"Homeopathy is crap"...

[SidDithers]

Good blog from a skeptic which examines the "science" of Homeopathy in a very detailed way. Skeptics will love this. Proponents of homeopathy? Not so much.

http://skepticat.wordpress.com/2009/03/10/homeopathy/



Sid

[old mark]

1. It is about as real and effective

as astrology, which is to say, not.
rec.
mark

[jhain]

2. I used to think so, too.

Until it cured my violent, classic migraines.

[Orrex]

9. With respect, a statement of that kind has little value beyond unverifable testimony

For instance, here are a few things that would be helpful in assessing your statement:

1. What kind of homeopathic treatment did you use?
2. Did you attempt any kind of actual medical treatment before, during, or after your homeopathic treatment?
3. What was the nature of your migraines? That is, did they affect one side of your head? Both sides? Front? Back?
4. How long had you suffered from them prior to homeopathic treatment?
5. How often had you suffered from them prior to homeopathic treatment?
6. What their frequency consistent prior to homeopathic treatment? I.e., did you get a migraine every day, every week, every month? Or were they sporadic and unpredictable?
7. Do you still suffer from them, even if you suffer from them less severely or less often than before?
8. Were you formally evaluated by a physician prior to your homeopathic treatment?
9. Were you formally evaluated by a physician after your homeopathic treatment?
10. Did you effect any change of diet or lifestyle around the time of your homeopathic treatment?
11. What was your age at the time of your homeopathic treatment?
12. How soon after your homeopathic treatment did you determine that you'd been "cured?"
13. How did you acquire the homeopathic remedy?
14. If you acquired it from a naturopath (or the like), did the naturopath give some idea of how the remedy was supposed to work?
15. If you acquired it from a naturopath (or the like), did the naturopath charge you a fee for services or materials?
16. Had you previously used homeopathic treatments for other maladies?
17. Prior to undertaking the homeopathic migraine treatment, did you have any expectations about its likely effectiveness?
18. Before or after undertaking the treatment, did you speak to other people who'd tried the same remedy for migraines?
19. Have you recommended the treatment to others, and have they reported similar success?
20. If your migraines were to recur with equal or greater severity, would you attempt the same homeopathic remedy again?

These questions are likely to be assailed as "closed-minded," as some kind of attempt to "control the discourse," or as an effort to force the world to conform to my dogmatic "scientistic" worldview. I know this because it's happened here countless times before.

Nevertheless, they are entirely valid responses to any remarkable claim; it would be irresponsible to accept your testimony without at least a minimum of further inquiry. And if a wider section of the population is to gain the benefit of this migraine remedy, then it will face much more rigorous scrutiny than the mild questions I've posed here.

[jhain]

21. Quite true.

But I am the only one who needs the proof- and after using constitutional remedy prescribed by a homeopath from Hahnemann I am no longer losing 3 or 4 days a month- like I did for 25 years -to classic migraine. Works for me.

[Orrex]

26. I'm glad that your migraines have abated; what kind of asshole would I have to be to wish otherwise?

But when you say that you're the only one who needs the proof, you're not quite correct.

You're the only one who needs the proof if you don't tell anyone else that a homeopathic remedy cured your migraines. Once you make that claim to another person, then it would be irresponsible not to provide further evidence or to be able to answer a few questions about it.

[jhain]

36. I am having a relapse

you are giving me a headache.

Just kidding- I certainly have answered those questions DOZENS of times and helped that many people. Just not going to do it here on the internets.

I will end by saying- I was *THEE* biggest skeptic- until it worked.

[Orrex]

37. Again, this is just unverified (and unverifiable) witnessing

I accept your reluctance to go into the details here on the interwebs, but in exchange you need to accept that your testimony can only have as much credibility as hearsay. That includes the part about "I was "THE" biggest skeptic," by the way.

[borelord]

3. randy esplains it well

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2785985155605802136

[SidDithers]

7. Great video!...

Thanks for posting! :applause:

Sid

[trotsky]

4. A very well written, factual, logical, rational article.

Therefore the woos will be unconvinced.

[SidDithers]

5. Many of the woos won't even see this post...

because they've got their fingers in their ears and are singing "La-la-la-la"

Sid

[trotsky]

6. Can you blame them?

I mean, who wants to read what a bunch of idiot "atheists/evolutionists" have to say?

[SidDithers]

8. Perhaps a course of Homeopathic Ignatia Amara...

will help them deal with their delicate sensibilities.

Sid

[Dogmudgeon]

10. Looks like someone couldn't bully his way to supremacy on another thread

Is it Science, or is it Ego?

With "Skeptics", it's ALWAYS ego.

--d!
Non-believer in Homeopathy. Non-believer in "Skepticism"

[SidDithers]

11. At least you agree that homeopathy is crap...

The rest I couldn't care less about.

Sid

[Mojorabbit]

12. It works wonders for bruising

on animals. Shrug.
Two sibling bruised squirrel babies. One given homeopathic and the other not. Both medicated for pain with the same allopathic med. Homeopathiic treated squirrel brusing gone three days sooner than sibling.
A lot of wildlife rehabbers use it with regular meds. It does not hurt and seems to help in some situations.

[BuddhaGirl]

13. deleted

Deleted

[Orrex]

15. Did you bruise the babies yourself using identical methods?

If not, then I don't understand what kind of controls were in place for that experiment.

A lot of wildlife rehabbers use it with regular meds. It does not hurt and seems to help in some situations.

In "some situations?" How often?


Also, "allopathic" is an artificial word coined by a homeopath. Any arguments or accusations using that term are founded on the straw man fallacy.

[Mojorabbit]

24. What a stupid thing to say

of course I did not bruise the babies and one MAY have had more extensive bruising than the other. Since I do not expect to see the placebo effect in animals I tried it after several lectures at a wildlife rehab conference. Being a retired critical care nurse well versed in the scientific method I was curious at all the anecdotal reports from other rehabbers and very skeptical so I did a side by side on two babies bruised badly from falling from the nest. One healed faster than the other. There is no way to do a side by side with exactly the same injuries. Since if it does not work there is no harm, I am seeing what if anything the remedies may do. And as for allopathic, half the nurses I know use the term.
ON edit the remedy I used also makes my bruises dissipate faster(I easily bruise) but I don't rule out the placebo effect there
I prefer to use herbs for my self as I can look up scientific studies re their effects on the body , ie ginger for nausea.

[Orrex]

25. Charming.

I don't doubt that you're well versed in the scientific method.

However, you've apparently concluded that "it works on animals" based on one experiment with no controls and a sample size of two. Are you aware of many published studies with similarly rigorous methodology?



Forgive me while I wrestle with lingering doubts about the claimed efficacy.


Also, regardless of how many nurses you know use the term, "allopathic" is still an artificial term coined by a homeopath, and its use in debate is a straw man. If a medical professional chooses to employ the word to describe his or her profession, that's none of my business.

[Mojorabbit]

30. I mentioned one side by side study

I did not say it was the only one I had done. I am careful to use standardized medical treatment for the animals I repair and raise. I would never deprive them of that to see if only homeopathic treatment works as that would be unethical. I think it works well on bruising from my observations. The rest I have no opinion on as I have not seen anything that would make me think it works one way or another.

[Orrex]

35. I was commenting on the experiment that you disclosed

If you conducted additional experiments, I can't comment on them until you reveal their details.

[uppityperson]

29. I don't know any nurses who use the term allopathic, except for the ones

working for a local naturopath. Clinics, hospital, nursing home, home health, haven't heard it.

[Mojorabbit]

31. I do though.

It has been only in the past five years or so that the term has been used frequently by people I know.
I had to look it up myself when I first heard it.
I am old school as I graduated nursing school in the seventies and I had never heard it in all the intervening years till lately.

[uppityperson]

32. That could be my not hearing it also, am also an "old" nurse

as are most of my friends. I'll ask around amongst the newer ones and see what they have to say about it.
'76 grad here. Good lord that was a while back.

[Mojorabbit]

33. That is the same year I graduated!

And yes it seems like an eon ago. The dark ages. LOL

[roguevalley]

27. jeez. no need to post here. nothing said from experience matters.

accusing people of abusing animals to score points is low even for this board. Oh, and thank you God for settling this definitively for all time. I am sure ten thousand generations of people who didn't have a microscope are full of shit too.

[Orrex]

28. Thanks for your level-headed contribution.

Perhaps you misunderstand the nature of a rhetorical question. Of course I don't suspect that she abused the animals; my point was that she was clearly dealing with two different injuries in two different animals, and she had no way to determine the extent or significance of the differences. Yet somehow she was able to conclude that homeopathy works on animals even though animals can't benefit from the placebo effect.

If you read my subsequent post, you'll see that I pointed out the problem of a sample size of two, with no experimental controls.





Incidentally, ten thousand generations of people who didn't have a microscope aren't necessarily full of shit, but they were wrong about a great many medical issues.

[Orrex]

14. That's a call-out and a personal attack

[BuddhaGirl]

16. this thread is flamebait

and a continuance of a previous thread

[Orrex]

17. I disagree

It starts with a link that doesn't appear in that previous thread, and it approaches the subject from a different perspective than that one.

Right now there are about 500 threads in the Health Forum about the miraculous powers of vitamin D. Is each of these a continuance of a previous thread?


Additionally, even if it is flame bait, personal attacks and call-outs are still contrary to the TOS.

[BuddhaGirl]

18. what about the call-outs to the "woos"

I disagree with you...flamebait and a continuance.

YMMV

[Orrex]

19. Elsewhere I have made my feelings known about the term "woo"

It must also be noted that, in many threads, a skeptic is not the first person to use the term.

[uppityperson]

22. If you think a particlaur post is a call out, alert on it. But no, this is not a continuance

but a topic in and of itself. I don't see it being flame bait either, unless anything someone might disagree with fits the definition of "flame bait". What "call outs to the 'woos'"?

Don't forget, you don't have to click on any topic.

[Warpy]

20. The placebo effect is quite real

and it explains why homeopathy "works" for so many people.

Unfortunately, we can neither predict nor control the placebo effect. It won't work for everyone and it won't work all the time in susceptible people.

If you're not too sick, it's worth a shot, in other words, because while it won't actually help you, it won't hurt you, either.

If you're really sick, go to the doctor.

[uppityperson]

23. k&r for a good blog

[jmondine]

34. It is not, and they should be allowed to marry! Oh, wait...