I want to throw up [homeopathy]

[fessie]

@Larry Mudd

This cannot be stressed enough.The thing is, herbal medicine has… you know… actual properties and effects. Certainly some remedies are more effective than others, but herbal medicine is not in any way comparable with homeopathy, which is pure Magical Thinking. (That’s a polite euphemism for Fucking Bullshit.)

Fair enough – I thought “homeopathic” was the umbrella term, so I apologize for my ignorance. Here’s what it really means:

@Wikipedia

Homeopathy (also spelled homœopathy or homoeopathy) from the Greek words όμοιος, hómoios (similar) and πάθος, páthos (suffering)[1], is a method of alternative medicine that treats “like with like.” The term “homeopathy” was coined by the German physician Christian Friedrich Samuel Hahnemann (1755–1843) and first appeared in print in 1807,[2] although he began outlining his beliefs of medical similars in a series of articles and monographs in 1796.[3]

Homeopathy attempts to treat the sick with extremely diluted agents that, in undiluted doses, produce similar symptoms in the healthy. However, processes use cause the dose to be exactly zero in most cases: Its adherents and practitioners assert that the therapeutic potency of a remedy can be increased by serial dilution of the drug, combined with succussion, or vigorous shaking. This is, however, not supported by chemistry or physics. Homeopathy regards diseases as morbid derangements of the organism,[4] and states that instances of disease in different people differ fundamentally.[5] Homeopathy views a sick person as having a dynamic disturbance in a hypothetical “vital force”, a disturbance which, homeopaths claim, underlies standard medical diagnoses of named diseases.[6]

Scientists describe homeopathy as pseudoscience [7] and quackery.[8] The theory that extreme dilution makes drugs more powerful by enhancing their “spirit-like medicinal powers”[9] is inconsistent with the laws of chemistry and physics. Placebo-controlled clinical trials have given mixed results, but most have methodological problems, with better-quality trials (e.g. those more likely to use double-blind techniques) more likely to give negative results.[10] Additionally, cases have been reported of life-threatening complications resulting from attempts to treat serious conditions solely with homeopathic remedies.[11][12]

Homeopathy is particularly popular in Europe and India,[13][14] although less so in the USA,[15] where such therapies have been subject to tighter regulation. Stricter European regulations have also been implemented recently by the EDQM.[16]

The website to which you linked in the OP has many references to Dr. Sears, who has NOTHING to do with homeopathy, but whose “attachment parenting” is considered controversial to some. It also discusses vaccines and the overuse of antibiotics, which are familiar controversies. Hence my assumption that we were discussing “alternative” parenting, not the specific methodology listed above.

Yep, that dilution business sounds seriously whackadoodlers to me, too.

In re: vaccines – it’s the notion that NEW vaccines offer the opportunity for big profits that puts people on guard. Older vaccines with longer histories (and no patent protection) are nowhere near as controversial. Hence the expectation that they would conform to rigorous clinical trials.

Miller, it’s all trial-and-error anyway; the concern is with side-effects, products that lack a track record, and being misled.

By the way, I should probably mention that my Mom took DES (to combat miscarriage) when she was pregnant with me, and while I haven’t suffered any ill effects, I had a boss who had to have a hysterectomy at 25 because of the cancer it caused. Not as bad as thalidomide, but plenty of women were affected by a drug that should never have been prescribed.

That’s not to say that no drug is ever good, obviously; merely that skepticism and vigilance are warranted.
Here, Jackmanii; I won’t swear as to the source’s credentials, but this is what I was referring to:

@National Vaccine Information Center

In an analysis of reports made to the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) since the CDC’s July 2006 universal use recommendation for all young girls, NVIC found reports of loss of consciousness, seizures, joint pain and Guillain-Barre Syndrome. In a separate evaluation of costs for young girls being vaccinated in private pediatrician offices, NVIC discovered that parents living in the Washington, D.C. area will be paying between $500 and $900 to have their daughters receive three doses of GARDASIL.

“GARDASIL safety appears to have been studied in fewer than 2,000 girls aged 9 to 15 years pre-licensure clinical trials and it is unclear how long they were followed up. VAERS is now receiving reports of loss of consciousness, seizures, arthritis and other neurological problems in young girls who have received the shot,” said NVIC President Barbara Loe Fisher. “At the same time, parents who take their daughters to private pediatricians are going to be shocked to find that they will be paying two to three times the widely publicized $360 cost for the three-dose series. The cost is going to break the pocketbooks of parents and break the banks of both insurance companies and taxpayers, when the reality is that almost all cases of HPV- associated cervical cancer can be prevented with annual pap screening of girls who are sexually active.”

Between July 2006 and January 2007, there have been 82 reports of adverse events filed with VAERS following receipt of GARDASIL by girls and boys ranging in age from 11 to 27 years. Reaction reports have come from 21 states, including Virginia and the District of Columbia. All but three of the reports were for adverse events which occurred within one week of vaccination and more than 60 percent occurred within 24 hours of vaccination.

[Miller]

@fessie

Miller, it’s all trial-and-error anyway; the concern is with side-effects, products that lack a track record, and being misled.

Could you expand on that at all? I’m not sure how it relates to my post.

That’s not to say that no drug is ever good, obviously; merely that skepticism and vigilance are warranted.

And that’s the entire point of this pit thread: people are often “skeptical and vigilant” when it comes to modern medicine, while uncritically swallowing any old crap they find online, so long as the person peddling it has a sufficiently impressive line of bullshit to go with it. For the vast majority of alternative medicine, a vigilant and skeptical attitude would require that one avoid them altogether, until they’ve undergone sufficient clinical trials that demonstrate both their safety and their efficaciousness. As you’ve pointed out, not all modern treatments meet this standard, but the failure of the system to adequatly screen some modern medicines does make unscreened medicines safe or effective.

[fessie]

@Miller

Could you expand on that at all? I’m not sure how it relates to my post.

And that’s the entire point of this pit thread: people are often “skeptical and vigilant” when it comes to modern medicine, while uncritically swallowing any old crap they find online, so long as the person peddling it has a sufficiently impressive line of bullshit to go with it. For the vast majority of alternative medicine, a vigilant and skeptical attitude would require that one avoid them altogether, until they’ve undergone sufficient clinical trials that demonstrate both their safety and their efficaciousness. As you’ve pointed out, not all modern treatments meet this standard, but the failure of the system to adequatly screen some modern medicines does make unscreened medicines safe or effective.

Sorry - what I’m trying to say is, prescribed medicine and “home remedies” have one thing in common, and that is that they don’t work the same way for every person all the time. Either way you have to try them yourself in order to find out. Efficacy is a personal matter.

And consider that some alternatives have significantly longer track records than newly patented medicines, whose side-effects are can be lethal. And they’re put into the world in order to make money first, whereas knowledge shared from person to person (mommy to mommy) is an act of free will, with no profit involved.

[Musicat]

@tdn

Actually, a little research shows that the active ingredient in homeopathic remedies can cause harm.

I know what you meant to say (that the undiluted original ingredient can cause harm), but there is no active ingredient in most homeopathic remedies.

@Revtim

It would be more like pouring a spoonful of something that causes a cold into a swimming pool.

More like a drop in the Pacific Ocean.

[Giraffe]

@Larry Mudd

The thing is, herbal medicine has… you know… actual properties and effects. Certainly some remedies are more effective than others, but herbal medicine is not in any way comparable with homeopathy, which is pure Magical Thinking. (That’s a polite euphemism for Fucking Bullshit.)

That’s what’s so maddening about homeopathy. They’ve managed to associate themselves with herbal/holistic/natural medicine to the point that people assume you’re saying “anything not from Big Pharamceutical, Inc. is bad” when in fact you’re saying “don’t pay someone for sugar pills with water on them”.

[Jackmannii]

@fessie

Here, Jackmanii; I won’t swear as to the source’s credentials, but this is what I was referring to:

The source of that article’s claims is the “National Vaccine Information Center” (NVIC).

NVIC is a “consumer group” whose focus is heavily anti-vaccination. If you go through their website, they attempt to minimize risks associated with infectious diseases while magnifying or inventing risks of vaccination. Among other things, they’re still promoting an alleged link between autism and vaccination (which has been repeatedly debunked). They suggest that measles isn’t such a bad thing, and that you can treat it as follows:

“Other health care therapies including homeopathy, naturopathy, Traditional Chinese Medicine, and chiropractic have been used to modify the symptoms of measles and enhance the natural ability of the immune system to heal the body.” :rolleyes:

They have a marvelous logo though, showing what appears to be a doctor’s arm restraining a helpless vaccination victim, plus a big scary needle.

Thanks, but on the subject of Gardasil and other vaccines, I’d rather trust the Centers for Disease Control.

[aclubs]

A primer on homeopathy, from the Skeptic’s Dictionary.

http://skepdic.com/homeo.html

[Una_Persson]

Having been browbeaten quite a bit recently by Chinese people who insisted that if I just took “traditional Chinese medicine” my insulin-dependent diabetes would be “completely cured”, I’ve got no patience for people that endorse homeopathy or other folk remedies where there’s no actual data impartial peer-reviewed data suggesting that it works.

[Miller]

@fessie

Sorry - what I’m trying to say is, prescribed medicine and “home remedies” have one thing in common, and that is that they don’t work the same way for every person all the time. Either way you have to try them yourself in order to find out. Efficacy is a personal matter.

That’s an almost entirely meaningless comparison. Sure, not all modern medical treatments work the same way on everyone. There’s still miles and miles of difference between “Clinical trials showed this medicine to be effective in 95% of patients,” and “My grandmother said you could cure that by rubbing seaweed in your hair.”

And consider that some alternatives have significantly longer track records than newly patented medicines, whose side-effects are can be lethal. And they’re put into the world in order to make money first, whereas knowledge shared from person to person (mommy to mommy) is an act of free will, with no profit involved.

There is just so much wrong with this paragraph, I barely know where to begin.

There’s no profit motive behind alternative medicine? Like hell. They aren’t giving that shit away for free. Regardless, the fact that someone is making money off a particular drug isn’t evidence for or against the effectiveness of that drug.

Yeah, “some” of these alternatives have a longer track record than newly patented medicines. It’s a track record made up of hearsay, superstition, and wild guesses, and yes, sometimes it has fatal side effects, just like patent medicine. Which, incidentally, has a track record that consists of clinical trials under scientific conditions, and rigorous peer review. No, it’s not perfect, and mistakes get made, but I sure as fuck know which process I intend to trust my life and health with.

Knowledge passed “mommy to mommy” :rolleyes: is an act of free will, but so is deciding to take a prescription drug. Or deciding to prescribe it. Or, for that matter, deciding to lie about its effectiveness in order to get FDA approval. “Free will” isn’t a term that has any particular place in this discussion.

Further, in terms of relaying accurate information, word of mouth is just about the least reliable method of transmission imaginable. Is the person giving you the information reliable? Who told them about it? Is that person reliable? Is the information being relayed complete, or did the person telling it to you forget (or add) a step? What about the person they got it from?

You’re also making a basic error in assuming that, just because the person giving you the information isn’t going to be getting a monetary reward for it, that they don’t have any sort of ulterior motive for giving you faulty information. If I wrote down all the crap people told me just because they wanted to sound like they knew more than they really did, I could make a tidy sum with my book of “home remedies” that won’t do jack shit to make you or your kid feel any better. Assuming the market isn’t oversaturated with these books to begin with, that is.

[Dead_Badger]

@fessie

How about gallstones?

Another physician gave me pain relievers and a pamphlet on depression as her solution to that problem. Two years (and much pain) later, I finally had the right diagnosis. And surgery.

Fine, but at what point are your anecdotes about rubbish physicians going to demonstrate anything about the remedial efficacy of dilutions with a low chance of containing even one molecule of the supposed ingredient? The existence of poor practitioners of evidence-based medicine says nothing whatsoever about the efficacy of homeopathy. It’s not some artificially didactic scenario, whereby if you prove that one person is rubbish, some arbitrary other must be correct. It is incumbent upon each to prove the effectiveness of their offering, and the claims of holism give no free pass.

@fessie

Efficacy is a personal matter.

No. I’m sorry, but the “holistic” excuse is a faint and trivial one, and the argument that such remedies are resistant to empirical trials is frankly insidious and wrong. If holistic remedies are indeed more effective than normal placebo, it is perfectly possible to set up studies whereby patients receive equal amounts of attention and apparent holistic concern in order to study whether “tailored” remedies have any greater effect than the standard placebo.

It’s well established that we all feel better after “medical” attention has been paid to us, and that if we feel that a personal remedy has been recommended, that this effect is enhanced. That this effect is observable says nothing about the medical efficacy of what is, undeniably, water (and/or sugar pills). We know, for example, that green pills confer a greater placebo effect than red ones; should we infer from this that the colour green possesses intrinsic healing powers?

On a more flippant note, I’m still curious to know how I’m supposed to wash out my homeopathic remedy bottles. Surely by rinsing them I’m merely making the contents more potent?

[fessie]

Miller, I can’t tell if we’re arguing about the same thing are not - my Grandma didn’t have seaweed. But my parents did raise me in an age where fevers were “fought” - nowadays we let nature take its course, to a point. The practice of medicine has changed a lot in just my lifetime.

“Homeopathy” is goofy, sure, and I personally haven’t applied tincture of anything to cure any of my, or my children’s, ills.

But I do know people who have, and I don’t think they’re all freaks or idiots.

And I think everyone’s faith in peer review and clinical trials is a bit optimistic, because I HAVE worked for a pharmaceutical company, and my husband happens to be a research scientist. If you’d ever seen those people at a dinner party, you might view those industries differently.

[MsRobyn]

@fessie

And consider that some alternatives have significantly longer track records than newly patented medicines, whose side-effects are can be lethal. And they’re put into the world in order to make money first, whereas knowledge shared from person to person (mommy to mommy) is an act of free will, with no profit involved.

I beg to differ. There are some people whose information I trust implicitly, while there are others whose advice I don’t trust at all. Last I checked, spitting out a kid didn’t make me a medical expert. I have some common sense about things; I know that when my son sniffles, it’s more likely to be a cold than a raging case of SARS, and I know how to take care of him so he feels better. But I still prefer to leave the diagnosis and treatment of anything worse than that to his pediatrician. His pediatrician may not be perfect, but he knows where to start looking, and he has the resources to accurately diagnose and manage the problem; things the mommy down the street doesn’t have, if she even has advice on what to do.

That said, vitamin and supplement companies are also in it for the buck. And unlike Big Pharma, they’re not regulated, thanks to a well-organized lobby. The herbal supplements you pop in your mouth may be more dangerous because the lack of regulation means lack of consistency, so overdose or underdose is possible; and possible adulteration with toxic plants or chemicals used to treat the plants. The prescriptions I take, OTOH, have been studied in impartial clinical settings; I know what the side effects are so I can look out for them; and the purity and strength are regulated so I know exactly how much of the drug I’m taking per dose.

Look. I’m not opposed to complementary and alternative medicine. Physical therapy and massage help my neck pain a lot more than drugs do, and I’ve known many people who have managed cholesterol problems through diet and appropriate supplements. But for most things, I’d rather pay the doctor and drug companies their money and walk away healthier, than relying on folksy advice.

Robin

[Dead_Badger]

@fessie

And I think everyone’s faith in peer review and clinical trials is a bit optimistic, because I HAVE worked for a pharmaceutical company, and my husband happens to be a research scientist. If you’d ever seen those people at a dinner party, you might view those industries differently.

The “faith”, such as it is, is in the process, not the people. I am a research scientist, and I haven’t been given some hat that makes me an expert on a particular topic, to be trusted without question. I don’t want people to take my word without question; I expect them to read my work, and assess it with their intellect. My failures reflect solely on me, and my successes speak only for themselves, not for my future reliability. Science is a process, not a scouting badge. As I said before, this isn’t some didactic battle in which people in white coats contest for the right to be considered right; it is a constant forum of ideas, in which methods are tested, and effects measured.

[Shodan]

@fessie

How about gallstones?

Another physician gave me pain relievers and a pamphlet on depression as her solution to that problem. Two years (and much pain) later, I finally had the right diagnosis. And surgery.

I think the point is that homeopathy will work as well against gallstones as pain relievers and pamphlets.

If you rely on evidence-based medicine, there is a chance that it might not help you. If you rely on homeopathy, there is no chance that it will.

Regards,
Shodan

[Ogre]

My God. The Scientific Method and peer review processes are the most important philosophical leaps in the past thousand or so years. They boil down to this: If you ask a question, answer it in a controlled way that can be duplicated, and then pass it around and let experts tear the shit out of it, so that it can either be discarded or made even stronger.

And people are afraid of it? Incredible. How the hell else are you supposed to figure out how to cure diseases?

[Dead_Badger]

@Ogre

And people are afraid of it? Incredible. How the hell else are you supposed to figure out how to cure diseases?

By, like, treating the person, not the disease. Maaaaan. Lighten up.

[fessie]

Notice Have officially DROPPED defense of “homeopathy” due to its stupidity (I didn’t realize what it was; consider ignorance fought) (see apology above).

@Dead Badger

As I said before, this isn’t some didactic battle in which people in white coats contest for the right to be considered right; it is a constant forum of ideas, in which methods are tested, and effects measured.

Then you’re a better scientist than some, Badger ;).

Isn’t it possible for a group of laypeople to create a forum of ideas as well, by sharing their experiences with various remedies and tactics? Why would scientists have a monopoly on that? A reduction of symptoms is a reduction of symptoms, whether it took place in the lab or at home.

[Ogre]

@Dead Badger

By, like, treating the person, not the disease. Maaaaan. Lighten up.

Not exactly my style. I rile easily.

[fessie]

@Ogre

My God. The Scientific Method and peer review processes are the most important philosophical leaps in the past thousand or so years. They boil down to this: If you ask a question, answer it in a controlled way that can be duplicated, and then pass it around and let experts tear the shit out of it, so that it can either be discarded or made even stronger.

And people are afraid of it? Incredible. How the hell else are you supposed to figure out how to cure diseases?

But it’s still a human process, Ogre, still bound to the foibles and flaws inherent in all human activities. You people want to turn over all faith to this “empirical” reality; you forget that beliefs are more important than knowledge.

Although I definitely agree with you, science is a big improvement over superstition. And if someone’s been raised in the Church, any Church, it probably seems like salvation really has arrived. I genuinely like science, I just don’t think it’s perfect (or enough).

[Swallowed_My_Cellphone]

@tdn

Ah, I see your point. Mine was that water is the only ingredient. But water with a great memory, mind you.

Bah! Anyone who tells you water has a great memory is lying. Why one day I got terribly lost while I was hiking. I had my cellphone, and asked my thermos if it could remember the number for the aid station. You think it could answer me? No! It was useless!

Fucking water.