tronvillain

Perhaps, but giving homeopathy the protection it enjoys in the US seems unecessary.

alek0

You should see "protection" it enjoys in Germany. Many GPs are homeopaths as well. Not that it convinces me in any worth of it, proposed explanation how it works is complete nonsense.

The Other Michael

If these ever-so-dilute "medications" are so potent, how is it that once they've been exposed to atmospheric water (humidity) it doesn't just chain react all around the planet, making every bit of water (including the oceans, blood, etc) supercharged with whatever it is they claim makes the stuff different from regular water?

cheers,
Michael

NialScorva

This is what bothers me. Because people are told the risks, they assume that it's more. Most alternative treatments, I'd hazard to guess that it's got more risks/side effects, assuming it does anything. Part of the benefit of modern medicine is that you know the risks, whereas you probably never will from the jar of ginseng you grab off the shelf.

The AntiChris

I've always thought that the most potent homeopathic remedy is domestic tapwater.

Chris

Oolon Colluphid

Not to mention the fact that unless the water molecules used for the dilutions have been synthesised in the lab from hydrogen and oxygen, they have been around for rather a long time. Just how many pollutants, soils and riverbeds have they come into contact with? And how many guts and bladders have they passed through?

I rather like Richard Dawkins’s comment on homeopathy: what would you use as the control placebo when experimentally testing their efficacy?

TTFN, Oolon

Dannyboy

Thanks for the responses.

Bree, that is an interesting testemonial for homeopathy having some kind of effectiveness (it is kind of hard to imagine how the placebo effect could account for fungus growth). Would you consider doing an experiment to demonstrate it more conclusively?

Say, get someone to transfer a month's supply of your homeopathic remedy (what dilution strength is it, by the way?) into some other (sterile) containers, and code them so that only they could tell the difference between the homeopathic stuff and an equal quantity of plain water in identical coded containers. Let them alot your supply into order for you to take, so they will know what you are taking and when, but you wont have a clue. The growth of fungus is a fairly objective matter, but try to get an independent opinion about its growth or otherwise, and obviously assess it daily yourself. At the end of the alotted period you can have your colleague break the code and find out whether the periods of remission correspond with when you were taking homeopathic solution or not.

Of course, this experiment may involve a certain amount of discomfort for you, with the possibility of the fungus coming back, so i would blame you if you didn't much fancy it. Still, it would be interesting to do....

Do you take any other antifungal meds along with your homeopathy (you mentioned nystatin), and (sorry if this is a really dumb question) if so, did you also discontinue them in your period of poverty?

Thanks for sharing your experience with us.


Like Toto says, remedies which are not diluted beyond Avogadro's number could have physical effect (for better or worse - i read recently about several cases of mild poisoning and one of anaphalactic shock resulting from low-dilution homeopathy), and if so then it becomes a matter of chemicals rather than mysticism. That's fine.

Unfortunately (in response to Alek0), homeopathy, being less self-regulating than conventional medicine, can be actively harmful, like in the cases i mention above. Purely because the multi-million (or billion?) dollar (and pound) alternative industry apparently doesn't consider that it would be in its best interests to set up trials of the right size and design that would properly support or disprove homeopathy once and for all. i wonder why not (but not for very long).

i'm not contemplating forcing or forbidding anyone to use homeopathy, i am just in a dilema over whether or not to recommend it since it is unproven, unscientific and sometimes unsafe, but apparently also makes some people feel better.

i guess that i shouldn't.

Michael, AntiChris and Oolon all make good points about the implications of homeopathy, and i agree. The proposed method of action is nuts, and must be, otherwise tapwater would be the homeopathic remedy for every disease in the world. That's probably not something homeopaths would want to endorse though - the money would dry up.

Cheers,

Dannyboy

Oolon Colluphid

Folks on this thread may be interested in the late John Diamond’s <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0099428334/ref=sr_aps_books_1_1/202-9022989-9634228" target="_blank">Snake Oil and Other Preoccupations</a>. As Amazon says:

I haven’t read it myself yet, but John was, well, a diamond geezer. Well worth a look.

Cheers, Oolon

Mad Kally

Read this to learn about alternative medicine and other <a href="http://www.quackwatch.com" target="_blank"> Quackery. </a>

Mad Kally

No offense Bree, but people who pray say the same thing. I've had people tell me that willow tree bark is the best pain reliever in the world as though they have discovered some amazing new remedy. I don't understand why people want to go backwards.

aspirin—acetylsalicylic acid—is as old as medicine itself; Hippocrates used a chemical precursor, extracted from willow bark, to treat headaches and fever.

After four years of pharmacology, I am horrified at the things people put into their bodies on the advice of some clerk who knows nothing but what the owner of the health food store tells him/her to say. It's a very dangerous thing to mess with.

The placebo effect works so well because the people who benefit from it are convinced it's NOT all in their minds.

[ May 20, 2002: Message edited by: Mad Kally ]</p>