Homeopathy

[koan]

I'm doing research on a few alternative medicines and began with Homeopathy, based on the idea that like cures like. Homeopathy takes substances and reduces them to harmless quantities then claims to alleviate health conditions by dissolving tiny tablets of the distillation under one's tongue over a time period, thereby building immunity.

Wikipedia is usually a good starting point so I headed there and found this page

I was quite shocked. The presence of the word "quackery", even though it is part of a quotation, within the intro paragraph, imo taints the entire article to be a criticism of the discipline. The full article is very detailed and the discussion page shows that they have had much debate over what the article should say to remain neutral. I'm assuming that they've allowed the quote to exist because it is a general opinion held by a quotable person but, encountering the word quackery in that opening blurb threw the entire article off for me.

I started reading as a neutral outsider. I'm not convinced that homeopathy is legitimate but I do know a number of people who claim success with homeopathic treatment, so I'm open to both sides. As a neutral reader, I just can't believe that the intro section is neutral.

What say you?

The quote "...in the words of a 1998 medical review, as 'placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst' "

Ernst E, Pittler MH (1998). "Efficacy of homeopathic arnica: a systematic review of placebo-controlled clinical trials". Archives of surgery (Chicago, Ill. : 1960) 133 (11): 1187–90.

[JacksDad]

I've never had any effects, good or bad from homeopathy. I'd have to stand on the placebo, quackery side of the room.

Like the guy who told me he could cure lyme disease with a pill that contained the "frequency" of the tick.

"Frequency?" As in sound?

Dude. You can't contain a sound frequency in a sugar pill. (What sound does a sick tick make, anyway? And how do you diagnose a sick tick?)

:-5

[Lon]

Homeopathy would gain more credibility if it's products were subjected to the same scientific studies and tests as say different pharmaceuticals. There are certainly advocates and testimonials galore in support of homeopathy, but to the best of my knowledge, no legitimate studies. There are a number that had my particular disease that have gone the homeopathy route and unfortunately are no longer with us, and some still hanging on. Quien Sabe?

[Pheasy]

Lon;803800 wrote: Homeopathy would gain more credibility if it's products were subjected to the same scientific studies and tests as say different pharmaceuticals. There are certainly advocates and testimonials galore in support of homeopathy, but to the best of my knowledge, no legitimate studies. There are a number that had my particular disease that have gone the homeopathy route and unfortunately are no longer with us, and some still hanging on. Quien Sabe?


This also applies to other 'natural remedies' being marketed. :-6

[G-man]

Homeopathy is based on the belief that a trace amount of a substance that causes symptoms in healthy individuals can cure that which causes the same symptoms in a sick person. It works in the opposite way in which herbology, another popular natural remedy works. Say, for example, that an individual suffers from insomnia... an obvious ingredient used in the treatment of this disorder might be caffeine. Doesn't quite seem likely now does it?

I have noticed it in an extreme case where all other options had limited results... I admit that there was an obvious improvement in the recovery of a wild animal that had been severely injured and left for dead. The animal was in such a state, that I would've tried anything. Do I believe that it works in every instance or the belief behind it? Not really. I'm unconvinced that the idea behind the treatment of malaria, in particular does anything whatsoever in treating or even preventing the disease.

I do believe it can be dangerous to try and self diagnose or accept the sole advice of a homeopathic practitioner who likely will have little or no medical knowledge and might merely try and treat symptoms that might stem from something far greater. I also agree with the lack of regulation... it's prone to be a means for some shady individual to take advantage of others who want to believe in some quick and easy, miracle cure.

[Pheasy]

G-man;846284 wrote: Homeopathy is based on the belief that a trace amount of a substance that causes symptoms in healthy individuals can cure that which causes the same symptoms in a sick person. It works in the opposite way in which herbology, another popular natural remedy works. Say, for example, that an individual suffers from insomnia... an obvious ingredient used in the treatment of this disorder might be caffeine. Doesn't quite seem likely now does it?

I have noticed it in an extreme case where all other options had limited results... I admit that there was an obvious improvement in the recovery of a wild animal that had been severely injured and left for dead. The animal was in such a state, that I would've tried anything. Do I believe that it works in every instance or the belief behind it? Not really. I'm unconvinced that the idea behind the treatment of malaria, in particular does anything whatsoever in treating or even preventing the disease.

I do believe it can be dangerous to try and self diagnose or accept the sole advice of a homeopathic practitioner who likely will have little or no medical knowledge and might merely try and treat symptoms that might stem from something far greater. I also agree with the lack of regulation... it's prone to be a means for some shady individual to take advantage of others who want to believe in some quick and easy, miracle cure.


But thats exactly how certain prescribed medication works though. For example they treat hyperactivity with a stimulant, which appears to work.

[suzy_creamcheese]

its worked for me and my children for several things. The fact its worked on my children makes me feel that it isnt placebo. I wouldnt rely on it for serious conditions unless alongside conventional medicine probably, but i have quite a few homeopathic remedies in my medicine cabinet and I find it useful and side effect free.

[RedGlitter]

While I'm sure there's room for a little "quackery" in homeopathy, I have only had good results from it myself. I mainly use homeopathic sleep formulas, liking them because they work and they don't leave me groggy the next day like "regular" sleep aids do.

On a more impressive front, my bassett came into contact with a battery and chewed it a wee bit. We didn't know she had been in contact with a battery until a few DAYS later. When we rushed her to the vet, the acid had eaten part of her inner mouth and the vet said she might lose part of her tongue. My vet is a homeopathic doctor. She uses natural whenever possible and she gave us a calendula formula that we were to squirt on Molly's gums one time. It worked (or something did besides God) and our dog kept her tongue and healed nicely.

I don't buy the idea that Bach flower remedies are going to fix a broken leg and I think you have to be reasonable about it, but I would not call homeopathy quack medicine as a rule.

As far as Wiki goes, well you know...for the public by the public.