homeopathy - www.askdrshah.com

suicra05

Hi, the website www.askdrshah.com is a homeopathy website. I was wondering has anybody used this site to help them with any illness. Also he seems to offer courses.

hoggy87

suicra05 wrote:

Hi, the website www.askdrshah.com is a homeopathy website. I was wondering has anybody used this site to help them with any illness. Also he seems to offer courses.

Homeopathy is, to put it bluntly, crap. No empirical evidence backs it up. It's "success rate" is equivalent to the success rate for placebos. Go to your doctor.

N8

hoggy87 wrote:

Homeopathy is, to put it bluntly, crap. No empirical evidence backs it up. It's "success rate" is equivalent to the success rate for placebos. Go to your doctor.

I am not a doctor but personally I am all for placebo response with therapies that have little or no adverse side effects. I would have thought the patient comes first.

Has anyone ever thought of how to maximise the placebo response?

By the way there is an Irish College.

PS

Belfast homeopathy results

Madeline Ennis, a pharmacologist at Queen's University, Belfast, was the scourge of homeopathy. She railed against its claims that a chemical remedy could be diluted to the point where a sample was unlikely to contain a single molecule of anything but water, and yet still have a healing effect. Until, that is, she set out to prove once and for all that homeopathy was bunkum.

In her most recent paper, Ennis describes how her team looked at the effects of ultra-dilute solutions of histamine on human white blood cells involved in inflammation. These "basophils" release histamine when the cells are under attack. Once released, the histamine stops them releasing any more. The study, replicated in four different labs, found that homeopathic solutions - so dilute that they probably didn't contain a single histamine molecule - worked just like histamine. Ennis might not be happy with the homeopaths' claims, but she admits that an effect cannot be ruled out.

So how could it happen? Homeopaths prepare their remedies by dissolving things like charcoal, deadly nightshade or spider venom in ethanol, and then diluting this "mother tincture" in water again and again. No matter what the level of dilution, homeopaths claim, the original remedy leaves some kind of imprint on the water molecules. Thus, however dilute the solution becomes, it is still imbued with the properties of the remedy.

You can understand why Ennis remains sceptical. And it remains true that no homeopathic remedy has ever been shown to work in a large randomised placebo-controlled clinical trial. But the Belfast study (Inflammation Research, vol 53, p 181) suggests that something is going on. "We are," Ennis says in her paper, "unable to explain our findings and are reporting them to encourage others to investigate this phenomenon." If the results turn out to be real, she says, the implications are profound: we may have to rewrite physics and chemistry.

Kevster

There was a similar article to that in BBC's Focus magazine a few months ago. It told the story of a French scientist who became famous for inventing / discovering something (Sorry for the lack of knowledge).


Anyway, he then decided to try and disprove homeopathy but soon found himself baffled by it. Indeed, he was unable to disprove it and actually developed a theory about how it COULD work.


He submitted the article to the Nature journal but after that his reputation was ruined and he died with his name tarnished. Nature, on realising the negative effect of the article, were quick to dissociate themselves from it and aim all blame at the scientist, thus aiding to his downfall.


My personal opinion: Homeopathy is the closest thing to being a placebo than any other form of therapy, without actually being a placebo.

Kevster

I just did some researching and found out that Ennis was actually at a conference at which the aforementioned French scientist presented his results on homeopathy.

*Edit* - ...and now I have found his name: Jacques Benveniste

Zillah

Kevster wrote:

Homeopathy is the closest thing to being a placebo than any other form of therapy, without actually being a placebo.

Thats one of the more ridiculous things I've ever heard.

hoggy87

N8 wrote:

Has anyone ever thought of how to maximise the placebo response?

:rolleyes:
Maybe inject sugar cubes with Paracaetamol.

Kevster

Zillah wrote:

Thats one of the more ridiculous things I've ever heard.

Explain why.

That was a hurtful comment by the way. Why do people feel the need to criticise first, and not praise. My life is miserable enough without you in it. Don't bother me again.


Kevin.

Zillah

Kevster wrote:

Explain why.

Something is either a placebo or not.

Jimoslimos

Kevster wrote:

Why do people feel the need to criticise first, and not praise

ehhh? probably because praise tends to be reserved for doing/saying something praiseworthy

Kevster wrote:

My personal opinion: Homeopathy is the closest thing to being a placebo than any other form of therapy, without actually being a placebo.

not stating some psuedoscientific waffle about placebos and homeopathy

Kevster

...Oh give me a break will ye. I have a chronic gut condition, a chronic circulatory condition, and have a psychological 'illness' that renders me useless at socialising. All that and I am just 23 years old. Despite that I am doing quite well but my life is still extremely difficult and everyday is hell-on-earth. At least I amen't editing-out my error.


If I upset ye with my original post then I apologise.


Take care of ye'reselves,
Kevin.

Capt'n Midnight

N8 wrote:

I am not a doctor but personally I am all for placebo response with therapies that have little or no adverse side effects. I would have thought the patient comes first.

yes the patient comes first,
not the person who charges money for a unproven service
one good thing about homeopathy is at least the patient won't OD on some thing that is so dangerous it should be on perscription

Has anyone ever thought of how to maximise the placebo response?

yes - since the placebo effect depends on the patients belief in the treatment all you have to do is lie to them about how effective the therapy/pseudscience is, despite lack of supporting evidence. :rolleyes:

you could also allow confidence tricksters and others who can give the impression of trust (like stars) to endorse or sell the product - think about US TV faith healers.

If the results turn out to be real, she says, the implications are profound: we may have to rewrite physics and chemistry.

this can be said of most pseudosciences

N8

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

yes the patient comes first,
not the person who charges money for a unproven service
one good thing about homeopathy is at least the patient won't OD on some thing that is so dangerous it should be on perscription

What about the stats that show fatalities and side effect from the administration of the right drug in the right dose at the right time? This is something I have recently read about, and in prescriptive drugs having an effct not much more than the placebo effect itself.

yes - since the placebo effect depends on the patients belief in the treatment all you have to do is lie to them about how effective the therapy/pseudscience is, despite lack of supporting evidence. :rolleyes:

you could also allow confidence tricksters and others who can give the impression of trust (like stars) to endorse or sell the product - think about US TV faith healers.

so better attention, intention and bed side manner?

this can be said of most pseudosciences

What is a pseudoscience?

Evil Phil

Regarding the placebo effect: The actually taking of homeopathic remedies is only part of the whole homeopathic therapeutic system. I think this is a difficult thing for people to understand. The homeopathic process is not like the allopathic process (that's conventional medicine) where you simply give a medicine for an ailment, like paracetomal for pain. Homeopathy works on the symptoms. While one particular remedy will work for one person does not mean it will work on everybody else. The remedy matches that person's particular symptoms at that time. The symptoms are treated - not the illness. This also explains why homeopathy only gives the same results as placebos in scientific trials. If it's being tested allopathically you may as well give the subjects smarties. The theraputic system should be tested as a whole, testing the remedies as conventional medicine will never work.

Psuedoscience is a name given to hollistic health care systems that claim to be scientific. What is can be called scientific about homeopathy I don't know but there you go.

Zillah

Evil Phil wrote:

you may as well give the subjects smarties.

QFT

eth0_

Speaking of homeopathy being a load of rubbish...I was in Slovakia a few weeks ago and got a bout of hayfever. Went to the chemists, she understood what I meant by 'rhinitis' and gave me hayfever medication. Looked like a normal over the counter sort of thing. So I started taking them and my goodness, it got about ten times worse within an hour of taking them, and I was inside at the time with the windows shut. I actually had a nose bleed because my nostrils had become so irritated. The next day I had a look at the packet and realised it was homeopathic and contained NO anti-histamine.

I was sceptical about homeopathy before but now I know it's rubbish

Evil Phil

eth0_, I think that's what homeopaths call an aggravation. Which means, I believe, that the remedy (I won't call it medication) was the correct remedy but you took too high a potency. It's hard to know though, the homeopathy practiced in Ireland and the UK is 'classical' where as in mainland Europe they practice 'combined' homeopathy. Don't ask me what the difference is.

I was talking to a psychotherapist recently who is also a qualified homeopath and according to him a number of his colleagues who are, like him, both homeopaths and therapists practice homeopathy without actually giving patients the remedies. Something to do with mirroring which is where my knowledge ran out. But its interesting that they're not giving the remedies and the system still works. This is for emotional and psychological issues rather than physical illness.

As most of you have gathered at this point I'm homeopathy friendly but there is one thing that really gets my blood boiling: There is an *element* within homeopathy (and I'm talking about the practitioners here) who are very anti-conventional medicine. In particular vaccinations - they aren't medically qualified to know there rear-end from their elbow - but they'll tell you that it's dangerous to vaccinate*. This, imo, is criminally dangerous. I know homeopathy is very strongly regulated here in the good ol' Rep of Ireland compared to other countries but not strongly enough I fear

To the OP: Happily not all homeopaths are morons and some do have very good working relationships with the local GPs and other health service professionals. I'd recommend seeing one of them if you're thinking about trying it.

Oh yeah, what does QFT mean?

* Usually just before they tell you they have a safe homeopathic alternative, and that it will be 50 quid thank you very much.

Capt'n Midnight

Evil Phil wrote:

Oh yeah, what does QFT mean?

Quoted For Truth

N8

Evil Phil wrote:

There is an *element* within homeopathy (and I'm talking about the practitioners here) who are very anti-conventional medicine. In particular vaccinations - they aren't medically qualified to know there rear-end from their elbow - but they'll tell you that it's dangerous to vaccinate*. This, imo, is criminally dangerous. I know homeopathy is very strongly regulated here in the good ol' Rep of Ireland compared to other countries but not strongly enough I fear

* Usually just before they tell you they have a safe homeopathic alternative, and that it will be 50 quid thank you very much.

Hi Evil,

Other than self supervision there is no regulation of the homeopathy profession In Ireland.

Vaccinations - what evidence do you have to say they are not dangerous?

As to the payment fee - to be fair a GP is paid for the visit the administration and a bonus for hitting certain percentages.

But to my query what evidence is there to say vaccination is safe?

IN 2005 the Assoc 0f GPs in Ireland wrote to the Minister for Health stating there were vaccinations did cause damage and to seek indemnification against being sued.

I certainly stopped vaccinating my dogs because of this report; http://www.vet.purdue.edu/epi/great_dane_vaccinosis_summary_GDHF.pdf

Should parents have a choice whether to vaccinate their children? Or not?

tallaght01

N8 wrote:

Hi Evil,

Other than self supervision there is no regulation of the homeopathy profession In Ireland.

Vaccinations - what evidence do you have to say they are not dangerous?

As to the payment fee - to be fair a GP is paid for the visit the administration and a bonus for hitting certain percentages.

But to my query what evidence is there to say vaccination is safe?

IN 2005 the Assoc 0f GPs in Ireland wrote to the Minister for Health stating there were vaccinations did cause damage and to seek indemnification against being sued.

I certainly stopped vaccinating my dogs because of this report; http://www.vet.purdue.edu/epi/great_dane_vaccinosis_summary_GDHF.pdf

Should parents have a choice whether to vaccinate their children? Or not?

Why don't you tell us how vaccines are dangerous? I know there has been the MMR debacle in the last few years, which has been discredited. There was also the issue regarding one of the preservatives in vaccines (thiomersal or something), which again has no good evidence to suggest it's dangerous.

The reason I'm posting is that claiming that "vaccines" are dangerous on a public website is in itself a very dangerous thing to do in the abscence of A) firm evidence and any specificity with regard to which vaccine you are talking about.

In the grand scale of things, vaccines as a therapeutic strategy have saved millions upon millions of lives. They have unquestionably saved many many more lives than they have cost.

We had a child die of measles at my hospital during the MMR scare. I recently treated a baby for severe pertussis (whooping cough) who's mum hadn't got him vaccinated because of the MMR scare. There's very good data freely available on the internet about what happened to rates of pertussis when there was a scare about mercury content in vaccines. I think that was in the 70s.

People have the right to not vaccinate their children. Of course they do. But this should be a well informed choice. I don't know how many people are likely to read this thread, but I would implore anybody who has doubts about a particular vaccine to speak to their GP.

Sorry for going a bit off topic, but I felt this is an important point.

N8

Again,

what evidence is there to say vaccination is safe?

what evidence do you have to say they are not dangerous?

tallaght01

well, which element of vaccination are you concerned about? by "safe", do you mean completely without side effects? because we all know that kids frequently get a transient temperature after a vaccine, which requires paracetamol. Or they get a swollen arm. Are you talking about these types of side effects? Because if you are, then it's a fair enough observation, but I would have thought the eradication of polio was a higher priority.

If you tell me what aspects of vaccine safety you're concerned about, we can dig up the research, because very good data is kept on vaccine side effects.

Let me remind you, though, that you're the one casting doubts upon their safety. With the potential public health ramifications of scaremongering, I should hope you would feel some kind of obligation to provide an evidence base for what you're saying.

metrovelvet

tallaght - Ive always been curious about this.

The vaccines that most of us grew up getting, polio, mumps, rubella etc...

How pure are the poisons that they inject into the body? Where are they developed? Which companies sell them? Why are they so expensive?

What are the LONG term effects of them [haven't they only been around since the 30s or 40s?]

tallaght01

I'll start another thread on this issue if that's ok with everyone? Because it's a bit off topic, and I reckon most of the medics on here won't still be reading the homeopathy thread

N8

tallaght01 wrote:

Let me remind you, though, that you're the one casting doubts upon their safety.

nope I am casting doubt on them not not being dangerous

metrovelvet wrote:

What are the LONG term effects of them [haven't they only been around since the 30s or 40s?]

there are none...

http://www.vaccination.co.uk/

inquisitivemuch

so i just joined to try find out some info on homeopathy.... mixed reviews as i can see! very confusing for someone who knows nothing about it but would like to know more....... waste of time or sure it cant hurt? im unsure?

pharmacien

Homeopathy won't hurt you. But then again, taking a sugar cube won't hurt yu either, and it will do just as much good.

It'll end up hurting the wallet. Worst though is the misleading (and false) claims made about its supposed benefits.

Robbiethe3rd

It's interesting that vaccines came up in a debate on the benefits of homeopathy since part of homeopathy comes about from a historical misinterpretation of how a vaccine works. As Jenner administered cow poxs to a child, the homeopaths at the time believed that the like with like theory was being enforced and in subsequent years ignored the overwhelming evidence explaining how a vaccine works.

No, in itself homeopathic is not directly harmful, but if you go to a homeopath instead of a conventional medical doctor for something serious, you could be putting yourself at risk.

Also, homeopaths keep using the word "holistic" and "natural" as if they mean something. The fact is
(i) the word natural means nothing and what they administer is not natural!
(ii) the idea that they look at the person "as an individual" is rubbish, if you took a person and tried to treat them without any reflection on previous people you had treated you would not have a clue how to treat the person. The fact is conventional medicine treats a person as an individual based on what has worked best in the majority of cases similar to them.

The only efficacy of homeopathy is the fact that it spends more time with the patient than a conventional medicine doctor would and psychological contribution to an ill person may have an effect.

N8

It would be great to hear from a homeopath instead of hearing the usual sh*te trotted out

tallaght01

N8 wrote:

It would be great to hear from a homeopath instead of hearing the usual sh*te trotted out

It would be great to see some evidence suporting homeopathy, instead of all your usual conjecture

Bottle_of_Smoke

Sooo anyway Dr Shah, notice Chalazions are a big thing for him. Somewhat tempted. I've had one for over a year & I'm just way too lazy for hot compresses.

Any way I could rid myself of the sceptiscism which would stop homeopathy from working?

Evil Phil

Robbiethe3rd wrote:

(ii) the idea that they look at the person "as an individual" is rubbish, if you took a person and tried to treat them without any reflection on previous people you had treated you would not have a clue how to treat the person. The fact is conventional medicine treats a person as an individual based on what has worked best in the majority of cases similar to them.

While I'm a homepathic advocate I'm NOT a homeopath so please don't kill me. When the say they look at the patient as an individual they look at the person and their disease as a whole individual being and not just at their symptoms, which is why they use the term holistic. They are not saying they look at patients without reflecting on their previous experience with other patients. I think you've misinterpreted that.

For the OP: I find, as somebody who uses homeopathy as a compliment to conventional medicine, that there is a lot of misinterpretation. If you want to find out then you should go and talk to a homeopath and if you're comfortable with them and how the practice then let them treat you. If you're not you could try a few before you get somebody who suits you or try an different holistic therapy. I personally wouldn't go within a mile of somebody who was against vaccination or conventional medicine.

As for my use of homeopathy I'll refer to one of lifes great philisophers

Bill Hicks wrote:

What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see or take into my body as long as I don't harm another human being whilst on this planet? And for those of you having a little moral dilemma on how to answer this, I'll answer for you. NONE OF YOUR ****ING BUSINESS Take that to the bank, cash it and take it on a vacation outta my ****ing life. And stop bringing shotguns to UFO sightings, they might be here to pick me up and take me with 'em.

pharmer

not necessarily true... i heard of a guy that forgot to take his homeopath meds for 3 days and died of an overdose..:)