations and suggested I try it to see if it worked for me. No "if it doesn't work you're not doing it right", or "if it's not working, you just need to keep taking it on faith" or "this product cures ME, MS, cancer, hemorrhoids, male pattern baldness, and death, trust us". Just "give it a try and see if it helps". A short trial didn't break the bank, require me to suffer, or ask me to do something patently ridiculous. I could look at what I was being offered, listen to the experience of someone I know and trust, and make a well-informed decision about what to do.

So I'm not ready to make unproven (scientifically) therapies illegal as long as they are reasonably safe and the sellers of such therapies are honest about the basis of the treatment. Lying to people about the scientific validity of treatments should be illegal, however. It prevents people from being able to make well-informed decisions. It's essentially stealing from people. It's fraud, imo.

 

[Wayne]

I realise you will just label me as another closed minded denier but it really is just maddening sometimes to read this stuff. ......... Frankly it starts to get insulting that we seem to be pitied and looked down on because we cant open our minds...

Hi @skipskip30,

I have to say, it was rather stunning to wake up to your above comments this morning. My first thought was, “Who is this?” Who would make such strong–even strident–statements regarding how they “realise” I will label them? Where in the world is that coming from? Is this somebody who’s been fuming about my posts for a long time, and decided to finally do a vent about some of my perspectives?

Since it generally takes me most of the day to become somewhat coherent, I didn’t look into who you were until this evening. I discovered you’re new here on this forum, having been here for less than a month. So I doubt it’s been a culmination of my posts that got you so upset. Instead, it was mostly likely the post on this thread you highlighted.

I don’t know whether you’ll believe this, but I can assure you I do not consider those who think differently than me–on homeopathy or any other matter–to be close minded, or pitied, or to be looked down on. I consider myself to be very tolerant and respectful of other’s points of view on just about any topic. To each their own is my philosophy. So, I’m sorry if you felt offended by my post–it was never my intent to insult you or anybody else.

You might be surprised to know that I’ve never had much success with homeopathy. A general pattern is that just about every remedy I've tried stirred things up for me for a while--even somewhat intensely–with up and down cycles for a few days, only to eventually settle in at my previous status quo. But I do know that for me it has the power to stir things up. So it’s relatively easy for me to believe the testimonials of others who say it’s stirred things up for them, and left them better off as a result. – Just my take.
-
Regarding your introductory post entitled, 22 years of feeling awful. I didn’t see it when you first posted it, but would like to welcome you to the PR forum. I hope the consultant you have in mind to see works well for you.

All the Best, Wayne

 

[Misfit Toy]

I don't know how anyone could say homeopathy is like a placebo. If it's a placebo, I'll tell you it's made me sicker than any other medicine out there.

I remember being on it back in 2003 and having diarrhea profusely. I was so sick I lost so much weight due to the homeopathic tincture.

According to the person who prescribed it, it was doing its job and detoxing me. I remember telling her, "No, it's killing me."

Off of it I went. Homeopathy makes me green.

 

[Snow Leopard]

The memory of water, for example, has absolutely no scientific basis theoretically or in research. It is at best a theoretical construct, a theory about some possibility that doesn't fit any current scientific paradigm. It might be true if we discover something that significantly alters our understanding of basic science. Such things have happened. If sellers want to be clear that their therapy is based on an unsubstantiated theory not scientific fact, and someone chooses to believe the theory and try the therapy, no harm done (assuming the therapy is not dangerous).

Agreed.
The studies claiming to have found a memory effect have methodological issues.

Some of us have actually measured the absorption/emission spectra of various substances (including silver nanoparticles like one of the aforementioned papers) after serial dilutions and such measurements are succeptible to noise (and impurity of the water you use), and dilutions issues (it is very easy to mess things up with serial diliutions, either over or under-diluting when the material is not evenly distributed in the solution you are diluting from).

 

[skipskip30]

Hi @skipskip30,

I have to say, it was rather stunning to wake up to your above comments this morning. My first thought was, “Who is this?” Who would make such strong–even strident–statements regarding how they “realise” I will label them? Where in the world is that coming from? Is this somebody who’s been fuming about my posts for a long time, and decided to finally do a vent about some of my perspectives?

Since it generally takes me most of the day to become somewhat coherent, I didn’t look into who you were until this evening. I discovered you’re new here on this forum, having been here for less than a month. So I doubt it’s been a culmination of my posts that got you so upset. Instead, it was mostly likely the post on this thread you highlighted.

I don’t know whether you’ll believe this, but I can assure you I do not consider those who think differently than me–on homeopathy or any other matter–to be close minded, or pitied, or to be looked down on. I consider myself to be very tolerant and respectful of other’s points of view on just about any topic. To each their own is my philosophy. So, I’m sorry if you felt offended by my post–it was never my intent to insult you or anybody else.

You might be surprised to know that I’ve never had much success with homeopathy. A general pattern is that just about every remedy I've tried stirred things up for me for a while--even somewhat intensely–with up and down cycles for a few days, only to eventually settle in at my previous status quo. But I do know that for me it has the power to stir things up. So it’s relatively easy for me to believe the testimonials of others who say it’s stirred things up for them, and left them better off as a result. – Just my take.
-
Regarding your introductory post entitled, 22 years of feeling awful. I didn’t see it when you first posted it, but would like to welcome you to the PR forum. I hope the consultant you have in mind to see works well for you.

All the Best, Wayne

I would like to say I have nothing against you personally, and I apologise if I offended you. I dont mean to assume anything about anyone generally, although i see in this case it did come across as personal so i most certainly apologise for that. I replied to your post as it was near the end of this thread and it raised points that make me very frustrated with all kinds of alternative things. My misplaced venting on you was more at how people who dont beilive in these therapies are often treated online by those that do.

We are often belittled and told we dont understand or we are not willing to understand and that if only we were more open we too could be cured. You understand having being told this multiple times with an illness like CFS where you have fought tooth and nail for over 2 decades to even feel 1% better is infuriating. If only I opened my mind it could all be better.

Im not saying you beilive that, you just used some phrases that often get used by the people that do and im afraid it did just wind me up. I should have posted a reply to the thread rather than to you in particular as it really wasnt meant to be personal.

A bit off topic but i remember seeing a show about bigfoot (i did warn you it was off topic) in the uk where a top geneticist that specialises in recovering DNA from very old samples agreed to test all the best evidence the people who beilive in bigfoots existence had. He had heard that those people had said science had ignored them and was genuinely and rightfully offended so he agreed to test all their samples and see what species they belonged too. My point is that proper science to me investigates everything but once you have a large amount of very good evidence one way or the other then it should be listened to.

Once again im very sorry for coming across as having a go at you in particular as this wasnt my intention.

 

[Valentijn]

I have to say, it was rather stunning to wake up to your above comments this morning. My first thought was, “Who is this?”

Does it matter who they are? It shouldn't, if you have any substantial response to make the central issue.

 

[Kyla]

Well, homeopathic remedies would seem to, at least, be effective as placebos. Science is slowly accepting that placebos may actually have some therapeutic relevance. Meanwhile, many drugs on the market are now seen as no more effective than placebos which seems to imply that their effectiveness may be entirely due to the placebo effect. How something like this gets reconciled when it comes time to decide what does or doesn't get banned, is way beyond me.

A little late to the party...
but here is a good analysis of the evidence that placebos have "therapeutic relevance"

https://www.painscience.com/articles/placebo-power-hype.php#open-label

One of the greatest placebo hype examples to date was a 2010 study which purportedly proved that the power of mind over body is so stupendous that a placebo — a fake medicine, a sugar pill — works even when you know it’s a placebo.the only critical analysis I’m aware of, by Dr. David Gorski, and he nails it:

Even though they did tell their subjects that the sugar pills they were being given were inert, the investigators also used suggestion to convince their subjects that these pills could nonetheless induce powerful “mind-body” effects. In other words, the investigators did the very thing they claimed they weren’t doing; they deceived their subjects to induce placebo effects.

In other words, can you “impress” patients into feeling better? Hey, maybe! Is it a non-deceptive placebo if you do it by saying “this fake medicine is really awesome”? Is it a non-deceptive placebo if you do it by saying “this fake medicine is really awesome”?No. That’s just a regular placebo — very old school. There’s really nothing new here.