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

Because I take a wide variety of meds, I've noticed that many of them, no matter how powerful, only work as well as you allow them to. If you've made up your mind that they won't work, then they won't. If you think they will, then they will (though that's not to say that they don't work on their own, but rather that one's focus DOES determine the reality).

I say, whatever works, works. If it's a placebo and it still works, then so be it. The result is the same (as long as there aren't unwanted side-effects).

So long as people don't start using homeopathy to replace medicines which are proven to work, like some of the anti-vaxxers have done, and so long as the remedies aren't causing people harm, I don't have a problem with homeopathy. The concept of homeopathy reflects a simplistic view of how the body works, but at least it's consistent, and there are some prescription drugs which work on the same principle. Klonopin, for example, will induce seizures in healthy individuals, but for those who are already experiencing seizures, the drug has the effect of reducing the severity of seizures.

The question we face is whether or not to consider homeopathic remedies safe until proven dangerous, or dangerous until proven safe. As far as chemicals and food go in the USA, our government sides with the first standard, not the second. I am suspicious of unregulated industry, but I also have to ask Juvenal's famous question, who watches the watchers? All we'd have for 'proof' that drugs are safe or unsafe is the word of the scientists who conducted the studies on these remedies, and modern medical science is vulnerable to the effect of monied interests. A large proportion of studies done on drugs are funded by pharmaceutical companies, or are written by ghostwriters, who pay physicians to publish it in their name. Big Pharma wants to keep Pharma big.

People are using it in place of proper medicine though, and they are harming themselves and their families with it, both directly because of the unhelpful stuff and indirectly by propagating the idea that it is indeed helpful, when really, it isn't. The debate is not in medical science, where homoeopathy is understood as a scam to sell sugar or water in small dosages to laughably high prices whilst pretending that it has a medical effect of its own and independant of the patient's opinion (you know, just like real medicine has!). The debate is among lay people like ourselves crying conspiraceh on those that have labs at their disposal filled with tools the worth of which would be measured in units of harley-davidsons and who have spent lifetimes studying the subject we speak so confidently about. Indeed, the only reason those studies are still being conducted is because of the public debate and the poor communication between the experts and the lay people.

Oh, and when I say selling sugar and water, that I mean. Pharmaceuticals containing small or weakened versions of the pathogen are called vaccines and are a strictly preventive drug. The ones that cure diseases we call antidotes and they don't contain that. However, homoeopathic "drugs" contain not just small amounts as the definition would have it. We are talking about drugs dilluted so much that in the dose you get not one particle of the initial drug can reasonably be expected. Not only that, traditionally in homoeopathy the idea is (completely contrary to either reality, or common sense, or the findings in medical science throughout the centuries, or any combination hereof), that a drug is more effective the more dilluted it is, i.e. the less of it you introduce to your body. While the basic principle may be based on the premise that water has memory, a premise that is evidently very false (and indirectly admittedly so, since they fail to mention that more particles of a glass of their medicine have been through Hitler's bladder than through the tube with the medicine they claim is dilluted in their drug, yet somehow that the water won't remember), I am unaware of the reasoning behind the latter claim short of it being incredibly convenient for the sharlatan who wants to sell magic cure water.

Now, big pharma has long lost the trust it once held and I shall leave it up to the conspiracists to judge whether it can even be viewed as one entity with one interest when there are so many individual companies among them. To me it sounds like a medical drug variety of the NWO World Government nonsense, but I have been wrong before and this is not our subject matter here. What I can say however, is that homoeopathy is not a viable alternative to anything, and whether "Big Pharma", who ever that is, is lying to us or not or to what extent, at least what they say does not always and openly and unapologetically contradict everything we learned from our very own home kitchens.

When I had cancer, chemo, radiation, surgery. . .
The oncologist said use whatever wholistics you are attracted to, you are young for this type of cancer.
So I did homeopathy, essiac tea, QiQong, accunputure and maybe other things.

Also, I was given books by different friends and I opened them.
In one book, there was a question to ask yourself . . with the assumption first You will die, from this or that.
The question was . . what is my fear of death?

The answer to my question to myself was. I am not afraid of death, but I am afraid of laying the body down now because I am not done living.

So, when people ask me what did you use, what helped? Or if a care giver asks me for advice?
I tell them I don't know exactly what cured the cancer?
Maybe just the desire to be alive?????

I've got to disagree with that. Let's take alcohol for example.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/alcohol/art-20044551

In small amounts, it will:

Reduce your risk of developing and dying from heart disease
Possibly reduce your risk of ischemic stroke (when the arteries to your brain become narrowed or blocked, causing severely reduced blood flow)
Possibly reduce your risk of diabetes.

But in large amounts, whether you're healthy or sick, alcohol can kill you. Is that not what homeopathy is? Small doses of a substance producing good effects while large doses of the same substance produces bad effects?

TheDude wrote: ...
Is that not what homeopathy is? Small doses of a substance producing good effects while large doses of the same substance produces bad effects?

Yes, exactly. The more appropriate comparison however would be water. Excessive amounts of it can be highly damaging, but most reasonable amounts have little to no effect. Of course, that comparison also falls short since water is necessary for survival, too. So while homoeopathy pretty much is water, they charge you specifically for the medical-sounding label on the flask. But yea, the kinds of amounts it would take for homoeopathy to be harmful, chances are, you are never going to take, so most of its harm comes from using it in place and to the exclusion of genuine medicine - not from an overdose.

The logical fallacy that is inherent in this is in assuming that because the homeopathy for water or alcohol is sound, that homeopathy as a whole is sound - "what the hey, small enough amounts of plutonium can be healthy for you!". Unfortunately that's something that a lot of people fall victim to (not necessarily that exact example, mind).

CryojenX wrote: The logical fallacy that is inherent in this is in assuming that because the homeopathy for water or alcohol is sound, that homeopathy as a whole is sound - "what the hey, small enough amounts of plutonium can be healthy for you!". Unfortunately that's something that a lot of people fall victim to (not necessarily that exact example, mind).

Ah, but the topic says that there's no evidence that homeopathy works. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of real medicine recognized by doctors and all that. But my response was really more "Here's an example of homeopathy working", meaning that it may not be the case that homeopathy as a whole is great, but neither is it the case that homeopathy as a whole is rubbish.

Likewise I'd say the statement "Homeopathy works" would be valid only if followed by "in some very specific cases".

TheDude wrote:

CryojenX wrote: The logical fallacy that is inherent in this is in assuming that because the homeopathy for water or alcohol is sound, that homeopathy as a whole is sound - "what the hey, small enough amounts of plutonium can be healthy for you!". Unfortunately that's something that a lot of people fall victim to (not necessarily that exact example, mind).

Ah, but the topic says that there's no evidence that homeopathy works. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of real medicine recognized by doctors and all that. But my response was really more "Here's an example of homeopathy working", meaning that it may not be the case that homeopathy as a whole is great, but neither is it the case that homeopathy as a whole is rubbish.

Likewise I'd say the statement "Homeopathy works" would be valid only if followed by "in some very specific cases".

Touche, your point is duly noted my good man. :laugh:

TheDude wrote: I've got to disagree with that. Let's take alcohol for example.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/alcohol/art-20044551

In small amounts, it will:

Reduce your risk of developing and dying from heart disease
Possibly reduce your risk of ischemic stroke (when the arteries to your brain become narrowed or blocked, causing severely reduced blood flow)
Possibly reduce your risk of diabetes.

But in large amounts, whether you're healthy or sick, alcohol can kill you. Is that not what homeopathy is? Small doses of a substance producing good effects while large doses of the same substance produces bad effects?

No. Homeopathy would be more like:

1. Too much alcohol is deadly.
2. If I dilute it by a factor of 10⁻¹² (one part in one trillion or 1/1,000,000,000,000), one can get the body used to the alcohol with each dosage.
3. The higher the dilution factor, the more potent the dosage.

Now, aside from the first assertion, which part makes sense? An oversimplification, I know, but pretty close, imo.