The jury is out due to insufficient independent, scientific, objective, controlled research/clinical trials. Also standard double blind clinical trials are difficult to conduct given the nature of the treatment.nelly said:I wonder how Clubman you feel about acupuncture?
Suggestion perhaps. Magnets - how!!?!Gordanus said:There is a strong psychological componant to eczema which would be a reason why it responded to suggestion - and/or magnets.
I never said that but when it comes to homeopathic treatments per se I would agree.Betsy Og said:but all other viewpoints are not necessarily "for the birds".
This is a different kettle of fish. For a start drug treatments for psychological problems contain active ingredients which cause observable effects on the body chemistry (e.g. they stimulate or suppress the release or reuptake of specific neurotransmitters). The fact that the link between levels of certain neurotransmitters and certain psychological illnesses is not fully understood is another issue altogether. At the very least drug treatments for psychological illnesses do contain active ingredients and do have observable effects on the body. In the case of homeopathic preparations there are no active ingredients so, as Brendan points out, there can be no effects (good, bad or indifferent) attributable to the homeopathic preparations themselves. There may be placebo effects due to other factors, including simply the homeopathic practitioner spending time talking to and sympathising/empathising with the subject, but homeopathic preparations themselves do nothing and to charge people high prices for distilled water or inert sugar XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX based on the promise of them treating any ailment is a rip-off, pure and simple (like the preparations themselves).Take mental health for instance, some qualfied medics say drugs are not any part of the answer, its all to do with therapy/counselling and life skills, learning to deal with lifes traumas.
Not being an evangelist for either camp I'm inclined to think there is a middle ground in that the very ill need medication, but medicating everyone and leaving it at that is no solution either.
That's another problem with quack and/or complementary treatments - who is the final arbiter of what's official and what's not? At least if there was a reliable official definition of what's homeopathic and what's not then you could dismiss all of the former without a second thought. Regardless of how they are described/marketed, herbal treatments with active ingredients would not fit the classical definition of homeopathic remedies as far as I understand it ("law of similars" and "theory of infinitesimals" and all that rubbish). Are you sure that Arnica and Hypericum (St. John's Wort) are necessarily described or marketed as homeopathic remedies? Aren't they simply herbs which may be included in a variety of preparations some of which may be (mistakenly?) sold as homeopathic remedies?mo3art said:Actually Clubman, both of the elements I mentioned - Arnica & Hypericum are recognised as homeopathic treatments as well. I was simply pointing out that classic homeopathic "treatments" have been disproved as being effective BUT other homeopathic "treatments" can be effective.
Of course. But equally, unsubstantiated claims that homeopathic preparations are a useful or efficacious way to deal with health issues must be strongly challenged and rebutted by those of a more objective and skeptical viewpoint. I strongly believe that perpetuating such myths in the face of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary is detrimental to the common good.euroDilbert said:Let those who believe in homeopathy use these products, they can't cause any physical harm as there's nothing to them. As for the psychological impact, on balance it probably does more good than harm (false hope).
Yeah. People should be free to believe in quack remedies and all sorts of other rubbish if they so choose. However once they make public unsubstantiated claims about such quack remedies they need to be challenged by those with a more accurate, objective and skeptical view on such matters.euroDilbert said:I have tried to rebut such claims myself. However, I've found that people seem to believe in these products due to some form of 'faith', rather than any rational thought or analysis. Appealing to logic, scientific method, test and trial etc. go 'in one ear and out the other' in my experience. Many people neither understand nor care about such things - they just want something that 'works'. Exactly the same outlook seems to operate in other areas e.g. the recently discussed pyramid gifting schemes.
I would have said "may" rather than "will" but I basically agree with your points.I personally believe that a sympathetic hearing from a caring complementary therapist will have a positive therapeutic effect in itself
Janet said:For reference here's a definition from www.dictionary.com:
ho·me·op·a·thy
n. pl. ho·me·op·a·thies
A system for treating disease based on the administration of minute doses of a drug that in massive amounts produces symptoms in healthy individuals similar to those of the disease itself.
More to the point homeopathic treatments will not help at all, in any circumstances, since they contain no active ingredients and are ineffectual in all cases.Janet said:One other point to the OP - based on the definition above it would seem unlikely that a homeopath could help your son who does not seem to actually have any physical condition. Would be interested to hear how you/he get on though.
ClubMan said:The original poster was quick to point out the precise nature of their query when I originally posted. The query was specifically in relation to homeopathic remedies. .. what the thread is about.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?