NEEPS

Martin · Neepster Joined: 16 Sep 2007 Posts: 675

Make no mistake, I do appreciate the difference between homoeopathy and herbalism, I have used both down the years, and found them both safe and effective (as does the French health system!) - and at one point was close to training as a homoeopath
I really don't think you've grasped what I've been trying to explain, so I'll try a slightly different tack - a homoeopath tends to prescribe according to what is called the patient's "drug picture" - a collection of characteristics that suggest what they call a "constitutional remedy" - yours, mine, and most of the board member's remedies would be totally different......
So what may cure my cough may require a totally different remedy if you present with the same symptoms (you are constitutionally different), SO to expect one "homoeopathic cough remedy" to work for a cross-section of the community (as one gets in "crude drug" trials) is totally misunderstanding how the therapy works............(and shows why trials have to be very carefully designed to give a true picture)..........but obviously, if a therapy is unable to jump through your inaccurately placed hoops you'll give it no credence, (despite the fact that it works, and does no harm!) - so lets move to herbalism -
Common sense dictates that purely under the precautionary principle (which is VERY scientific), it is far more scientific to use a proven (by hundreds or thousands of years of clinical experience) herbal remedy, rather than any "new drug", especially for minor ailments!
As I've tried to say, over and over again - we need balance, not blinkered drug-company propaganda - as France proves, alternative therapies have a big part to ply in a balanced health service - unfortunately the forces of darkness have undue influence throughout the UK health service and government, and they are doing their utmost to remove choice from the UK public by punting false and fallacious arguments against the "alternatives"
_________________
http://solarwind.org.uk

JamesB · Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 2:59 pm Post subject:

oh I do understand your point. Ive no problem with taking time to assess patients, different treatments for different people and yes modern medicine is too quick often (so fair enough to argue for GPs to take more time)
However, Im specifically talking about the pills. If you conduct a proper trial (of which many have been done) which has a large enough sample size then homeopathic pills would win over placebo but they dont. I admit that all trials are not perfect.
but we obviously beg to differ.

moving on, what would be interesting is a trial comparing the homeopathic approach with homeopathic pills and with placebo pills (ie everything else is the same except the content of the pill). I'll have a look to see if many of these have been done. If the ones with homeopathic pills win in the majority of cases vs placebo pills then I would be happy that homeopathic pills work, otherwise lets stick to chalk pills.

James
_________________
JamesB
Mintlaw area

Martin · Neepster Joined: 16 Sep 2007 Posts: 675

believe me, it would be far easier for me to join the hue and cry after homoeopathy, I was schooled in the sciences, and it does seem to be "from the far side", and I don't understand the "how?", but over the years I've had what is a mountain of evidence that it does (annoyingly) work......
The evidence may be "anecdotal", but it is also substantial - one of my daughter's horses that was basically written off as "unridable" for life because of hoof problems by the foremost conventional experts in the field, and thousands of pounds of diagnostics, that's now fit as a flea, and being regularly ridden after a bout of homoeopathic treatments....... being in utter desperation when all my laying birds came down with infectious bronchitis, and being told the "only" cure was antibiotics (which is not a good thing if you're marketing your eggs as "antibiotic free") which recovered in a couple of days after administering a homoeopathic remedy (much to the amazement of the local flockmaster, who thereafter recommended it to all the hard-bitten local egg-producers for the simple reason it was quicker and surer in it's effects than antibiotics, and FAR cheaper!)
Seeing loads of hard-headed people in the horse and farming world who use homoeopathic and herbal remedies exclusively (often where profit is the only driving force) -
With animals, it can't be"placebo", I've had similar experiences with human treatments, but you'll immediately claim it to be psychosomatic, so I won't relate them.............
Please, look earlier in the thread for the explanation of WHY a straight comparison of remedies won't work..........
_________________
http://solarwind.org.uk

Maria · Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 6:40 pm Post subject:

Martin wrote

Martin · Neepster Joined: 16 Sep 2007 Posts: 675

I take your point, but I was deliberately and I considered, measuredly rude back to her, she was arrogantly matronising in a deeply offensive and inaccurate manner, so I merely returned the favour!
She claims to be "scientific" and then does science a great disservice -
but I will (very reluctantly) admit that two wrongs don't make a right, I descended for a while to her incredibly low level of "debate".......
_________________
http://solarwind.org.uk

IainC · Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:13 pm Post subject:

TBH though, I can't see where your PoV is any different, as you can't demonstrate any provable benefits as you yourself said that neither you nor your vet knew how it worked... could just be that the time was right, etc.

ie couple I knew, couldn't have a baby, tried for ages, went to IV treatment, still nothing worked, gave up and bang... she got preg almost straight away... no-one knew how that happened (well, we obviously know WHAT happened, but you know

)

For someone of science to see something and believe it, they first need to see repeatable proof of it, otherwise it could be pure chance.

I certainly don't think, as was mentioned before, that water has a memory, otherwise we're all drinking each others waste everytime we have coffee, tea, whisky, beer, etc.

I also believe that there is a lot to be said for varying types and methods of treatment for different ailments, and like you say, different people react differently to different things (ie I eat some food the wife would never eat and vice versa).

Julie · Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:27 am Post subject:

Martin, earlier in the discussion, you made the claim that hoeopathic medicine has never killed anyone. I'm sure this is true, but it doesn't take into account those patients who may have erroneously put their faith in it until it was too late for conventional medicine to save them. I would be interested to see the statistics for those patients. In a sense, doesn't that constitute killing them by failing to cure them?

Maybe there is a case for more regulation and heightened awareness of alternative therapies full stop. I'm raising this for a reason because ever since you wrote that, it set me thinking about the cousin who tried to cure her cancer using alternative therapies and died because she left it too late. She may have died anyway of course, but my own brother has recently learned that he has incurable, advanced liver disease caused by an insidious virus that he has had for thirty years. It has no symptoms until the damage to your vital organs is done and it is too late. Ironically, had he seen a real doctor for routine things like the rest of us do instead of going to chinese herbalists and homeopaths, it would certainly have been picked up years ago with a blood test for something else and cured with antibiotics

Blood tests being so routine for so many things.
The homeopaths haven't killed him, but their lack of expertise and his own misplaced faith will have before too long.

I would say they are fine for trivial stuff. but no use when you're really ill.
_________________
It is better to light a candle than to rail against the darkness
VOTE WITH YOUR FEET!

JamesB · Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 8:56 am Post subject:

Martin · Neepster Joined: 16 Sep 2007 Posts: 675

Julie - you raise a very vaid point, which is precisely why I think we should adopt something like the French model, whereby a well-qualified professional (Doctor) acts as a "clearing house" whereby any serious diseases should be spotted early on, but still allowing safer, gentler alternative treatments where appropriate! At the moment the UK model says "drugs and the knife is the ONLY way", and those who aren't happy with that are basically committed to the outer darkness to "take their chance" - that is clearly dreadfully wrong (hence my passion about the subject)
I don't know the present position, but you always used to have the right to homoeopathic treatment on the national health - this would, by definition be by a fully-qualified Doctor who also used homoeopathy.............
_________________
http://solarwind.org.uk

Martin · Neepster Joined: 16 Sep 2007 Posts: 675

On the subject of James' point about "if you have symptoms, stay away from people" - what happened to "carriers"? - is it not entirely possible that these vaccinated health professionalswho are in touch with sufferers from the illness could carry and spread the disease whilst not displaying symptoms (which is actually MORE dangerous..............)
As an aside, a friend of my wife's was discussing the wisdom of having the jab with her doctor, who imparted the fact that only one of many doctors in their large practice was having it!
_________________
http://solarwind.org.uk