Home Politics & Debate
At The Mix, we want to make our services as helpful as we can. To do this, we’d love to ask you a few questions about you, your visit to The Mix and its impact. It should take only about 5-10 minutes to complete. Take this survey and get a chance at winning a £200 Amazon voucher​.
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Sign up here
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Homeopathic remedies - total waste of time?

13

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Just when I was saying to myself that I am to good-willed to make myself rich with the ignorance of other people I had THE IDEA, while making cheese toast in the kitchen. About my conclusion that every sip of tap water is a homeopathic remedy for hundreds of ailments, I thought that in some US american hillbilly patent office I'd patent tap water and demand royalties every time someone pours himself a glass of water. I think within a day my money pool would be bigger than the pool of water an active ingredient in a homeopathic remedy has. Damn...

    ok, hold your horses I think my cheese toasts are being burnt right now, brb.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    god, so bored of this. Try it or dont try it. Noones forcing anyone, nor does anyone give a shit
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Okay, I understand your are pissed off, and rightly so, but let me ask you a serious question out of curiosity. Would you, if things are bad in your life, seek up the service of an astrologist and let him or her tell you future outlooks based on the alignment of stars for cash money? Especially if thousands of people everywhere swear to god that their astrologist predicted their future correctly?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru

    Yes, your first article is written by a leading homeopath, who references as her proof a report submitted by the British
    Homeopathic Association and the Faculty of Homeopathy to the UK government. Your second article links to a study carried out by someone at Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital. Given there proven record of publication bias by that particular industry, forgive me if I'm slightly cynical about the validity of the results. It's about as convincing as linking to a study on the effects of tobacco carried out by Marlboro.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    yeah those big multinational homeopathic companies :rolleyes: What a surprise, a homeopathic company wants to do research into homeopathy, but whatever they find, you would dismiss and the real experiences of users you dismiss totally too.

    The double blind trials wont work because homeopathy is holistic and the right treatment will be different for different people, and of course it "shouldnt" work BUT IT DOES
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    yeah those big multinational homeopathic companies :rolleyes: What a surprise, a homeopathic company wants to do research into homeopathy, but whatever they find, you would dismiss and the real experiences of users you dismiss totally too.

    The double blind trials wont work because homeopathy is holistic and the right treatment will be different for different people, and of course it "shouldnt" work BUT IT DOES

    Of course, we can't use proper science to determine whether homeopathy works because it's different. Then why did you just link to a study based on double-blind trials? It seems that scientific evidence is all well and good if it supports your claims, but when it doesn't, it's obviously science's failing rather than the treatment's.

    And yes, I do tend to have an issue trusting the published findings of organisations with a record of dishonesty and bias. And don't try to make them out to be some poor underdog. You know full well that homeopathy is a multi-million pound industry that will attempt to bully anyone who criticises it (particularly using libel laws to suppress free criticism in the knowledge that a lot of commentators simply can't afford to defend themselves in court).

    And no it doesn't work. Saying it louder won't change the evidence.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm just fucking with GoS. He pops up, never says what he means, and then fucks off again. But he is a massive Jesus-face which makes me laugh given how sceptical he (sometimes) pretends to be.

    Strong,dominant,forceful and assertive.

    :heart::heart::heart::heart:

    Almost developed battered wife syndrome there CCH when perhaps I should be posting on the stalker thread.

    Still, if I disappear quickly and "fuck off again" a small dose of the pathogen CCH cannot do any harm can it ?

    How about if I take a CCH dilution of 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 000,000,000,000 ?

    I could go the way of "science" as an alternative to alternative medicine.

    The NHS suggests I take the pathogen CCH and alter it by perhaps weakening, or ‘attenuating’ it just like the MMR vaccines.

    (Don't forget the combination with other ingredients, such as stabilisers and preservatives : http://uk.ask.com/wiki/List_of_vaccine_ingredients ).


    That "scientific" approach of weakening the original pathogen to the "correct" dilution may even provide lifelong immunity.

    Decisions,decisions.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You know full well that homeopathy is a multi-million pound industry that will attempt to bully anyone who criticises it /QUOTE]

    I think the anti-homeopathy lobby seem to be much harsher bullies.

    I mean, whos shouting loudest here? Homeopaths are just offering another possible solution to try. Any good results are shouted down. If there are many good results in a trial its "biased" if its people telling you it works its "anecdotal" Youre never going to be open minded because you dont want to believe it. Thats fine. I only object to you telling ME my experiences arent real, and the fact you (and other pseudo wannabe scientists) so vehemently diss anyone who might want to try it. Whats your agenda ffs? I really dont see the problem? For some stuff ive had better results from homeopathy than from conventional medicine, and with conventional medicine theres been many instances where ive just been consumed by unwanted side effects rather than desired effects.
    I believe that both have their place
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think the anti-homeopathy lobby seem to be much harsher bullies.

    Yeah, funny how what seems to be the case and what is actually the case aren't necessarily the same thing, isn't it? Kinda like homeopathic cures, really. Nobody at any point has doubted your experiences, just your medical explanation of them, which I'm sure you would admit, you are not qualified to make with any accuracy. And neither am I, which is why we have to look to independent trials. But if I really have to explain the value of evidence-based medical treatments to you, and how treatments like homeopathy undermine that (often blatantly and deliberately for the sake of profit), then there really is no hope. If homeopathy being on the NHS, for example, was really just a case of a few million pounds, then that would be a drop in the ocean. But being available on and funded by the NHS, and being available in mainstream pharmacies in packaging indistinguishable from proven drugs give it an air of legitimacy that it hasn't earned in the lab, which is worth millions to the industry. You can't have that kind of "let the customers decide" attitude, and then complain when people are keen to publicise the fact that these medicines are bogus.

    But you haven't really answered what you think the rules should be. Do you think evidence as it exists currently is enough that homeopaths should be able to claim the effectiveness of their treatment for curing specific ailments? And if so, would you extend this courtesy to mainstream drugs too, or would they have to continue proving it in the lab?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I still don't get the problem. There's a loud, shouty camp that says homeopathic remedies don't work. Fine - you don't need to use them. Simple.

    There's a not insignificantly sized camp that says in personal experience, yes, they do. For these people they work better than just 'willing' themselves to get better. Is there any reason we should stop them using the remedies?

    As for NHS funding - why not keep the option open, with the same caveat all treatments should have, that it only gets continued while there is evidence to say it's helping. On my private insurance I only get 4 physio sessions paid for my default. To get more than that funded the treatment plan and my progress has to be reviewed and monitored to show its working. I'm not saying that's how things DO happen with the NHS, but it's probably how things SHOULD happen. From the NHS's point of view, going way back when I was under 16, if they paid my Apis Mel prescription, then my use of steroid cream went through the floor, as did my use of antihistamine tablets, as did the number of appointments I needed at the GP to get bite reactions checked on for infection because they were taking so long to go down. In that case, definitely cost effective.

    To some people it might be mind games, but back of the envelope type calculations suggest that even as mind games - they're much cheaper than psychological treatments.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ~~
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    jamelia wrote: »
    Because there is no evidence to say it's helping. .

    apart from it actually seeming to miraculously and coincidently help thousands upon thousands of people, time after time?

    of course all these thousands/millions of occurances are just "anecdotal" but if it agrees with you, then its data
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    jamelia wrote: »
    there is absolutely NO evidence that it helps, despite a great many scientific studies.

    There is, but it is ignored
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    jamelia wrote: »
    Because there is no evidence to say it's helping. Other than the fact that sometimes people's ailments improve of their own accord, and people falsely attribute this to the little sugar pill they've been taking.

    That's precisely what's at stake in this debate. We shouldn't keep funding it on the NHS, precisely because there is absolutely NO evidence that it helps, despite a great many scientific studies.

    On a case by case basis though - there is evidence. Large scale studies don't get you evidence, but then a Slarti points as, neither do many other therapies. That doesn't mean that they're not worth it for the people they do work for. The evidence for physio is pretty much on the borderline - so do we ditch all physio on the NHS? Personally I'd say no, you keep using it as an option, but you monitor to see if it appears to be supporting improvement for that patient.

    It shouldn't be a first port of call on the NHS, it shouldn't be a forced alternative to conventional medicine, but why not have it as an option in the armoury. My medication/ reviews frequently tried ditching or substituting one of the products I used to try and deal with reactions, and occasionally substituting one antihistamine for another helped, occasionally changing the steroid cream helped. Often it didn't. Ditching the Apis Mel as it was a pain to carry around and had very little science behind it so potentially had no point didn't work at all - but we tried that one too.

    Do we really need to get rid of having the option there, if it's used sensibly? Even if all you get is the placebo effect, it's a pretty cost effective way of getting an improvement in someones health.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There is, but it is ignored

    No it isn't. It just isn't considered "real" evidence. There hasn't been a single systematic review which supports homeopathy and that's the problem. The only "evidence" provided in support is deeply flawed - eg small sample size, not double blind, not randomised, usually run by biased programmes.

    I'll never dispute that some people believe it works for them. I'm just not sure that it has a place in the medical arena.

    As has been pointed out, over the centuries many different treatments have been tested scientifically. Those which have been proven to work as now called "medicine" those which haven't are usually referred to as "alternative medicine". Or "not" medicine.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Homeopathy hasn't been proved scientifically, the reports that are out in favour of it generally have some fairly major flaws in them. It isn't "bullying" to point this much out, there is no medical or scientific evidence that homeopathic remedies (I hesitate to call them medicines) work when tested blind.

    We need to be careful about going down the "homeopathy = not proved = bad; pharmaco drugs = proved = good" route, because life isn't as simple as that. There are a lot of drugs available on the NHS where the independently verified benefit is no better than placebo, or marginally better than placebo, including a lot of politically-sensitive cancer drugs. Compared to some of these cancer drugs which cost £10,000 a course, homeopathy is a drop in the ocean. Even drugs that are accepted as working, especially SSRIs, have a lot of controversy behind them; many studies do show that some SSRI are barely different from placebo.

    Data is not the plural of anecdote, I wouldn't claim otherwise, but most of us can only base their opinions on personal experience. I believe SSRIs work because they work for me; others believe in homeopathy or aromatherapy or acupuncture because it works for them. If a homeopathic remedy gives people the belief that they are getting better, and therefore they get better, what is wrong with paying for it? My wife used hypnotherapy as pain relief during childbirth; again, it isn't scientifically verified, but it worked for her, and was a damn sight better for her and the baby than the scientifically proven pethidine would have been.

    I'm as scathing as anyone about the quacks who reckon AIDS can be cured by music, but we need to separate out those people from the people who sell a bit of chamomilla to help with sleeplessness. We can be scathing about "Doctor" Gillian McKeith without having to be so rude to Suzy about what she thinks works for her.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,210 Skive's The Limit
    So what about anti-depressants then? Many studies show that they're barely more effective than placebo...

    In cases of mild depression they've shown to be less effective or no better than a placebo. No better meaning that a they're actually aggravating symoptons.
    Only in cases of severe depression are have they been shown to be more effective than a placebo, and even then the placebo is as effective 75% of the time.

    Placebo's have harmless side effects, SSRI's however, do not. The science behind them is little better than the science behind homeopathic drugs. They're designed to work be 'correcting' a chemical inbalance in the brain. This is still nothing more than theory.

    Consider that it's alsmost become cool amongst some to be on some sort of SSRI, and doctors tend to give them out all too easilly and you havea worrying situation.


    I have no problem with homeopathic drugs being used in conjunctionwith scientifically proven drugs but it's dangerous and stupid to use them instead of proven drugs.
    The NHS shouldn't be coughing up for them.
    Yesterday is history
    Tomorrow is a mystery
    But today is a gift
    That’s why it’s call the present
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    I have no problem with homeopathic drugs being used in conjunctionwith scientifically proven drugs but it's dangerous and stupid to use them instead of proven drugs.
    The NHS shouldn't be coughing up for them.

    How about:
    I have no problem with homeopathic drugs being used in conjunction with good quality medical supervison which may includescientifically proven drugs but it's dangerous and stupid to use them exclusively instead of proven drugs without medically monitoring the condition.
    The NHS shouldn't be coughing up for them if there is no evidence they are working for that person, much like any other treatment.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You think the NHS should fund anything that a patient claims is working for them? That tax payers should pick up my faith healing, reiki, psychic surgery, crystal healing, ear candle, coin rubbing, cupping, and feng shui bill?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If your problem is having a significant impact on your life, and your ability to work productively, and a reasonable treatment is going to significantly improve your problem then yes, I do.

    If the net effect is the tax payer wins, then I'm all for it.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,210 Skive's The Limit
    How about:

    No.

    Medical professionals shouldn't be exclusively giving out anything that hasn't gone through scientific medical trails and been proved to be effective. That goes for all drugs.

    And the tax payer shouldn't be coughing up for fairy water and sugar pills, it's an outragous waste of money. Placebo's work yes, but it's not an area where the NHS should be spending money.
    Yesterday is history
    Tomorrow is a mystery
    But today is a gift
    That’s why it’s call the present
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If your problem is having a significant impact on your life, and your ability to work productively, and a reasonable treatment is going to significantly improve your problem then yes, I do.

    No vetting procedures whatsoever? No tests of wider efficacy? Bundles of cash should readily be handed over to a fella I've met who's got some snake oil to rub on my arthritic shoulder? He gave me a free sample and it worked wonders; each subsequent treatment is £450.

    And what does the qualifier "a significant impact on your life" mean? Quackery shouldn't be employed for minor ailments, but if the shit gets serious then we bust out the big guns and bring on the ju-ju? And what's defines "a reasonable treatment"? Presumably, absolutely anything as long as the patient espouses themselves to its efficacy.
    If the net effect is the tax payer wins, then I'm all for it.

    The whole point is that at best these quack treatments show results akin to placebo. At worst they're plain ol' scams.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    this goes round in circles so much im getting dizzy. Maybe we should have a breast versus bottle debate instead
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    I have no problem with homeopathic drugs being used in conjunctionwith scientifically proven drugs but it's dangerous and stupid to use them instead of proven drugs.
    The NHS shouldn't be coughing up for them.

    Even if said proven drug has really awful side effects and homoeopathic medicine doesn't? Yet, they both do the same thing.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,210 Skive's The Limit
    Melian wrote: »
    Even if said proven drug has really awful side effects and homoeopathic medicine doesn't? Yet, they both do the same thing.

    But Homeopathic remedies don't do the same thing, that's why they remain medically unproven.

    Some drugs do give you nasty side effects but that's why we have medical trials, to make sure they're both effective and safe.

    Homeopathic remedies often show little side effects because they are generally ineffective all round.
    The science of similars, the theory behind Homeopathic medicine is mumbo jumbo.
    Yesterday is history
    Tomorrow is a mystery
    But today is a gift
    That’s why it’s call the present
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    , ear candle,

    I have no idea if you just made the term up, or if this is a real thing, but in any case: shut up and take my money, I am going to invest.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,210 Skive's The Limit
    StrubbleS wrote: »
    I have no idea if you just made the term up, or if this is a real thing, but in any case: shut up and take my money, I am going to invest.

    otosan-girl.jpg


    Not homeopathic though. Just dodgy science.
    Yesterday is history
    Tomorrow is a mystery
    But today is a gift
    That’s why it’s call the present
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Oh, I was thinking something like this:

    fjwax01.jpg
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    Medical professionals shouldn't be exclusively giving out anything that hasn't gone through scientific medical trails and been proved to be effective. That goes for all drugs

    That's a bugger then as something in the region of 75% of medicine (asthis, this and this article suggests) doesn't have an "evidence base" which meets that criteria. Something that is worth noting.
Sign In or Register to comment.