The Science of Homeopathy

ZorbaTehZ

Hilarious mish-mash of homeopaths explaining the "science" of homeopathy.

"Hydrogen-bonded water"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8u6BZv6_DLc

dermothickey

It works though, I suppose in a way all pharmaceuticals are chemical versions of what we already have on earth

Biologic

It works though, I suppose in a way all pharmaceuticals are chemical versions of what we already have on earth

No, everything is just a chemical version of what we have on earth, not just pharmaceuticals. That doesn't mean if I eat an iPod it'll have some medicinal properties. Pharmaceuticals have proven methods of action based on hard earned gains in science, homeopathy is just a well publicised placebo effect.

dermothickey

Biologic wrote: »

No, everything is just a chemical version of what we have on earth, not just pharmaceuticals. That doesn't mean if I eat an iPod it'll have some medicinal properties. Pharmaceuticals have proven methods of action based on hard earned gains in science, homeopathy is just a well publicised placebo effect.

My opinion

Nobody said pharmaceuticals dont work, but if I have a cold I turn to Honey and Lemon, not beechams or benylin, simply because Honey and Lemon stops my cold whereas Beechams and benylin treat the symptoms for me.

After thousands of years I prefer the natural method. Thats me if im feeling low I eat certain nuts to raise my seratonin levels and eat certain foods for vitamin b intake, if I choose to go to a doctor they will prescribe me whatever sales- rep gives them a good deal. Both work, but work in different ways, The prescribed drug generally will treat the symptoms on a synthetic level.

The choice is there for people to use. And Thank God for that too.

lonestargirl

dermothickey wrote: »

My opinion

Nobody said pharmaceuticals dont work, but if I have a cold I turn to Honey and Lemon, not beechams or benylin, simply because Honey and Lemon stops my cold whereas Beechams and benylin treat the symptoms for me.

After thousands of years I prefer the natural method. Thats me if im feeling low I eat certain nuts to raise my seratonin levels and eat certain foods for vitamin b intake, if I choose to go to a doctor they will prescribe me whatever sales- rep gives them a good deal. Both work, but work in different ways, The prescribed drug generally will treat the symptoms on a synthetic level.

The choice is there for people to use. And Thank God for that too.

Your body treats everything as a chemical, whether you ingest a natural remedy or a pharmaceutical it undergoes the same chemical reactions. Your body cannot distinguish a natural remedy from a pharmaceutical.

In my opinion the advantages of a pharmaceutical are:
(1) there is a defined dose of the active ingrediants being delivered, in a plant this could vary depending on soil conditions, weather etc
(2) the pharmaceutical has been engineered to contain only the active ingrediant

There is evidence for certain health supplements, a good site showing what has and hasn't been shown to work scientifically (including references) is here. One on this list that has strong evidence is the use of ginger for nausea and this is one that I have used succesfully myself. You may have opinions about natural methods being better - I believe in evidence based medicine.

bleg

dermothickey wrote: »

My opinion

Nobody said pharmaceuticals dont work, but if I have a cold I turn to Honey and Lemon, not beechams or benylin, simply because Honey and Lemon stops my cold whereas Beechams and benylin treat the symptoms for me.

After thousands of years I prefer the natural method. Thats me if im feeling low I eat certain nuts to raise my seratonin levels and eat certain foods for vitamin b intake, if I choose to go to a doctor they will prescribe me whatever sales- rep gives them a good deal. Both work, but work in different ways, The prescribed drug generally will treat the symptoms on a synthetic level.

The choice is there for people to use. And Thank God for that too.

Your opinion has little and nothing to do with the scientific fact that homeopathy does not work any more than a placebo effect.

The rest of your post is filled with the pseudosciency bollocks that the quacks peddle to an overly impressionable public.


The prescribed drug generally will treat the symptoms on a synthetic level? What the **** does this even mean.

This non-science has to end.

Homeopathy certainly treated the person not the symptoms in this case:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/baby-glorias-parents-guilty-of-her-death/story-e6freuy9-1225723856950

Owen

Homeopathy ... oh good grief. If water does have a 'memory', it should be full of sh*t.

boardswalker

<mod snip>
Post deleted as it has absolutely zero relevance to homeopathy.
I've invited the poster to start a different debate, if he so wishes.
</mod snip>

Biologic

dermothickey wrote: »

My opinion

Nobody said pharmaceuticals dont work, but if I have a cold I turn to Honey and Lemon, not beechams or benylin, simply because Honey and Lemon stops my cold whereas Beechams and benylin treat the symptoms for me.

After thousands of years I prefer the natural method. Thats me if im feeling low I eat certain nuts to raise my seratonin levels and eat certain foods for vitamin b intake, if I choose to go to a doctor they will prescribe me whatever sales- rep gives them a good deal. Both work, but work in different ways, The prescribed drug generally will treat the symptoms on a synthetic level.

The choice is there for people to use. And Thank God for that too.

You can't choose to believe in the therapeutic effect of certain vitamins and disregard those of certain pharmaceuticals. Both are simply chemicals with a certain function. Sure, if you have a vitamin B deficiency then the most appropriate treatment is VitB, but good luck with supplements if you land yourself a dose of TB. I'm beginning to think you don't understand what homeopathy is.

NotInventedHere

locum-motion

dermothickey wrote: »

It works though, I suppose in a way all pharmaceuticals are chemical versions of what we already have on earth

Part A: Dermot, the standard on this forum is that if any poster says a therapy (any therapy, conventional or otherwise) works, then that poster has to back up that claim, citing published scientific studies. Not only that, but the poster has to be willing to argue why any study they quote is a good study, in the face of other posters arguing against it.
You have stated, effectively, "Homeopathy works." Back that up, please, or you may be infracted. In fact, I'm going to let you partially off the hook. I won't ask you to back up your incredibly sweeping statement. I'm going to ask you for just one. Please find and post one published scientific study that supports, with proper scientific evidence, a claim that any one named homeopathic treatment is effective for any one medical complaint.
Part B: The second part of your post just makes no sense whatsoever, as another poster has pointed out.

dermothickey wrote: »

My opinion

Nobody said pharmaceuticals dont work, but if I have a cold I turn to Honey and Lemon, not beechams or benylin, simply because Honey and Lemon stops my cold whereas Beechams and benylin treat the symptoms for me.

After thousands of years I prefer the natural method. Thats me if im feeling low I eat certain nuts to raise my seratonin levels and eat certain foods for vitamin b intake, if I choose to go to a doctor they will prescribe me whatever sales- rep gives them a good deal. Both work, but work in different ways, The prescribed drug generally will treat the symptoms on a synthetic level.

The choice is there for people to use. And Thank God for that too.

Honey and lemon doesn't stop a cold. Your immune system stops a cold. In other words, time cures your cold. You are, however, correct when you say Beecham's or Benylin treat the symptoms.

"The prescribed drug generally will treat the symptoms on a synthetic level."

What does that even mean? It is a nonsense sentence.


And, by the way, NONE of what you've said in that second post relates to homeopathy.

dermothickey

locum-motion wrote: »

Part A: Dermot, the standard on this forum is that if any poster says a therapy (any therapy, conventional or otherwise) works, then that poster has to back up that claim, citing published scientific studies. Not only that, but the poster has to be willing to argue why any study they quote is a good study, in the face of other posters arguing against it.
You have stated, effectively, "Homeopathy works." Back that up, please, or you may be infracted. In fact, I'm going to let you partially off the hook. I won't ask you to back up your incredibly sweeping statement. I'm going to ask you for just one. Please find and post one published scientific study that supports, with proper scientific evidence, a claim that any one named homeopathic treatment is effective for any one medical complaint.
Part B: The second part of your post just makes no sense whatsoever, as another poster has pointed out.



Honey and lemon doesn't stop a cold. Your immune system stops a cold. In other words, time cures your cold. You are, however, correct when you say Beecham's or Benylin treat the symptoms.

"The prescribed drug generally will treat the symptoms on a synthetic level."

What does that even mean? It is a nonsense sentence.


And, by the way, NONE of what you've said in that second post relates to homeopathy.

Aspirin the most widely known drug known to man comes from willow bark


[SIZE=-1]The father of modern medicine was Hippocrates, who lived sometime between 460 B.C and 377 B.C. Hippocrates was left historical records of pain relief treatments, including the use of powder made from the bark and leaves of the willow tree to help heal headaches, pains and fevers.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]By 1829, scientists discovered that it was the compound called salicin in willow plants which gave you the pain relief.[/SIZE]

What was meant by the above question/statement is that prescribed drugs treat the symptoms. To the best of my knowledge Im yet to come across a prescribed drug that can cure a disease.

locum-motion

dermothickey wrote: »

Aspirin the most widely known drug known to man comes from willow bark

Correct. But also nothing whatsoever to do with homeopathy.

dermothickey wrote: »

[SIZE=-1]The father of modern medicine was Hippocrates, who lived sometime between 460 B.C and 377 B.C. Hippocrates was left historical records of pain relief treatments, including the use of powder made from the bark and leaves of the willow tree to help heal headaches, pains and fevers.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]By 1829, scientists discovered that it was the compound called salicin in willow plants which gave you the pain relief.[/SIZE]

Again, nothing to do with homeopathy. If you don't know what homeopathy is, would you ever just admit that you don't know what it is?

dermothickey wrote: »

What was meant by the above question/statement is that prescribed drugs treat the symptoms. To the best of my knowledge Im yet to come across a prescribed drug that can cure a disease.

You might not be aware of them, Dermot, but that doesn't mean they do not exist. You're still not talking about homeopathy.

Now, get back on the topic and either:
a) back up your claims, or
b) admit you don't know what homeopathy is, or
c) have a 7 day holiday from this forum.

If your next post is neither a) nor b), then I'll give you c).

lonestargirl

and also an article from senseaboutscience.org

Improbable

What I really fail to understand about the scientific argument in favor of homeopathy is that I have never seen a single study which shows that it has any effect which is significantly greater than a placebo. I would be interested in finding some though and actually taking a look at the science behind it. So if anyone knows of any peer reviewed journals in regards to that, please pass them on to me.

dermothickey

locum-motion wrote: »

Correct. But also nothing whatsoever to do with homeopathy.




Again, nothing to do with homeopathy. If you don't know what homeopathy is, would you ever just admit that you don't know what it is?



You might not be aware of them, Dermot, but that doesn't mean they do not exist. You're still not talking about homeopathy.

Now, get back on the topic and either:
a) back up your claims, or
b) admit you don't know what homeopathy is, or
c) have a 7 day holiday from this forum.

If your next post is neither a) nor b), then I'll give you c).

Willow bark is widely used as a Homeopathic treatment.

Homeopathic Pain Relief Remedies For Osteoarthritis Pain.


Homeopathic pain relief formulas are the 100% natural, safe, and the most powerful anti-inflammatory agents on the market nowadays.

They also function as highly effective lubricants in joints, muscles and other tissues. Homeopathic pain relief formulations are also immune system modulators, which can be useful against auto-immune conditions.

All of these qualities contribute to its ability to act as an analgesic by killing the source of pain (inflamed and irritated tissues) so that there is no pain impetus; hence Homeopathic pain relief medications are most efficient for alleviation all types of arthritic pain.

Ingredients of Homeopathic pain relief remedies and why we should make use of homeopathic pain relief formulas for arthritis pain.

White Willow Bark (Salix species) is the main and most important ingredient of most all FDA endorsed all natural homeopathic pain medications.

The Chinese have used the bark of the majestic white willow tree (Salix alba) as a medication for centuries because of its ability to lessen fever and alleviate pain.

Native Indians of the North America used the bark of the indigenous willow trees as a medicine to relieve pain and lower fever.

The white willow has salicin, which when applied as an working ingredient is changed by the body into salicylic acid

The first aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) was manufactured from an herb, meadowsweet, which contained the equivalent salicin. All aspirin is today chemically synthesized, and it is no surprise that the bark of the white willow is repeatedly referred to as "herbal aspirin".

Another ingredient in nearly all homeopathic pain relief formulas is Boswellia, also referred to as boswellin or "Indian frankincense". The boswellic acids found in the gummy like resin from the bark of the Boswellia serrata tree that grows in the dry hills of India, have been used for centuries by traditional Indian healers for its anti-inflammatory properties.

Improved preparations made from a purified extract of this resin and packaged in pill or cream form are employed to reduce inflammation involved with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis.

Unlike accepted NSAIDs (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) such as ibuprofen, the acclaimed treatments for joint inflammation, Boswellia is not known to be the reason of stomach irritation.

How do homeopathic pain relief remedies work?

Prostaglandins are hormone like compounds in the human body that stimulate aches, pain, and inflammation.

The salicylic acid in white willow bark decreases the body's accumulation of prostaglandins. While it may take longer to begin operating than aspirin, its effect last for a greater period of time, and, unlike aspirin, it does not induce stomach bleeding or other known undesirable effects.

Particularly, white willow bark helps to alleviate acute and chronic arthritic pains because of its ability to lower prostaglandin levels in the human body. Some arthritis sufferers taking white willow bark have enjoyed reduced swelling and inflammation, and finally increased mobility, in the back, knees, hips, and other joints.

Added to the above are the anti-inflammatory powers of Boswellia, which actively relieve osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis symptoms, hence it is recommended to use homeopathic pain relief formulas for osteoarthritis pain..

mathepac

Biologic wrote: »

... I'm beginning to think you don't understand what homeopathy is.

It is clear to me that a number of posters, I don't necessarily mean the one I quoted above, don't understand much about homeopathy, medicine, pharmaceuticals or science, if all of those things are different, and certainly don't appreciate the motivation pharmaceutical companies have in synthesising the effects of substances that occur naturally.

BTW, the placebo effect is a well-recognised, documented scientific effect, to the extent that in assessing clinical trials, statisticians adjust results to allow for it.

locum-motion wrote: »

... Now, get back on the topic and either:
a) back up your claims, or
b) admit you don't know what homeopathy is, or
c) have a 7 day holiday from this forum.

If your next post is neither a) nor b), then I'll give you c).

Mods I'm fairly new around here and I'm not sure I understand all the rules that apply in various threads yet, but it strikes me that in the interests of fairness if you impose those requirements on one poster in this thread, then they must apply to all.

For example, how does a post consisting solely of a downloaded video of Dara O'Briain, the famous fat English comedian, add value? You appear to want to keep one poster focussed on backing up claims and staying on topic or facing a ban. Why does this expectation not apply to all? Why is that some other posters can seemingly snipe from the sidelines and not face the same expectations and penalties?

I'd hate to think that the allopathy lobby could continue with what IMHO is simply trolling, with the burden of moderated posting imposed solely on the pro-homeopathy posters. "I say, it's just not cricket, old chap" as Dara O'Briain might say

Just on a point of historic science / medicine, how would posters define the processes and the methods of operation in relation to vaccination / inoculation? Are they related to homeopathic treatment principles, "like treats like" or are they in the anti-biotic camp, "lets kill everything first and see what we're left with"?

mathepac

mathepac wrote: »

It is clear to me that a number of posters, I don't necessarily mean the one I quoted above, don't understand much about homeopathy, medicine, pharmaceuticals or science, if all of those things are different, and certainly don't appreciate the motivation pharmaceutical companies have in synthesising the effects of substances that occur naturally.

You realise that Homoepathy is as big of a business as real medicine, just without the regulation, oversight and need for evidence?

mathepac wrote: »

BTW, the placebo effect is a well-recognised, documented scientific effect, to the extent that in assessing clinical trials, statisticians adjust results to allow for it.

Yes, you realise that placebo's are totally inert right?
All pharmaceuticals have effects beyond the placebo, that's why they test for it.
Homoepathy has never been shown to be any better than a placebo.

mathepac wrote: »

Dara O'Briain, the famous fat English comedian,

He's Irish. The "O'" and the accent are kinda clues.

mathepac wrote: »

allopathy

Allopathy?

mathepac wrote: »

Just on a point of historic science / medicine, how would posters define the processes and the methods of operation in relation to vaccination / inoculation? Are they related to homeopathic treatment principles, "like treats like" or are they in the anti-biotic camp, "lets kill everything first and see what we're left with"?

The homeopathic "Like cures like" principal is nonsense. It flouts everything we know about chemistry and biology. It's never ever been demonstrated, or actually explained.

Vaccines aren't "like cure like." The work by stimulating your immune system by exposing it to a weakened and deactivated sample of the virus.
This works because the weakened virus has the same antigens as the regular virus. These antigens cause the white blood cells in your system to release the correct antibodies to fight off the virus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine

Most homoepathic "remedies" do not have ingredients that have antigens.
Even if they do without actually finding out what is causing the symptoms, which homoepaths don't and can't do, the ingredients of the "remedy" would not be the same thing that causes the symptoms.

Also vaccines only prevent and help you fight off the virus, not cure it.
Taking the vaccine while you're suffering from the symptoms of the virus probably wouldn't help.

Furthermore, and this is the important bit, vaccines contain measurable active ingredients. Homopathic "remedies" do not.

dermothickey

dermothickey wrote: »

Willow bark is widely used as a Homeopathic treatment.

Yes it is.
Too bad homoeopathic solutions never actually contain a measurable amount of any willow bark.

Most homoeopathic solutions proudly state their concentration as 30C or 30X
This, in real scientific terms is a solution of one part in 10 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 (that's 30 zeros or 10 X 10^30) parts water.

Now there's this fellow called Avogadro.
He said basically once you get down to solutions of one to 30 X 10^23 or one to 10 followed by 23 zeros, you hit a limit where that there is only a one a 1 in ten chance of a single molecule of the diluted substance in the solution.
Homoeopathic solutions are 7 orders of magnitude greater than this number.
And some of these things go as far as 100C...

James Randi explains this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWE1tH93G9U

locum-motion

Dermot,

Posting to a link to an ad for a product called Eazol is not providing evidence. Particularly when you have edited the content of the ad.

The ad says "Eazol is the 100% natural, safe and most powerful anti-inflammatory agent on the market today. It also acts as a highly effective lubricant in joints, muscles and other tissues. EAZOL is also an immune system modulator, which can be effective against auto-immune conditions."

You posted "Homeopathic pain relief formulas are the 100% natural, safe, and the most powerful anti-inflammatory agents on the market nowadays. They also function as highly effective lubricants in joints, muscles and other tissues. Homeopathic pain relief formulations are also immune system modulators, which can be useful against auto-immune conditions."

So,
a) what you posted wasn't evidence
b) you dishonestly edited what you were quoting to make it look like it said something that it didn't
c) the product you linked to isn't a homeopathic product. Look it up. Homeopathy isn't herbalism. They are two different forms of alternative treatment.

Dermot is banned for a week.

dermothickey wrote: »

Willow bark is widely used as a Homeopathic treatment.

Homeopathic Pain Relief Remedies For Osteoarthritis Pain.


Homeopathic pain relief formulas are the 100% natural, safe, and the most powerful anti-inflammatory agents on the market nowadays.

They also function as highly effective lubricants in joints, muscles and other tissues. Homeopathic pain relief formulations are also immune system modulators, which can be useful against auto-immune conditions.

All of these qualities contribute to its ability to act as an analgesic by killing the source of pain (inflamed and irritated tissues) so that there is no pain impetus; hence Homeopathic pain relief medications are most efficient for alleviation all types of arthritic pain.

Ingredients of Homeopathic pain relief remedies and why we should make use of homeopathic pain relief formulas for arthritis pain.

White Willow Bark (Salix species) is the main and most important ingredient of most all FDA endorsed all natural homeopathic pain medications.

The Chinese have used the bark of the majestic white willow tree (Salix alba) as a medication for centuries because of its ability to lessen fever and alleviate pain.

Native Indians of the North America used the bark of the indigenous willow trees as a medicine to relieve pain and lower fever.

The white willow has salicin, which when applied as an working ingredient is changed by the body into salicylic acid

The first aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) was manufactured from an herb, meadowsweet, which contained the equivalent salicin. All aspirin is today chemically synthesized, and it is no surprise that the bark of the white willow is repeatedly referred to as "herbal aspirin".

Another ingredient in nearly all homeopathic pain relief formulas is Boswellia, also referred to as boswellin or "Indian frankincense". The boswellic acids found in the gummy like resin from the bark of the Boswellia serrata tree that grows in the dry hills of India, have been used for centuries by traditional Indian healers for its anti-inflammatory properties.

Improved preparations made from a purified extract of this resin and packaged in pill or cream form are employed to reduce inflammation involved with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis.

Unlike accepted NSAIDs (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) such as ibuprofen, the acclaimed treatments for joint inflammation, Boswellia is not known to be the reason of stomach irritation.

How do homeopathic pain relief remedies work?

Prostaglandins are hormone like compounds in the human body that stimulate aches, pain, and inflammation.

The salicylic acid in white willow bark decreases the body's accumulation of prostaglandins. While it may take longer to begin operating than aspirin, its effect last for a greater period of time, and, unlike aspirin, it does not induce stomach bleeding or other known undesirable effects.

Particularly, white willow bark helps to alleviate acute and chronic arthritic pains because of its ability to lower prostaglandin levels in the human body. Some arthritis sufferers taking white willow bark have enjoyed reduced swelling and inflammation, and finally increased mobility, in the back, knees, hips, and other joints.

Added to the above are the anti-inflammatory powers of Boswellia, which actively relieve osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis symptoms, hence it is recommended to use homeopathic pain relief formulas for osteoarthritis pain..

GradMed

mathepac wrote: »

For example, how does a post consisting solely of a downloaded video of Dara O'Briain, the famous fat English comedian, add value?

When reason fails, ridicule. People sometimes use humour to highlight the absurdity of a situation, much like this, homeopathic explosives
http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2010/04/20/new-age-terrorists-develop-homeopathic-bomb/

"Homeopathic bombs are comprised of 99.9% water but contain the merest trace element of explosive. The solution is then repeatedly diluted so as to leave only the memory of the explosive in the water molecules. According to the laws of homeopathy, the more that the water is diluted, the more powerful the bomb becomes."

locum-motion

mathepac wrote: »

Mods I'm fairly new around here and I'm not sure I understand all the rules that apply in various threads yet, but it strikes me that in the interests of fairness if you impose those requirements on one poster in this thread, then they must apply to all.

For example, how does a post consisting solely of a downloaded video of Dara O'Briain, the famous fat English comedian, add value? You appear to want to keep one poster focussed on backing up claims and staying on topic or facing a ban. Why does this expectation not apply to all? Why is that some other posters can seemingly snipe from the sidelines and not face the same expectations and penalties?

I'd hate to think that the allopathy lobby could continue with what IMHO is simply trolling, with the burden of moderated posting imposed solely on the pro-homeopathy posters. "I say, it's just not cricket, old chap" as Dara O'Briain might say

Just on a point of historic science / medicine, how would posters define the processes and the methods of operation in relation to vaccination / inoculation? Are they related to homeopathic treatment principles, "like treats like" or are they in the anti-biotic camp, "lets kill everything first and see what we're left with"?

There's a couple of differences.

1. Nobody else, as far as I could see, posted here stating "Homeopathy works." Dermot did. He was asked to back up that claim. He didn't.

2. This is a Health Sciences forum. A poster (even Dermot) who posts something that is generally accepted by science is not going to be asked to back it up with the same rigour as someone who posts something that flies in the face of all experimental and theoretical possibility. As an example, Dermot posted something about Aspirin coming from willow bark, and being effective for arthritis. This is true, and well known, and accepted by the scientific community. Therefore, he wasn't asked to back up that claim.

3. Homeopathy is pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo that dresses up its claims in scientific sounding language that may fool those with no knowledge, but that is immediately recognisable as mumbo jumbo to those who know something about science. As this is Health Sciences forum, it is perfectly logical that those who post here are often Health Scientists. However, scientists are people too, and surprisingly enough have a sense of humour. So they may from time to time post up an example of this mumbo jumbo for humourous value. This is what the OP and the Dara O'Briain video are both about.

So, to sum up, we (Health Scientists) post up stuff about how ridiculous homeopaths are so that we can laugh at it.
When the homeopathic lobby try to defend it, they are asked to back up their claims.
If they fail to do so, we laugh at them all over again. And we ban them.

That's the situation. If you don't like it, you don't have to visit the Health Sciences forum. Or you could complain to the Category Moderators. I will be drawing their attention to this thread anyway.

Alun

dermothickey wrote: »

For example, how does a post consisting solely of a downloaded video of Dara O'Briain, the famous fat English comedian, add value?

English:D? He's Irish, born in Bray, is a fluent Irish speaker, and on top of that studied maths and theoretical physics at UCD. He's also married to a doctor, which may be a reason he's so outspoken on the subject of homoeopathy.

locum-motion

King Mob wrote: »

Allopathy?

"Allopathy" is a term used by homeopaths to describe conventional medicine.

locum-motion

locum-motion wrote: »

"Allopathy" is a term used by homeopaths to describe conventional medicine.

Oh, I know.
I'm just curious why someone who "(doesn't) understand much about homeopathy" would use a term that is pretty much exclusively used by homeopaths and their followers.

locum-motion

King Mob wrote: »

Most homoeopathic solutions proudly state their concentration as 30C or 30X
This, in real scientific terms is a solution of one part in 10 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 (that's 30 zeros or 10 X 10^30) parts water.

What you have posted would be correct for a 30x dilution. A 30c dilution is something diluted 100 times, and then that repeated 29 more times. So therefore it's thirty pairs of zeroes, not 30 zeroes.

To put it another way, it's one part of active ingredient in 1, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000 parts of water.

To put it yet another way, if a patient were to take a liquid homeopathic preparation of "Willow Bark 30c", the patient would need to drink a container of the preparation 30 billion times the size of the earth in order to be sure that they had ingested ONE molecule of the active ingredient!

mathepac

King Mob wrote: »

You realise that Homoepathy is as big of a business as real medicine, just without the regulation, oversight and need for evidence? ...

Any data in support of those assertions?

King Mob wrote: »

... He's Irish. The "O'" and the accent are kinda clues ...

Apologies, my attempt at irony relating to an OT post failed to amuse.

King Mob wrote: »

... Allopathy? ...

You seem to rely on wikipedia for your reference material and I'm sure the word is there. However, to avoid me appearing to be churlish try this.

King Mob wrote: »

... Vaccines aren't "like cure like." The work by stimulating your immune system by exposing it to a weakened and deactivated sample of the virus.
This works because the weakened virus has the same antigens as the regular virus. These antigens cause the white blood cells in your system to release the correct antibodies to fight off the virus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine

Most homoepathic "remedies" do not have ingredients that have antigens.
Even if they do without actually finding out what is causing the symptoms, which homoepaths don't and can't do, the ingredients of the "remedy" would not be the same thing that causes the symptoms.

Also vaccines only prevent and help you fight off the virus, not cure it.
Taking the vaccine while you're suffering from the symptoms of the virus probably wouldn't help.

Furthermore, and this is the important bit, vaccines contain measurable active ingredients. Homopathic "remedies" do not.

That doesn't seem to gell totally with the definition given in the reference material you link to, which states in part "... A vaccine typically contains an agent that resembles a disease-causing microorganism, and is often made from weakened or killed forms of the microbe or its toxins ...". It is also at variance with the definition you typed earlier in the post, so I'm struggling to know which you think is correct.

The definition which you supplied in the link makes the formulation of certain vaccines practically identical to homeopathic remedies. A substance that causes an illness or which resembles a substance that causes an illness or that produces symptoms similar to a particular illness is used to boost the immune system in order to fight the illness - that's homeopathy in a nutshell. Can you see the similarities here with your reference material's definition?

mathepac

mathepac wrote: »

Any data in support of those assertions?

Seriously?
The advertising? The fact that homoepathic remedies cost an assload?
The endless websites? The various organisations?
The idea that the NHS in Britain flushed 12 million into it?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/jun/10/complementary-medicine-nhs-more4

Hard to find an exact number, but http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32219873/ns/health-alternative_medicine/
Covers America so should give you an idea.

To be honest it's a bit naive to say that no one makes money off homoeopathy.

mathepac wrote: »

You seem to rely on wikipedia for your reference material and I'm sure the word is there. However, to avoid me appearing to be churlish try this.

So then you are indeed quite familiar with homoeopathy?

mathepac wrote: »

That doesn't seem to gell totally with the definition given in the reference material you link to, which states in part "... A vaccine typically contains an agent that resembles a disease-causing microorganism, and is often made from weakened or killed forms of the microbe or its toxins ...". It is also at variance with the definition you typed earlier in the post, so I'm struggling to know which you think is correct.

Yes it does.
My description is just less technical.

mathepac wrote: »

The definition which you supplied in the link makes the formulation of certain vaccines practically identical to homeopathic remedies. A substance that causes an illness or which resembles a substance that causes an illness or that produces symptoms similar to a particular illness is used to boost the immune system in order to fight the illness - that's homeopathy in a nutshell. Can you see the similarities here with your reference material's definition?

No it's not by any definition.
1) vaccines don't cure, they immunise. So "like cures like" is right out.
2) Homoeopathy does not boost the immune system.
3) Homoeopathy does not have a mechanism for doing so.
4) The substances used in homoeopathy aren't viruses or micro-organisms, they do not have antigens.
5) Homoeopathy claims to work for illnesses other than those caused by viruses. Vaccines do not work that way.
6) There is a measurable, detectable active ingredient in vaccines. There isn't in homoeopathic "remedies."

locum-motion

Using 'Let me google that for you' is churlish. Very churlish. I've actually been know to do it myself on other fora when trying to be churlish.

A vaccine is a preparation made from a disease-causing organism diluted, or killed, or otherwise attenuated so that it doesn't produce the disease, but it does contain a measureable amount of the antigens that can cause the immune system to produce the antibodies needed for the body to fight the disease if infected by the disease-causing organism in the future.

A homeopathic remedy is a preparation of a substance that causes a set of symptoms, diluted to such an extent that there is actually none of the substance left in the product, that is claimed to treat any disease that presents with similar symptoms to that caused by the original undiluted substance.

So, no, there's no similarity at all.

mathepac wrote: »

Any data in support of those assertions?
Apologies, my attempt at irony relating to an OT post failed to amuse.
You seem to rely on wikipedia for your reference material and I'm sure the word is there. However, to avoid me appearing to be churlish try this.

That doesn't seem to gell totally with the definition given in the reference material you link to, which states in part "... A vaccine typically contains an agent that resembles a disease-causing microorganism, and is often made from weakened or killed forms of the microbe or its toxins ...". It is also at variance with the definition you typed earlier in the post, so I'm struggling to know which you think is correct.

The definition which you supplied in the link makes the formulation of certain vaccines practically identical to homeopathic remedies. A substance that causes an illness or which resembles a substance that causes an illness or that produces symptoms similar to a particular illness is used to boost the immune system in order to fight the illness - that's homeopathy in a nutshell. Can you see the similarities here with your reference material's definition?

N8

locum-motion wrote: »

So, no, there's no similarity at all.

Nor do homeopathy preparations contain adjuvents, preservatives, excipients nor allergens.

Vaccines would be great if they were as simple as you just described - unfortunately they do not. But given vaccines are one of the holy greats not to be questioned here (under threat of ban and death LOL) lets give it a miss.

King Mob wrote: »

You realise that Homoepathy is as big of a business as real medicine, just without the regulation, oversight and need for evidence?

well put and a point not often made. However, it would be foolish to ignore such a situation relating to medical practice in regard to lack of evidence. Less than half of medical practice is evidence based being instead goal orientated and or accepted without conclusive evidence (or there being enough evidence either way).

locum-motion wrote: »

This is a Health Sciences forum.

This is not a health science forum Locum Motion despite it being named as such. It functions as a medical science forum related to disease and infirmity.

locum-motion wrote: »

So, to sum up, we (Health Scientists) post up stuff about how ridiculous homeopaths are so that we can laugh at it.
When the homeopathic lobby try to defend it, they are asked to back up their claims.
If they fail to do so, we laugh at them all over again. And we ban them.

Well put. And as such an illustration of my point. As for deciding to call yourself a ‘health scientist’ what do you know of the cause of health? I would think very little although I would credit you highly with knowledge of disease and infirmity care.

locum-motion wrote: »

That's the situation. If you don't like it, you don't have to visit the Health Sciences forum. Or you could complain to the Category Moderators. I will be drawing their attention to this thread anyway.

I doubt if they will be in the least bit interested. Advice has been given on this forum previously by mods that was contrary to best practice or best interest of patient care.

Being too sharp with the moderation makes the forum look intolerant and boorish.

N8

N8 wrote: »

well put and a point not often made. However, it would be foolish to ignore such a situation relating to medical practice in regard to lack of evidence. Less than half of medical practice is evidence based being instead goal orientated and or accepted without conclusive evidence (or there being enough evidence either way).

Such as?

Which treatments used by doctors aren't evidence based?
How are you coming up with this figure of "less than half"?

N8

N8 wrote: »

Nor do homeopathy preparations contain

Homoepathic preparations are water. they don't contain anything more than moderately pure water.
Unless they're splashed on sugar pills

N8 wrote: »

adjuvents,

Which increase the effectiveness of smaller viral doses?

N8 wrote: »

preservatives,

So? I'd prefer fresh vaccines than gone off ones.

N8 wrote: »

excipients

Yes they do actually. it's either the water or the sugar pill.

N8 wrote: »

nor allergens.

Water can be an allergen....

Oh and there's the slight fact that vaccines have been shown to be effective. Homoeopathy has not.

N8 wrote: »

Vaccines would be great if they were as simple as you just described - unfortunately they do not. But given vaccines are one of the holy greats not to be questioned here (under threat of ban and death LOL) lets give it a miss.

It's been made pretty clear you can question vaccines:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65604466&postcount=57

If you want to question, in a reasoned way, the efficacy of vaccines, then that's ok - but quote your sources and explain your reasoning.

mathepac

King Mob wrote: »

... To be honest it's a bit naive to say that no one makes money off homoeopathy...

I never posted anything relating to homeopathy and money. You posted "... that Homoepathy is as big of a business as real medicine ..." earlier and I asked for links / data to substantiate your assertions.

Thanks for the links even if there's some confusion as to why you supplied them.

King Mob wrote: »

... So then you are indeed quite familiar with homoeopathy? ...

I never posted about my knowledge of homeopathy. It appears you misinterpreted an earlier post. But yes, I am familiar with homeopathy as an avid reader and as a satisfied client of a couple of mainstream practitioners on the mainland.

King Mob wrote: »

... My description is just less technical.


No it's not by any definition...
...

OK, if you say so.

locum-motion wrote: »

Using 'Let me google that for you' is churlish. Very churlish. I've actually been know to do it myself on other fora when trying to be churlish. ...

I apologise to King Mob for posting that remark. My early observation would be that not all posters need to work at being churlish, they seem naturally gifted.

locum-motion wrote: »

... So, no, there's no similarity at all.

While to the best of my limited knowledge this latest definition of a vaccine seems fairly complete and accurate, the homeopathic one may not be complete and maybe that's where the differences arise. Unfortunately I don't have any means of checking this right now.

boardswalker

boardswalker wrote: »

<mod snip>
Post deleted as it has absolutely zero relevance to homeopathy.
I've invited the poster to start a different debate, if he so wishes.
</mod snip>

Firstly, your argument against homeopathy is that there is no scientific evidence to support it.

My post highlighted that scientific evidence is not as reliable as you would like us to believe. There is a growing concern among the scientific community about the way pharmaceutical companies distort the scientific evidence to win regulatory approval for their products.

I gave a link to a talk given by a highly regarded scientist on the politics of science.

My post is very relevant to this discussion.

Secondly, you have not invited me to do anything.

This forum does not appear to be open-minded. Thanks for confirming my suspicions.

locum-motion

boardswalker wrote: »

Secondly, you have not invited me to do anything.

Check your Priviate Messages!

boardswalker

locum-motion wrote: »

Check your Priviate Messages!

I did. Nothing new in private messages. Unread 0

locum-motion

boardswalker wrote: »

As my post, which you deleted, showed, many leading scientists are concerned at the way science is being manipulated and distorted by the pharmaceutical industry.
Specifically,it would appear that the evidence for statins and antidepressants has been dressed up in scientific sounding language that fools many in the medical industry.

Why didn't you address the points raised in the video?
Can you address those?

Your video related to the faults that conventional science has. None of us deny that science has its faults, but that's not the issue on this thread. Put forward those arguments on a different thread if you wish, and they can be argued on that thread.

If you have anything further to contribute to a discussion of "The Science of Homeopathy", then put it here.

locum-motion

boardswalker wrote: »

I did. Nothing new in private messages. Unread 0

OK, it's not listed in my Sent items folder either, so I seem to have done something incorrectly. For that you have my apologies.

The gist of what I wrote in the PM has been aired here since. I also 'cut and pasted' the post I deleted into it so that you wouldn't have to type it all out again if you wished to start a new thread as I asked you to.

mathepac

mathepac wrote: »

I never posted anything relating to homeopathy and money. You posted "... that Homoepathy is as big of a business as real medicine ..." earlier and I asked for links / data to substantiate your assertions.

Thanks for the links even if there's some confusion as to why you supplied them.

Well you seemed to think that big pharma profiting off medicine was a point against them.
I pointed out that Homoeopaths also had money to make, but with less of the oversight.

mathepac wrote: »

I never posted about my knowledge of homeopathy. It appears you misinterpreted an earlier post. But yes, I am familiar with homeopathy as an avid reader and as a satisfied client of a couple of mainstream practitioners on the mainland.

But you don't understand it?

mathepac wrote: »

OK, if you say so.

I do. Care to point out the difference?

mathepac wrote: »

While to the best of my limited knowledge this latest definition of a vaccine seems fairly complete and accurate, the homeopathic one may not be complete and maybe that's where the differences arise. Unfortunately I don't have any means of checking this right now.

No the differences have been explained to you in depth.

Homopathy isn't a vaccine. It cannot work on the same principals.

boardswalker

locum-motion wrote: »

Your video related to the faults that conventional science has. None of us deny that science has its faults, but that's not the issue on this thread. Put forward those arguments on a different thread if you wish, and they can be argued on that thread.

If you have anything further to contribute to a discussion of "The Science of Homeopathy", then put it here.

But your only argument against homeopathy is that there is no scientific evidence to support it. As you agree, conventional science has faults. Specifically, it is biased in favour of those conventional treatments sold by pharmaceutical companies. It is hardly surprising that conventional science is not finding evidence for homeopathy. Are you seriously expecting pharmaceutical companies to prove that the competition can be as effective.

Please, try to be reasonable. At least, use intelligent arguments.

boardswalker

locum-motion wrote: »

OK, it's not listed in my Sent items folder either, so I seem to have done something incorrectly. For that you have my apologies.

The gist of what I wrote in the PM has been aired here since. I also 'cut and pasted' the post I deleted into it so that you wouldn't have to type it all out again if you wished to start a new thread as I asked you to.

So where is my original post now. Can I get it back?

ORLY?

N8 wrote: »

Being too sharp with the moderation makes the forum look intolerant and boorish.

I would bloody well hope that the health sciences forum would be intolerant of homeopathy.

boardswalker

boardswalker wrote: »

Firstly, your argument against homeopathy is that there is no scientific evidence to support it.

My post highlighted that scientific evidence is not as reliable as you would like us to believe. There is a growing concern among the scientific community about the way pharmaceutical companies distort the scientific evidence to win regulatory approval for their products.

I gave a link to a talk given by a highly regarded scientist on the politics of science.

My post is very relevant to this discussion.

Secondly, you have not invited me to do anything.

So because some doctor says some evidence might be suspect, magic exists?

Every single scientific paper could be proven wrong tomorrow, but there still wouldn't any evidence that homoeopathy is any better than a placebo.

boardswalker wrote: »

This forum does not appear to be open-minded. Thanks for confirming my suspicions.

The term open minded gets brandy around alot, but rarely at the people who deserve it.

boardswalker

boardswalker wrote: »

Specifically, it is biased in favour of those conventional treatments sold by pharmaceutical companies.

Can you explain how?

boardswalker wrote: »

Are you seriously expecting pharmaceutical companies to prove that the competition can be as effective.

Many pharmaceutical companies own subsidiaries that produce a variety of alternative medicines.

locum-motion

boardswalker wrote: »

Firstly, your argument against homeopathy is that there is no scientific evidence to support it.

My post highlighted that scientific evidence is not as reliable as you would like us to believe.

Take a look at the logic of what you've said there.
1. There's no scientific evidence for homeopathy.
2. Scientific evidence is not always reliable.

1. and 2. can both be true statements. And in fact both are.

However, separately or taken together, they do not add up to an argument for homeopathy.

Just because scientific evidence isn't always reliable, it doesn't follow that the absence of science is reliable, which is what you seem to want us to believe.

"Science doesn't have all the answers" is an argument frequently proposed by the proponents of alternative therapies. On behalf of all scientists, a certain overweight physicist with an 'O' in his name who isn't English answered that: "Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise, it'd stop."

locum-motion

boardswalker wrote: »

So where is my original post now. Can I get it back?

New PM sent.

ORLY?

boardswalker wrote: »

Specifically, it is biased in favour of those conventional treatments sold by pharmaceutical companies.
Please, try to be reasonable.

Pharmaceutical companies are only interested in products that are proven to be of some benefit and to be overall benificial for patients, otherwise they get sued and are banned from selling the product and make no money.

So, inevitably, in the health science forum, the treatments that people produce scientific evidence in favour of, are also the ones sold by pharmaceutical companies.

And then you have the audacity to say this?

boardswalker wrote: »

At least, use intelligent arguments.

boardswalker

locum-motion wrote: »

Take a look at the logic of what you've said there.
1. There's no scientific evidence for homeopathy.
2. Scientific evidence is not always reliable.

1. and 2. can both be true statements. And in fact both are.

However, separately or taken together, they do not add up to an argument for homeopathy.

Just because scientific evidence isn't always reliable, it doesn't follow that the absence of science is reliable, which is what you seem to want us to believe.

Firstly, those two statements are quotes you made!

I don't expect to find scientific evidence for homeopathy.
I say that, not because I don't believe its possible, but because the scientific community is not looking for it.
As long as the pharmaceutical industry influences research, you won't find them looking for evidence that homeopathy works.

boardswalker

boardswalker wrote: »

As long as the pharmaceutical industry influences research, you won't find them looking for evidence that homeopathy works.

So assuming this is a valid argument, what's stopping homoeopaths doing the work and providing the evidence?

locum-motion

boardswalker wrote: »

Firstly, those two statements are quotes you made!

They are summaries of what you said!

bleg

Typical homeopathy thread.

If the advocates fail in their attempts to equate medicine and homeopathy and their attempts to demonise scientific pursuits just fall back to the default position of big pharma making loads of money and being evil.