Homeopathy
 

I saw this come up in a recent discussion and wanted to discuss it a little further with people without derailing things there.

In my view, homeopathy works. Not for all ailments, serious disease like malaria, cancer al that kind of area cannot be treated with positive mind alone (although, that in itself is a debate, countless people have stunned doctors by overcoming a cancer or other terminal disease when they had virtually been condemned to death by the medical world...) however, I do believe that every day ailments *can* be treated with a positive mindset and natural remedies.

Speaking from personal experience, I rarely get ill as it is, but when I do, I get it very bad indeed. I also haven't taken a paracetmol or medicine in years (except for malaria and all the required vaccines to go to where I did) but when I have gotten ill - I mean a cold, a sore throat, a headache - I have simply used a remedy like drinking some black tea with lemon and honey or just taking a rest and learning to bear it out. I believe far too many people these days are into the habit of whenever they feel something 'coming on', they instantly assume "i'm coming down with something, and it's going to be bad" and go running for the paracetemol, and they more than often do end up going down with something. My mother is a case-in-point on this one.

In a way, it opens it up to a larger debate; are we becoming to terrified of everything? Again, for me as a child, I rarely took medicine - if i'm honest, I rarely even washed my hands - but I still played in the woods, got bumps, scrapes and bruises... But I think it was that that gave me my natural resilience. It seems like nowadays, with all the "kills 99% of all known germs" products around, we're just becoming too sterile.

Any thoughts?

Homoeopathic remedies are literally pure water. They do nothing.

However, the effects you describe are well-known as instances of the placebo effect. Your mother has the reverse going on: thinking the problem is going to get worse makes it so.

Ah this is very interesting, I do believe that having a strong mind can cure ailments all by itself, even the more serious ones and I believe there is also scientific proof for this for anybody here who is into science. As for natural remedies, I would take these over the stuff the doctors prescribe most of the time, after looking through the 'side effects' on commonly available over the counter drugs and seeing stuff like blindess. I know all to well that the odds of that occuring are tiny but still.

I think it's somewhat humourous that lots of people are terrified of germs these days. We live in a world of surface cleaners, kids are told not to pick stuff up of the floor, I mean hell when I was a child and I couldnt be bothered to go back to the house for a drink I'd take a few swigs out of our several year old waterbutt in the garden and I never got ill. While people want their kids to be safe from illness, they fail to realize that the germs are just going to mutate and grow stronger but our immunity won't, then they will be in the Ninat :/ By staying away from germs we are killing ourselves but I guess it's just Nature's way of eventually weeding out the 'sterile'.

I don't think any sort of medication should be taken lightly, but I don't believe there's any effective place for homeopathy.

K - when I can get to a regular computer, I'll more than offer my two cents on this debate. Disbeliever's forewarned! :/

What Fkeu'itan has presented is more actually the general concept of whats seen and referred to within the context of Wholistic or Alternative Health practices, which encompass a large and varying techniques that range from the reasonable to the outlandish. Most only hear about the outlandish!

Homeopathy is a very specific field in and of itself, than involves 'proven' remedies (which I'll provide the documentation of, later). It as a recognized treatment practice has been around longer than today's modern allopathic medicine. In fact Homeopathy saved more lives during the Spanish Flu Pandemic, than allopathic medicine did. Also Homeopathy has 'cured' Malaria, in fact, it was finding the cure for Malaria that gave 'birth' to Homeopathy, and even today's allopatic remedy is rooted in the same remedy that Homeopathy uses - Quinine (sic) (can't spell check -will correct after).

So just some basic comment's for now. “I'll be back.”

The placebo effect can be very effective. That said, homeopathy is not only based on a dubious premise to begin with, but diluted to the point that the chance of it containing even a single molecule from the supposed 'cure' is effectively zero.
People given a sugar pill and told it's ibuprofen can mentally block pain. People have even had cancer go into remission on placebo - this is all on what is objectively useless as medication, but they believe it will do something, so their body does what the brain wants.

Homeopathy kills people by convincing them they can refuse proper treatment because their magic water will cure them, then it invariably doesn't. In some double-blind studies, the placebo has performed better than the homeopathy.

Alright - first of all I'm going to back up my arguements with solid facts through documentation. I respectfully request the same from those opposed, rather than just presenting opinioned generalizations!

Secondly the side effects of pharmecuticals has killed more patients than Homeopathy will ever have!!! Not to mention the toxic effects its created in our global waterways. In fact pharmecutical 'dumping' is now being proved to contibuting to the alarming increases in male sterility/impotency, and early onset puberty and infertility in females!!!

So what we are needing to get 'realistic” about is modern allopathic synthetic medicines, Con's far out weigh the brain washing pro's they try to use to play god with.

sidenote: btw I've been doing this dance of a debate, for more than twenty five years, and in that time, more people have cone over to this side of the dance floor, in the end.

Exhibits 1, 2, 3.

The first article in particular says:
In particular, there was no condition which responds convincingly better "to homeopathic treatment than to placebo or other control interventions. Similarly, there was no homeopathic remedy that was demonstrated to yield clinical effects that are convincingly different from placebo."

Spending more than 5 minutes on this will yield more, of course. :cool:

This is perfectly consistent with homoeopathy doing nothing; the placebo effect will not directly kill you. It's also fallacious reasoning, since homoeopathic medicine is not used for high-risk or otherwise "deadlier" conditions, and this will bias the statistics in its favour.

This is trying to exploit a dichotomy that doesn't exist: "Conventional medicine is bad, therefore homoeopathy works!"

Scaremongering and emotional manipulation. Demonizing the opponent is not a valid debating tactic.

Appeal to popularity is not an argument either.

ok Clarke, as to the ettiqutes, of debating, i will concede, as this is probably the actual first 'debate' as in formality sense, i've engaged upon. Simplified response, i have no knowledle of debate rules. :/

As to your exhibts I'll look over tonight and post tomorrow, please remember I can't cite, copy, paste etc due to technical limitations of a Wii, which is not an appeal to emotion, it was a consideration I had noted previous post.

Not sure about how I feel about homeopathy, but at the same time I don't feel western medicine has all the answers, either. There's probably something to some eastern medicines, or natural medicines. Western medicine could probably learn from the East new ways to make their medicine more natural and more in line with our biology, and Eastern medicine can learn to make their medicine more effective. We need to find a balance of the best of both worlds.

Stag brings up a good point about avoiding bacteria. By attempting to create such a sterilized environment for ourselves, we rob our bodies of the chance to be exposed to trace amounts of a bacteria or virus, and thus developing a defense for them. This is known as hormesis. It's gotten a bad name recently, because of right-wingers like Ann Coulter who took a previously legitimate phenomenon and used it to...say, justify looser nuclear regulation because low levels of gamma radiation can be "good for us." The best way to use hormesis to prevent disease? Let kids be kids! Let them play in the dirt and play with bugs, like most of the more adult members on here did when they were kids, before the whole "hand sanitation" and "helicopter parenting" became the craze. All this is is just a scam by Purell to hawk their stupid hand sanitizers.

And yes, no matter what side your on I think we can all agree that the medical-industrial establishment has strayed from healing and become more a money-making scheme than anything. Modern medicine can be just as capable of peddling snake-oil as some alternative medicines, and we need to do something about it. #OccupyBigPharma, anyone?

RAISES HAND ;)

*HUGS*

* NB - Clarke or others, my reponse to Tsyal is not intended as part of the debate. Its an insiders friends joke to something from back on AF days.

As to the debate, i would note, it is a documented fact, that when people are afraid of death and dying, they pretty much can and will be convinced to 'believe' right or wrongly, but definetly blindly in 'anything' that 'claims' will or might save them.

Allopathic is just as much at fault for that as the alternatives.

And given the detail that I'm the one that has to pay for my health choices and care, I will decide for myself, what i'm willing to pay for.

On consideration of what i see as a reasonable use of my knowledge, energy and time, combined with quitting smoking, I realized I have no patience for this. Honesty to you that dont want to even be open minded to alternatives, i don't give a rat's ass what you think. You do it your way I'll do it my way, lets see whose more ****ed in the end. I'll live life more fully, synthetic free, even if its a shorter life, idk, but at least i own my body and my mind, and my choices, not some pharmecutical company.

Homeopathy doesn't work

Well the very first link i pulled when googling homeopathic clinical studies, in a medical journal, observed that out of something like 84 studies, indications were “apparent bias” and undeterminable methodolgy made it difficult or inclusive to ascertain the quality of the findings - and it is refering both to the Alopathic studies, as well as the Homeopathic practioners ones. But it concludeds despite the biases, etc, it seems the majority of the studies demonstrate (or indicate) a “positive” resultant of Homeopathic useage.

side note random comment that vilolates once again debating do's and dont's, It's interesting that by what is considered necessary for scientific verification, is absolutely no room for Faith, Prayer, or anything Spiritual, so that 'god' will fail. But the same criteria can allow Sugar companies to publish ads based on their studies, that sugar is good for you, doesn't contribute to tooth decay, obesity or diabetes, because 'technically' its been proven 'true' but really thats the point any research can be skewed.




I'VE never seen an 'atom' and probably never will, but i'm supposed to take the word of it taught to me in school as 'truth' because others have their evidence, 'not to mention big scary bomb', yet homeopathy who distills medicine down to the atomic level, is considered debunked, and again i'm just suppossed to take someone elses word as 'truth'?

"You really think that's air you're breathing?

That wasn't what you said in response to my post.

Advocating something to those who are interested is very different form defending it against someone well-informed who has taken the time to do the actual research.


That sounds to me like an admission eastern ones don't work.

Nobody said any approach has all answers, but basing what IS known on evidence, on detailed understandings of processes that had not even been discovered when other methods were invented, is a far more reliable method than throwing in whatever because it might help.

Vitamin supplements and such things?
Those have nothing to do with actual medicines, and if you look, they can't actually make any specific claims, only say it is a 'dietary supplement', and they can not make any claim about medical effects without testing (e.g. FDA in the US).

Before you go set up a tent outside a clinic and start persecuting people for trying to make a difference, remember that companies invest BILLIONS into research, and that it's poorly-funded healthcare systems which may not be able to afford developments.

Yes, and that's a bad thing.

Everyone has that choice, certainly.

It's not about open-mindedness. I approached such things with an open mind when looking for useful data on efficacy, looked for evidence, found none, and found a large body of contradicting evidence. Remaining 'open minded' after something is proven false is closed-minded in itself - remember the burden of proof is always on the claimant, not on those disproving it. False unless proven true, like innocent until proven guilty. If someone was to say "I used magic yesterday but it was a one time thing and never can again", that's going to be most likely that they are lying, as they can not prove it. If they said "I used it to make this perpetual motion device, but never can again", then it would be worthy of actual consideration/investigation in absence of another explanation.

Placebos also demonstrate a positive effect compared to doing nothing. Even doing nothing yet telling the patient something is being done invokes the placebo effect, and can cause improvements in condition. Equally, side effects are possible from placebos - if you give someone what they think may have side effects of tiredness, but is actually a placebo, they become more likely to report tiredness.
The entire point of a double-blind trial is to avoid bias. It can be summarised as such:

There are multiple patient groups, with the same representative composition.
Researchers are given one group, and one treatment to administer. The researchers do not know if they are administering a placebo or real treatment, in order to avoid either giving it away via subconscious clues, or letting their own thoughts affect observation. They observe results over time, still not knowing if they administered placebo or real treatment, so as not to affect their recording of the data. the people who control the experiment and know which group is which do not interact with the patients at all.
By this method, any systemic bias, either in administration, or in recording of data, is removed.


Not at all true. There have even been studies testing the efficacy of 'prayer' compared to medical treatment. If any 'sugar company' published such an ad, I know at least here it could be rapidly dealing with the ASA for misleading advertising, I'm going to assume it's the same in the US - even if it is at least a little looser there based on the prevalence of character assassination political attack ads which are almost unheard of here, I seriously doubt advertising is unregulated.

Well, you may not have seen one per se, but you interact with them every millisecond. Homeopathy dilutes substances to such a degree that it does not actually contain any of the supposed ingredient (the ratio is around the size of a single pixel on a monitor the size of the solar system).

Homeopathy predates just about every modern understanding of the world - it was developed at a time when people thought disease was caused by bad smells, and that the body was comprised of "Four Humours" (yes, seriously). At the time, so-called medical treatment was primitive and often made things worse (e.g. bloodletting), and doing nothing often actually gave a better chance of recovery - THAT is why is was not consigned to the bin of history along with bloodletting. Se yes, it did work in a fashion as an alternative, but that alternative was still de facto doing nothing.

As strange as it be, the Sugar Companies Ad's really did happen very well may have been here in North America, i remember them, might have been even since 2000, it was ridiculous, and I don't know how they got away with being able to do it, but I do know most of us shook are heads in disbelief, but it wasn't a prank ad, it was a legitimate one. :/

Links -

National Centre for Homeopath
National Center for Homeopathy |

Homeopathic Research Evidence Base References
Homeopathy Research Evidence Base: References | National Center for Homeopathy

Research Articles
www.homeopathic.org/articles-research

The Character of Samuel Hahnemann (the Father of Homeopathy) - In response to HNM's comments regarding outdated medicine - i think anyone would find this interesting.
http://www.homeopathic.org/content/t...muel-hahnemann

PLEASE remember I am an intelligent 'educated' 50 yr old, who didn't start off in life knowing about Alternative Medicines or Homeopathy ... it took me 6 years as an ADULT of investigating it, researcihng it, listening to the 'evidence' before I began to take it seriously. And have years and years of personal life experience and many Professional associates, acquaintances in both the Allopathic and Alternative Health field, that have added thier experiences and expertise to the whole.

I keep trying to make a detailed response but my iPhone keeps crashing to home, so I'll just post this link.








4 Creepy Ways Big Pharma Peddles its Drugs | Drugs | AlterNet

7 Reasons America's Mental Health Industry Is a Threat to Our Sanity | Drugs | AlterNet

The 10 Most Dangerous Meds Driving America's Pill Crisis | Drugs | AlterNet

This is why we need to #OccupyBigPharma.

As for what I meant by eastern/western medicine coming together to benefit each other. I meant that eastern medicine could further increase effectiveness by certain scientific findings made by the west, or certain technologies like time-release capsules, etc. Again, best of both worlds, unless one feels that the west has all the answers and nothing to gain, but I think the above link shows a good bit that there's something wrong with the medical establishment. To reject all alternatives is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, if you ask me.


Integrating modern and traditional medicine: Facts and figures - SciDev.Net

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I meant something like this. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

On a side note, here's something interesting I came across involving shamanism.

Though the effectiveness could be that holistic, traditional medicines contain active ingredients that do have health benefits, even if they are non-western.

On a side note, now that I'm on my computer trying to add to this post, NOW my computer just crashed on me. Sheesh, something out there doesn't want me to write this reply.:shoop:

I have this study, (The Lancet being, in the BBC's words, "one of the world's most prestigious medical journals") which says, and I quote:
When account was taken for these biases in the analysis, there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions. This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects.

There has been no/little suggestion that any of those are actually effective beyond what the body does naturally. That's why they are excluded, not because scientists have some bias against god. :P

Unfortunately, misleading language and pedantic wording are not banned. However, lying is, so you might want to talk to whoever manages advertising standards in your area.

Feel free to come up with your own theory of fundamental objects, but keep in mind you have to explain images like this. (Context) ;)

Well, according to the physics that brought you nanotechnology, and the chemistry that brought you artificial genetic engineering, distilling it to that level reduces its effectiveness. You've either got to "take their word for it" (i.e. believe evidence corroborated by basically any chemistry experiment) or show that the foundation of all modern technology is wrong.

From the National Centre on Homeopathy ..

"Dr. Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of homeopathy, also pioneered the importance of hygiene.

Hygiene was insisted on by Dr. Hahnemann even though it was almost totally unknown in his era. Obvious procedures such as scraping a wound clean or bandaging with alcohol-soaked clothes and fresh air, exercise, and cheerful company were innovations to Hahnemann's brothers in the medical arts."
"

'Failure in our field' referring to Allopathic Medicine admitting to its 'skewing of its own data'

Critically important conventional drug research routinely suppressed, study authors find | National Center for Homeopathy

The failure of the medical literature to report such findings "has been a major failure in our field," said Eugene Carragee, a Stanford University orthopedic surgeon and editor-in-chief of the Spine Journal. Last year, Carragee spearheaded an unprecedented independent analysis showing that Medtronic and a circle of orthopedic surgeons who have received millions of dollars in royalties from the company systematically have failed to report serious complications with the product.

Carragee said the BMJ analysis and its call for disciplinary action against offending doctors is "an important departure from the historical laissez-faire attitude of the recent past."

A surprising finding in the BMJ analysis was that serious lapses occurred even in clinical trials funded by the National Institutes of Health.

That research showed that less than half of NIH-funded clinical trials were published in a medical journal within 30 months of the completion of the trial and after 51 months, one-third of trials remained unpublished.

While industry-related profit motives may not be a factor in such cases, there are other possible explanations, said senior author Harlan Krumholz, a Yale University professor of medicine and investigative medicine and public health.

Sometimes researchers may get an unexpected finding that contradicts a position they have staked out, he said."It is a conflict of their academic beliefs," he said.

At the same time, medical journals may not want to publish negative findings, he said.

A second BMJ paper looked at clinical trials of drugs that already had received at least one Food and Drug Administration approval. In such cases a law requires the reporting within one year of the completion of the trial.

Despite the law, only 163 of 738 such trials, or 22%, had reported the results within a year, the paper found.

Lead author Andrew Prayle, a researcher with the University of Nottingham, said he hoped the finding would spur more researchers to post summaries of the work at the NIH site, ClinicalTrials.gov.

He died over 150 years ago. That's like citing one of Newton's disproved theories and claiming that the fact that Newton got a lot of other things right is more important than all of the current, more advanced data.

And there's not a single mention of the word "Homeopathy" in that article. Applying it in that way is a completely unjustified logical leap.

"We would like to bring this to the attention of the larger homoeopathic community. As many of you know, there has been an ongoing campaign to discredit and annihilate homoeopathy in the UK by posting false information and unfounded and inflammatory opinions."

Homeopathy is under attack once again | National Center for Homeopathy

THE INQUISITION
How predictable; the Pharmaceutical Inquisition have discovered my site and they are squawking away in a hysterical frenzy. I take this as a compliment and thank them for the publicity.

Alas, the pharma-inquisition has a nasty little habit of nit picking other peoples blogs as if they were a scientific document, misstating issues, taking them out of context and amplifying them into a malevolent distortion of truth.

So getting back to the OP question.

There are some general reports coming out from mainstream, that seem to be indicating this concern, that with all the modern hygenic practices, or more so specifically products, that we collectively are losing 'natural' resistencency to fighting off 'bugs', but that discourse also indicates the rise of 'superbugs', that 'apparently weren't around before. That said the same reports discussions also recommend getting children back into natural enviroments, to boost their inherent natural resilency, so would seem its come full circle, back to less germ aphobic, and more let them play in dirt and get muddy! :)

I have also researched it - simply resorting to an appeal to tradition won't change that fact. Your age has nothng to do with your knowledge; I have known people both older and younger than you both better and worse informed than myself on a wide variety of subjects. Personally, I prefer to rely on research and evidence than claiming that age/time-in-field makes someone automatically correct.

Link time, is it?

BBC NEWS | Health | Homeopathy not a cure, says WHO

Government healthcare reviews:

http://www.publications.parliament.u...tech/45/45.pdf
A critical overview of homeopathy. [Ann Intern Med. 2003] - PubMed - NCBI

Clinical trials:

Examination of bias in papers found to have artificial 'proof' results including systematic methodological error:
Evidence Check: Bryce Wylde

Examination of failures including illegal marketing claims:
Homeopathy: The Ultimate Fake

Review of research:
The Scientific Evidence on Homeopathy > Health Issues > ACSH
From a nonpartisan site, examines claims made for and against its efficacy, and comes to the conclusion that it has no effect past the placebo.

A very interesting history, from an unbiased point of view - it points out that homeopathy was often better than 18th century medicine such as bloodletting, but still indistinguishable from doing nothing:
homeopathy - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

Report summarising research:
Homeopathy

Non-scientific BBC trial finds no efficacy:
BBC - Science & Nature - Horizon - Homeopathy: The Test


As I said before, he did advocate some methods that were better than many of the day, but doing nothing is also better than bloodletting, for example, yet doing nothing in itself is not a valid form of treatment for any even moderate condition.

False dilemma / excluded middle. Pointing out a failure in process of a specific consumer organisation (from a partisan site, no less) does not challenge the efficacy of an entire category of products which have literally tens of thousands of controlled, peer-reviewed studies to prove efficacy. Underreporting of side effects is known, and is not some kind of 'flaw' in reality, as it does NOT in any way question the effectiveness of real treatment, only that a single element is less reported.

You're misunderstanding the meaning - that has nothing to do with pseudoscience and everything to do with people not wanting to publish when a trial was found to be ineffective. There are millions of failed designs, it's a consequence of volume of research.


How about finding a nonpartisan site to back up your claims?

I thought not.

That has exactly nothing to do with medical treatment and everything to do with over-caution. Also, you misunderstand how bacteria develop resistance.

Your right, clearly, age and education are no indication of capicity for understanding, or lack thereof. What are you trying to 'prove'? And really to whom? I don't know what world you exist on, but I do know in the real world, in the twenty first century, intolerance of individualism that needs to hold on too and prove their point, at all costs, inflexible, aren't part of the new tolerant shift of the evolutionary shift taking place in the human collective consciousness. You're a dying breed of 'the out worn old'.

I provide links to let people read for themselves and make up their own mind, in the end. I am not attached to ego's need to control the outcome for others.
Or society as a whole.
You want to live a life entrenched, do so, I am the kind that will slip betwwen the tightly fisted cracks, and go swimming in life, how i want, where i want, the way i want, while in the distance the cities crumble.

If science is a dying idea, then humanity is doomed. In the long term, I do not think that's an exaggeration.

Since it has to deal with the distractions of irrationality, rhetoric, uncontrolled hedonism and misinformation, science is a very, very dim candle in the dark, but it is the most critical, out of all narratives, because without it, you cannot say who will take advantage of you, who you will hurt, or whether you will hurt yourself in doing anything else. Letting that candle go out would be catastrophic, because then we would lose our only reliable, adaptable weapon in a dark and chaotic world, full of evolving grues who will harm us in every way they get the chance to. You might be happy for a little while now because of it, but in doing so, you've sacrificed your ability to know about anything at more than a superficial level, and that includes anticipating catastrophic and even deadly consequences.

Orwell has a nice image of a boot stamping on a human face forever, but I don't think it would be accurate to describe a future without science like that. It'd be more like falling down a staircase with no handrails or walls to right yourself against. However, the staircase doesn't have the decency to be infinite - at some point, you break your neck, and you find that everything that you and all of your ancestors have ever lived for is irrelevant and meaningless, because humanity is dead, and there's nobody else to even notice, let alone care.

(Sorry if that depressed anyone. I'm in a little bit of a bad mood.)

The only thing he's not tolerating is factual incorrectness. The irony is that you are the one making personal attacks, not him. The earth revolves around the sun. If someone wants to say otherwise great but I am totally justified in pointing out the facts. And I don't really think calling me intollerant for doing so is justified.

I'm not sure that the kind of principles holistic medicine relies on is just 'pure water'... For a lot of the remedies, they contain naturally occuring substances like vitamin c or zinc that encourages the body's natural defence mechanisms. Vitamins and minerals that the body actually thrives on to fight illnesses. Surely it doesn't matter if you take a pill or drink a certain drink to get these minerals, as the human body utilises them both just the same. In which case, neither is more sucessful than the other.

Surely you're not going to claim that the only way the human body can get what it needs to fight off disease is through a pill...?

Also, if this is indeed the case, why do we need modern medicine for the everyday occurences at all? (I'll say again that I do agree that with the threat of more serious disease, more 'engineered' principles are needed to treat them.)

(Also, as a side note, it seems that a lot of people's personal bias is slipping into the debate on both sides in terms of many different issues also creeping in at the sides. We should be focussing on whether homeopathy works and why, not how medicine companies are profiteering, arguing about tolerance of principles, how we'd all be doomed without science or throwing vaguely slanderous comments at each other.)

Actually, I think drug company profiteering is definitely relevant to this topic. Being snake-oil salesman/profiteers is a claim often lobbied against homeopathists, I think it is only fair to point out that the medical establishment is capable of this same behavior.

I think it's also important to point out that homeopathy, holistic, traditional, and natural medicine are four separate things. The first is the most "New Age" (in a non-derogatory meaning), holistic is somewhere in between, and...well, traditional and natural medicine are as old as humanity (maybe even older, as animals have been observed self-medicating before).

Would anyone claim that western medicine has all the answers?

Well said! I had forgotten about that animal behaviour, till you noted it, but I have read about it. That when an animal is sick, it knows what plant to eat in its environment, to heal itself. Also if it accidently eats a poisionus plant, what observation has shown is that not only the animal know what plant to eat to counter the poision, is that consisently the 'remedying' plant is almost right beside, or in the immediate area of the poisionus one. Which than leads into the concern, how many remedys or cures have we lost from Mother Natures garden.

Homoeopathic medicine is (usually) literally pure water, by design. The pseudo-science is that it's supposed to have an effect anyway.

Homeopathic Medicine - Methods of Preparation

Homeopathic Medicine - Methods of Preparation

Exactly - I would also add that it is the duty of that person to try and prove if if they want to be taken seriously, and find a provable method that also invalidates all the literal centuries of research proving the opposite.

So, in other words, yes, pure water.
The equivalent concentration of active ingredient is around the same as a single pixel on a monitor in the entire solar system (~8.8 trillion square miles).

http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/3/31/Magnitude.svg
To demonstrate orders of magnitude, the area of the largest square in this diagram is only 5 orders greater than that of a single pixel. A square that was 10^6 larger would be just under the size of the average computer screen. By 10^15, it would be 1 square kilometer and by 10^20 it would be the surface area of the Earth. 10^28 would be a disc the area of the Earth's orbit...[5] So imagine that one pixel on an image the size of the solar system and we're talking homeopathic dilution.

The methodology is also flawed since it is very specific about 'shake X times', yet person A's n shakes might be equivalent to person B's 2n shakes, or person C's 0.33n shakes.

I wouldn't say they have no negative practices, yet they still undeniably sell products that do work. Stop poisoning the well.

...and I'd agree with you there, but that has nothing to do with your previous point. Homeopathy is not the same as using plants with documented medical effects in therapeutic doses (which is much older, being in some cases older than recorded history). Such things, while sometimes not as effective in pure strength or elimination of associated conditions/symptoms, are viable treatments for some conditions. Unlike homeopathy, they still contain active ingredients, in some cases the same one as mass produced pharmaceuticals, or an isomer (similar structure, same actual chemical composition, same effect) of it.

Sure, but that's 'holistic', not homeopathic. Different things, especially since when disease becomes apparent, it is typically when the immune system is compromised or overwhelmed, so it's past the point that vitamins can do anything alone. Good for prevention, not good for treatment.

Both of those are arguments ad hominem. I stand by the assertion that homoeopathic practitioners are snake oil salesmen, but that's because I have a lot of evidence that what they are selling is snake oil. It would be wrong to say anything about the effectiveness of homoeopathy based on the practitioners being snake oil salesmen, though.

It will gain all the answers in time. That is the nature of science. ;)

I'm not really going to get involved, since there is already a coherent debate going on, but...

Scientific medicine, by itself, is automatically better than homeopathic methods because of the sheer amount of evidence that it does, indeed, work.

The problem with it is that it's been taken advantage of by large companies and corporations for the sake of monetary gain, and so the pure science of it has become muddled and corrupted, especially when it comes to more complicated treatments/medicine/diseases.

Exactly, yet that does not in itself affect the validity of the actual products, no matter how hard people may try with fallacies such as poisoning the well.

Ah, I seem to have made a colossal mistake... I had no idea homeopathy and holistic meant different things. IN that case, i'll have to read up a lot more on what homeopathy is, from different sources, but i'll reply shortly as it's currently almost 2am.

The "Law of Susceptibility" always reminded me of the placebo effect, that the quality of the state of mind can bring on or cure illnesses.

Fair enough; it takes a lot to admit a mistake like that, and I can say that such things may have an element of truth in some specific applications, they shouldn't just be applied on their own either. It's understandable to confuse the two since 'holistic' is thrown around a lot by pseudoscience, as something of a buzzword, but has an actual definition too, even if it is controversial. Having looked for a reference while writing this, I found this and this - while it seems somewhat contested, the idea itself isn't inherently antithetical to anything evidence-based.

I reply to the OP & skip all debating. This is my Own personal experience, I am not imposing my views on anybody. Take it or leave it, believe it, don't believe it...

I first heard the word "Homeopathy" in the translation context: 3 books on homepathic plant remedies totalling 1500+ pages. I had no idea what it was about, & my initial reaction was: "What the hell have you (Mr. Author) been smoking?"

However, half way thru the first book it started making sense. Not only because of very detailed interviews with the patients with a variety of illnesses /disorders, not only analysis, notes, follow ups, come backs, different remedies, different dosification... they were not told what the remedy was & what effect it was going to have - in order to avoid placebo effect. And yes, their arthritis, eczemas, ulcers etc. etc. were improving, in the end But! I found an even more important & interesting fact that a Wrongly chosen remedy can do damage. Pure water wouldn't be able to do it. No doctor would say: "Take these granules & you'll have a fever off the charts". In short, I realized that this is not a laughing matter. I can't say how exactly it works but "there is something about it".

But this is just a theory. Now samples (only mine, ok, call me a guinea pig).

One sample was a depression with obsessive thoughts about death; I seemed to "bump" into it anytime anywhere (newspaper headings, movies, songs, overheard conversations...) - it was so much that I started thinking: "What the bleep do I know, maybe it's my time? Really?" I goes to my homeopath ex-cardiologer (she sure knows something about medicine & human body), tell her my sad story, she gives me the "remedy", in two days the depre & dark thoughts disappear into thin air. Poof! Just like that.
But ok, this could have been a placebo case because in fact she told me that that remedy was for depression "as if the world is over". maybe I was expecting - therefore mentalizing myself - that, somehow, it will rid me of death thoughts (in two days after two months? hmm, nice placebo! :D)

The second sample had to do with a physical disorder (feeling Very cold, shivering at 30ºC summer, people on the beach & me shivering under a mountain of blankets). This time she didn't tell me what the "remedy" was - knowing that I could have easily check it in that translation & - yes - have a placebo effect.
Of course I expected that I would feel warmer. But what I couldn't expect was a sudden craving for raw veggies & fat-free yogurt with a Complete aversion to all other food! If anybody told me that I would live on That for 2 weeks (not even bread) I would have laughed outright. But it was true. I have witnesses if anybody interested. More than one person asked me for my doctor's phone number cos they wanted to lose weight this way: by simply Not Wanting to eat Anything except for rabbit's food. (I didn't ask for it btw, i am skinny enought - maybe a bit too much. I just wanted to get warmer). I laughed for a long time after this happening, but she never told me the name of the remedy or what it was supposed to do.

So here's the story morning glory. As i said everybody is welcome to have one's own opinion but one thing I would say:

"Don't play with this, you can go blind" (Grace to Jake when he was playing with his newly discovered tswin braid, & tsaheylu fibers in it).

That in itself doesn't mitigate the placebo effect. There are FAR more components than that, including that the person giving it must not know, neither must the person recording the results. It's very easy to publish a book, almost no effort if you're well-funded; it's next to impossible to get a badly researched or methodologically flawed study published in any reputable journal, even with money.

The placebo effect is well documented for negative effects, not just intended ones. If you tell someone that a real medicine has a chance of X side effect that has never been reported, they may develop it.

That is interesting, but I would point out that believing in the efficacy may include a belief in additional effects - that's why personal testimony is never considered in clinical trials.

If someone can make it work, even by the placebo effect, then it may be useful to them, but the problem comes when people die from not seeking real treatment for serious conditions.

oh, I am not offering my personal testimony for a clinical trial - altho if anybody is interested, questions are welcome - but since nobody is an eyewitness to this experiment apart from yours truly & my personal MD Mo'at+Dr.Grace, it's just my word :P
I was just sharing my "samples" with my friends on ToS - who have different opinions & preferences, but are still friends. Or so I hope.

in my case of "depression; persistent thoughts about death" (& also in "anti-freeze-rabbit-food" case) homeopathy happened to be a rather real treatment! Long live. What would the "real" treatment have been, trancs for several weeks (maybe months) till I became numb & had no emotional response to whatsoever? and then fight off unwanted side effects? for how long? Been there, done that, thanks but no thanks. I imagine a few people on this thread know the feeling. (I just wish my scientific tsahik was closer than 5000 miles away when I was hit by PAD :'( and then PSD :'( )

Seriously speaking, I agree that health is a Very delicate matter, & anybody who is dealing with it - a medical professional or a natural healer - should be Very responsible & pay all attention to the right diagnosis, right treatment & right dose. I know people diagnosed with cancer who were told by doctors after several months: "Oops, sorry, wrong diagnosis: it's not a cancer, it's a cyst". That was good news of course - but to hear it after a long time of heavy-duty treatments And the emotional ordeal they (& their families) had been thru was not very pleasant, to put it lightly.

I am not saying that this or thas type of treatment is Always right or Always wrong. If we deal with massive blood loss, heart attack, broken bones - then it's an emergency & it's an ICU. After these measures, homeopathy (or some other method) can help with the recovery - why not to look for a combination rather than a fight of the two approaches. I am saying "responsibility" & "watch your step when you deal with health" should be taken very seriously.

I think there has been a great misunderstanding here, one that is happening sadly all too often. People manage all the time to mix up homeopathy with all kinds of other approaches - holistic medicine, natural remedies, herbal medicine... These all have to be looked at separately. I often reply to people offering me homeopathy that I am not interested because I do not believe in them and then they get angry, because people have been using a herbal brew of XY for hundreds of years with success. That person then has mixed up two completely different things.
Homeopathy is based on a rather new theory (I think it is what -200 years old) of giving subtances that cause symptoms similar to those experienced as an illness but in a strong dilution. The numbers on the bottles are the exponential dilution factors. The theory further states that the more it is diluted the stronger it will have an effect. While low numbered ailments do contain small amounts of the substance and thus can even according to scientific explanations have some kind of effect (substances like LSD for example are haveing an effect with only a few molecules in a human body - and the effect appears after these molecules have left the body again), the higher number dosages are unlikely to contain any molecules of the original substance. Some theories then say that something happened to the water that retains the information, but that is not based on science of course.

Something different are holistic or traditional medicines, some of which have rather weird logic (like a rhino horn helping male fertility), others seem to have a scientifically significant effect (like acupuncture, which now is even paid for by german public health insurance).

And something different again is natural medicine. Many modern medicnes (Aspirin, Penecillin) is based on natural substances, willow bark, mycelium, snake poison, bugs beetles, plants, mushrooms, bacteria,... - so these can really have a strong effect that even science can accept.

Personally, I do not really think that relatively new homeopathy concept is working, but I put a lot of confidence in the effectiveness of truely traditional remedies like herbs and other natural medicines and I give some of the traditional medicines at least the chance to convince me, though personally I have to say that acupuncture did not help me when I tried it.

Something interesting about modern medicine is this library I found that is doing reviews of pharmaceuticals. It is fascinating - try browsing through it. The number of reviews (all based on publicized, peer reviewed material) that have as a summary "inconclusive" is staggering. So many pharmaceuticals that are in use are not really effective according to science but they have adverse side effects.
Home - The Cochrane Library

My personal opinion is, that modern medicine is mainly good in one area - emergency medicine. Things like trauma surgery, using antibiotics to prevent infections of massive injuries. It also is acceptable at treating diseases caused by civilization like diabetes, heart disease and to a degree cancer. It is failing in many cases of mental diseases or general health problems like migraine, tinnitus, stress related issues, autoimmune illnesses. In the latter cases, alternative treatments seem to be more helpful than the attempts of pharmaceutical medicine.

Scientism :rolleyes:
I like science - but to take it almost as a religion is really too much for me.

You are being pretty melodramatic here.
And unless you have discovered something that people have been looking for centuries, namely the meaning of our existence, I would not be so quick as to judge about anything being meaningless.