I am honored that so many skeptics of homeopathy are so threatened by my videos. The skeptics' blogs encourage their ilk to give my videos a "low rating." I encourage everyone to judge for themselves.
We have been taught to use the quick fix even though we can read the side effects that causes us to be more sick.
Mother Theresa used it and found it to be economical since she worked with the poor. Even famous people like Tina Tuner, Cathrine Zeta Jones, Jane Seymore, Jenny McCarthy are a few people who have used homeopathy.
While Homeopathy detractors cling to 8 FLAWED studies to discredit Homeopathy, there are over 200 well conducted clinical trials and studies done by eminent scientists and physicians around the world to prove that Homeopathy is NOT placebo effect.
Homeopathic medicine is far from "very expensive". A tube of 80 pellets costs about $6 in the US. In many cases one tube can last a lifetime.
My annual cost for the treatment of serious, chronic illnesses and acute illnesses is about $1,700 which includes office visits and medicine. This is less than half of what most Americans pay for med insurance alone.
Homeopathy provides effective, dynamic and gentle healing with a minimum of expense.
This work has been carried out at Stanford, Cambridge, Penn State, and Arizona U.
R. Roy: senior most member of US Nat'l Academy of Engineering, chair of geochemistry and materials science, Penn State. W. Tiller, renowned physicist, prof. emeritus, Stanford.
The other scientists working on these projects are equally respected.
Per Conte and others, "The Theory of High Dilutions": "...infinitesimal dilutions...a discontinuity in the spatio-temporal continuum providing a solution to the paradox of high dilutions and clears up what WAS the 'key issue' of opponents of h."
Per Roy and others, "The Structure of Liquid Water": "This paper DEMOLISHES the objection to h. that there can be no differences at all between a remedy and pure water. "
Homeopathy's most recent success on the world stage was in averting epidemics of leptospirosis in Cuba during hurricane season. When Cuba used conv. vaccines there were infections in the 1000's AND deaths, AND the numbers rose every year. With h. nosodes infections were 10 or fewer/mth and there were ZERO deaths.
Google Cuba homeopathy leptospirosis to read the reports.
OK, I googled it. Turns out that alongside the homeopathy treatment, people were given Vax-Spiral, a locally produced drug to treat leptospirosis. There is no scientific report on the effects of the homeopathy. Not yet anyhow.
And yes, there has been a recent, and severe drop in the number of infection lately, since Cuba has been able to produce their own drug (the embargo makes drug importation difficult).
So no... there is no proof of any success related to homeopathy. Try again.
Kindly give proper credit to the Cuban use of H. NOSODES ALONE in the vaccination of 2.5 million people in TWO Cuban provinces in 2008 to defend against leptospirosis. Vaccines were NOT used with the h. nosode.
The result of h. was zero-10 infects/mth with ZERO deaths. This nosode was made by the Findlay Institute (Cuba) which also made the allopathic vaccine Cuba used alone in past years. That vaccine resulted in infects in the 1000's AND DEATHS AND the numbers ROSE every year.
You are very much mistaken in your assertion that "there is no proof of any such success related to homeopathy."
What is the point of making such a statement when anyone can read the reports in black and white for themselves by googling.
Frankly, as far as I am concerned, there is no point in arguing about whether or not h. was used or was successful! It is all over the internet in black and white! Reports will also be coming out from WHO and CDC.
There have been many peer-reviewed studies, including the one in the Lancet 1997, which concluded for homeopathy. The placebo effect cannot explain why infants and small children respond to homeopathy, or why patients so often report a complete and final elimination of disease symptoms.
Hippocrates said "Disease is elimated by remedies able to produce similar symptoms". Was he an "ignorant and uninformed" person too?
Hippocrates did work with many convictions that were based on what is now known to be incorrect anatomy and physiology, such as Humorism. One of his cures for a rumbling stomach was to 'bleed' the stomach. His patient nearly bled to death but recovered.
Hippocrates was certainly wise beyond his years, but not THAT many years beyond.
Also, 85% of the ailments people go to the hospital for, would heal by themselves. This is no secret statistic. Homeopathy "works" by not getting in the way.
And they've stopped. It's called "The scientific method" you see, real doctors test treatments, study their effectiveness and then change their behavior as a result. Homeopaths just use the same tired old nonsense they have for 200 years, despite the fact that the kind of research that discredited bleeding also discredits homeopathy.
your comment has no pertinence to this query of mine.
until people claim they have answers for something as important as other people's health, they better be able to prove that what they're SELLING and they're always selling it you see ;-) is something of value.
and homeopathy hasn't done that, i'm just pointing that out, it's not an opinion on anything, it's an observation plus request for a proof.
H. is backed up by hundreds of laboratory and clinical studies. It is backed up by 200 years' worth of provings. Millions of people around the world testify to the effectiveness of h.
My experience of skeptics is that under no circumstances will they accept proof no matter from whom or from what source. That certainly is the attitude you are putting out!
How about the 2008 hurricane season in Cuba? TWO MILLION people used h. vaccine to defend against leptospirosis. The results are in: 10 or fewer infections/mth and ZERO deaths. With allopathic vac., there were infections in the 1000's AND deaths AND the numbers rose ever year.
I am sure you have a reason for not being able to accept this documented proof along with all the other documented proof!
I have to note that, out of context, no one would know to whom this comment was directed. It was a response to a denialist post claiming, as usual, that homeopathy is a bunch of nonsense with no basis in science, no studies to back it up, can't possibly work, is expensive tap water and so on........
Homeopathy can't possibly be placebo effect because it cures objective symptoms of non self-limiting chronic diseases such as chronic tonsillitis in infants & children and tumours in animals. Infants and animals are not subject to the placebo effect.
Observer bias is not applicable to OBJECTIVE symptoms such as chronic tonsillitis, tumors and skin diseases which are routinely cured by many Homeopathy clinics/hospitals around the world one of which is the Banerji Research Centre, India.
You've never seen celebrities used to promote drugs? Hmmmm.
By the way, this video is not just about "celebrities," unless you count DARWIN and ROCKEFELLER and 11 US PRESIDENTS as celebrities. I delete uninformed and ill-informed comments from here.
No, I actually cannot recall having seen celebrities promoting drugs, unless you are talking about Keith Richards or Amy Winehouse. I would not be impressed if they did.
And yes, I do count Darwin and U.S. Presidents as celebrities.
Delete as many comments as you want, mate. If you can only defend your position by silencing opposing views, knock yourself out. I would have thought you might want to engage with criticism, and educate the ill-informed.
The Royal family are well known to be as mad as a bag of spanners. I wouldn't be surprised if her doctor had a bone through his nose and made diagnosis by examining slave's entrails.
jimbob is free to believe or not believe in h. as he chooses. What is NOT acceptable is the abusive talk and bad language jimbob has strewn across the pages of comments to these videos.
jimbob's attitude is that anyone who disagrees WITH HIM is an "arse", "mad as a bag of spanners", etc. NOT very creditable arguments for his position! jimbob has not factored in the recent Cuban success with the h. leptospirosis vaccine--a success so great not even the most rabid skeptic can refute it.
Some Allopathy doctors in the Finlay Institute in Cuba have done excellent use of Homeopathy prophylaxis in the prevention of Leptospirosis outbreak during hurricane season in Cuba.
Yes, Mohan. Some people come here rejecting homeopathy out of hand not only with statements about it that aren't actually true, but also with criticisms that should best be applied to allopathy.
I do: these multimillionaires have it at their disposal to choose any form of medicine under they sun. They opt for homeopathy; once you've tried it yourself, you'll understand why.
Aphorism 78 in the Organon of Medicine by Samuel Hahnemann says:
..."chronic diseases are those that arise from a chronic miasm, which when left to themselves, and unchecked by those remedies that are specific for them, always go on increasing and growing worse, notwithstanding the best mental and corporeal regimen, and torment the patient to the end of his life with ever aggravated sufferings".
I challenge you to show me ANY scientific study which validates the theory of miasm. Also, according to the FDA, homeopathy is only approved for self-limiting conditons. This directly contradicts Hahnemann statement as you have quoted above.
Yeah...who cares if Charles Darwin benefited greatly from it...or so many other leading scientists and physicians, corporate leaders, clergy, world-class artists, and so many more.
The real question to you, Mgcaustin: who cares what you think?!?
It is not about what I or anyone else thinks. It is about what the evidence supports. Appealing to Moses and Hollywood celebrities does not in any way support your case.
Darwin was most definitely NOT a believer in homeopathy. He took homeopathic treatments because it was part of the regimen of the hospital he was admitted to, but was highly skeptical himself.
From a letter to his sister:
" grieve to say that Dr Gully gives me homoœopathic medicines three times a day, which I take obediently without an atom of faith."
Now let's continue with more of Darwin's written testimony given after starting Dr. Gully's homeopathic treatment: "I now increase in weight, have escaped sickness for 30 days, which is thrice as long an interval as I have had for last year; & yesterday in 4 walks I managed seven miles! I am turning into a mere walking and eating machine."
At this point you may claim Darwin's improvement was due to Gully's water-cure. Darwin himself states that Gully had not even begun the sweating
process (the most important part of the water cure) when Darwin showed improvement.
If you claim his response was placebo, keep in mind that Darwin experienced an exterioration or worsening of his symptoms before improving--clearly not the placebo effect.
Once again, the skeptics present only the portion of the facts they wish to be known, only a tiny portion of the facts.
It is clear that Darwin was a skeptic at the time he began homeopathic treatment. It is equally clear from his writings that he experienced great relief from his illness with homeopathy. He may have begun his treatment "...without an atom of faith.", but after a month of treatment he was clearly pleased with it.
Modern medicine is using hom. UNDER APPROVAL of the FDA to treat cancer - google "ruta MD Anderson" or "OHSU homeopathy".
WHO ranked France # 1 in health care. 40% of French people use hom. WHO ranked US #35 after Colombia, Chile, Dominica, Costa Rica and Singapore. US uses predominantly conventional medincine.
AK, in the US no practitioner of any alternative medicine would/does tell a patient to stop taking prescribed meds or not to have recommended tests. Your conception of medicine is skewed from any standpoint.
According to Dr. B. Starfield's (Johns Hopkins) article in Journal of American Medical Association (2002), there are 225,000 DEATHS annually directly related to conventional medicine/practioners of con. med. This makes con. med. the third leading cause of death in the US. It doesn't get any more mainstream than that, but Arcana Knight refuses to accept the facts because they don't support his views! AK avoids this article by insisting that stroke is the 3rd leading cause of death in US!
Anyone who has been dissuaded from trying or using homeopathy has had something very precious stolen from them. They just don't know it. After ten years of homeopathic care I can say that it is the most wonderfully effective and healing medicine I could have imagined. It treats the most serious diseases and the most common, acute illnesses. I hope many more people find it.
Indeed. You can imagine how my gf felt after discovering that her years of suffering with menstrual pain would have been alleviated by spending £5 on a bottle of Sepia.
If I could give just one thing to the world, it would be information about and access to homeopathy. Prince Charles appears to be trying to do just that.
5. respect or appreciation for the people who do have those things
You are here to discredit homeopathy and homeopaths. That is clear from all of your posts. You have been given the scientific evidence you demand but refuse to acknowledge it.
I just addressed the first part of this comment in the video for part 1.
The scientific evidence for homeopathy's effectiveness is not conclusive since there are just as many (if not more) studies which show it to have no effect. If it were really effective then it should perform reliably in the experimentation. The trend in the studies is that any measured effect is usually inversely proportional to the design of the study.
Your only intent here is to bait, manipulate and abuse other posters/other people in general. The very long history of your posts to this series and to other videos is proof. You have no knowledge of or interest in medicine of any type. Try seeing a psychiatrist!
I personally think that my previous posts are evidence that I'm trying to promote skepticism and science-based medicine, not that my goal is simply to bait/manipulate/abuse other people.
You have continually attempted to attack me personally instead of addressing my arguments directly. Once again I ask, is your position really so weak that you can't address my comments and must instead try to impugn my character?
Arcana, if you actually have something worthwhile to say about other medicine, why not create a youtube video about it?
You're clearly trying instead to undermine a professional homeopath, in *his* promotion of his trade. In doing so, you're peddling all the standard misconceptions about what homeopathy is.
For the nth time, do you work for or are you being paid by a healthcare company, to discredit homeopathy in the public eye?
I don't do this because I'm some shill for a healthcare company. I continue to do this in order to promote skepticism and to show others what shaky ground pseudosciences are built on. The main pillar of evidence which has been presented for homeopathy is anecdotal which too unreliable to be the basis of any claims.
This promotional video is little better than the infomercials for exercise equipment and contains about as many facts.
FWI, I don't make a video because I don't have a camera.
Arc, I've just pm'd you the diagram that the British Medical Journal released, stating that only 13% of conventional medicine is backed by hard evidence.
...Any particular reason why? If you aren't able to send the link for the article itself could you at least tell me what the name of the study was that the graph was from?
Try to correct your thinking. That will help you come to good, scientific conclusions. It will also help reduce the number of erroneous conclusions you come to--which are many as witnessed by the huge amount of nonsense you have posted here. Everyone you have "interacted" with here has told you off. You should think about that.
By my "erroneous conclusions" do you mean my conclusion that anecdotal evidence isn't reliable as proof of anything? Or do you mean my conclusion that homeopathy doesn't show reliable results in experiments? Both of those are backed up by the facts; the former is a basic fact of evidence which can be easily discovered, and the latter is evidenced by the fact that even when the same studies are repeated by others they give different results.
The latter point is further evidenced by the trend among homeopathic studies which is that the design of a study is usually inversely proportional to the measured effect.
I do wonder why you suddenly want to know what my credentials are. Are you going to try to attack me on that instead of addressing my actual arguments like you did with my screen name?
The pseudo-intellectual idea you express derives from your own pseudo-intellectual thinking so cannot be accepted since ideas arrived at in this way are unreliable. This has been proven over and over again. Correct your thinking if possible. It will be hard since you associate yourself with the knights of the four suits of minor arcana which make up part of the deck of Tarot cards. This association (shown by your screen name) proves you use magical thinking.
Its just a screen name; it doesn't always have to mean something. For example, I would guess that your name doesn't mean that you have some connection with a red bank.
Dr. Luc De Schepper served as family doctor for NATO troops for four years. His residency was in neurology. He is an MD licensed to practice in NJ, CA, and Colorado. He has served over 200,000 patients in more than 25 years of practice in the US and Belgium. He studied accupuncture with masters such as Nogier, Borsarello, Mussat and Lebarbier. Dr. De Schepper participated in the French National Congree and the World Congress.
It was our good fortune that Dr. Luc set up practice in our town. He is respected by so many in our town, county and state for the healing medicine of homeopathy he brought to us and for his integrity. Yes, we will always take his testimony because there is none better.
Dr. Luc De Schepper, MD, PhD, LicAc, CHOM, DlHOM - a world class physician and author. Anyone interested in knowing more about homeopathy, medicine or accupuncture will appreciate his books.
His PHD is in acupunture, another pseudoscientific field, and LicAc just means that he has a license to practice it. If you discount the tiles he has in pseudoscientific fields then the only one that is left is MD. Out of his roughly 37 year career he has spent all but about 4, which he spent early on as a family doctor, practicing pseudoscience in one form or another. Very few people outside pseudoscientific circles would consider him world-class.
Thats funny. What planet is AK on, where Homeopathy or Acupuncture are called "pseudoscience? Not in Australia, U.S., Canada, Britain, Europe, New Zealand, India.. Hmm.. Running out of earthly places here :)
For any reader not already aware of the rigorous testing done on homeopathic remedies, below is a very brief description. The materia medicas are based on the results of these provings so provide detailed descriptions of every remedy's action.
By the way, Dr. De Schepper is a world-reknowned physician with 30 years' experience in several modalities. According to you his testimony is "anecdotal" evidence while your assertions based on ignorance are the final answer. Nowhere do you give your scientific/medical credentials if they exist which is highly doubtful. Grow up!
You don't need any credentials to pass on the fairly common knowledge of the failings of anecdotal evidence. You can uncover it with very little research.
I'm not sure which testimony you are referring to, but if it boils down to the same as were stated previously (was sick with "A", took homeopath treatment "B", and now I'm better), then yes it is just more anecdotal evidence. Dr. Luc is not really a world-renowned doctor, he's a world-renowned homeopathic author who happens to be a doctor.
Typical short answer by AK & co.. assuming that homeopathy is only used in transient self-limiting conditions which would have abated regardless! Not so!
I never said that it was only used in those conditions. In fact, IMO one of the most dangerous aspects of homeopathy is when homeopaths recommend preventative homeopathic treatments instead of vaccinations for people visiting areas with high risks of diseases like malaria; people have died because of it.
Check today's (11/14/2008) news. Scientists have announced that after 200 years they have discovered by what mechanism bleach kills germs. According to your logic, for 200 years bleach did NOT kill germs because it was not known how it did this and anyone saying that it did was simply providing "anecodotal" evidence. On the other hand, according to your logic, since we now know how bleach kills germs it DOES work. You're not contributing anything worthwhile here!
No, because at least for those 200 years bleach would reliably get the same results in experiments, not matter how well designed. There were also plausible mechanisms which were proposed that could have made this effect possible, it didn't rely upon magical thinking. Neither of these hold true for homeopathy; the results of tests change depending on the efficacy of the study and the best explanation right now for how it works that I've seen is basically that it makes water magic.
AK, Why is homeopathy "magical thinking", but anything unknown within "conventional science" is not? The use of Ritalin for ADHD for example. "We dont know why it works, but it does. Ultra paradoxical!" say the medical scientists.. Duh.. 200 years behind.. and then they wonder why increasing the dose sends all pear-shaped.
First, I'm not sure what your source is for that comment, but we do know how Ritalin works. Also, it has performed reliably in the testing which isn't true of homeopathy.
That information was widely reported at the time that Ritalin was first being prescribed for ADHD. In what test does it work "reliably"? In practice it doesnt. It works for a while then not, or doesnt work at all in different patients with Dx ADHD. Also side effects. Im not fussed about early trials, because it's obvious that this treatment is not what it was cracked up to be. It's like going back 200 years to Dr Hahnemann's exp. with medicines - small doses help, large doses poison, what now?
If your hand hurts, then you try acupuncture and your hand stops hurting, you may think that it would be a test of acupuncture, but its not. Anecdotal evidence like this doesn't control for other variables which could have caused the result. Your body might have just stopped the pain on its own, it could have been a psychic in the next room, etc. We just don't know what exactly made the pain stop. The same is true of homeopathy and every other pseudoscience that relies on anecdotal evidence.
Again, AK - the misconception that homeopathy is used in single common transient self-limiting conditions only. You have argued that you dont say so, but that is what you mean in this post. Homeopathic consultation involves taking into account the entire symptom picture. When a patient experiences change in a wide range of (unusual) chronic ailments, which "coincidentally" are related to proving symptoms & signs of the remedy given, it's beyond coincidence. Esp when other rem's dont affect.
Sepia is a great remedy, especially for women. It also helps immensely with the fatigue mothers experience when overworked by caring for children and homes. Dr. De Schepper took lots of it with him when he went to Africa to teach and treat because many of the women were exhausted from caring for at least four children.
JimHewittWhite says it exactly as it is. I concur 100% with his post. You refuse to listen in an honest way. My take is that you are deliberately attempting to discourage people from trying a form of medicine which has a great deal to offer and about which you know NOTHING. I am beginning to think you are one of those people hired by certain medical organizations and pharm companies to discredit homeopathy to the public. SHAME ON YOU whether you're being paid or not!
To continue: As far as I am concerned there is no agenda here. I do not intend to adhere to your belief that there should be one, especially one of your making. I am not interested in a "conversation" or a "debate" with you. That is not my purpose in being here. You are welcome to post your opinions but not to pester or badger other posters!
I wasn't aware that I was pestering anyone. I was just pointing out that if you want to reply to someone's comments, then you should click "reply" next to that comment. Otherwise your comments can seem to come from nowhere and your references are unclear which just lead to total confusion on everyone's part, especially when you are referring to comments which were posted over a month ago.
These are your words as you posted them AFTER you noted that you yourself could not post a link: "Where is this graph you are referring to? Could you provide a link? Read your own post to Brisco County on this video.
As I said in my previous post, while I wasn't able to post a link I was able to explain exactly how to find the study I was talking about, so it shouldn't be hard to point out where the graph Brisco was referring to.
See your post of 1 mth ago to Ulmann's video no. 4 "Clinical Research Confirms Benefits from Homeopathy". You write "It appears I can't post the link to the study. . .". You then go on to ask another poster to provide a link. How incomprehensible is that? Read the posts.
First, you should have been commenting on that video if you wanted to reply to a comment I made on it. Replying to comments that aren't even part of the same video just further confuses the conversation since you still can't even reply correctly to comments on the same video. Second, I don't see where I asked anyone for a link after I posted that. Finally, while I wasn't able to post the link, I was able to say exactly how to find the study I was talking about.
With homeopathy I have had ten years of the very best medical treatment anyone could hope for. I have 50 years' experience with ineffective, harmful conventional care and conventional medicines. HOMEOPATHY WORKS ON EVERY LEVEL! I hope many, many more people will try it and find out for themselves what can be achieved and how much pain and suffering can be avoided.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Where did I ask for a link to anything?
Once again since you are apparently incapable of clicking "reply" next to the comment you want to reply to your comments come off as almost incomprehensible in their references and random.
Glad to see that more and more people are finding homeopathy and discovering how beautifully it works. Homeopathy will serve them very, very well for the rest of their lives.
I've just begun using homeopathy, and have been completely dumbfounded by the results. My severe ear infection (of three months duration) cleared up within five minutes of taking a homeopathic remedy.
Yet people insist it cannot work when I tell them about it. It's just "placebo", apparently.
No remedy which is consumed orally can clear up an ear infection within 5 minutes. It takes time for the treatment to be digested and absorbed into the system (assuming there is any active substance in the treatment at all of course). Your "cure" was almost definitely the result of the placebo affect.
Its really basic human physiology, you don't need to be an MD to find that out; its just how most medicine works. The only ways I can think of off the top of my head to bypass this absorption process is to introduce it intravenously or topically directly onto the affected area (like creams for a rash or ear drops for ear infections).
Surely a solution in saliva *can* start to act within this time frame? I had the infection for three months. That's three months of hoping and willing it to go away. I was not taking the silica in hopes it would treat an ear infection but for something completely different.
So I don't think the placebo effect is applicable as explanation here.
No, its not really possible that something you drank would be absorbed in the mouth; it just doesn't spend enough time there. Its also possible that the infection just spontaneously got better. It does happen sometimes; its hard to say for certain without more detailed medical information. There're a number of factors which could explain why you got better; that's why anecdotal evidence isn't reliable.
Was the the silica you took not even supposed to clear up your ear problem anyway?
The mouth is a great way to absorb substances. Just ask any person that has anaphylaxis, where just a trace amount of peanut in the mouth will cause severe reactions and possibly death.
From what I have seen, most acute symptoms can be halted in anywhere from 2 to 20 minutes. I have seen allergy and asthma attacks stopped in less than 5 minutes.
Anaphylaxis has many different triggers including skin contact, ingestion, and even inhalation. The severe reactions you are talking about are from people that are so sensitive to the allergen that even brief contact somewhere (like the mouth, skin, or throat) can trigger a reaction. Most asthma and severe allergy attacks are stopped with inhalation medicine or injections which works much faster than ingesting a liquid or a pill.
Yeah. Pity the quacks didnt think of all that when I should have been intubated to avoid suffocation. Hung in there for a few years with the homeopathic Belladonna (quick but temporary relief, but decreasing efficacy with time) because antihistamine injections or tablets did nothing, & there was nothing else offered to me. Hom' Carcinosinum ended all that trouble for me within 24 hrs. Why did the "placebo" belladonna not cure? They look & taste exactly the same.
I had near anaphylactic attacks for the better part (10 months of 12)of 5 years, until homeopathic Carcinosinum. Could not nose-breathe or swallow. Antihistamines, Phenergan injections did not help at all. When you have near-suffocation like that, the "placebo" argument is especially ridiculous. Why would anyone wait that long for the right "placebo"? Had milder relapses couple years after, responding to Carcinosinum but not other homeopathics. 10 years on, no further relapses.
We've all heard the placebo, grew-out-of-it, spontaneously-got-better arguments, & it doesnt make sense to imply that this is what happens every time a homeopathic is used. It might be plausible if homeopathy was used infrequently over the world & each of those very few patients tried it only once. I had one lady who had a nightly cough for most of her 50+ years, & had been to other homeopaths, but only one particular rem' worked for her, within days. No return of nightly cough many yrs later.
Sorry, your ear infection did not clear up within five minutes of taking the remedy. If you had an ear infection at all. Who diagnosed it? And what else had you taken prior to the homeopathic "remedy?"
You're either mistaken or lying, because that's just way too ridiculous for me to accept.
This right here is EXACTLY why personal anecdotes are worthless as any kind of evidence. They cannot be confirmed.
3. You seem to rate your opinions more highly than other people, myself included. I came, I saw, I tried, and my experiences of homeopathy have made me a big fan.
4. I'm neither mistaken or lying
5. If personal anecdotes are worthless as any kind of evidence, why are you coming here to argue with them?
You didn't really answer my previous question. Was the treatment you took (silica?) not even supposed to treat your infection?
The reason why we have to keep arguing against anecdotal evidence is because that is the majority of the evidence that is presented for pseudosciences like homeopathy.
"I was not taking the silica in hopes it would treat an ear infection but for something completely different. "
That's why I asked. This earlier response sounded like you took it for some other problem and it also happened to clear up your infection, so I was just asking for clarification.
OK: I'd heard that silica was a "cleansing" remedy. My focus was primarily a different health condition. As soon as I took it, my ear infection cleared up. I had wondered if it would help, but hadn't dared to hope.
Look, if I say it was to treat the ear, you'll say "placebo". If I say it was primarily for another condition, you'll say "coincidence". You might learn more if you actually listened to people's experiences of homeopathy, rather than just regurgitating your own prejudices.
A reason why anecdotal evidence is not reliable is that it doesn't rule out other possible causes. Its possible that your body was finally just able to finish off the infection on its own, or any number of other possibilities. Considering that it was unlikely that you even received one molecule of silica in the treatment you took there is no known way it could have possibly worked, so it is reasonable to assume it was probably a coincidence.
I'm well aware it's possible that my body was suddenly able to clear an infection, after three months of being unable to do so. But it strikes me as rather unlikely.
Then you hark back to the chemical content of silica.... you're not actually helping anyone by continuing to patronise the positive experiences of homeopathy that we report.
It may be unlikely, but it is still more likely than being cured by something that probably doesn't even have a molecule of anything but water in it. There are other possibilities as to why you got better, and they are all still more likely than being cured by what was essentially just water.
Your argument boils down to the fact known science can't explain why homeopathy should work. Granted, and I knew that when I first began homeopathy. The results have been so awesome that I wish I had been told about it earlier.
You appear oblivious to the fact you're doing noone any good by patronising and trying to diminish the positive experiences of homeopathy described in these pages.
Homeopathy is no different than the snake-oil cures that were around before the FDA was established, they both rely upon magical thinking and not any actual evidence to explain how they work.
Relying solely on pseudoscientific non-cures for minor things like ear infections can lead to relying on them for more life threatening illnesses which would probably result in death. Homeopathy doesn't work and anecdotal evidence isn't reliable evidence.
You're not actually listening to the great experiences I've had with homeopathy in an honest way - only dismissing them out of hand, to reiterate the conclusion you'd already arrived at by the time you clicked this page.
In doing so, you're trying to discourage people from a form of medicine which might be very helpful to them, purely out of your own closed-mindedness. It's a waste of my precious time to continue this discussion.
Just because I don't agree with your conclusion doesn't mean that I'm not listening. There are just many problems with anecdotal evidence like this such as not controlling for other variables, not to mention the fact that homeopathy has never been shown to work in any reliable way; for every study showing positive results there is a better designed one showing no effect. There is no known mechanism for how it even could work. Not to mention that ingested medicines don't work within 5 min.
The mechanism for aspirin is unknown. Does that mean people shouldn't take it?
87% of allopathic medicine is not backed by hard evidence, according to the British Medical Journal. Will you deter people from 87% of conventional medicine too?
After years of suffering, and trying everything from ice packs to feminax to hot baths, my gf found 100% relief from menstrual pain for the first time the day she took sepia. She has not suffered since. Don't tell me - "coincidence".
Again, its just more anecdotal evidence which means that there are many uncontrolled for variables, any of which could have resulted in the pain relief.
BTW, you need to update your medical knowledge. We know exactly how aspirin works, the mechanisms were discovered in the early '70s. It also reliably gave positive results in clinical tests even before this discovery was made, which is not true of homeopathy.
I'm sorry if my facts re. aspirin have not been accurate.
But... it's not just anecdotal evidence. It's the end of my gf's suffering, after many years. Guess what, we don't have the resources at our disposal to organise an offical sepia trial. Does that mean her wonerful experience counts for nothing? Yes, according to you.
What of the fact that 87% of conventional medicine is not backed by hard science? I'll assume you wish it stopped, with no further anecdotes in its support.
Each and every remedy has been proven, (i.e., a trial has been performed) many, many times over. The subjects are healthy, adult volunteers. Many doctors prove the remedies on themselves so as to understand the symptoms/actions more clearly than they would by simply reading about them. The provings are done with proper scientific standards. The efficacy of a remedy and the symptoms it treats are already known and proven.
I understand, and I'm glad to hear that she is no longer in pain, but that story is anecdotal evidence, and as such any of the uncontrolled variables could have been responsible for the pain relief.
I don't know where you got that figure, but I'm fairly certain that its not correct. The majority of conventional medicine's treatments are backed by evidence. They have to be to pass medical efficacy standards.
Doctors don't test medicine on themselves, at least not competent ones. If that is standard practice among homeopath doctors, then IMO it makes homeopathy more questionable, not less.
Pretty much any positive effect measured in a trial done on homeopathy has later shown to have no effect in better designed studies. If it really worked this wouldn't be the case, the results would be consistent.
Such a simplistic view, AK. If you ever bothered to check our literature, you would see that there is no one single homeopathic for menstrual pain, or headache, or vertigo, etc. We know about variables, we are conscious of them & we ask ourselves & our patients about them. We dont prescribe to simply relieve a pain, but to get the person well in all aspects, & not progress to a more serious condition. You need to read up before you go any further.
Homeopathy was established to supersede the "snake oil cures" of the time. Of course the principle of "Like cures like" goes back before Hippocrates. 2. Ive relied on homeopathy for life-threatening illness because "conventional medicine" had nothing to offer. & I succeeded, not only for myself but others. Ps, I dont give a rats if you think thats my "anecdote", AK. I tell the truth. Ps, Ive heard far too many accounts of needless deaths due to incompetent practitioners, not of my profession.
I'm not talking about patients having unexpected adverse reactions to a treatment or developing an infection and dying. In the cases I mentioned people were prescribed and relied upon an ineffective treatment instead of a known, effective treatment and died because of it. They died needlessly. There are also many people who have died because they delayed getting proper medical treatment for otherwise treatable illnesses because they were relying on ineffective homeopathic remedies.
In the immortal words of Frank Thring (yet again :) ) "NAME ONE"...
Non aussies may have to Google at this point :(
I'd say that there are far more people (hows that for understatement) dying from lack of treatment or ineffective treatment or wrong treatment, from "conventional" medicos. Oops, Im not supposed to say that, so i'll leave it to those who may :)
We had a case reported yesterday in Australia of a child crippled by her father (not a qualified practitioner) prescribing a very dodgy brand of "complementary medicine" in high fever. Apart from that, Im not aware of any reports of serious illness or deaths from patients using complementary medicines. There have been no convictions against practitioners for those reasons.. Contrast the "other side". Conversely, i see those who have been neglected, misdiagnosed & maltreated.. & heard of worse.
Homeopathic remedies are ineffective when they are not "homeopathic", i.e. THE WRONG ONE. Thats what happens when people try to do it themselves without having the knowledge & correct homeopathics on hand. Thats when it's appropriate to use antibiotics, rx drugs, medical interventions.. & consult someone who is qualified when in strife. In Australia, homeopathics are not freely available without consulting a qualified practitioner.
I'll try to spell it out since I can't include the link, but Homeopathic medicine has an entire category of such cases on the site whatstheharm. These aren't people who self medicated or were given the wrong homeopathic treatment; they were prescribed and took ineffective treatments and died as a result of the condition it was supposed to treat/prevent.
"Purgatives" are not homeopathic medicines, nor is fasting or cosmetic surgery "homeopathy". Look at the case where a "nurse/homeopath begged the parents to take their child to a doctor but they refused". How is that an indictment of homeopathy or a homeopath?
If patients died of cancer or HIV while under medical care, no-one bats an eyelid. In any case, we are not permitted alone to treat patients for these and other certain serious illnesses.
& the biggest laugh of all, is the number of "anecdotes" from worldwide.. 400+. Compare the number of (admitted) medical mistakes & (convicted) incompetent practitioners of the world.. sheesh
4. How many of the cases in whats the harm actually involve a qualified homeopath & using homeopathic medicine AK? I dont have the time to go through the 400+ cases to cherry pick one that does..
Do you have any idea, AK, that there are innumerable such "coincidences" happening every minute of every day in many countries over the world? In babies & animals as well as those who may be susceptible to "placebo"? Your own disbelief doesnt change the fact.. & it is fact. :)
My family's conventional doctor is dumbfounded by the results I can achieve with homeopathy--results she cannot achieve with pharmaceuticals. She wants to learn more about it so that she can be of more help to her patients. My endodontist has taken a course in homeopathy so that he can better help his patients. Perhaps famous people are as capable of recognizing something good when they see it as anyone else!
Read my other posts. Homeopathy is fantastic for the nerve pain of neuropathy and for regenerating nerves where possible--things conventional medicine can barely touch. If you doubt the devastating pain of neuropathy or the efficacy of homeopathy ask a sufferer and a user.
Show me a collection of well controlled, peer-reviewed scientific studies and then we'll talk. And throw in a mechanism of action other than plain magic and we'll talk some more.
I'll show you studies that Prozac and other depression drugs are not better than placebo, but that hasn't stopped the drug companies from continuing to make money off those useless drugs.
Funny how you want proof that homeopathy works, but when we show proof that drugs don't work, those facts are ignored. Time to get off your scientific high horse.
Anti-depression drugs do work, but the main problem is that they are over-prescribed, so people that take it don't actually need to, and the effect is no better than placebo in those cases. Drug companies will continue to sell drugs and supplements to people as long as there is a market for them.
As an aside, disproving a treatment doesn't automatically prove that your treatment works. You still have to show that your treatment can and will actually do something.
I echo what ArcanaKnight says. It's like creationists who just bash evolution and then think they've made a positive case for intelligent design.
The effectiveness of conventional medicine (which is very good, by the way) has no bearing of the efficacy of homeopathy.
And it's also a bit fallacious to use one drug like Prozac as a representative of all of conventional medicine. If homeopathy DID work it would be integrated into conventional medicine.
Have you heard the expression, "Follow the money"? Why would you trust the scientific community, it is utterly compromised--under the sway of the multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical industry, which would be decimated if homeopathy caught on. People who use homeopathy rarely need to see a doctor--for anything!
All one has to do is look at the death tolls from the Spanish Influenza in 1918. Doctors were burying hundreds of patients, and when told to stop treating patients with drugs, the death toll immediately dropped 25%. Homeopathic doctors who treated patients reported few or no deaths, with the exception being people that decided to take large amounts of the new wonder drug Aspirin for their condition.
You shouldn't be comparing medicine practiced in 1918 and medicine practiced today. It was probably better for people to take something that did nothing (like homeopathy, because it doesn't actually do anything physiologically) than some of the treatments back then.
Today's medicine isn't any better than it was in 1918, the death toll statistics proof that out.
My father has an ulcer would on his ear for a year, he say many so called doctors and filled many so called prescriptions and nothing worked after one year of trying. A Docter even said it was cancer and wanted to do surgery. Skin about the size of a penny was missing.
Well I managed to fully heal his ear after it got a nasty infection after only 3 weeks of treatment with homeopathic Gunpowder.
I am honored that so many skeptics of homeopathy are so threatened by my videos. The skeptics' blogs encourage their ilk to give my videos a "low rating." I encourage everyone to judge for themselves.
HomeopathicDana 1 year ago
We have been taught to use the quick fix even though we can read the side effects that causes us to be more sick.
Mother Theresa used it and found it to be economical since she worked with the poor. Even famous people like Tina Tuner, Cathrine Zeta Jones, Jane Seymore, Jenny McCarthy are a few people who have used homeopathy.
ysiblini 2 years ago
While Homeopathy detractors cling to 8 FLAWED studies to discredit Homeopathy, there are over 200 well conducted clinical trials and studies done by eminent scientists and physicians around the world to prove that Homeopathy is NOT placebo effect.
mohanaturo 2 years ago
Homeopathic medicine is far from "very expensive". A tube of 80 pellets costs about $6 in the US. In many cases one tube can last a lifetime.
My annual cost for the treatment of serious, chronic illnesses and acute illnesses is about $1,700 which includes office visits and medicine. This is less than half of what most Americans pay for med insurance alone.
Homeopathy provides effective, dynamic and gentle healing with a minimum of expense.
den151redbank 2 years ago
This work has been carried out at Stanford, Cambridge, Penn State, and Arizona U.
R. Roy: senior most member of US Nat'l Academy of Engineering, chair of geochemistry and materials science, Penn State. W. Tiller, renowned physicist, prof. emeritus, Stanford.
The other scientists working on these projects are equally respected.
den151redbank 2 years ago
Per Conte and others, "The Theory of High Dilutions": "...infinitesimal dilutions...a discontinuity in the spatio-temporal continuum providing a solution to the paradox of high dilutions and clears up what WAS the 'key issue' of opponents of h."
Per Roy and others, "The Structure of Liquid Water": "This paper DEMOLISHES the objection to h. that there can be no differences at all between a remedy and pure water. "
den151redbank 2 years ago
Homeopathy's most recent success on the world stage was in averting epidemics of leptospirosis in Cuba during hurricane season. When Cuba used conv. vaccines there were infections in the 1000's AND deaths, AND the numbers rose every year. With h. nosodes infections were 10 or fewer/mth and there were ZERO deaths.
Google Cuba homeopathy leptospirosis to read the reports.
den151redbank 2 years ago
OK, I googled it. Turns out that alongside the homeopathy treatment, people were given Vax-Spiral, a locally produced drug to treat leptospirosis. There is no scientific report on the effects of the homeopathy. Not yet anyhow.
And yes, there has been a recent, and severe drop in the number of infection lately, since Cuba has been able to produce their own drug (the embargo makes drug importation difficult).
So no... there is no proof of any success related to homeopathy. Try again.
theblasto 2 years ago
Kindly give proper credit to the Cuban use of H. NOSODES ALONE in the vaccination of 2.5 million people in TWO Cuban provinces in 2008 to defend against leptospirosis. Vaccines were NOT used with the h. nosode.
The result of h. was zero-10 infects/mth with ZERO deaths. This nosode was made by the Findlay Institute (Cuba) which also made the allopathic vaccine Cuba used alone in past years. That vaccine resulted in infects in the 1000's AND DEATHS AND the numbers ROSE every year.
den151redbank 2 years ago
You are very much mistaken in your assertion that "there is no proof of any such success related to homeopathy."
What is the point of making such a statement when anyone can read the reports in black and white for themselves by googling.
Frankly, as far as I am concerned, there is no point in arguing about whether or not h. was used or was successful! It is all over the internet in black and white! Reports will also be coming out from WHO and CDC.
den151redbank 2 years ago
"It is all over the internet in black and white!" Well, then I guess it MUST be true.
theblasto 2 years ago
There have been many peer-reviewed studies, including the one in the Lancet 1997, which concluded for homeopathy. The placebo effect cannot explain why infants and small children respond to homeopathy, or why patients so often report a complete and final elimination of disease symptoms.
Hippocrates said "Disease is elimated by remedies able to produce similar symptoms". Was he an "ignorant and uninformed" person too?
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago 4
Hippocrates did work with many convictions that were based on what is now known to be incorrect anatomy and physiology, such as Humorism. One of his cures for a rumbling stomach was to 'bleed' the stomach. His patient nearly bled to death but recovered.
Hippocrates was certainly wise beyond his years, but not THAT many years beyond.
Also, 85% of the ailments people go to the hospital for, would heal by themselves. This is no secret statistic. Homeopathy "works" by not getting in the way.
theblasto 2 years ago
Hippocrates worked with many convictions that were based on what is now known to be incorrect anatomy and physiology, such as Humorism.
One of his cures for a rumbling stomach was to 'bleed' the stomach. His patient nearly bled to death but recovered.
That's not to say he wasn't ahead of his time.... just not THAT far ahead.
theblasto 2 years ago
Debatable.... allopaths were still bleeding people in England many centuries later.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
And they've stopped. It's called "The scientific method" you see, real doctors test treatments, study their effectiveness and then change their behavior as a result. Homeopaths just use the same tired old nonsense they have for 200 years, despite the fact that the kind of research that discredited bleeding also discredits homeopathy.
flakingnapstich 2 years ago 4
"A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions."
Thank you for proving once again that Proverbs has not lost of any of its wit or pertinence in the modern world!
den151redbank 2 years ago 7
your comment has no pertinence to this query of mine.
until people claim they have answers for something as important as other people's health, they better be able to prove that what they're SELLING and they're always selling it you see ;-) is something of value.
and homeopathy hasn't done that, i'm just pointing that out, it's not an opinion on anything, it's an observation plus request for a proof.
is it cold up there on the imaginary high horse?
beebobox 2 years ago
You should know!
den151redbank 2 years ago 4
H. is backed up by hundreds of laboratory and clinical studies. It is backed up by 200 years' worth of provings. Millions of people around the world testify to the effectiveness of h.
My experience of skeptics is that under no circumstances will they accept proof no matter from whom or from what source. That certainly is the attitude you are putting out!
den151redbank 2 years ago 5
How about the 2008 hurricane season in Cuba? TWO MILLION people used h. vaccine to defend against leptospirosis. The results are in: 10 or fewer infections/mth and ZERO deaths. With allopathic vac., there were infections in the 1000's AND deaths AND the numbers rose ever year.
I am sure you have a reason for not being able to accept this documented proof along with all the other documented proof!
den151redbank 2 years ago 3
@den151redbank
I have to note that, out of context, no one would know to whom this comment was directed. It was a response to a denialist post claiming, as usual, that homeopathy is a bunch of nonsense with no basis in science, no studies to back it up, can't possibly work, is expensive tap water and so on........
den151redbank 1 year ago
Homeopathy can't possibly be placebo effect because it cures objective symptoms of non self-limiting chronic diseases such as chronic tonsillitis in infants & children and tumours in animals. Infants and animals are not subject to the placebo effect.
Observer bias is not applicable to OBJECTIVE symptoms such as chronic tonsillitis, tumors and skin diseases which are routinely cured by many Homeopathy clinics/hospitals around the world one of which is the Banerji Research Centre, India.
mohanaturo 2 years ago
You've never seen celebrities used to promote drugs? Hmmmm.
By the way, this video is not just about "celebrities," unless you count DARWIN and ROCKEFELLER and 11 US PRESIDENTS as celebrities. I delete uninformed and ill-informed comments from here.
HomeopathicDana 2 years ago
No, I actually cannot recall having seen celebrities promoting drugs, unless you are talking about Keith Richards or Amy Winehouse. I would not be impressed if they did.
And yes, I do count Darwin and U.S. Presidents as celebrities.
Delete as many comments as you want, mate. If you can only defend your position by silencing opposing views, knock yourself out. I would have thought you might want to engage with criticism, and educate the ill-informed.
revjimbob 2 years ago
The Royal family are well known to be as mad as a bag of spanners. I wouldn't be surprised if her doctor had a bone through his nose and made diagnosis by examining slave's entrails.
revjimbob 3 years ago
I see.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
jimbob is free to believe or not believe in h. as he chooses. What is NOT acceptable is the abusive talk and bad language jimbob has strewn across the pages of comments to these videos.
jimbob's attitude is that anyone who disagrees WITH HIM is an "arse", "mad as a bag of spanners", etc. NOT very creditable arguments for his position! jimbob has not factored in the recent Cuban success with the h. leptospirosis vaccine--a success so great not even the most rabid skeptic can refute it.
den151redbank 2 years ago 4
Hi, Jim,
Some Allopathy doctors in the Finlay Institute in Cuba have done excellent use of Homeopathy prophylaxis in the prevention of Leptospirosis outbreak during hurricane season in Cuba.
Google: Homeopathy Cuba Leptospirosis.
mohanaturo 3 years ago
The knee-jerk shunning of contemporary Homeopathy doesn't make faith-based ancient Allopathy medicine any more powerful or provable.
My beliefs based on faith in Allopathy have been destroyed by the logic of Homeopathy:
TREAT THE PATIENT NOT THE DISEASE.
mohanaturo 3 years ago 7
Yes, Mohan. Some people come here rejecting homeopathy out of hand not only with statements about it that aren't actually true, but also with criticisms that should best be applied to allopathy.
JimHewittWhite 3 years ago 2
The 'not really relevant' comment was aimed at MC btw.
JimHewittWhite 3 years ago
I do: these multimillionaires have it at their disposal to choose any form of medicine under they sun. They opt for homeopathy; once you've tried it yourself, you'll understand why.
JimHewittWhite 3 years ago 4
Ton Cruise, John Travolta, and many Hollywood celebrities have chosen scientology. I guess we should all sign up.
MGCAUSTIN 3 years ago
Not really relevant to a discussion about healthcare.
JimHewittWhite 3 years ago 4
Aphorism 78 in the Organon of Medicine by Samuel Hahnemann says:
..."chronic diseases are those that arise from a chronic miasm, which when left to themselves, and unchecked by those remedies that are specific for them, always go on increasing and growing worse, notwithstanding the best mental and corporeal regimen, and torment the patient to the end of his life with ever aggravated sufferings".
mohanaturo 3 years ago
I challenge you to show me ANY scientific study which validates the theory of miasm. Also, according to the FDA, homeopathy is only approved for self-limiting conditons. This directly contradicts Hahnemann statement as you have quoted above.
MGCAUSTIN 3 years ago
Yeah...who cares if Charles Darwin benefited greatly from it...or so many other leading scientists and physicians, corporate leaders, clergy, world-class artists, and so many more.
The real question to you, Mgcaustin: who cares what you think?!?
HomeopathicDana 3 years ago
"who cares what you think"
It is not about what I or anyone else thinks. It is about what the evidence supports. Appealing to Moses and Hollywood celebrities does not in any way support your case.
MGCAUSTIN 3 years ago
Darwin was most definitely NOT a believer in homeopathy. He took homeopathic treatments because it was part of the regimen of the hospital he was admitted to, but was highly skeptical himself.
From a letter to his sister:
" grieve to say that Dr Gully gives me homoœopathic medicines three times a day, which I take obediently without an atom of faith."
MGCAUSTIN 3 years ago
Now let's continue with more of Darwin's written testimony given after starting Dr. Gully's homeopathic treatment: "I now increase in weight, have escaped sickness for 30 days, which is thrice as long an interval as I have had for last year; & yesterday in 4 walks I managed seven miles! I am turning into a mere walking and eating machine."
At this point you may claim Darwin's improvement was due to Gully's water-cure. Darwin himself states that Gully had not even begun the sweating
den151redbank 3 years ago
Or maybe the great sceptic Mgcaustin thinks it was the watercure that made Darwin better? ;)
JimHewittWhite 3 years ago
Could well be!
den151redbank 3 years ago
process (the most important part of the water cure) when Darwin showed improvement.
If you claim his response was placebo, keep in mind that Darwin experienced an exterioration or worsening of his symptoms before improving--clearly not the placebo effect.
Once again, the skeptics present only the portion of the facts they wish to be known, only a tiny portion of the facts.
den151redbank 3 years ago
It is clear that Darwin was a skeptic at the time he began homeopathic treatment. It is equally clear from his writings that he experienced great relief from his illness with homeopathy. He may have begun his treatment "...without an atom of faith.", but after a month of treatment he was clearly pleased with it.
den151redbank 3 years ago
So, mgcaustin, you presented a case which argues beautifully against the claim that homeopathy works only by placebo.
den151redbank 3 years ago
Modern medicine is using hom. UNDER APPROVAL of the FDA to treat cancer - google "ruta MD Anderson" or "OHSU homeopathy".
WHO ranked France # 1 in health care. 40% of French people use hom. WHO ranked US #35 after Colombia, Chile, Dominica, Costa Rica and Singapore. US uses predominantly conventional medincine.
Food for thought.
den151redbank 3 years ago 2
AK, in the US no practitioner of any alternative medicine would/does tell a patient to stop taking prescribed meds or not to have recommended tests. Your conception of medicine is skewed from any standpoint.
den151redbank 3 years ago
JHW: You got it right on both counts! (He won't get a more convincing script because there isn't one.)
den151redbank 3 years ago 3
@AK
Deaths caused by the taking of homeopathic medicines: 0 in its entire history.
Arcana, maybe it's time to go back to whichever healthcare company is giving you money, and ask for a more convincing script...
JimHewittWhite 3 years ago 4
According to Dr. B. Starfield's (Johns Hopkins) article in Journal of American Medical Association (2002), there are 225,000 DEATHS annually directly related to conventional medicine/practioners of con. med. This makes con. med. the third leading cause of death in the US. It doesn't get any more mainstream than that, but Arcana Knight refuses to accept the facts because they don't support his views! AK avoids this article by insisting that stroke is the 3rd leading cause of death in US!
den151redbank 3 years ago 4
Anyone who has been dissuaded from trying or using homeopathy has had something very precious stolen from them. They just don't know it. After ten years of homeopathic care I can say that it is the most wonderfully effective and healing medicine I could have imagined. It treats the most serious diseases and the most common, acute illnesses. I hope many more people find it.
den151redbank 3 years ago
Indeed. You can imagine how my gf felt after discovering that her years of suffering with menstrual pain would have been alleviated by spending £5 on a bottle of Sepia.
If I could give just one thing to the world, it would be information about and access to homeopathy. Prince Charles appears to be trying to do just that.
JimHewittWhite 3 years ago
Arcana Knight,
You apparently haven't grasped the fact that the only people taking you up on your urge to "skepticism" are other skeptics.
den151redbank 3 years ago
Arcana Knight,
YOU HAVE NO:
1. knowledge of medicine
2. credentials
3. interest in medicine
4. caring or compassion for the sick
5. respect or appreciation for the people who do have those things
You are here to discredit homeopathy and homeopaths. That is clear from all of your posts. You have been given the scientific evidence you demand but refuse to acknowledge it.
den151redbank 3 years ago
I just addressed the first part of this comment in the video for part 1.
The scientific evidence for homeopathy's effectiveness is not conclusive since there are just as many (if not more) studies which show it to have no effect. If it were really effective then it should perform reliably in the experimentation. The trend in the studies is that any measured effect is usually inversely proportional to the design of the study.
ArcanaKnight 3 years ago
Arcana Knight,
Your only intent here is to bait, manipulate and abuse other posters/other people in general. The very long history of your posts to this series and to other videos is proof. You have no knowledge of or interest in medicine of any type. Try seeing a psychiatrist!
den151redbank 3 years ago
I personally think that my previous posts are evidence that I'm trying to promote skepticism and science-based medicine, not that my goal is simply to bait/manipulate/abuse other people.
You have continually attempted to attack me personally instead of addressing my arguments directly. Once again I ask, is your position really so weak that you can't address my comments and must instead try to impugn my character?
ArcanaKnight 3 years ago
Arcana, if you actually have something worthwhile to say about other medicine, why not create a youtube video about it?
You're clearly trying instead to undermine a professional homeopath, in *his* promotion of his trade. In doing so, you're peddling all the standard misconceptions about what homeopathy is.
For the nth time, do you work for or are you being paid by a healthcare company, to discredit homeopathy in the public eye?
JimHewittWhite 3 years ago
I don't do this because I'm some shill for a healthcare company. I continue to do this in order to promote skepticism and to show others what shaky ground pseudosciences are built on. The main pillar of evidence which has been presented for homeopathy is anecdotal which too unreliable to be the basis of any claims.
This promotional video is little better than the infomercials for exercise equipment and contains about as many facts.
FWI, I don't make a video because I don't have a camera.
ArcanaKnight 3 years ago
Are you in the employ of or paid by a healthcare company, yes or no?
JimHewittWhite 3 years ago
Arc, I've just pm'd you the diagram that the British Medical Journal released, stating that only 13% of conventional medicine is backed by hard evidence.
JimHewittWhite 3 years ago
Could you send me the link to the actual article, and not just the picture of the graph?
ArcanaKnight 3 years ago
Sorry, no.
JimHewittWhite 3 years ago
...Any particular reason why? If you aren't able to send the link for the article itself could you at least tell me what the name of the study was that the graph was from?
ArcanaKnight 3 years ago
The link has now been sent to you.
JimHewittWhite 3 years ago
Arcana Knight,
You still can't provide credentials. Why not?
Try to correct your thinking. That will help you come to good, scientific conclusions. It will also help reduce the number of erroneous conclusions you come to--which are many as witnessed by the huge amount of nonsense you have posted here. Everyone you have "interacted" with here has told you off. You should think about that.
den151redbank 3 years ago
By my "erroneous conclusions" do you mean my conclusion that anecdotal evidence isn't reliable as proof of anything? Or do you mean my conclusion that homeopathy doesn't show reliable results in experiments? Both of those are backed up by the facts; the former is a basic fact of evidence which can be easily discovered, and the latter is evidenced by the fact that even when the same studies are repeated by others they give different results.
ArcanaKnight 3 years ago
The latter point is further evidenced by the trend among homeopathic studies which is that the design of a study is usually inversely proportional to the measured effect.
ArcanaKnight 3 years ago
Arcana Knight,
What? Still no credentials?
den151redbank 3 years ago
I do wonder why you suddenly want to know what my credentials are. Are you going to try to attack me on that instead of addressing my actual arguments like you did with my screen name?
ArcanaKnight 3 years ago
Arcana Knight,
The pseudo-intellectual idea you express derives from your own pseudo-intellectual thinking so cannot be accepted since ideas arrived at in this way are unreliable. This has been proven over and over again. Correct your thinking if possible. It will be hard since you associate yourself with the knights of the four suits of minor arcana which make up part of the deck of Tarot cards. This association (shown by your screen name) proves you use magical thinking.
den151redbank 3 years ago
Its just a screen name; it doesn't always have to mean something. For example, I would guess that your name doesn't mean that you have some connection with a red bank.
ArcanaKnight 3 years ago
BTW, I have to say that your position must be pretty weak if you have to resort to attacking me directly because of my choice of screen name.
ArcanaKnight 3 years ago
Dr. De Schepper's credentials are public record and can be easily verified by anyone.
den151redbank 3 years ago
Yes, they are, and they evidence that he seems to believe pretty much any kind of magical thinking which he comes across.
ArcanaKnight 3 years ago
Complete nonsense here AK.
annesash 3 years ago
Dr. Luc De Schepper served as family doctor for NATO troops for four years. His residency was in neurology. He is an MD licensed to practice in NJ, CA, and Colorado. He has served over 200,000 patients in more than 25 years of practice in the US and Belgium. He studied accupuncture with masters such as Nogier, Borsarello, Mussat and Lebarbier. Dr. De Schepper participated in the French National Congree and the World Congress.
den151redbank 3 years ago
It was our good fortune that Dr. Luc set up practice in our town. He is respected by so many in our town, county and state for the healing medicine of homeopathy he brought to us and for his integrity. Yes, we will always take his testimony because there is none better.
den151redbank 3 years ago
Dr. Luc De Schepper, MD, PhD, LicAc, CHOM, DlHOM - a world class physician and author. Anyone interested in knowing more about homeopathy, medicine or accupuncture will appreciate his books.
den151redbank 3 years ago
His PHD is in acupunture, another pseudoscientific field, and LicAc just means that he has a license to practice it. If you discount the tiles he has in pseudoscientific fields then the only one that is left is MD. Out of his roughly 37 year career he has spent all but about 4, which he spent early on as a family doctor, practicing pseudoscience in one form or another. Very few people outside pseudoscientific circles would consider him world-class.
ArcanaKnight 3 years ago
Thats funny. What planet is AK on, where Homeopathy or Acupuncture are called "pseudoscience? Not in Australia, U.S., Canada, Britain, Europe, New Zealand, India.. Hmm.. Running out of earthly places here :)
annesash 3 years ago 2
For any reader not already aware of the rigorous testing done on homeopathic remedies, below is a very brief description. The materia medicas are based on the results of these provings so provide detailed descriptions of every remedy's action.
den151redbank 3 years ago
By the way, Dr. De Schepper is a world-reknowned physician with 30 years' experience in several modalities. According to you his testimony is "anecdotal" evidence while your assertions based on ignorance are the final answer. Nowhere do you give your scientific/medical credentials if they exist which is highly doubtful. Grow up!
den151redbank 3 years ago
You don't need any credentials to pass on the fairly common knowledge of the failings of anecdotal evidence. You can uncover it with very little research.
I'm not sure which testimony you are referring to, but if it boils down to the same as were stated previously (was sick with "A", took homeopath treatment "B", and now I'm better), then yes it is just more anecdotal evidence. Dr. Luc is not really a world-renowned doctor, he's a world-renowned homeopathic author who happens to be a doctor.
ArcanaKnight 3 years ago
Typical short answer by AK & co.. assuming that homeopathy is only used in transient self-limiting conditions which would have abated regardless! Not so!
annesash 3 years ago
I never said that it was only used in those conditions. In fact, IMO one of the most dangerous aspects of homeopathy is when homeopaths recommend preventative homeopathic treatments instead of vaccinations for people visiting areas with high risks of diseases like malaria; people have died because of it.
ArcanaKnight 3 years ago
Check today's (11/14/2008) news. Scientists have announced that after 200 years they have discovered by what mechanism bleach kills germs. According to your logic, for 200 years bleach did NOT kill germs because it was not known how it did this and anyone saying that it did was simply providing "anecodotal" evidence. On the other hand, according to your logic, since we now know how bleach kills germs it DOES work. You're not contributing anything worthwhile here!
den151redbank 3 years ago
No, because at least for those 200 years bleach would reliably get the same results in experiments, not matter how well designed. There were also plausible mechanisms which were proposed that could have made this effect possible, it didn't rely upon magical thinking. Neither of these hold true for homeopathy; the results of tests change depending on the efficacy of the study and the best explanation right now for how it works that I've seen is basically that it makes water magic.
ArcanaKnight 3 years ago
AK, Why is homeopathy "magical thinking", but anything unknown within "conventional science" is not? The use of Ritalin for ADHD for example. "We dont know why it works, but it does. Ultra paradoxical!" say the medical scientists.. Duh.. 200 years behind.. and then they wonder why increasing the dose sends all pear-shaped.
annesash 3 years ago 2
First, I'm not sure what your source is for that comment, but we do know how Ritalin works. Also, it has performed reliably in the testing which isn't true of homeopathy.
ArcanaKnight 3 years ago
That information was widely reported at the time that Ritalin was first being prescribed for ADHD. In what test does it work "reliably"? In practice it doesnt. It works for a while then not, or doesnt work at all in different patients with Dx ADHD. Also side effects. Im not fussed about early trials, because it's obvious that this treatment is not what it was cracked up to be. It's like going back 200 years to Dr Hahnemann's exp. with medicines - small doses help, large doses poison, what now?
annesash 3 years ago
Regarding "magic" again.. your words. Our governments dont call it magic, our doctors dont, we dont. Far as I can tell it's just you, AK.
annesash 3 years ago
If your hand hurts, then you try acupuncture and your hand stops hurting, you may think that it would be a test of acupuncture, but its not. Anecdotal evidence like this doesn't control for other variables which could have caused the result. Your body might have just stopped the pain on its own, it could have been a psychic in the next room, etc. We just don't know what exactly made the pain stop. The same is true of homeopathy and every other pseudoscience that relies on anecdotal evidence.
ArcanaKnight 3 years ago
Again, AK - the misconception that homeopathy is used in single common transient self-limiting conditions only. You have argued that you dont say so, but that is what you mean in this post. Homeopathic consultation involves taking into account the entire symptom picture. When a patient experiences change in a wide range of (unusual) chronic ailments, which "coincidentally" are related to proving symptoms & signs of the remedy given, it's beyond coincidence. Esp when other rem's dont affect.
annesash 3 years ago 2
Sepia is a great remedy, especially for women. It also helps immensely with the fatigue mothers experience when overworked by caring for children and homes. Dr. De Schepper took lots of it with him when he went to Africa to teach and treat because many of the women were exhausted from caring for at least four children.
den151redbank 3 years ago
Arcana Knight,
JimHewittWhite says it exactly as it is. I concur 100% with his post. You refuse to listen in an honest way. My take is that you are deliberately attempting to discourage people from trying a form of medicine which has a great deal to offer and about which you know NOTHING. I am beginning to think you are one of those people hired by certain medical organizations and pharm companies to discredit homeopathy to the public. SHAME ON YOU whether you're being paid or not!
den151redbank 3 years ago
Arcana Knight,
You have had your say and given your opinion. Let that be the end of it!
den151redbank 3 years ago
To continue: As far as I am concerned there is no agenda here. I do not intend to adhere to your belief that there should be one, especially one of your making. I am not interested in a "conversation" or a "debate" with you. That is not my purpose in being here. You are welcome to post your opinions but not to pester or badger other posters!
den151redbank 3 years ago
I wasn't aware that I was pestering anyone. I was just pointing out that if you want to reply to someone's comments, then you should click "reply" next to that comment. Otherwise your comments can seem to come from nowhere and your references are unclear which just lead to total confusion on everyone's part, especially when you are referring to comments which were posted over a month ago.
ArcanaKnight 3 years ago
My dear Aranca Knight,
These are your words as you posted them AFTER you noted that you yourself could not post a link: "Where is this graph you are referring to? Could you provide a link? Read your own post to Brisco County on this video.
den151redbank 3 years ago
As I said in my previous post, while I wasn't able to post a link I was able to explain exactly how to find the study I was talking about, so it shouldn't be hard to point out where the graph Brisco was referring to.
ArcanaKnight 3 years ago
My dear Arcana Knight,
See your post of 1 mth ago to Ulmann's video no. 4 "Clinical Research Confirms Benefits from Homeopathy". You write "It appears I can't post the link to the study. . .". You then go on to ask another poster to provide a link. How incomprehensible is that? Read the posts.
den151redbank 3 years ago
First, you should have been commenting on that video if you wanted to reply to a comment I made on it. Replying to comments that aren't even part of the same video just further confuses the conversation since you still can't even reply correctly to comments on the same video. Second, I don't see where I asked anyone for a link after I posted that. Finally, while I wasn't able to post the link, I was able to say exactly how to find the study I was talking about.
ArcanaKnight 3 years ago
He is the Master of Incomprehensible.. :)
annesash 3 years ago
With homeopathy I have had ten years of the very best medical treatment anyone could hope for. I have 50 years' experience with ineffective, harmful conventional care and conventional medicines. HOMEOPATHY WORKS ON EVERY LEVEL! I hope many, many more people will try it and find out for themselves what can be achieved and how much pain and suffering can be avoided.
den151redbank 3 years ago
See Arcana Knight's posting of one month ago to Dana Ulmann's video number four, "Clinical Benefits. . .".
den151redbank 3 years ago
Arcana Knight knows very well that it is not possible to post a link on YouTube. He has stated in his other posts that he himself cannot do this.
den151redbank 3 years ago
I have no idea what you're talking about. Where did I ask for a link to anything?
Once again since you are apparently incapable of clicking "reply" next to the comment you want to reply to your comments come off as almost incomprehensible in their references and random.
ArcanaKnight 3 years ago
Glad to see that more and more people are finding homeopathy and discovering how beautifully it works. Homeopathy will serve them very, very well for the rest of their lives.
den151redbank 3 years ago
I've just begun using homeopathy, and have been completely dumbfounded by the results. My severe ear infection (of three months duration) cleared up within five minutes of taking a homeopathic remedy.
Yet people insist it cannot work when I tell them about it. It's just "placebo", apparently.
JimHewittWhite 3 years ago 2
No remedy which is consumed orally can clear up an ear infection within 5 minutes. It takes time for the treatment to be digested and absorbed into the system (assuming there is any active substance in the treatment at all of course). Your "cure" was almost definitely the result of the placebo affect.
ArcanaKnight 3 years ago
ArcanaKnight,
The "doctor" speaks!
den151redbank 3 years ago
Its really basic human physiology, you don't need to be an MD to find that out; its just how most medicine works. The only ways I can think of off the top of my head to bypass this absorption process is to introduce it intravenously or topically directly onto the affected area (like creams for a rash or ear drops for ear infections).
ArcanaKnight 3 years ago
Surely a solution in saliva *can* start to act within this time frame? I had the infection for three months. That's three months of hoping and willing it to go away. I was not taking the silica in hopes it would treat an ear infection but for something completely different.
So I don't think the placebo effect is applicable as explanation here.
JimHewittWhite 3 years ago
No, its not really possible that something you drank would be absorbed in the mouth; it just doesn't spend enough time there. Its also possible that the infection just spontaneously got better. It does happen sometimes; its hard to say for certain without more detailed medical information. There're a number of factors which could explain why you got better; that's why anecdotal evidence isn't reliable.
Was the the silica you took not even supposed to clear up your ear problem anyway?
ArcanaKnight 3 years ago
The mouth is a great way to absorb substances. Just ask any person that has anaphylaxis, where just a trace amount of peanut in the mouth will cause severe reactions and possibly death.
From what I have seen, most acute symptoms can be halted in anywhere from 2 to 20 minutes. I have seen allergy and asthma attacks stopped in less than 5 minutes.
BriscoCountyJr23 3 years ago 3
Anaphylaxis has many different triggers including skin contact, ingestion, and even inhalation. The severe reactions you are talking about are from people that are so sensitive to the allergen that even brief contact somewhere (like the mouth, skin, or throat) can trigger a reaction. Most asthma and severe allergy attacks are stopped with inhalation medicine or injections which works much faster than ingesting a liquid or a pill.
ArcanaKnight 3 years ago
Yeah. Pity the quacks didnt think of all that when I should have been intubated to avoid suffocation. Hung in there for a few years with the homeopathic Belladonna (quick but temporary relief, but decreasing efficacy with time) because antihistamine injections or tablets did nothing, & there was nothing else offered to me. Hom' Carcinosinum ended all that trouble for me within 24 hrs. Why did the "placebo" belladonna not cure? They look & taste exactly the same.
annesash 3 years ago 2
I had near anaphylactic attacks for the better part (10 months of 12)of 5 years, until homeopathic Carcinosinum. Could not nose-breathe or swallow. Antihistamines, Phenergan injections did not help at all. When you have near-suffocation like that, the "placebo" argument is especially ridiculous. Why would anyone wait that long for the right "placebo"? Had milder relapses couple years after, responding to Carcinosinum but not other homeopathics. 10 years on, no further relapses.
annesash 3 years ago 2
We've all heard the placebo, grew-out-of-it, spontaneously-got-better arguments, & it doesnt make sense to imply that this is what happens every time a homeopathic is used. It might be plausible if homeopathy was used infrequently over the world & each of those very few patients tried it only once. I had one lady who had a nightly cough for most of her 50+ years, & had been to other homeopaths, but only one particular rem' worked for her, within days. No return of nightly cough many yrs later.
annesash 3 years ago 3
Sorry, your ear infection did not clear up within five minutes of taking the remedy. If you had an ear infection at all. Who diagnosed it? And what else had you taken prior to the homeopathic "remedy?"
You're either mistaken or lying, because that's just way too ridiculous for me to accept.
This right here is EXACTLY why personal anecdotes are worthless as any kind of evidence. They cannot be confirmed.
AdIgnorantiam 3 years ago
1. My docotr diagnosed it
2. I took nothing prior to the homeopathic remedy
3. You seem to rate your opinions more highly than other people, myself included. I came, I saw, I tried, and my experiences of homeopathy have made me a big fan.
4. I'm neither mistaken or lying
5. If personal anecdotes are worthless as any kind of evidence, why are you coming here to argue with them?
JimHewittWhite 3 years ago
You didn't really answer my previous question. Was the treatment you took (silica?) not even supposed to treat your infection?
The reason why we have to keep arguing against anecdotal evidence is because that is the majority of the evidence that is presented for pseudosciences like homeopathy.
ArcanaKnight 3 years ago
I don't know who you are, but I've very kindly taken the time to answer every single part of your question. Why I do not know.
Of course the silica was taken to treat the infection.
I don't know wh
JimHewittWhite 3 years ago
"You didn't really answer my previous question."
This response is seriously dishonest.
JimHewittWhite 3 years ago 2
"I was not taking the silica in hopes it would treat an ear infection but for something completely different. "
That's why I asked. This earlier response sounded like you took it for some other problem and it also happened to clear up your infection, so I was just asking for clarification.
ArcanaKnight 3 years ago
OK: I'd heard that silica was a "cleansing" remedy. My focus was primarily a different health condition. As soon as I took it, my ear infection cleared up. I had wondered if it would help, but hadn't dared to hope.
Look, if I say it was to treat the ear, you'll say "placebo". If I say it was primarily for another condition, you'll say "coincidence". You might learn more if you actually listened to people's experiences of homeopathy, rather than just regurgitating your own prejudices.
JimHewittWhite 3 years ago
A reason why anecdotal evidence is not reliable is that it doesn't rule out other possible causes. Its possible that your body was finally just able to finish off the infection on its own, or any number of other possibilities. Considering that it was unlikely that you even received one molecule of silica in the treatment you took there is no known way it could have possibly worked, so it is reasonable to assume it was probably a coincidence.
ArcanaKnight 3 years ago
I'm well aware it's possible that my body was suddenly able to clear an infection, after three months of being unable to do so. But it strikes me as rather unlikely.
Then you hark back to the chemical content of silica.... you're not actually helping anyone by continuing to patronise the positive experiences of homeopathy that we report.
JimHewittWhite 3 years ago
It may be unlikely, but it is still more likely than being cured by something that probably doesn't even have a molecule of anything but water in it. There are other possibilities as to why you got better, and they are all still more likely than being cured by what was essentially just water.
ArcanaKnight 3 years ago
Your argument boils down to the fact known science can't explain why homeopathy should work. Granted, and I knew that when I first began homeopathy. The results have been so awesome that I wish I had been told about it earlier.
You appear oblivious to the fact you're doing noone any good by patronising and trying to diminish the positive experiences of homeopathy described in these pages.
JimHewittWhite 3 years ago
Homeopathy is no different than the snake-oil cures that were around before the FDA was established, they both rely upon magical thinking and not any actual evidence to explain how they work.
Relying solely on pseudoscientific non-cures for minor things like ear infections can lead to relying on them for more life threatening illnesses which would probably result in death. Homeopathy doesn't work and anecdotal evidence isn't reliable evidence.
ArcanaKnight 3 years ago
You're not actually listening to the great experiences I've had with homeopathy in an honest way - only dismissing them out of hand, to reiterate the conclusion you'd already arrived at by the time you clicked this page.
In doing so, you're trying to discourage people from a form of medicine which might be very helpful to them, purely out of your own closed-mindedness. It's a waste of my precious time to continue this discussion.
JimHewittWhite 3 years ago
Just because I don't agree with your conclusion doesn't mean that I'm not listening. There are just many problems with anecdotal evidence like this such as not controlling for other variables, not to mention the fact that homeopathy has never been shown to work in any reliable way; for every study showing positive results there is a better designed one showing no effect. There is no known mechanism for how it even could work. Not to mention that ingested medicines don't work within 5 min.
ArcanaKnight 3 years ago
The mechanism for aspirin is unknown. Does that mean people shouldn't take it?
87% of allopathic medicine is not backed by hard evidence, according to the British Medical Journal. Will you deter people from 87% of conventional medicine too?
After years of suffering, and trying everything from ice packs to feminax to hot baths, my gf found 100% relief from menstrual pain for the first time the day she took sepia. She has not suffered since. Don't tell me - "coincidence".
JimHewittWhite 3 years ago
Again, its just more anecdotal evidence which means that there are many uncontrolled for variables, any of which could have resulted in the pain relief.
BTW, you need to update your medical knowledge. We know exactly how aspirin works, the mechanisms were discovered in the early '70s. It also reliably gave positive results in clinical tests even before this discovery was made, which is not true of homeopathy.
ArcanaKnight 3 years ago
I'm sorry if my facts re. aspirin have not been accurate.
But... it's not just anecdotal evidence. It's the end of my gf's suffering, after many years. Guess what, we don't have the resources at our disposal to organise an offical sepia trial. Does that mean her wonerful experience counts for nothing? Yes, according to you.
What of the fact that 87% of conventional medicine is not backed by hard science? I'll assume you wish it stopped, with no further anecdotes in its support.
JimHewittWhite 3 years ago
Each and every remedy has been proven, (i.e., a trial has been performed) many, many times over. The subjects are healthy, adult volunteers. Many doctors prove the remedies on themselves so as to understand the symptoms/actions more clearly than they would by simply reading about them. The provings are done with proper scientific standards. The efficacy of a remedy and the symptoms it treats are already known and proven.
den151redbank 3 years ago
Jim,
I understand, and I'm glad to hear that she is no longer in pain, but that story is anecdotal evidence, and as such any of the uncontrolled variables could have been responsible for the pain relief.
I don't know where you got that figure, but I'm fairly certain that its not correct. The majority of conventional medicine's treatments are backed by evidence. They have to be to pass medical efficacy standards.
ArcanaKnight 3 years ago
Doctors don't test medicine on themselves, at least not competent ones. If that is standard practice among homeopath doctors, then IMO it makes homeopathy more questionable, not less.
Pretty much any positive effect measured in a trial done on homeopathy has later shown to have no effect in better designed studies. If it really worked this wouldn't be the case, the results would be consistent.
ArcanaKnight 3 years ago
Such a simplistic view, AK. If you ever bothered to check our literature, you would see that there is no one single homeopathic for menstrual pain, or headache, or vertigo, etc. We know about variables, we are conscious of them & we ask ourselves & our patients about them. We dont prescribe to simply relieve a pain, but to get the person well in all aspects, & not progress to a more serious condition. You need to read up before you go any further.
annesash 3 years ago 3
Agree, Jim
annesash 3 years ago
Homeopathy was established to supersede the "snake oil cures" of the time. Of course the principle of "Like cures like" goes back before Hippocrates. 2. Ive relied on homeopathy for life-threatening illness because "conventional medicine" had nothing to offer. & I succeeded, not only for myself but others. Ps, I dont give a rats if you think thats my "anecdote", AK. I tell the truth. Ps, Ive heard far too many accounts of needless deaths due to incompetent practitioners, not of my profession.
annesash 3 years ago 2
I'm not talking about patients having unexpected adverse reactions to a treatment or developing an infection and dying. In the cases I mentioned people were prescribed and relied upon an ineffective treatment instead of a known, effective treatment and died because of it. They died needlessly. There are also many people who have died because they delayed getting proper medical treatment for otherwise treatable illnesses because they were relying on ineffective homeopathic remedies.
ArcanaKnight 3 years ago
In the immortal words of Frank Thring (yet again :) ) "NAME ONE"...
Non aussies may have to Google at this point :(
I'd say that there are far more people (hows that for understatement) dying from lack of treatment or ineffective treatment or wrong treatment, from "conventional" medicos. Oops, Im not supposed to say that, so i'll leave it to those who may :)
annesash 3 years ago
We had a case reported yesterday in Australia of a child crippled by her father (not a qualified practitioner) prescribing a very dodgy brand of "complementary medicine" in high fever. Apart from that, Im not aware of any reports of serious illness or deaths from patients using complementary medicines. There have been no convictions against practitioners for those reasons.. Contrast the "other side". Conversely, i see those who have been neglected, misdiagnosed & maltreated.. & heard of worse.
annesash 3 years ago
Homeopathic remedies are ineffective when they are not "homeopathic", i.e. THE WRONG ONE. Thats what happens when people try to do it themselves without having the knowledge & correct homeopathics on hand. Thats when it's appropriate to use antibiotics, rx drugs, medical interventions.. & consult someone who is qualified when in strife. In Australia, homeopathics are not freely available without consulting a qualified practitioner.
annesash 3 years ago
I'll try to spell it out since I can't include the link, but Homeopathic medicine has an entire category of such cases on the site whatstheharm. These aren't people who self medicated or were given the wrong homeopathic treatment; they were prescribed and took ineffective treatments and died as a result of the condition it was supposed to treat/prevent.
ArcanaKnight 3 years ago
Ive just had a look at whats the harm, & as an evaluation of homeopathy in your opinion, it's laughable.
Its a list of ill-educated & unqualified people such as parents harming others through neglect or dodgy practices unrelated to homeopathy.
In Australia:
We do not tell patients to stop prescribed medication.
annesash 3 years ago 4
2
"Purgatives" are not homeopathic medicines, nor is fasting or cosmetic surgery "homeopathy". Look at the case where a "nurse/homeopath begged the parents to take their child to a doctor but they refused". How is that an indictment of homeopathy or a homeopath?
If patients died of cancer or HIV while under medical care, no-one bats an eyelid. In any case, we are not permitted alone to treat patients for these and other certain serious illnesses.
annesash 3 years ago 3
3
& the biggest laugh of all, is the number of "anecdotes" from worldwide.. 400+. Compare the number of (admitted) medical mistakes & (convicted) incompetent practitioners of the world.. sheesh
annesash 3 years ago 3
4. How many of the cases in whats the harm actually involve a qualified homeopath & using homeopathic medicine AK? I dont have the time to go through the 400+ cases to cherry pick one that does..
annesash 3 years ago 2
So now I get the thumbs down? Why? It's the TRUTH. How inconvenient :) LOLOLOL
annesash 3 years ago 2
Do you have any idea, AK, that there are innumerable such "coincidences" happening every minute of every day in many countries over the world? In babies & animals as well as those who may be susceptible to "placebo"? Your own disbelief doesnt change the fact.. & it is fact. :)
annesash 3 years ago 3
Nice language. You must be a real genius.
Elaine Lewis
InuyashaPrincess14 3 years ago
My family's conventional doctor is dumbfounded by the results I can achieve with homeopathy--results she cannot achieve with pharmaceuticals. She wants to learn more about it so that she can be of more help to her patients. My endodontist has taken a course in homeopathy so that he can better help his patients. Perhaps famous people are as capable of recognizing something good when they see it as anyone else!
den151redbank 3 years ago
What exactly did homeopathy help you with?
AdIgnorantiam 3 years ago
Read my other posts. Homeopathy is fantastic for the nerve pain of neuropathy and for regenerating nerves where possible--things conventional medicine can barely touch. If you doubt the devastating pain of neuropathy or the efficacy of homeopathy ask a sufferer and a user.
den151redbank 3 years ago
Show me a collection of well controlled, peer-reviewed scientific studies and then we'll talk. And throw in a mechanism of action other than plain magic and we'll talk some more.
AdIgnorantiam 3 years ago
I'll show you studies that Prozac and other depression drugs are not better than placebo, but that hasn't stopped the drug companies from continuing to make money off those useless drugs.
Funny how you want proof that homeopathy works, but when we show proof that drugs don't work, those facts are ignored. Time to get off your scientific high horse.
BriscoCountyJr23 3 years ago
Anti-depression drugs do work, but the main problem is that they are over-prescribed, so people that take it don't actually need to, and the effect is no better than placebo in those cases. Drug companies will continue to sell drugs and supplements to people as long as there is a market for them.
As an aside, disproving a treatment doesn't automatically prove that your treatment works. You still have to show that your treatment can and will actually do something.
ArcanaKnight 3 years ago
Drug companies ≠ scientific community
I echo what ArcanaKnight says. It's like creationists who just bash evolution and then think they've made a positive case for intelligent design.
The effectiveness of conventional medicine (which is very good, by the way) has no bearing of the efficacy of homeopathy.
And it's also a bit fallacious to use one drug like Prozac as a representative of all of conventional medicine. If homeopathy DID work it would be integrated into conventional medicine.
AdIgnorantiam 3 years ago
Headline: Scientists Are Baffled!!!
*snooze*
AdIgnorantiam 3 years ago
Because famous people have much better credentials to analyze medical claims than trained physicians and scientists...
No. Complete bullocks. I'd trust the scientific community over David Beckham and Queen Elizabeth II any day.
AdIgnorantiam 3 years ago
Have you heard the expression, "Follow the money"? Why would you trust the scientific community, it is utterly compromised--under the sway of the multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical industry, which would be decimated if homeopathy caught on. People who use homeopathy rarely need to see a doctor--for anything!
Elaine Lewis
InuyashaPrincess14 3 years ago
All one has to do is look at the death tolls from the Spanish Influenza in 1918. Doctors were burying hundreds of patients, and when told to stop treating patients with drugs, the death toll immediately dropped 25%. Homeopathic doctors who treated patients reported few or no deaths, with the exception being people that decided to take large amounts of the new wonder drug Aspirin for their condition.
BriscoCountyJr23 3 years ago
You shouldn't be comparing medicine practiced in 1918 and medicine practiced today. It was probably better for people to take something that did nothing (like homeopathy, because it doesn't actually do anything physiologically) than some of the treatments back then.
Your argument made me giggle a bit.
AdIgnorantiam 3 years ago
Today's medicine isn't any better than it was in 1918, the death toll statistics proof that out.
My father has an ulcer would on his ear for a year, he say many so called doctors and filled many so called prescriptions and nothing worked after one year of trying. A Docter even said it was cancer and wanted to do surgery. Skin about the size of a penny was missing.
Well I managed to fully heal his ear after it got a nasty infection after only 3 weeks of treatment with homeopathic Gunpowder.
BriscoCountyJr23 3 years ago