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

Then doctors will revert to ointments again. A lot of people come to doctors and heal if they get attention and a pill to believe in. Mint stuff also does not make you breathe easier. It stimulates cold receptors that make you think there is colder air which has more oxygen. You would have to take off a lot. Sure education is better. But it soothes the mental pain with less side effects than receptor blockers.

Theyd need to send half their morning patients home. They become scribes for work exemptions. At least the general physicians here. Theres little more left they can do but send people home or to specialists.

Best
Kc

Adi wrote:

MadHatter wrote: People should be able to put what they want into their bodies.

It's not just their bodies .

"instead of relying on natural remedies such as ginger root, olive leaf extract and water with maple syrup" <-- Has nothing to do with Homeopathy and all to do with Idiots not doing their research. Syrup and olive leaf extract....omg....*Facepaw*

MadHatter wrote: Mostly my comment was we should not ban things simply because people might do stupid stuff with them. If people want to ignore doctors and not research facts before trusting something as medicine that really is on their own head.

That I will agree with. We just need to teach people to think for themselves and not follow fads or trends that have been proven not to work or haven't been proven to work when there are other things out there that have been proven to work. And that anecdotal evidence doesn't out weigh scientific studies. You're one friend who said this works doesn't beat out years of scientific research.

I agree that it shouldn't be banned. But I think they should be regulated (as should all supplements), and restrictions placed on what claims can be made about their efficacy.

Also, they should not be prescribed by doctors.

Wouldn't homeopathy at least qualify as a myth?

Best
Kc

Adi wrote:

MadHatter wrote: People should be able to put what they want into their bodies.

It's not just their bodies .

There are already laws for negligence that is a nonissue.

Goken wrote:

MadHatter wrote: Mostly my comment was we should not ban things simply because people might do stupid stuff with them. If people want to ignore doctors and not research facts before trusting something as medicine that really is on their own head.

That I will agree with. We just need to teach people to think for themselves and not follow fads or trends that have been proven not to work or haven't been proven to work when there are other things out there that have been proven to work. And that anecdotal evidence doesn't out weigh scientific studies. You're one friend who said this works doesn't beat out years of scientific research.

Education is key like it is with most things in life.

Miss_Leah wrote: I agree that it shouldn't be banned. But I think they should be regulated (as should all supplements), and restrictions placed on what claims can be made about their efficacy.

Also, they should not be prescribed by doctors.

What do you mean by regulated? What level are you suggesting. As for not being prescribed by doctors well what about for people demanding antibiotics for a common cold? Doctors giving people those for colds which they do nothing for any how is breeding super bugs. So what about cases where time and rest are the true answer but the patient insists on something?
Also what about things like a doc telling me to take fish oil due to a family history of high blood pressure and high cholesterol. From what I can find it may or may not help but it cant hurt and thus my believing it may help may indeed help reduce blood pressure due to me being more relaxed that im taking something to boost the effects of a better diet and working out?Sure its not homeopathy but its similar in that its not " medicine" persay. There are a lot of things out there that might help and regulating them as with anything taken over by the government will always much them up.

MadHatter wrote:

Miss_Leah wrote: I agree that it shouldn't be banned. But I think they should be regulated (as should all supplements), and restrictions placed on what claims can be made about their efficacy.

Also, they should not be prescribed by doctors.

What do you mean by regulated? What level are you suggesting. As for not being prescribed by doctors well what about for people demanding antibiotics for a common cold? Doctors giving people those for colds which they do nothing for any how is breeding super bugs. So what about cases where time and rest are the true answer but the patient insists on something?
Also what about things like a doc telling me to take fish oil due to a family history of high blood pressure and high cholesterol. From what I can find it may or may not help but it cant hurt and thus my believing it may help may indeed help reduce blood pressure due to me being more relaxed that im taking something to boost the effects of a better diet and working out?Sure its not homeopathy but its similar in that its not " medicine" persay. There are a lot of things out there that might help and regulating them as with anything taken over by the government will always much them up.

I mean that before it's put on the shelves, the content ought to be tested. Vitamin supplements and essential oils often aren't (ie, if you buy a ginkgo biloba supplement, sometimes, there is actually no ginkgo in it). Currently, supplement manufacturers are NOT required to be tested by the FDA.

There is more of a risk of this in homeopathy because it's diluted to an extreme degree. It's unethical to sell people water and call it homeopathic remedy.

And also, regulations should be in place to prevent false claims - example, in Canada, Vitamin C supplements are not allowed to claim on its packaging that it helps prevent or cure the common cold.

If people want to pursue alternative remedies, then they can. But misleading consumers by preying on (or creating) fears of the medical community, or pushing "natural remedies" in place of proven modern medicine, isn't right.

All that being said, I do think that natural holistic medicine has its place, and a lot of modern medication is derived from natural sources. But we have to be smart about it.

Kaccani wrote: Wouldn't homeopathy at least qualify as a myth?

Best
Kc

myths are cultural articulations about the nature of reality and Being

myths are fundamentally true, even if they are not literally true

homeopathy is more like a lie than a myth, or at best, a hyptnotic suggestion

Homeopathy totally works. I used Honey to stop ants from biting me.

Miss_Leah wrote:

MadHatter wrote:

Miss_Leah wrote: I agree that it shouldn't be banned. But I think they should be regulated (as should all supplements), and restrictions placed on what claims can be made about their efficacy.

Also, they should not be prescribed by doctors.

What do you mean by regulated? What level are you suggesting. As for not being prescribed by doctors well what about for people demanding antibiotics for a common cold? Doctors giving people those for colds which they do nothing for any how is breeding super bugs. So what about cases where time and rest are the true answer but the patient insists on something?
Also what about things like a doc telling me to take fish oil due to a family history of high blood pressure and high cholesterol. From what I can find it may or may not help but it cant hurt and thus my believing it may help may indeed help reduce blood pressure due to me being more relaxed that im taking something to boost the effects of a better diet and working out?Sure its not homeopathy but its similar in that its not " medicine" persay. There are a lot of things out there that might help and regulating them as with anything taken over by the government will always much them up.

I mean that before it's put on the shelves, the content ought to be tested. Vitamin supplements and essential oils often aren't (ie, if you buy a ginkgo biloba supplement, sometimes, there is actually no ginkgo in it). Currently, supplement manufacturers are NOT required to be tested by the FDA.

There is more of a risk of this in homeopathy because it's diluted to an extreme degree. It's unethical to sell people water and call it homeopathic remedy.

And also, regulations should be in place to prevent false claims - example, in Canada, Vitamin C supplements are not allowed to claim on its packaging that it helps prevent or cure the common cold.

If people want to pursue alternative remedies, then they can. But misleading consumers by preying on (or creating) fears of the medical community, or pushing "natural remedies" in place of proven modern medicine, isn't right.

All that being said, I do think that natural holistic medicine has its place, and a lot of modern medication is derived from natural sources. But we have to be smart about it.

OK I agree more or less having quality controls etc. However I still have two questions. One is about doctors prescribing such things with little to no medical value as a way to avoid giving patients that are begging for as I said antibiotics for a common cold something to make them go away because really the only remedy was cold and rest.

The second is about the advertisements. Ill give you an example studies show that a teaspoon or two of apple cider vinegar taken about a half an hour before a meal will help regulate against blood sugar spikes which is great for diabetics or prediabetic people why should they not be able to say that? Or do you think they should? Further as to the vitamin c law mentioned well thats odd because vitamin c may actually help reduce the duration of a common cold and would be better to tell people to take then antibiotics which people have been doing and thus creating super bugs. Do you think changing how it was worded would make it better. As instead of saying prevents colds, they say may reduce duration of cold?

MadHatter wrote: OK I agree more or less having quality controls etc. However I still have two questions. One is about doctors prescribing such things with little to no medical value as a way to avoid giving patients that are begging for as I said antibiotics for a common cold something to make them go away because really the only remedy was cold and rest.

The second is about the advertisements. Ill give you an example studies show that a teaspoon or two of apple cider vinegar taken about a half an hour before a meal will help regulate against blood pressure spikes which is great for diabetics or prediabetic people why should they not be able to say that? Or do you think they should? Further as to the vitamin c law mentioned well thats odd because vitamin c may actually help reduce the duration of a common cold and would be better to tell people to take then antibiotics which people have been doing and thus creating super bugs. Do you think changing how it was worded would make it better. As instead of saying prevents colds, they say may reduce duration of cold?

Well, I'm no expert and can only give my own opinions, but here's what I think:

1. The pressure on doctors by patients is real. If there is no medical reason for then to prescribe anything and they're not willing to be firm about "time and rest", I think that doctors can certainly suggest natural care to help with minimizing symptoms. There are herbs/foods that can help relieve or minimize symptoms of a cold, even it can't cure it. That being said, homeopathy is basically water with no (or trace) other ingredient, and NOT a natural remedy. I think that holistic medicine should have a greater role in modern medicine, but side-to-side with modern modern medicine.

2. I think that if studies (including retrials) show a natural remedy to help a specific condition/symptom, they absolutely should be able to advertise it. The problem is that "Big Pharma" is real, and they are out for money, which affects studies and publications of natural remedies - why support free/cheap natural medicine when they can push antibiotics or other drugs they they can make millions on? And for the Vitamin C issues, yes, they're not allowed to advertize that they prevent or cure colds. Studies have shown that some people (mainly athletes) given high doses of Vitamin C after cold symptoms start can decrease the duration of the symptoms. Technically, they should be able to advertize that, but I'd argue that the amount of people who would actually get this benefit is too small to advertize.

Miss_Leah wrote:

MadHatter wrote: OK I agree more or less having quality controls etc. However I still have two questions. One is about doctors prescribing such things with little to no medical value as a way to avoid giving patients that are begging for as I said antibiotics for a common cold something to make them go away because really the only remedy was cold and rest.

The second is about the advertisements. Ill give you an example studies show that a teaspoon or two of apple cider vinegar taken about a half an hour before a meal will help regulate against blood pressure spikes which is great for diabetics or prediabetic people why should they not be able to say that? Or do you think they should? Further as to the vitamin c law mentioned well thats odd because vitamin c may actually help reduce the duration of a common cold and would be better to tell people to take then antibiotics which people have been doing and thus creating super bugs. Do you think changing how it was worded would make it better. As instead of saying prevents colds, they say may reduce duration of cold?

Well, I'm no expert and can only give my own opinions, but here's what I think:

1. The pressure on doctors by patients is real. If there is no medical reason for then to prescribe anything and they're not willing to be firm about "time and rest", I think that doctors can certainly suggest natural care to help with minimizing symptoms. There are herbs/foods that can help relieve or minimize symptoms of a cold, even it can't cure it. That being said, homeopathy is basically water with no (or trace) other ingredient, and NOT a natural remedy. I think that holistic medicine should have a greater role in modern medicine, but side-to-side with modern modern medicine.

2. I think that if studies (including retrials) show a natural remedy to help a specific condition/symptom, they absolutely should be able to advertise it. The problem is that "Big Pharma" is real, and they are out for money, which affects studies and publications of natural remedies - why support free/cheap natural medicine when they can push antibiotics or other drugs they they can make millions on? And for the Vitamin C issues, yes, they're not allowed to advertize that they prevent or cure colds. Studies have shown that some people (mainly athletes) given high doses of Vitamin C after cold symptoms start can decrease the duration of the symptoms. Technically, they should be able to advertize that, but I'd argue that the amount of people who would actually get this benefit is too small to advertize.

Ok I guess we are more or less in agreement then. I mean I think if the remedy could help anyone then it should be able to be listed so long as the remedy causes no harm. Though I do admit the risk of people refusing to get true medical care is there. However I think at a particular point personal responsibility comes into play.

MadHatter wrote: Ok I guess we are more or less in agreement then. I mean I think if the remedy could help anyone then it should be able to be listed so long as the remedy causes no harm. Though I do admit the risk of people refusing to get true medical care is there. However I think at a particular point personal responsibility comes into play.

Yes absolutely. The problems comes when people start pushing remedies that aren't proven to help at all, like homeopathy. Especially if there's a risk that people claim they are more safe/effective than proven modern medicine (natural or synthetic)

It's easy to play on people's fear and gullibility, and so while personal responsibility comes into play, it's up to intelligent, knowledgeable and ethical people to keep others from being conned.

MadHatter wrote:

Further as to the vitamin c law mentioned well thats odd because vitamin c may actually help reduce the duration of a common cold and would be better to tell people to take then antibiotics which people have been doing and thus creating super bugs. Do you think changing how it was worded would make it better. As instead of saying prevents colds, they say may reduce duration of cold?

Vitamin C is a vitamin. Symptoms of the common cold are the result of viral infection. The idea that vitamin C or megavitamin therapy has any more effect than a good diet and plenty of fluids when a person is sick or as a preventative, was suggested by Linas Pauling in the 1970's, and has not been confirmed categorically by independent and falsifiable studies.

Pauling's promotion of dietary supplements has also been heavily criticized. In a 2013 article in The Atlantic, pediatrician Paul Offit wrote that although Pauling was "so spectacularly right" that he won two Nobel Prizes, Pauling's late-career assertions about the benefits of dietary supplements were "so spectacularly wrong that he was arguably the world's greatest quack.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling#Medical_research_and_vitamin_C_advocacy

To compare the vitamin C fallacy to homeopathy isn't really going to advance the argument. And to claim that patients will harass their doctors until some pill or placebo is provided is a rather unkind thing to suggest. Your doctor didn't go through years of medical school to provide you with unhelpful advice.

simeon wrote: To compare the vitamin C fallacy to homeopathy isn't really going to advance the argument. And to claim that patients will harass their doctors until some pill or placebo is provided is a rather unkind thing to suggest. Your doctor didn't go through years of medical school to provide you with unhelpful advice.

Im sorry but the US national library of medicine backs my statement that vitamin C may indeed reduce cold duration.
https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002145.htm

Further if doctors were not prescribing antibiotics needlessly news articles like these would not exist.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/doctors-urged-to-stop-prescribing-antibiotics-for-colds-and-flu/

http://ideas.time.com/2012/04/16/why-doctors-uselessly-prescribe-antibiotics-for-a-common-cold/

Thank you for the links MadHatter.

As noted in the article(https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002145.htm), the reason that vitamin C reduces cold duration seems to reflect a deficiency in the patient not the specific nature of vitamin C. This fact would be true if the deficiency was Iron or whatever vitamin or mineral is lacking. Lets not confuse correlation for causation.

I hope we do not disagree that a law preventing false claims on packaging (i.e. Canada, as mentioned by Miss_Leah) is a good thing?

And if the same holds true for Vitamin C, shouldn't something which is medically in doubt, such as homeopathy also be similarly treated? Perhaps patients wouldn't be charging in demanding drugs for all perceived problems if medical/scientific literacy was given higher priority. Citing individual responsibility is dishonest when patients do not have the education to discern which products do not provide actual treatment, and the regulation does not compel all producers to honestly market their products.

There was a recent report by ABC Four Corners (http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2016/05/16/4460291.htm) which went into the problems surrounding regulation of the pharmaceutical industry. Since the topic here is homeopathy, this comment from the article seems to sum it up rather well:

"You can sell something without any evidence that it's safe or effective." Dr Pieter Cohen, Harvard Medical School

Regardless of the case study of Vitamin C (I also think that nutrient deficiency has more to do with health than any one vitamin), most homeopathic remedies are simply sold by fallacies: appeal to nature, novelty or antiquity/tradition, and panacea attacks. Knowledge is power, or in this case, your health.
Anyone remember titanium bracelets or exercise in a bottle? Those are the more believable of the pantheon of dumb health fads.
Don't listen to tommy chong and expect a pharmacist's advice

I feel like people are thinking very black and white in this thread and clinging onto the Extreeme circumstances as if they are the blinding highlight to how people normally behave. However I feel it is important to remind people of two things.

1. The average person isn't a mindless drone that doesn't do at least a little research into the things they are putting into their bodies. In fact...The conscious mind of teh average person is expanding and people are more and more becoming self conscious to the things happening around and within them

2. Shit happens. Idiots will be Idiots and there is nothing any of you can do about it. I was just as a Birthday party with a friend who works as a Nurse for a professional foot doctor and the stories she has to tell about the Idiocy of some people.....Tisk and plenty of face palms.

Homeopathy has had many successes and is growing in popularity because of those success's. These "Success's" are often linked with people who are doing a number of other practices in unison of the Homepathy application. Such as (but not limited to) Better diets, exercise, proper intake of vitamins and other important nutrients. What they don't realize is that - It is all the other stuff that is actually working, not the Homepathy products themselves. Placebo is actually a real and important part to health because it helps the patient adjust to the Idea of healing. Much like a Bandaide on a Kids scratch or cut. It may not be needed and it dosn't do anything but hide the scratch from the kids eyes.....but it helps to calm them and move on to more important things to focus on.

What I find amusing is. If Homepathy is "Just Water" as I have seen many people here claim. Then whats the big deal? If someone wants to use "Just Water" on themselves. All power to them. That is their right.

However, I do feel that Medical Doctors SHOULD NOT be handing prescriptions of Homepathy and herbal supplements to their patients. They are not trained in Herbal Knowledge and they have their own professions to stick to. That's like having Surgeons who's job is to cut open bodies and fix internal problems working in the Maternity ward helping mothers deliver babies LOL (....Oh....wait.... :whistle: They do....)

As for the false advertising and labeling of products. One should discuss that with the FDA and Pharmaceutical Companies, not the Doctors. And any self awakened individual should know by now that the FDA and Pharmaceutical Companies falsely label things purposefully. Soooo.....Good Luck there.

Personally I do not use Homeopathy. I have not found it to work for me and prefer the products I make myself because I know exactly what it is I am putting into my products and thus, into my body. But I have known many friends who have claimed it's usefulness (Ignoring all their other practices) In favor of the "Just Water" product that is easier to focus their minds on.

Just my 2 cents.

Trisskar wrote: If Homepathy is "Just Water" as I have seen many people here claim. Then whats the big deal? If someone wants to use "Just Water" on themselves. All power to them. That is their right.

I agree with pretty much everything you've said. I'd just like to pick this one out: the big deal here isn't that people use Homeopathy, but that they don't pay for it themselves. In Switzerland, homeopathic "remedies" are covered by mandatory health insurance - and that's where the fun ends for me. I'm simply not willing to pay higher premiums for things that are proven to have no efficacy whatsoever. At the same time, some highly effective treatments aren't covered because only a handful of people require them and because they are very expensive. So some people are left to die or suffer although there is a treatment for what they're suffering from, while other people get water (or alcohol) at 100 bucks for 2 deciliters paid by the health insurance.

Cyan

ps: it's very important to differentiate between herbal remedies and homeopathy. Many herbal remedies are proven to work extremely well (St. John's Wort, valerian root etc. spring to mind). Homeopathy contains no active ingredient whatsoever.

Cyan Sarden wrote: ps: it's very important to differentiate between herbal remedies and homeopathy. Many herbal remedies are proven to work extremely well (St. John's Wort, valerian root etc. spring to mind). Homeopathy contains no active ingredient whatsoever.

Truth. I notice the two keep getting mixed up here Vit C for example isn't a Homeopathy substance.