Let’s examine Homeopathic Medicine

Oct 25, 2017
7,062
0
#55
Homeopathic medicine is bullshit but at least in the US people are over medicated and over treated and that gives people the sometimes correct impression that doing nothing is sometimes better than whatever your doctor is suggesting.

There are so many people who are over prescribed pain meds or needlessly get back surgery or pushed to get injections when they don’t need it.

It’s one of the many many problems with a for profit medical system. Too much pressure to make money.
 
Oct 27, 2017
3,781
0
Austria
#56
Dude, I like coconut as much as the next guy but coconut oils ain’t fresh and crunchy. It’s syrupy clear liquid. Scientist/doctors have said it’s not great for you either.
Of course that's a bunch of hooey.
You made it sound like she was offering you a coconut though, and now I'm super hungry :(

everybody knows the only true path to health are chiropractic ringers and miracle mineral solution enemas
 
Aug 1, 2018
712
0
#57
From what I've heard the one thing I'll give homeopathy is patient care.
The rest is hogwash but homeopathy practicians (I'm not calling them doctors) usually spend a lot more time with patients which could help recovery more than expected.
Well, that's because they don't actively treat people and they don't have to give them any real bad news.
 
Oct 27, 2017
123
0
#58
I'm kind of torn on this. Of course if a lot of effects can't be reproduced there's not really a basis to prescribe a treatment to somebody. And some people can place to much faith in it, foregoing treatment that could actually help, spending a lot of money in the process.

But on the other hand, there's a whole lot of shit that can't (yet) be explained by western science. And thinking that if something can't be explained by science, it doesn't work...well that's pretty arrogant.

And I've got an anecdote of homeopathic medicine actually (perhaps) working. Untill I was fourteen I've had a lot of warts on my toes for about three to four years. Went to a bunch of doctor, had five different treatments. Used ointments, had them burned away with ice tips, and they just kept coming back. Took homeopathic medicine once and they all disappeared in a week. The shit that had me reluctant to take of my socks doing judo, or taking a shower in gym class for so long, it just went away.

Now, I know warts can just disappear by themselves. So yes, it's entirely possible that's what happened. But all I know is, after all 'proven' stuff that didn't help, the warts went away after one use of homeopathic medicine. Of course I wouldn't tell someone with cancer to try homeopathic stuff. But if all other options have failed, why not try something that might work? Just sounds pragmatic to me.
 
Aug 1, 2018
712
0
#60
I'm kind of torn on this. Of course if a lot of effects can't be reproduced there's not really a basis to prescribe a treatment to somebody. And some people can place to much faith in it, foregoing treatment that could actually help, spending a lot of money in the process.

But on the other hand, there's a whole lot of shit that can't (yet) be explained by western science. And thinking that if something can't be explained by science, it doesn't work...well that's pretty arrogant.

And I've got an anecdote of homeopathic medicine actually (perhaps) working. Untill I was fourteen I've had a lot of warts on my toes for about three to four years. Went to a bunch of doctor, had five different treatments. Used ointments, had them burned away with ice tips, and they just kept coming back. Took homeopathic medicine once and they all disappeared in a week. The shit that had me reluctant to take of my socks doing judo, or taking a shower in gym class for so long, it just went away.

Now, I know warts can just disappear by themselves. So yes, it's entirely possible that's what happened. But all I know is, after all 'proven' stuff that didn't help, the warts went away after one use of homeopathic medicine. Of course I wouldn't tell someone with cancer to try homeopathic stuff. But if all other options have failed, why not try something that might work? Just sounds pragmatic to me.
It has nothing to do with arrogance. If it was shown to work empirically, I'd happily accept it as a form of treatment. Problem is...it hasn't. Things that are diluted to homeopathic extent haven't been shown to do anything. You literally swallow more arsenic when you eat fruit than these "medicines" have "active" ingredients.

Why not? Because then if something does resolve itself anyway, they will attribute it to homeopathic remedies. They will then recommend them to other people. This doesn't help anyone.

they also spend more time with the patients something a real doctor can't do because they have to treat way more people as well.
Yup. Exactly.
 
Nov 20, 2017
781
0
33
Tampa Bay, FL
#61
Homeopathy has put my sister and I on the rocks. My mother has some legitimate health worries, and my sister got roped into an MLM scheme and has been brainwashing my mom into using these homeopathic remedies and snake oil coffees and shit to help her issues rather than continuing to take the medication prescribed by her doctor. I told my mom flat out it was bullshit and she said she had to support my sister, and my sister (who hasn't held a stable gig in a decade) insists the products work and calls me a closed-mind who wants to see our mother suffer.

So yeah, to echo everyone else here, fuck homeopathy.
 
Jul 4, 2018
35
0
#66
Reluctant to even ask a question in fear of getting shit piled one, but I’ll ask anyway I guess. At what point does something go from homeopathy to actual medicine? For instance, everything I’ve read (aka a quick search) has cbd oil as a homeopathic treatment. Is that true? If so, is that due to not having (to my knowledge) succseeful clinical testing? Even though (anecdotally) it has been beneficial to the health of myself, friends and family, would it still fall under homeopathy?
 
Nov 3, 2017
4,339
0
#67
As it turns out some research in the last couple years suggests that the placebo effect still happens even in some cases where the patients are aware that they're getting a placebo.
Here's one for back pain [the authors have done a few other studies about open-label placebos]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27755279
Interesting, the body works in mysterious ways some time.
Wasn't there some research showing that price may have an impact as well?
I don't think people should be tricked into paying for sugar though and in France it's even reimbursed by the state which makes no sense.
Hopefully this changes.
 
Oct 27, 2017
123
0
#68
It has nothing to do with arrogance. If it was shown to work empirically, I'd happily accept it as a form of treatment. Problem is...it hasn't. Things that are diluted to homeopathic extent haven't been shown to do anything. You literally swallow more arsenic when you eat fruit than these "medicines" have "active" ingredients.

Why not? Because then if something does resolve itself anyway, they will attribute it to homeopathic remedies. They will then recommend them to other people. This doesn't help anyone.
First of all, I completely understand your post, and I would never suggest homepathy to anyone as a first treatment (I don't think I've ever suggested it at all, come to think of it). Precisely because of the lack of empirical evidence backing it, and other available medicine that is proven to (usually) actually work.

But I also know that there is a lot of stuff that is as of yet unproven to work, or that can not be explained, and still (almost miraculously) DOES work. So what if the tried methods we have so far are unable to find the working parts of homeopathic treatment (if there are any), but some part of it might actually do something? I'm just hesitant to attribute the times it has worked (such as with me) to the problem solving itself. I'm not excluding this possibility. It's even likely. I just know I took homeopathic stuff, and shit went away after four years. And I was (possibly) helped.

But if people read this, and I convinced them to spend a lot of money on homeopathic stuff as a first form of treatment (highly unlikely). Please don't.
 
Aug 1, 2018
712
0
#71
First of all, I completely understand your post, and I would never suggest homepathy to anyone as a first treatment (I don't think I've ever suggested it at all, come to think of it). Precisely because of the lack of empirical evidence backing it, and other available medicine that is proven to (usually) actually work.

But I also know that there is a lot of stuff that is as of yet unproven to work, or that can not be explained, and still (almost miraculously) DOES work. So what if the tried methods we have so far are unable to find the working parts of homeopathic treatment (if there are any), but some part of it might actually do something? I'm just hesitant to attribute the times it has worked (such as with me) to the problem solving itself. I'm not excluding this possibilitie. It's even likely. I just know I took homeopathic stuff, and shit went away after four years. And I was (possibly) helped.

But if people read this, and I convinced them to spend a lot of money on homeopathic stuff as a first form of treatment (highly unlikely). Please don't.
How does one know it does work if no one can empirically show it does? That sounds like post-hoc reasoning. "I took this and this thing went away. It MUST have been the last thing I took." It's better to give patients placebos. It'll be cheaper and have the same effect.
 
Oct 25, 2017
578
0
#72
Reluctant to even ask a question in fear of getting shit piled one, but I’ll ask anyway I guess. At what point does something go from homeopathy to actual medicine? For instance, everything I’ve read (aka a quick search) has cbd oil as a homeopathic treatment. Is that true? If so, is that due to not having (to my knowledge) succseeful clinical testing? Even though (anecdotally) it has been beneficial to the health of myself, friends and family, would it still fall under homeopathy?
You're confusing homeopathy with herbalism. Herbalism is dangerous not so much in that it has no scientific plausibility (many drugs are isolated and purified from plants) but because it appeals to the naturalistic fallacy and does not take into account bio-availability. An herb will contain the active ingredient, the chemical that is actually causing the desired effect, along with numerous other things, most inert, some that potentially could cause harm.

The other dangerous aspect, and this is where CBD oil comes in, is that it's supporters often try to oversell how effective it is, turning into some sort of miracle drug despite a lack of evidence. That isn't to say it has no benefits. I think it actually could be very useful for certain symptoms and diseases. But what those benefits are, the situations it should be used in, and its mechanism of action, require rigorous studies before you go around claiming things about it.

Edit: Here's a study published in NEJM describing a positive effect of cannabinoids in epilepsy. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1611618#t=abstract And an accompanying editorial: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe1702205
I will in particular highlight the last paragraph there:
This trial represents the beginning of solid evidence for the use of cannabinoids in epilepsy. It requires replication. Future trials may answer further questions about the applicability of cannabinoids to the many other syndromes of childhood epilepsy and to treatment in adults. After an era dominated by anecdote and obfuscated by medicolegal issues and emotionally infused debate, more scientific studies are under way. Much more research is needed to understand the basic science, benefits, and risks of cannabinoids in epilepsy.
 
Last edited:
Dec 6, 2018
109
0
#74
It should never be used as a substitute for actual medicine (ie forgoing proven methods of battling cancer for healing crystals) but you cannot deny that there are some people who experience health benefits from it, even if its due to placebo.

Chiropracty is equally BS scientifically but it has drastically improved both my parents quality of life as they suffer from chronic back and hip pain and they always feel dramatically better after seeing their chiro.
 
Oct 26, 2017
1,048
0
#75
It should never be used as a substitute for actual medicine (ie forgoing proven methods of battling cancer for healing crystals) but you cannot deny that there are some people who experience health benefits from it, even if its due to placebo.

Chiropracty is equally BS scientifically but it has drastically improved both my parents quality of life as they suffer from chronic back and hip pain and they always feel dramatically better after seeing their chiro.
Placebos already exist. Homeopathy is the rip-off version of that. And since some people believe it is actual medicine, it is used in cases (cancer and such) where no one would ever prescribe placebo medicine.

Homeopathy is dangerous and it kills.
 
Oct 27, 2017
3,391
0
#76
Just wanna chime in here for a sec. A lot of medicine started out as homeopathic at one point.

Edit* Disregard. I meant herbalism and the like. How many medicine comes from plants and whatnot, then synthesized.
 
Last edited:
Jul 4, 2018
35
0
#77
You're confusing homeopathy with herbalism. Herbalism is dangerous not so much in that it has no scientific plausibility (many drugs are isolated and purified from plants) but because it appeals to the naturalistic fallacy and does not take into account bio-availability. An herb will contain the active ingredient, the chemical that is actually causing the desired effect, along with numerous other things, most inert, some that potentially could cause harm.

The other dangerous aspect, and this is where CBD oil comes in, is that it's supporters often try to oversell how effective it is, turning into some sort of miracle drug despite a lack of evidence. That isn't to say it has no benefits. I think it actually could be very useful for certain symptoms and diseases. But what those benefits are, the situations it should be used in, and its mechanism of action, require rigorous studies before you go around claiming things about it.

Edit: Here's a study from NEJM describing a positive effect of cannabinoids in epilepsy. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1611618#t=abstract And an accompanying editorial: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe1702205
I will in particular highlight the last paragraph there:
Ah interesting. I didn’t initially realize I was conflating the two when they are actually two very distinct practices / applications. Thanks for that explanation! So what exactly does homeopathy actually use to “cure” if not various herbs? Sorry for the lack of knowledge here!
 
Oct 26, 2017
1,048
0
#78
Ah interesting. I didn’t initially realize I was conflating the two when they are actually two very distinct practices / applications. Thanks for that explanation! So what exactly does homeopathy actually use to “cure” if not various herbs? Sorry for the lack of knowledge here!
Nothing. It is literally sugar and water.
 
Aug 1, 2018
712
0
#80
Chiropracty is equally BS scientifically but it has drastically improved both my parents quality of life as they suffer from chronic back and hip pain and they always feel dramatically better after seeing their chiro.
Any placebo would do that. It wouldn't cost nearly as much as seeing a chiropractor.

Just wanna chime in here for a sec. A lot of medicine started out as homeopathic at one point.
No it didn't. Homeopathy is not herbalism.
 
Oct 25, 2017
6,412
0
twitter.com
#81
You're confusing homeopathy with herbalism. Herbalism is dangerous not so much in that it has no scientific plausibility (many drugs are isolated and purified from plants) but because it appeals to the naturalistic fallacy and does not take into account bio-availability. An herb will contain the active ingredient, the chemical that is actually causing the desired effect, along with numerous other things, most inert, some that potentially could cause harm.

The other dangerous aspect, and this is where CBD oil comes in, is that it's supporters often try to oversell how effective it is, turning into some sort of miracle drug despite a lack of evidence. That isn't to say it has no benefits. I think it actually could be very useful for certain symptoms and diseases. But what those benefits are, the situations it should be used in, and its mechanism of action, require rigorous studies before you go around claiming things about it.

Edit: Here's a study published in NEJM describing a positive effect of cannabinoids in epilepsy. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1611618#t=abstract And an accompanying editorial: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe1702205
I will in particular highlight the last paragraph there:
10/10 post. I was going to reply with something similar, but you did it far more thoroughly and eloquently than I. Thank you.
 
Oct 22, 2018
1,122
0
#83
Chriopractic is a complicated issue because there's a lot of stuff wrapped up in there from what is valid licensed massage therapy to stuff like more egregious claims from professional acupuncture (like with your meridians and crap) that can cause paralysis.

You're confusing homeopathy with herbalism. Herbalism is dangerous not so much in that it has no scientific plausibility (many drugs are isolated and purified from plants) but because it appeals to the naturalistic fallacy and does not take into account bio-availability. An herb will contain the active ingredient, the chemical that is actually causing the desired effect, along with numerous other things, most inert, some that potentially could cause harm.
There's also the issue that some of those other ingredients might be just fine for the average person, but wind up interacting negatively with other medicines or herbal remedies being taken. Stuff that might be harmless in an isolated context can be very harmful with other drugs -- heck, grapefruit is well-established to be high in nutritive value but can be a deadly combination with some heart medications...
 
Oct 28, 2017
1,980
0
Canada
#87
Those aren't homeopathic, stuff based on herbs (herbalistm) and specific oils can help out in certain scenarios. To be fair, a big bunch of modern medicine has its roots in herbalism. But theyre often thrown in the same bracket with the homeopathic fake "diluted something 20198181818 times" shit.
Yeah you can't convolute herbal or other effects with snake oil. It's not that plants don't have certain properties, it's more that homeopathy seems intent on selling snake oil
 
Aug 1, 2018
712
0
#90
Chriopractic is a complicated issue because there's a lot of stuff wrapped up in there from what is valid licensed massage therapy to stuff like more egregious claims from professional acupuncture (like with your meridians and crap) that can cause paralysis.
Let's not forget that the man who invented it claimed he got it from "the other world" and tried to have it as a religion. It's a good for a decent massage and to relax. It shouldn't be called medicine.

You know what I mean lol Yeah, I meant natural stuff like herbalism. My b.
No worries. There's just a huge difference between the two.
 
Oct 27, 2017
3,391
0
#91
Let's not forget that the man who invented it claimed he got it from "the other world" and tried to have it as a religion. It's a good for a decent massage and to relax. It shouldn't be called medicine.



No worries. There's just a huge difference between the two.
I usually get them confused. Someone above me posted better what I was saying. Like how many drugs come from plants then synthesized, etc.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,228
0
#92
It's dangerous and emboldens a lot of anti-vaxx morons. Wish it were more tightly regulated. It's a joke that these dumb ass "naturopath doctors" are given some of the same prescribing privileges as full medical doctors in many states. I think they're even allowed to do some minor surgeries, which is mind boggling. Naturopath "doctors" need to be banned, period.
 
Dec 3, 2018
72
0
#94
Aconite 200 4 drops kind of works for me .
Especially just on the onset of a cold or flu, just that window when you begin to feel something but you are not sick. Everytime
I take aconite 200 I never get full blown cold or flu. Almost always. Not sure if it’s placebo affect or that it’s working . But if I don’t take aconite in that window of just about starting, I almost always end up sick, and once sick it’s down to fluids and dayquil/ NyQuil for me
 
Oct 27, 2017
3,391
0
#95
Oh OK, I should have figured. I wonder how much of homeopathy's success is from people misusing the term? I know that until I actually took the time to look into it I just thought it meant natural remedies.
That's a really good point. I really need to make a mental note of the difference.

We prob. need a survey done lol
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,033
0
#96
I'm kind of torn on this. Of course if a lot of effects can't be reproduced there's not really a basis to prescribe a treatment to somebody. And some people can place to much faith in it, foregoing treatment that could actually help, spending a lot of money in the process.

But on the other hand, there's a whole lot of shit that can't (yet) be explained by western science. And thinking that if something can't be explained by science, it doesn't work...well that's pretty arrogant.

And I've got an anecdote of homeopathic medicine actually (perhaps) working. Untill I was fourteen I've had a lot of warts on my toes for about three to four years. Went to a bunch of doctor, had five different treatments. Used ointments, had them burned away with ice tips, and they just kept coming back. Took homeopathic medicine once and they all disappeared in a week. The shit that had me reluctant to take of my socks doing judo, or taking a shower in gym class for so long, it just went away.

Now, I know warts can just disappear by themselves. So yes, it's entirely possible that's what happened. But all I know is, after all 'proven' stuff that didn't help, the warts went away after one use of homeopathic medicine. Of course I wouldn't tell someone with cancer to try homeopathic stuff. But if all other options have failed, why not try something that might work? Just sounds pragmatic to me.
I have heard stories (from medical professionals witnessed by peers) of hypnotherapy treating warts. Horrifically bad ones, too. Essentially, something psychological triggers an immune response. I wonder if something similar happened.
 
Oct 27, 2017
123
0
#98
How does one know it does work if no one can empirically show it does? That sounds like post-hoc reasoning. "I took this and this thing went away. It MUST have been the last thing I took." It's better to give patients placebos. It'll be cheaper and have the same effect.
It's not 'it MUST have been the last thing I took'. I see it as: 'I tried a whole lot of other stuff. That didn't work. I tried this, something changed.' Which makes me think there's a greater than zero percent chance the change came from the last thing I took. That's not a strange thing to think is it? Causality wise? As for the placebo part, wouldn't it make sense for that to have worked during the other treatments?
 
Oct 26, 2017
1,048
0
#99
I usually get them confused. Someone above me posted better what I was saying. Like how many drugs come from plants then synthesized, etc.
A lot of people are confusing Herbalism with Homeopathy. That's how the charlatans advertise their snake oil and that's the only reason this dangerous pseudo-science is still around.
 
Oct 27, 2017
653
0
Those aren't homeopathic, stuff based on herbs (herbalistm) and specific oils can help out in certain scenarios. To be fair, a big bunch of modern medicine has its roots in herbalism. But theyre often thrown in the same bracket with the homeopathic fake "diluted something 20198181818 times" shit.
your number is still to small, they dilute things like 1:10^20 times that's 100000000000000000000 times. these folks go even up to to 1:10^200! you know how this looks like without using exponentians? It is 1 to 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000