Homeopathy

[Audie]

Where they sell eggs boiled in children's urine claiming holistic benefits from eating them?

Why do you ask

 

[Audie]

Tell us about them please. I am betting that they do have some medicines that work and some that don't (the abuses of certain endangered animals comes to mind). I have no real experience at all.

It is not my thing,. But yes, some are very effective, etc, as you said, some
dubious.

Big Chinese cities make you wonder how any wildlife exists still anywhere.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm cool with all of that.
Here in the UK far too much of our Health Service funding is spent on unnecessaries, from vanity beauty enhancements to very expensive anti-snoring and hearing devices, when thousands are awaiting life-changing treatments and surgeries. By all mean add homeopathic treatments to that list.

I think that I've seen racks of small homepathic med bottles in health stores, and they weren't very expensive.... I wonder if treatments discussed here are more expensive than those?

Well when it comes to British health care I have no clue. I don't know its pluses or minuses. All I know is that it is government paid care and they have a duty to spend tax money wisely. Spending it on homeopathy is not spending that money wisely. If people want to waste their own money that should be their right.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Why do you ask

I was just thinking about holistic based medicine and folk remedies for which Homeopathy qualifies. I just went for something "out there" to illustrate how people approach alternative medicines and remedies.

The question I asked was just to bring holistics to the forefront using an example that most people would not be too keen on trying. :0)

I think the whole thing about these types of "medicines" and such are just a hit or miss affair over generations to generation. Some things work and some things don't through trial and error.

The question with homeopathy lies with consistency and the ailiment in question would so far seem to lie with the benefit of placebos as opposed to molecular and biological chemistry. The same as eggs boiled in children's urine.

 

[Trailblazer]

You certainly can’t conduct a randomised double blinded control on a treatment that is patient specific, that is true. I suppose if I had clarity about exactly what homeopathy is and how it works then I’d want to test it.

I am not sure what you mean, treatment that is patient specific. I am not sure how it could be tested but I know that some studies have been done. Except for taking remedies off and on, I have been away it for about 20 years so I do not think about it much anymore.

What’s illogical about it? Placebo has powerful healing properties. Is it wrong to speculate about the possible reasons why homeopathy works?

What I consider illogical is to say that there is NOTHING to homeopathy and that all of it is just a placebo effect. Given how it is prescribed and how it works, it cannot all be owing to a placebo effect. Of course people say that because there are no molecules of a substance in it so they cannot understand how that could do anything, but what they do not understand is the way it is made and why it has an effect even with no molecules of any substance. It is not working on the body like a substance would; it is an energy that is working on the vital force, or the soul, which in turn heals the body.

It’s true that medical doctors are generally skeptics when it comes to homeopathy.

Most of them are downright opposed to it since they see it as quackery, unless they investigated it and became a homeopath. The fact is that many conventional doctors have become homeopathic doctors.

That’s interesting you say that and it intrigues me. I too have met the occasional Baha’i who swears by homeopathy though no practitioners. I’ve met a lot of Baha’i doctors though.

I am sure there are more conventional Baha’i doctors than Baha’i doctors who became homeopaths.

Im not mad, just curious. I don’t want to cause you to become mad or feel undermined. If you do I won’t say anymore as that’s not my intention. I just post in threads that are interesting as the relationship between medical science, religion and homeopathy certainly is.

I know you are not mad, but some people are mad, as you can see on this thread. You are not a mad kind of guy. I think it is always good to be curious. Had I not been curious I would not be a Baha’i today.

I ran the gamut of psychotropic drugs before I landed on the doorstep of the homeopathic doctor, so it is not as if I did not give those drugs a try. However, they nearly killed me and they did not cure my depression at all. Homeopathy changed my life, and nobody can tell me that was the placebo effect. I cannot say what homeopathy does for physical ailments, but I can attest to what it does for mental-emotional ones. Others can attest to its efficacy for physical ailments. My husband had chronic bowel problems which were permanently cured by homeopathy. That was not the placebo effect. He did not “hope” his bowel condition would improve and then it improved. He went through quite a bit of treatment before it was cured, meaning several different remedies.

The existence of God can be proven and Bahá’u’lláh was a real person who walked upon the earth. The reality that He was a Messenger of God can be proven too.

Please share with me how the existence of God can be proven and the reality that Bahá’u’lláh was a Messenger of God can be proven.

I haven’t heard about that but it doesn’t mean it’s not true. It doesn’t mean it is true either.

It has been years since I heard that so I cannot remember who I heard it from. Maybe some of the Baha’is on Baha’i Forums would know.

Thank you for provoking such an interesting thread.

Well, after it got going, I was feeling regretful that I ever even asked Penguin why he was so opposed to homeopathy. I never thought it would stir such controversy. Health care has never been a big concern of mine since I have not had any physical health problems, only mental-emotional ones. Those were cured by homeopathy but I still had some spiritual problems to deal with.

I think that psychological problems and spiritual problems are different although they affect each other. What I mean is that a person can have psychological problems but not have a spiritual problem or they can have spiritual problems and have no psychological problems at all. But psychological problems such as depression can have an effect on our relationship to God and other people so they can become a spiritual problem, kind of like a veil. That veil will be lifted in the afterlife if that psychological problem was physical and they were depressed through no fault of their own.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If something works it is testable. If a concept does not work then the excuse given is that it is not testable. How does a supposed homeopath know what to prescribe?

also homeopathy 's downfall are the dilutions involved. Did the Wiki article that I linked get that wrong? If so can a follower of homeopathy provide a link that explains how those dilutions are done?

 

[Trailblazer]

How does a supposed homeopath know what to prescribe?

They ask the patient a lot of questions and they match the personality of the patient and their present symptoms to the remedy that matches that personality and causes those symptoms. If the remedy causes those symptoms then it will trigger those symptoms in the patient and cause a healing crisis in the patient, after which time the patient gets better. This process often has to be repeated many times and a patient might need many different remedies until the patient is completely cured.

Homeopathy is not about symptom management, it is about cure. Not only do symptoms get resolved but the underlying disease that caused them (which is spiritual) is resolved, so the symptoms never return again. For example, my husband had chronic bowel problems, but after a few remedies those problems were completely resolved and never returned. I had chronic depression and once it was resolved it never returned. After that, neither one of us ever needed to take any drugs for these conditions.

also homeopathy 's downfall are the dilutions involved. Did the Wiki article that I linked get that wrong? If so can a follower of homeopathy provide a link that explains how those dilutions are done?

I do not think it is necessary to understand how the homeopathic remedies are made in order to understand how they work but this website explains it: Homeopathic Medicine - Methods of Preparation by Michael Quinn

In short, the more the remedy is diluted and succussed, the more effect the remedy has upon the person. That is called a higher potency remedy. The caveat is that the higher the potency the closer it has to match the symptoms of the patient in order to have an effect.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They ask the patient a lot of questions and they match the personality of the patient and their present symptoms to the remedy that matches that personality and causes those symptoms. If the remedy causes those symptoms then it will trigger those symptoms in the patient and cause a healing crisis in the patient, after which time the patient gets better. This process often has to be repeated many times and a patient might need many different remedies until the patient is completely cured.

Homeopathy is not about symptom management, it is about cure. Not only do symptoms get resolved but the underlying disease that caused them (which is spiritual) is resolved, so the symptoms never return again. For example, my husband had chronic bowel problems, but after a few remedies those problems were completely resolved and never returned. I had chronic depression and once it was resolved it never returned. After that, neither one of us ever needed to take any drugs for these conditions.

I do not think it is necessary to understand how the homeopathic remedies are made in order to understand how they work but this website explains it: Homeopathic Medicine - Methods of Preparation by Michael Quinn

In short, the more the remedy is diluted and succussed, the more effect the remedy has upon the person. That is called a higher potency remedy. The caveat is that the higher the potency the closer it has to match the symptoms of the patient in order to have an effect.

so you have a system based upon confirmation bias. Not very convincing.

And it appears that the Wiki article was accurate. How many "C" for a typical cure?

 

[Trailblazer]

so you have a system based upon confirmation bias. Not very convincing.

No, that is not based upon confirmation bias, not at all. That is simply how remedies are matched to patients in order to effect a cure.

And it appears that the Wiki article was accurate. How many "C" for a typical cure?

I do not know what you mean by that -- C.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, that is not based upon confirmation bias, not at all. That is simply how remedies are matched to patients in order to effect a cure.

Nope, it is exactly what confirmation bias is. The person got better, it must have been the "treatment".

I do not know what you mean by that -- C.

don't you read your own articles? "C" is the symbol used by homeopaths to mean a dilution of one part in one hundred. 2C would mean one part in ten thousand. That is a medicine diluted one hundred times and then that product diluted one hundred times.

 

[Trailblazer]

Nope, it is exactly what confirmation bias is. The person got better, it must have been the "treatment".

Sorry, I am not going down that road... See ya.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, I am not going down that road... See ya.

That only means that you cannot justify your beliefs. The problem with fake medicine, like homeopathy, is that it may delude people from getting real treatment until it is too late. It can be an evil belief.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Please share with me how the existence of God can be proven and the reality that Bahá’u’lláh was a Messenger of God can be proven.

I don’t want to derail this thread about homeopathy with another major topic about Baha’i proofs in regards a prophet. Shall we start a thread in the Baha’i DIR section and discuss it? I’d usually start any thread in the open debate section but my intention is likely to be misconstrued as proselytising. I’m here on RF to learn and not to push my religion on anyone.

 

[Trailblazer]

That only means that you cannot justify your beliefs. The problem with fake medicine, like homeopathy, is that it may delude people from getting real treatment until it is too late. It can be an evil belief.

No, it does not mean that. It means I do want to argue with you because you are convinced you are right. What more is there to say? I know homeopathy works, you are not going to convince me otherwise. I also know the evil of conventional medicine. See any lawsuits on TV commercials over a homeopathic remedy?

Nobody homeopath deludes anyone. People make their choices and they are responsible for them.
Real treatment, lol. They would not be seeing a homeopath is the "real treatment" had worked.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don’t want to derail this thread about homeopathy with another major topic about Baha’i proofs in regards a prophet. Shall we start a thread in the Baha’i DIR section and discuss it? I’d usually start any thread in the open debate section but my intention is likely to be misconstrued as proselytising. I’m here on RF to learn and not to push my religion on anyone.

I am all for starting it wherever you want to, but I guess if you start it in the Baha’i DIR section nobody but Baha'is can respond? There are pros and cons to that. Do whatever you are comfortable with.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it does not mean that. It means I do want to argue with you because you are convinced you are right. What more is there to say? I know homeopathy works, you are not going to convince me otherwise. I also know the evil of conventional medicine. See any lawsuits on TV commercials over a homeopathic remedy?

Nobody homeopath deludes anyone. People make their choices and they are responsible for them.
Real treatment, lol. They would not be seeing a homeopath is the "real treatment" had worked.

No, I can show you why I am right. You don't seem to want to defend a belief in woo. By admitting that evidence will not convince you you as much as admit that you are wrong and won't face reality.

Since homeopathy is pretty much a self inflicted ill it would be rather hard to form a lawsuit over vague promises.

 

[Trailblazer]

No, I can show you why I am right.

Go ahead.

You don't seem to want to defend a belief in woo.

I could but I do not have the time right now.

By admitting that evidence will not convince you you as much as admit that you are wrong and won't face reality.

What evidence? I do not care about being wrong. That is your gig.
But I am not wrong about what homeopathy did for me. You can't convince me of that because I know what happened to me and YOU DON"T. I am already cured so I have no dog in this fight.

Since homeopathy is pretty much a self inflicted ill it would be rather hard to form a lawsuit over vague promises.

Homeopaths do not make any promises.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Go ahead.

I could but I do not have the time right now.

What evidence? I do not care about being wrong. That is your gig.
But I am not wrong about what homeopathy did for me. You can't convince me of that because I know what happened to me and YOU DON"T. I am already cured so I have no dog in this fight.

Homeopaths do not make any promises.

The problem is that you do not know what homeopathy did for you. You only have belief. Medicine is a very complicated business. That is why the double blind study was invented. You could have been cured by the placebo effect. You may not have been ill to start with. There are multiple explanations. The thing is that if homeopathy worked supporters of it could prove it with proper studies. When tested, and it has been tested hundreds of times, it does no better than the placebo effect.

And I found it rather strange that though you claim a "degree in homeopathy" that you did not even understand the basics of it. The supposed medicine of homeopathy are diluted by a factor of one hundred. Then diluted again, and a again, and again . . .

The founder of this quakery recommended a dilution of 30 C or in other words if you measured it you would have one part "medicine" out of 10^60 molecules. You were being treated with either pure water and alcohol or pure lactose (the preferred diluting agent for pills). You did not get any medicine. There is no "activation of vital energies". None can be shown. All that homeopaths have are empty claims. People that go to homeopaths are simply convinced to wait until they naturally get better at best. Then they falsely give the credit to homeopathy.





Homeopathy - Wikipedia

 

[Trailblazer]

The problem is that you do not know what homeopathy did for you. You only have belief. Medicine is a very complicated business. That is why the double blind study was invented. You could have been cured by the placebo effect. You may not have been ill to start with. There are multiple explanations. The thing is that if homeopathy worked supporters of it could prove it with proper studies. When tested, and it has been tested hundreds of times, it does no better than the placebo effect.

No, there is no other explanation for what happened to me. I went for constitutional homeopathic treatment for over 10 years every two months or so, so I know what happened to me. It is not something I am ever going to forget. I was very ill and it took a long time to get better, but I noticed the effects within the first two months. When a remedy worked, I always got worse before I got better and that is the proof that the remedy was working the way it should.

When tested on what? I did not have physical problems, I had emotional problems. If it did not better than a placebo why would people still go to homeopaths? Most people are not stupid. They want to get better.

And I found it rather strange that though you claim a "degree in homeopathy" that you did not even understand the basics of it. The supposed medicine of homeopathy are diluted by a factor of one hundred. Then diluted again, and a again, and again

I finished school 20 years ago and I have not thought about it much since so I forgot a lot but it comes back now that you talk about it.

The founder of this quakery recommended a dilution of 30 C or in other words if you measured it you would have one part "medicine" out of 10^60 molecules. You were being treated with either pure water and alcohol or pure lactose (the preferred diluting agent for pills). You did not get any medicine. There is no "activation of vital energies". None can be shown. All that homeopaths have are empty claims. People that go to homeopaths are simply convinced to wait until they naturally get better at best. Then they falsely give the credit to homeopathy.

This is no different than arguing about religion. Vital energies cannot be shown any more than we can show that we have a soul, but that does not mean that they do not exist. People do not get better because they waited and got better naturally. People got better because a remedy worked. The thing is that if the homeopath does not get the right remedy nothing happens, and it is not easy to find the right remedy since there are 7, 700 remedies, so unless people are very patient and willing to wait, they do not stick it out.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, there is no other explanation for what happened to me. I went for constitutional homeopathic treatment for over 10 years every two months or so, so I know what happened to me. It is not something I am ever going to forget. I was very ill and it took a long time to get better, but I noticed the effects within the first two months. When a remedy worked, I always got worse before I got better and that is the proof that the remedy was working the way it should.

When tested on what? I did not have physical problems, I had emotional problems. If it did not better than a placebo why would people still go to homeopaths? Most people are not stupid. They want to get better.

Emotional problems are just the sort that can be treated with a placebo. And wanting to get better lowers a person's ability to reason critically. That is why doctors do bear a burden in watching out for a patients welfare. Patients are in a vulnerable place and can easily be taken advantage of.

I finished school 20 years ago and I have not thought about it much since so I forgot a lot but it comes back now that you talk about it.

This is no different than arguing about religion. Vital energies cannot be shown any more than we can show that we have a soul, but that does not mean that they do not exist. People do not get better because they waited and got better naturally. People got better because a remedy worked. The thing is that if the homeopath does not get the right remedy nothing happens, and it is not easy to find the right remedy since there are 7, 700 remedies, so unless people are very patient and willing to wait, they do not stick it out.

And we know how chemicals work. We know how medicines work. That is why we know that homeopathy does not work. It is pure hokum. And once again if the so called medicine worked that could be shown with proper testing. That homeopathy fails constantly when properly tested is how we know that homeopaths merely prey on victims.