First hand experience of homeopathic remedies ?
- Thread starter TarfHead
- Start date
In keeping with looking for 'first-hand experience' , then, I used a homeopathic treatment of some type of salt - can't remember what it was called exactly - to help my hay-fever. My symptoms did not improve in any way. So I reverted to more 'traditional' treatments such as aller-eze. These do help, although not 100% effective. An injection of Kenalog ( a slow-release steroid) was 100% effective and lasted 3 months. I don't use Kenalog anymore as i dislike using these for too long.
My sister-in-law had a severe pain in her back. The doctors treated her with pain-killers etc... but nothing to fix it. Surgery was suggested. She did not want to go this route, so over the next year she visited 3 chiropractors and 2 faith-healers. All failed to cure her. Eventually, she underwent surgery and this fixed it. Her back ahas been fine ever since - she was told her lower back was in a bad way because she delayed treatment.
These are my first hand experiences. These are just anecdotes, and people can read into them what they will for themselves.
My sister-in-law had a severe pain in her back. The doctors treated her with pain-killers etc... but nothing to fix it. Surgery was suggested. She did not want to go this route, so over the next year she visited 3 chiropractors and 2 faith-healers. All failed to cure her. Eventually, she underwent surgery and this fixed it. Her back ahas been fine ever since - she was told her lower back was in a bad way because she delayed treatment.
These are my first hand experiences. These are just anecdotes, and people can read into them what they will for themselves.
I haven't read the entire thread, but just thought I would share my experience here.
Homeopathic treatments are very popular in India, and my mom was on them for nearly 15 years for various reasons. She was allergic to a number of house/farm stuff and her skin reacts severely when she is exposed to dry hay dust etc etc. She gave up on normal medicines after a 18 months course, and tried homeopathy, which didn’t completely cure the situation, but kept it controlled so that she can go on with her normal life.
She was also taking more ‘sugar balls in clear water’ to control the growth of polyps in the sinus area – however, she had to go back to teh hospital later to remove it completely though. She had them for nearly ten years and it hadn’t turned malignant in all that period – which could be just her luck, or the sugar balls – you never know!
Just my two cents!
Homeopathic treatments are very popular in India, and my mom was on them for nearly 15 years for various reasons. She was allergic to a number of house/farm stuff and her skin reacts severely when she is exposed to dry hay dust etc etc. She gave up on normal medicines after a 18 months course, and tried homeopathy, which didn’t completely cure the situation, but kept it controlled so that she can go on with her normal life.
She was also taking more ‘sugar balls in clear water’ to control the growth of polyps in the sinus area – however, she had to go back to teh hospital later to remove it completely though. She had them for nearly ten years and it hadn’t turned malignant in all that period – which could be just her luck, or the sugar balls – you never know!
Just my two cents!
Clubman,
The idea that people might place some reliance on homeopathy seems to particularly bother you.
Modern science based western medicine is at generally a loss to explain the rises in autism, eczema, asthma and other chronic conditions. However, a recent Canadian study (I think - presumably it can be googled) has found a very strong link between prescription of antibiotics for children and subsequent development of asthma.
I have no objection whatever to good science; but I am slow to accept that our modern drug-based medical industry is in fact based wholly (or even mainly) on good science. Sometimes it feels like we are all part of one big experiment.
The first part of the Hippocratic Oath is, I think, "first do no harm". Who among us can say with authority that the harm of relying upon a therapy with no pharmacologically recognised "active ingredient" is greater than the harm of taking a strong drug whose long term side effects are imperfectly understood?
The idea that people might place some reliance on homeopathy seems to particularly bother you.
Modern science based western medicine is at generally a loss to explain the rises in autism, eczema, asthma and other chronic conditions. However, a recent Canadian study (I think - presumably it can be googled) has found a very strong link between prescription of antibiotics for children and subsequent development of asthma.
I have no objection whatever to good science; but I am slow to accept that our modern drug-based medical industry is in fact based wholly (or even mainly) on good science. Sometimes it feels like we are all part of one big experiment.
The first part of the Hippocratic Oath is, I think, "first do no harm". Who among us can say with authority that the harm of relying upon a therapy with no pharmacologically recognised "active ingredient" is greater than the harm of taking a strong drug whose long term side effects are imperfectly understood?
As I said before, if individuals want to believe in magic that's their prerogative. However it does indeed bother me that they might seek to convince others that there is substance to such magic. Attributing effects to preparations with no active ingredients is a prime example of such magic. This does not rule out the possibility something like placebo effects having an impact but even then attributing effects to inert preparations themselves is simply wrong.MOB said:
I never claimed that "science" had all the answers. But the fact that it might not have all the answers in certain contexts is no reason to resort to putting faith in quack therapies which have absolutely no scientific basis or established efficacy.
I strongly believe that propagating ignorance is harmful to the common good.
MOB said:
Instead of quoting this and other similar studies as reasons why we should all go over to alternative medicine, I think this should be held up as an example of how well modern medicine works. If it wasn't for these extremely well thought-out and designed studies by medics, we wouldn't have known that there might be such a link.
The biggest problem with alternative medicine is exactly that there is no follow-up and it is mostly based on anecdotal experience. A classic of the strenght of modern medicine is the recent troubles some of the major drug companies have been having over COX-2 inhibitors such as vioxx. These drugs are extremely effective painkillers and lacked the problems of older painkillers like stomach ulcers.
However, after careful follow-up research, it was found that they increase the rate of heart attack and stroke in patients who are susceptible to these conditions. Then, researchers discovered the biochemical basis for why this happens and thus our understanding of our bodies is improved. This kind of rigourous analysis is just not possible with most alternative treatments.
This is not to say that there is no place for alternative therapies. There is, as previously mentioned, the placebo effect. There are also additional benefits to taking certain herbs (as opposed to taking refined preparations of the active ingredient) that seem to be related to the way the different compnents act together. All these things can be measured and quantified so we can better understand them.
Homeopathy.... what can I say? Magic is the best word.
Hi Gearoidmm,
I think it is a bit of a stretch to hold out the Vioxx fiasco as evidence of the "strength" of modern medicine. It is certain that some people died as a result of Vioxx. Depending on who you ask, the number of fatalities could run to tens of thousands. I rather suspect that homeopathy has some way to go before matching this record.
Your comment that .....
"Then..... [i.e. after the problems emerged].... researchers discovered the biochemical basis for why this happens and thus our understanding of our bodies is improved."
wholly supports my feeling that we are all part of one big experiment. Also, I find the distinction between the "anecdotal" evidence of alternative medicine and the "scientific" basis of modern western medicine a touch artificial, and certainly not as sharp a distinction as some modern doctors would have us believe. Is it not a fact that the greatest drug of modern times (aspirin) was prescribed for many decades, but that the mechanisms by which it worked were only unravelled in the 1970s? By the same logic, should we not give some credence to so-called alternative therapies which have survived for thousands of years, even if we don't yet understand how (or, to be fair, if) they work?
Is it not reasonable to suppose that - on general evolutionary principles - those remedies which are effective (even if we don't understand them) are more likely to survive, while those which are ineffective are more likely to die out?
I accept, by the way, that this probably doesn't apply to homeopathy - my understanding being that it is not around all that terribly long - but the proposition that we should give first place to cures whose mechanism we think we understand is not by any means proven. It is at least arguable that we should give first place to cures which may well work (even if we don't know how) and which - through long usage - are demonstrated to be extremely unlikely to have negative side effects.
I am not a medic, and have only a little more than a layman's knowledge. Also, to be perfectly frank, I have never been to a homeopath and have no strong views on homeopathy. However, admittedly from a layman's limited perspective I don't see an objectively justifiable reason why ...."This kind of rigourous analysis is just not possible with most alternative treatments.".
To take a therapy with which I am more familiar, it is a fact that the Buteyko therapy is standard treatment for asthma in Russia. I am personally absolutely satisfied as to the efficacy of the therapy (notwithstanding that the plural of anecdote is not evidence, what I have observed myself was extremely convincing). I can conceive no convincing reason why it is not possile to conduct a rigourous analysis of the Buteyko therapy. Yet, so far as I know, there has been very little done by way of full scale clinical trial, and consequently virtually nothing done by way of attempting to make it a standard therapy in the western\developed world.
I cannot believe that a patentable drug, which produced the same results as have been shown in the limited Buteyko trials so far, would take so long to get to market. And my cynicism is not at all helped by the fact that the "asthma nurse" to whom my G.P. referred my asthmatic child was in fact a paid employee of a drug company - a practice which is (so far as I know) quite normal in Ireland.
In short, while I do not have the facts, figures or experience (or for that matter the inclination) to defend or promote homeopathy, I am rather inclined to keep the greater part of my scepticism for our modern drug-based medical practices, where I find far more cause to worry.
I think it is a bit of a stretch to hold out the Vioxx fiasco as evidence of the "strength" of modern medicine. It is certain that some people died as a result of Vioxx. Depending on who you ask, the number of fatalities could run to tens of thousands. I rather suspect that homeopathy has some way to go before matching this record.
Your comment that .....
"Then..... [i.e. after the problems emerged].... researchers discovered the biochemical basis for why this happens and thus our understanding of our bodies is improved."
wholly supports my feeling that we are all part of one big experiment. Also, I find the distinction between the "anecdotal" evidence of alternative medicine and the "scientific" basis of modern western medicine a touch artificial, and certainly not as sharp a distinction as some modern doctors would have us believe. Is it not a fact that the greatest drug of modern times (aspirin) was prescribed for many decades, but that the mechanisms by which it worked were only unravelled in the 1970s? By the same logic, should we not give some credence to so-called alternative therapies which have survived for thousands of years, even if we don't yet understand how (or, to be fair, if) they work?
Is it not reasonable to suppose that - on general evolutionary principles - those remedies which are effective (even if we don't understand them) are more likely to survive, while those which are ineffective are more likely to die out?
I accept, by the way, that this probably doesn't apply to homeopathy - my understanding being that it is not around all that terribly long - but the proposition that we should give first place to cures whose mechanism we think we understand is not by any means proven. It is at least arguable that we should give first place to cures which may well work (even if we don't know how) and which - through long usage - are demonstrated to be extremely unlikely to have negative side effects.
I am not a medic, and have only a little more than a layman's knowledge. Also, to be perfectly frank, I have never been to a homeopath and have no strong views on homeopathy. However, admittedly from a layman's limited perspective I don't see an objectively justifiable reason why ...."This kind of rigourous analysis is just not possible with most alternative treatments.".
To take a therapy with which I am more familiar, it is a fact that the Buteyko therapy is standard treatment for asthma in Russia. I am personally absolutely satisfied as to the efficacy of the therapy (notwithstanding that the plural of anecdote is not evidence, what I have observed myself was extremely convincing). I can conceive no convincing reason why it is not possile to conduct a rigourous analysis of the Buteyko therapy. Yet, so far as I know, there has been very little done by way of full scale clinical trial, and consequently virtually nothing done by way of attempting to make it a standard therapy in the western\developed world.
I cannot believe that a patentable drug, which produced the same results as have been shown in the limited Buteyko trials so far, would take so long to get to market. And my cynicism is not at all helped by the fact that the "asthma nurse" to whom my G.P. referred my asthmatic child was in fact a paid employee of a drug company - a practice which is (so far as I know) quite normal in Ireland.
In short, while I do not have the facts, figures or experience (or for that matter the inclination) to defend or promote homeopathy, I am rather inclined to keep the greater part of my scepticism for our modern drug-based medical practices, where I find far more cause to worry.
Of course we are part of an experiment. The first herbalists who gave willow bark to people to bring down fevers and thus inadvertently discovered aspirin were experimenting. It's certainly true that drugs are prescribed sometimes without knowing their exact mechanism of action but the point is that no drugs can be prescribed without randomised clinical trials demonstrating that they are both safe and effective.
There are clinical trials out there looking at some alternative therapies and it would be wrong to dismiss all alternative treatments as rubbish offhand. That said, given all the advances and all the people alive today because of the (experimental) new treatments developed over the last 20 years it's hard to be too sceptical of modern treatments.
By the way, a number of randomised trials have been performed using the Buteyko techniques. Most recently an English study published in the journal Thorax and another study from 1998 published in the Australian Medical Journal. Both reported that patients experienced improved symptoms and reduced use of inhalers without any improvement in lung function or bronchial responsiveness.
[broken link removed]
[broken link removed]
Doctors will try anything to improve the quality of life of their patients - they're not all in it for the money
There are clinical trials out there looking at some alternative therapies and it would be wrong to dismiss all alternative treatments as rubbish offhand. That said, given all the advances and all the people alive today because of the (experimental) new treatments developed over the last 20 years it's hard to be too sceptical of modern treatments.
By the way, a number of randomised trials have been performed using the Buteyko techniques. Most recently an English study published in the journal Thorax and another study from 1998 published in the Australian Medical Journal. Both reported that patients experienced improved symptoms and reduced use of inhalers without any improvement in lung function or bronchial responsiveness.
[broken link removed]
[broken link removed]
Doctors will try anything to improve the quality of life of their patients - they're not all in it for the money
Apart from having a problem with the propagation of myths such those that claim that inert homeopathic preparations can have some remedial (and no adverse effects) on (usually any and all) ailments I also object to "practitioners" in this field purporting that this is the case and making money off the gullibility and ignorance of others who are often in situations that make them susceptible to exploitation. Unlike a lot of what people moan about here this is a genuine rip off in my opinion and based on the facts about homeopathy. Ignorance is not bliss in my opinion and all the warm fuzzy feelings that people might have about rubbish like this based on undependable anecdotal evidence certainly holds no sway with me nor should it with anybody of a genuinely skeptical, inquisitive and objective nature.
But don't you just love science? There was a sstudy done in Barcelona a few years ago when doctors were puzzled about the intermittant outbreaks of asthma attacks. They didn't seem to be related to any weather or traffic any other occurance.........untill they realised that it coincided with the unloading of grain freighters. The chute which transferred the grain from the ship to the shore had an opening at the top, where the breeze would catch microscopic bits of grain and disperse it all over the city.......and asthma would be triggered in those vulnerable.MOB said:
I thought I had emended my last post with a study to show that people are not the best observers of their own conditions. It was a study which showed that when a psychological therapy was altered to provide more in-session feedback, people reported that their relationships with others improved and all sorts of other benefits - even though objective tests showed that they had no symptomatic improvement whatsoever! (with magnets I'm afraid I was being sarky)
I was recently at a lecture given by a medical consultant who was talking about how one organises a clinical trial and how important it is that it is double-blinded (neither the patient nor the doctor knows whether the patient is getting the active drug or the placebo). He told me of cases of patients he had in medical trials who were absolutely convinced that they were in the active treatment arm of the trial and refused to believe that they had been receiving a placebo because their symptoms had improved so dramatically.
My girlfriend suffers from psoriasis which waxes and wanes depending on the time of year. She got some homeopathic remedies a number of years back which cost quite a lot and didn't do anything. That said, if the psoriasis had gone into remission at that time, however coincidentally, she would probably still be paying over money to the practitioner and telling everyone how great it is.
Anectdotal evidence is troublesome because we all know someone who tried something that 'really worked' for them - it just doesn't prove anything. My girlfriend's psoriasis recently improved, seemingly overnight and it was just after she bought new shoes. Should I recommend buying that brand of shoes for the treatment of psoriasis? (There might be money to be made).
My girlfriend suffers from psoriasis which waxes and wanes depending on the time of year. She got some homeopathic remedies a number of years back which cost quite a lot and didn't do anything. That said, if the psoriasis had gone into remission at that time, however coincidentally, she would probably still be paying over money to the practitioner and telling everyone how great it is.
Anectdotal evidence is troublesome because we all know someone who tried something that 'really worked' for them - it just doesn't prove anything. My girlfriend's psoriasis recently improved, seemingly overnight and it was just after she bought new shoes. Should I recommend buying that brand of shoes for the treatment of psoriasis? (There might be money to be made).
ClubMan said:I believe that's termed "retail therapy"!
And I'm pretty sure if you looked you'd find studies done which have proven the efficacy of it too!
With regard to homeopathy versus alternative medicine I'm now very curious as to what I actually got all those years ago. The doctor I was sent to was definitely called a homeopath and I can't imagine the German definition of a homeopath differs all that much from the English one. I'm wondering though if he was also perhaps a herbalist/some other kind of alternative practitioner. I was referred to him by my GP over there and everything was covered by my social insurance contributions (except for a DM3 prescription charge). If I have the time one of these days I might contact the health insurance crowd over there and ask them to send me full details of treatments I had while in Germany. Would probably be useful to have anyway.
FWIW - and I've no wish to stoke the flames of this debate. When I made my original post, the responses were different to what I had hoped for.
My son had, what we and his various teachers believe to be, excessive tantrums. His reactions to transitions have been disproportionate and a cause of anxiety and, to be honest, embarrassment. He will be 6 at the end of June. This is how it has been since he was a toddler.
We tried a number of approaches, none of which seemed to have the desired effect. Someone suggested homeopathy so we gave it a lash.
I accept the criticisms and antipathy articulated earlier in this thread. I remain sceptical of the 'theory' underpinning homeopathy. By coincidence, it is similarly dismissed in the book I am currently reading.
He has attended the homeopath twice and has been taking the 'remedy' every day for about 6 weeks. The change in his behaviour has been dramatic.
This has been observed by all who know him well and commented upon. He is still prone to the occasional outburst, but nothing on the scale or frequency of prior behaviour. He is much more reasonable when dealing with transitions.
The 'remedy' has, to all intents and purposes, nothing in it. He may as well be drinking tap water. But we had a problem, we visited a homeopath, and now the problem is either solved, or it's manifestations are in abeyance.
I consider the money handed over value at twice the price.
My son had, what we and his various teachers believe to be, excessive tantrums. His reactions to transitions have been disproportionate and a cause of anxiety and, to be honest, embarrassment. He will be 6 at the end of June. This is how it has been since he was a toddler.
We tried a number of approaches, none of which seemed to have the desired effect. Someone suggested homeopathy so we gave it a lash.
I accept the criticisms and antipathy articulated earlier in this thread. I remain sceptical of the 'theory' underpinning homeopathy. By coincidence, it is similarly dismissed in the book I am currently reading.
He has attended the homeopath twice and has been taking the 'remedy' every day for about 6 weeks. The change in his behaviour has been dramatic.
This has been observed by all who know him well and commented upon. He is still prone to the occasional outburst, but nothing on the scale or frequency of prior behaviour. He is much more reasonable when dealing with transitions.
The 'remedy' has, to all intents and purposes, nothing in it. He may as well be drinking tap water. But we had a problem, we visited a homeopath, and now the problem is either solved, or it's manifestations are in abeyance.
I consider the money handed over value at twice the price.