Well homœpathy is a great business. Selling something to naïve people that doesn't work better than a placebo (and have same side effects - none, except that some people abandon normal and effective therapy).
Patients can be desperate enough to believe anything - even the shamans. Compared to that homœpathy seems quite reasonable and scientific. If one count in very good advertising and opinions of some experts that it's very helpful and natural, one sees homœpathy as perfect treatment. But have a look even at the Wikipedia entry (top note: "The neutrality of this article is disputed.") and see the fundamental concepts of homœpathy. For me these are just strange wicked theories that does not have much in common with science, but instead have something related to faith. Some phrases from the news:
* Homœpathic preparations may not contain a single molecule of the original herb or mineral.
* "Good large studies of homœpathy do not show a difference between the placebo and the homœpathic remedy, whereas in the case of conventional medicines you still see an effect," said Professor Egger. He added that the apparent beneficial effects are directly linked with the patients' belief that he/she would be cured. The fact that the doctor spends a lot of time with the patient was also a factor in the whole scenario, "It has nothing to do with what is in the little white pill."
* ...homœpathy has a fervent vocal lobby of supporters, and health insurance schemes in Europe are under increasing pressure to include it in their coverage.
Maybe I should go into homœopathy business? Start advertising by spam emails... There are millions of Euro just waiting to be picked up...
Well, I am an American, I am not naive, I research things over and over again before doing anything (it's in my nature)....and I use homeopathy with myself and my son. (My husband doesn't believe in it, so I don't force the issue). It works for us most of the time. The trick with homeopathy is that it HAS to be the right remedy for that individual. You can go through a couple of remedies before finding the right one. We consult with a homeopath, and I have a stash of homeopathic remedies at home. They truly work wonders (again, if the remedy fits). In homeopathy, there are hundreds and hundreds of remedies, and the factors determining what remedies are right for a particular situation are many. It's not just what symptoms you have - it's the personality of the individual involved, their likes and dislikes....
Also, homeopathy has been used in certain cultures for a couple centuries now with great success (i.e. India). If it was such a quack practice, it would have faded. Again, you have to KNOW what you are doing, or consult with a homeopath. The one we consult went to the British Institute of Homeopathy and graduated from there....so he is not a quack.
It would not have necessarily faded if it was a quack practice. People still go to Lourdes in their thousands every year to take the Holy waters to get healed yet there is no evidence that there is any physiological benefit in doing so.
(I appreciate that for some people, hope can work better than any physical placebo).
I do not think comparing any religious practice to homeopathy is a good comparison. Doing things in the name/belief of religion is its own thing altogether. People who believe in religion to that extent (washing themselves in Holy Water) tend to believe in every aspect of it, including being cured. Homeopathy isn't based on any religious belief. Your comparison is faulty.
His point is correct, though. Often, if people believe the treatment they are using will work, their positive outlook will help with the recovery. If you believe your homeopathy / conventional medication / deity / loony old lady round the corner will heal you and you actually get better - it works!
Who cares what treatment people go by - if it works for you, give it a go!
I like my homeopathy too albeit in small doses. I wouldn't speak of "great successes" in India however. Have you been to the region? A lot of the heartbreakingly mangled bodies you see are a result of not being vaccinated against polio.
But the principle is the same - common belief without evidence. I put religion, homœpathy and other superstition in one basket.
Theoretically I don't really care if people waste their effort and money on pink elephants, but recently I feel that I should actively fight against superstition, as ignorance is a silent acceptance. I don't want religious fanatics stepping into my life in the same way as I don't want to check the doctor opinion on homœpathy (and religion - yes - unfortunately it matters) before making an appointment.
I don't "blindly believe" in homeopathy. And I only use it for common ailments (colds, coughs, and chamomilla when my son was teething)....I wouldn't use it for things like polio like someone suggested.
And yes, to the person that asked, I have been to India. I am of Indian origin.
Wow, I am just amazed at the hatred of homeopathy on here. It has helped so many people all over the world, including my own homeopathy, who avoided a high-risk surgery by seeking out his own homeopathy years ago (that's who he decided to become a homeopath himself).
Homeopathy is an individual thing. It works for some, and not others, and I don't think it's a "blind belief" thing. I did not know much about it before I started using it. And it was hit or miss. Now that I know more, I have more "hits" as I know what remedies to use and why. I really do think that if you KNOW what you are doing, it works because it is so specific to the person.
I think that this is a good point. I've had discussions with some people who have studied medical phenomenon. Where cases of cancer have been completely eradicated by nothing more than faith. It's obvious that some people are affected even by a placebo, and for some their faith in a religion is enough. I hope that more effort is being put in to the effect of faith on the human body. If they ever work out how some people seem to be able to self-cure then imagine the impact. But simply trusting in a bottle of water isn't something that I can do. No matter how many "trained" quacks tell me otherwise.
I have just spent some time reading this thread and I too am shocked at the attitude towards Homeopathy
Homeopathy has its place, and so does conventional medicine, they are both considered medicine. Why else would you have to do a five year full time Masters Degree on the subject?? A ton of doctors study homeopathy as a post grad.
Look, I am not saying that it is the be all and end all of new age medicine, but it has been around for centuries and if it didnt work it would have died away already.
My best friends son has been in and out of hospital for the last two years with everything chest related and pneumonia far too many times, his mom eventualy (at a loss for ideas on how to keep the fluid of this kids chest) tried a homeopathic remedy, IT HELPED!! And dont talk about it being a placebo, he is only 2 and doesnt know the difference between. It is by no means a cure and although he still gets the odd relaps (thats were conventional medicine - CM comes in) he is genearly a much happier and healthier little boy.
And I know use this same remedy on my 10 month old daughter to help with the chesty side effects of teething... it does not stop the symptoms like CM but it sure does help her enough that I dont have to rush her off to the doctor with bronchitis every few months!
Oh, and for the record, the ignorant people are those who are totally one sided and can not be open minded enough to see possible benefits.
Why? For money. Similarly as some other graduate courses. It potentially gives high income without any responsibility - just prescribing homœpathic medicines in doses which would hardly have any effect (positive or side) to naïve people craving to be healed (and optionally stating that they should not abandon normal treatment). People when sick get desperate and are an easy prey for alternative medicine. Theoretically I should not care - as long as they will be spending their own money. But it might turn out that they'd had abandoned normal medicine and their state deteriorated and that they would require expensive classical treatment (financed usually by some social system - so wasting the money because of their naïvety).
It wouldn't have died. Look at traditions/religions/beliefs. One example has been given in this thread. Look at India, at people bathing in the holy river. Look at people following strange religious practices. Bad habits will not necessarily be wiped out with technological progress. Believing in pseudo-science is much easier than comprehending science. And all the media don't help the science... Good relateed reading: Carl Sagan: The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.
I won't be judging homœpathy just by opinion of few people. There are no conclusive documents proving it's usefulness (beyond the placebo effect). But easy profit and huge money involved make me doubt whether the issues will be resolved quickly.
Looks a bit like a classic argument of the ID/creationist people, who say that we should be open minded and allow alternative, bizarre theories without evidence.
Wow!! 5AVeci.... have you ever been told that you are cynical? (not that it is a bad thing, to each his/her own ).
Without getting far to caught up in this debate (Tempting) as it is loosing focus, I would just like to point out that you are still are not separating religious beliefs and homeopathy:
Homeopathy: A system of therapy based on the concept that disease can be treated with drugs (in minute doses) thought capable of producing the same symptoms in healthy people as the disease itself.
Homeopathy was invented by the German physician Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843) in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. It was both refined and popularized by the American physician James Tyler Kent. Homeopathy is based on the theory that each naturally occurring element, plant, and mineral compound will, when ingested or applied, result in certain symptoms. Hahnemann believed that, by diluting these substances in a standardized manner, one could reach the true essence of that substance . Hahnemann described this process of dilution as "potentizing" (German: "potenziert") the substance. These dilute amounts could then be used to treat the very symptoms they were known to produce.
Now why is this so hard to understand?
BTW: I absolutely agree with you on the money making aspect of your argument, but that is as far as it goes
Hmm... I think hatred is a bit of a strong word to describe the posts on here. I can't see anything posted by anyone that looks like hatred, more "scepticism" or maybe a little more negatively - "cynacism". I am "sceptical" that my boss will hold a certain project together but I don't "hate" him.
When I was breast feeding I had a really bad cough for a couple of weeks but couldn't take my usual "conventional" medicine which happens to work a treat for me. The woman in the chemist opposite our place recommended a homeopathic treatment which many people swear by and wouldn't affect my breastfeeding. For me, the treatment didn't make the slightest dent in my cough so it went in the bin and I had to sit the cough out.
This made me a bit "sceptical" about homeopathic treatments but I don't hate them.
IMHO I don't think it is off topic at all. The fact is a lot of people in Switzerland do not allow their children to have immunisations and follow other treatment paths - including homeopathic treatments.
The example I gave earlier regarding my sister-in-law and the pressure she has to not use CM was one.
I did not mention that the opponent of CMs was heavily into homeopathic medicine.
When the sister in law was on the phone to my wife in obvious distress late one night - her infant had a high fever that was not responding to the friend's suggested homepathic remedy, my wife told her to give him child-safe ibroprufen instead. The fever started coming down in a matter of minutes.