Large study concludes Homeopathy does not effectively treat any health condition

Would you be willing to share what treatment you're using. You don't have to say what it's for. Im just curious as to what things people are classifying as homeopathic.

a reply to: Strawberry88

a reply to: StoutBroux
You clearly do not understand the doses in homeopathy are, one part in one trillion or 1/1,000,000,000,000 after dilution in water. You originally claimed such small amounts are in regular medical drugs. That is incorrect.

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.

^^^ Everyone Read this!
Thank you for this.

a reply to: DjembeJedi

This is interesting, it seems that is already cristism on this same report by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC).

Taking into consideration how the CEO, backs anything that big pharma report as truth I will have to say that is some conflict of interest when the NHMRC makes their so call independent reports.

We all know that big pharma tentacles span globally and they no necessarily have to be linked directly but with so many tentacles and aliases we can see how they can hide easily.

Fatally Flawed review puts AUS Research Council's methods in doubt

www.foodnavigator-asia.com...

The criticism were raised after papers were acquired under the freedom of information act that shows that the research was flawed.

It is easy to do controlled research to get the results you want if the purpose of the results is only one specially if the subjects or information used is narrowed from over a thousand to less than one hundred.

They also are accused of using only English reports to base their findings and only a limit of years disregarding historical facts on natural medicine that actually has been longer around than big pharmaceutical manufactured drugs.

That is what they are been accused off after publishing their findings.

Let me remind you that Australia is in the bang wagon of theCodex Alimentarious that attacks any natural means for treatments.

The goal is to eliminated natural suppements so they do not pose a danger to big pharma killer drugs.

Interest information from back in 2005

Australia, New Zealand - Codex Alimentarius and Trans-Tasman Harmonization

Efforts to harmonize rules on supplements between Australia and New Zealand, by establishing a Trans-Tasman joint agency for the control of natural health products have been going on for some time. I previously reported on this here, here and here. (The Tasman Sea is a large body of water that separates New Zealand from the Australian continent.)

The situation "down under" really got hot when the Australian health products and medicines regulator (the Therapeutical Goods Administration) in June 2003 yanked over 1600 supplements off the market over a pretext and forced the producer, PAN Pharmaceuticals, into bankruptcy.

How this ties in with the international plans of Codex Alimentarius to "reign in" nutritional supplements is the subject of an excellent article, quite a piece of investigative journalism by Eve Hillary, a medical reform advocate and health writer, which you find in the second part of this post. In addition to discussing Codex, Eve treats us to an in-depth report on the aftermath of the PAN Pharma products recall and recent regulatory moves underway in Australia.

It seems that Australia might be symptomatic of what we can expect to happen the world over in the next few years, so seems a good idea to study up on this. If we accept what Eve Hillary says, that Codex really is "the sickness industry's last stand", we should also pay attention to a comment I recently received from a lady in the UK who is interested in natural health. Introducing a new angle to what seems to be a world wide Codex control agenda, she writes:

To understand what drives Codex and the Pharma agenda, you need to understand the future direction of health care ....
The Pharma industry as it stands is in a cul de sac - it needs to re-invent itself as a 'health' industry to survive. So they started to explore pharmaceutical genomics - as an output of the human genome project, and discovered instead nutritional genomics, which 50% of the time means that chronic diseases can be treated, prevented and cured by nutritional interventions. Proven. But these treatments under current laws cannot be patented, nor protected - so how can they gain ownership and make money from this, to replace pharmaceutical revenues? (Sepp's comment: here is an actual recent example of what nutrigenomics is coming up with - Vitamin E helps block Alzheimer's)

And this has given rise to the FSD (Food Supplements Directive), Codex, Health Claims Regulations - so that when the supplement sector is safely removed from the [public health area] or reduced to a few major players, they can trumpet the 'discovery' and own it and make money from it, buy out remaining firms and make the financial barriers to entry so large no one else can 'play' as they will be the only operators that can afford to be in the game.

www.newmediaexplorer.org...

So an agenda that started many years ago is now in full gear.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: StoutBroux
You clearly do not understand the doses in homeopathy are, one part in one trillion or 1/1,000,000,000,000 after dilution in water. You originally claimed such small amounts are in regular medical drugs. That is incorrect.

You clearly don't know what homeopathy includes. Taking one sites definition of dosage definition in homeopathy is just wrong.

Preliminary studies suggest that garlic consumption may reduce the risk of developing several types of cancer, especially cancers of the gastrointestinal tract. Most of the studies evaluated different types of garlic preparations and used them in varying amounts.
If garlic consumption does reduce the risk of developing cancer, the amount needed to lower risk remains unknown.
Although usual garlic consumption rarely causes problems, higher intakes can cause side effects, including gastrointestinal distress.
1.What is garlic?


Garlic is a vegetable (Allium sativum) that belongs to the Allium class of bulb-shaped plants, which also includes onions, chives, leeks, and scallions. Garlic is used for flavoring in cooking and is unique because of its high sulfur content. In addition to sulfur, garlic also contains arginine, oligosaccharides, flavonoids, and selenium, all of which may be beneficial to health (1).

The characteristic odor and flavor of garlic comes from sulfur compounds formed from allicin, the major precursor of garlic’s bioactive compounds, which are formed when garlic bulbs are chopped, crushed, or damaged (2). Bioactive compounds are defined as substances in foods or dietary supplements, other than those needed to meet basic nutritional needs, that are responsible for changes in health status.


2.What are the types of garlic preparations?


Garlic supplements can be classified into four groups: Garlic essential oil, garlic oil macerate, garlic powder, and garlic extract.


3.Do findings from population studies offer evidence that garlic may prevent cancer?


Several population studies show an association between increased intake of garlic and reduced risk of certain cancers, including cancers of the stomach, colon, esophagus, pancreas, and breast. Population studies are multidisciplinary studies of population groups that investigate the cause, incidence, or spread of a disease or examine the effect of health-related interventions, dietary and nutritional intakes, or environmental exposures. An analysis of data from seven population studies showed that the higher the amount of raw and cooked garlic consumed, the lower the risk of stomach and colorectal cancer (5).
***
Three randomized clinical trials have evaluated the effect of garlic intake on gastric cancer risk. In one study, which involved over 5,000 Chinese men and women at high risk for stomach cancer, researchers compared the effects of taking a combination of 200 mg synthetic allitridum (an extract of garlic used as a medicine in China for over 3,000 years) daily and 100 micrograms selenium every other day with taking a placebo (an inactive substance or treatment that looks the same as, and is given the same way as, an active drug or treatment being tested) for 5 years. In the group that received allitridum and selenium, the risk for all tumors combined was reduced by 33 percent and the risk for stomach cancer was reduced by 52 percent in comparison with the group that received only the placebo (13).

In contrast, findings from another randomized trial involving individuals with precancerous stomach lesions found that garlic supplementation (800 mg garlic extract plus 4 mg steam-distilled garlic oil daily) did not improve the prevalence (number of existing cases) of precancerous gastric lesions or reduce the incidence (number of new cases) of gastric cancer (14).

A third randomized study in Japan compared the effects of daily high-dose (2.4 mL) and low-dose (0.16 mL) intake of aged-garlic extract after 6 and 12 months of use on individuals with colorectal adenomas (noncancerous tumors). At the end of 12 months, 67 percent of the low-intake group developed new adenomas compared with 47 percent in the high-intake group (15).

The results of a small, nonrandomized study indicate that the application of garlic extracts to some skin tumors may be beneficial. In the study, which involved 21 persons with basal cell carcinoma, the application of ajoene (a sulfurous chemical found in garlic) to the skin for 1 month markedly decreased the size of 17 tumors, increased tumor size in 3 patients, and resulted in no change in 1 other patient (16). Changes in tumor size ranged from an 88 percent reduction to a 69 percent increase, with an overall median reduction of 47 percent.

www.cancer.gov...

The amounts dosage bolded above are certainly above your "one part in one trillion or 1/1,000,000,000,000 after dilution in water". Ooops.

Here's another:

Aloe vera juice which many drink 2 to 3 glasses per day, 6 to 8 ounces each.

HEALTH BENEFITS OF ALOE VERA JUICE

•Aids in the elimination of constipation.
•Aids in digestion and helps with stomachaches and heartburn.
•Helps to regulate blood sugars.
•Detoxifies the body and colon.
•Helps with weight loss by increasing metabolic rate to burn more calories.
•Improves circulation

originally posted by: grainofsand
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.

How is that a wild claim if the study was backed up with my link?

That's right I just made it up. Sure

originally posted by: gmoneystunt
a reply to: superman2012

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

I don't need to, you just need to read your link in full for your proof.

a reply to: StoutBroux
That's not homeopathy!
I eat garlic every day, qtr of a clove usually, but that is not homeopathy. Perhaps you need to check the difference between natural therapies and homeopathy then we'll see who says "oops".
Ridiculous.

originally posted by: Strawberry88

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.

I think there is a lot of merit to naturopathy! Homeopathy is just pseudo-science though.

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: gmoneystunt
a reply to: superman2012

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

I don't need to, you just need to read your link in full for your proof.

"You dont need to" but if I say that "I dont need to" its foolish in your eyes. Right?

ATS has been invaded once again

I should know by now.

Jude11

a reply to: jude11
By who?
People who don't agree with you? It happens

originally posted by: gmoneystunt

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: gmoneystunt
a reply to: superman2012

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

I don't need to, you just need to read your link in full for your proof.

"You dont need to" but if I say that "I dont need to" its foolish in your eyes. Right?

I say I don't need to because I'm assuming you read the article you linked to and realized that your question is answered there. If you need it circled in red so you can understand what you "read", let me know.

a reply to: superman2012

I did read it. Whats your deal?

streaming eyes due to hayfever can be treated with onions

The list goes on and on. So you dont have to list who funded the 300 studies because its answered in my link that i provided. Your a funny one

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: StoutBroux
That's not homeopathy!
I eat garlic every day, qtr of a clove usually, but that is not homeopathy. Perhaps you need to check the difference between natural therapies and homeopathy then we'll see who says "oops".
Ridiculous.

Considering the OP's report obfuscates homeopathy and naturopathy, yes, garlic is considered homeopathy if you're using it to treat or prevent illness.

Here from this site:

The following are the strongest indications of Allium Sativum (Garlic) for its use in homeopathy. Homeopathic remedies are not the same as herbal remedies. Dose:
Third to sixth potency. In tuberculosis, dose, four to six grammes in moderate state of dessication daily, in divided doses.
Heavy; pulsation in temples; catarrhal deafness.
abchomeopathy.com...

originally posted by: gmoneystunt
a reply to: superman2012

I did read it. Whats your deal?

streaming eyes due to hayfever can be treated with onions

The list goes on and on. So you dont have to list who funded the 300 studies because its answered in my link that i provided. Your a funny one

Perhaps you are getting mixed up with whom you are debating/arguing with?
We were talking homeopathy and that there are no studies showing it is better than standard medicine. You claimed there was. Your study that you linked does not prove it. I pointed that out. Your turn.

Edit: Here is your link, in case you need it.

a reply to: StoutBroux
No that is absolute rubbish, complimentary foods (taking garlic) is NOT homeopathy, here:
NHS - What is homeopathy

A central principle of the "treatment" is that "like cures like" – that a substance that causes certain symptoms can also help to remove those symptoms.
A second central principle is based around a process of dilution and shaking, called succussion. Practitioners believe that the more a substance is diluted in this way, the greater its power to treat symptoms. Many homeopathic remedies consist of substances that have been diluted many times in water until there is none or almost none of the original substance left.

You are incorrect, and it is amusing that someone defending homeopathy doesn't seem to know what it actually is.

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
Are you aware of the massive body of evidence showing how effective placebo is? In almost every double blind study ever performed, there is a significant number of cases where placebo is as effective as the treatment under test.

Yes, when people believe it will work, not because homeopathy actually does anything. Placebo is a pretty poor argument to support claims that homeopathy produces positive results. Might as well just use a plain glass of water and lie to the patient, far easier.

The human body can and does routinely cure itself. The mind is quite powerful. But beyond that, the arrogant disregard for 200 million years of mammal evolution vs. 200 years of experimentation is laughable.

And now medical science blindly stumbling back to the truth while the technocrats continue to sell product. What is the hygene hypothesis?

Giving Hep B vaccine to a newborn is an act of criminal fraud.

a reply to: InverseLookingGlass
What has any of your post got to do with homeopathy which you apparently seem to defend?

What your second quote is talking about is exactly homeopathy, and in no way naturopathy. Garlic dosed at the third to sixth potency means that the garlic has all ready been diluted. When they recommend a dose of four to six grammes, they don't mean of pure garlic, they mean of diluted garlic water.

a reply to: StoutBroux