Question:
(BKMarciaPhD) writes: > > One in three vets in Germany incorporates this alternative > > method. One in > > five of this particular vet’s Sydney patients are houshold > > pets. "Homeopathy > > actually has a higher success rate with animals than it does > > with humans. I > > think it’s because animals don’t have our mental and > > emotional blocks," she > > says. Many people are skeptical about homeopathy, and believe > > it to be all > > in the mind, but "if that were true, homeopathy wouldn’t work > > so well on > > animals."
Another statement by somebody without a clue as to how science works. Unless the person who decides whether or not a treatment "worked" on the animal is somebody who doesn’t know if the animal got the treatment or not (to eliminate unconscious rater bias), and unless there is a control group to eliminate the natural bias that comes from the fact that many things get better "on their own" even in untreated pets, and finally, unless the experiment is REPLICABLE, so that we know the result is not due to chance, or some problem with one group of investigators only– unless all these things are true, one cannot say anything one way or the other about whether homeopathy "works" on animals. <Sigh> One can see here why the full scientific method, as we know it, is only a century old, or less. Apparently it’s a fairly "unnatural" way to think, so much so that some people find it almost impossible, even today. Magical thinking and generalizing post hoc from a single event is something that humans fall into much more readily. > > Among the 2000-odd homeopathic remedies available are > > treatments for > > infections, sterility, paralysis, aggression, hypersexuality, > > jealousy, > > and improved recovery after surgery. But the most common > > ailments she > > treats are dermatitis, itching, flea allergies and > > flatulence. [*]
Well, now, there you go. If somebody comes in reporting that their bulldogs pass less gas, you just have to believe them. Human knowledge marches on. Of COURSE people who have paid you a substantial sum for a treatment which was ineffective, would honestly admit that their dogs still farted just as much as ever… Steve Harris, M.D. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > This vet (German trained, Manuela Trueby) also uses Bach > > flower remedies, > > vitamin therapy and iridology in conjunction with traditional > > animal > > nursing. "A vet, like a doctor, cannot afford to be > > narrow-minded about > > healing – that’s neglect." > Here is a re-post from medical physics a while back.. > One may conclude that placebo can be effective, although it > has its limitations like everthing else.
Response:
> * Message originally: > To : John Savage > Area: "Medical Physics" > * Forwarded by Bryan K. Marcia Ph.D. > * In a message originally to All, John Savage said: > > On the same weekend as I read this thread, there appeared a > > one page profile > > on a Sydney practitioner in our local newspaper (SMH Weekend > > Magazine Oct 14). > > For those interested, here are a few notes I’ve gleaned from > > that article. > > One in three vets in Germany incorporates this alternative > > method. One in > > five of this particular vet’s Sydney patients are houshold > > pets. "Homeopathy > > actually has a higher success rate with animals than it does > > with humans. I > > think it’s because animals don’t have our mental and > > emotional blocks," she > > says. Many people are skeptical about homeopathy, and believe > > it to be all > > in the mind, but "if that were true, homeopathy wouldn’t work > > so well on > > animals." > > Among the 2000-odd homeopathic remedies available are > > treatments for > > infections, sterility, paralysis, aggression, hypersexuality, > > jealousy, > > and improved recovery after surgery. But the most common > > ailments she > > treats are dermatitis, itching, flea allergies and > > flatulence. [*] > > This vet (German trained, Manuela Trueby) also uses Bach > > flower remedies, > > vitamin therapy and iridology in conjunction with traditional > > animal > > nursing. "A vet, like a doctor, cannot afford to be > > narrow-minded about > > healing – that’s neglect." > Here is a re-post from medical physics a while back.. > One may conclude that placebo can be effective, although it > has its limitations like everthing else.
Response:
writes Dragonslayer writes: >The only reason hardline scientists hold it in less than high >regard is because the ‘precise’ reasons it works cannot be >measured with current technological equipment. Sigh…. Do you >suppose the indians, for instance, needed to know why pine >needle tea prevented scurvy? I don’t think they gave a damn. >They might have — after all, if pine needles worked, perhaps other >things did too, and maybe better, or easier, or faster. If they’d >been able to find a unifying principle, it could have made their lives >better. >But I digress. The key point in the above is that the pine-needle tea >cured scurvy. It would have worked double-blind, too.
And it WON’T work at 1000th concentration. So dies the central tenet of homeopathic dilution. This was a BAD example to quote since you just disproved yourself. ‘Oz "When I knew little, all was certain. The more I learnt, the less sure I was. Is this the uncertainty principle?"
Response:
mtp.LMK.USACE.ARMY.MIL> writes >Yes, indeed. Millions of people swear by homeopathy. It’s the >safest treatment in the world for mild to severe illness. 80% >of all europeans go to homeopaths BEFORE resorting (lastly I >might add) to allopathic (traditional) medicine.
Really?? Here is one European who has never been to a homeopath nor indeed do I even know anyone who has. Please provide some reference for a survey or other evidence to lend any support to this truly incredible assertion. Besides what has this quackery got to do with physics???? — Stephen Burke
Response:
mtp.LMK.USACE.ARMY.MIL> writes > Yes, indeed. Millions of people swear by homeopathy. It’s the > safest treatment in the world for mild to severe illness. 80% of > all europeans go to homeopaths BEFORE resorting (lastly I might > add) to allopathic (traditional) medicine. > Really?? Here is one European who has never been to a homeopath nor > indeed do I even know anyone who has. Please provide some reference > for a survey or other evidence to lend any support to this truly > incredible assertion.
The UK is probably a bit atypical. I’ve not noticed any particular avoidance of allopathic medicine here in the Netherlands, or when I’ve been in France, Germany or Italy. Homeopathy does seem to be more popular than it is in the UK: there are many shops selling homeopathic "medicines", and it is kind of assumed that you might want to consult a homeopath (for example, the WWW page for Utrecht university advises foreign visitors on how to access the Dutch healthcare system, and in the same page comments how to find a homeopath). My health insurance covers me for consulting homeopaths and some other placebo-providers. As for the "for mild to severe illness" bit, I suspect everybody here would regard me as insane if I went to a homeopath for anything severe that had a good allopathic treatment. I suspect the homeopath would, too. — Utrecht University | telephone: +31 30 2534630 Department of Mathematics | telefax: +31 30 2518394 P.O. Box 80010, 3508 TA Utrecht | The Netherlands |
Response:
: mtp.LMK.USACE.ARMY.MIL> writes : >Yes, indeed. Millions of people swear by homeopathy. It’s the : >safest treatment in the world for mild to severe illness. 80% : >of all europeans go to homeopaths BEFORE resorting (lastly I : >might add) to allopathic (traditional) medicine. : Really?? Here is one European who has never been to a homeopath nor : indeed do I even know anyone who has. Please provide some reference for : a survey or other evidence to lend any support to this truly incredible : assertion. Well, it might not be _that_ wrong. It is quite possible that many people may happen to drink a glass of pure water between the moment of "not feeling ok" and visiting a doctor. Can’t find any better homeopathy 
And it is true that homeopathy is 100 % perfectly safe The only possible overdose is drowning! cheers, Patrick. — Patrick Van Esch
Response:
> | Funnily enough the Royal family in the UK have their own homeopathic > | doctors and have done so for decades. If its good enough for them > | then I guess there must be something in it. > There you have it. Not only U.S. congressmen of long ago (mostly lawyers), > but the British royals all know better than thousands of scientists and > doctors. Well, that’s two groups whose word I’d take on anything, any day!
Yes and look what thousands of "scientists" and "doctors" have done to us. It might come as a revelation to some of the "doctors" and "scientists" but it is well known and documented that you buggers kill more people than you cure. Whilst every single alternative treatment or therapy on this planet comes under scrutiny from the so called "doctors" and "scientists" many of these do work and that is what galls so many skeptics when they are unable to come up with the answers. Most of us are now enlightened as to the great medical swindle. — des taylor
Response:
>>| And did you >|know that homeopathy is protected in the U.S. by Congress? Yes >|sir! It’s grandfathered and cannot be touched by the FDA >|without a whole boatload of trouble!! >Did you ever wonder *why* homeopathy needed such protection? Don’t you wonder >why it doesn’t have to prove itself safe and effective, like any other kind of >medication? Surely if homeopathic preparations worked as advertised, the >simplest of double-blind tests would show them to be effective, and thereby >not need to be "protected" from such testing. >The need for this protection is proof enough that it’s hokum.
It would be if there were a need. What’s been said on this thread so far hasn’t established that, however. Was this grandfathering a special exemption for homeopathy, or was it applied to other medicines that were widely accepted when the FDA was formed, such as, say, aspirin? If the main purpose of the FDA is safety, then homeopathy has nothing to fear even if it loses its protection. After all, homeopathic medicine is too dilute to affect you. OTOH, advertising laws would need to consider effectiveness; since I’ve seen many homeopathy ads but none that claim effectiveness, it would appear that homeopathy has no protection in this case. — Toby
Response:
| Funnily enough the Royal family in the UK have their own homeopathic | doctors and have done so for decades. If its good enough for them | then I guess there must be something in it. There you have it. Not only U.S. congressmen of long ago (mostly lawyers), but the British royals all know better than thousands of scientists and doctors. Well, that’s two groups whose word I’d take on anything, any day!
Response:
> You are right. Homeopathy was exempted( grandfather in)due to >the fact that their were no recorded injuries or deaths related to it at
No, "homepathic" means that the substance has been so diluted that it contains little or no active ingredient. It does *nothing* and can’t be regulated any more than water can be. _Terminology_ is different. HProducts labelled homeopathic (which means "ineffectual crapola" to anyone who pays attention to reality) can make whatever claims they want, much as faux pearls can make any claim they want — "Genuine all-natural faux pearls!" — because they’re stating clearly that they’re fakes. *That’s* why homeopathic remedies aren’t regulated. It would be silly to do so — these people are selling thirty cent creams and water. Homeopathy has never shown statistically significant effects in a *single* scientific study. >the time those laws were passed. It was seen as safe and effective by
No, it was seen as harmless and ineffectual, which it is. >was the late 1800’s. It had been used in Europe for hundreds of years >and was being used here as well.
If being used for hundreds of years is an argument for effectiveness, then we should all go back to ritual self-mutilation, self-flailing, bloodletting, and slavery. Tried and tested for hundreds — thousands – of years.
Response:
>>| And did you >|know that homeopathy is protected in the U.S. by Congress? Yes >|sir! It’s grandfathered and cannot be touched by the FDA >|without a whole boatload of trouble!! >Did you ever wonder *why* homeopathy needed such protection? Don’t you wonder >why it doesn’t have to prove itself safe and effective, like any other kind of >medication? Surely if homeopathic preparations worked as advertised, the >simplest of double-blind tests would show them to be effective, and thereby >not need to be "protected" from such testing. >The need for this protection is proof enough that it’s hokum.
This is a most powerful argument. I must remember it. ‘Oz "When I knew little, all was certain. The more I learnt, the less sure I was. Is this the uncertainty principle?"
Response:
>| And did you >|know that homeopathy is protected in the U.S. by Congress? Yes >|sir! It’s grandfathered and cannot be touched by the FDA >|without a whole boatload of trouble!!
Did you ever wonder *why* homeopathy needed such protection? Don’t you wonder why it doesn’t have to prove itself safe and effective, like any other kind of medication? Surely if homeopathic preparations worked as advertised, the simplest of double-blind tests would show them to be effective, and thereby not need to be "protected" from such testing. The need for this protection is proof enough that it’s hokum. — #include <standard_disclaimer.h> http://emoryi.jpl.nasa.gov/ _ Kevin D Quitt USA 91351-4454 96.37% of all statistics are made up Per the FCA, this email address may not be added to any commercial mail list
Response:
> mtp.LMK.USACE.ARMY.MIL> writes >Yes, indeed. Millions of people swear by homeopathy. It’s the >safest treatment in the world for mild to severe illness. 80% >of all europeans go to homeopaths BEFORE resorting (lastly I >might add) to allopathic (traditional) medicine. > Really?? Here is one European who has never been to a homeopath nor > indeed do I even know anyone who has. Please provide some reference for > a survey or other evidence to lend any support to this truly incredible > assertion. > Besides what has this quackery got to do with physics????
Funnily enough the Royal family in the UK have their own homeopathic doctors and have done so for decades. If its good enough for them then I guess there must be something in it. — des taylor
Response:
Would you please stop cross-posting this thread to sci.med.physics? This discussion is completely inappropriate for this group, whatever side of the issue you happen to be on. Ron Lalonde Medical Physicist Hamilton Regional Cancer Centre Hamilton, Ont.
Response:
>— > Funnily enough the Royal family in the UK have their own homeopathic > doctors and have done so for decades. If its good enough for them > then I guess there must be something in it. >– >des taylor
Like having sex with any that walks, that must have something in it
Response:
i was in a restaurant with a friend the other day. she belieives in homeopathy, and also likes her tea weak. her tea came with the bag already in the water, and so was too strong. she ordered a pot of hot water to dilute it with. i pointed out that by homeopathic principles this would make the tea stronger. my educational foray was NOT appreciated. —
Response:
>i was in a restaurant with a friend the other day. she belieives in >homeopathy, and also likes her tea weak. her tea came with the bag already >in the water, and so was too strong. she ordered a pot of hot water to >dilute it with. i pointed out that by homeopathic principles this would >make the tea stronger. >my educational foray was NOT appreciated.
Once I accidentally drank some water out of an used beer bottle that I’d rinsed out plenty of times. I was never so drunk in my life! I had to drink some pure grain alcohol to sober up.
Response:
* Dragonslayer: * Millions of people swear by homeopathy. It’s the safest treatment * in the world for mild to severe illness. 80% of all europeans * go to homeopaths BEFORE resorting (lastly I might add) to * allopathic (traditional) medicine. But 80% of peoples’ complaints for which they might think to call a doctor are self-limited to begin with. Doesn’t this strike you as a remarkable coincidence? You might consider that the same "80% of all europeans who go to homeopaths before "resorting to ‘allopathic’ medicine" could have stayed home and had the same result. I believe this has something to do with the NULL hypothesis ;’) "Homeopathy…it’s so much more than water." -JB.
Response:
| And did you |know that homeopathy is protected in the U.S. by Congress? Yes |sir! It’s grandfathered and cannot be touched by the FDA |without a whole boatload of trouble!! Yes sir, those old fogey lawyers in Congress(*) sure know more about health care than any stupid old doctors or scientists could ever figure out. |There’s far more to homeopathy than meets the ordinary, ignorant |mind. Chortle snort. |The extreme dilutions act on the ‘vital force’ of the body. |This means it acts at the biomolecular level. Bwahahahahaha! <gasp> | Sigh…. Do you |suppose the indians, for instance, needed to know why pine |needle tea prevented scurvy? I don’t think they gave a damn. Except that unlike homeopathy the effect was noticeable and reproducible every time, and unlike homeopathy, it isn’t loaded with perfectly solid reasons for being completely ineffective. /J (*) and the special interests who put them there. — POTS: (617)873-3463 | stood with all her faculties rooted to the floor." ARS: KD1ON | – S. J. Perelman
Response:
[snip]: : Some homeopathic medicines are effective in clinical doses. Digitalis is : the most quoted. Unfortunately it is PROVEN to be less effective in : smaller doses, rather than the reverse. Sad. : Actually you can save a lot of money by using homeopathy methods in the household. If the kitchen needs scrubbing, make a homeopathically diluted solution of dust and axle grease (remember, the properties flip over when diluted). To sweeten your coffee or tea, use homeopathically diluted quinine (tonic water), possibly mixed with homeopathic salt. When you get to perfumery, both women’s and men’s after-shave, instead of spending big money for nice-smelling commercial products, get something the dog’s dragged in and dilute it down, not forgetting the magical shaking and stirring at each stage. Actually, some of the ingredients of perfume are pretty foul smelling when concentrated, but the manufacturers dilute them down to some sensible level. I’ve always wondered if perhaps Heineman (founder of homeopathy) might have inadvertantly made a threshold-level solution of some effective drugs but, due to poor technique, might have thought that he was actually diluting them far more than he really did. For instance, he could have used the same measuring spoon at each stage, or re-used glassware: a lot of chemicals adsorb to the inside of glassware. I got a worried phone call once from a lady who worried whether her herbal sleeping remedy was safe. (Some so-called herbal medicines contain chemicals damaging to liver and kidney.) The list of ingredients was standard: things like valerian, sculcap, passionflower — some of which are effective sedatives. But then, after telling me how it worked so well, she went on to say that this was a homeopathic remedy! In other words, the ultra-diluted versions should have kept her up all night. Since she was getting real sleep-producing benefit from her beliefs, there was no reason to point this aspect of homeopathy to her, and all I said was that she could use the remedy with complete confidence that it would not do her any harm. Christchurch, New Zealand
Response:
>>Actually, if one excepts the homeopathic "theory," there >are no safe levels. Because in their theory, the more dilute
the >>substance, the stronger the effect. Pouring the supernate into a >>sink "potentiates" it to the point that it can effect the world. >The first homeopaths, by pouring stuff down the drain,
probably>>cured everyone of everything that could be cured by homeopathy. > I hear homeopathy is back. Does this mean Westerns
will >>now show the "snake-oil salesman" as the hero, and the town doctor>>as the con-artist?
Ignorance is so damn tiresome. If you were to spend your time going to the library and reading some books on homeopathy you would realize how you’ve embarrassed yourself with the above statement. >Isn’t it interesting, though, that a lot of medically trained >practitioners are using homeopathy. Our vet used it on our cat – cured >him of a nasty mouth infection. >Homeopathy may not be proven science, it IS effective, as
millions of >people know by experience.
Yes, indeed. Millions of people swear by homeopathy. It’s the safest treatment in the world for mild to severe illness. 80% of all europeans go to homeopaths BEFORE resorting (lastly I might add) to allopathic (traditional) medicine. And did you know that homeopathy is protected in the U.S. by Congress? Yes sir! It’s grandfathered and cannot be touched by the FDA without a whole boatload of trouble!! As for the potencies: they are prepared through a process of dilution and succussion. That means that measured amounts are added to pure water, shaken very vigorously for specified amounts of time. Specific measurements of the successed dilution are drawn and put into another diluting solution and the succussion is repeated. This is done whatever number of times required for the specific level of potency. There’s far more to homeopathy than meets the ordinary, ignorant mind. I’m not a homeopath but I believe in its principles…which, I might add, I’ve read about considerably. The extreme dilutions act on the ‘vital force’ of the body. This means it acts at the biomolecular level. The only reason hardline scientists hold it in less than high regard is because the ‘precise’ reasons it works cannot be measured with current technological equipment. Sigh…. Do you suppose the indians, for instance, needed to know why pine needle tea prevented scurvy? I don’t think they gave a damn. . <> * . | /. _-/ ~ o – O – /-/ |-V ./ | . /-/ # . Dragonslayer
Response:
>Yes, indeed. Millions of people swear by homeopathy. It’s the >safest treatment in the world for mild to severe illness. 80% >of all europeans go to homeopaths BEFORE resorting (lastly I >might add) to allopathic (traditional) medicine. And did you >know that homeopathy is protected in the U.S. by Congress? Yes >sir! It’s grandfathered and cannot be touched by the FDA >without a whole boatload of trouble!!
Whoopee. What, exactly, is this supposed to prove except that the homeopaths had a friend in Congress when this legislation first went through? (I think it was around 1938.) >There’s far more to homeopathy than meets the ordinary, ignorant >mind.
Give me strength to resist temptation here… >I’m not a homeopath but I believe in its >principles…which, I might add, I’ve read about considerably. >The extreme dilutions act on the ‘vital force’ of the body. >This means it acts at the biomolecular level.
Right. They talk about vital forces all the time in biochem labs. >The only reason hardline scientists hold it in less than high >regard is because the ‘precise’ reasons it works cannot be >measured with current technological equipment. Sigh…. Do you >suppose the indians, for instance, needed to know why pine >needle tea prevented scurvy? I don’t think they gave a damn.
They might have — after all, if pine needles worked, perhaps other things did too, and maybe better, or easier, or faster. If they’d been able to find a unifying principle, it could have made their lives better. But I digress. The key point in the above is that the pine-needle tea cured scurvy. It would have worked double-blind, too. The trouble with homeopathy is that it seems to be awfully elusive when subjected to scientific scrutiny. Sometimes it’s better than a placebo, sometimes not. About half the time, last I heard. Oh, I realize this won’t stop any homeopathy believers from supporting their local homeopath; I just object to this "homeopathy is scientific" hogwash. Not yet, it isn’t. These are my opinions only, but they’re almost always correct. "The Internet is the bastard love-child of Thomas Pynchon and Cyndi Lauper." – Deaddog
Response:
Hi, You are right. Homeopathy was exempted( grandfather in)due to the fact that their were no recorded injuries or deaths related to it at the time those laws were passed. It was seen as safe and effective by the powers that be. anyway, I am not sure exactly when but I think it was the late 1800’s. It had been used in Europe for hundreds of years and was being used here as well. Please correct me if I am wrong or back me up with more info if this is right. Nicole > I read that the reason homeopathic remedies are available for sale in the > absence of standard research to support claims of efficacy, is that > Homeopathy was exempted from such regulation when the laws were written. > Does anyone know if this is so? (New to this thread) > MTM
– Christine Nicole Navarro-Grainger http://www.acadian.net/ccinc/index.html Indepedent Representative for Vaxa International Order Line 1-800-248-8292 ID# RS43252-6 Welcome Kit ID 43252-6
Response:
I read that the reason homeopathic remedies are available for sale in the absence of standard research to support claims of efficacy, is that Homeopathy was exempted from such regulation when the laws were written. Does anyone know if this is so? (New to this thread) MTM
Response:
>Isn’t it interesting, though, that a lot of medically trained >practitioners are using homeopathy. Our vet used it on our cat – cured >him of a nasty mouth infection. >Homeopathy may not be proven science, it IS effective, as millions of >people know by experience.
Oh good, since homeopathy works to cure infections in animals, it should have been simple to do the following experiment in laboratory rats: Give, say 40, rats an injection of a lethal bacterium. Randomly (blinding the researcher) give half the rats the homeopathic cure for infection and the other a placebo injection. Since the homeopathic substance IS effective, this should prevent the deaths of the treated rats (for instance I can prove penicillin works by just such an experiment). Feel free to reference the journal article where I can read about the results of such an experiment. If you are unable to post such a reference, perhaps you’d like to spend some time explaining the conspiracies of doctors and scientists that must have prevented such a complex and expensive experiment from receiving the necessary funding. — David Rind
Response:
writes – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Actually, if one excepts the homeopathic "theory," there >are no safe levels. Because in their theory, the more dilute the >substance, the stronger the effect. Pouring the supernate into a >sink "potentiates" it to the point that it can effect the world. >The first homeopaths, by pouring stuff down the drain, probably >cured everyone of everything that could be cured by homeopathy. > I hear homeopathy is back. Does this mean Westerns will >now show the "snake-oil salesman" as the hero, and the town doctor >as the con-artist? >Isn’t it interesting, though, that a lot of medically trained >practitioners are using homeopathy. Our vet used it on our cat – cured >him of a nasty mouth infection. >Homeopathy may not be proven science, it IS effective, as millions of >people know by experience.
Most people get better on their own. For example, being too lazy to go to the doctor, I was over 40 before I took any antibiotic (tooth abscess: ouch!). I haven’t been to the doctor for 30 years for a cure (Nah, it was the dentist). So all the little illnesses I have had in that time would indeed have been 100% cured by homeopathy, or anything else you would have cared to subject me to. Some homeopathic medicines are effective in clinical doses. Digitalis is the most quoted. Unfortunately it is PROVEN to be less effective in smaller doses, rather than the reverse. Sad. ‘Oz "When I knew little, all was certain. The more I learnt, the less sure I was. Is this the uncertainty principle?"
Response:
>Actually, if one excepts the homeopathic "theory," there >are no safe levels. Because in their theory, the more dilute the >substance, the stronger the effect. Pouring the supernate into a >sink "potentiates" it to the point that it can effect the world. >The first homeopaths, by pouring stuff down the drain, probably >cured everyone of everything that could be cured by homeopathy. > I hear homeopathy is back. Does this mean Westerns will >now show the "snake-oil salesman" as the hero, and the town doctor >as the con-artist?
Isn’t it interesting, though, that a lot of medically trained practitioners are using homeopathy. Our vet used it on our cat – cured him of a nasty mouth infection. Homeopathy may not be proven science, it IS effective, as millions of people know by experience.
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.