Homeopathy

Mutsumi

Guild Member
ayase said:
Mutsumi said:
tl;dr: if it works, why is there no proof?
Is Humanity at such a level that we are able to find proof for anything and everything which can be proven or disproven? Seen the Higgs boson particle yet?

You mentioned the placebo effect; how the hell does that work then? You can think yourself better? Clearly observation of the placebo effect demonstrates that you can. There is proof for this but no explanation of why it might be the case; only hypothesis.

Note that I'm not trying to take sides here. I just think there is a lot about the structure of the universe we don't yet understand, and I don't think anyone on either side of this debate should claim to know conclusively how it works when we obviously aren't yet advanced enough to.

I agree. Plenty of things we know as science nowadays still existed hundreds of years ago without being understood. Likewise today things exist without explanation that in a hundred years or so will be common science.

However, all this talk of "essences" and "vital force" just screams far too much of new-age bullcrap for my liking. If there were any legitimacy to these "essences" and "vital forces", you wouldn't be referring to them "like this" for a start.

Should NHS money be spent on something which is at best, scientifically unproven and, at worst, ineffective? Not according to experts.
 

Vashdaman

Za Warudo
Mutsumi said:
ayase said:
Mutsumi said:
tl;dr: if it works, why is there no proof?
Is Humanity at such a level that we are able to find proof for anything and everything which can be proven or disproven? Seen the Higgs boson particle yet?

You mentioned the placebo effect; how the hell does that work then? You can think yourself better? Clearly observation of the placebo effect demonstrates that you can. There is proof for this but no explanation of why it might be the case; only hypothesis.

Note that I'm not trying to take sides here. I just think there is a lot about the structure of the universe we don't yet understand, and I don't think anyone on either side of this debate should claim to know conclusively how it works when we obviously aren't yet advanced enough to.

I agree. Plenty of things we know as science nowadays still existed hundreds of years ago without being understood. Likewise today things exist without explanation that in a hundred years or so will be common science.

However, all this talk of "essences" and "vital force" just screams far too much of new-age bullcrap for my liking. If there were any legitimacy to these "essences" and "vital forces", you wouldn't be referring to them "like this" for a start.

Should NHS money be spent on something which is at best, scientifically unproven and, at worst, ineffective? Not according to experts.

If I said it like that its because they can be called many defferent things. Some homeopaths even prefer not to use the term "vital force" at all strangely enough. Those are the words I like to use. You call even call it Qi or Prana as I mentioned previously. There is nothing new agey about Qi or Prana, the knoweledge of this force has been around thousands of years and clearly in numerous different cultures, it all largely refers to the same "vital force" however.
 

ayase

State Alchemist
Mutsumi said:
Should NHS money be spent on something which is at best, scientifically unproven and, at worst, ineffective? Not according to experts.
In all honesty, when my money is going to fund wars, bank bailouts, MPs' duck houses and various public-private partnerships (y'know, those ones where the profits are private but the losses are public) homoeopathy is probably one of the least objectionable things it could be used for. Frankly just taking my money and burning it would be less objectionable than most things taxation is used for.
 

CitizenGeek

Guild Member
vashdaman, your insinuations that we should be suspicious of science is reminiscent of the way in which creationists speak. That is not a compliment. Creationists, like homeopathy advocates, speak in terms of science being inexact or suspect in some way, then point to extraordinary cases of extremely rare 'scientists' who back their own views. If homeopathy did work, then big pharma would be investing in it and adverstising it ... companies never ignore an income stream. The fact is these companies know they could never make a profit off of homeopathy because it just doesn't work.

Would you advise a cancer patient to forego chemotherapy in favour of homeopathy? I doubt it.

I once complained of an earache to a pharmacist and he advised me to take a homeopathic remedy. The result was 7 days of taking the homeopathic 'remedy' and a much worse ear infection. When I did eventually go to the doctor, she was shocked at how badly infected my ear had become, and prescribed a strong drug to fight that infection. This is an example of why homeopathy is dangerous. People ignore or forego actual medicine in favour of nonsense superstition.

Mutsumi said:
Back in the day, before all that science happened, there were still medicines. When science appeared, they tested it all to see which ones worked. The ones that were proven to have worked they called 'medicine', and you'll find these in pharmacies and prescribed to you by doctors. The ones that didn't work were called 'homeopathic medicines', because fans of it were still adamant that they did work, but because it couldn't be proven, they were not accepted as proper medicine.

Essentially, homeopathic medicine is the commercialisation of the placebo effect.

I cannot agree enough with these sentiments.
 

Vashdaman

Za Warudo
CitizenGeek said:
vashdaman, your insinuations that we should be suspicious of science is reminiscent of the way in which creationists speak. That is not a compliment. Creationists, like homeopathy advocates, speak in terms of science being inexact or suspect in some way, then point to extraordinary cases of extremely rare 'scientists' who back their own views. If homeopathy did work, then big pharma would be investing in it and adverstising it ... companies never ignore an income stream. The fact is these companies know they could never make a profit off of homeopathy because it just doesn't work.

Would you advise a cancer patient to forego chemotherapy in favour of homeopathy? I doubt it.

I once complained of an earache to a pharmacist and he advised me to take a homeopathic remedy. The result was 7 days of taking the homeopathic 'remedy' and a much worse ear infection. When I did eventually go to the doctor, she was shocked at how badly infected my ear had become, and prescribed a strong drug to fight that infection. This is an example of why homeopathy is dangerous. People ignore or forego actual medicine in favour of nonsense superstition.

Mutsumi said:
Back in the day, before all that science happened, there were still medicines. When science appeared, they tested it all to see which ones worked. The ones that were proven to have worked they called 'medicine', and you'll find these in pharmacies and prescribed to you by doctors. The ones that didn't work were called 'homeopathic medicines', because fans of it were still adamant that they did work, but because it couldn't be proven, they were not accepted as proper medicine.

Essentially, homeopathic medicine is the commercialisation of the placebo effect.

I cannot agree enough with these sentiments.

Ok, so now I'm a creationist am I? :roll: . I'm lover of science actually, and these scientists that I'm talking about aren't rare, you probably just don't pay attention to what they do.
What I am saying though is don't blindly believe something just because it's the popular consensus, find out the truth of the matter for yourself.

As for your ear ache, well I'm sorry to hear about it, but the fact is you were recommended a remedy by a doctor. You didn't see a skilled homeopath who prescribed to you in a proper manner.

As for you "Why haven't big pharma invested in homeopathy", heres a corker: they already have! New Era homeopathy for example is owned by Merk & co.

http://www.seven-seas.com/products/new-era

Seven-seas is owwned by Merk, it even states it on the site if you don't believe me. they're not the only ones, who do you think provide Boots homeopathy?

However the big pharma are well aware that if it was just homepathy they were supplying (which is cheaper) they wouldn't make even a fraction of the profit they currently do. Homeopathy is also prescribed in a way that would not sit well with the industry,it would change the whole way we look at health care in the west if homeopathy was accepted in the main stream and taught in our schools ect. The big pharma are mainly in it for the profit and there is profit in keeping people on drugs
 

CitizenGeek

Guild Member
vashdaman said:
What I am saying though is don't blindly believe something just because it's the popular consensus, find out the truth of the matter for yourself.

I don't have the knowledge or the resources that are required to scientifically test the efficacy of homeopathy. Because this is the case, I'm inclinced to accept the overwhelming consense of the scientific community, which is that homeopathy does not work. You are no "lover of science" ... the scienfitic method has been applied to testing the claims made my homeopaths and the conclusion is that those claims are false. Your proof for the efficacy of homeopathy is basically "just a hunch". That's not what science is about.
 

Vashdaman

Za Warudo
It's not based on "just a hunch", where did you get that from?
My belief that homeopathy works comes directly from my own experience with it, in which it has worked numerous times. There can be no greater scientific proof than experiencing something for youself.
 

Mutsumi

Guild Member
Some people claim to have experienced ghosts for themselves. Some people claim to have experienced alien abduction themselves. The claim of experiencing someone for oneself cannot be used to validate what is being claimed.

Homoeopathy has had 200 years to prove itself. Why hasn't it?
 

CitizenGeek

Guild Member
vashdaman said:
There can be no greater scientific proof than experiencing something for youself.

Are you actually serious? Individual experiences do not count as science. It's anecdotal 'evidence' at the very most. You are just going on a hunch, because you've 'just got a feeling' that the homeopathic remedy you took cured you of whatever sickness you had. The truth is that both events (taking the homeopathic remedy and recovering from an illness) are very likely not related at all. You certainly have nothing even vaguely resembling strong, scientific evidence to show that there is a link between the two.
 

Vashdaman

Za Warudo
CitizenGeek said:
vashdaman said:
There can be no greater scientific proof than experiencing something for youself.

Are you actually serious? Individual experiences do not count as science. It's anecdotal 'evidence' at the very most. You are just going on a hunch, because you've 'just got a feeling' that the homeopathic remedy you took cured you of whatever sickness you had. The truth is that both events (taking the homeopathic remedy and recovering from an illness) are very likely not related at all. You certainly have nothing even vaguely resembling strong, scientific evidence to show that there is a link between the two.

Nope sorry I disagree, direct experience is the best kind of proof and the only kind of proof you can really trust. It's not a hunch, I saw and felt a direct change after receiving homeopathic treatment and I now have no doubts about it, niether would you if you had a similar experience and if you did doubt your own experience just because someone you don't know(and who hasn't even tried homeopathy) told you to, then you'd be a fool.

As you previously said you don't personally have the means to test homeopathy yourself in a scrict scientificly acceptable way, so all you can do and what you are telling me to do is to have "faith" in someone(who I don't know, therefore can't trust) else's research and conclusions. So tell me, what is the better way of gleaning the truth of the matter: to simply have "faith" in someone elses conclusion or to experience it properly for yourself and go off that?

@Matsumi
Homeopathy has proven itself in some studies though, but as I mentioned earlier you won't hear about it in the news.
 

Tachi

Mushi-shi
A slight metaphor for vash's last post, most specifically;
"So tell me, what is better way of gleaning the truth of the matter: to simply have "faith" in some elses conclusion or to experience it properly for yourself and go of that?"

If, say a student can go all the way through to uni, study hard and know all the textbook "proven facts" however, when it comes to using that knowledge and putting it into practice ones self, the experience is different. we all think differently, feel different towards different things and act differently. What works for 1 doesn't mean to say that it works for all (which is partly why in healthcare they tend to get a second opinion on a diagnosis to make sure people are seeing the same thing).

There's a certain amount of "salt" that you must take during your lives, you can't take everything thats said or given to you as fact. As there's little way of telling if it is truly accurate or not unless you do the same thing and find the same conclusion.

The other year for instance, they concluded that mt everest was higher than they previously thought. Simply because the techniques for measuring had been improved since the last time they checked, The first reading went by without anyone contesting it, people just took the info as fact and unquestionable. Science contradicts itself constantly and in cases "DIY" will serve you better simply because you yourself will find the result, nobody else can tamper with the evidence. But as i said before, a second opinion usually helps alot (therefore contradicting onesself again)

Overall the most neutral way of sorting things out is to say "different strokes for different folks" Things may work for some, but at the end of the day we are all different so we hold different opinions on things, so best to just respect that others think or feel different to our own opinions and just get on with it.

@mutsumi, i just call you muts... much easier to remember and also i picture you as a st. bernard lol
 

Vashdaman

Za Warudo
^
Yep absolutely.

homeopathy won't always be successful in some cases, but then niether will conventional medicine, it just depends really. Even me myself I have to say that homeopathy isn't my first chioce of healing or therapy. Now the main way I would even think to heal myself if needed is through Chen Tai Ji and Qi Gong, but then Tai Ji and Qi Gong require huge dedication so even they won't suit some people.
 

MaxonTreik

Chuunibyou
Medicine is a proven science. It has decades upon decades of study and research put into it to build up a vast database of knowledge. Medicine knows why things work. That's what science is. You can't just call a first hand experience science without knowing the reason behind it. That's like me getting a nettle sting and using a nearby leaf to heal the wound and calling it science.

I am not arguing the validity (or the lack of) of homeopathy, but to call it a science is a bit much.

Also, saying medicine doesn't always work isn't really a good case. The number of treatments and ailments are so vast and can overlap that a doctor may get things wrong. There's nothing wrong with the science of it. Human error or unknown factors are what lead to problems.
 

Vashdaman

Za Warudo
err, no its not really the same at all, but then if the leaf works why not? Homeopathy does have a whole theory behind it you know, so I can say I do know how it works.

Yes your right though medicine is a proven science, and homeopathy is medicine ;). If your just talking about conventional medicine though well thats a bit silly really, as they don't know why all things work, and the pharmacuetical industry has made people more sick then they were to begin with so many times now. It's not just the doctor mis prescribing, its the actual drugs themselves that can be dangerous.
 

MaxonTreik

Chuunibyou
You keep going on about how bad the pharmaceutical industry is, but all I see is a one-sided anti-establishment/corporate agenda. I don't get where you get this idea that they're making more people sick but I don't think that's a fair thing to say. Yeah, the industry isn't angelic, but I am willing to put faith in medicine and pharmaceuticals trying to cure things that we previously thought were incurable, like cancer.

Also, please don't call other people's arguments silly. That's just a desperate attempt to demean who you are arguing with, it's rather rude and I'd appreciate it if you didn't do that.
 

Vashdaman

Za Warudo
Maxon said:
You keep going on about how bad the pharmaceutical industry is, but all I see is a one-sided anti-establishment/corporate agenda. I don't get where you get this idea that they're making more people sick but I don't think that's a fair thing to say. Yeah, the industry isn't angelic, but I am willing to put faith in medicine and pharmaceuticals trying to cure things that we previously thought were incurable, like cancer.

Also, please don't call other people's arguments silly. That's just a desperate attempt to demean who you are arguing with, it's rather rude and I'd appreciate it if you didn't do that.

Fair enough, didn't mean to offensive. But there are many other very valid and effective forms of medicine out with and some that have been around way longer, I disagree that conventional western medicine is the only form of medicine that warrants being called scientific.

As for pharmaceutical industry, I'm regocnise the good that they are doing and I'm not saying all conventional medicine is the devil's work or anything like that, but it is misused far too often. They test potentially dangerous drugs on the population far to often and completely get away it. I just personally see more holistic forms of healing as more effective, as they actually get to the root of the illness.
 

Tachi

Mushi-shi
Completely agree, but science relies on a trail by trail basis, with not everyone being the same it takes an untold amount of time to pinpoint specific science behind things. There are oriental medicines that can be used to help cure things, In the western world we look at that simple "remedy" with suspicion and doubt it, why? because its not in a form of tablet that we've learnt to class as scientifically proven to be benefitial to us.

But surely your not denying that there's a certain science involved when they find a new frog and using trial and error to find out what it does and what it can be used for? Whos to say that our forms of science are truly "advanced"? For instance, the locals could have worked out for themselves the benefits of that frog, long before we use our science on it. Just because our science is more "advanced" (using test tubes and chemical equasions) it doens't negate the fact that they where able to find the same conclusion using trial and error and basic logic. And with that, who's to say that breathing and moving in a certain way is any more or less benefitial than these fad diets that are "scientifically proven to lose weight" In one regard our science has "proven" this diet, but using primitive knowledge we know that physical movement is more benefitial to weight loss than counting calories. So simply, by western standards its not scientifically proven to benefit you.... but by other standards it is. Its almost the same as "he said, she said" The best way to think about it is "what do i personally believe?"

One last point is; did we need to scientifically prove such a thing as air? Not really, we managed to survive long enough without a chemical equasion and scientific name for what we are breathing in naturally. Some things can't be classified as simply as "science and not science" its not as cut and dry as that.
 
Top