ChatterBank3 mins ago
homeopathic medicine
Since the putative active ingredient in homeopathic medicine is diluted to statistical non -existence the adherents to this kind of therapy have explained that the curative properties reside in the memory of water(yeah right). Any comments?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jomifl. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Homeopathy has been kicking around the block for 200 years or so, since Hahnemann first came up with the idea.
In all those 200 years, there is no reliable, rigorous evidence to show that it performs any better than placebo, and only then for (mostly) self - limiting illnesses. The more rigorous the clinical trial, the more tenous the claims to any kind of benefit.Where remedies with a proven clinical benefit that perform better than placebo exist, it could be considered unethical to offer such homeopathic remedies.
Apart from placebo, homeopathy has no plausible or scientific methodology - most of the dilutions are so great that it is doubtful there is even a single molecule of the alleged active ingredient(s) left by the time the dilutions have been performed and battered with the bible.
Now, I dont care a jot if people want to imagine that such remedies help them out for trivial illnesses, if they are paying our of their own pocket, but there should be absolutely no question of providing therapies of such limited benefit on the public purse - The money could be put to far better use.
One final point - You may think that homeopathy is harmless - but you have stores and homeopathists offering homeopathic malaria prophylaxis - In Africa you have homeopaths offering untested remedies for HIV, and childhood diarrhoea. This could be considered murderous behaviour.
Personal testimony is just anecdote - it is an untested observation and with all due respect no evidence to support it other than one persons unsubstantiated word.
Supporting it just feeds into the anti-scientific complementary and alternative medicine meme.
http://www.smh.com.au...th-20090605-bxvx.html
In all those 200 years, there is no reliable, rigorous evidence to show that it performs any better than placebo, and only then for (mostly) self - limiting illnesses. The more rigorous the clinical trial, the more tenous the claims to any kind of benefit.Where remedies with a proven clinical benefit that perform better than placebo exist, it could be considered unethical to offer such homeopathic remedies.
Apart from placebo, homeopathy has no plausible or scientific methodology - most of the dilutions are so great that it is doubtful there is even a single molecule of the alleged active ingredient(s) left by the time the dilutions have been performed and battered with the bible.
Now, I dont care a jot if people want to imagine that such remedies help them out for trivial illnesses, if they are paying our of their own pocket, but there should be absolutely no question of providing therapies of such limited benefit on the public purse - The money could be put to far better use.
One final point - You may think that homeopathy is harmless - but you have stores and homeopathists offering homeopathic malaria prophylaxis - In Africa you have homeopaths offering untested remedies for HIV, and childhood diarrhoea. This could be considered murderous behaviour.
Personal testimony is just anecdote - it is an untested observation and with all due respect no evidence to support it other than one persons unsubstantiated word.
Supporting it just feeds into the anti-scientific complementary and alternative medicine meme.
http://www.smh.com.au...th-20090605-bxvx.html
'One final point - You may think that homeopathy is harmless - but you have stores and homeopathists offering homeopathic malaria prophylaxis - In Africa you have homeopaths offering untested remedies for HIV, and childhood diarrhoea. This could be considered murderous behaviour. '
^^^ I didn't know that. And that I agree is absolutely wrong.
^^^ I didn't know that. And that I agree is absolutely wrong.
I think they might marty
Not Homeopathic ones - you don't believe in that.
ets suppose you went to a London Hospital were checked into the researh department, underwent a consultation, made you sign a disclaimer, followed the doctor into a security controlled area, saw him sign out a small vial and then gave you the injection and made sure you had a 24 hour help line in case of side effects.
Then I think it just might
It's all about the sell
For example reseacrh shows big red placebos are more effective than small blue ones. But the most effective were really really small ones.
The more "special" a placebo appears the greater it's chance of being effective.
It won't cure cancet or make your arm grow back but it can be excellent at "treating" chronic pain.
However I'm still not convinced it's an ethical thing to do
Not Homeopathic ones - you don't believe in that.
ets suppose you went to a London Hospital were checked into the researh department, underwent a consultation, made you sign a disclaimer, followed the doctor into a security controlled area, saw him sign out a small vial and then gave you the injection and made sure you had a 24 hour help line in case of side effects.
Then I think it just might
It's all about the sell
For example reseacrh shows big red placebos are more effective than small blue ones. But the most effective were really really small ones.
The more "special" a placebo appears the greater it's chance of being effective.
It won't cure cancet or make your arm grow back but it can be excellent at "treating" chronic pain.
However I'm still not convinced it's an ethical thing to do
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Quite shortstraw.
If Homeopathy works as a placebo effect on some people, then fine - but homeopaths try to peddle their sugar pills as a remedy.
Remedy is another word for cure.
The fact these charlatans are selling 'remedies' is dangerous.
I mean, for christ's sake, how can they possibly believe that something that is diluted 14 million million times is more effective than something that is diluted 14 million times and that water has a memory, just absolutely makes the mind boggle.
They are con artists.
If Homeopathy works as a placebo effect on some people, then fine - but homeopaths try to peddle their sugar pills as a remedy.
Remedy is another word for cure.
The fact these charlatans are selling 'remedies' is dangerous.
I mean, for christ's sake, how can they possibly believe that something that is diluted 14 million million times is more effective than something that is diluted 14 million times and that water has a memory, just absolutely makes the mind boggle.
They are con artists.
jake: i would most definitely use surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy first! and then i would use nutritional and complimentary therapies to recover from the side affects!
i work occasionally in a hospice and reflexology, relaxation and t'ai chi is really effective with palliative cases!
BUT homeopathic medicine doesn't advertise or profess a cure for cancer, because as an unproven therapy would be illegal!
i work occasionally in a hospice and reflexology, relaxation and t'ai chi is really effective with palliative cases!
BUT homeopathic medicine doesn't advertise or profess a cure for cancer, because as an unproven therapy would be illegal!
Latest Posts
ChatterBank4 mins ago
ChatterBank5 mins ago
News7 mins ago
He's Already Talking About A 3Rd Term.
News17 mins ago
Reeves Is Now After Your Pension Funds
News31 mins ago
