The homeopathy debate?!
Question: One of the many lines I've seen the anti alt med ppl (ie. Kalos) say is that homeopathy has 0 evidence supporting it in any trials done. I said this was a generalization aimed to suit ones bias, rather than truth, and it's been an ongoing debate.
I was bored so I went to find a study that was ligitimate on homepathy, and this is what I came across
"Homeopathic medicines are high dilutions of natural substances
such as plants, minerals, and animals. In the most significant and
comprehensive review of homeopathic research ever
conducted, The Lancet (September 20, 1997) published a metaanalysis
of 89 blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical
trials and concluded that the homeopathic medicines in the
studies had a 2.45 times greater effect than placebo."
*keep in mind placebo does a decent ammount by itself.
Is that a fabrication, or what are the implications otherwise?
Answers: One of the many lines I've seen the anti alt med ppl (ie. Kalos) say is that homeopathy has 0 evidence supporting it in any trials done. I said this was a generalization aimed to suit ones bias, rather than truth, and it's been an ongoing debate.
I was bored so I went to find a study that was ligitimate on homepathy, and this is what I came across
"Homeopathic medicines are high dilutions of natural substances
such as plants, minerals, and animals. In the most significant and
comprehensive review of homeopathic research ever
conducted, The Lancet (September 20, 1997) published a metaanalysis
of 89 blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical
trials and concluded that the homeopathic medicines in the
studies had a 2.45 times greater effect than placebo."
*keep in mind placebo does a decent ammount by itself.
Is that a fabrication, or what are the implications otherwise?
First, any article in the Lancet, I would want to know the actual purpose of the study, who funded and who executed. That is always very important information.
I'd look to the materia medica for info on homeopathic remedies and their efficacy before Lancet and a study of dubious origins.
You might want to check with actual homeopaths for where they get their information and proof of actual results. Unfortunately, in the 21st century, people seem more sold on "studies" than on actual personal experiences. I would never discount the positive personal experience for a study.
Though this one does show an increased level of efficacy over the Kalos diatribe, it still isn't necessarily outside the range of error or the whole story. Was a competent homeopath prescribing? Did they take into account the accuracy of diagnosis and homeopathic remedy applied?
I personal have known homeopathic to work 100% and keep remedies nearby for use. We've never suffered side effects that nouveau modern medicine pharmaceuticals cause.
I'd say, that looking for a medical study to prove the efficacy of homeopathic, or anything that will take money out of the pockets of Merck or other pharm companies is the equivalent of barking up the wrong tree.
If I were to compare the effects of WWI on environment, and the effects of home cooking on health as though they were equivalents Kalos and the other dissenters would laugh me out of the room. Well, . . ..I'm laughing here too. . .
More recent articles from The Lancet declare that there is no evidence to suggest that homeopathic medicine is of any value. Here is one article discussing The Lancet and homeopathic medicine.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/418391...
One thing that cracks me up is when James Randi and others will "overdose" on homeopathic sleeping medicines. They will take far more than what the homeopathic medicines say to take. Some of these homeopathic medicines even have overdose warnings. However, they people take these and suffer no ill consequences. They don't even get sleepy. It is no different than drinking water.
Don't forget that the homeopathic industry is a big time money maker and many people attack any claim that homeopathic medicine does not work. If the population realized it does not work then these companies making money off of the products would not be able to make the money. The conspiracy that the truth is hidden because there is money to be made or lost can go both ways.
You have to keep in mind that it is all about the money that these drug companies are pulling in each year billions and billions so anything that will hurt their profits is debunked especially in the states but also around the world. Even the internet is bias when it comes to natural health. They will with hold the truth from you as they want people to be on their drugs and not take care of their own health.
Seems to me that having the medical establishment do research on homeopathy would be the same as having an Islamic terrorist do research on Southern Baptists ( or other ).
Since placebo is effective 30% of the time in any medication, the study would show that homeopathic meds are effective 73.5% of the time...that's pretty darn good!!!
We must remember that Dr. Samuel Hahnemann, Founder of Homeopathy was a M.D. in allopathy. Homeopathy born in the failure of Allopathy. Homeopathy is comparetively cheaper in cost and much effective. In more than 200 countries, Millions of people treated by Homeopathy. Hahnemann says "The physician's highest and only calling is to make the sick healthy, to cure, as it is called". He added " allopathy is a word of warning to all".
I really do have to reserve judgment on this one.
I don't like the testing model used in allopathy to start with so I tend to take 'no empirical evidence' with a pinch of salt from the camp that designs its own research study supposedly independently testing their own products.
?!!
Homeopathy generally does better than placebo in INDEPENDANT tests run by non pharma. I can't vouch for the quality of the testing though.
What I can't understand is why homeopathy works on animals.
Even if intelligent people are so gullible that the homeopathic remedies are only unlocking the placebo effect the fact animals improve after taking homeopathic remedies doesn't support that theory.
Working on children doesn't really support the idea that it isn't placebo effect as the caring attitude of the administrator of medicine would almost certainly effect the result.
Animals, however, have entirely different physiology and would almost certainly not be influenced in the same way as humans so why would cures that work on humans be effective for them?
I'm wondering if something else is happening to the water that we are unable to measure currently which does the cure but has nothing to do with the active substance(from what I understand the active substance is so diluted that there is often none of it in the water).
On the Horizon documentary testing homeopathy, when James Randi was confronted with this his answer was 'There are many unconscious ways of influencing a participant' but he didn't offer anything specific or any more detail than that.
Even he said 'more research needs to be done' as he wasn't entirely convinced that the evidence against it was conclusive and he is one of the greatest anti-homeopathy advocates.
Added:
According to the Horizon documentary broadcast 5 years ago which detailed the whole process of the most famous experiment against homeopathy, homeopathy did work on animals.
You can find research proving or disproving virtually anything because the research model is fundamentally flawed.
Also I'd like Kalos to explain exactly why the questioner doesn't understand statistics and can he show with working exactly where he has got it wrong and how this 'misunderstanding' has occurred expecially as he has quoted from a reputable medical journal.
If he can't do that then I suggest Kalos is writen off and ignored in this discussion and further discussion would be welcome.
"concluded that the homeopathic medicines in the studies had a 2.45 times greater effect than placebo."
Hilarious!. A kneeslapper mistake