I went into an urgent care type center because I managed to fling a monitor into my foot at roughly .3c and I thought it was broken. The nurse was taking my vitals and looking over the very swollen foot and she said usually for that they’ll tell you to get either ____, which is a homeopathic medicine, or motrin, for the swelling.
I can’t remember what it was she said… alav…atal… something starting with a sound along those lines.
And I said “uh, seriously? A homeopathic medicine? The whole point of those is that there’s no active ingredients, so I can’t imagine they would be seriously recommended…” and she replied with a cryptic “well that’s what it says on the internet” and I said … well, yeah, but a doctor isn’t going to use that as an actual treatment, right?" and she said “well I guess you’ll get the Motrin”.
And… I left it at that. But what the hell was that? Was she giving me her own home-baked medical recommendations? That seems like it runs afoul of some sort of medical ethics. Did she seriously think the doctor would recommend it? (the doctor said nothing about it). I don’t think she was recommending it as a placebo - it’s not like I was a little old hypochrondriac woman, she could plainly see my foot was swollen to the size of a buick.
So what went on there? I know they’re retarded about homeopathy in some of the commonwealth countries, but is it common/acceptable for US nurses to be pushing that garbage?
I don’t have any numbers on whether or not it’s more effective than a placebo. But I know people who swear by it for bruises and swelling.
ETA: Also, by the way, just to point it out, IANAD… at least not this kind. And I’m not a homeopathy believer either, but (for whatever reason) I have heard of this stuff.
All I can think of is a/dingbat or b/ people often ask for homeopathic options for non risky conditions so they give them out rather than go through the argument.
So it’s actually an active ingredient that does good work, and it’s just coincidentally used in homeopathic medicine (in practically non-existant amounts), but she was talking about me getting the actual medicinal form?
One thing I don’t get though - doesn’t homeopathy use the idea that you actually use a small amount of antagonist substance? I forget the actual term for it - but if you want to put someone to sleep, you’d use a miniscule amount of a stimulant - the idea being that your body works against that substance and does the opposite, or something.
So it seems like homeopathic medicines to reduce inflammation would actually be the opposite of whatever that arnica stuff is.
Edit: I think hormesis may be the term I’m looking for.
She may have meant “herbal remedy” as opposed to “homeopathic medicine”. They are occasionally (and incorrectly) used interchangeably.
Many herbs are actually worthwhile medicine – it’s just that there’re basically no regulations regarding their manufacture and sale, other than that they have to disclaim to treat or cure any disease.
And I’ve heard good things about arnica, and we sell quite a bit of it at work.
I just got rid of my my GP. One of the reasons is that when I saw him about dermatitis he told me to take Benadryl. Fair enough, I responded “I just picked up some generic Simply Sleep for my summer allergies, I’ll just take that.” I then spent the next few minutes trying to explain to him that it’s exactly the same as Bendryl. Same active ingredient, same dosage, same everything. He just kept saying “Yeah, but I’d rather you just took Benadryl”
There’s a chance that he finds it easier to just tell people to take Bendryl that try to explain which meds you could and could not take in place of it, but I figured he’d understand that I knew what I was talking about when I said “They’re both diphenhydramine HCL 25mg. One pill of Benadryl is the same as one pill of Simply Sleep”. Nope, still insisted on Bendryl. I have no idea if (like I said above) he just finds it easier to get everyone to take the same thing (which would be understandable) or if he really doesn’t realize that their the same.
The NHS in England runs homeopathic hospitals. It’s an officially recognized part of their medical system there. Here it’s just alt med and suppliments and unregulated, there it’s actually pushed as legitimate medical treatment.
Belief in the effectiveness of homeopathic treatments is far more widespread in England and Australia especially, where they license homeopaths and naturopaths as medical professionals.
I’m under the impression that the FDA regulates homeopathic drugs onto the extent of ensuring that they’re actually homeopathic (ie there’s nothing actually in there), but not an endorsement for effectiveness like for other drugs. Is that not the case?
No not in Australia, there may be colleges with their own accreditation however doesn’t make you a MD.
I have rather have mixed feelings about naturopaths,many of their original insights were pretty amazing but the pharmaceutical companies have ripped off 99.999 %of there stuff that actually works
I didn’t say MD. I meant they’re licensed as medical professionals - as if they are a valid type of therapy. There was a recent case where there was significant debate whether or not they could punish the parents after they watched their kid die a horrible death because they skipped conventional treatment instead going to a licensed naturopath. The debate was… given that the naturopath (or homeopathist, I can’t remember for sure) was certified by the Australian government, were they being negligent in listening to their advice?
I’m having trouble finding the name specifically who I’m talking about, I’m just getting a lot of generic “person dies when eschewing conventional treatment for homeopathy” type stories.
Well that’s sort of the beauty of scientific medicine, isn’t? If something works, it’s accepted into medicine and is no longer alternative. The idea that alt med people push, that conventional medicine just won’t accept these magical herbal cures, and that they conspire to secretly keep you sick and hooked on their drugs, is BS. When something is found to work, the eeeeeevil medicine companies jump all over it.
It’s the other way round. The basis for homeopathy is that you take a substance that causes the same symptoms, dilute it until only one or two molecules of the original solution is left and vois-là, the patient is cured.
The queen is a firm believer in homeopathy, I understand.
You can also buy homeopathic remedies in German pharmacies.
But that seems to support my original point - if this arnica (I’m not sure if that’s what she recommended btw, I just can’t remember) is effective for reducing swelling, then you wouldn’t use it in a homeopathic remedy, because (so they say) to reduce swelling you’d actually want a substance that caused swelling, right? So that your body encounters it and does the opposite?
IE if you want a homeopathic sleep drug, you take a few molecules of stimulant, not sedative.
Wow. You’d think she’d have advisors to, well, advise her.
I don’t really have an issue with this in and of itself. You can buy them in American pharmacies, too. My issue is with homeopathic “medicine” being recognized as legitimate by the state.
I didn’t say MD. I meant they’re licensed as medical professionals - as if they are a valid type of therapy. There was a recent case where there was significant debate whether or not they could punish the parents after they watched their kid die a horrible death because they skipped conventional treatment instead going to a licensed naturopath. The debate was… given that the naturopath (or homeopathist, I can’t remember for sure) was certified by the Australian government, were they being negligent in listening to their advice?
I’m having trouble finding the name specifically who I’m talking about, I’m just getting a lot of generic “person dies when eschewing conventional treatment for homeopathy” type stories.
QUOTE]
No idea what a licenced medical profession is in terms of being a homeopaths recognized by the Australian Government. Some aspects of Traditional Chinese Medicine are slowly gaining recognition but that’s about it.
This overstates things - there are not “homeopathic hospitals” [edit: I see that there actually are things described as “homeopathic hospitals” on the NHS website :O], nor are homeopathic treatments “pushed” by the NHS. However, it is true that individual doctors are allowed to prescribe homeopathic “remedies”, and I’d agree that that is stupid.
What the Queen thinks (or more likely Prince Charles, who IIRC is sympathetic to homeopathy and stuff like that and is sometimes mocked for his wacky beliefs) is totally irrelevant. More likely, Cherie Blair (another alternative therapy nutball) whispered in Tony’s ear the last time a government committee came out against homeopathy.
You’d think she’d have advisors to, well, advise her.