Advice required in Homeopathy-abuse (?) case

robindch

Hi all -

A friend of mine, who, mercifully, has been to most of the Skeptics' talks, works in a toddler creche in Dublin and mentioned to me, last night, an interesting case which had turned up recently and was wondering what's the best thing to do.

It seems that the mother of one of her charges had recently undergone chemotherapy for some form of cancer. I'm not sure whether or not the treatment was successful (from her reaction, it seems it may not have been), but shortly after the it concluded, the mother apparently caught Jesus like a bad rash and developed a burning belief in the efficacy of homeopathy.

This in itself wouldn't have been so bad, but the mother's kid, who's my friend's responsibility while at the creche, has been developing what I understand are flu-like symptoms for some time and the mother had hauled him off to her local homeopath who instructed the mother to deny the kid wheat, sugar, dairy products and several other odds and ends. The mother did this, and, up to the time when the kid finished attending the creche last week, I understand that the kid was continually arriving to the creche complaining of hunger, and had, on various occasions, burst into tears when he'd seen the other kids eating the usual kiddy foods, while he was confined to rice and rabbit food, which he doesn't like and won't eat.

My friend is *very* upset about this, and doesn't know what to do, since it's the mother's prerogative to prescribe and proscribe whatever food she wishes for her kid. However, in this case, it seems that this has gone way overboard and it's beginning to bother people, not only my friend and the other people at the creche, but also the other kids who, understandably, want to know what's going on.

At the moment, the kid is away from the creche, so my suggestion last night that a doctor be called while the kid's at the creche, can't be acted upon. The kid's father, I understand, is a submissive type and has said to my friend that he won't challenge the mother and, in any case, I believe they are divorced and possibly not talking that much anyway.

Does anybody, with experience in these matters, know what course of action is both advisable and available, in this case?

I need hardly add that this case has really got my goat up and points up, as much at the Carmody case, the urgent need for some kind of control of these <expletive-deleted> con-artists.

- robin.

BrendanBurgess

I am not a dietician and know very little about the subject. But are you not confusing homeopathy with unhealthy eating? I understand that most children's diets are unhealthy. Is it not possible that the child's diet is far more healthy than it was, whether or not it was prescribed by a homeopath? Of course a child is going to prefer sweets and crisps, but the mother has a righ to prescribe a healthy diet. If I am missing the point, and a nutritionist says that the diet is seriously deficient, then you can always contact a social welfare officer who will investigate the case. But they won't investigate a case because you think a mother should allow her children eat sweets and crisps.

It seems a bit over the top to describe this as "abuse" by homeopathy.

williamgrogan

Obviously we have very little info here but we are talking about the opinion of someone working with children who is worried about a child. There is often confusion between Homeopathy and various diets and herbal “medicines”. Many people think Homeopathy is all about herbal and traditional medicine rather than a relatively new totally different con.

Homeopaths, like most CAM artists, do wander all over the place in their “treatments” so rather than assume the friend has a wrong handle on what’s going on it is possible that the homeopath is just issuing b***s**t advice.

Putting small children on “diets” is dangerous and even vegetarians have to be careful about what their children eat. It is a common CAM artist approach to suggest that all sorts of food are “bad” for you and that your “system” cannot handle them. This is what sounds like is going on here.

I don’t know where Brendan got the notion that the child was just been “deprived” of sweets and crisps.

One suggestion I have is to simply ask the mother what the diet the child is on in a way that sounds like you are interested and then ask has the family doctor got involved and ask the parent to double check with their doctor. Ask the mother, who sounds like she may be under serious pressure, what the downside is to get another opinion. We are all morally & legally obliged to report suspected abuse of children so this should be an option. Social Welfare is well used to getting these reports.

CAM artists exploit vulnerable people. They rarely defraud scientists or well informed members of the public. They rip off the sick, the old, the badly educated and the superstitious. Which is why of course they are scum.

robindch

> Of course a child is going to prefer sweets and crisps,

I'm not referring to sweets and crisps which I'd be quite happy to see consigned to the bin. I'm referring to a blanket ban on the vast majority of the food that my friend tells me that the kid eats, by a mother who's been misled by a CAM practicioner whom, like most, I expect has had no proper medical training and, consequently, hardly in a position to issue advice.

> but the mother has a righ to prescribe a healthy diet.

The diet that the kid's required to follow is demonstrably unhealthy. My friend's away from my flat at the moment, so I can't give any more precise details than I've already given -- I'll see if I can get more tomorrow.

> It seems a bit over the top to describe this as "abuse" by homeopathy.

As far as I am concerned, this is a clear case of abuse of a mother's trust by somebody who, at best, is a willing dupe, and at worst, a con-artist. I believe that it's also verging on abuse of the kid by the mother who, noticing a decline in her kid's health, has reacted by putting him onto an extreme diet produced by a CAM-person, rather than bringing the kid to the doctor and some medical help that might lead to a diagnosis and, perhaps, a cure.

I should declare an interest here -- some of my own close family relations have attempted to put some of their kids on restrictive diets specified by (and here, I can vouch for this personally) untrained, wildly inconsistent, but 'spiritually-correct' morons. This, over the years, has directly resulted in simmering resentments by the kids concerned, who now, do not trust to leave their own kids in the care of their grandparents. As I mentioned in the earlier posting, it bugs me to see this kind of CAM-conning continuing, not to add also, seeing our legislative representatives fiddling while this poor kid cries.

- robin.

BrendanBurgess

I have seen lots of kids kick up a fuss and cry when their mother insisted that they eat healthy food. I have seen kids go hungry simply because they would not eat what was good for them. This is often a perpetual struggle between a parent and a child.

There is such vague information in the original post, that we cannot judge whether the diet is healthy or not. It sounds much more like a child being deprived of bad food than good food, but without further information we cannot make that judgement. In the absence of this information, to describe it as abuse is way over the top.

Do conventional doctors and dieticians not sometimes recommend to people to avoid wheat,dairy products and sugar?

Brendan

williamgrogan

Do conventional doctors and dieticians not sometimes recommend to people to avoid wheat, dairy products and sugar?

What's a conventional doctor? You mean a doctor as opposed to a con artist?

One of the main reasons that wheat is avoided is in case a patient has coeliac disease. However this is a life threatening disease and a doctor should certainly be involved at an early stage. One of the problems with CAM artists, that has been confirmed by doctors, is that patients often delay presenting themselves and their children because they waste time going to quacks first. Sometimes these delays are fatal.

Not feeding a child properly is abuse. Not taking your child to a doctor if he is sick is abuse, if you think he is so sick that you need attend a Homeopath or put him on a restrictive diet. Putting a child on a restrictive diet that leaves out important food groups such as dairy on the basis of what some con artist tells you *is* abusing the child. How much abuse we do not yet know.

I would also add that leaving out treats totally and feeding children a “fanatical diet”, while not abuse is certainly cruel. I even give my dog treats. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a child eating a bag of crisps, it is only wrong if you eat too much too often and neglect more healthy foods.

Of course feeding a child mainly crisps, sweets, coke, hamburgers, chips etc.. is also abuse.

PS

I would welcome a law that prohibits non medical staff from treating children, proscribing drugs etc. Whatever about foolish adults endangering their lives, they have no right to endanger their children's lives.

Sleipnir

Originally posted by BrendanBurgess
I have seen lots of kids kick up a fuss and cry when their mother insisted that they eat healthy food. I have seen kids go hungry simply because they would not eat what was good for them. This is often a perpetual struggle between a parent and a child.

There is such vague information in the original post, that we cannot judge whether the diet is healthy or not. It sounds much more like a child being deprived of bad food than good food, but without further information we cannot make that judgement. In the absence of this information, to describe it as abuse is way over the top.

Do conventional doctors and dieticians not sometimes recommend to people to avoid wheat,dairy products and sugar?

Brendan

No, it sounds to me like the kid is being deprived of foods which contain essential foodgroups and those foodgroups are not being replaced.

Fact is, the child is hungry If the child is hungry for most of the time, their body is being deprived of the food/energy it requires. That's what being "hungry" is for.
A homeopath is not a dietician nor a paediatrician and is in no position to dictate a child's diet.

Plus, when she brought the kid to her homeopath with "flu-like" symtoms did nobody think that the kid might possibly have the fecking flu!!!!

Also, flu-like symtoms can mean anything (such as carbon monoxide poisoning, what's the homeopathic remedy for that?!?!) and you need an actual DOCTOR to diagnose the cause in order to provide a solution. Cutting out foods could just make the child weaker.

robindch

Brendan -

> It sounds much more like a child being deprived of bad food than good food

I have made it quite clear, twice, that this kid is being deprived of normal food, not junk food (concerning the depirivation of which, I have no information, but as above, would be quite happy to see ditched).

The kid is seeing everybody else eat normal lunches + snacks: sandwiches, fruit, bag of crisps, slice of cake, yogurt, whatever, while he's stuck with a pot of rice and, as far as I remember, lettuce or something similar (I am still trying to find out *exactly* what he was required to eat). The kid, understandably, doesn't like this stuff and wants to eat normally, but isn't allowed to, so the kid goes hungry and hassles my friend, asking 'why can't I eat some bread? I'm always hungry' (bursts into tears, upsetting my friend and the other kids)'

Given that the kid's health, according to my friend, is visibly declining under the influence of this 'diet', I completely fail to see why this does not constitute abuse and why this CAM-artist shouldn't be hauled up in front of the beak, pronto, and soundly, and very publicly, whacked.

- robin.

robindch

> Also, flu-like symtoms can mean anything (such as carbon monoxide
> poisoning, what's the homeopathic remedy for that?!?!)

From Homeowatch's page at:

http://www.homeowatch.org/basic/similars.html

I s'pose a homeopathic practicioner would stick a CO-poisoned patient into a room full of car fumes. Who knows? Who cares as long as it feels good?

- robin.

Victor

Sounds like a medically (and emotionally?) distressed adult imposing their diet on a child. Children both need and can tolerate a balanced diet of every food group. Hey and eighteen year old can probably eat the McDonalds plastic burger box and survive. Not needing to grow, adults can get away with a restrictive diets for sometime, but no indefinitely. It sounds like the child is getting no protein, vitamins or minerals and not necessarily a balance of carbohydrates and fibre.

This sounds like your friend should talk to their health board contact and while it might result in parent and child being separated, I suspect the mother (or rather the child) needs some respite care.

Myksyk

The Department of Health and children are responsible for child welfare. They operate under the 'paramountcy principle' i.e. that the health and safety of the child is paramount.

Their policy document in this regard is called 'Children First'. This outlines what it considers to be abuse and includes 'neglect' as one of the main categories. It identifies what it refers to as 'officers of the (health) board' and allows for any member of the public with a concern (not necessarily an allegation) to report that concern to such an officer. These 'officers' include almost all professional disciplines within the health board system. They have a duty in turn to report the concern to the appropriate quarter (usually ending up with the director of community care or designate). Concerns like this are usually handled carefully and with diplomacy. Under law, protection (including confidentiality) is given to anyone who reports possible abuse.

robindch

Myksyk + Victor -- thanks for your help on this. I've forwarded the replies to my friend and she'll take it from there, though there's not much she can do immediately, as the kid's off on a summer holiday somewhere. Fingers crossed.

BTW, and on a more skeptical note, did anybody see this one about the 'Radon-cure'?

http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2004/07/05/territory/territory01.txt

The owner of the radon-enhanced mine was quoted as saying "You hear all these bad things, but you can't ever find anybody who died from it. And there are all these benefits. There are tons of skeptics. I've gotten lots of testimonials from them too".

<sigh>

- robin.

Homeopath

Well Robin after reading some of your posts, the only thing you've managed to do is expose your own ignorance in regards to homeopathy.

Your posts scream of your own unresolved 'issues'. Your projections are humerous though. Kid starving etc...How do you know this? Has it ever occured to you that what we see is mirror image of our own thinking. Some unseen qualities within yourself can be difficult to take if they are not integrated. Maybe it's time to see a homeopath :rolleyes:

Yours,
A 'con artist'

robindch

> reading some of your posts, the only thing you've managed
> to do is expose your own ignorance in regards to homeopathy.

Would you please care to explain where I'm making an error of fact?

> Your posts scream of your own unresolved 'issues'.

Sorry? If you're going to accuse me, publicly, of having "unresolved 'issues'.", then I would like you to justify your statement. As it stands, it's worthless.

> Your projections are humerous though.

Perhaps you find the idea of kids crying from hunger to be amusing; I don't.

> A 'con artist'

Glad we can agree on something.

- robin.

Homeopath

Where are you not making an error of fact should be the question. Define 'fact'?

The way you get worked up without knowing ‘facts’ shows some major projecting. My kid can also go a very, very long time without eating if he doesn't care for what is being offered and I'm no health nut when it comes to diet.

In training to become homeopaths we get to learn discernment. Is this my stuff or is this the reality of the situation? Further, do I personally know what is in the best interest of another. So we investigate objectively, something you could give a try. It’s rather freeing. It may let that inner tension relax of ‘must expose the homeopathic cons’. :rolleyes:

My skeptical nature is what led me to become a homeopath. What a joy it is. Today I saw a woman, recovered in three days with homeopathic treatment for a bout of strep throat, coupled
with a kidney infection. That’s damn good placebo I’d say!

The fellow who you link to, Stephen Barrett, M.D., has quite a superficial understanding of homeopathy and he is also known to 'pretend' to be many different authors on many different sites, actually dialoguing with himself to attempt to prove his point! So his credibility is questionable at the least.

ecksor

Homeopath wrote:

The fellow who you link to, Stephen Barrett, M.D., has quite a superficial understanding of homeopathy and he is also known to 'pretend' to be many different authors on many different sites, actually dialoguing with himself to attempt to prove his point! So his credibility is questionable at the least.

Any references for this? Don't suppose the case of the cured kidney infection is documented too?

Homeopath

Don't suppose the case of the cured kidney infection is documented too?

Of course it is sweetheart. We keep very detailed records as homeopaths. This was not my case personally though. The woman I'm refering too I have other dealings with. I knew she was diagnosed with a kidney infection and was waiting on the results of a throat culture which of course takes a few days. I talked to her yeasterday and asked how she was getting along. She said "fine". Fine? I asked since I knew of her diagnosis. SHe said "well we do have homeopathy you know?" Now I know homeopathy can treat these types of ailments but even I was not prepared for the speed of her recovery (3 days) By the time the culture came back (and it was positive) she was symptom free.

As for this Stephen Barrett fellow there are some refernces just search around if you are interested. I woudn't bother. The sources I heard this from sound more credible than he does.

Ever wonder why someone who doesn't 'believe' in homeopathy would take so much time trying to discredit it? My experience is if one tries too hard to assert or deny something there is usaully a deep seated element of doubt as to what they are preaching.

davros

Are you saying, then, that for a kidney infection - a potentially fatal condition - it is sufficient to consult only with a homeopath?

If Dr. Barrett believes there is no foundation to homeopathy, is he not duty-bound to try to discredit it, in the cause of saving lives?

As you suggested, I searched for credible attacks on Dr. Barrett's integrity. I didn't find any. So please supply the references you obviously have to hand.

Poisonwood

Homeopath wrote:

Ever wonder why someone who doesn't 'believe' in homeopathy would take so much time trying to discredit it?

Hmm...Maybe he does it because:

1. Homeopathy is unverified nonsense and it's dangerous to rely on nonsense when making important decisions about your health.

2. It's a multi-billion dollar industry based on selling sugar-water to the vulnerable and desparate.

3. It blinds people to well-known universal factors which play a part in treatment outcome which they should know about if they are to make wise health-related decisions.

4. It doesn't just sell useless products to sick people, it sells inaccurate and false ideas and theories about health, sickness and medicine.

5. It flies in the face of hard-won knowledge about biology, physics and chemistry.

Pretty reasonable then (for these economic, social, intellectual and health reasons) to want to work hard to show it up for what it is.

Homeopath

The woman was under the care of her MD as well. So yes he would have verified that she was in the clear. Some MDs are ok with homeopathy and actually and don't mind giving a certain period of time before jumping in with drugs.

Here is a little something I came across (not what I was referencing to earlier) but an interesting perspective from a fellow who is a homeopath and also an MD and his experience with ‘quack watch’.

http://www.homeopathicmedicalclinic.com/homeopathy/english/Quack_Busters.htm

It flies in the face of hard-won knowledge about biology, physics and chemistry

Whose hard-won knowledge are you referring to? Yes it can appear that way if you are stuck in the 'dark age'...the earth is flat or is it round or flat or round?

Quantum physics is the closest we have to an 'explanation' of how it works. Although it too falls short at this time. I myself have direct experience with it as a patient and as a prescriber and this direct experience over rides some ‘study’ to verify that it works or doesn't. I have seen too many results to list.

I agree that someone is making lots of money marketing so called ‘homeopathic remedies’. Drug store 'remedies' are potentized yes, but what makes homeopathy, homeopathy is the method of prescribing so I would say if folks are attempting self prescribing it can be a hit or miss and mostly it would be a miss. You need a vast amount of study before you can be an accurate prescriber.

Now I wouldn’t say it’s a multi billion dollar industry.

I recently say the movie ‘What the Bleep do we Know”. Quantum physics, science, spirituality etc…Although a little corny for my taste it is worth seeing whatever side of the fence you sit on. Here is a link to the movie website for those interested.

http://www.whatthebleep.com/

davros

It's quite interesting to have a homeopath responding to this board. I appreciate your taking the time to put the case for the other side.

I'd like to ask a question inspired by your last post. When somebody consults you and you recommend a particular remedy, where do they go to buy that remedy?

I have just checked the online Homeopathic Pharmacopia of the US and they list about 1300 substances. Who maintains dilutions of all those substances in Ireland? Each individual homeopath? A homeopathic pharmacy (I only know of one in Dublin)?

In Boots, they stock a couple of dozen homeopathic products. How could that be useful if it is just a tiny fraction of the products that could be prescribed? What is the general opinion among homeopaths regarding Boots? Do you think they are just cashing in on those who believe they can self-prescribe?

robindch

> Where are you not making an error of fact should be
> the question.

I don't understand this sentence -- can you please clarify your meaning and also, please as I have already asked you once to do, back up your earlier public assertion that I have exposed my own ignorance of homeopathy.

> Define 'fact'?

Here's a useful definition of the word-concept 'fact': "an observation which has been made by one or more people and confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer provisional agreement that the observed phenomenon actually *did* occur as stated, pending the arrival of any further information which will render the observation invalid or inconclusive." Slightly windy, but useful.

> The way you get worked up without knowing ‘facts’ shows
> some major projecting.

Again, I don't understand your meaning. I have stated facts (!) some months ago concerning a case of what seems to me to be child abuse; I fail to see how this can be construed as 'projecting', assuming the usual woolly meaning of the word. If you are able to diagnose some psychological illness in me through the medium of the internet, I'd love to know how you do it. As you can imagine, not many homeopaths pop up on this board; if feel you're the carrier of some secret knowledge denied to the rest of us, then please feel free to share it.

> In training to become homeopaths [....]
> we investigate objectively

As a group, you do not; if you believe you do, then you do not understand the word 'objectively'. To back up this assertion, here's a quote from the GMIT 'School' of Homeopathy's webpage (which I criticized elsewhere on this board and which at the time of writing is currently offline):

"Delusions are metaphors anyway. You can tell a lot of a remedy by looking at its delusions. Not in the literal sense but in terms of what they represent."

FYI, this is from a guy named Dave Mundy who was stated on the website to be "one of Britain's foremost homeopaths and teachers", so I believe that he's speaking from the point of view of 'traditional' homeopathy.

'Treating' a disease by assuming that it's a metaphor is about as good a means of subjectifying, rather than objectifying, something as I can think of! Or perhaps there's something I'm missing here, in which case, I'd love to hear it.

> Quantum physics [...] I myself have direct experience with it as
> a patient and as a prescriber and this direct experience over
> rides some ‘study’ to verify that it works or doesn't.

Am I understanding you correctly by inferring that you have direct, personal experience of quantum mechanics, or quantum mechanical effects? I just don't know what to say to this... <sigh>

- robin.

ecksor

Homeopath wrote:

Of course it is sweetheart.

I'm not your sweetheart. Use of such language doesn't seem conducive to any sort of useful discussion. I get very annoyed at a lot of the CAM bashing that goes on on this forum because of the apparently dogmatic nature of it, but your responses have been much the same except with the opposite point of view. You may not like the atmosphere here, but you also must appreciate that vague statements short on fact aren't convincing.

We keep very detailed records as homeopaths.

Ok. Would such a startling case as the one you describe not be likely to get written up and documented somewhere? I realise that won't happen immediately, but an argument for the effectiveness of homeopathy would obviously be well served by a body of case histories and I'm curious to know if such a body exists?

As for this Stephen Barrett fellow there are some refernces just search around if you are interested. I woudn't bother. The sources I heard this from sound more credible than he does.

Why wouldn't I bother? Who exactly am I supposed to take at face value here ...

I shall search, but if it is well known that this person engages in such activities then I figured you may have a good, relatively independent, source for it. Simple as that.

Homeopath

I s'pose a homeopathic practicioner would stick a CO-poisoned patient into a room full of car fumes. Who knows? Who cares as long as it feels good?

Robin, this also shows that you don't know a flying f*** what you are talking about in regards to homeopathy! You do make me grin though as this seems to be about the level of understanding those who oppose homeopathy seem to have

Homeopath

Ok. Would such a startling case as the one you describe not be likely to get written up and documented somewhere? I realise that won't happen immediately, but an argument for the effectiveness of homeopathy would obviously be well served by a body of case histories and I'm curious to know if such a body exists?

The case is not startling really besides that I thought the cure was quicker than usual. ANd are you kidding about documented cases. Just pick up any homeopathic journal and read away. Links, Simmilimum are a couple of names.

You may be right about Stephen Barrett. I very well may have names mixed up in my brain. After awhile all the opposers start to sound the same. Really though I seem to remember his name coming up in other discussion forums...sorry, me flying of the cuff!

I'm not your sweetheart. Use of such language doesn't seem conducive to any sort of useful discussion. Sorry to offend, it was an intuitive thing to write that. I don't see how it makes a differnce to how 'conductive' the discussion is. I sensed a sweet heart, so I wrote sweetheart, that's all.

I get very annoyed at a lot of the CAM bashing that goes on on this forum because of the apparently dogmatic nature of it, but your responses have been much the same except with the opposite point of view. Yes, correct, we fundamentally are all the same.

You may not like the atmosphere here, but you also must appreciate that vague statements short on fact aren't convincing.

Ah, you assume I don't like it here, I do and I'm having fun. I like to put information out there, my statements aren't meant to be convincing. Your conclusion will be your own.

Homeopath

Oh my goodness, I can't remember who is who here. It's a wonder I can remember so many remedies in our materia medicas.
So I'll just keep responding until I run out of time. You guys are challenging and fun!
Do you think they are just cashing in on those who believe they can self-prescribe?

Yes, I do actually. It's too bad really but then again buyer beware.

I have my own pharmacy. I buy the remedies for a wholesale price and they are quite inexpensive. Once you have them, you don't typically need to re-order very often. I often wonder how the reputable pharmacies who don't sell to drug stores make a go of it.

I don't charge patients for remedies. Whatever remedies they need are included in the cost of the consultation fee.

Homeopath

Oh Robin, I quit, you're too smart for me. I think I shall retire as a homeopath and go to back to medical school! This whole discussion is more than I bargined for and I'm lazy by nature. If I muster up more energy I will try to respond to you. But already I'm sensing the novelty of dispute is waring off...You guys are hard core researchers and I am a simple opinionated homeopath with only my experience to talk about. I'll have to read more of your posts to know what you are talking about. The few that I did show a shallow understanding. What books have you read on homeopathy?

robindch

> > I s'pose a homeopathic practicioner would stick a
> > CO-poisoned patient into a room full of car fumes.
> > Who knows? Who cares as long as it feels good?
>
> Robin, this also shows that you don't know a flying f***
> what you are talking about in regards to homeopathy!

I disagree -- 'zfar as I understood, one of the base tenets of homeopathy is the statement that 'like cures like', so the first part of what I've said, though facetious, seems to be in accordance with standard practice. Though having said that, it may well be necessary to apply one of the other base tenets, the one about the active ingredient being diluted out of existence, to this treatment, and thereby have the patient moved out into the open air where CO is present in homeopathic quantities (ie, none at all), which I suppose would be a good move.

As for the second part of my earlier statement, well, in a later response, you wrote:

> I sensed a sweet heart, so I wrote sweetheart

...which shows, to me at least, that you're happy to make statements based solely upon feelings. So in all, I don't think that what I wrote is unreasonable

> The few that I did show a shallow understanding.

In that case, being the only homeopath present, it would be good if you could try to deepen our understanding.

ecksor

Homeopath wrote:

You may be right about Stephen Barrett.

I couldn't possibly be right about him because I didn't make any statements about him. You seem to be doubting yourself though.

Yes, correct, we fundamentally are all the same.

Difficult to know what you mean here by the word 'we', but I'm suggesting that we not all be the same and some people actually start make compelling arguments instead of throwing meaningless statements back and forth.

Ah, you assume I don't like it here, I do and I'm having fun.

I'm mostly fairly accurate with my language. I said "you may not like it" and I meant that you may not like it. If I assumed that you didn't like it I would have said "You don't like it".

I like to put information out there, my statements aren't meant to be convincing. Your conclusion will be your own.

How can I draw a conclusion if you won't make any useful statements?

Peanut

davros wrote:

...
In Boots, they stock a couple of dozen homeopathic products. How could that be useful if it is just a tiny fraction of the products that could be prescribed? What is the general opinion among homeopaths regarding Boots? Do you think they are just cashing in on those who believe they can self-prescribe?

When homeopathy was originally being developed it was found that some substances seemed to remedy more ailments for more people than other substances.

These were called the polychrests (google for it) and what you see today in Boots is a reflection of some of the remedies that had been found to be more commonly used. For example, homeopathic Sulphur had been called the Vitamin C of homeopathy due to it's wide-ranging application to various states of disease.

I think naturally enough that homeopaths much prefer if people visit them for consultation instead of self-prescribing, however as with conventional GPs, more people are doing their own research online and coming to decisions based on that.

Helios in the UK (http://www.helios.co.uk/) have a huge range of homeopathic dilutions available for ordering online, however different companies have different production methods - and since there is no way currently to test for what might be active homeopathic substance in a remedy, it could easily be the case that the same remedy from different suppliers will act differently/not at all.

Of course if you don't believe there is any grounds for a remedial effect regardless, then the above is irrelavent.

Another slightly hilarious fact for the above - Nelson's will refuse to sell you any remedy in LM potency on the basis that it's 'too strong'. LM potency is the remedy diluted by 50,000 times at each liquid dilution step instead of the 100 times for the 'C' potencies available in Boots etc.

Peanut

robindch wrote:

> > I s'pose a homeopathic practicioner would stick a
> > CO-poisoned patient into a room full of car fumes.
> > Who knows? Who cares as long as it feels good?
>
> Robin, this also shows that you don't know a flying f***
> what you are talking about in regards to homeopathy!

I disagree -- 'zfar as I understood, one of the base tenets of homeopathy is the statement that 'like cures like', so the first part of what I've said, though facetious, seems to be in accordance with standard practice. Though having

'like cures like' is the correct term, however what you are describing is 'the same cures the same' - this is isopathy.

It's not necessarily the case in homeopathy that giving the toxin in reduced dose will somehow neutralise it - I think common sense dictates that removal of the poisonous agent should be the first thing to do.

However in cases where the symptoms of disease resemble the effect caused by exposure to a (potentially toxic) substance, then this may be a suitable case for prescription of the same substance in homeopathic dilutions.

This is in fact how homeopathy came about, allegedly with the founder Samuel Hahnemann experiencing the symptoms of malaria when dosing himself with quinine - http://www.drvaishnav.com/History.htm