Topic: Homeopathy - An explanation

[Irisado]

Okay, against my better judgement I'm going to reply to some of the points here, but only a limited selection, based on my experience.

Before I do though, I must say that I find the implication that this is somehow a battle between science and alternative therapy to be misplaced.  Both are necessary in my experience, so why there is a need to argue so vehemently in favour of one over another when I have benefited from both seems rather odd to me.

Then why don't doctors just use homeopathy and do empirical tests

Because of the difficulty of measuring the diluted solutions, amongst other issues.  However, just because something cannot be measured empirically, does not mean by default that it does not work (if it did my entire PhD would be irrelevant, but that's a completely different topic - social science - so I won't make comaprisons to that here).

Also we do have immunotherapy... Where you are constantly subjected to small doses of your allergen till you develop a resistance.

The reliability of this is open to question, and the side effects of it can be worse than the allergy itself in certain patients, as far as I understand it.  Of course, as a doctor, you may have some evidence to show me which indicates otherwise, in which case by all means feel free to try to convince me.

Furthermore, I have never been offered this therapy by any doctor that I have ever seen.  The attitude of all my doctors to the treatment of allergies has been 'take antihistermine or get lost'.

Homeopathy "has no side effects".

That's actually not true in my experience.  For a more balanced view of homeopathy, I found this article rather interesting.  Note particularly the section on side effects.

Your word doesn't mean anything in science.

I'm not concerned about that which my word does, or does not, count for in science.  Send me a PM if you are genuinely interested in knowing how homeopathy has worked for me in cases when conventional medicine has failed.

[Mr.Peanut]

... Actually this is the debate between science and "faith". Belief in homeopathy is like a belief in faith healing or silver. ...

Careful.  Homeopathy includes unconventional and untested methods; it includes things that are still "alternative medicine" such as chiropractic methods and acupuncture.  It includes good bedside manner, treating the patient's mood as well as, say, a tumor.  Crystal healing does not and will never work, but such conclusions are reached by testing the method rather than dismissing it out of hand.

[Dizz]

Careful.  Homeopathy includes unconventional and untested methods;

What?
Homeopathy is only the treatment of like with like by infinite dilution.
It is not a catch all term for alternative medicines.

it includes things that are still "alternative medicine" such as chiropractic methods

Which is also utterly and demonstrably false

and acupuncture.

which is difficult to do a true placebo controlled trial on due to there being no such thing as a fake needle, but actualy looks like it may work in some cases.

It includes good bedside manner, treating the patient's mood as well as, say, a tumor.

Doctors could learn a lot from the bedside manner of homeopaths, but their actual method of treatment is just a sugar pill...
...which may be ok for stress related disorders, but certainly not good for tumours.

Crystal healing does not and will never work, but such conclusions are reached by testing the method rather than dismissing it out of hand.

Alternative medicines are being subjected to highly stringent testing, if for no other reason than because if they can be proven to work they could be (even more) highly lucrative.
Some, such as various herbal remedies and (possibly) acupuncture, are showing great promise.
Others, (the afore mentioned homeopathy, chiropracy and crystal healing being up at the top of this list) have already been shown to be no better than placebo.
The evidence is already in.

Dizzy

[Andromidius]

Its just self healing.  The medicine itself is a sham.  Its all in the mind.

Now, if that was how they sold it then it would be fine.  But as it is, you get charged large sums of money for glass of water with a tiny amount of some substance in it which does nothing whatsoever.

Therefore its in the same book as exocisms for me.

[Full Metal Geneticist]

Chiropracters and Accupuncturists are in the same boat. Chiropractors are based out of the medical practice of "osteopathy". Yes osteopaths will re arrange your spine for you... Chiropractors make grandiose claims about it. A lot of chiropractors are not "rigourously" trained for individuals allowed free reign to your spinal cord. Oh and their willingness to cause damage to small children...

Accupuncturists are frankly in the woo voodoo aspect of things. Shoving a pin into your nerve bundles is a sure fire way to neuralgia. What they do is stick pins in superficial areas where there are few nerves and then make grandiose claims of their effects. There are different schools of accupuncture all claiming each other is baloney.

And before you say "surgery done with accupuncture", I have seen a dcotor when they ran out of pain meds give out vitamin tablets in an emergency and do sternal punctures. (Sternal punctures hurt EVEN with GA and LA. He bigged up the effect of a vit C tablet to the point that the patient believed Vitamin C had the properties of a near lethal morphine dose). Its just tomfoolery.

So for the 3rd time I ask you:

Assuming a 'faithless' person why don't conventional drugs have the same placebo effect that you claim makes homeopathy work?

You seem to have quoted everything apart from the one thing I'm asking you.

And for the third time I am telling you...

Medication only becomes medication when it exceeds the placebo effect.

A placebo is used as the control because we know what happens when you don't treat a disease. The placebo is "the psychological faith in the medication". The drug efficiency is compared to the placebo. If the drug is significantly BETTER than the placebo, then it is regarded as "a medication". If its the same then testing continues. If it still is the same (for that particular disease) then the drug is regarded to "not be effective".

To put it in a short way.... Medicine is Placebo Effect + Physiological changes.
The problem is medicines have PHYSIOLOGICAL CHANGES. Which means side effects. Homeopathy can get away by saying "no side effects" because they are feeding people "water". 

So again, why did little white pills out of bottle A not work as well as the little white pills from bottle B? As you point out I don't know any better, it's all "just another medicine" to me. Yet one provided a placebo effect that helped and the other didn't even though you admit that conventional drugs do have a placebo effect.

Because conventional drugs have side effects that make you feel miserable. Homeopathists implicitly state that there are no side effects.
Doctors TELL you about side effects and actively reduce the placebo effect (nocebo effect, where you think bad things will happen if we tell you). Homeopaths are not held accountable for their words because they are selling you water. The only thing they are guilty of is false advertising to stupid people while we are guilty of poisoning. Because we are selling you poisons...

Every medicine is a poison. Because it has an effect on your body. Too much and bad things happen. The only way you could die from a homeopathy medication (apart from the obvious one of it not working and the disease kicking your arse) is if we filled a water cooler bottle with the medicine and made you drink the whole thing. Hell we would have more luck just drowning you in it.

Point in case. Botox was aimed at dealing with muscle errors. Such as strabisimus and motor neuron lesions. These are disorders that are normally permanent. the dosages are in the miniscule level. 20 ng (1000 ng in a microgram, 1000 micrograms in a milligram to put it in perspective.)

Again as a child I'm not sure what impact all those 'careing' questions would have had. I can definatly remember not likeing the guy and finding the officer rather... creepy... I hated going to see the homeopath. Again it's coming back to haveing 'faith' in one treatment over another, if that faith comes from the style of bottle, the colour of the pills or the big chair you get to sit in. 'Window dressing' has less impact on the young, sure the bright colours will catch their eye but 2 mins later it's forgotton in favour of the next pretty thing, you could argue it was my parents telling me that the new white pills would make me better, but then it's exactly what they would have said about the first lot of white pills.

Children respond well to homeopathy for one and only one simple reason.

Homeopaths don't inject anything into their patients. Doctors do. Doctors are scary because of the pain they inflict in their injections. No matter how many toys and sweets your doc gives away he is still the man with the needles and the scary machines. Hell many cultures use the threat of the doctor as a bogeyman to frighten children.

Before I do though, I must say that I find the implication that this is somehow a battle between science and alternative therapy to be misplaced.  Both are necessary in my experience, so why there is a need to argue so vehemently in favour of one over another when I have benefited from both seems rather odd to me.

Because those idiots have stood up and made stupid claims about "drugs" which have killed quantifiable numbers of people. The biggest killer of children where I am currently working aged 3 to 10 is firstly the Rotavirus, secondly Malaria, and thirdly Measles, Mumps and Rubella. Homeopaths "do not do science".

Guess who fights us when we want to vaccinate people. In the UK and US the numbers of vaccinated are sufficient to provide herd immunity. Here its not.

Because of the difficulty of measuring the diluted solutions, amongst other issues.  However, just because something cannot be measured empirically, does not mean by default that it does not work (if it did my entire PhD would be irrelevant, but that's a completely different topic - social science - so I won't make comaprisons to that here).

Actually we can measure the diluted solutions. Like I said... The dilution of said solutions is "1 molecule of substance in a sphere of water the size of the earth". We have mathematics. We can point out how stupid homeopathy is.

And that's the most silly answer of all.

1. Does the principle of homeopathy stand antithetically to all laws of the universe? (AKA like cures like, smaller has more effect) No
2. Does it follow scientific rigour in testing? No, small sample sizes, biased research and "proving" all quickly equate to a non scientific method of testing medication that boils down to "how do you feel after drinking water" rather than a careful controlled study.
3. Do its practitioners make stupid claims about real science to further their own goals? Yes
4. Are these claims verifiable by the general public? No

The reliability of this is open to question, and the side effects of it can be worse than the allergy itself in certain patients, as far as I understand it.  Of course, as a doctor, you may have some evidence to show me which indicates otherwise, in which case by all means feel free to try to convince me.

Immunotherapy works by exposing the individual to minute quantities of the allergen over long periods of time. It cannot have a "worse side effect" since allergen responses are based of quantity of stimulus. A few protein fragments from a prawn is a smaller response from eating a shrimp cocktail.

Furthermore, I have never been offered this therapy by any doctor that I have ever seen.  The attitude of all my doctors to the treatment of allergies has been 'take antihistermine or get lost'.

What are you allergic to? Immunotherapy is time consuming and expensive and is aimed at people with life threatening allergies. Antihistamines do the job just fine. I am allergic to pollen so I need to take them in spring. Big deal...

That's actually not true in my experience.  For a more balanced view of homeopathy, I found this article rather interesting.  Note particularly the section on side effects.

 Although the side effects and risks of homeopathic treatments are not well researched outside of observational studies, some general points can be made about the safety of these treatments:

Asprin

The entire "homeopathic science" has 4 side effects for ALL its drugs?


A systematic review found that homeopathic remedies in high dilution, taken under the supervision of trained professionals, are generally considered safe and unlikely to cause severe adverse reactions.

Because its water. It cannot have any adverse reactions unless we are discussing certain kidney infections or a stomach injury.


Liquid homeopathic remedies may contain alcohol. The FDA allows higher levels of alcohol in these remedies than it allows in conventional drugs. However, no adverse effects from alcohol levels have been reported to the FDA.

That's not even a side effect unless like me and Rummy your medication comes in martini glasses.


Homeopaths expect some of their patients to experience homeopathic aggravation (a temporary worsening of existing symptoms after taking a homeopathic prescription). Researchers have not found much evidence of this reaction in clinical studies; however, research on homeopathic aggravations is scarce.

Homeopathic Aggravation = Disease Running its Course.


Homeopathic remedies are not known to interfere with conventional drugs; however, if you are considering using homeopathic remedies, you should discuss this with your health care provider first.

Because they don't work. If homeopathic medication worked, it would interfere with conventional drugs and come with all sorts of wacky labels.

There are no side effects. There is just one of any note which is "You can feel a lot worse" and that's because "the homeopathy has no effect, your disease just runs its course".

I'm not concerned about that which my word does, or does not, count for in science.  Send me a PM if you are genuinely interested in knowing how homeopathy has worked for me in cases when conventional medicine has failed.

I cannot stand up and say "well it worked for Steve". What I can say is "It worked on steve and 299 other people, i think we should test some stuff out".

[khaine]

And for the third time I am telling you...

Medication only becomes medication when it exceeds the placebo effect.

A placebo is used as the control because we know what happens when you don't treat a disease. The placebo is "the psychological faith in the medication". The drug efficiency is compared to the placebo. If the drug is significantly BETTER than the placebo, then it is regarded as "a medication". If its the same then testing continues. If it still is the same (for that particular disease) then the drug is regarded to "not be effective".

To put it in a short way.... Medicine is Placebo Effect + Physiological changes.
The problem is medicines have PHYSIOLOGICAL CHANGES. Which means side effects. Homeopathy can get away by saying "no side effects" because they are feeding people "water". 

And once again you don't really answer the question I have asked. You clearly have a hatred for homeopathy that goes beyond "It doesn't work" but using CAPITAL letters to shout at me doesn't help you're argument, I'm asking the questions because I have a genuine interest not because I'm supporting homeopathy so I'm already listening. Likewise implying that I am stupid because I was treated as a child by something that you don't personally like does nothing to further any explanation.

To put it in a short way.... Medicine is Placebo Effect + Physiological changes.

And when the conventional drugs "placebo effect+physioloical changes" fail to outperform (Or even come close to) the homeopathic  "placebo only" effect surely there is something very wrong? Homeopath+Water>Doctor+Conventional drugs? Because that's what you appear to be saying in regards to people who have (for whatever reason) seen benefits from homeopathic cures.

So all I can do is sum up: On the occasion I was treated by a homeopath it worked, this was after several years of conventional treatment. If it was placebo effect fine, I was cured by nothing but kind words and water while the doctor with his conventional drugs couldn't. To me that says more about the doctor than it does the homeopathic treatment. 

"If it's stupid and it works then it isn't stupid."

So am I a great believer in homeopathy? No.

Would I shun conventional drugs for homeopathic treatment? No.

Would I consider homeopathic/alternative treatments when conventional treatments proved ineffective? Yes.


Oh and a special thanks to Dizzy for pointing me in the right direction for some of the infomation I was looking for. 

[Dizz]

One final word before I go on holiday.

One of the most important and overlooked concepts to keep in mind is "regression to the mean".

In pretty much all non-terminal ailments the patient is at some point likely to get better.
This is true of coughs and colds and it is also true of childhood conditions that are the result of an immature immune system.
It may see like many of these conditions are chronic, and indeed they may persist for years (or in the case of the common cold it might last a week or two), but eventually, without any treatment at all, the patient will make a full recovery.

Consider four patients with childhood allergies.
Child A receives only conventional medicine.
Child B receives only homeopathic remedies.
Child C tries first conventional and then switches to homeopathy after a time.
Child D takes no medicine at all.

They all eventually get better.

Regression to the mean has given us three false positives, since actually only time and the growing body was needed to "cure" the condition.

And this is probably the single greatest reason never to use the "it worked for me" argument. The reality is that you have no idea what worked for you. You only know that you got better.
Only large scale, double blind, placebo controlled trials can sift through the mass of false positives, the regressions to the mean and the differing placebo effects to sort out which remedies actually work.

Dizzy

[khaine]

And this is probably the single greatest reason never to use the "it worked for me" argument. The reality is that you have no idea what worked for you. You only know that you got better.

Yes there's the chance I just grew out of it or an environmental/lifestyle change could have caused it, there's no way to be 100% sure. Just the same as there's the chance that not trying it could have left me suffering and there's no way short of a time machine and advanced cloning that I'll ever know for sure. I could point out that the sudden change would be one hell of a coincidence but coincidences do happen.

How about a rephrase to "On the occasion I was treated by a homeopath my symptoms were gone within a short time, this was after several years of conventional treatment."?

[Dizz]

How about a rephrase to "On the occasion I was treated by a homeopath my symptoms were gone within a short time, this was after several years of conventional treatment."?

Yes.
And then your single data point needs to be statistically analysed alongside thousands of others to decide on whether it was a coincidence or not.

Dizzy

[Full Metal Geneticist]

And once again you don't really answer the question I have asked. You clearly have a hatred for homeopathy that goes beyond "It doesn't work" but using CAPITAL letters to shout at me doesn't help you're argument, I'm asking the questions because I have a genuine interest not because I'm supporting homeopathy so I'm already listening. Likewise implying that I am stupid because I was treated as a child by something that you don't personally like does nothing to further any explanation.

Must not turn into Hymirl... Must not turn into Hymirl...

The medicine is tested against hundreds of individuals and its use is highly researched. It's not guaranteed to work on all individuals, despite having effects. Secondly as I keep telling you medicine has effects that are classified as negative and positive. Thirdly, children are stupid, its part of being a child. All of us are born gullible and encouraged to believe in the tooth fairy and santa clause and fear of the doctors is common in adults because doctors seldom are bringers of good news, in children its fear. Its why paediatricians go out of their way to be as child friendly as possible.

What are you asking? In all honesty I keep telling you that When Compared Clinically medicine outperforms homeopathy over large numbers of people. Particularly when we are taking diseases that "kill". Homeopathy's major success in the west is because it provides relief to the flu and the cold because you don't live in an area where cholera can kill you. The Flu is the deadliest disease we are familiar with. While with MSF I have contracted Dengue Fever which kills people regularly and requires platelet transfusions to stabilise.

Homeopathy comes apart at the seams when "faced with something with a mortality rate". Hell remember the elderly die to the flu as well. Homeopathy just "has no effect" on them since their weakened immune systems make them prone to secondary infections that medicine can fight.

And when the conventional drugs "placebo effect+physioloical changes" fail to outperform (Or even come close to) the homeopathic  "placebo only" effect surely there is something very wrong? Homeopath+Water>Doctor+Conventional drugs? Because that's what you appear to be saying in regards to people who have (for whatever reason) seen benefits from homeopathic cures.

Well if you aren't sick or your disease is viral then homeopathy is better than medication because the side effects of medication are so heavy. IF you are sick then perhaps you need a new medication that works on a different principle as you may have an immunity to this one's effects. And no medicine is done by statistics and data mining. The best example is this...

http://homeopathy.suite101.com/article.cfm/homeopathic-remedies-for-acute-renal-failure

Do you want to take his medication? OR do you want to not eat as much protein and go on dialysis while we find you a kidney? Bear in mind Belladona is a poison which contains Atropine. It increases firing of the sinoatrial node (SA) and conduction through the atrioventricular node (AV) of the heart, opposes the actions of the vagus nerve, blocks acetylcholine receptor sites, and decreases bronchial secretions.

In general, atropine lowers the parasympathetic activity of all muscles and glands regulated by the parasympathetic nervous system. This occurs because atropine is a competitive antagonist of the muscarinic acetylcholine receptors (acetylcholine being the main neurotransmitter used by the parasympathetic nervous system). Therefore, it may cause swallowing difficulties and reduced secretions.

Taking belladona in any appreciable quantities would "kill you" if you were healthy. This individual can recommend it because "he is recommending it in small enough doses that there is no actual active ingredient".

So all I can do is sum up: On the occasion I was treated by a homeopath it worked, this was after several years of conventional treatment. If it was placebo effect fine, I was cured by nothing but kind words and water while the doctor with his conventional drugs couldn't. To me that says more about the doctor than it does the homeopathic treatment. 

You still didn't tell us what you have.

"If it's stupid and it works then it isn't stupid."

I showed you a link where they are offering homeopathy for acute renal failure as if they can cure it. I lost my aunt (a doctor) to acute renal failure this year. A terminal disease if one doesn't acquire a transplant. They are vultures and evian salesmen. They are preying on the hopes of dying people to make a quick buck. This is without their anti vaccine stance where they are actively encouraging disease.

Would I consider homeopathic/alternative treatments when conventional treatments proved ineffective? Yes.

Ah. In which case I suggest prayer and sacrificing goats. You are in the same league of treatment. c


Oh and a special thanks to Dizzy for pointing me in the right direction for some of the infomation I was looking for. 
[/quote]

[Macharius]

I have no education in this, and so hold no opinion on homeopathy. The commic strip reminds me of a television broadcast the church did once on evolution. It had really crumby jokes, bias views on unrelated matters, and was purely subjective. It continued to make claims, without citing anything. It took the arguments at hand, and fought them with their own opinions, without citation. Watching it was like pulling teeth.
The comic is not humorous, not in the least. It's arguments are not credible at all; there is no citation.
Informative? No. Funny? No. Does it make me want to research homeopathy more? Yes, very much so. Which is probably the opposite of what it was trying to do.

[Full Metal Geneticist]

Actually then the damage is done. If you have a basic understanding of chemistry and biology you will quickly realise why homeopathy is pseudoscience.

[Hymirl]

Informative? No. Funny? No. Does it make me want to research homeopathy more? Yes, very much so. Which is probably the opposite of what it was trying to do.

If the comic makes you research the events the comic speaks about, then it achieves exactly what it wanted to do.. make people scrutinise it for the facts. If you do look at the evidence for whether it works or not instead of listening to the happy few who's like "Oh I had some and it fixed my whole life!" you'd be hard pressed to draw a different conclusion.

It would be interesting if you could come back to the thread to speak about what your own findings tell you?

[NewHeretic]

I've never been involved with homeopathy, so will reserve my judgement at this point.  I will say that I've seen three different Chiropracters with some fair share of scepticism, but have been sufficiently impressed with their results to believe that they are on the level.  So, in my opinion FMG, chiropractic medicine shouldn't be thrown in with homeopathy as magic.

One of the most important and overlooked concepts to keep in mind is "regression to the mean".

Dizzy

To this, I'd like to point out that it isn't always the case.  I developed Asthma in the 10th grade when I began running Track.  I'd played soccer all my life, competitively, to that point.  Doctors then called it 'sports induced asthma'.  Sounded silly to me.  Why would being physically fit cause me to become allergic to pollen?  It got worse through the years, never better, though I continued to play varsity soccer all through High School and College.  I've since discovered (via the Chiropractor) that I am allergic to milk and gluten.  Things seem to be getting worse, not better.  I realize that cutting both things from my diet would relieve the symptoms of the allergies, but both of those products are nearly impossible to remove from my diet as nearly everything (except fresh fruits and vegetables) has either milk or processed grain in it.

Another example of something non-terminal getting progressively worse, rather than better, is arthritis.  So, it ("regression to the mean") is not always the case.

NewHeretic

[Dizz]

Another example of something non-terminal getting progressively worse, rather than better, is arthritis.

I was dealing in generalities. There are always exceptions.

And once again you have quoted a personal story instead of an objective study. Time and time again it's proven that a subjective personal story has no merit unless it can be combined with thousands upon thousands of others under a controlled environment, and subjected to intense statistical scrutiny.

So, it ("regression to the mean") is not always the case.

I never tried to imply that it was always the case. It is just very often the case.

Dizzy

[Full Metal Geneticist]

I've never been involved with homeopathy, so will reserve my judgement at this point.  I will say that I've seen three different Chiropracters with some fair share of scepticism, but have been sufficiently impressed with their results to believe that they are on the level.  So, in my opinion FMG, chiropractic medicine shouldn't be thrown in with homeopathy as magic.

A medical doctor who deals with such things is called an Osteopath. Chiropractor's aren't the same. The principles by which chiropractors work is osteopathy, however the chiropractor "spreads" and incorrect belief.

To this, I'd like to point out that it isn't always the case.  I developed Asthma in the 10th grade when I began running Track.  I'd played tsoccer all my life, competitively, to that point.  Doctors then called it 'sports induced asthma'.  Sounded silly to me.  Why would being physically fit cause me to become allergic to pollen?

It means you have a mild case of asthma that only applies during physical exertion. Its probably a dust allergy. You seem to have misunderstood the name. It means asthma that occurs during exercise, not caused by it...

  It got worse through the years, never better, though I continued to play varsity soccer all through High School and College.  I've since discovered (via the Chiropractor) that I am allergic to milk and gluten.  Things seem to be getting worse, not better.  I realize that cutting both things from my diet would relieve the symptoms of the allergies, but both of those products are nearly impossible to remove from my diet as nearly everything (except fresh fruits and vegetables) has either milk or processed grain in it.

That's not homeopathy that's common sense. And mild lactose and gluten intolerance is hard to catch because you aren't complaining of explosive rancid diarrhoea.

Another example of something non-terminal getting progressively worse, rather than better, is arthritis.  So, it ("regression to the mean") is not always the case.

There are exceptions to his case. Homeopaths tend to avoid treating terminal diseases or diseases with high mortality for this reason.

[NewHeretic]

So, it ("regression to the mean") is not always the case.

I never tried to imply that it was always the case. It is just very often the case.

Dizzy

After reading your post again, I see that I read the 'always' into it when it wasn't there.   Sorry for that assumption.

My personal story was only in defense of the value of Chiropractic medicine, not Homeopathy.  I fully understand that you, FMG, and others may not put any stock in any type of evidence that isn't quantifiable.  I respect your belief.  I do think it is a rather limiting viewpoint, however.  I'm not trying argue faith vs. science.  I am saying that Chiropractors are the ones who discovered my allergies to both milk and gluten.  When I have removed milk products from my diet (takes about a month for them to clear my system), my allergic reactions like clogged sinuses and itchy eyes vanish.  My gluten intolerence is minor (when I get a lot at once my breath is constricted).  It is a much more recent development that doctors weren't able to explain, but the Chiropractor discovered fairly quickly. 

I understand that Medical Doctors are overworked with many more patients than most Chiropractors and no one person can possibly know everything about maladies or think of the answer immediately even if they should know it, but Chiropractors have proven themselves knowlegeable and helpful to me, impirical evidence or not.

NewHeretic

[Full Metal Geneticist]

How did your chiropractor diagnose you? Those two allergies have a different pathology normally.

If its "dietary testing" rather than "just do it" then its fine. Because it could have been "anything". It could have been dust mites, you could have had an allergy to dust (running on a pitch wouldn't cause it but running on a field would).

If he just "said it" then its a guess. He was right but it was a guess.

I will point out that modern chiropractors have tried to distance them from their origins as magic men. The entire "field" is based on the illusion of science. A lot of its original beliefs were you could correct personality disorders and somatic organs by forcibly changing the spine.

As for close mindedness of science... We are accepting of evidence. The chiropracters are practicing osteopathy under the guise of magic. Quite a few of them have an anti vaccine stance which is "unacceptable". We are against misrepresentation.

Look at the math I posted for homeopathic concentrations and "the magic properties of water" (Water memory... and one molecule in millions of tonnes of water) Not to mention empirical evidence on the difference between homeopathy and medicine. The original experiment that "defined homeopathy" was proved wrong. (Repeat of the experiment under more stringent blinded testing resulted in inconclusive when performed even by homeopaths. They cried foul but seriously the entire experiment was designed to be as blind as possible) Homeopathy was "proven" to be rubbish.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathy.shtml

BBC tried to win Randi's Homeopathy challenge. Failed. Repeated the original experiment.

[SnipingSnowman]

As Dara O'Briain rightly stated, it's just water. xD

I don't think there's anything to it, I think it's all the placebo effect, as previously mentioned..

[khaine]

Would I consider homeopathic/alternative treatments when conventional treatments proved ineffective? Yes.

Ah. In which case I suggest prayer and sacrificing goats. You are in the same league of treatment. c

So now considering all options and looking for alternatives is a bad thing? Conventional drugs fail and so I just sit and suffer without even thinking of trying something else?

Interesting as well that you throw prayer and goat sacrifice in the same sentence... I'm not religious, I don't pray, there's a lot of people out there that do. If it provides them some comfort, even only on a psychological level, and does no harm so what if they do?

Must not turn into Hymirl... Must not turn into Hymirl...

Must not turn into Brother Comfort... Must not turn into Brother Comfort...

Ok, can we cut the childish comments now? It doesn't make either of us look big.

In all honesty I keep telling you that When Compared Clinically medicine outperforms homeopathy over large numbers of people. Particularly when we are taking diseases that "kill".

Again you're arguing a point I have never disputed. My original question was purely one base on my own experience and how placebo effect would apply.

What are you asking?

Don't worry, already got the answer I was looking for.

Secondly as I keep telling you medicine has effects that are classified as negative and positive.

Did I say otherwise?

Do you want to take his medication? OR do you want to not eat as much protein and go on dialysis while we find you a kidney?

I'll take the protein cut and the dialysis thanks. But then as I've said all along I'd go with conventional drugs first and then look at other options based on how things went. Again you're arguing something that I'm not.

I showed you a link where they are offering homeopathy for acute renal failure as if they can cure it. I lost my aunt (a doctor) to acute renal failure this year. A terminal disease if one doesn't acquire a transplant. They are vultures and evian salesmen. They are preying on the hopes of dying people to make a quick buck. This is without their anti vaccine stance where they are actively encouraging disease.

Again nothing there that I would argue against, as I've said repeatedly conventional options first... I would question exactly who "they" are, is the anti vaccine stance throughout the entire homeopathic community or just a few vocal people?

You still didn't tell us what you have.

No I didn't.