10:23, Randi's challenge and homeopathy

[Adjhart]

Homeopathy seems to have a very distinct definition: an alternative medicinal method founded in 1796 which used highly diluted plant materials or substances to alleviate symptoms...more or less, right?

Of course, we are human, so like with anything else, people are going to take advantage of other people...

...but are we challenging the idea that the body can heal itself? Because that's an underlying element of homeopathy.

To me, it actually seems very obvious that eating the right foods, living an active lifestyle, keeping toxins at bay, and having a positive mindset, are the majority of what you need to be healthy. Doing these things does have positive effect, and it's not just placebo.

Health is a complete systemic balance. We sadly define healthy as someone who doesn't show any symptoms, knowing full well that some symptoms lay dormant for all types of reasons. To me, homeopathy is more about balancing your well-being overall.

When I entered this thread I thought homeopathy was just alternative natural remedies, I didn't know all about the specifics of it, which makes me think that when the word 'homeopathy' is used today, it's not necessarily describing the work of Samuel Hahnemann, but the idea that natural remedies and systemic balance can heal your body.

A decade ago, I thought all natural remedies were bullshit and just a way to make money. What a silly perspective that became as I learned more about our pharmaceutical industry.


If it is made from a plant, I feel comfortable. If it is made IN a plant, I don't.

To live naturally, surely must be how it was intended.

 

[SnozzleBerry]

So I researched the internet and found this:

Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials

Findings
The combined odds ratio for the 89 studies entered into the main meta-analysis was 2·45 (95% CI 2·05, 2·93) in favour of homoeopathy. The odds ratio for the 26 good-quality studies was 1·66 (1·33, 2·08), and that corrected for publication bias was 1·78 (1·03, 3·10). Four studies on the effects of a single remedy on seasonal allergies had a pooled odds ratio for ocular symptoms at 4 weeks of 2·03 (1·51, 2·74). Five studies on postoperative ileus had a pooled mean effect-size-difference of −0·22 standard deviations (95% Cl −0·36, −0·09) for flatus, and −0·18 SDs (−0·33, −0·03) for stool (both p<0·05).

Interpretation
The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homoeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. Further research on homoeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(97)02293-9/fulltext

Remember, this is The Lancet:

The Lancet is a weekly peer-reviewed general medical journal. It is one of the world's oldest and best known general medical journals,[1] and has been described as one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world.[2]

The Lancet - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It goes on to say:

Our study has no major implications for clinical practice because we found little evidence of effectiveness of any single homoeopathic approach on any single clinical condition. Our study does, however, have major implications for future research on homoeopathy. We believe that a serious effort to research homoeopathy is clearly warranted despite its implausibility. Deciding to conduct research on homoeopathy recognises that this approach is a relevant social and medical phenomenon.

 

[inaniel]

It at least offers an alternative to traditional western medicine. Sugar pills don't harm people, but an estimated 225,400 people die from medical care (physician error, medication error, adverse effects from drugs or surgery) . Homeopathy may be a billion dollar industry , but traditional western medicine is a trillion dollar industry (more annually than the cost of war) and is projected to be 16 trillion by the year 2030, and despite this 15 million Americans have diabetes, half of Americans have a health problem that requires taking a prescription every week, 100 million Americans have high cholesterol. Fourteen years ago, 700,00 Americans died from heart disease, 550,000 from cancer, and 280,000 from cerebro vascular diseases. These numbers have surely risen since then. No one forces one to turn to homeopathic medicine, there is no law stating one must use it, so what is the big deal?

 

[Ufostrahlen]

It goes on to say:

Our study has no major implications for clinical practice because we found little evidence of effectiveness of any single homoeopathic approach on any single clinical condition. Our study does, however, have major implications for future research on homoeopathy. We believe that a serious effort to research homoeopathy is clearly warranted despite its implausibility. Deciding to conduct research on homoeopathy recognises that this approach is a relevant social and medical phenomenon.

Yeah, I omitted it, because of TL;DR reasons. I thought the second paragraph made it clear that homeopathy isn't a miracle cure and more research is needed. I also think the truth lies in honest and multi-pole research.

Homeopathy for the common cold and spring allergy doesn't work for me, the pharmaceutical chemicals however do.

 

[Luuk]

It at least offers an alternative to traditional western medicine. Sugar pills don't harm people, but an estimated 225,400 people die from medical care (physician error, medication error, adverse effects from drugs or surgery) . Homeopathy may be a billion dollar industry , but traditional western medicine is a trillion dollar industry (more annually than the cost of war) and is projected to be 16 trillion by the year 2030, and despite this 15 million Americans have diabetes, half of Americans have a health problem that requires taking a prescription every week, 100 million Americans have high cholesterol. Fourteen years ago, 700,00 Americans died from heart disease, 550,000 from cancer, and 280,000 from cerebro vascular diseases. These numbers have surely risen since then. No one forces one to turn to homeopathic medicine, there is no law stating one must use it, so what is the big deal?

Many people are still dying of diseases, but never in our history have we lived so long and healthy. Medical care keeps improving.

There is no law stating that one must use homeopathy, but there is big money to be made there. If a homeopath truly believes that he is healing people, one cannot say his practice is unethical. But how can you separate these people from people who know damn well they are selling sugar for 10.000 dollars a pound? And shouldn't people be protected against misguided 'doctors', just like in regular medical care?
In the Netherlands homeopathy is included in healthcare. This means I too am paying for people taking these sugar pills.

If wealthy people are buying bottles of homeopathic pills and it makes them feel better I have no problem with that. But at some point you need to draw a line, and I think most people agree with me here. Is it ethical to use expensive homeopathy to try to cure people with terminal cancer, thereby taking the last money from desparate people? Is it ethical to go to Liberia and offer people 'treatment' for ebola with sound frequencies and magic granules (sand pills), stating that it not only cures but also prevents ebola, thereby actively helping the spread of ebola? (this is actually happening right now)
Except homeopathy fundamentalists everybody draws this line at a different moment, therefore I believe governments should take a clear stand and educate people that there is no reason to believe in homeopathic pills. Perhaps even putting a warning on the bottle, or prohibit people from selling one bottle at 3 euros and another bottle with the same sugar at 50 euros.
Then again, I'm not a big fan of neoliberalism, one could also say that this should all be left to free market and own responsibility.