Once Again, Scientists Conclude That There's No Evidence That Homeopathy Works

Does homoeopathy have a place alongside the practice of medicine? The world of homoeopathy has a history of being a divider of science and alternative medicine, and confusing everyone along the way.

A debate has been recently published in the British Medical Journal about whether doctors should practice homoeopathy alongside evidence-based medicine. The debate came out in response to a study from the Australian Government's National Health and Medical Research Council, which was released this March. It concluded that there was no reliable evidence that homoeopathy was effective in treating a range of health conditions.

Peter Fisher, from the Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine, thinks that the review omitted key pieces of evidence. He points out that the reports state "there are no health conditions for which there is reliable evidence that homoeopathy is effective." Fisher responds to this by saying that "the fact that one homeopathic treatment for a condition is ineffective doesn't mean that another is also ineffective."

This seems like an exceedingly weak statement since medicine doesn't work on the basis of "it hasn't shown to be effective yet so let's keep using it anyway."

Edzard Ernst, professor of alternative and complementary medicine, is adamant that the practice has no place in modern medicine, stating that "the axioms of homoeopathy are implausible, its benefits do not outweigh its risks, and its costs and opportunity costs are considerable. Therefore, it seems unreasonable, even unethical, for healthcare professionals to recommend its use." He thinks that training professionals to use homoeopathic solutions, even if they confer the same benefits as a placebo, is detrimental in the long term as it promotes a confusing message. This can have serious consequences if people start replacing effective therapies (for example, vaccines or antimalarials) with homoeopathic alternatives, which are essentially sugar and water and therefore inert.

At the same time that this study was released, a BBC feature revealed that the contents of some high street natural remedies actually had none of the allegedly beneficial ingredient in them at all. A team of researchers tested the content of 30 ginkgo products, available on the high street or by online retailers, that are often used for memory disorders. Shockingly, eight of these products had little to no ginkgo extract in them whatsoever.

These new findings, which expose how herbal food supplements are sometimes labeled misleadingly, also identified one milk thistle product that contained no milk thistle. Instead of milk thistle there were some suspect, unidentified substances. The findings were reported by University College London and BBC Health for the series titled "Trust Me, I'm a Doctor," which examines the state of the healthcare system in Britain.

These findings seem fairly outrageous. It seems shocking that products, sold under the guise of being beneficial for your body, actually contain none of the advertised ingredients. Products that had the ingredients advertised were under the regulation of the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Authority (MHRA), whereas the products that had no trace of the advertised ingredients slipped under the radar under the regulation of the Food Standards Agency (FSA).

By implementing homeopathic remedies alongside medicine, consumers are vulnerable and at risk of buying deceptive products, the BBC argues.

http://www.iflscience.com/there-enough-evidence-practise-homeopathy-alongside-medicine

Good thing I collect my own herbs and make my own stuff..

Oh, the horrors we unleash when we let other's think for us..

Good thing my best friend owns an apothecary and gives me high quality stuff.

Buying herbs off of Amazon feels super weird to me. hahaha.

Wow, I think the point was largely missed...

Khaos wrote: Wow, I think the point was largely missed...

Either that or they're trolling.

There are many intelligent, responsible people who choose to utilize homeopathy.

I am not in disagreement with most of what was conveyed in that article, though for those of us who recognize potential risks and the likelihood that we are employing the placebo effect in some cases, homeopathy can (at the very least) act as a catalyst for mental/emotional well-being.

For many years I dealt with chronic tailbone pain. I went through CT scans, various unsuccessful treatments and minor surgeries, and swallowed a vast selection of pills that did nothing to improve my condition. When my doctor suggested that I see a homeopathic practitioner I was skeptical, but I eventually did so and was offered a homeopathic remedy that began working almost immediately and has been totally effective since.

(Note: When I stop using the remedy for a period of days, my tailbone pain returns.)

I still think of homeopathy as more of a "health accessory" than "alternative medicine," but I no longer reject its value or benefit outright.

homeopathy
noun ho·me·op·a·thy \ˌhō-mē-ˈä-pə-thē, ˌhä-\

: a system for treating illnesses that uses very small amounts of substances that would in larger amounts produce symptoms of the illnesses in healthy people

The medication I've been prescribed for IBS contains Donnatal, which is itself a mixture of small amounts of phenobarbital (a barbituate), and belladonna (also known as Deadly Nightshade). One of the small group of approved treatments for gastroparesis (of which I also suffer) is Botox injections into the pyloric valve to release pressure in the stomach and allow contents to move into the duodenum and intestine. Botox injections consist of small amounts of a paralytic toxin created by potentially deadly bacterium (which often doesn't work I might add).

It would seem to me that modern medicine has no problem with the concept of homeopathy as long as they can demonstrably profit from it.

from what ive seen on the web since this thread was opened it looked to me like homeopothy is not real medicine

its not even.herbal medicine as i understand it

and so far it apears that its got more instances of definitely being responsible for causing harm (infant death and vitamin deficiency, and allegedly one guy lost his sense of smell because of a homeopathic formula) than of definitely having cured a substantiated illness

ive only just started looking into it and if anyone has a source theyd like to share i would be interested

I wasn't responding to you, Khaos. I was talking to Jacob.

It annoys me greatly when people can get treatment for things that only exist in their mind (that'swhat homeopathy treats -- just like any other placebo) ON THE NHS while others, with actual issues, some actually really serious, have to shell more money than they'll ever earn in the private sector in order to get treatment.