Sure, people make a lot of demands from homeopathy, but it just doesn't deliver.
Why Homeopathy is getting more and more popular?
- Thread starter Dr. Nancy Malik
- Start date
- Status
Sure, people make a lot of demands from homeopathy, but it just doesn't deliver.
Homeopathy has nothing to do with phrenology, iridiology and astrology.
Links & studies published in journals: results better than placebo (10th)
Two trials were conducted at the University of Vienna Hospital, one on patients with COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease...the #4 reason that people in the USA die...not a minor ailment).
"Influence of potassium dichromate on tracheal secretions in critically ill patients"
CHEST, March, 2005 by Michael Frass, Christoph Dielacher, Manfred Linkesch, Christian Endler, Ilse Muchitsch, Ernst Schuster, Alan Kaye.
The "potassium dichromate" was a homeopathic dose of it...the 30C potency (that means it was diluted 1:100 and diluted 30 times). The P-value was 0.0001.
This similar group of researchers conducted another trial at this same hospital in a randomized double-blind placebo controlled trial on patients with severe sepsis. 50% of people with severe sepsis die of it, except when they are prescribed individually chosen homeopathic medicines, when only 25% died.
Published in Homeopathy. 2005 Oct;94(4):213-4.
(this journal is published by Elsevier, the same publisher as the Lancet, and is a peer-review journal).
Studies in support of Homeopathy have been published in the following journals
1. Oxford
2. Springerlink
3. InterScience by Wiley
4. Homeopathy, on Elseiver by science Direct
5. Central Council of Research in Homeopathy, Govt of India
6. Scientific World Journal
7. Lancet
8.Asian Journal of Homeopathy
9. Neuro psycho pharmacology
10. British Medical Journal
11.Cochrane
12. Chest
13. Complementary Therapy in Medicne
14. American Journal of Paedretics
15. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine
16. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal
Homeopathy is a pseudoscience.
Previously, Nancy, you were challenged to debate the topic on sciforums, but you pulled out, presumably because you have no evidence that homeopathy works.
Let me see... ah, yes, [thread=83220]here's[/thread] the Formal Debate thread where you wimped out.
Your listing of random journals doesn't impress me, by the way. I note you give no links to actual articles in those journals. I assume it is because they showed that homeopathy is worthless.
Previously, Nancy, you were challenged to debate the topic on sciforums, but you pulled out, presumably because you have no evidence that homeopathy works.
Let me see... ah, yes, [thread=83220]here's[/thread] the Formal Debate thread where you wimped out.
Your listing of random journals doesn't impress me, by the way. I note you give no links to actual articles in those journals. I assume it is because they showed that homeopathy is worthless.
You name any of the 16 journals i mentioned. I will show the research showing homeopathy in good light in that journal.
The second article posted by Malik is not an article, it is an editorial. It is listed as a "Guest Editorial", which means it has no abstract. Hmmmm.
After all these failures on Malik's part of posting bogus articles it looks like we might have an acceptable article in the Chest article. This is what we would expect: a few articles that support homeopathy due to the 5% of false positives.
An interesting note on the Chest article is that the automated citation finder on the page did not report any citations for the article.
Now if we go to clinical trials:http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT00425633
we see that there is a trial in progress to test this claim.
From http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/07/homeopathy_in_thecringeicu_1.php we see ana analysis of this paper. A few select pieces of the analysis.
An interesting note on the Chest article is that the automated citation finder on the page did not report any citations for the article.
Now if we go to clinical trials:http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT00425633
we see that there is a trial in progress to test this claim.
From http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/07/homeopathy_in_thecringeicu_1.php we see ana analysis of this paper. A few select pieces of the analysis.
What accupuncture has to with Homeopathy?
It's another form of unconventional medicine with no evidence of efficacy.
So you want to talk about accupuncture rather than homeopathy
No. I'd rather talk about your inability to post evidence supporting homeopathy. So far all of the so-called evidence you have posted is lacking. Almost every article I can find suggests that homeopathy is nothing more than placebo. So far I can confirm one study showing that homeopathy might work. That paper is being reworked in a larger study. The results are not available. The larger study should tell us if the original work was a false positive or not.
False
studies published in journals: results superioer than placebo (11th)
of St Johns Wort for depression Cochrane concludes:
"The available evidence suggests that the hypericum extracts tested in the included trials a) are superior to placebo in patients with major depression; b) are similarly effective as standard antidepressants; c) and have fewer side effects than standard antidepressants."
Dr Nancy, you may have some "good intentions" about human health issues, but I must remind you that "the path to Hell is paved with good intentions".
You simplify the relation between human and nature as "why not use natural way; it is (must be) good for us". This assumption has nothing to do with our DNA based reality. You are trying to attack mainstream medical science on the basis of its mistakes and errors, and you can easily claim that "it kill us sometimes". No, nature kill us. That's what nature do. We just try to gain more and better time against what nature dictates. So you don't even know how nature works on us, you don't have microscopes to detect inner mechanisms of nature, you don't have calculations, knowledge of DNA, or any other real issues. You are trying to exploit the confusion of your fellow human beings. Your medicine can also be harmful for raising false hopes among people.
You come up with some success stories, articles, dictionaries, some respected organisation names such as BBC, Oxford press, etc. -which are public bodies and they have to deal with almost every aspects of current civilization, including pink elephants- , and you are seriously expecting that people would benefit from your medicine: Fair enough, I must accept the existence of some desperate people who have actual medical problems without actual solutions, or some others who can simply "give it a go". Yet this doesn't prove anything, since there are billions of people who believe in non-existent deities. Yours is nothing but a "believing" in something. That's why you are proudly claiming that your method cultivates "more placebo effect" than conventional medicine can produce (-whether your claim is based on actual statistics or not; that's not the case. The case is you are only "believing" in it-).
You can come up with some success stories from your worldview; you can easily discard the success stories, history, methods and the logic behind conventional medicine, while focusing on only its malfunctioned examples. However, it does not mean that you are doing any good for yourself, neither for anybody else. We are not hunter-gatherers anymore, we passed the age of tribal magicians, we don't deserve this, not now...
You simplify the relation between human and nature as "why not use natural way; it is (must be) good for us". This assumption has nothing to do with our DNA based reality. You are trying to attack mainstream medical science on the basis of its mistakes and errors, and you can easily claim that "it kill us sometimes". No, nature kill us. That's what nature do. We just try to gain more and better time against what nature dictates. So you don't even know how nature works on us, you don't have microscopes to detect inner mechanisms of nature, you don't have calculations, knowledge of DNA, or any other real issues. You are trying to exploit the confusion of your fellow human beings. Your medicine can also be harmful for raising false hopes among people.
You come up with some success stories, articles, dictionaries, some respected organisation names such as BBC, Oxford press, etc. -which are public bodies and they have to deal with almost every aspects of current civilization, including pink elephants- , and you are seriously expecting that people would benefit from your medicine: Fair enough, I must accept the existence of some desperate people who have actual medical problems without actual solutions, or some others who can simply "give it a go". Yet this doesn't prove anything, since there are billions of people who believe in non-existent deities. Yours is nothing but a "believing" in something. That's why you are proudly claiming that your method cultivates "more placebo effect" than conventional medicine can produce (-whether your claim is based on actual statistics or not; that's not the case. The case is you are only "believing" in it-).
You can come up with some success stories from your worldview; you can easily discard the success stories, history, methods and the logic behind conventional medicine, while focusing on only its malfunctioned examples. However, it does not mean that you are doing any good for yourself, neither for anybody else. We are not hunter-gatherers anymore, we passed the age of tribal magicians, we don't deserve this, not now...
Placebos or medicine: either way you think it works for us and millions.
Actually it is you who is turning homeopathy and conventional medicine as if there is a war between the parties. There is no war. We survive on our own ground and they on their own.
Forget about all facts and theories, rely on your personal experience for awhile, have you ever tried Homeopathic remedies before discrediting them.
The world is divided into the haves and have nots: those who have tried homeopathy and those who have not. Those who have tried it--the millions people in the world who use homeopathy--know that it works. They didn’t decide that based on years of research. The people who disparage homeopathy, most of them have no personal experience with it. There’s no excuse for that. Homeopathic remedies are readily available. It would require no commitment for them to put a remedy where their mouth is.
There is a proud tradition of scientists using their own bodies in research. Dr. Max von Pettenkofer drank a broth containing cholera and Dr. Jesse Lazear allowed mosquitoes infected with yellow fever to bite his arm.
Surely we can ask our critics to try a little sugar pill. It seems absurd to argue about a point that can so easily be resolved.
Actually it is you who is turning homeopathy and conventional medicine as if there is a war between the parties. There is no war. We survive on our own ground and they on their own.
Forget about all facts and theories, rely on your personal experience for awhile, have you ever tried Homeopathic remedies before discrediting them.
The world is divided into the haves and have nots: those who have tried homeopathy and those who have not. Those who have tried it--the millions people in the world who use homeopathy--know that it works. They didn’t decide that based on years of research. The people who disparage homeopathy, most of them have no personal experience with it. There’s no excuse for that. Homeopathic remedies are readily available. It would require no commitment for them to put a remedy where their mouth is.
There is a proud tradition of scientists using their own bodies in research. Dr. Max von Pettenkofer drank a broth containing cholera and Dr. Jesse Lazear allowed mosquitoes infected with yellow fever to bite his arm.
Surely we can ask our critics to try a little sugar pill. It seems absurd to argue about a point that can so easily be resolved.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Would they be the same people who know that astrology works, that UFOs exist, that the US government was behind 911, that evolution is false. The majority of people lack the skills (and in some cases the intellect) to make an informed judgement on such matters.Dr. Nancy Malik said:
Exactly. They decided it based upon anecdote, personal (statistically insignificant) experience and inbuilt prejudice. They chose the path of the witch doctor, not the tribal healer. They opted for a choice based on opinion, not science.Dr. Nancy Malik said:
Personal experience is irrelevant. It is disturbing to see someone wearing the honorific Doctor promoting the unreliability of personal experience over that of scientific studies.Dr. Nancy Malik said:
It seems even more absurd to argue about a point that has been resolved.Dr. Nancy Malik said:
I have repeatedly pointed out where you post a claim of superior and the article says "not statistically significant".
It is becoming quite clear that you have no read the articles or cannot read the articles.
Here in 11 you do not cite the journal. That is the second time you have done that. Your numbering is wrong. You are on 1 and searching for 2.
I found the article. This is how very, very wrong you are. You didn't even get the author correct. The author is not Cochrane.:shrug:
So you pulled this out of some other website that did not list the authors or also got the author wrong. Is that what happened? You have no idea what you are posting do you?
So you pulled this out of some other website that did not list the authors or also got the author wrong. Is that what happened? You have no idea what you are posting do you?
- Status