MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
I challenge you to explain that the effects of homeopathy have a scientific basis. Come on, impress me.
No.
...is probably the best response
I think the NHS funding for it should be cut, it should become more effective...
With your username, you sound like the target market.
Awesome! Liking your work there OP. 😃
As needed for every homeopathy thread:
I've posted the full proof above. As you can see, I have diluted it to make it more powerful and convincing.
You need to put the effects in a box. Are they alive or dead?
😀
No takers?
Okay, as a side question: What is more scientifically sound, homeopathy or divining?
Poo can be made from organic matter. Poo therapy anyone??
Homeopathy is patently a load of shit, but the tiny amount of money the NHS spends on its placebo effect keeps people out of more expensive services, so that's a small win.
Worked on my dog. Explain that.
How did your dog explain it?
Your dog got better.
You also gave your dog so,e expensive water.
At the same time somebody crushed a butterfly preventing the flap of the wings causing a tsunami that would have wiped out the planet
None of these things are related.
I challenge you to explain that the effects of homeopathy have a scientific basis. Come on, impress me.
You need to be more accurate with your question. Are you referring to the clinical effect of homeopathic medicines on ill patients (proven and measurable) or the clinical effect of homeopathic medicines over and above placebo (not proven)?
Looking at how homeopathy started it does make a certain sense.
Start with a natural product which helps against malaria but (although not proven) has some side effects for some people which vaguely resemble malaria.
Conclude therefore like cures like.
After a few accidental poisoning when trying to treat other illnesses realise the idea is slightly flawed and come up with dilution as the way to go since once you dilute it enough although it doesnt help it doesnt actively cause harm.
When combined with the fact that the normal "medicine" at the time was often actively harmful you end up with something that seems to work.
Why, in theory, trained experts still fall for it is another question.
If water has memory why doesn't it taste like piss?
Or the sea?
isn't seeing your GP a placebo service a lot of the time? There's nothing scientific about much of the shit that's important to all of us: relationships, music, art, scenery etc anyway.
I suppose I grew up with homeopathy, there were no pain killers or antibiotics hippy medicine had all the answers; there was even a cure for cancer made from mistletoe. At some point in my twenties it did dawn on me that the hippy medicine just didn't work and I've never looked back. It's funny how the most committed alternative medicine types all go for the heart bypass op when the alternative is death!
isn’t seeing your GP a placebo service a lot of the time?
A regular gp consult will be about 15 mins these days, an alternative medicine session that you pay for could be an hour, most people with non descript sysmtoms and hard to diagnose stiff would really benefit from somebody to talk to for a bit longer and somebody listening, that is the way it works not the placebo concotions
Maybe it all began with gravy? That's like water with bits of what used to be other stuff in it, innit? Gravy'll set yer reet.
For some reason I thought that this thread would be very tiny.
Fecal transplants work for hard to treat C. difficile infections. So yes poo therapy. As for homeopathy, just no. There was a nice Horizon many years ago looking at homeopathic pharmacology with a randomised in vitro experiment. Guess what.
Ive seen enough new drug mechanisms fail in my day job.
For some reason I thought that this thread would be very tiny.
It would be better if it was
Faecal transplants
Am willing to donate.
It's very simple, it just explains how some people didn't pay attention at school.
it just explains how some people didn’t pay attention at school.
Arguable really, placebos still work, even when people know they are placebo
There is no such thing as alternative medicine. Just medicine, stuff that is being tested to see if is medicine.
Question is simple. Does it make a significant chemical change to the body that treats an illness, beyond any chemical change caused by coincidence or placebo effect?
I would be really interested to hear if anyone that believes homeopathy actually does something (according to the definition above) is a scientist or has any significant scientific training (say, above degree level in a ‘real’ subject).
If it has any effect, it can only be akin to a placebo effect.
Alternative medicine is medicine that's either not been proven to work or been proven not to work. D'you know what they call alternative medicine that's been proven to work?
Medicine.
Alternative medicine is medicine that’s either not been proven to work or been proven not to work. D’you know what they call alternative
that’s been proven to work?
Medicine.
But, as demonstrated, alternative medicine does work, in that it is known to deliver an identifiable, measurable and effective clinical improvement over and above no treatment.
Does it make a significant chemical change to the body that treats an illness, beyond any chemical change caused by coincidence or placebo effect?
What’s important is the clinical effect, the mechanism of that effect is largely irrelevant surely, Placebo ≠ innefective treatment.
ninfan
Arguable really, placebos still work, even when people know they are placebo
If we dumped all the placebo pills in our local reservoir... 🙂
Placebo ≠ innefective treatment.
Not necessarily. Leaving aside the varying evidence for placebos there is the real danger that someone may think a placebo is far more effective than it is.
There is an unfortunate association between some supporters of alternative medicine and a rejection of actual medicine. This can kill people.
I suppose I grew up with homeopathy, there were no pain killers or antibiotics hippy medicine had all the answers; there was even a cure for cancer made from mistletoe. At some point in my twenties it did dawn on me that the hippy medicine just didn’t work and I’ve never looked back. It’s funny how the most committed alternative medicine types all go for the heart bypass op when the alternative is death!
Well, while I’m not certain about mistletoe, one of the most effective cancer treatments, Tamoxifen, is made from the clippings from yew trees, and what about aspirin, originally derived from willow trees, then there’s painkillers, like opium, derived from poppies, and there are large cultivated opium poppy plantations in the UK, so if you think that plant-based treatments are all hippy nonsense, I would respectfully suggest you update your education a bit, there are new treatments being discovered every year from obscure plants all over the world, the big problem is finding them before the rain forests are cut down and burned for bloody palm oil plantations!
[edit] Jury seems to be out on medical uses for mistletoe:
Mistletoe leaves and young twigs are used by herbalists, and preparations made from them are popular in Europe, especially in Germany, for attempting to treat circulatory and respiratory system problems.[23][24][25] Use of mistletoe extract in the treatment of cancer originated with Rudolf Steiner, the founder of Anthroposophy.
Although laboratory and animal experiments have suggested that mistletoe extract may affect the immune system and be able to kill some kinds of cancer cells, there is little evidence of its benefit to people with cancer.[26][27]
If we dumped all the placebo pills in our local reservoir… 🙂
It would be better for the fish than what we do at the moment*
*caution, homeopathic contraception pills may have limited efficacy
Countzero
- there a big difference between, let’s call it herbal, where there’s actually something in whatever is being given and homeopathic where there’s nothing in it at all other than water.
herbal works. Not giving anything, well, it doesn’t*
*although ninfan who will argue black = white will be along to try to disprove this by making not quite the right arguement very shortly
Worked on my dog. Explain that.
What was your control, the cat?
Not giving anything, well, it doesn’t*
Homeopathy isnt “not giving anything” is it? Therein lies the basis of the placebo effect.
I’m only going to do this once. A placebo effect may work, but that’s not homeopathy. Im talking the physical, chemical effect of giving nothing to people, not the effect of making them think they are taking something that will cure their ills.
out now, I can’t bring myself to debate this with ninfan.
Seemed to help out when it was the only option left for us.
Not entirely sure, but I went from complete engineer style non believer to 'may consider'.
"But, as demonstrated, alternative medicine does work, in that it is known to deliver an identifiable, measurable and effective clinical improvement over and above no treatment."
Demonstrated where?
Homeopathy isnt “not giving anything” is it? Therein lies the basis of the placebo effect.
That's exactly what homeopathy is. I suppose you could clarify into 'not giving anything...that makes a chemical change in the body beyond coincidence or placebo effect.
Also, few people above are confusing natural remedies with homeopathy. Completely unrelated to homeopathy, as you are actually introducing something to the body (whether it does anything useful is a different matter).
A placebo effect may work, but that’s not homeopathy. Im talking the physical, chemical effect of giving nothing to people, not the effect of making them think they are taking something that will cure their ills.
And what you are still failing to understand is that there is a real, clinically identified measurable, physical & chemical effect of “giving nothing to people” that even more mind bendingly doesn’t rely on them actually thinking it will cure them
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3073412/
If you want to argue that homeopathy doesn’t work as well as “real” medicine, I’m with you all the way, but you’re also quite literally wrong to suggest that homeopathy doesn’t “work”, because it does...it just doesn’t work better than any other placebo (well, in fact, technically, some placebos have been shown to work better than others, again mind bendingly brilliant).
theres an important point here, very often “medicines” have side effects, some quite severe. In many chronic pain and similar conditions like IBS*, giving placebo as a first point of call/initial intervention would have a similar effect for many patients to ongoing medication without any ongoing side effects or risk and significant financial savings to the NHS. If anything we should be doing more homeopathy and alternative therapy, rather than less.
* http://www.bmj.com/content/336/7651/999
What was your control, the cat?
The control was the behaviour of the dog when not undergoing treatment changing in the manner expected with each occasion.
For a medical treatment to be considered effective the standard isn’t better than no treatment it’s better than a placebo and on that standard homeopathy fails.
The discussion about how weird the placebo effect is a different matter and the two things shouldn’t be conflated.
The discussion about how weird the placebo effect is a different matter and the two things shouldn’t be conflated.
The OP’s challenge wasn’t whether Homeopathy was more effective than placebo, it’s was:
“I challenge you to explain that the effects of homeopathy have a scientific basis”
We have discussed above that homeopathy (and other sham treatments) quite clearly do have an identifiable clinical effect, and that it’s grounded in the placebo effect, which, given it in itself has identifiable physiological and neurobiological effects, that are proven not to rely on simple ‘belief’ then it’s impossible to argue that they do not have a scientific basis
If anything we should be doing more homeopathy and alternative therapy, rather than less
Surely we should be researching the most effective and best value placebos, rather than just continuing to use historic ones?
We have discussed above that homeopathy (and other sham treatments) quite clearly do have an identifiable clinical effect, and that it’s grounded in the placebo effect
No, the placebo effect has a identifiable clinical effect, Homeopathy has no effect, like for instance sugar pills.
The OP’s challenge wasn’t whether Homeopathy was more effective than placebo,
Getting a bit desperate now, but you are persistent if nothing else (and this wouldn't be much of a discussion without an opposing view)! As you are well aware, I clarified the question on page 1 (which wasn't really necessary, but you asked):
Question is simple. Does it make a significant chemical change to the body that treats an illness, beyond any chemical change caused by coincidence or placebo effect?
We have discussed above that homeopathy (and other sham treatments)
So you do think homeopathy is a sham? Which means your entire contribution to this thread has been a pedantic response to the way the question was worded. STW in a nutshell right there folks.
Hey OP, the very fact that you started this thread in the full knowledge of how it was going to go is STW in a nutshell!
Sisyphus 😀
So true slackalice, but I live in hope that it can only get better.
No, the placebo effect has a identifiable clinical effect, Homeopathy has no effect, like for instance sugar pills.
Not that I'm going to defend homeopathy but Homeopathy is a placebo. I think you need to go back and read up on what the "placebo effect" means. You're arguing that doing nothing but telling people they're going to get better is totally different from doing nothing but telling people they're going to get better.
Hey OP, the very fact that you started this thread in the full knowledge of how it was going to go is STW in a nutshell!
In so far it's a troll by the OP's own admission, yes.
I’ll let others decide the relevance, but I recently noticed a study that examined the correlation about racist beliefs and below average intelligence (and bizarrely) smaller than average genital size in males. It wasn’t something I was asked to peer review, so I’ll have to go back to check the scientific credentials.
"..heard of a guy in Florida, the poor man, he died of an overdose of homeopathic medicine.<wbr /> He forgot to take his pill." (James Randi )
It's fairly easy to overdose on homeopathic remedies. It's called "drowning."
So you do think homeopathy is a sham? Which means your entire contribution to this thread has been a pedantic response to the way the question was worded.
You appear to be getting remarkably upset that that I answered your attempted smart arse question in an entirely scientifically correct manner which served only to successfully prompt you, and others, into revealing to everyone their own complete misunderstanding of the placebo effect.
I find this quite amusing.
To remind you:
I challenge you to explain that the effects of homeopathy have a scientific basis.
For absolute clarity: Yes, the (clinically proven) effects of homeopathy have a scientific basis, it’s called the placebo effect.
Lol perhaps you need to check the text at the top of each box that tells you who is posting.
Care to post what I have misunderstood about the placebo effect? Feel free to use the quote function. No rush, I’ll be here waiting.
"Placebo" comes a little before "semantics" in the dictionary. Semantics is a useful tool for people who don't have a point in an argument but want to have one anyway.
Ninfan's comments here are factually correct but of little practical relevance. It's a bit like calling Microsoft technical support.
Have to agree with that Cougar. You don’t get any points in an exam for a factually correct answer to a question that wasn’t asked 😄
As you say, irrelevant.
Ninfan, I’m interested in your views on dowsing?
Care to post what I have misunderstood about the placebo effect? Feel free to use the quote function. No rush, I’ll be here waiting.
Just checking in on this. I'm still waiting ninfan :-).
I’m with ninfan on this.
To be clear, I think the explanation given for homeopathy (ridiculous dilutions, banging it in a leather bag, and saying the water has taken the shape of the molecule, etc) is utter tripe. However, if it does have an effect, it is similar to the placebo effect. It’s not quite the same as a placebo though, because a placebo is described to the patient as an inert sugar pill, whereas the homeopathist is claiming it to be more than an inert, inactive thing.
The placebo effect is real, but I would argue that it’s minimal for a condition like cancer but stronger for something with a partly psychological basis like depression or chronic pain. The fact that there is a placebo effect suggests that something physiological is going on in the brain.
anyway, got to get dressed and go to work now!
However, if it does have an effect, it is similar to the placebo effect.
Question is simple. Does it make a significant chemical change to the body that treats an illness, beyond any chemical change caused by coincidence or placebo effect?
🙂
Ok, similar in magnitude to the placebo effect. But homeopathy is not quite the same as a placebo.
placebo is described to the patient as an inert sugar pill
people dont know they are taking the placebo or its not a bind test - the experimenter should not know either so it should be double blind
I am less certain that saying it works as a placebo is anything more than saying it does not work as the only power a placebo has is none*
* the placebo is the control measure. In essence it establishes the baseline - yes we know nothing has an effect but that is not the same as claiming it actually does anything when the it could be anything as long as it does not work. The placebo effect is the impact of an inert substance .
Ok, similar in magnitude to the placebo effect. But homeopathy is not quite the same as a placebo.
Sure, obviously they are not exactly the same thing (I didn't claim they were the same thing BTW, though I think someone above may have). But they both do nothing in terms of actively targeting/treating an illness, beyond coincidence (what was going to happen anyway), and possible psychological effects (which is where taking a placebo and homeopathy are similar).
Junkyard- in a double-blind placebo controlled trial neither the patient nor the physician knows what the patient is taking, but they do know that they COULD be taking an “inert sugar pill” and yet still there is a placebo effect.
It’s not correct to say that a placebo has “no power”. A placebo is never going to cure a life-threatening infection or shrink a brain tumour, nevertheless, placebo can have a real effect over and above nothing.
Junkyard- in a double-blind placebo controlled trial neither the patient nor the physician knows what the patient is taking, but they do know that they COULD be taking an “inert sugar pill” and yet still there is a placebo effect.
It’s not correct to say that a placebo has “no power”. A placebo is never going to cure a life-threatening infection or shrink a brain tumour, nevertheless, placebo can have a real effect over and above nothing.
(and yes I do know what I’m talking about, I’ve been a medical writer for the past 18 years)
Care to post what I have misunderstood about the placebo effect? Feel free to use the quote function. No rush, I’ll be here waiting.
Just checking in on this. I’m still waiting ninfan :-).
Don't hold your breath on that one....
And yes if you did a placebo trial on homeopathy results would show about the same and I think they do.
The impact and health benefits for a lot of people of somebody listening to them and agreeing they have a problem and then giving them a cure are there just the magic water does nothing but line the pockets of people.
I think CHL's pull apart of such things are usually quite amusing and often thought provoking, if a touch cruel: