Since the nose knows, where is the evidence that homeopathy treats anything?!

"There are over 25,000 volumes of clinical evidence"

Volumes? How big are they? What do they consist of? Where are these 25,000 "volumes" stored? Who conducted the studies that make up these volumes? Why are there 25,000 of these otherwise undefined "volumes" and not just several large "volumes"?

Vague assertions and claims of "if you don't know how to use pubmed then neener neener I'm smarter than you!" are not evidence, they are not even anecdotal evidence, they are nothing but big loads of hot air on your part and you should be ashamed of yourself for thinking that that's an acceptable form of proof.

If you were in a court of law and as your only source of evidence you cited "a big global conspiracy!" you would be laughed out of court immediately. Learn the definitions of the words "evidence", "logic", and "fallacy" and then maybe you'll actually be able to form a coherent argument.

Here are my sources:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16125…
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10853…
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/93106…
http://www.ncahf.org/pp/homeop.html
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4034
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=1…
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=4…
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/0…

"It's growing at the rate of 20 per cent a year worldwide. It is the first line medical treatment for millions of people, second only to allopathy. North American homeopathy schools are reporting record enrollments. More people are interested in medical treatments that do not have dangerous side effects and lead to ever more damaging drugs to handle the problems caused by the other prescriptions. Homeopathy is the medicine of the 21st century."

"80% of conventional medicine (allopathy) has no scientific evidence to justify it, however anti-holistic bias means that some people seem to think that other healing systems should be held to a higher standard.
It's an established fact that Homeopathy is the second most prevalent system of medicine in use the world today. Why? Because it works."


I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm satisfied!

Hi Rhianna!

Edit: "You're not an expert in any form of medicine, a researcher, or a scientist. It's of no benefit to me or anyone who's interested in Homeopathy as a form of medical treatment whether you think there's "evidence" or not."

As if that would make any difference. If she was one of those things, and spoke out against homeopathy, you'd say she was in the pocket of big pharma. Am I right or am I right?

I write this with no personal experience in the field of homeopathy. I have never investigated this on a personal or professional level. What I can say is the result of dealing with Naturopaths and observations that I have seen participating in an IRB. I have seen people massively sick with different disease processes like flu and other virus's respond almost miraculously with no ability to explain why.

I have seen people respond well to this therapy. I do not think you can, nor ever will see a scientific study proving this modality. The world in which medicine exists is based upon the scientific method. So as you know there is an hypothesis and an experiment to prove or disprove it. As I remember, most of the time this deals in the null hypothesis. I do not think you can apply this to the modality in question to the scientific method because it does not follow this model. For lack of a better comparison its like comparing apples and oranges. This is because of one of two reasons. 1- We do not have enough understanding of how everything works in the universe aka nature (undeniably true statement) or 2- The modality is complete bunk and only works on placebo effect.

SO this argument has been circulating on this forum forever. There is no doubt that the scientific minded will win the argument 100% of the time. However, that does not make them correct if we do not have a full understanding of how things work in nature. So either the skeptics are correct by default or the homeopaths are correct and have not yet been able to prove it. So for now I would say that the scientific minded people hold the advantage in this debate.

PS Glad to see Rhianna back in fighting spirit. Always fun to debate w/ you.

Edit Dave: As most of the time I find you offensive and I disagree with you, I will concede with your argument of my observations. All I can say is what I have seen. I am not a researcher nor homeopath but rather a clinician.

There are over 400 studies and over 150 trials. If you can't find the research citations it's not my problem. It's also not my problem if you don't want to pay for them on PubMed.
There are over 25,000 volumes of clinical evidence.
Get busy reading and then get back to me.

Problem with skeppie types is that their mission is to spread disinformation.
Homeopaths aren't in the habit of "debating" the popcorn gallery. If you don't want to use Homeopathy then don't.
Reading some biased blurb on Wikipedia doesn't make someone an expert on Homeopathy.
Yes, you're entitled to your opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
You're not an expert in any form of medicine, a researcher, or a scientist. It's of no benefit to me or anyone who's interested in Homeopathy as a form of medical treatment whether you think there's "evidence" or not.
200 years of medical success says it all.
Your attitude is about Scientism, not Science.

** You already do a good job of discrediting yourself with your poor grasp of holistic medicine.

You might get 'lucky' and be given an outdated citation from a very poor quality journal desperate for something to fill its pages.......

You might get unlucky and be given a paper that has absolutely nothing to do with homeopathy, but probably has the word 'water' in its title somewhere......

You might get VERY unlucky and be given a link to a nonsense website that has been hastily constructed in order to push products and not facts.....

What you'll NEVER get though is answers to some of the crazy old mare's assertions such as: "Qigong energy is real and can be measured", "homeopathy cures TB", "homeopathy works and is well respected" etc etc...

TNK basically just regurgitates tripe from a homeopathy website, never attempts to provide evidence, doesn't understand the difference between lies and facts and exists in a fantasy land so far removed from the rest of the world's reality it borders on psychosis.

Anyhoo...welcome back Rhianna, hope you enjoyed your break!

Edit: No Marc, it's quite simple: When one group are treated with homeopathy compared to a group treated with a placebo, does the homeopathy group show any statistical improvement? The answer's no. It's irrelevant whether we know how homeopathy might work, as we can show that it doesn't have any measurable effect.
"I have seen people massively sick with different disease processes like flu and other virus's respond almost miraculously with no ability to explain why."

All you've seen is an improvement that coincides with homeopathic treatment. Your misperception that the improvement is DUE to homeopathy is where your confusion lies.

Edit2: "All I can say is what I have seen." That's fine, though I hope you can appreciate why these observations can have no connection with efficacy.

Don't expect a rational response anytime soon.

Nosey has been called on this before. She never responds with anything remotely resembling scientific evidence.

She can't even show a plausible mechanism for action, let alone any +ve high quality trials. So theres' a big burden of proof that she and the rest of the homeoquacks just can't get past to start with. This is why she has to resort to fallacious arguments. She also likes to block people who challenge her- always a sure sign of a crank.

In her most recent attempt to justify homeopathy she cited Luc Montagniers' water study....LOL. It gets worse for her though; when she's really stuck, she cites Dana Ullman. Thats hilarious!

So how the hell are you? You know, an email now and again wouldn't hurt.

Edit: Hi Dave, Hi Nate!

Edit: Nosey showed up...and straight in with a fallacy. Cheers for demonstrating my point!

This is called the "citation bomb" technique. The quacks think that just because there are many studies, some of which are published in PubMed, it must mean that homeopathy works. They hope that a plurality of bad studies equates to positive data. This of course does not follow. What matters is the quality of the trial.

Many of us skeptics are students, health care workers and scientists; we have full access to these articles. Claiming that there are trials that show homeopathy works but we just can't find them or access them won't wash. Show us these studies.

Homeopathy may have been around for 200 years but this does not demonstrate efficacy. Time does not test modalities, science does. Homeopathy has failed miserably.

The rest of your answer is ad hominem. And shows you have no argument.

I suggest you go to a health food store that has health books or maybe there are stores near you that carry these books. I used to have a whole book case filled with them. Just pick up some books and start reading to find out on your own if it has value.

But I think there is a war going on here...now days more of us are turning away from drugs and looking for natural cures. there's the ones here that believe in modern day drugs and feel the herbs and homeopathic medicines have no value. their view is all this other stuff is nonsense and they are unproven therapies.

I'm the thenoseknows