Large study concludes Homeopathy does not effectively treat any health condition

a reply to: AnonymousCitizen

My bad, I read that as "immunology", not "immunothereapy".

a reply to: LogJammer

If you want to set your own parameters........

You should compare to not using anything if you want to see if it has any effectiveness. In my experience it is very effective for treating certain type of wounds and skin conditions.

What's wrong with having a choice of picking a more natural remedy that does in fact work very well instead of,

Nuremberg code item 6 covers informed consent. Profit machines want you ignorant and compliant.

Compare using synthetic compounds and their side effects with organic compounds and their side effects. Doing nothing is also valid according to the precautionary principle

Asserting caution and your human rights isn't narcissistic, as the Pharma shills will tell you.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't have to do what gethyped asked. The op asked for one study I gave one on the first page

How are Homeopathic Remedies Made?

First, we’ll use the example of remedies made from plant sources. The first step is to create what is called a mother tincture out of gathered crude material from a specific plant. A mother tincture made from a specific plant source is processed by macerating the plant, or a particular part of a plant then letting it soak in an alcohol water solution for quite some time.

I don't use homeopathy at all but it seems to me that for them to be 100% innefective is also 100% impossible. Let's take for example something simple, Ginseng. We know that ginseng has benefits, now, if someone would make a tincture out of it, how could it ever be 100% innefective?

It just doesn't make sense to me.

Sure most homeopathic products are surely snake oil but it's just impossible that NONE work at all. It would be like saying that vitamins have no proprieties whatsoever.

I think the buzz word here is "effectively" which could mean just about anything.
I feel that chemotherapy is not an "effective" way to treat cancer since it wrecks the whole body in the process, yet it does treat it.

originally posted by: superman2012

If homeopathy had one study that proved it was as effective as traditional medicine, that would be enough.

I gave one on the first page. Case closed

a reply to: gmoneystunt

No you didn't. That study has nothing to do with homeopathy. Did you even read it??

originally posted by: gmoneystunt
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't have to do what gethyped asked.

Translation: "I made the claim up".

The op asked for one study I gave one on the first page

No you didn't. Thank you for playing.

originally posted by: jude11
Actually, the only proof I would state (Well Documented) is Big Pharma in league with politicians, lobbyists, corps. etc that have consistently lied, manipulated studies and new drugs that have proven to be harmful to the point of harming and/or killing us with no repercussions or fines that don't take away profit but comes down to a cost of doing business.

So, zero evidence to support claims that homeopathy is being conspiratorially suppressed by big pharma, just your own personal opinion. That's cool, just confirming what I already thought was your position.

We never learn, do we? The scientific discoveries rejected today, become the standard against which all other discoveries are measured tomorrow.

Louis Pasteur - Germs - Rejected!
Barry Marshall - Bacteria and stomach ulcers - Rejected!
Ignaz Semmelweis - "Father of antiseptic procedures" - Rejected!
Lynn Margulis - Horizontal Gene Transfer - Rejected!
Daniel Shechtman - Quasi-crystals - Rejected!
The list is near endless. A minimal amount of research will turn up dozens of examples of the mainstream of science and medical science calling people quacks, cranks, snake oil salesmen, and madmen, only to have those discoveries later become the standard.

I suspect that Homeopathy probably has some value that will be discovered down the road. It may not be the value that is tauted today by some, but there is probably a useful gem in there yet to be discovered.

I think some people are getting "homeopathy" confused with "naturopathy". If you make a tincture of ginseng, or thyme, or whatever herb, yes, that might be effective in treating some ailments, and that is naturopathy; if you make the same tincture, and then dilute it with water over and over again, believing that the water has a memory of the original tinctures benefits, that is homeopathy, and it really makes no sense, as water has no abilities to "memorize" properties of anything that might be soaked in it.

originally posted by: gmoneystunt

originally posted by: superman2012

If homeopathy had one study that proved it was as effective as traditional medicine, that would be enough.

I gave one on the first page. Case closed

It possesses "some" properties is not even close to being as effective as traditional medicine. I would rather penicillin then clove oil, or thyme extracts.

Homeopathy and Intentional Chocolate work the same way: intention and unconscious psychic processes - mind-over-matter.

If a homeopath doesn't infuse each and every product with intention and psi, the quality will be inconsistent.

But this is a two-way street. If a researcher doesn't infuse each and every study with the intention to be objective, the results will be tainted by their unconscious psychic processes acting in the service of the ego.

👣

a reply to: superman2012

the op asked for one study. I gave one. Can you prove its not as effective as traditional medicine.

originally posted by: gmoneystunt
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't have to do what gethyped asked. The op asked for one study I gave one on the first page

Naturally, you don't have to do anything, but that doesn't prevent you from looking foolish when you make foolish claims and people call you on them.

a reply to: GetHyped

you got a bad attitude.

caffeine is, even today, prescribed by homeopaths (under the name 'coffea') as a treatment for insomnia.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Then why dont you spend your time telling me who funded those 300 studies? If you dont do it you will look foolish. How do you like it?

Next up:

Medicinal cannabis actually doesnt work because the labcoats say so



You can believe allllll the studies you want, but bias has most people involved convinced before they even prove anything. That, and funding.

Homeopathy works. How do I know? I need meds which I replaced with other stuff, and I'm fine now.

If these scientists want to actually spend their time useful, why not focus on WHY instead of proving it SHOULDN'T? It still works, my body couldn't care less about a damn study that tries to prove it wrong

a reply to: gmoneystunt
Lol, you made the wild claim so it's up to you...that's how it usually works in debate, unless debate is that the levels of a junior school playground.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: StoutBroux
You do actually understand how 'small' these doses are in homeopathy yeah?
Active ingredients in medical drugs are vastly higher, so I still don't see your claim standing up.

It depends on the herb. Some treatments use large amounts, some not so much. Also, the report covers a relatively small timeframe, and is a study of other studies (most likely sponsored by big pharma:

NHMRC did not consider any of these types of evidence:
• laboratory studies;
• studies in animals;
• studies in humans without a specific health condition, including:
–– studies investigating whether or not homeopathy is effective for preventing health conditions;
–– evidence about homeopathic ‘vaccines’; and
–– whether homeopathy is good for general health and wellbeing.
The focus of the assessment of the evidence was on the effectiveness of homeopathic medicines,
not their safety.......

The researchers searched databases of health publications to find systematic reviews published in English between 1 January 1997 and 3 January 2013. For each health condition, the research group collated the findings of the systematic reviews and assessed the quality and reliability of the evidence. The findings are described in detail in the Overview Report.[2]

www.nhmrc.gov.au...

And, it doesn't account for effective treatments used in the last 3-9,000 years, and also confuses homeopathy with naturopathy.

originally posted by: Atsbhct
I think some people are getting "homeopathy" confused with "naturopathy". If you make a tincture of ginseng, or thyme, or whatever herb, yes, that might be effective in treating some ailments, and that is naturopathy; if you make the same tincture, and then dilute it with water over and over again, believing that the water has a memory of the original tinctures benefits, that is homeopathy, and it really makes no sense, as water has no abilities to "memorize" properties of anything that might be soaked in it.

Actually, a lot of anti-homeopathy folk think that naturopathy doesn't work either. Ridiculous of course, but there's plenty of people who laugh at the idea just as well.