9 ms·
"It's a miracle! Take physics and bin it! Water has memory! And whilst its memory of a long lost drop of onion juice is infinite, it somehow forgets all the poo
by sjwright 13y ago
"It's a miracle! Take physics and bin it! Water has memory! And whilst its memory of a long lost drop of onion juice is infinite, it somehow forgets all the poo it's had in it."
- SideburnsOfDoom 13y agoThe water forgets the previous substances that were in it, when a trained homoeopath hits it with magic paddle. Yes, that's really how it's suggested to work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy#Preparation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy#Preparation
- ekianjo 13y agoThe saddest thing is that in some countries (like France...) Homeopathic medicines are actually reimbursed by social security (and therefore paid for by everyone who pays taxes). We're still waiting for double-blind, vs placebo, clinical trials to show how efficacious they really are.
- todd8 13y agoYears ago, I dated a French woman while she was here (in the USA) for a couple of months. She took homeopathic medicine and said that she knew that it worked because it was provided by the national health service! (One night she saw a full moon and remarked to me that it meant it would rain. When I said that I didn't think so, she was surprised and said "All farmers know the full moon brings the rain.")
- seszett 13y agoThe idea is that they are as good as placebos (which are proven to be useful in some cases) so they are actually somewhat useful. While I think that "real" placebos would be better for this than de facto placebos with bullshit pseudoscience attached to them, it's still not completely stupid to reimburse them if they do provide the same level of relief as active medicine through placebo effect. Of course they're not effective at killing bacteria, but there are some domains in which placebos have their place. Edit - to be clear, the reason given for reimbursing them is explicitely that they are good as placebos, they are not claimed by the French social security to be useful as active medicine.
- Sniperfish 13y agoWould that not logically justify reimbursement for anything taken for its placebo effects - which would be literally anything as research[1] showed placebo effect occurs even when the subject knows they are taking a placebo? It feels more like justification after the fact. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/dec/22/placebo-effect-patients-sham-drug http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/dec/22/placebo-effec... [1 alternate] http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/placebos-work-even-when-you-know-10-12-23/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/placebos-w...
- saalweachter 13y agoYou have to be very careful when endorsing placebos. The research I've heard about basically says "placebos only have subjective effects". The classic study was on asthma. Participants receiving the placebo reported feeling better, but had no measurable improvement in lung function. So relying on a placebo for a subjective feeling of improvement could be dangerous whenever what's needed is an actual, objective improvement -- ie, "whenever something is actually wrong".
- zecg 13y agoYes! Also, placebo has been shown to be more efficient if more expensive, so they can't just be giving them away.
- SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago> placebos are actually somewhat useful. Would you go to a doctor who you knew dispensed ineffective sugar pills to the sick? Would it be ethical for a doctor to dispense ineffective sugar pills to the sick and conceal this fact?
- dagw 13y agoWould it be ethical for a doctor to dispense ineffective sugar pills to the sick and conceal this fact? Here's the official opinion of the American Medical Association: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-ethics/code-medical-ethics/opinion8083.page http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-...?
- KumarAseem 13y agoI have no idea on how they do those clinical studies which say that there is no difference between a placebo and actual homeopathic medicines. And what I read of USA, I have doubts that these studies are really done by independent personnel and not by those who get directly/indirectly paid by companies like Merck, J&J, etc. I myself take homeopathic medicines for various ailments (small or big) and have seen improvement in my physical condition every time. Also a lot of people I know rely on homeopathy and not one has ever said that it did not give the desired results. The only factor is that the doctor should be able to diagnose the patient properly and have enough knowledge to understand how each chemical interacts with the body and with other chemical to be able to make a compound that will help the body in overcoming the disease. Homeopathy is as much about the medicines as it is about the knowledge and experience of the doctor.
- brazzy 13y agoYou and the people you know are being scammed, spending your money for nothing. You see improvements because your body is recovering all on its own - it's pretty good at that. Homeopathic "medicines" contain no chemicals that interact with the body or form compounds, which is exactly why anyone who isn't a complete idiot should immediately understand that it's all a bunch of bullshit. Your homeopath peddler (who does not deserve to be called "doctor") understands absolutely nothing about your body, he has merely memorized a bunch of arbitrary meaningless rules.
- ekianjo 13y ago> I myself take homeopathic medicines for various ailments (small or big) and have seen improvement in my physical condition every time. That's exactly the Placebo effect that you are describing.
- LinXitoW 13y agoHomeopathic remedies have been shown to be no more effective than placebos. The thing is, placebos actually are effective to some degree. So the problem isn't that homeopathy isn't effective, it's that the entire premise of why they are effective is total BS, and people are getting ripped off.
- 13y ago
- saalweachter 13y agoDon't feel too smug. A lot of health plans in the US cover chiropractors and acupuncture.
- gambiting 13y agoBoth of which are scientifically proven to work in some cases. Acupuncture can actually relieve pain[1], and as long as a point of going to a chiropractor is to give muscles a massage rather than to pray and inhale incense sticks, then it helps as well. [1]http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11655-011-0665-7 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11655-011-0665-7
- mchusma 13y agoAcupunture is as BS as homeopathy. Here is a great overview. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/reference/acupuncture/ http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/reference/acupuncture/
- aestra 13y agoYeah, I'm sure puncturing the skin can cause a release of endorphins which relieves pain. No doubts there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acupuncture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acupuncture http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/acu.html http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/acu.html
- DanBC 13y agoPain is complex. People report relief from chronic pain after taking placaebo. Cancer patients have relief from pain after cognitive behaviour therapy - a psychological intervention. I have no problem accepting that someone feels pain, has acupuncture, and then no longer feels that pain. I do have a problem with the bullshit mechanisms that acupuncture suggests. Since acupuncture has reasonable few side effects and long term pain medication has some scary side effects it's not so easy ro just dismiss it out of hand even though we know it is nonsense.
- 13y ago
- jaffathecake 13y agoIt's available on the NHS in the UK too. There was an evidence check into it. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-response-to-the-science-and-technology-committee-report-evidence-check-2-homeopathy https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-respon... - which found it to be without evidence. However, the government changed as the report was published and they decided not to act on the findings.
- ekianjo 13y ago> they decided not to act on the findings. Hey, how typical. Let's not imagine a kind of collusion between politicians and homeopathic drugs makers, let's not.
- simias 13y agoThat is correct, however one "rational" explanation I've heard for this fact is that homeopathic remedies have a placebo effect and sometimes manage to replace actual medicine to cure minor ailments. Apparently homeopathy is less expensive than the real stuff so social security has less to reimburse. I'm not sure if that's true or just a clever excuse to keep homeopathy reimbursed though. An other element to consider is that Boiron, the largest homeopathic manufacturer in the world is a french company.
- ekianjo 13y ago> pparently homeopathy is less expensive than the real stuff so social security has less to reimburse. Then we are really reimbursing a very expensive form of sugar. I'm not sure who we are kidding but there is no science behind that kind of policy - and if placebo can make such claims, then it should be Open-bar for products making health claims all across the board, from supplements to food items. Yet these are actually controlled, while the regulations on homeopathics benefit from special provisions. No need to prove anything.
- ekianjo 13y ago> An other element to consider is that Boiron, the largest homeopathic manufacturer in the world is a french company. Yeah, and they have actually moved their site to my home town in France, and they have detestable practices. They grab all the land around them to expand their operations (even though it used to be land reserved for agriculture) by threatening the mayor to leave the city if they don't get everything that they want. They're just a bunch of bullies and I wouldn't be surprised there's some shady thing going on with them and politicians at the national level.
- rmc 13y ago> We're still waiting for double-blind, vs placebo, clinical trials to show how efficacious they really are. There have been double blind vs placebo tests for homeopathy. It doesn't work. It's no better than a placebo.
- ekianjo 13y agoOh, I know, I have seen the studies. I meant, we are still waiting for clinical trials to prove that they work, because so far all trials show it's just like placebo.
- rmc 13y agoBut if there's trials that show they don't work, then you don't need to wait for positive results. The question isn't open, the question has been answered with a "no". Absence of evidence where you should expect evidence is evidence of absence.
- HillRat 13y agoWe're still waiting for double-blind, vs placebo, clinical trials to show how efficacious they really are. They submitted one. It was two dozen blank sheets of paper that "remembered" the data showing homeopathy works.
- acheron 13y agoAs the saying goes: what do they call alternative medicine that passes double-blind clinical tests? Regular medicine.
- ekianjo 13y agoNot sure. I have not seen the data myself, but I have heard more than one that acupuncture has had demonstrated benefits in clinical trials. And chinese medicine usually fares relatively well when put in clinical trials as well. I wouldn't discard everything out there, but homeopathy is, for me, clear BS - from the theory to the data generated.
- mchusma 13y agoHere is a good overview of the evidence. At a high level, Acupunture is just as BS as Homeopathy. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/reference/acupuncture/ http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/reference/acupuncture/ reply
- dfxm12 13y agoI believe OP is saying IF "alternative medicine" can pass the proper clinical trials, then it no longer deserves the "alternative" label, and is just medicine. Let homeopathy go through trials. Let it fail & put these discussions to bed.
- aestra 13y ago> chinese medicine usually fares relatively well when put in clinical trials as well. You gotta be kidding me! Do you really believe that? Traditional Chinese Medicine is based on an incorrect understanding of the body and an incorrect disease model. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Chinese_medicine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Chinese_medicine >With an eye to the enormous Chinese market, pharmaceutical companies have explored the potential for creating new drugs from traditional remedies.[126] Successful results have however been scarce: a 2007 editorial in Nature said that while this may simply be because TCM is largely irrational pseudoscience, advocates have argued that it is because research had missed some key features of TCM, such as the subtle interrelationships between ingredients.[126] http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/acu.html http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/acu.html I am not saying there might be merit in some of the practices, however to say "usually fares relatively well when put in clinical trials" is incorrect.