Large study concludes Homeopathy does not effectively treat any health condition

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: StoutBroux
Why ridiculous?
There is no evidence that homeopathy works, anywhere. Unless you have some handy link to research which suggests otherwise?

Hmmm - then why do to the English Royals use it nearly exclusively?

I'd say that because those Royals are just as ill formed scientifically about it as the rest of the people who take it. Does being rich suddenly make you smart scientifically or something?

I've had very good results from homeopathic remedies for myself and honestly don't care if it is a placebo effect or not as long as it works.

Well as long as you recognize that it is a placebo. But hey you know what also works? Actual medicine. AND when you put your faith into it working, you can utilize the placebo effect to further boost the effects. It's win-win.

At the vet I spent hundreds of dollars for Moses' condition and he kept getting more bladder infections. When I used Cantharis 30c, not only did it dissolve the bladder stone, but he didn't get any more infections.

I believe real medicine works but it wasn't producing lasting effects for my cat. A vet visit and antibiotics are expensive, yet I had to keep coming back to treat him. More $$ spent. Until I tried Cantharis. I spent $7 on this blue plastic tube filled with pellets.

Best money I ever spent.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Hon, in my 54 years of living I been there, done that and still doing, trust me I know the definition and differences of most of the things I use, deal with and avoid. As it stand right now, I can shame any peer in my same age range when it comes to my quality of life, health and athletic range.

Thanks for thinking of me no all that practice Homeopathic are frauds.

a reply to: marg6043

OK well, your reply is just a little confusing to me, that is probably my fault for not being able to understand.

I think you are saying you know and understand what homeopathy is and I may be wrong on this, but I think you are saying you believe it works.

If you do believe it works I have a question for you.

Can you explain to me what the active ingredient is or the mechanism by which it works? I would really like to see your take on it.

Thanks in advance.

originally posted by: texasgirl
At the vet I spent hundreds of dollars for Moses' condition and he kept getting more bladder infections. When I used Cantharis 30c, not only did it dissolve the bladder stone, but he didn't get any more infections.

How do you know it dissolved the bladder stone? How do you know it's even capable of dissolving bladder stones? Did you find an identical bladder stone, immerse it in Cantharis 30C, and watch it dissolve? Did you look at its chemical composition and determine it is capable of dissolving stones? Did you read a peer-reviewed study in which a significant number of cats recovered from bladder stones after receiving Cantharis 30C while the controls did not?

If not, this sounds like textbook post hoc ergo propter hoc to me.

30C is water, by the way. The original substance is diluted to 1 part in 10^60. There is no Cantharis in Cantharis 30C.

a reply to: superman2012

originally posted by: superman2012

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.

I am not confused whom i was debating with. You asked if i read my link, yes i did. Yes we were talking homeopathy. That there are no studies showing it is better than standard medicine is not what the topic is. Why dont you try re-reading the title of the thread and start from there. "Not effective in treating any health condition". You must be confused because you said "no studies showing it is better than standard medicine." Thats a good idea for a new thread. Go for it

"In a 2007 paper by Professor Rustom Roy, the founding director of the Materials Research Laboratory at Penn State and one of the world's leading experts on the structure of water, it was demonstrated that lab instruments could pick up energetic signatures in ultra dilutions that were not only specific to individual homeopathic remedies, but to specific potencies of these remedies [10].

Indeed, science has backed up the phenomenon of potentization for over 20 years. In 1988, Nobel Prize nominee and medical researcher Jacques Benveniste turned the course of his life upside down when he discovered that ultra dilutions could retain substance-specific properties. In particular, he found that a certain antibody could be serially diluted and succussed beyond the point where a single molecule could remain, but still cause the same effects [11].

Naturally, the skeptics quickly attacked Benveniste. But he continued his work and further demonstrated that the electromagnetic signature of an ultra dilution could be recorded electronically, transmitted via Email, replayed into water, and still achieve the same substance-specific effects in the laboratory [12]. Eventually, Benveniste's results were replicated [13]. Most recently, a 2009 paper by Nobel Prize winner Luc Montagnier underscored the power of ultradilutions too"

There ya go guys. Making fun and throwing around the phrase "magic water" detracts from the fact that water IS magic!!😁 seriously, it's like no other substance in the universe, and we wouldn't be here without it.

originally posted by: pexx421
In 1988, Nobel Prize nominee

How about some evidence he was a Nobel Prize nominee? We know he won 2 Ig Nobel Prizes in Chemistry.....

and medical researcher Jacques Benveniste turned the course of his life upside down when he discovered that ultra dilutions could retain substance-specific properties.

He did not, actually.... just faulty testing.
en.wikipedia.org...

further demonstrated that the electromagnetic signature of an ultra dilution could be recorded electronically, transmitted via Email, replayed into water, and still achieve the same substance-specific effects in the laboratory

Again, that did not work.... even

An independent test of the 2000 remote-transmission experiment was carried out in the USA by a team funded by the United States Department of Defense. Using the same experimental devices and setup as the Benveniste team, they failed to find any effect when running the experiment. Several "positive" results were noted, but only when a particular one of Benveniste's researchers was running the equipment. "We did not observe systematic influences such as pipetting differences, contamination, or violations in blinding or randomization that would explain these effects from the Benveniste investigator. However, our observations do not exclude these possibilities."

So it only "worked" when one of his own researchers was involved!

Eventually, Benveniste's results were replicated

No they were not....
People made claims, but were unable to substantiate them when properly tested

Third-party attempts at replication of the Benveniste experiment have failed to produce positive results that could be independently replicated. In 1993, Nature published a paper describing a number of follow-up experiments that failed to find a similar effect,[25] and an independent study published in Experientia in 1992 showed no effect.[26] An international team led by Professor Madeleine Ennis of Queen's University of Belfast claimed in 1999 to have replicated the Benveniste results.[27][28] Randi then forwarded the $1 million challenge to the BBC Horizon program to prove the "water memory" theory following Ennis's experimental procedure. In response, experiments were conducted with the vice-president of the Royal Society, Professor John Enderby, overseeing the proceedings. The challenge ended with no memory effect observed by the Horizon team.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: FyreByrd
Hmmm - then why do to the English Royals use it nearly exclusively?

What makes you claim that?

Because I have read it (that the British Royals largely use homeopathy) on several occassions and no I don't have specific sources.

I find it interesting that because I like homeopathy and use it regularly that I believe their is measurable material in the preperations.

I have repeatly said that I didn't care if they worked for me because of the placebo effect because for me and me alone (and other friends alone) I will continue to use them.

That said, I can refer you to "The Field" by Lynn McTaggert which as a chapter on work done with homeopathic preparations where they seem to find that the actual people doing the agitating (I can't remember the word that is used) make a huge difference on the 'energetic' (if you believe in unmeasurable - nonmaterials things) potency of the final product.

I would expect newtonian scientists - reductionist - only things that can be directly measured are real types to get such an outcome. As this was a meta-study I would assume that to be the case in aggregate as well.

Can you measure god? No - does that make god any less real if you believe?

It's a similar instance.

I am not nor have I ever aruged the invalidity of the results of this mega-study.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: marg6043

OK well, your reply is just a little confusing to me, that is probably my fault for not being able to understand.

I think you are saying you know and understand what homeopathy is and I may be wrong on this, but I think you are saying you believe it works.

If you do believe it works I have a question for you.

Can you explain to me what the active ingredient is or the mechanism by which it works? I would really like to see your take on it.

Thanks in advance.

My dear Flying Cat Dude:

You are looking at this in a reductionist way not in a modern dynamic systems way.

Just because you can't measure something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Can you measure how something smells?

There is structure (newton, decartes) and then there are (einstein, heisenberg) process and patterns.

"Systems thinking means a shift of perception from material objects and structures to the nonmaterial processes and patterns of organization that represent the very essence of life."

Pg 79, "The Systems View of Life" by Fritof Capa and Pier Luigi Luisi.

And from the same opus on Page 133:

"The properties of life are emergent properties which cannot be reduced to the propeties of the components. The difference between structure and properties is fundamental at this level: reductionism, then, is fine when it limits itslef to structure and composition. Emergence assumes its real value at the level of properties, and its very notion is based upon the propsition that the emergent properties cannot be reduced to the properties of thie parts."

Great book, by the way.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: marg6043

OK well, your reply is just a little confusing to me, that is probably my fault for not being able to understand.

I think you are saying you know and understand what homeopathy is and I may be wrong on this, but I think you are saying you believe it works.

If you do believe it works I have a question for you.

Can you explain to me what the active ingredient is or the mechanism by which it works? I would really like to see your take on it.

Thanks in advance.

My dear Flying Cat Dude:

You are looking at this in a reductionist way not in a modern dynamic systems way.

Just because you can't measure something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Can you measure how something smells?

There is structure (newton, decartes) and then there are (einstein, heisenberg) process and patterns.

"Systems thinking means a shift of perception from material objects and structures to the nonmaterial processes and patterns of organization that represent the very essence of life."

Pg 79, "The Systems View of Life" by Fritof Capa and Pier Luigi Luisi.

And from the same opus on Page 133:

"The properties of life are emergent properties which cannot be reduced to the propeties of the components. The difference between structure and properties is fundamental at this level: reductionism, then, is fine when it limits itslef to structure and composition. Emergence assumes its real value at the level of properties, and its very notion is based upon the propsition that the emergent properties cannot be reduced to the properties of thie parts."

Great book, by the way.

Of course you can measure how something smells.
It smells due to the production of various chemical compounds either in vapour or gaseous form and these in turn react with the olifactory and taste receptors in an animals nose & mouth.
There are several automated "smellimg machines" out there which are extremely accurate.

Homeopathy is unmeasurable in that the actual process for making these tinctures is unknown.
The method of action is unknown.
The results are random and can not be reproduced under lab conditions.
The fact you cite (and I've heard this before) that the tinctures' potencies are down to the manner in which they are agitated (do they still bash them against a horse-hair filled leather satchel?) suggests to me that it's absolute and utter nonsense and similar to a religious belief, is based upon faith irrespective of the contradictory evidence against it and lack of evidence for it.

Using homeopathy for minor ailments for an indivual is indeed their choice and if they think it works then fine.
Where it crosses the line is when you have homeopaths promoting their magic water and sugar pills as homeoprophylaxis for example (using homeopathy instead of vaccinating children) or homeopathic cancer treatments.
That's bad.
So when you try to use smoke and mirrors to "explain" how homeopathy "works" (I'm suprised the word quantum wasn't used) bear in mind the impact it could have,
And also be prepared to shoulder that responsibility.