What do you think about homeopathy?

[Mr. SmartyPants]

The FDA has shown us time and time again that they're pretty much useless.

I think that it's more appropriate to say that it's flawed, but still necessary. In the medical side of things, they need a lot of reworking.

I imagine that the chances of getting foodborne illnesses would drastically increase if the FDA was ever abolished.

[Paul]

Ok. All due fairness, I understand the take between polio being a dead cell and the introduction of a live cell which can harm you. Truth is, the polio vaccine is a live virus they put in you, but it had been rendered harmless by science. Much like penicillin. Do you actually realize they are putting fungus in your body to activate your defense systems, so while the antibiotics are attacking the penicillin, they are attacking what ever ails you. Basically the theory is just the same in homeopathy. The difference here is one is based on medical science while the other is largely based on natural science, and in the end, both is based on faith. Now, if you were to take the pure form of polio (for example), and dilute it by shaking it around in a glass jar and then handing it to the victim and say “Drink!â€

[ShiroiHikari]

I have no problem with natural cures, provided I actually see results. For example, I extol the virtues of honey all the time-- put it on burns; it works better than man-made medicine because it has anti-bacterial and anti-inflammatory properties.

However, I thought we'd established that using natural cures isn't, by definition, the same thing as homeopathy.

I don't like medicine either, and I think there are too many people who take it when they don't need it, but think of how many people would die without it. We see what happens in undeveloped countries all the time-- that's where we'd be without modern medicine.

[Paul]

Well the foundation of my arguement for homeopathy and all alternative medicines is they are health care systems that need to be examined by their history and facts and not by the opinions of others. The alterantive medical system works and has a better track record than the modern medical profession who is trying to shut them down. Again, that's why I stand on research the facts on homeopathy and draw your own conclusions.

I did this online search while building my defense. Have you ever heard of snopes.com? They are the internet authority on debunking myths, trusted by college education institutions as credible for term papers, unlike wikipedia.com which is not. (I know, I tried). So I typed in "homeopathy" to see the results. Here's the link: http://www.snopes.com/medical/homecure/vaporub.asp

It is about using vapor rub on the bottom of feet as a homeopathy solution for a cough. Based on their research into the claim made, nobody in Vicks organization would verify the data. But mutiple people swore to it's effectiveness to the point the snopes.com,in the end, remained neutral until they had better information.

This article was the extent of their information about homeopathy medicines.

You know, the next time I get a cough, I'm going to try this foot thing. Why? Nobody has died from it, so it can't hurt me right? So the worse that can happen is I made a fool out of myself. This is my whole take. Check out the facts for yourself and draw to your own conclusions.

Troglitazone is a diabetes drug that was also available abroad at the time the FDA approved it. Post-marketing safety data indicated that the drug had dangerous side-effects (in this case liver failure). The drug was pulled off that market in the UK in 1997, but was not withdrawn by the FDA until 2000, before which time it is claimed that thousands of Americans were injured or killed by the drug.

In the case of Vioxx, a pre-approval study indicated that a group taking the drug had four times the risk of heart attacks when compared to another group of patients taking another anti-inflammatory, naproxen. The FDA approval board accepted the manufacturer's argument that this was due to a previously unknown cardioprotective effect of naproxen, rather than a risk of Vioxx, and the drug was approved.

David Graham, a scientist in the Office of Drug Safety within the CDER, testified to Congress that he was pressured by his supervisors not to warn the public about dangers of drugs like Vioxx.

...tell me again that the FDA would protect us if this was dangerous. Go ahead. Tell me.

Well, you know you got me there. I can't argue that. That means, in the end, I guess we are all on our own and have to make informed decisions, right. That's what your statement means. So wouldn't it be prudent to check out multiple health care systems, and figure out who's got the most success with the fewest amounts of failures?

[Technomancer]

Now let’]

Let's examine the problems here:

1)You are comparing deaths caused directly through medical errors to those that are attributable to the practice of homeopathy. This is a false comparison for two reasons. The first of course is that you are comparing mistakes in paperwork, misdiagnoses, etc of one field to the (ostensibly!) correct practice of another. The second is that of the deaths that have made the news as a result of homeopathy, the treatment is not the direct cause of death. Rather it is that homepathic treatments don't do anything (a glass of water will rarely kill you), while a mix-up of perfectly effacious drugs can kill you. The deaths attributable to homeopathy are a result of proper medical treatment being eschewed, which means problems go undiagnosed and untreated. That's what kills people.

2)You are simply comparing raw numbers, which is pointless. If the number of people availing themselves of standard medical treatment is orders of magnitude greater than the number of people using homeopathic treatments, then one would expect a greater number of accidents, deaths, etc in the raw sense. One must also remember that this number will also depend on the quality of the tracking (much greater for hospitals), the number of people with severe medical problems (again much greater for hospitals), as well as the immediacy of the causation.

How about this; the CDC statistics at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm places unintentional deaths by accident in position 5 of the top ten list. The other nine are directly connected to health care, with heart disease at position one.

This table shows raw numbers for the United States. It says nothing about medical malpractice.

In an article posted Aug. 9th, 2004, http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/11856.php, medical news today printed an article showing on “An average of 195,000 people in the USA died due to potentially preventable, in-hospital medical errors in each of the years 2000, 2001, and 2002: That is more than the 117,809 unintentional deaths at position five.

Yes, that is unfortunate, and obviously a great deal needs to be done to improve those numbers. However, it says nothing about the efficacy of medical treatment, only that large institutions responsible for managing the care of large numbers of people with sometimes overworked staff can make mistakes. It says nothing about the potential difference in care that some of these people may have received because of where they lived or what sort of hosptial they went to. And it certainly says nothing to support homeopathy or other "alternative medicine".

[Paul]

Let's examine the problems here:

1)You are comparing deaths caused directly through medical errors to those that are attributable to the practice of homeopathy. This is a false comparison for two reasons. The first of course is that you are comparing mistakes in paperwork, misdiagnoses, etc of one field to the (ostensibly!) correct practice of another. The second is that of the deaths that have made the news as a result of homeopathy, the treatment is not the direct cause of death. Rather it is that homepathic treatments don't do anything (a glass of water will rarely kill you), while a mix-up of perfectly effacious drugs can kill you. The deaths attributable to homeopathy are a result of proper medical treatment being eschewed, which means problems go undiagnosed and untreated. That's what kills people.

2)You are simply comparing raw numbers, which is pointless. If the number of people availing themselves of standard medical treatment is orders of magnitude greater than the number of people using homeopathic treatments, then one would expect a greater number of accidents, deaths, etc in the raw sense. One must also remember that this number will also depend on the quality of the tracking (much greater for hospitals), the number of people with severe medical problems (again much greater for hospitals), as well as the immediacy of the causation.




This table shows raw numbers for the United States. It says nothing about medical medpractice.



Yes, that is unfortunate, and obviously a great deal needs to be done to improve those numbers. However, it says nothing about the efficacy of medical treatment, only that large institutions responsible for managing the care of large numbers of people with sometimes overworked staff can make mistakes. It says nothing about the potential difference in care that some of these people may have received because of where they lived or what sort of hosptial they went to. And it certainly says nothing to support homeopathy or other "alternative medicine".

Let me ask you this question. If you was given a choice, driving a car to reach a destination, to take route "A" which has a history of people getting killed daily due to narrow roads, innattentive drivers, and those avoiding the local police; or driving route "B", another road which may take you ten minutes longer, but has far less incidences, more open road, mutliple lanes, regularly patrolled. Which are you going to take?

[Radical Dreamer]

[quote="Paul (post: 1257193)"]Let me ask you this question. If you were given a choice, driving a car to reach a destination, to take route "A" which has a history of people getting killed daily due to narrow roads, innattentive drivers, and those avoiding the local police]

The point I think you're trying to make with this seems irrelevant, actually. What people in this thread are saying is that homeopathy will often not cure diseases that modern medicine could cure, causing death. That's what I'm reading, anyways. So in reality, your illustration would work better if "road B" had a chance of not taking you to your destination at all.

That being said, I've never had any problems with modern medicine, and I highly doubt my dad's heart problems would be cured by homeopathy.

[Nate]

Right, deaths due to medical errors are easily visible, whereas if someone dies from rubbing a potato on their forehead to try and cure malaria, the death report won't say "died from trying homeopathy," it'll just say "died from malaria." Thus, it's impossible to accurately compare deaths from homeopathy to deaths from medical errors.

I've been studying naturopathy medicine and have used myself as a test subject. Homeopathy ain't much different. You would be surprized at some of the results.

No I wouldn't. Ever heard of the "placebo effect?" In short, when testing a new drug, two groups of people are used. One is given the actual drug, and the other is givien a sugar pill with no medicinal properties. The results of the two groups are then compared.

Would it surprise you to learn that sometimes, more than half the people who are given nothing but a sugar pill show reductions in their symptoms? Sugar doesn't have any medicinal properties, really, so what's the deal? The deal is that people THOUGHT they were getting help, that they were getting the drug they needed, and just this positive thinking improved their health.

By the way, for a drug to be considered effective the amount of people who got the actual drug and showed improvement, must be far greater than the amount of people who showed improvement in the placebo group. In other words, if 50% of placebo members showed improvement, and 55% of the actual group showed improvement, the drug is considered ineffective. Now if it's say, 30% to 80%, then that's different.

The point I'm making is, you're using yourself as a test subject. You're biased to its effectiveness. Often times if people are told "This is only a placebo" it won't work. But if they're convinced that it is effective, that's different. Thus your positive experiences with it aren't necessarily valid, since you are likely experiencing the placebo effect.

While there's nothing really wrong with the placebo effect itself, the problem occurs when people tout a placebo as medically effective...which is unfortunately what's happening with homeopathy. The fact is there's no proof that it's medically effective, and to say that it is is dangerous.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

Nate is dead on. Personal experience is never a good scientific variable because of it's bias and lack of acknowledging other potential factors.

Hard research, on the other hand, tends to be more mindful of them, and the majority of it is more accurate than personal experience.

[Doubleshadow]

Much like penicillin. Do you actually realize they are putting fungus in your body to activate your defense systems, so while the antibiotics are attacking the penicillin, they are attacking what ever ails you.

NO. NO. NO. NO.

Penicillin is a group of beta-lactam antibiotics, derived from the penicllin fungus, that are rather small molecules that bind the active site of the enzymes that build cell walls in bacteria, causing them to rapture and kill them. The compounds are carefully isolated, not a fungus shot into people. It has zero effects on a person because people don't have cell walls. The only time it does anything is if you just happen to be allergic. If you think this means anything, tell me about the curative properties of cat dander.

Basically the theory is just the same in homeopathy.

Oh? How so? How is injecting a person with a molecule that has no effect whatsoever on humans, animals in general, or animal-like bacteria remotely like ingesting diluted toxins?

The difference here is one is based on medical science while the other is largely based on natural science, and in the end, both is based on faith.

No, again. Roughly 100 hundred years of reliable, verifiable, and fully objectively explainable efficacy is not the same as "I saw it work". If you buy that, you'll make magicians and psychics very happy.
Furthermore, you and a few friends are NOT a sufficient sample pool.

Or if you were to rub raw potato juice on warts and athlete’s foot itch to get rid of the bumps and relieve the itching. No one has ever died from it so why not try it? I actually have done these things to myself and it works. How? Potatoes aren’t lethal and we handle them everyday in raw form, right? Did you know they are packed with alkaline acid? Did you know that alkaline from potatoes will soak into warts and will work at killing them? We did this experiment in biology class in college last year and the student, not me, was shocked because it worked for him too.

This is not homeopathy. This is a scientific experiment displaying a result of a particular compound found in nature taken advantage of buy modern companies and establishment. Acetaminophen (aspirin) and digitalis (did you read my post?) have similar origins, but the beneficial part has been isolated to be mass produced, and only in high amounts are the toxic. Anything in high enough toxic amounts can kill you, so their toxicity when misused is moot.

In other words, I believe in a heath care system that actually works, be it homeopathy solutions, naturopathic medicines, and good old common sense thinking.

Homeopathy doesn't work. It has rare flashes of effectiveness from dumb luck. Where's your common sense?

There it is folks, I'm not in the habit of putting my trust in a health care system that kills people to the tune of 195,000 a year. Everybody has their own opinion and I’m ok with that. All I’m saying is look at the facts and draw your own conclusions.

You know what the hospital is for? Really sick people. Like people who are dying? It sad that people think their 90 year old granny will go to the hospital and get better just because it's the hospital. Doctors and nurses are only human and competing against a body built to die anyway. They're are unethical and incompetent doctors sure, but I don't think they are anymore prone to error after years of intensive study and review than someone who set up shop in a field with no oversight.

[Technomancer]

I did this online search while building my defense. Have you ever heard of snopes.com? They are the internet authority on debunking myths, trusted by college education institutions as credible for term papers, unlike wikipedia.com which is not. (I know, I tried).

Neither should ever be accepted as source material for a university-level paper. Even at the high school level its use should be discouraged and good research habits taught instead.

So I typed in "homeopathy" to see the results. Here's the link: http://www.snopes.com/medical/homecure/vaporub.asp

It is about using vapor rub on the bottom of feet as a homeopathy solution for a cough. Based on their research into the claim made, nobody in Vicks organization would verify the data. But mutiple people swore to it's effectiveness to the point the snopes.com,in the end, remained neutral until they had better information.

This article was the extent of their information about homeopathy medicines.

This is considered research? How about you look at actual peer-reviewed journals and not what you can find using google?

[quote]
Let me ask you this question. If you was given a choice, driving a car to reach a destination, to take route "A" which has a history of people getting killed daily due to narrow roads, innattentive drivers, and those avoiding the local police]

This is a silly question. Assuming you seem to mean that route "B" stands for homeopathy, you seem to assume a lot about its quality that you have not demonstrated. In reality, there is no guarantee that road will take you where you want to go, or that the road exists at all. I have no idea how you could possibly think it is "well-patrolled" (especially compared to say, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons, to name one such body). Instead, and as before you first dramtically understate the effectiveness of modern medicine, conflate accidents with lack of efficacy and somehow seem to believe that the medical profession is not well-regulated.

Let me propose a rather more different sort of exercise. Go to an historical cemetary laid out in the 18th or early 19th centuries and read the dates on the tombstones. Take careful note of what those numbers mean, and then come back and argue whether old folk remedies and judisciously applied potatoes really trump modern scientific medicine.

[GeneD]

NO. NO. NO. NO.

Penicillin is a group of beta-lactam antibiotics, derived from the penicllin fungus, that are rather small molecules that bind the active site of the enzymes that build cell walls in bacteria, causing them to rapture and kill them. The compounds are carefully isolated, not a fungus shot into people. It has zero effects on a person because people don't have cell walls. The only time it does anything is if you just happen to be allergic. If you think this means anything, tell me about the curative properties of cat dander.

Thank you.

[Paul]

I must say... A very invigorating and spirited conversation! Isn't it amazing how different people from different view points can have and excellent debate. Even something as simple as the effects of homeopathy as an alternative medicine. We all are health care professionals in one respect, and that is the bringing lost people to a healthy relationship with Jesus Christ, and it is on this foundation we do all stand together, we wouldn't be a member of CAA if we wern't.

Alternative medicines should continually be researched, just as modern medicine should. Homeopathy too. That way all of us can make clear, conscious decisions about the future of all our health care and the health care of our loved ones. I do support seeing a medical professional. I do regularly see one and he's a traditional doctor of modern medicine; and as some have pointed out, they are human and make mistakes. All of them do. So be it cold or flu, or some other silly little sick thing, I'm sure we all got our sworn resources of relief. But if it's serious, something you can't shake in a few days or a week, make an appointment with the MD and get a good opinion, and follow their advise. Don't take chances you'll regret later.

Sincerely, Paul

[Paul]

Neither should ever be accepted as source material for a university-level paper. Even at the high school level its use should be discouraged and good research habits taught instead.

(See, we can agree on something, hey!) Paul's comments

This is considered research? How about you look at actual peer-reviewed journals and not what you can find using google?

(Actually, I did. I have looked at peer-reviewed journals of government recognized organizations on health care professionals both in and out of the field of homeopathy and naturopathy, trying to debunk the position of a Dr. Joel Wallach. That included 18th century history of homeopathy saving lives during epidemics when modern medicine was failing.) Paul's comments



This is a silly question. Assuming you seem to mean that route "B" stands for homeopathy, you seem to assume a lot about its quality that you have not demonstrated. In reality, there is no guarantee that road will take you where you want to go, or that the road exists at all. I have no idea how you could possibly think it is "well-patrolled" (especially compared to say, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons, to name one such body). Instead, and as before you first dramtically understate the effectiveness of modern medicine, conflate accidents with lack of efficacy and somehow seem to believe that the medical profession is not well-regulated.

(Well no not, assuming anything! I asked a legit question. It takes a very simple answer. Which way would you drive your car? Road "A" or road "B"? Let me restate the question. If you was driving your car down the road to work on the express way and you know road "a" has a traffic jam because of "underconstruction", and road "b" does not. Which road would you take to get to work?) Paul's comments

(Oh and modern medice is not well-regulated, not when health care decisions are based off of HMO's and Insurance carriers, instead of science. ) Paul's comments



Let me propose a rather more different sort of exercise. Go to an historical cemetary laid out in the 18th or early 19th centuries and read the dates on the tombstones. Take careful note of what those numbers mean, and then come back and argue whether old folk remedies and judisciously applied potatoes really trump modern scientific medicine.

It means, how did they live their dash! This would be just as irrelevant as me using statistical numbers which was refuted as not an accurate survey. Why? How many of those historical people died due to putting their lives in front of bullets that killed them, to protect those who couldn't or a belief they had conviction in. Or how many of those died due to poor sanitation, because we didn't know any better. How many died in civil war POW camps because of lack of medical care? Or let's not forget World War One and Two. I understand the point of your exercize, and it seems to me it is the same as the point of my statistical numbers on deaths.

However, because you are willing to go this way, I will be more than happy to oblige you. So this is what I will do. I will make it a point to do research, which to all of us who can use internet search engines fast than superman beating a bullet, and not base my research on electronic research but by the old fashion way. By literature from credible resources. If I am wrong in my opinion and my case is proven fallable by the numbers, testimonies, and facts. I will most certainly concede my point of view and take the stand that homeopathy is dangerous game. If not, I'll stand strong on my opinion that alternative health care, including homeopathy, is credible.

What say you to that?

(I don't know how I managed to get both my comments and Technomancers comments together in the same dark box. Not all the comments in darkened box is Technomancer's but some of them are mine. My apology to Technomancer and everyone on CAA if there is any confusion as to who said what in the first half of the post. I put mine in parenthesis)

[Fish and Chips]

[quote="Paul (post: 1257149)"]There it is folks, I'm not in the habit of putting my trust in a health care system that kills people to the tune of 195,000 a year. Everybody has their own opinion and I’]LIFE - No one gets out alive.

[Sheenar]

Paul, if you are looking for reputable journals and scientific studies, try searching JSTOR --it's an online database of journals and articles --and it is a very respectable source for college papers (our profs tell us to go here to do research).

Another good resource is Medline, which is a database of medical journals and articles.

I hope this helps.

[ich1990]

LIFE - It will be the death of you.

[Technomancer]

This would be just as irrelevant as me using statistical numbers which was refuted as not an accurate survey.

Was my exercise an accurate survey? Of course not. It was however meant to illustrate something. For centuries we've had folk remedies and pseudo-magical cures and people died of all manner of diseases, often of ones that most of us have never seen outside of a history book . But when we developed an understanding of the causes of disease, when we developed antibiotics and vaccines those diseases became history. My parents had friends who'd been killed or crippled by polio, while I've never even heard of a case being reported in the present day.

The point what I was getting at was simple. You look at those tombstones and see how many of them died young. There were no wars or blood feuds, and no great epidemics that caused this; only everyday things. It does not good for you to appeal to sanitation, for it to be done properly requires an understanding of how disease is transmitted. You can't stop typhus or TB unless you understand what causes it.

[Paul]

Hey Technomancer,

And my point, from the onset of this debate is the same point you bring to me here now. I am not advocating homeopathy over modern medical technology nor visa-versa. My entire point to everything has been this...people should do their own research and come to their own conclusions. They shouldn't take my advice, your advice, or any body else's. They should check it out for themselves and draw their own conclusions. Alternative medicines will never be fully accepted and is not for everyone. The same goes for modern medicine. There are people who just won't go.

When people come to me for advice and I give them scripture, I always tell them this. "Don't take my word for it. Open the bible and read it for your self." I could be wrong, because I'm human. But more importantly, the person will read it and say, oh ok. Then they will read more, trust the bible, get saved. That's what we all want as Christians, right? If not, what are we doing here in the first place?

It's no different in making medical decisions. Go to the doctor and get his advice. If you hear alternative medicine helped somebody beat cancer; read up on what happened. Apparently they are holding fast to this for some reason. If someone's life got turned around because of modern medical technology, read up on what happened. They just ain't blowing smoke because they can.

I see my self as a mediator when viewing both sides of the argument. When looking at the center of this debate both sides of the medical fields have the same set goals in mind. Relieving the suffering of people. The only real thing they can't agree on, and both sides have the same argument about the other side. The method in which the patient and illness is treated. And when applied to Christianity and having faith in the miracle power of Jesus Christ, neither side is particularly happy about how Christians do it either.

So again, everybody should....research it out for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

Paul, if you are looking for reputable journals and scientific studies, try searching JSTOR --it's an online database of journals and articles --and it is a very respectable source for college papers (our profs tell us to go here to do research).

Another good resource is Medline, which is a database of medical journals and articles.

I hope this helps.

Of course it helps. I'm quite sure when getting into serious side of researching this out it would be helpful to everyone who really gets down to the nitty gritty of researching medicines. I have been led there as well by my profs for science research to which I have supported arguments before.

The basis for my entire argumentation is built on these sites which you have given me and many others, just like those which arbitrarily have been deemed no good by participators in this discussion. What I mean by that is...CDC reports (government website), websites recognized by the federal government, and using statistics. All these have been rendered mute, so the argument is now back to opinion.

I know my approach to viewing the facts are rather simplistic or as some would put it, rhetorical, or senseless in emphasis. I like it layed down to me in black and white. Like for instance, which was used as a beginnng foundation to the argument]LIFE - It will be the death of you.[/QUOTE]

Life is what you make it. Everyone dies, but it's how we meet death that matters. Do we meet death if fear, with regrets, as old people in our death beds wishing we could trade everything in the world to go back in life and right a wrong, or to take a stand and fight, instead of cowarding to failure.

Or do we face death as men and women, standing up to fear, oppression, hatred, and evil. And saying in a single voice, I would rather die here and now doing everything I can, than to sit down and let fate decide.

Fate has decided for too long the course of my life, I am more afraid to let fate rule my life one more day, than I am afraid to stand up and fight back. It took me half my life to learn this lesson, and I will not accept fate in my life anymore. God called me, like you, to be great and powerful men of God! It screams in me with frustration, how such a thought can rule your life.

[Nate]

people should do their own research and come to their own conclusions.

Not everyone has a laboratory, millions of dollars of funding, and thousands of people to use as research subjects. Saying you should do your "own research" isn't viable. More than that, it's pointless. The research has already been done, and much more accurately. A sample group of one, or ten people (especially friends and family members, which does NOT represent a diverse range of subjects) isn't valid.

Put simply, if I were to do research based solely on people who attended Harvard University on average intelligence level of Americans, it wouldn't be a very valid result, now would it? So how can you possibly say that research composed of yourself and a handful of friends is a valid result on homeopathy? You can't, and that's why saying "do your own research" isn't possible.

If you hear alternative medicine helped somebody beat cancer]
No, but people can be mistaken. They're not "blowing smoke because they can." They're imperfect human beings who can be fooled by placebo effects or unrelated incidences. Saying "homeopathy helped me beat cancer!" is a bit like me saying this rock in my hand keeps away tigers. Well...I don't see any tigers around here, do you? Then this rock obviously keeps away tigers.

Except it DOESN'T, and the fact that there are no tigers around is likely because of something else...namely, that I'm in Virginia and tigers aren't native to here.

like those which arbitrarily have been deemed no good by participators in this discussion.

Scientific research and data supported by experimentation isn't "arbitrary." Your attempt to strawman has failed.

What I mean by that is...CDC reports (government website), websites recognized by the federal government, and using statistics. All these have been rendered mute, so the argument is now back to opinion.

Did you perhaps mean "moot?" When were they rendered moot in the first place? They're not rendered moot simply because you say "Well it could have helped some people so scientific research doesn't count!" Again, that'd be like me saying my tiger-repelling rock really works despite scientific fact that tigers don't live here.

The argument is NOT back to opinion, it's still based on the fact that research has shown the stuff doesn't work. You're free to not believe the experiments, same as you're free to not believe in gravity or the laws of thermodynamics, but what purpose could that possibly serve?

some parents used homeopathy on their child, and the child died. People jumped on this like homeopathy was an evil sin and witchcraft.

I don't think anyone here has said homeopathy is an "evil sin," just that it's pointless and potentially dangerous and has no scientific evidence to support it.

homeopath doctor

Isn't that an oxymoron?

[termyt]

Is this really an all-or-none scenario? Must we either discard all modern science for ancient practice or deem all ancients witless buffoons in the face of our marvelous science?

I do not place my faith in homeopathy but I do not place it in science, either.

If I did, truth to me would be as fluid as the ocean. If science were so grand and true, it would not feel the need for such vigorous defense against other ideas.

[Paul]

Uh, huh.

So, Nate, would you be so kind as to tell me who would be the absolute authority on the topic of this discussion? Would it be a Medical Doctor? Their patients? Perhaps would it be their patients who eat pills by faith, with results? Napoleon's 170 soldiers who survived typhoid? (it is argued homeopathy is credited that) Or maybe...you.

Here's my question for you. The real one. I beg you sir, please. Tell me where you get your resources about the pseudoscience of homeopathy? I would love to read them. If I am wrong, dear God in heaven somebody in this discussion please put in front of me the thousands repeated documented cases of people who have suffered horribly by this alternative medicine. Please, where do I look? I've already looked for homeopathy in ebsco and found nothing, so it's not there. I couldn't access jstor.com, so when I can I will look there. Obviously key word search into the world wide web won't work, I’ll spend hours trying to swim through all the "homeopathy" supported website to find something there. I'm currenlty doing a non-electronic, on ground, hard copy search of the topic in two different library systems with over 30 books to choose from on homeopathy. I've yet to find one against it.

I really want to believe you guys! But I need documentation! Word of mouth is not good enough for me. I’ve been duped too many times over the years to take it by faith or word of mouth. My pastor taught me 16 years ago not to take what he says as God, but to check him out and read the bible myself. So, I got to have it, in my hands. So I can read it, study it, look it over. Pray about it, again, again, and again! God’s word says to try the spirits to see if they are of Him. That means to investigate, check out the facts and come to a conclusion. So somebody please help me! If you have definitive proof, actual documentation that homeopathy is a dangerous alternative medicine that has literally harmed and killed thousands that you are getting your resources from, then in the name of God send them to me.

I don’t want, “I’ve been trying to tell you…”. That’s not documentation. What I want is what Sheenar done. “Here Paul, check this out.” Or “Hey Paul, this is where I got my information.”, or “I read up on it here, and this is where I got my facts.” Telling me the faults of my research doesn’t work. Telling me an opinion doesn't work. Telling where and how you got your resources does. I'm serious about this! You all have figured out by now I hold a strong belief in homeopathy. Please send me the documentation that I can read my self and say, "I'm wrong."

Please!

[Mr. SmartyPants]

Here Paul. Try this.

Go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy#Medical_and_scientific_analysis

And then from there, check every single source that is cited. A lot of them are abstracts, so obviously you may have to register to be able to read the full article.

[Paul]

At least what everybody else is saying HAS documentation.

Also: http://www.google.com

where?

[Mr. SmartyPants]

Read my edited post.

[minakichan]

LOL GRATE THREAD GUYZ.

Hmmm, a subject like this is hard for me to stand on because, well, I believe in acupuncture and qigong, and both are considered pseudosciences. I think the difference is that I wouldn't state that either are cold, hard facts and I wouldn't try to convince people that either work-- I don't have any methodical and undeniable proof of it, and hey, maybe it is all hogwash. I'm not closed to that possibility. Scientific method isn't wholly accurate, but it's a lot better than "I know a bunch of people who tried it, and it worked for them."

(And this would also be why I never proselytize and don't believe in it, even with the Great Commission.)

[Sheenar]

Quoted from my earlier post:
"Homeopathy, I do not agree with. It is not logical--Homeopathy (also homÅ“opathy or homoeopathy; from the Greek ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" + πάθος, páthos, "suffering" or "disease") is a form of alternative medicine first defined by Samuel Hahnemann in the 18th century.[1] Homeopathic practitioners maintain that an ill person can be treated using a substance that can produce, in a healthy person, symptoms similar to those of the illness.
But herbs and plants are proven to aid in health. The use of herbs and other plants for medicinal purposes is different from homeopathy. It is Herbalism.
Copied from Wikipedia:
"Herbalism is a traditional medicinal or folk medicine practice based on the use of plants and plant extracts. Herbalism is also known as botanical medicine, medical herbalism, herbal medicine, herbology, and phytotherapy. Sometimes the scope of herbal medicine is extended to include fungi and bee products, as well as minerals, shells and certain animal parts."
I believe some people are still confusing homeopathy with herbalism and folk remedies. They are not the same.

[Radical Dreamer]

I can't help myself. I'm so sorry.

[chibiphonebooth]

I can't help myself. I'm so sorry.

Win.

[Tsukuyomi]

I can't help myself. I'm so sorry.

HAHA, I WAS LOOKING FOR THAT ALL OVER THE INTERWEBZ XDD