• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

Some concerns about homeopathy

Sushi

Moderation Resource Albuquerque
Messages
19,935
Location
Albuquerque
Some posts in this thread have been reported and I have edited or deleted some posts that were deliberately rude or contained personal attacks. I have not had time to go through the entire thread. If you still see posts that break the rules, please report them.
 
Messages
3,263
Many people who are pro-homeopathy also appear to be anti-vax. I find this interesting, as these are two separate issues that have very little directly in common (one involves belief, the other scepticism). It suggests that there might be a larger world view that underpins both stances.

I'm interested in what that world view is:

- is it a desire for a return to 'natural' ways of living (homeopathy sounds kind of natural)?

- a mistrust of government and industry? There seems to have been a recent surge in mistrust of 'experts' and many believe strongly that conventional medicine has been hijacked by 'big pharma'. (I know homeopathic medicine is a huge industry, but for some reason, this fact is often overlooked).

- a fear of the negative effects of conventional medicine?

- or it is it pure old fashioned hope and faith? Religious or not, we all need hope and belief much as ever, and its really easy for purveyors of alternative treatments to exploit that. (doesn't explain the anti-vax stance though).

A lot of the pro-homeopathy arguments emphasise the lack of side effects. Its not easy to make a treatment with no side effects at all, you pretty much have to make it as close as possible to water. Homeopathy is a master stroke - it manages to maintain the promise of benefits, and with no side effects at all! Perhaps that's its most appealing feature, right there.
 
Messages
724
Location
Yorkshire, England
IF we analyse the principles of thought on which magic is based, they will probably be found to resolve themselves into two: first, that like produces like, or that an effect resembles its cause; and, second, that things which have once been in contact with each other continue to act on each other at a distance after the physical contact has been severed.

The former principle may be called the Law of Similarity, the latter the Law of Contact or Contagion. From the first of these principles, namely the Law of Similarity, the magician infers that he can produce any effect he desires merely by imitating it: from the second he infers that whatever he does to a material object will affect equally the person with whom the object was once in contact, whether it formed part of his body or not.

Charms based on the Law of Similarity may be called Homoeopathic or Imitative Magic. Charms based on the Law of Contact or Contagion may be called Contagious Magic.

"Such is the nature," says Plutarch, "and such the temperament of the creature that it draws out and receives the malady which issues, like a stream, through the eyesight."

So well recognised among birdfanciers was this valuable property of the stone-curlew that when they had one of these birds for sale they kept it carefully covered, lest a jaundiced person should look at it and be cured for nothing.

The virtue of the bird lay not in its colour but in its large golden eye, which naturally drew out the yellow jaundice. Pliny tells of another, or perhaps the same, bird, to which the Greeks gave their name for jaundice, because if a jaundiced man saw it, the disease left him and slew the bird.

He mentions also a stone which was supposed to cure jaundice because its hue resembled that of a jaundiced skin.
excerpts from The Golden Bough, Chapter 3: Sympathetic Magic, James Frazer
 

skipskip30

Senior Member
Messages
237
A lot of the pro-homeopathy arguments emphasise the lack of side effects. Its not easy to make a treatment with no side effects at all, you pretty much have to make it as close as possible to water. Homeopathy is a master stroke - it manages to maintain the promise of benefits, and with no side effects at all! Perhaps that's its most appealing feature, right there.

Over 300 babies had Belladonna poisoning in America from a homeopathic teething gels little while ago. I beilive some unfortunately died too. There was far more Belladonna in the product than there should have been.

Of course you get into the argument of are products with more than just water in true homeopathy or is it herbal medicine? But they were sold as homeopathy.

Nothing is always 100% safe, 'natural' or man made
 

Sea

Senior Member
Messages
1,286
Location
NSW Australia
She actually claimed no information.
But it worked, and it worked for good. So I do not at all feel creepy about it now. I was very surprised myself that it worked.
No claim? So it wasn't given to you as homeopathic medicine? You have no idea what she gave you yet you are using it as evidence that homeopathy works.
After this experience I had NHS treatments in a brilliant homeopathic hospital by doctor who trained medicine, everything was clearly labelled in the homeopathic dispensary. Most of the remedies worked really well.
At least for this one you are claiming that it was homeopathic medicine that worked, but again true homeopathic medicine has nothing in it so a good effect can only be placebo. The other sadly very real possibility is that there is real medicine in the bottles labelled homeopathic.
 

alex3619

Senior Member
Messages
13,810
Location
Logan, Queensland, Australia
Because there are hundreds of scientific studies on vaccines.
Hundreds of THOUSANDS of studies.

We know vaccines save lives, and prevent disability. We also know they kill and disable. Its about relative risk, not absolute safety. There are vaccines that never make it to market because they are too dangerous. Other vaccines get minimal safety testing, so there is risk that dangerous vaccines get through. Yet the situation without vaccines would be very very dire. Very few remember the days when polio was rampant, and smallpox was something to be very afraid of.

In my own case my ME is most likely due to measles encephalitis. That is when the measles virus gets into the brain. It often results in death, or severe brain damage. Sadly it was then presumed that anyone not falling into either category got off without any damage. Now we are seeing indications this is very wrong, and most encephalitis survivors wind up with an ME-like condition. It just takes many years for that to happen.

PS If I had been able to get the measles vaccine I might not have ME.
 
Last edited:

alex3619

Senior Member
Messages
13,810
Location
Logan, Queensland, Australia
It is the only "belief" if you must call it that, that doesn't require faith. You can ask for something to be demonstrated or proven, and refuse to accept it until it is. You can change your ideas to reflect the latest evidence. No faith or belief required, no loyalty demanded.
Yep. In fact to be scientific I hold you have to be ready to change your stance as the evidence changes.
 

Sea

Senior Member
Messages
1,286
Location
NSW Australia
Hundreds of THOUSANDS of studies.

We know vaccines save lives, and prevent disability. We also know they kill and disable. Its about relative risk, not absolute safety. There are vaccines that never make it to market because they are too dangerous. Other vaccines get minimal safety testing, so there is risk that dangerous vaccines get through. Yet the situation without vaccines would be very very dire. Very few remember the days when polio was rampant, and smallpox was something to be very afraid of.

In my own case my ME is most likely due to measles encephalitis. That is when the measles virus gets into the brain. It often results in death, or severe brain damage. Sadly it was then presumed that anyone not falling into either category got off without any damage. Now we are seeing indications this is very wrong, and most encephalitis survivors wind up with an ME-like condition. It just takes many years for that to happen.
My brother was one of the measles encepalitis fatalities at 4 years old. The risk for that is far higher than the risk of vaccine damage, but the anti-vax people just don't get that.
 

brenda

Senior Member
Messages
2,266
Location
UK
I drank many cups of chamomile tea - and recovered! Brenda, if you took your hourly pills with water, then maybe it was quite a similar approach. I think there is evidence that flushing your system can help recovery by reducing the bacteria in the urinary tract. And as wikipedia reports, time and the immune system alone can be enough.


No. You take a small disolvable pill on your tongue and it quickly disappears. No water is necessary, nor did I ever 'wash it down'. Also I have had a very weak disfunctional immune system for a very long time and am unable to fight off infections myself. The previous episodes of cystitis required antibiotics eventually to clear it. Nowadays I use garlic for infections.

There is something fishy going on here = meaning that I find it hard to believe that the strong move against homeopathy in the UK is due to concern for patients being 'quacked' or to save money.
 
Messages
15,786
However, we would never get rid of antibiotics because for a very large percentage of the population they are a life saver. The same goes for vaccines.
What I would like to see is more research into why some people have bad reactions. In the case of some classes of antibiotics, bad reactions (eg deafness) are likely to occur in those with a certain mitochondrial mutation. I suspect there are similar genetic or other (immune?) factors behind the bad reactions to vaccines.

Those serious reactions would likely be avoidable, if governments really had the desire to look into them. But the anti-vax movement seems to have triggered a similar extreme reaction on the other side, where many won't acknowledge that vaccines ever do harm.

Both sides have tried to dominate the narrative with simplified messages which are ultimately inaccurate and misleading.
 
Messages
1,478
Yes, I know. I was just asking the question because I was wondering your opinion why do you think they are privitizing it.



How do the multinational pharmaceutical companies survive do you think? I'm sure you are aware that they are huge, very powerful companies. Where are they selling their products? To individuals? You need an NHS doctor to prescribe it in the UK. Private prescriptions are negligible. This is the case in many countries and their NHS.



I definitely say things like this, I was not come across in this thread maybe.

Since you think the above, where is the "saving" in the NHS that you've mentioned earlier then?



I find it hard to believe this. But I'm more on usual "prescribing conspiracy" when it comes to not saving. But yes, vaccination too. Not necessarily works. Especially pneumonia, flu and some new vaccines are not very effective. They are used in aging and immune deficient population extensively and highly profitable to some big pharmaceuticals.

Sorry I ran out of steam yesterday and needed to go to sleep. Here are some quick answers to your questions as I see it

There has been a lot of talk about saving money in the NHS really since the 1980's and there have been various attempts to make this "more efficient" by introducing managers and the introduction of NICE under the Blair government ...its main purpose being to save money on treatments. The part that appears to be privatised are the ancillary services and represent less than 10% of the total NHS revenue. The concern raised by many are that this is growing and the tax payer doesn't seem to be getting the best deal vs having these services in house and more efficient (like having electronic records that are transferable between departments etc.). The following explains it better than me

https://fullfact.org/health/how-much-more-nhs-spending-private-providers/

All medicines have to get NICE approval and NICE are about saving money on effective treatment not wheeling and dealing and taking bribes from pharmaceuticals. Perhaps that is going on, but where would they hide this bribe money? I think this is something that may happen in private healthcare, but as I've said previously the NHS isn't private.

I think the department of trade (or whatever its called now) may do deals for manufacturing in the UK with large pharmaceuticals but this is unlikely to concern individual treatment options.

The main saving though, is making sure people don't get sick or sicker and cause more expense later on as they "block beds" and need expensive operations because they weren't vaccinated or whatever. I think this has been answered more eloquently elsewhere though.

So in the case of homeopathy, this won't get past NICE approval because there is no evidence that it works more than placebo/bias. So if there is no proof that the treatment works, there is no cost saving as a treatment that will prevent further expense.

In fact it will cost the tax payer since it will need to be funded with trained and approved practitioners and presumably need regulation somewhere as well. This all would mean that the NHS budget would have to be cut somewhere else to fund it. The budget has been cut now to such an extent that some local authorities are removing fertility treatment for patients.

That has nothing to do with pharmaceuticals blocking it's use.
 

alex3619

Senior Member
Messages
13,810
Location
Logan, Queensland, Australia
Australia has a three part system for medical cost management, and at the same time a huge problem. Most overseas approved drugs get approved here. Its under one agency. Medication subsidies are in a different organization, and they require much stronger evidence about cost and efficacy. Thirdly there is a watchdog looking at doctor practice.

At the same time everyone dropped the ball and allowed huge sums from big pharma to be given to pay for doctors to speak or attend at conferences.

I do not know much about NICE, but it sounds like it is trying to do too much and has internal conflict in goals. It was founded when Thatcherism, Reagonism and other similar themes (such as economic rationalism) arose from combining economic theories with political ideals.

The risk here is that economic issues can over-ride medical and scientific issues. So can political ideals.

Governance is good when different functions are separated as much as feasible, when transparency is high, when there is scrutiny and accountability, and when the public are engaged. This all increases the overhead though, and so its tempting to allow poor governance to save a few dollars.
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,478
Australia has a three part system for medical cost management, and at the same time a huge problem. Most overseas approved drugs get approved here. Its under one agency. Medication subsidies are in a different organization, and they require much stronger evidence about cost and efficacy. Thirdly there is a watchdog looking at doctor practice.

At the same time everyone dropped the ball and allowed huge sums from big pharma to be given to pay for doctors to speak or attend at conferences.

I do not know much about NICE, but it sounds like it is trying to do too much and has internal conflict in goals. It was founded when Thatcherism, Reagonism and other similar themes (such as economic rationalism) arose from combining economic theories with political ideals.

The risk here is that economic issues can over-ride medical and scientific issues. So can political ideals.

Governance is good when different functions are separated at much as feasible, when transparency is high, when there is scrutiny and accountability, and when the public are engaged. This all increases the overhead though, and so its tempting to allow poor governance to save a few dollars.
I thought nice was put in place in 1999?
 

frederic83

Senior Member
Messages
296
Location
France
Crotalus Horridus 4CH helped me a great deal for my severe food intolerances. I had these intolerances for 7 years, were getting worse. I tried a lot of things but it did not work until crotalus.
 
Last edited:

erin

Senior Member
Messages
885
I quite agree that relying on science without questioning is fairly pointless. But the thing about science is that you can question it. In fact scientists are allowed to tear each other's ideas to shreds if they can, it is actively encouraged. It is the only "belief" if you must call it that, that doesn't require faith. You can ask for something to be demonstrated or proven, and refuse to accept it until it is. You can change your ideas to reflect the latest evidence. No faith or belief required, no loyalty demanded.

Like you, I don't believe in anything, and don't like being told to believe in anything. That's why I hate homeopathy and love science.

Science is an establishment just like other establishments. I do not believe you can freely question stuff. Especially in the academic area. There are connections to the business, sponsoring etc. But this was not what I was primarily talking about; I am talking about ordinary punter reading news papers, watching the "telly" that represents science and they think they really have given reliable information. When I say religion like belief, this was what I mean. So I believe there is loyalty, without ever questioning from ordinary members of public. Opinions shoved down the throat and religion like beliefs are formed easily.

I did not realize there is pressure applied by the establishment to believe in homeopathy. But there is not to believe.

So, l do not understand why you "hate" homeopathy. Who's telling you that you must believe in it? I would understand someone disagreeing with it but hate is a bit strange. I also don't understand to "love" science. They are a bit too strong words and personal when it comes something like science or in fact any establishment base area.

I am not criticizing you personally, just not understanding this kind of strong feelings towards stuff that are not personal.
 

erin

Senior Member
Messages
885
Do we get rid of, say, antibiotics, because some people have a reaction to them? Some people die from taking them. However, we would never get rid of antibiotics because for a very large percentage of the population they are a life saver. The same goes for vaccines. Sadly, there are that small percentage such as your nephew who are harmed by them. But at the end of the day life threatening illnesses such as Small Pox, Polio, Chicken Pox, Mumps, etc. are very rare today because of vaccines.

Yes it is very sad to what happened to my nephew. The percentage of harm from the vaccines are small is not very relevant for us, if you can try to imagine to ruin someone's life at the age of 3.

Oh chicken pox vaccine did not worked for some people. And pneumonia vaccine absolutely did not worked for my uncle and a friend of mine. I am for the certain vaccines; polio, small pox, etc they are very effective. But most new vaccines I would see as not so reliable.

I am still considering pneumonia vaccine after the pneumonia experience I had. But I am scared that it will not work and maybe give me a nasty side effect.

The effect of the antibiotic I'd taken knocked me down. I fought the very weird chemical depression and momentarily suicidal thoughts by using logic at the time of being on this antibiotic. It gave me gastritis. I think, @Valentijn gave a very good answer to this anyway.

Now I am still so sick, I have severe flank pain that no one knows why, I was given pain killer injections and a cortisone injection. Also had a B12. I feel like a sieve!