That’s easy: homeopathy has such a low success rate that it doesn’t succeed at all. By homeopathic logic, this means it’s incredibly effective!
About 3 years ago I had a lengthy argument with the staff of a local pharmacy that had “Power Balance” bracelets on sale. I had, while making a purchase, said that I thought it was odd that a business like theirs would be selling such things. The staff members disdainfully told me that they were “scientifically proven.” The other customers were keen observers of the whole thing.
Soon after the company was forced by the ACCC to admit publicly:
And the bracelets were gone.
Drug stores have always sold overpriced remedies that don’t work.
The homeopathic stuff is just much easier to recognize as bunk.
At the outset, I will say there’s lack(or absence) of scientific proof.
The evidence is the number of people who got cure or stabilized or felt improvements with homeo, especially in allergies, blood related or nerve disorders.
The obvious criticism is the extreme dilution. But the undiluted form/mother tincture form is also commonly prescribed.
There are 100s of homeo remedies. I know a couple that were used by someone I know - Hypericum(St Johns Wart - it has SSRI anti-depressants) and Passiflora(for insomnia - pls read this) . *Definite *improvements were felt using these two in the patient.
If you mean to say that it’s homeopathic, I don’t think it is. It’s still ineffective bullshit, just not of the homeopathic variety. According to Wikipedia it contains “herbal extracts, amino acids, antioxidants, electrolytes, synthetic vitamins, and other ingredients”. If you just mention it as a general example of useless horseshit sold by pharmacies, that’s certainly accurate.
You do realize the placebo effect is feeling improvements, right?
yes, but that’s one case I know. I hear about many others for whom it was worth it.
Like for one close person with Trigeminal neuralgia, he takes homeo regularly(has been taking for years). When he stops taking it for long, the electric shock on his face(symptom of TN) becomes worse, intense and more unbearable.
The percentage of such people would have been far less if it were just placebo.
The chemical constituents of remedies(hypericum, passiflora were the only ones i looked up) that were given have been proven effective, The dilution point also doesn’t whole-ly apply because mother tincture were also given.
At the same time, it has to be said, there’s lack(or absence) of scientific studies showing its effectiveness.
AND a total lack of plausibility for a mechanism.
In Canada, homeopathic medicines get licensed. Which is a real travesty, in my opinion, as it appears to give a government imprimatur to a “medicine” that is wholly fraudulent.
http://webprod.hc-sc.gc.ca/nhpid-bdipsn/atReq.do?atid=homeopathy&lang=eng
Accordong to the regulations, a “natural health product” manufacturer must, in order to get its product licenced, provide evidence that the product is “safe and effective” for its intended use. Granted homeopathic medicines are generally “safe”, but they are not “effective”, and so granting a licence = supporting a fraud.
So how do they prove they are effective?
I am in India, here there’s a 5.5 yr course of BHMS (Bachelors Degree in Homeopathy Medicine and Surgery). It legal here and its under alternative medicine category.
That’s a very good question. Health Canada has a guidance document on the topic:
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/prodnatur/legislation/docs/ehmg-nprh-eng.php
Which states as follows, in material part:
… which is of course all bullshit and, in its buraucratic way, wholly fraudulent. No “randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trials” would EVER demonstrate that homeopathic medicines are “effective”, and those drafting the guidance MUST have known it.
However, given that “Homeopathic materia medica and homeopathic provings are the most commonly available evidence, and are accepted as Level IV evidence”, it is pretty clear that all this is a fancy way of saying ‘we will licence traditional homeopathic medicine formulas and call them “effective”’.
Headon.
This shit has been around for a while. I always to make a sign mimicking the store’s label that says something like ‘Bullshit’ or ‘Water & Lying’.
By definition”, I begin
“Alternative Medicine”, I continue
“Has either not been proved to work,
Or been proved not to work.
You know what they call “alternative medicine”
That’s been proved to work?
Medicine.”
- Tim Minchin, Storm
Herbals and homeopathics are often confused, but if you read the label, you can tell them apart.
Herbals contain extracts of or ground up plants. They have active ingredients. Whether these do any good is a separate debate. Some do, some don’t. The ones that do tend to become “real” medicine at a higher price, but not always.
Homeopathics contain homeopathic preparations - they start with an herbal extract (well, the botanical ones, anyway. Others start with ground up bees or minerals or antibiotics) and then they are diluted and then the dilution is diluted and then the dilution of the dilution is diluted (repeat as many times as there are ___X or ___C listed on the bottle.)
Some herbals are also available in homeopathic form. German Chamomile (Matricaria recutita), for instance, can be found as an herbal extract or tea, and there is some evidence that it’s useful for upset tummies (with other herbs) and mucositis (mouth irritation from some forms of chemo). It can also be found as a homeopathic (the homeopathic “Chamomilla” is made from German, not Roman, Chamomile) which hasn’t been shown to do shit.
Look for the number and an X or a C. If it’s got that (12X, 3C, etc.) then it’s a homeopathic.
The numbers (and in particular, rigorous clinical trials and systematic reviews) show otherwise.
“About 200 clinical studies of homeopathic remedies are available to date. With that sort of number, one cannot be surprised that the results are not entirely uniform. It would be easy to cherry pick and select those findings that one happens to like (and some homeopaths do exactly that). Yet, if we want to know the truth, we need to consider the totality of this evidence and weigh it according to its scientific rigour. This approach is called a systematic review. Over a dozen systematic reviews of homeopathy have been published. Almost uniformly, they come to the conclusion that homeopathic remedies are not different from placebo.”
As always, when weighing the utility of placebos, one must look at cost, potential for direct harm, and indirect harm due to forsaking more effective treatment. One could argue that offering magic water to someone with a minor but nagging complaint that mainstream medicine has not had overwhelming success treating, is no big deal. On the other hand, by legitimizing quackery for minor conditions a pharmacy (or health provider) is leaving the impression that it’s perfectly all right to utilize quackery for more serious complaints.
Like.
One of my biggest struggles in herbal circles is getting people to see that just because G. chamomile and fennel works for an upset tummy, we shouldn’t automatically assume that it’s appropriate for *every *upset tummy. If it might be a bleeding ulcer, go to the fricking doctor! First, get a diagnosis, then we’ll figure out how it’s best treated.
(This may be the first time we’ve agreed in one of these threads! )
Definition from wikipedia
Can you point to any homeopathetic proponent on earth that can tell the difference between a homeopathetic mixture and the same amount of purified water?