Bye;: the position of a participant in a tournament who advances to the next round without playing
Do homeopathic remedies contain measurable quantities of the "medicine"?
- Thread starter KUMAR5
- Start date
Homeopathic remedies prepared by professional homeopaths using the methods they prescribe have been tested and found not to work any better than placebos. (Not that the preparation matters, when the supposed "medicine" is essentially water in all but the most minuscule trace amounts, at best.)
Patients who participate in clinical trials of medicines normally go through a rigorous process of informed consent. They understand that they may get the treatment being tested or they may get a placebo, and neither they nor the doctor administering the medicine will know which it is until the end of the study (that's what "double blind" means). If the patient does not consent to participate in the study, he or she does not participate in the study - obviously.
So you are being dishonest about what you posted, imagine my surprise.
Yes it is so anticipated. However I posted this study recently which suggest homeooathic remedies if PROOERLY prescribed show their eorking;
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S096522991830829X
Other duch studies dhould also be there.
It still look ethicaly snd legally odd to me that real patients can be kept without medication even though they give consent for it. It can be sucidal.
In cases where the treatment shows very clear efficacy and significantly improved outcomes. often the trial is ended early so both arms can get the trial treatment. (This was true for one of the COVID vaccines.) Most of the time, though, there is not such a dramatic difference.
Suicidal for a doctor to withhold a treatment of a few drops of water on some sugar pills??? I don't think so.
What is unethical, however, is for homeopaths to peddle something that detracts their patients from actual treatments that work beyond the placebo effect. Which is why Homeopath practitioners tend to be quite careful to say that their remedies are not for life-threatening illness, lest they be found guilty of manslaughter by giving false hope of treatment that can not work.
Bear in mind that noone has ever died from not taking a homeopathic remedy. However, because they believed in homeopathy, they may have died from not taking something that does actually work.
As to the ethics issue: the WHO have reaffirmed its view that it is unethical to conduct placebo-controlled trials where a proven therapy is available for the condition under investigation.
Homeopathy is not a proven therapy - it works no better than a placebo. Therefore, tests between a homeopathic remedy and a placebo are entirely ethical.
Tes but it is rare happening and more likely in case of modern meds. But unlikely in homeooathic dilutions which usually take long time to dhow the difference. Then how double blind study can be possible on homeooathic remedies?
By having trials run with:
medication marked only with an ID number
doctors who don't know what they are administering
patients who don't know what they are getting
That's basic design-of-experiment.
Casuality and damages can happen due to any system. No system is absolute and complete. It dies not mean no one should take sny treatment. Acc. every system has its own limitations, pros and cons. It is not apoarent that no one jas suffered from opting any system. May it be alternative or conventional. So few bad examples about sny system are not goid and valid examples for its rejection ir discredit. Otherwise everyone eill just have to depend on natural healing. Not so?
Moreover homeooathy is an approved suthorized system by controlling and govt suthorities. Well taught in unuversites as degree couse just at oar to med degree course just be a difference in pharnas. Surgeory, dupplements, replacements, nutrition, vaccines etc are not oroperty of any one system but are common for all. Many hospitals also have a deptt for it. Hence common man has no right to discredit and discourage public in general. Let the controlling and admistrative agencies took sction if they find it a fake, harning or otherwise invalid system. They should be more intelkigent and comoetent to deal eith it accordingly not you or me or few.
Not dishonestly but flexibility. Because flexibility is a sign of life wheress stiffness of a dead body. Many wars hapoened just on sticking on words/things very firmly. In science also flexibility on finding oreious understsnding as odd is there. Therefore it is not claimed as absolute, final and complete. Many times we cook a food snd stop cooking thinking it is fully cooked. But then you notice it still remained partially cooked then you again cook more. It is normal and intelligent decision. Othereise it will be odd to eat partially cooked foud. It is not dishonesty to re cook it.So you are being dishonest about what you posted, imagine my surprise.
Last edited:
Ah! You are "flexible" with facts. I think that's also described as alternative facts for many people.
Whatever is non absolute and incomplete can not claim gacts for absolute. He has to to be flexible on it. Obiously
Can you rephrase that?
Whatever is non absolute and complete liable to change anytine. Those are also not fact. So we we need to be flexible on those.
And I test gravity by experiment.
Similariky homeopaths test remedies by practical application.
It absolutely can not happen that someone dies because they don't take a homeopathic remedy. To think that one can is like saying that one can die from not drinking a specific drop or two of water. Because that's what homeopathy is.
No one has advocated that people should take no treatment. But homeopathy will not cure someone of an illness. It may, like all placebos, encourage the body to cure itself, or however placebos actually work, but since there is no active ingredient in the remedy, the remedy itself can not cure the body of anything.
Not sure I fully understand what you're saying, I'm afraid.
Do you think you could die from not drinking a few specific drops of water? I'm going to guess that you don't think you could die. Then how do you think you could die from not taking a homeopathic remedy?
So what? You think that because a government authorises a system that they think it works beyond placebo? Or that they think there are actual molecules of active ingredient in the "more potent" remedies being sold? Being governed is simply to stop things being sold to the public that are dangerous, or practices that are dangerous. Homeopathic remedies are not dangerous, any more than bottled water is. If a person wants to pay for homeopathy, that is up to them. If a government wants to regulate them, that's up to the government. But being regulated doesn't mean that it works.
In the UK there is no regulation of practitioners at all. Remedies have to be governed just as much as bottled water do, or any other good being sold, to ensure that they are not dangerous to the public.
You can be taught many things at university, but in the UK the only universities that will give you a degree in homeopathy are universities that are set up specifically to do so, likely sponsored by foundations or companies that benefit financially from the practice. No medical school offers such a degree, as far as I am aware.
Not in the UK. Private hospitals may, but then private hospitals can cater for anything they think will make them money. Certainly the NHS, which covers the vast bulk of medical care in the UK, does not support homeopathy. I guess governments of countries that have a significant industry in the practice won't be as willing to tell people it's no more than the placebo, because presumably it makes that government a lot of money in taxes.
Nonsense. The "common man" has every right to discredit what they can support with fact - such as homeopathic remedies only working through the placebo effect, the remedies having no active ingredient etc. They can discourage anything at all that they don't agree with. They do it all the time. At least in my country. Maybe not if one lives in a totalitarian or authoritarian regime where disagreeing with the government is illegal, etc. It's called Free Speech and should be encouraged.
They do: the NHS in the UK no longer fund it as there is no clinical evidence to support it having any benefit at all. Of course, people can and do have the right to seek whatever alternative remedies they want. But having that choice does not mean that those choices have any validity behind them.
When the maths speaks for itself, and the clinical trials speak for themselves, it doesn't really take too much intelligence to realise what's going on. But ignorance is powerful, I guess.
You are very much odd oerceived against homeooathy. You still call remedies as plain water inspite of six valid justifications are given by me for other molecular oresence than H2O molecules in remedies. I have also justified their eorking by posting a study earlier, by observed oractical experiances in mass for long. I have also given my experisnce of syrup water. But nothing is convincing you. If you see full moon as Sun in dark and can not feel the difference, I can not force you to accept the truth. Personally if non or less dangerous treatments are available to me why I should go for dangerous treatments? If plain water can satisfy my thirst why I should take soft or hard drinks? Drinking wer is more natural, cheap and more satisfying eithout undue side effects. Also why I should go for more costly, with more side/adverse effects and for those where negligencee and oversights oay very heavily treatmente when othereise good and more natural treatmente are available to me?
Moreover if RCTs are the only and absolute critetia for justifying true efficacy, how so many modern meds called back, found dangerous,, banned and do not persist for long after introduction in field/real use in common oublic? Show me any moden med which persisted for more than 50 or 100 years alike homeooathic remedies oersisted for more thsn 200 years. In some sense longevity of regular existance in well soread public in mass itself is a critetia for giving credit or discredit to an agent.
In short, though we can consider well spread modern well educated and well informed public in mass as fool, but it will just be our oersonal odd status not truth in general. They are not fools. So take care accordingly and come out of dark differenciate between full moon and Sun. Best luck.
Last edited:
I am very much in line with scientific and rational thinking on the matter.
Stop being a troll! I have explained repeatedly why those 6 "justifications" are nothing of the sort, with most of them being irrelevant with regard there being molecules of active ingredient. If all you can do is repeat ad nauseam that you have offered 6 explanations, then you are nothing but a troll. Address the criticisms of your "justification"!
No, you haven't. You have, if anything, merely identified cases of the placebo effect working, not the actual homeopathic remedy. So again, stop trolling and address the criticism.
Which is irrelevant - as you're not starting with sterilised equipment.
The bigger issue you should be addressing is why it has convinced you.
You're starting from the false premise that it is me who holds the irrational view. You believe in homeopathy. That's fine. But it is hocum, and not based on anything that has ever been proven to work beyond the placebo effect. You can either accept that truth or not. But if all you can do is bleat that "I have given you 6 justifications" then you're just trolling, and not doing yourself any favours. I get that it's probably because you're unable to rebut the criticism. I get that you're a "believer". But you're also just trolling.
All irrelevant to the issue. People can waste their money on anything they want, as long as it is not illegal. But that still doesn't mean it works any better than a placebo.
They generally test for efficacy, and get approved on that basis, and whether there is a short-term risk. It is only after longer-term use that previously unknown side-effects might be identified, hence the recalls etc. That doesn't mean the recalled drugs don't work better than placebo, only that there are risks that the regulatory body deem too high for public use.
Homeopathy won't be found dangerous, because there's nothing there other than water (or normal polutions etc). No active ingredient in the vast majority of remedies, and those "lower-potency" remedies with a sufficient concentration to actually affect the body are no longer homeopathic but rather just natural remedies.
You mean like salicylate meds, which have been used in one form or another for the past 2,400 years? You might know it under the brand name of Aspirin.
Just because something persists does not mean the active ingredients in it work better than the placebo effect. For those where the placebo effect work, they'll think it was the active ingredient, so they'll think homeopathy works. But it is not the active ingredient (which doesn't exist in the majority of remedies) rather just the placebo effect that cured their ailment. All you're doing by pointing out that homeopathy cures ailments is pointing to people where the placebo effect has worked, and going "oh, look, homeopathy works!" You're unfortunately not looking at every case of a remedy NOT working. It's called sample bias.
And, as already reminded, it's going to persist because there's nothing adverse that can happen - noone has ever died from taking a few ml of water.
People who believe in homeopathy as offering anything more than the placebo effect are fools. I need take no care in stating that. And by "fool" I mean that they are not thinking rationally. It is fine for people to take homeopathic remedies in an effort to trigger the placebo effect (which can work even when one knows it is a placebo), but for homeopaths to market their remedies as effective beyond that, as containing active ingredient, is fraudulent.
I know the difference, thanks. The question you should be asking is why you are so easily convinced by homeopathy as being more than the placebo effect. Nothing you have offered thus far suggests anything other than the placebo effect, yet you remain convinced. Nothing you have offered stands up to scrutiny that there is a mechanism at play within homeopathy that does anything, other than as a placebo.
Do you actually have anything, or have we exhausted your limited thinking on the matter?
That is not how homeopathic potions are made, so your 'experience' with syrup water is irrelevant.
Of course homeopathic potions don't work so it doesn't really matter.