About the value of studies

[Annapurna]

quote from wiki

[Calahand]

"If this type of ignorace weren't so sad, I would have been rolling on the floor by now.

Still 20 years ago, every serious scientist dismissed acupuncture.

Now they have to admit that it works, because we have so much evidence.

In a while from now, it may be possible to explain how homeopathy works.

What any homeopath like me can already tell you today is this:

We know it works, and so do our healed patients.

We are 'tailors'. We don't make one suit that fits all.

We don't treat symptoms, but remove causes. "

Hello, colleague,

I couldn't have said it any better than you! Perfect!

Actually this is what I say on my professional blog which is still under construction: http://naturheilpraxisbeuing.blogspot.com/

Perhaps it should be mentioned here that many people who take homeopathic remedies often don't need any allopathic remedies even in higher age.

Hope we can chat some more about this!

Hi there, I was claiming that there isn't strong evidence (Other than anecdotal) that homeopathy works, i just put what you said in quotations. Sorry if I wasn't clear...

[Annapurna]

Oh.

Of course YOU don't have much evidence, but others do.

Plenty of first hand experience.

I also think we all deserve the remedies we get.

We may not be able to leave thinking to others, we may need to do some own studies and cultivate some independant thinking.

The clientel of homeopathic counsellors has an overwhelmingly high percentage of young to middle aged academics with high profile careers and superior income.

Kinda speaks for intelligent customers and not unedacated gullible folks who fall for snake oil.

Plus, one shouldn't pass any judgements about things one doesn't know much or anything about. It can only be PREjudice or chewing the cud of others.

[Calahand]

Oh.

Of course YOU don't have much evidence, but others do.

Plenty of first hand experience.

I also think we all deserve the remedies we get.

We may not be able to leave thinking to others, we may need to do some own studies and cultivate some independant thinking.

The clientel of homeopathic counsellors has an overwhelmingly high percentage of young to middle aged academics with high profile careers and superior income.

Kinda speaks for intelligent customers and not unedacated gullible folks who fall for snake oil.

Plus, one shouldn't pass any judgements about things one doesn't know much or anything about. It can only be PREjudice or chewing the cud of others.

Sorry, Like i said, no evidence whatsoever, if there was evidence it would have been adopted to mainstream medicine. Now, i am not saying it won't be helpful, it might be helpful, but it may not be helpful too, if you give it thinking that "like cures like" and it works then thats fine, but it is not evidence based medicine.

[Vardali]

Anna was saying before that homoepathic treatment works with animals.

I know a lot of pet owners who think so too. And to be fair, I have had good success with some non-allopathic treatment of my cats, usually for small things not worth putting them through the stress of a vet visit or in cases when the vet gave up on them. There is a lot of increasing evidence on the benefits of natural remedies (supplements, spices etc.), so it's not always homoepathic. However, I have seen it work sometimes, but I also had cases where no change could be detected. This is why homoepathy is never gonna be proven effective by terms of clinical studies.

Not sure whether I said this before but I think the best effects when using natural remedies and homoepathic treatment works around the immune system, i.e. the "internal balance", so to speak. I wouldn't even think of relying on it for treatment of parasites, broken bones, high fever etc. (even though I know that there are supposedly "supporting" stuff, I would stick to bio-chemical and standard allopathic treatment). However, even homoepaths seem to be divided on that; my vet works closely with a homoepath (who holds a doctorate in bio-chemistry, btw, so science and alternative medicines is not mutually exclusive ). This homoepath actually doesn't support sole homoepathic treatment of serious bacterial infection, fungal infections or parasites with homoepathic means because in her opinions homoepathy is not suitable for that stuff (although it is for supporting the self-healing capabilities of the body). Nevertheless, there are many homoepaths who refuse any allopathic means and religiously believe homoepathic treatment can heal everything (it's just trial and error to find the "right" means). This latter attitude I do find a bit incredible, and I rather appreciate the more differentiating view on what alternative medicine could potentially - or not - deliver.

But as some here have said, it does remain anecdotal in the end.
And hm, that was a bit off-topic now, wasn't it?

[Calahand]

Anna was saying before that homoepathic treatment works with animals.

I know a lot of pet owners who think so too. And to be fair, I have had good success with some non-allopathic treatment of my cats, usually for small things not worth putting them through the stress of a vet visit or in cases when the vet gave up on them. There is a lot of increasing evidence on the benefits of natural remedies (supplements, spices etc.), so it's not always homoepathic. However, I have seen it work sometimes, but I also had cases where no change could be detected. This is why homoepathy is never gonna be proven effective by terms of clinical studies.

Not sure whether I said this before but I think the best effects when using natural remedies and homoepathic treatment works around the immune system, i.e. the "internal balance", so to speak. I wouldn't even think of relying on it for treatment of parasites, broken bones, high fever etc. (even though I know that there are supposedly "supporting" stuff, I would stick to bio-chemical and standard allopathic treatment). However, even homoepaths seem to be divided on that; my vet works closely with a homoepath (who holds a doctorate in bio-chemistry, btw, so science and alternative medicines is not mutually exclusive ). This homoepath actually doesn't support sole homoepathic treatment of serious bacterial infection, fungal infections or parasites with homoepathic means because in her opinions homoepathy is not suitable for that stuff (although it is for supporting the self-healing capabilities of the body). Nevertheless, there are many homoepaths who refuse any allopathic means and religiously believe homoepathic treatment can heal everything (it's just trial and error to find the "right" means). This latter attitude I do find a bit incredible, and I rather appreciate the more differentiating view on what alternative medicine could potentially - or not - deliver.

But as some here have said, it does remain anecdotal in the end.
And hm, that was a bit off-topic now, wasn't it?

Nah, not really off-topic, I read a couple of studies where I thought homeopathy would be helpful, like treating asthma-for example, but when I went to look for evidence that it works, I found that it is on par with the placebo. Now, coming from the allopathic side I thought i was biased at first, but dude, if you don't see the efficacy, you don't see the efficacy of that treatment, its that simple- no point beating around the bush. Ofcourse, this doesn't mean everything we do in modern medicine is strictly "evidence based". We sometimes give patients stuff that we think might help, but we tell it like it is: "We are not sure it will work for you, but give it a try and see, but there is no guarantee that it will work because we are not sure ourselves if it works or not". Yeah it makes you look stupid sometimes, but you can't lie. What upsets me is these people (those who work in healthcare and related scientific fields) spend their entire lives devoting themselves to finding out what works, testing, retesting themselves and their information, they put themselves in severe scrutiny, spend millions of dollars to find the treatment that works and they are thought of as ignorant, while others take some random philosophy like "Like will cure like" and dilute something to a billionth degree and give essentially sugar water and claim that it is superior to modern medicine. Its downright sad, and hilarious at the same time.

[Annapurna]

Sorry, Like i said, no evidence whatsoever, if there was evidence it would have been adopted to mainstream medicine. Now, i am not saying it won't be helpful, it might be helpful, but it may not be helpful too, if you give it thinking that "like cures like" and it works then thats fine, but it is not evidence based medicine.

Sorry, Like i said, no evidence whatsoever, if there was evidence it would have been adopted to mainstream medicine.

It is.

Come here, and leave your little world behind.

Homeopathic remedies are paid for by insurances here, and not because they are cute little sugar pills.

Fortunately, we (homeopaths) don't need much advertizement, because the success of it is legendary.

I, for instance couldn't care less if somebody is willing to take the "red pill" and leave the MATRIX or not.

It's entirely up to them, and while they still wonder what to do or walk away, we are busy with those who made up their minds to take a risk and find out the truth for themselves.

You friendly

neighborhood homeopath.