[url= http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-E5NJC6o79OE/UWxbBcs1bcI/AAAAAAAAEmA/q10X-EaR9sE/s1600/AltMed+Cropped.pn g" target="_blank">
ninfan - it seems to me that most people who bash homeopathy (myself included) see it this way: why does homeopathy exist in parallel with placebos, when they are essentially the same thing? The placebo effect is well-established, and is generally recognised as a small part of the wide range of treatment options available to genuine medical practitioners. It can and should be offered where appropriate.
The thing is, that it should be considered alongside - for want of a better phrase - proper medicine, i.e. drugs or other proven treatments. In real life, however, homeopathy is touted as being outside of medicine, an alternative medicine. People with little or no medical training are prescribing it to naive or ignorant patients who believe they are getting genuine medical assistance.
Clearly, in many cases, had they gone to a GP these people may very well have been prescribed a placebo by a trained medical practitioner, and so receiving homeopathy will be the exact same thing, and will work just as well. This is why there is loads of anecdotal evidence of homeopathy working. In some cases, however, and as outlined in the OP, people who are in need of real, non-placebo medicine, just get the sugar pills and suffer or die because of it.
That's why people have a problem with it. If homeopathy practitioners would just be honest and say "hey folks, these are just placebos, but science has shown that they are effective in certain situations" then I think we could all be happy. We could then drop the name homeopathy - I believe it was Tim Minchin who said that there's a name for alternative medicine that's been proven to work. It's..... 'medicine'.
The problem is compounded that homeopaths sell this stuff for way more than a proper placebo would cost, due to the ridiculous lengths they go to to ensure that there's nothing of substance in the pills. No-one likes getting ripped off.
Acupuncture:http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/acu.html
Happy now?
That references some quite old work, the most recent is 2006. Is there nothing more recent?
(Disclaimer have used acupuncture for acute back pain in the past, full on limping into the treatment room back pain with calf muscle in spasm).
Tell me the last time a placebo treatment was shown to be effective in treating an actual disease?
On average, double blind randomized clinical trials in depression generate a placebo response that is so large that it masks the signal of the active test drug. Even for drugs that are now given as "standard of care". That doesn't mean that the drugs don't work, it just means it can be hard to show it in some diseases.
Typically in most clinical trials, placebo is added to "standard of care", so it's not placebo working in cancer studies, for example, but the background therapy still having an effect.
If offered [url= http://homeopathyplus.com.au/bmedcentral.pdf ]homeopathy[/url] or modern targeted [url= http://www.gene.com/download/pdf/zelboraf_prescribing.pdf ]pharmacology[/url] for V600E melanoma, I know which one I would be choosing!
All these posts and no-one has yet mentioned
[list][*]chakras[/*]
[*]energy fields[/*]
[*]bio-resonance or vibrations[/*][/list]
What's the world coming to? 😀
[i]That references some quite old work, the most recent is 2006. Is there nothing more recent?[/i]
Yes, and without reading it thoroughly, I found it contradicted itself in a lot of places.
I had acupuncture for a shoulder injury. If that pain relief was a placebo, then it was a damn good one. (Took surgery to fix the injury).
But no way can acupuncture be lumped in with homeopathy.
Ricky Gervais @rickygervais
I just did a tweet to convince everyone about the merits of homeopathy but then I deleted it. It should still work though.
Sums it up really
But no way can acupuncture be lumped in with homeopathy.
Well aside from the fact that they were both made up before medicine as we currently understand it existed and there is no rational explination of the mechanism by which either of them are supposed to work you are correct they are totally different!
A mate does some long-needle acupuncture where you seem to put the needles in and wiggle them around a bit and let the body heal itself back up again - to fix nerve paths maybe.
His secretary had been in a car accident some years before and couldn't get close to touching her toes - he stuck her with the needles and a couple of days later she was back to being able to touch her toes.
Heck of a placebo effect if it did nothing.
I think it is along the same lines as percussive massage - beat up and effectively injure the body and let it fix itself.
I always say the same thing- I'm not credulous enough for homeopathy but if I was, i'd be a candidate. I suffer from chronic (mild!) pain as a result of 2 old leg injuries, and I'm sure that it's largely psychosomatic or at least habituated. Real medicine- painkillers etc- does work but when I'm having a bad day, I reckon there's a good chance if you gave me fake paracetemol indistinguishable from the real thing, it'd work. I have in the past had benefit from painkillers which it later turned out I'd forgotten to take.
That makes it a difficult ethical question- there are some conditions which are probably just as well treated with woo as with medicine. There are some where it might be better- a tablet of nothing at all doesn't have the issues that painkillers can have, unless you get homeopathically addicted.
But it's not an [i]alternative[/i] to the real thing. If people are choosing imaginary medicine because they believe it works, and as a result not getting the medication which would genuinely help them, then the game's a bogey. I had someone recommend me an "alternative" remedy for my diabetes once, that was interesting.
That references some quite old work, the most recent is 2006. Is there nothing more recent?
It was nonsense in 2006 - 8 years have passed and it's still nonsense.
As far as all the anecdotal evidence - this isn't real evidence - proper clinical trials is real evidence.
Perhaps it's time to start comparing various alternative woo with each other to try to determine the most effective form of placebo for chronic conditions which are poorly served by conventional therapies (chronic back pain is a classic).
If that turns out to be crystals, reiki, a video of Jeremy Kyle telling you to pull yourself together, or even homeopathy, then fine, lets have it, as chances are it will be less damaging than long-term painkiller use.
The central problem with homeopathy is the fact that it invites us to essentially rewrite the known laws of physics in its proposed mode of action. At least some acupuncturists are looking for more plausible modes of action connected to needling.
But, if it turns out that credulous folk talking to a homeopathist for half an hour and drinking a glass of water delivers the best results via placebo, I've got no problem with that. Chronic back pain is seriously shitty.
Typical STW responses 🙄
If anyone on this thread [i]actually wants to understand[/i] how homeopathy works...
[url= http://www.howdoeshomeopathywork.com/ ]howdoeshomeopathywork.com[/url]
So can a placebo do something you don't expect?
The problem with Homeopathy and its siblings is this whole concept of "Alternative Medicine." If you've got cancer or AIDS or some such, the alternative to medicine isn't to stick a few pins in you whilst you wash down your sugar pill with a nice cup of herbal tea, the alternative is death.
There is an argument that sham placebo treatments can be efficacious, as anecdotally evidenced by its proponents whenever we discuss these things. But they are at best "Complimentary Treatments." The sooner we get away from the idea that aligning your chi is in any way a practical "alternative" to real medicine, the sooner rafts of people will stop dying needlessly.
Why isn't "medicine" a protected term?
So can a placebo do something you don't expect?
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/nov/13/nocebo-pain-wellcome-trust-prize
DezB - Member
So can a placebo do something you don't expect?
[url= http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/my-placebo-programme-on-bbc-radio-4/#more-761 ]Ben Goldacre, Bad Science, placebo effect[/url]
I think we can all agree that if you start pushing unevidenced alternatives to proven therapies for serious conditions such as cancer and HIV, then you deserve to be fed to rats. A bit like people who posit the power of prayer in these situations.
However, there are some chronic conditions in which the evidence for 'conventional' medicine, isn't exactly convincing, or the side-effects are not great. At that point, the placebo effect, and the most effective way of delivering it, may come into play for some patients.
Chances are that homeopathy would fail even at this level, but it would be interesting to see if there is something in the rather self-selecting group that goes for alternative medicine which can teach us something about how to maximise the benefit of treatments in conventional settings.
[edit] clearly 'proper medicine' includes all the 'soft' stuff that goes on but in terms of homepoathy people seem to assume that the benefits they get from the soft stuff is actually being given by the sugar pills.
If people already know it's only a placebo, does it lose it's effect?
[i]If people already know it's only a placebo, does it lose it's effect? [/i]
I think you have to up the dose: "I can see you're someone that a 250Mg placebo is going to have no effect on, I think we'll give you the 500Mg one as that's more efficacious in these cases."
If people already know it's only a placebo, does it lose it's effect?
Remarkably, in some cases - no 😆
classic study as quoted in Badscience by Goldacre here:
http://www.leecrandallparkmd.net/researchpages/placebo1.html
I can see you're someone that a 250Mg placebo is going to have no effect on, I think we'll give you the 500Mg one as that's more efficacious in these cases.
Two placebo pills have been proven to be more effective than one! Colour makes a difference too!
Homeopathy works thanks to the simple fact that 95% of complaints and illnesses will eventually go away by themselves.
This is the reason why your GP is never in a hurry to refer you on to see a specialist.
Surely if any efficacy for homeopathy is demonstrated as being due to the placebo effect, then technically the efficacy arises from the power of the mind rather than the power of the homeopathic remedy.
I know many people that have benefited from it where conventional medicine offered nothing
What they've benefited from is someone showing an interest in them and spending time talking to them about their problems.
Nope...wrong, although one major benefit of homeopathy is the amount of time spent listening and understanding the patient, but the remedies do actually work too.
Any actual substance they ingested as a result of talking to a homeopath had no effect on their recovery.
Your view/opinion is based on what knowledge base? What experience do you have?
Talking to people and showing an interest is a good thing, but it's not medicine.
Who said it was?
Not necessarily yourself but I suspect most people who have replied to this thread have no real idea what homeopathy is or have any experience of what it can achieve.
[i]Your view/opinion is based on what knowledge base?[/i]
the fundamental principles of the physical sciences.
Your view/opinion is based on what knowledge base? What experience do you have?
Well there is the working knowledge of chemistry and physics that says that as you reduce the concentration of a substance its effects get less not more.
Not necessarily yourself but I suspect most people who have replied to this thread have no real idea what homeopathy is or have any experience of what it can achieve.
Well let's start with the basic concept of "like cures like" which is utter hogwash and has no basis whatsoever. To paraphrase Niels Bohr (I think) "Homeopathy, not even wrong"
Again...no actual experience
& logic flies out of the window... Goodbye sanity
Again...no actual experience
Well I've eaten plenty of suger in the past...
[i]Again...no actual experience [/i]
I've not been to the North Pole but I understand why it's likely to be effing cold there and it's not because someone has left their fridge door open in Harrogate.
Well let's start with the basic concept of "like cures like" which is utter hogwash and has no basis whatsoever. To paraphrase Niels Bohr (I think) "Homeopathy, not even wrong"
or paraphrase mitchell and webb. 2Get a bit of blue ford mondeo, dilute it, shake it, dilute it agian, shake it, if that doesn't cure him nothing will"
Again...no actual experience
Anecdotes are not science.
What experience do you think is required to comment on the physics and evidence base for homeopathy?
homeopathy is the dilution of a "remedy" in distilled water the treatment of that water so that it forms a memory of the "remedy" the further dilution of the homeopathic solution which is then administered to the patient after a careful consultation to establish the appropriate "remedy"..
no?
Sadly, yes. Except the dilution means there's non of the actual original remedy left, just the memory which may or may not be bullshit (but it actually obviously is bullshit)
martinhutch - MemberWhat experience do you think is required to comment on the physics and evidence base for homeopathy?
As it turns out you need to take a tiny amount of scientific knowledge and expertise, then dilute it 100000 times, then turn it upside down, then dilute it again...
Thanks atlas I was actually wanting to see if carlthomas agreed with that proposition.
Oh look, homeopathy works
Conclusion: The objective results reinforce earlier evidence that homoeopathic dilutions differ from placebo.
http://www.bmj.com/content/321/7259/471
Come at me brah
6079s have you read the study very small sample limited period the participants allowed to use real medicine as well and it categorically does not say homeopathy works .
The attempts by homeopaths to appropriate the placebo effect are laughable: for one thing, if it's only a placebo effect, then the substances involved are meaningless. If the talking and discussion are the key to healing then that shows a pent up demand for therapy that is accessible and affordable. But most of all it ignores the fact that the placebo effect is part of modern/real medicine that can be consistently observed and applied with legitimate scientific methods.
If people already know it's only a placebo, does it lose it's effect?
I would have thought that everyone on here would have seen that recent Panorama on Placebos and the bit where they gave a placebo to a former nurse to treat her symptoms (for some debilitating issue) and it gave her relief for the 3 weeks she was on it.
They told her it was a placebo and, being a nurse, she knew what that meant and was very surprised when her symptoms disappeared.
When the placebo ran out her symptoms returned (chronic pain) and she was desperately trying to buy some more placebo, but obviously nowhere sold it.
Homeopathy is no less effective than prayer.
Why is it acceptable to laugh at one, but not the other ?
[i]Homeopathy is no less effective than prayer.
Why is it acceptable to laugh at one, but not the other ?
[/i]
Which one isn't it acceptable to laugh at?
It's acceptable to laugh at both of them as far as I'm aware. I find the idea that you chat to your mate in the sky and he fixes things idiotic but I know people who get some solace from it (including a lapsed jewish colleague who "made a deal with God" about going back to the faith if his mum got better, she did so he did) and I'm happy they do but it doesn't make it any less risible.
It's basically the same as homeopathy. Take a tablet of optimism and hope for the best, except if you die after putting your faith in God, it's down to His plan, not quack medicine of course so who knows which is better or worse.
Homeopathy is no less effective than prayer.
Why is it acceptable to laugh at one, but not the other ?
It is perfectly acceptable to critically examine either.
If you are an opinionated bigoted bastard like me, you would laugh at both.
The attempts by homeopaths to appropriate the placebo effect are laughable: for one thing, if it's only a placebo effect, then the substances involved are meaningless. If the talking and discussion are the key to healing then that shows a pent up demand for therapy that is accessible and affordable. But most of all it ignores the fact that the placebo effect is part of modern/real medicine that can be consistently observed and applied with legitimate scientific methods.
The situation isn't entirely laughable. If any patient achieves better results after a visit to an alternative practitioner compared with their GP and conventional medicine, then we need to understand better which element of their experience is responsible for this powerful placebo, given that, as most of us with a sprinkling of scientific knowledge have pointed out, in the case of homeopathy, it's highly unlikely to be an active medication. So is it the setting, the talking therapy, the act of seeking out alternative treatment? Perhaps it mainly applies to a very small subset of patients?
I don't think we can say that we understand enough about placebo to apply it consistently in practice rather than just observe it.
Also the present NHS isn't geared up to delivering half-hour chats in pleasant settings - it isn't accessible or affordable in the current primary care system.