That's the nocebo effect. If you give someone distilled water and tell them it's a very powerful drug that will cure them but will have serious side effects, a large percentage will experience serious side effects.
Again, that's pretty much the definition of placebo.
But when real active substance based agents are given to achieve specific effects then it eill not be olacebo. Sane hapoen in prescribing homeooathic remedues.
It is an methedological error. Same Homeopathic remedy can not be given to a group. It should be individualized. Non individuakized studies are not applicable for homeopathic remedies since these have different nature snd different prescribing protocols. In short, these can only be given exactly st par to these sre prescribed in homeooathic clinics by comoetent homeopsthas. Moreover since these have minimum apoarent side effects, expression of patients to their effects will be different than modern meds. So justification to confirm effectiveness eill also be different or lesser expressed. Therefore I alwsys ask to collect live evidances by visiting many homeopsthic clinic's, those who eho really need evidances.
So homeopathic concoctions are really nothing but water and they can't be tested, but they work great because some people say they work.
No millon can say they work in their personal experisnce. Regular scientific study is not applicable on these real practical experiance or study based on real practical experisnce is applicable on these. All the studies for these conducted at par to modern medicines are inapptopriate in this sense so can be taken as fake.
If I give you 10ml of pure water and you get the same positive outcome as 10ml of pure water that just happens to have 1 molecule of "active ingredient", then the 1 molecule of "active ingredient" is, logically, irrelevant to the positive outcome. Meta-analysis of studies on homeopathy have shown that homeopathic remedies are no more effective than the placebo effect. Thus the "active ingredient" appears to be irrelevant, and homeopathy only works due to the placebo effect. This is the logic of the situation.
That is true of placebos. Which is why there is known to be such thing as the placebo effect: because, for some people, placebos work.
So you think that homeopathy can't be studied by science? You think we can't test the efficacy of homeopathic remedies compared to the placebo-effect? You don't think double-blind experiments are appropriate??
Correct! You can determine that by a controlled double blind clinical trial. If the clinical trial shows an improvement, then you can say that the treatment has a specific effect.
No problem. Have a homeopath prepare individual remedies for each person. Then have a researcher randomly replace half of them with distilled water. Then run the trial. If both groups see the same outcome, then it's 100% placebo effect.
Then homeopathy is religion, not medicine.
First bot just one molecule. We need to measure it.
It is to be done by science people because homeopsths are already satisfied for the effects, hapoy and floridhing. Those who are unsatisfied need to study these in right way.
So homeopathy is a religion and has nothing to do with actual science. I can buy that.
Correct. They have studied these.
Also correct. Such studies do not compare remedies to other remedies; they compare remedies to placebos. That's the gold standard for tests, because that removes all the confounding factors.
Nope. because the medications tested are unknowns. It would be just as unethical to give all participants ineffective or dangerous medications as it would be to give them all placebos.
No all is not valid for homeooathic remedies as per various justifications given by me. No use just to say, yes or no, this and that, if or but. Thanks for the one sided discussions.
You mean measure the number of molecules? Why? The more potent homepathic remedies (e.g. 200C) mathematically will have only one molecule of active ingredient in more molecules than in the entire universe. Take any 10ml of that, for example, and mathematically you are pretty sure of getting zero molecules of active ingredient in the administered remedy.
You mean identify it, or "measure" it such that it can be objectively quantified?
That rather depends on the nature of the ailment, does it not? If the ailment can be cured in a matter of weeks, why the need for assessment any longer??
First, I've explained above how the notion of "6 months to 2 years" is false.
And you'd be wrong. Now, if homeopathy was proven to work beyond mere placebo, yes, it would be unethical to test v. placebo by withholding that drug from half the test-group. But it hasn't been proven. And the meta-analysis of studies to date shows that homeopathy does not work beyond the placebo-effect.
Just look at any clinical trial. E.g. the Covid vaccines. In each of the studies, half were given the active vaccine, half given saline solution. The patients would have all gone through exactly the same process but would not have known whether they were getting the drug or saline. Saline is the placebo. Thus you can compare the efficacy of the active drug v placebo.
Then homeopathic remedies are not valid when it comes to treating disease.
Yes in moden science theoritical also home but not in practical experiance which is most valid. Whole issue was to justify information/molecular presence in homooathic remedues which was a miss or wekness of science previously but same is now justified in this topic. So no issue is left except to translate it in science language. This topic does not cover to justify effectiveness of dikutiobs still I indicated few basic points. It is upto anyone to benefit from these or remain devoid of these. Simply if too much unsatisfied and is curious he can exoerisnce or observe these practically by visiting few competent homeopsths. No othereises.
Nonsense. You have not justified it at all. You have offered 5 reasons why other molecules may exist other than pure water, but this does not justify that homeopathy works any better than a placebo.
There are plenty of issues left which you are failing to address.
Basic points that do not justify what you think they do, and which have numerous issues that you are failing to address.
It is up to you to acknowledge the science and maths, or keep trolling with your head buried in the sand.
Well, strictly speaking they're as valid as a placebo, which is shown to have some efficacy.
Nonsense. DB studies are valid, despite your protestations, and have shown them to be no more effective than a placebo. Which is not entirely surprising.
If there is no active ingredient in the actual remedy, all you're actually explaining here is that homeopaths have a certain patter with which to sell the placebo effect upon which their "remedies" are based. They can dress it up in any number of ways, with any amount of mumbo-jumbo, so-called "experience". But snake-oil salesmen are still snake-oil salesmen.
More evidence, then, that the effect of the "remedies" are nothing but placebo, and homeopathy nothing but a scam, I'm afraid. Perhaps you're also confusing homeopathy with psychotherapy?
The practical basis shows that the homeopathic remedies are nothing but water, and they work no better than the placebo effect. That is the science and the pracitcal basis. Sure, you can take individual cases and go "Look! It works!" but you can do that for the placebo as well.
Your "justifications" are anything but, and you have failed to address the issues raised with them. Are you going to, or are you just going to continue to whinge about how you think science can't test homeopathy?
You can't test homeopathic remedies because they require magic to work and science science has yet to accurately test magic
I really dislike these elitist blanket prejudicial statements. Native tribes have used natural remedies for thousands of years. Some medicine men have an equivalent knowledge of natural medicines than any modern doctor.
https://news.mongabay.com/2007/03/70-of-new-drugs-come-from-mother-nature/
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/new...project-defines-normal-bacterial-makeup-body#
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2019.01100/full#