Why Homeopathy is getting more and more popular?

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

My feelings is that homeopathy works because when the substance is diluted there is left a gap in the "energy state" of the molecule which contains the same or similar vibrations as the illness's symptoms, and so instead of effecting the tissues etc. the vibrational state fills that gap left by the diluted remedy. That's if you jump outside the box it may explain this, although one would need to believe in spiritual planes etc.

Homeopathy works at the energy level and is much more faster. It needs a higher mind to understand homeopathy where as a materialistic mind can easily grasp conventional medicine because its healing system basically hovers around the body and the organs and its dissection, anatomy and physiology. It does not take the mind, the thoughts, the emotions, its consciousness, its sleeping, semiconscious, unconscious into consideration while treating the body. The body is all they see, the body is all they treat, and the body is all they cut into pieces ultimately and once nothing is left behind for surgery, look upto homeopathy to heal.

 

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

Even modern medicine accepts its limits and problems.

If conventional medicine (CM) has its own problems, Homeopathy is also not a panacea for every ill. Like other systems, our system has shortcomings too. Homeopathy is no where in the picture when surgery is the only option left before a patient. I am not against CM. What I believe is if a patient can be cured by a gentler system of medicine, why not? Why to subject him to CM which is harsh on human body?

 

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

With continued monotonous regularity Malik posted a number of unsubstantiated claims.

Where is the evidence?


The evidence count stands at 1. Observer, Malik continues to claim it is easy to find evidence for the efficacy of homoeopathy. That turns out to be false. Where are the hundreds of papers showing homoeopathy works? So far only 1 paper has been posted that hints at homoeopathy working.

you reconsider your habit of refusing to acknowledge legitimate citations and legitimate sources of scientific evidence.

The problem is you do not read any of the links posted already,instead of ranting about "Id like to see the evidence".

 

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

I agree with most of what you are saying here, apart from the belief in Homeopathy . I'm not opposed to such beliefs, but they are belief and not science.

You don't believe in Homeopathy. You don't consider homeopathy as science. It's your choice. You have every right to think so. it's perfectly ok. Have I forced you or anyone to believe in it?

Like wise each one of us is free to accept or reject it. Be rational.

 

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

Maybe a growing interest in Homeopathy signals a change in attitude, rather than having a scientific basis.

Science does require a double blind experiment to exclude introduced bias.

If the effect is not scientific, but the result of a relationship between the healer and the healed, then the double blind is of no use at all.
The practise may have real life benefits, but scientific analysis may be impossible.

According to a British Medical Journal Clinical Evidence review of 2,404 conventional treatments, only
15% were rated as beneficial,
22% as likely to be beneficial,
7% as trade off between benefits and harms,
5% as unlikely to be beneficial,
4% as likely to be ineffective or harmful
and
47% of unknown effectiveness.

In every clinical study the accepted criteria for effectiveness beyond chance is 1 in 100. This standard is below other scientific endeavour. To put this statistics in perspective (in a simple minded way - taking away all the statistical calculation of probability) if 100 people are treated and 2 are found to benefit while in the control group out of 100 only 1 benefit. Then the 1% improvement is then considered as an event beyond chance or placebo. Such studies can then be used to apply to FDA for approval even if 6 or 7 other studies indicated otherwise.

Such evidence of efficacy had failed to recognise that the drug failed to help the other 98 % of the people. In a number of statin drug trials the effectiveness was even less than 1%.

Such studies will also not reveal that the drug could actually cause harm to almost all of them, in one way or another.

If efficacy is measured in such minuscule, then how could anyone ever claim that conventional medicine has evidence of benefit when the evidence of lack of benefit is even greater. If we have to pay so much money for so little chance of a benefit we are better off buying lottery.

Refeence: http://clinicalevidence.bmj.com/ceweb/about/knowledge.jsp

Is this you called scientific analyis?

An if current standards of science can not do or not capable of scientific analysis, is this a fault of homeopathy or the current standards?

 

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

My feelings is that homeopathy works because when the substance is diluted there is left a gap in the "energy state" of the molecule which contains the same or similar vibrations as the illness's symptoms, and so instead of effecting the tissues etc. the vibrational state fills that gap left by the diluted remedy.

It is not the material aspect of the substance which provides the curative effect in Homeopathy, and that there are also probably particles of such sizes and as to be undetectable by even modern observational techniques, which in themselves again cross the line between material substance and energy.

Potentization involves strong vibrations being imparted to the medicinal liquid, whereby medicine releases energy into the diluent liquid and the diluent liquid then carries the energy which later on gets imparted to the patient

 

[stereologist]

you reconsider your habit of refusing to acknowledge legitimate citations and legitimate sources of scientific evidence.

The problem is you do not read any of the links posted already,instead of ranting about "Id like to see the evidence".

I am not refusing to acknowledge legitimate citations. That is why the count stands at 1, not 0. So far you posted posted citations that are either not randomized or clearly state themselves as being not statistically significant.

I cannot accept a paper as support homoeopathy if the paper says it does not support homoeopathy.

And I do read the papers. That is why I know that the citations you have posted do not, save 1, support homoeopathy.

Are you claiming that you have read these papers?

 

[stereologist]

Homeopathy works at the energy level and is much more faster. It needs a higher mind to understand homeopathy where as a materialistic mind can easily grasp conventional medicine because its healing system basically hovers around the body and the organs and its dissection, anatomy and physiology. It does not take the mind, the thoughts, the emotions, its consciousness, its sleeping, semiconscious, unconscious into consideration while treating the body. The body is all they see, the body is all they treat, and the body is all they cut into pieces ultimately and once nothing is left behind for surgery, look upto homeopathy to heal.

It is not the material aspect of the substance which provides the curative effect in Homeopathy, and that there are also probably particles of such sizes and as to be undetectable by even modern observational techniques, which in themselves again cross the line between material substance and energy.

Potentization involves strong vibrations being imparted to the medicinal liquid, whereby medicine releases energy into the diluent liquid and the diluent liquid then carries the energy which later on gets imparted to the patient

Normally I'd be saying this is a science forum do you have any evidence for these statements? Now I know better. These are cut and pastes and not what Malik has typed in. I can tell by the lack of typing mistakes in these comments.

Malik, if you copy and paste it is customary to provide a statement where the material came from.

 

[stereologist]

Is this you called scientific analyis?

No where does the text state anything about the types of treatments considered. It does not say this covers only conventional medicine. It does not say it excludes practices such as homoeopathy.

The material goes on to say:

To achieve this, we systematically search and appraise the world literature to provide rigorous systematic reviews of evidence on the benefits and harms of clinical interventions.

It does go onto state:

Quality criteria for randomised controlled trials

* Were the setting and study patients clearly described?
* Was assignment randomised and similarity between groups documented?
* Was allocation to study groups adequately concealed from patients and investigators, including blind assessment of outcome?
* Were all clinically relevant outcomes reported?
* Were > 80% of patients who entered the study accounted for at its conclusion?
* Were they analysed in the groups to which they were randomised (intention to treat)?
* Were both statistical and clinical significance considered?

So here they state the very reason that your citations have in most cases been dismissed. Your citations were not randomized or the papers reported not statistically significant.

 

[stereologist]

One of Malik's claims is that conventional medicine is bad and kills people and that homoeopathy is good and does no bad. I disagree and I have leveled a challenge specifically dealing with one disease that is somewhat prevalent in India where Malik claims to live and practice.

I have pointed out that leprosy can only be cured through conventional medicine and the current treatment was also developed by conventional doctors in India.

I also claim that unconventional medicines are dangerous because they delay patients getting proper and efficacious health care. So here I prevent evidence to support my claim that at least with 1 disease homoeopathy is damaging to patients.

Let's take a look at Malik's home country and see why homoeopathy and other medical traditions are dangerous when it comes to leprosy.

In leprosy review we see that there can be a considerable delay in obtaining effective treatment for leprosy.

Lepr Rev. 2005 Mar;76(1):35-47.
Factors contributing to delay in diagnosis and start of treatment of leprosy: analysis of help-seeking narratives in northern Bangladesh and in West Bengal, India.

Nicholls PG, Chhina N, Bro AK, Barkataki P, Kumar R, Withington SG, Smith WC.

The most important contributor to delay in the first action occurred when people simply monitored or ignored first symptoms, 80% in Nilphamari and 67% in Purulia. With delay longer than 12 months as outcome, logistic regression analyses identified age over 35 years, multiple visits to practitioners in traditional medicine and multiple visits to health service practitioners as predictive of delay. Attending a nearby clinic and exposure to health education materials were predictive of early presentation reduced delay.

In PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases we learn that traditional medicine is often used in India, but that the efficacy of the treatments is unknown.


PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2008 January; 2(1): e113.
Published online 2008 January 30. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000113.

PMCID: PMC2217676
Copyright Jacob, Franco-Paredes. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
The Stigmatization of Leprosy in India and Its Impact on Future Approaches to Elimination and Control
Jesse T. Jacob1* and Carlos Franco-Paredes1,2

Only limited efforts have been made to include the numerous nonallopathic (traditional) practitioners in India in leprosy control and elimination efforts, but their inclusion is important to its success [11]. Indians can seek public or private health care from allopathic (conventional Western) physicians, but often see private practitioners of homeopathy or the three major Indian systems of medicine (ISM) including Ayurveda, Siddha, and Unani. The practitioners of ISMs, who outnumber allopaths in India, continue to use compounded botanicals and agents such as chaulmoogra oil for primary or adjunctive therapy. If this therapy fails, patients are referred to government clinics where free multi-drug allopathic therapy is offered; use of traditional medicine has been shown to be a risk factor for delay in diagnosis [12]. The popularity of ISM can, as least in part, be attributed to two factors: the stigma carried by government-run vertical leprosy clinics and the preference for traditional medicine. Further investigation into the safety and efficacy of ISM therapies is needed, and the possibility of integrating aspects of ISM into the general health system should be evaluated. For example, chalmoogra oil may be effective as adjunctive therapy in wound healing [13]. The effectiveness of leprosy control in this integrated system should be periodically assessed not only in measures of leprosy rates, but of changes in knowledge, attitudes, and practices.

The use of traditional medicine is listed as important. Notice that it does not say efficacious. What is stated is that unconventional medicines lead to a delay in diagnosis.

Number [11] above is the following:
11. Al-Wakeel Y, Ryan TJ. Leprosy and the general health services of India: prospects for greater integration. 2005 Available: http://www.leprosyhistory.org/english/bulletindiscussion.htm. Accessed 15 March 2007.

Nowhere in this article does it support anything but MDT as an effective treatment for leprosy. What it does say is that other medical treatments need to refer people to qualified professionals that can treat leprosy.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Homeopathy works at the energy level... It needs a higher mind to understand...

I love crackpot verbiage. It's so easy to identify.

 

[stereologist]

I got a good laugh out of that many other of Malik's posts. Thanks for pointing out one of the funnier ones.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Nature doesn't act in an individual's favour.
Nature will quite happily kill you off with an illness, even if you are a child.
As Charles Darwin found with his treasured daughter, the loss of whom led to his loss of faith in Christianity.

With the diseases of old age, Hitlerish nature has little interest in keeping you alive to consume it's resources and not produce descendants, so resistance to cancer and heart disease is minimal.

If you have a major illness, don't rely on nature, rely on science.

 

[Stryder]

According to a British Medical Journal Clinical Evidence review of 2,404 conventional treatments, only
15% were rated as beneficial,
22% as likely to be beneficial,
7% as trade off between benefits and harms,
5% as unlikely to be beneficial,
4% as likely to be ineffective or harmful
and
47% of unknown effectiveness.

All those figures are different on the BMJ site.

For instance it's around 2500 conventional treatments

These figures are an attempt to represent actual clinical trials as opposed to anecdotal evidence. There is always development in treatment methods, that's why a family doctor is called a "GP" a General Practitioner. This is because they deal with "General" ailments, they aren't specialised and they have to constantly keep an eye on the current developments to keep in touch with treatment methods. that's why it's practitionary. Practice makes perfect as they say... and with ever moving goal posts, that's a lot of reason for practice.

There is a possibility that some doctors do lose touch with the more effective treatment methods as they develop, which in turn would output a poor rating since they would seemingly be using outdated treatments and methods.

Homeopathy is technically forever outdated. it doesn't try to measure, adjust or look for review. It's just complete quackery, to give it justification would be false.

 

[stereologist]

Thanks for looking that up Stryder. I had overlooked that issue. I think the lack of consistency between Malik's post and what you found is that Malik does not look up anything they post, rather it is a cut and paste of someone else's posting.

 

[Stryder]

Thanks for looking that up Stryder. I had overlooked that issue. I think the lack of consistency between Malik's post and what you found is that Malik does not look up anything they post, rather it is a cut and paste of someone else's posting.

By the looks of it, it's cut and paste from a very old cache (2007). Possibly is an old homeopathic friendly site post taken from years ago. Obviously it proves my point about homeopathy being forever outdated.

 

[january]

the body adapts to maintain homeostasis, in chronic disease, part of the problem is that the body has stopped adapting and apparently accepted the disease as the statis quo. the idea of homeopathy, by exaggerating the illness, is that the body will be prompted to adapt to it. When the homeopathic treatments stop, the body cancels out the original disease completely with its excessive adaptation

 

[stereologist]

the body adapts to maintain homeostasis, in chronic disease, part of the problem is that the body has stopped adapting and apparently accepted the disease as the statis quo. the idea of homeopathy, by exaggerating the illness, is that the body will be prompted to adapt to it. When the homeopathic treatments stop, the body cancels out the original disease completely with its excessive adaptation

Welcome to the forum january. Do you have any evidence to support these claims?

 

[kmguru]

the body adapts to maintain homeostasis, in chronic disease, part of the problem is that the body has stopped adapting and apparently accepted the disease as the statis quo. the idea of homeopathy, by exaggerating the illness, is that the body will be prompted to adapt to it. When the homeopathic treatments stop, the body cancels out the original disease completely with its excessive adaptation

The theory is good, but homeopathy medicine does not contain any active chemicals over potency 30 at all. How that helps in the "exaggerating illness"?

 

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

Dr. Manish Bhatia: let us suppose that water-ethanol aqueous solutions do have some ‘memory’ but then how do you explain the action of dry homeopathic pills and the medicines that are only triturated in sugar of milk? Clearly the same mechanism could not be working here – four different substances – water, ethanol, sugar of milk powder and cane sugar pills.

Dr. Lionel Migrom: What we do know about the ‘Memory of Water’ so far is that water and ethanol produce complex solutions and they do transmit information about the solutes through hydrogen bonds and lattice formation. But we also know that neither the hydrogen bonds nor the lattices are stable enough to store information indefinitely. The thermodynamic changes also do not last indefinitely. So what else could it be?

let us suppose that water-ethanol aqueous solutions do have some ‘memory’ but then how do you explain the action of dry homeopathic pills and the medicines that are only triturated in sugar of milk? Clearly the same mechanism could not be working here – four different substances – water, ethanol, sugar of milk powder and cane sugar pills

More details/Quoted from http://www.hpathy.com/interviews/Lionel-Milgrom.asp