If only the debate were really over

[ahinton]

Like so many topics posted to make a point rather than to have a reasoned discussion, this one has degenerated into insulting other posters rather than looking at arguments.

I don't recall having done that here.

I have a friend of very high intelligence, who was a successful science teacher, and who thinks the arguments in favour of homeopathy are extremely dubious. Having been afflicted with a debilitating complaint that threatened his career, conventional medicine failed to find a solution. It does appear that homeopathy has brought the situation under control, yet he insists that the homeopathic dosage is too small to have any effect according to everything he has ever learnt. The placebo effect would not help anyone as ungullible as this friend. I'm minded not to be too dogmatic.

Perhaps one should take the contents of this thread so far in homœopathic doses only!

[Pabmusic]

[1] Like so many topics posted to make a point rather than to have a reasoned discussion, this one has degenerated into insulting other posters rather than looking at arguments...[2] The placebo effect would not help anyone as ungullible as this friend...

[1] I don't think that's fair. The OP attached an interestng and relevant article. My posts (at least) were reasoned - but there really is a limit to the amount of reason one can give homeopathy after two hundred years' lack of evidence. Anecdotes really don't do it.

[2] In post 41 I wrote "There's good evidence that merely taking part in a drug trial does you good - even where the subject knows they have been given a placebo". This is not something I've made up. You really don't need to be gullible for a placebo to help.

I'm sure people would welcome homeopathy if there were any evidence that it has anything more that a placebo effect.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I don't recall having done that here.

Not you. You didn't refer to those who thought differently from yourself as stupid.

[MrGongGong]

Like most people interested in these things I confess to a personal interest.
As a parent of someone on the Autistic spectrum i'm more aware of how fake, unethical and bogus science has been peddled with some folks STILL insisting that there is 'some truth' in it.
And, like many people, I have known people who have died needlessly due to them thinking that they can be treated for cancer with sugar pills and lucky rabbits feet.

Making a clear line between 'faith healing' and EVIDENCE is vital IMV.

There is NO evidence for homeopathy (that's what the article was about)
which is NOT to say that ALL 'conventional' medicine is perfect, far from it.

Sugar pills are fine if you aren't really ill and just want a chat and a cup of tea (both of which have great benefits)

[P. G. Tipps]

You don't believe in evidence

Well I thought 'belief systems' were frowned upon here!

On the contrary, I believe very much in solid 'evidence' ... a cure from a terminal diagnosis and unexplained by medical science (commonly referred to as a 'miracle' whether in the religious or secular sense) is certainly 'evidence' in itself of something inexplicable and extraordinary (at least at that particular time) though, of course, it could never be described as definitive 'proof' of a 'miracle'.

You appear to confuse the two!

[MrGongGong]

I'm not confused
There are NO miracles
There are many wonderful things some of which PEOPLE might think of as 'miraculous'

a cure from a terminal diagnosis and unexplained by medical science (commonly referred to as a 'miracle' whether in the religious or secular sense) is certainly 'evidence' in itself of something inexplicable and extraordinary

There's a difference between being 'inexplicable' and 'extraordinary'

People getting better from being ill is very 'ordinary' it happens all the time

[ahinton]

Well I thought 'belief systems' were frowned upon here!

...

You appear to confuse the two!

Why do you say so? Methinks that the confusion - and perhas also the frowning - is yours. As I wrote, adherence to some belief systems usually has the capability of doing the believer no harm, whereas adherence to belief in homœpathy can expose the believer to dangerous medical risks.

Anyway, I blame them Bach remedies meself; they were all Anna Magdalena's fault and if only she'd stuck with writing cello suites instead the world would be a better place, innit!...

[P. G. Tipps]

Why do you say so? Methinks that the confusion - and perhas also the frowning - is yours. As I wrote, adherence to some belief systems usually has the capability of doing the believer no harm, whereas adherence to belief in homœpathy can expose the believer to dangerous medical risks. ...

But, as mentioned before, so can conventional medicine ...

So the pure logic of your argument is 'a plague on both your houses!'

[Richard Barrett]

Like most people interested in these things I confess to a personal interest.

Same here. My experience however is a little different. I would say that the "successes" of homeopathic therapy (which I've witnessed in my own experience as a parent, on account of my former partner having been convinced of its efficacy) have nothing to do with the little white pills, and everything to do with the fact that homeopathic practitioners take a great deal of time and trouble to get to know their patients, in a holistic kind of way that conventional doctors very rarely have time for, and therefore are able to give advice on matters like diet and lifestyle in general which are based not on mumbo-jumbo but on a combination of experience, insight and knowledge of the patient. I can't really see why an (in this case) obviously talented doctor would hitch herself to such an implausible way of doing medicine, but there it is.

The fact that homeopathy, having been established by Samuel Hahnemann in the early 19th century, was dreamed up before the role of bacteria in causing disease had been confirmed, before viruses had been discovered at all, and before the disciplines of biochemistry and genetics had even been thought of, would seem to indicate that the "theory" behind it has no basis in physical reality, but was supposition based on very little detailed and specific knowledge. Presumably also, bearing Hume's dictum in mind, if homeopathy were true the supposed phenomena behind it ought to have some other manifestations in the world, given that they would require a complete rethinking of the principles (fantastically accurate in their predictive and explanatory power) behind modern physics and chemistry. And we see no such thing.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

http://neweratissuesalts.com/epages/95d41432-7e8f-4cb5-9172-357d10e40529.sf/en_GB/?ObjectPath=/Shops/95d41432-7e8f-4cb5-9172-357d10e40529/Categories/Category1

[MrGongGong]

Same here. My experience however is a little different. I would say that the "successes" of homeopathic therapy (which I've witnessed in my own experience as a parent, on account of my former partner having been convinced of its efficacy) have nothing to do with the little white pills, and everything to do with the fact that homeopathic practitioners take a great deal of time and trouble to get to know their patients, in a holistic kind of way that conventional doctors very rarely have time for, and therefore are able to give advice on matters like diet and lifestyle in general which are based not on mumbo-jumbo but on a combination of experience, insight and knowledge of the patient. I can't really see why an (in this case) obviously talented doctor would hitch herself to such an implausible way of doing medicine, but there it is.
.

That's been my experience of my doctor ('ordinary' NHS , a bit shabby waiting room type of place)
AND
of the consultant surgeon in my local hospital.

Sadly some have to pay to have a 'cup of tea and a chat'.

[P. G. Tipps]

Sadly some have to pay to have a 'cup of tea and a chat'.

So you expect the rest of us 'to pay for some to have a cup of tea and a chat ... ?

I thought you claimed to be a 'rationalist' ... ?

[ahinton]

But, as mentioned before, so can conventional medicine ...

So the pure logic of your argument is 'a plague on both your houses!'

No. "But, as mentioned before", homœopathic medicine stands no chance of doing any good and has no scientific proof behind it, whereas only mistaken prescription/use or patient misuse of "conventional" ditto might run the risk of ill effect; so, a plague on one house and a relatively small and avoidable risk of one on the other house.

[Richard Barrett]

That's been my experience

That's very encouraging to hear of course.

Bear in mind that I'm not in general talking about the UK, although my experience of NHS practices during my last period of living there were not good at all - one practice, for example, where signs everywhere said that if you could only mention one complaint per visit, and if there was more than one thing you were worried about you would have to make another appointment, and you could only do that by phone, not at the practice itself despite the fact that you were already there, just the kind of thing that could put you off going to the doctor at all until it was too late. This was as you might guess in a poorer London borough where people get ill more often and doctors and their support staff are massively overworked (the so-called "inverse care law" in action).

[P. G. Tipps]

No. "But, as mentioned before", homœopathic medicine stands no chance of doing any good and has no scientific proof behind it, whereas only mistaken prescription/use or patient misuse of "conventional" ditto might run the risk of ill effect; so, a plague on one house and a realtively small and avoiadable risk of one on the other house.

Sorry, that is simply not true. There are plenty of cases where conventional routine operations have resulted in the death of the patient. Others have died due to serious side-effects of medication. There is no great secret about this, just check any 'covering' leaflet in any medicine bottle or the form of acceptance you have to sign before any operation!

The risks may be small but they remain nonetheless!