akrako1, I’m a bit puzzled by the article you link there. “Fresh clue to homeopath mystery”? What mystery? Logic and reasoning leads us to expect that homeopathic remedies shouldn’t do anything. Experimentation, on the other hand, shows us that in fact, homeopathic remedies don’t do anything. There’s no mystery there.
But OK, I’ll admit that the headline isn’t necessarily relevant to the article. What the article says is that even when diluted, solutes tend to clump together, so it’s possible that some homeopathic samples would have more of the active ingredient than expected. Fine, that’s reasonable. But by the same token, that also greatly increases the chance that any given sample would contain no solute at all. Do you really want to pay ten bucks a dose for something which is probably just water?
And I’ll concede that ostrich and buffalo are not genetically engineered, but non-engineered cows have been extinct for thousands of years. I agree that there’s a difference between hybridizing similar species and transfering genes between unrelated species: As I said earlier, the latter is a lot easier to control. When you hybridize in the old-fashioned way, sometimes you get the best of both progenitors, but sometimes you get the worst of both. It’s a crapshoot. But when you take a specific gene, one at a time, you know exactly which gene you have, and exactly what protein it codes for.
Akrak, I gotta question your reading comprehension here. You sarcastically posted “everything that can be proven has been” in response to Shodan’s classification of medicine into just three categories, the third being “untested.” In case you didn’t catch that, let me restate it. There are lots of things that are not sufficiently tested. Most “alternative” medicine falls into that category, although there are some, such as homeopathy, which fall in the second.
And about “scientists never change their minds,” it was already posted earlier in this very thread that the great strength of science is that scientists change their views when the evidence tells them to. Science is ideally completely open-minded, where all preconceptions are thrown away.
CurtC - my point was that our testing methods will advance along with the scientific knowledge. Testing may some day be able to establish that there is a active component to Homeopathy. I take issue with the reasoning that since Homeopathy mathmatically shouldn’t work, Homeopathy in its entirety is false. My forementioned article shows that using a mathematical model isn’t sufficient because we don’t understand all the properties of the materials involved. If only personal experiences and anecdotal evidece could have some weight, this would be a very different discussion.
And yes, I would greatly prefer Homeopathy for the Plague or especially Small Pox. Homeopathy has tons of experience with Small Pox. As like nearly every disease, it had run it’s course, and was nearly erradicated by the time the vaccine came out.
Possibly. But statistical methods of evaluating the gross physical effects of medications (etc.) with double-blind tests are very well established. Unless there’s a revolution in mathematics along the order of a demonstration that 1+1 does not, in fact, equal 2, then we’ll be able to say definitively that homeopathic medicines have no effect whatsoever on the human body. Period. This is one of the most heavily tested areas of ‘alternative’ medicine: it was a modern invention, rather than an ancient folk practice, which made it harder for scientists to just dismiss it out of hand, and literally hundreds of double-blind tests have been done on various kinds of homeopathic remedies. Whether any of the theories behind homeopathy have any validity, I don’t know. But there’s no evidence for them, and there’s lots of evidence against the health claims.
Pardon my French, but if you’d really prefer to stick to homeopathy for treatment against bubonic plague or smallpox, then vous êtes un moron. Aside from the fact that homeopathy has no experience whatsoever with these illnesses (as I said above, it’s a modern invention), saying that these illnesses were ‘nearly eradicated by the time the vaccine came out’ is blatantly false. Smallpox has been eradicated (save for some cultures), but with the clear aid of the vaccine. And bubonic plague has not yet been eradicated; but the reason that we don’t see plagues of it like the ones seen in the Middle Ages is simply that this bacteria has never evolved any kind of resistance to penicillin and its cohorts. Modern medicine is able to easily prevent both death from this disease and the spread of the virus. And I am perfectly willing to bet everything I own that if you were infected with it and forgoed (forwent?) these treatments in favor of homeopathic medicines and acupuncture, that you’d be dead in a week. For legal reasons, I can’t recommend you follow this course of action, for fear of being sued by your survivors.
But I don’t think you do. I don’t think it’s one-for-one. There aren’t enough genes in a given organism (like a cow) to code each different protein composing that organism. Specific genes code multiple proteins and the exact ones they code haven’t all been worked out. That’s one of the gulp-inducing unknowns in genetic manipulation that’s got all the Luddites in an uproar.
Do you have a cite for this?
Living in the west where the Plague still exists, I will say that it is not clear if what we call the Plague is sufficiently similar to the Black Death to warrant a discussion here. But, what we call the Plague is easily treated with antibiotics. The only real difficulty is making the diagnosis. It is not hard to diagnose, if you are looking for it, but if you travel from someplace where it exists (like Colorado) to someplace where it does not (PA), the doctors might screw up.
Sorry, I meant to say Anthrax instead of the Plague. Homeopathy is well adept at treating Anthrax - especially in India, where Homeopathy is heavily practiced.
Though it is a topic for another forum, if you look at the death rates of most major disease outbreaks (small pox, polio, etc) you will see that the death rates drop exponentially, as the population builds up it’s own ‘tolerance’ or immunity. In nearly every case, the ‘vaccine’ was introduced at the tail end of the disease cycle (when the death rate has sharply dropped off). Of course, science will tout the advances of achieving the vaccine, but the truth is, the disease was already on it’s way to erradication. I can search for some sites on this, but I think it should be opened up in another fourm. We’re already pretty damn off topic.
Again, keeping slightly off topic, I’d like to make another point about Homeopathy and testing. First of all, let’s make something very clear. Homeopathy is very hard, and very tedious. It will take a experienced Homeopath hours and hours of pouring over your symptoms and crossreferencing in the Materia Medica to determine a Remedy. The nature of Homeopathy states that that remedy will match you alone - with your symptom set. Your symptoms may change after the first Remedy, requiring a follow-up Remedy based on your new symptom picture - requiring attentive follow-up from the physician and the patient. To make things more complicated, you also have to include Psychological symptoms as well - as they make up the ‘holisitic’ picture. Remedies are chosen from hundreds if not thousands of available Remedies. Each remedy has dozens of associated symptoms. You need to cross reference which Remedy has the most symptoms in common with the patient. Most volumes of the Materia Medica (the list of symptoms and remedies) are around the size of 3 dictionariess. My point in this is that Homeopathy cannot be tested accurately with a double-blind study of people with ‘colds’. That is simply incongruent with how Homeopathy works. You can’t take a very very individualized medicine and try and apply it to a group en mass. You would needs dozens of Homeopaths working for hundreds of hours diagnosing patient after patient. This simply hasn’t been done properly. Testing Homeopathy from a Allopathic perspective simply isn’t viable. Going by that premise, I don’t consider any of the anti-Homeopathic arguments based on double-blind, traditional studies to be valid. I’ve already demonstrated that that mathmatical problem with Homeopathy may be false. What else you got?
Ah yes, the old “Santa won’t come unless you’re asleep” argument, the Ultimate Weapon of hoaxters, charlatans, and frauds since the beginning of time. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, 'cause if you peek, the fairies will run away.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Until homeopaths and other quacks are prosecuted for the murders they commit every day, we’ll not be rid of them.
What would you suggest, other than double-blind tests, to verify the positive effects of homeopathic treatment?
What should we do to the manufacturers of all of those over-the-counter homeopathic medicines that clog the shelves of pharmacies and health-food stores? Obviously, they either haven’t gotten the message that homeopathic remedies are ‘individualized’, or they’re deliberately defrauding their customers! The evil deceivers!
I haven’t been able to find any statistics on anthrax infection in India. This page, if you click on the ‘Communicable and Noncommunicable Diseases’ hyperlink, has a list of disease issues in India, and anthrax doesn’t show up. Pneumonic plague is there, however-have the homeopaths had any luck with that one? Survival rate of pneumonic plague is about 95% with antibiotic treatment, and virtually 0% without …
On what basis are the entries in the Materia Medica developed? What sort of studies are done, and what methods are used to exclude the influence of effects other than those of the treatment? Is there any way whatsoever to compare the results of the homeopathic treatment with those of actual medical treatment?
You make a reasonable point about vaccines. For example, a graph like this is highly suggestive; but it does not provide significant evidence that the Salk vaccine’s invention and widespread use caused the rapid drop in polio cases from the late 1950’s onward. The point? That’s why you need double-blind testing! The decrease in incidence of the disease fails to disconfirm the effectiveness of the vaccine, but it doesn’t establish it. The double-blind tests done with the vaccine before the widespread immunizations were begun did that. And of course, there is the additional confirmation that whenever widespread vaccination program is begun in a country with widespread polio (eg.) problems, the disease rapidly decreases in incidence. Or do you think that the vaccine has consistently been introduced into new regions just as the disease has started to fade out on its own? :rolleyes: Polio and smallpox have existed for thousands of years. Recently, we’ve developed vaccines, and as the vaccines spread around the world, the diseases have died. Please name one epidemic disease that has been eradicated after the country started using homeopathy to treat it.
Homeopathy adherents always make a big deal about how the ‘entrenched medical establishment’ is suppressing ‘alternative’ medicine to maintain its ‘monopoly’. That’s baloney. A doctor or pharmacist will tell you that there are two kinds of medicine. They’re not ‘traditional’ and ‘alternative’, though-the two kinds are ‘medicine that works’ and ‘medicine that doesn’t work’. Doctors are human too, and may resist change; but if any evidence that homeopathic treatment is effective had been found in the 200 years it’s existed, they’d be using it.
(Full disclosure-I work for a ‘big pharmeceutical company™’. But I’ll tell you-we’d be happy to sell homeopathic remedies right along with our ‘traditional’ medicines, if they worked. But they don’t-and we’re not so hungry for money, and so unethical, that we’ll try to con money out of people selling medicines from the ‘doesn’t work’ category.)
Sure it can. Let the homeopath consult with these patients all he wants, and prescribe whichever label-on-a-water-bottle he normally would. Then have the homeopathic water dispenser give the patient either a) plain water, or b) the homeopathic variety, in accordance with a double-blind procedure which makes the contents of the bottle secret to all the participants. I’m not familiar with all the tests that have been done, but I’d be surprised if it hasn’t.
SCSimmons, I thank you for your reply. So much more intelligent and productive than those of Mr. Kennedy - and from a Pharmaceutical Co. employee, I’m impressed.
To answer your questions:
Unfortunately, the only way I can see to verify the effects of Homeopathy would be through individual case by case studies. I agree though, this is more anecdotal than evidence, and thus won’t convince the hard-liners. Honestly, I’ve even seen in my close friends, that they won’t beieve it until they see it or experience it.
Get rid of all the OTC remedies. They are crap. Most of the ‘combination’ remedies work by combining a few low doses of common remedies for colds for example, and they sorta work. They may temporarily relieve the symptoms, but not ‘cure’ the illness. Most Homeopathic physicians don’t believe in the effectiveness of combination remedies. I agree that’s it’s a few companies that try and exploit any market available. Also, most people tend to confuse Homeopathic medicne with Herbal and other non-traditional medice - another side offects of the commercialization of Homeopathy.
I will look up Anthrax in India. I have heard from Homeopaths that have practiced in India that they have experience with Anthrax. I’ll check with my source…
The Materia Medica is produced by ‘proving’ remedies. Simply put, you give large doses of a specific remedy to ordinary, healthy people. You observe and have the patient report any differences they feel. Whether it’s ‘cold feet in the evening’ or a ‘shooting pain traveling up the left arm intermittantly’. This is repeated for many patients, with the same remedy, and all the different remedies. I’m not positive on this, but I’d figure that they would take all the symptom lists for a specific remedy, and pull out the post common between all the patients. A list is compiled of all the remedies and their associated symptoms. You can also ‘prove’ a remedy by taking a large amount of the wrong remedy when sick. You will start to display the symptoms of the remedy you are taking, and not fix the original problem.
I don’t have any specific cites of Homeopathy erradicating any diseases - and I don’t claim it has happened. That doesn’t change my mind that I’d rather use Homeopathy if I was infected. With all the press on the dangers of the Small Pox vaccine, and the mercury content of most vaccines, I’d rather choose the course of treatment without any sideeffects. I’m a little fuzzy about the details, but there is also a type of Homeopathy that you can take before or when immediately exposed to a toxin - that will prevent you from getting infected - a sort of temporary vaccine. I’ll get the details and post 'em later if anyone’s interested.
As far as the difference betweem ‘medicine the works’ and ‘medicne that doesn’t work’ - I wouldn’t trust a pharmacist or doctor to tell my anything about any ‘alternative’ medical treatment. They’re not trained at all! They have no idea what they’re talking about. Is there a course in medical school about every ‘alternative’ medicne? Is this information being continually updated and sent to all doctors and pharmacists? I’d doubt it. My mother-in-law is a Naturapath. Naturapaths are trained in most of the different forms of ‘alternative medicne’ - Chinese herbal medicine, Homeopathy, Nutritionism (traditional herbs), etc, etc). Them, I would trust to actually have the current information available about the different types of medicine, and their effectiveness vs. certain conditions. Or I could just go to Germany, their pharmacists are usually trained Homeopaths.
Would your big pharmaceutical company really start selling Homeopathic products if there was a study that showed it works? I doubt it. Homeopathy typically costs $5 to $7 per bottle - containing dozens of doses - all you’d nead for most of your life. Not much profit incentive. And wow, a big pharmaceutical company that’s not ‘so hungry for money’ and is not unethical - I’d start worrying about my job security.
Full disclosure (good idea). I work for one of the largest pharmacies in the country. We do tend to sell products labeled as Homeopathic. Though I also think they are crap.
CurtC- If there was really a study done with full, individual treatment by a trained Homeopath, that showed no result, I’d be happy to see it.
Eh, memory problems John? do you remember what you wrote? You mentioned Homeopathy first. I resisted responding to your post until another poster posted something even more ignorant. Then I made the point that our testing methods today are fallable as ever, and subject to change at any time. Which I think rather applies to the thread.
This is starting to sound like the old joke of elephant-repellant spray. It works, too, there aren’t any elephants within hundreds of miles from here!
And if homeopathy requires so much time, interaction and attention to detail that it can’t be used in a double-blind test, then it also requires too much time, interaction, and attention to be actually used to help people. I mean, if it’s impractical to apply homeopathic treatments to a few hundred people in a controlled trial, then how are you going to apply it to three hundred million people?
Honestly, Chronos, I agree. Homeopathy simply isn’t for everyone. You need a well trained, experienced Homeopath - which we are surely lacking - and a very dedicated patient. The patient interaction/follow-up is critically important to Homeopathy’s success. Simply put, not everyone is up for such a commitment.
I have never stated that Homeopathy should be the only medical care available, nor have I stated that everyone should try it. I stated that I would prefer it’s use over ‘modern’ medicine. In relation to this thread, I used Homeopathy as an example of somthing that has been ‘proved’ false, and then re-evaluated as new research comes about - showing how temporary our ‘facts’ can be. And relating to milk. antibiotics, growth hormones, and GM products that are supposedly ‘safe’ could very well be re-evaluated over time.
As far as Homeopathy taking too muck time and effort to use well - try asking any person with a chronic illness that modern medicine can’t do squat about - I’m sure most people suffering from a chronic Autoimmune disease, or cancer, would surely agree that the effort is worth the result - and an actual cure - not just ‘symptom management’ and the suppressive treatment that modern medicine destroys your body with.
FYI - Sorry, y’all, I’m going on vacation tomorrow thru next week - so no rantings from me for a while (those of you getting uncomfortable with your preconceptions can breathe a sign of relief).
