Homeopathy

[Guest guest]

>

> And a lot of things they THOUGHT were placebos, turned

> out to be real.

Like what? If they were thought to be placebos, it

could only be because they tested as no more effective

than a known placebo. If something's no more effective

than a placebo, what makes you think it's not one? By

the way, placebos and their effects _are_ " real " . In

any case these comments bring to mind the quote from

http://www.skeptic.com/03.1.jarvis-homeo.html .

" Scientific medicine encompasses a collection of

procedures, each of which must stand on its own as

safe and effective for a specific purpose. History

recounts examples of ancient healers doing the right

thing for the wrong reason. Some bored holes in skulls

(trephining) in order to liberate angry demons thought

to be causing head pain, and in the process relieved

intracranial pressure. This, however, does not validate

the Demonic Theory. Also, foul-smelling swamps were

drained on the basis of the miasmic theory, which

taught that foul-smelling emanations from the Earth

caused " bad air fever " (mal-air-ia). Further, Asclepian

priests scraped spear shavings into the spear-wounds of

warriors believing that the weapon that caused a wound

would help in its healing (like-cures-like). Copper

sulfate from the bronze spearheads may have inhibited

infection. Just as doing these right practices for the

wrong reasons did not validate the faulty theories upon

which they were based, neither will the success of a

" homeopathic " remedy comprehensively validate homeopathy's

theory, pharmacology, and metaphysics. "

> Humans have traditionally " done medicine " by trying a lot of

strange things

> and seen what worked. Usually moms, it seems.

Well who's going to say anything bad about moms? That reminds

me of a ploy quoted at http://www.randi.org/jr/031403.html in

reference to an attempt to test the effectiveness of Therapeutic

Touch.

" I personally called Dora, and she refused to attend, saying

she had no time. Here are a few of the answers I got from the

many practitioners I asked to participate:

" That's just parlor tricks. I don't do parlor tricks. "

" That's Man's science. Therapeutic Touch is Women's science! "

> They didn't worry about WHY it worked, they just observed.

But it _doesn't_ work, that's the point! Please review the

reports that I cited at

/message/31580 .

Your attitude towards the question is disturbing, and reminiscent of

a quote at http://spot.colorado.edu/~vstenger/Medicine/Homeop.html

" Curiously, the lack of good evidence of effectiveness of

homeopathic remedies may be irrelevant to supporters of

homeopathy. One leading advocate asserts that proving the

effectiveness of homeopathy through scientific research is

not important and suggests that personal experience is more

important that any number of carefully controlled studies.45

Positive expectations and beliefs of patients and healers

have historically resulted in reports of excellent or good

outcomes in more than 70 per cent of cases even though the

treatments given are now known to have been worthless.46 "

> Almost always, the established community responds with " placebo

effect " or " hysteria " ,

> until they can figure out a method why it would work, or better,

can patent it.

> I've seen this happen over and over . . .

Like with what? Maybe you're wrong and it _was_ a placebo

effect or hysteria. I'm afraid that you've made your own

subjective impressions an absolute measure against which

all else is to be judged.

> . . . and I'm loathe to say AT ALL that something doesn't work

> when a mess of people say it does.

A mess of people, or more accurately, people who are

a mess, also believe in astrology, alien abductions,

big-foot, etc. I'm loathe to say they're right,

regardless of their numbers.

> Homeopathy is problematic, because, of course, no drug

> company is going to test it seriously.

But it _has_ been tested, again and again, and has

never proved any more effective than placebos. In fact

I referrenced _several_ reports of such testing in

my other post, and there are many more that I didn't

include. You really need to check into them if you're

under such a misapprehension.

> Except the ones making homeopathic medicine, who are not

> likely to be believed. But it seems to work for a lot of

> people, and shoot, it is a lot less harmful that Prilosec.

People are replacing more than just Prilosec with it.

Whatever that is.