Large study concludes Homeopathy does not effectively treat any health condition

a reply to: InverseLookingGlass
Personally, I'll take the new fangled medicine over millions of years.
Only because of this.

originally posted by: gmoneystunt
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Then why dont you spend your time telling me who funded those 300 studies? If you dont do it you will look foolish. How do you like it?

I'm not the one making the claim about who funded the studies. YOU are. YOU make the claim, YOU produce the evidence that corroborates it. Why would I want to prove your point for you?

Well I must say this, in my practice we supplement the acupuncture treatments with herbs. About a year ago we decided to try out some homeopathic remedies, and bottle herbs due to storage and other issues (storing 350 different types of herbs can be costly) . we encounter a few issues.

1- Which company to buy from homeopathic remedies from? Is a little difficult to discern which one would have been the best. after a few months of research we settle for one.
2- Administration of doses: the table of dosage although not complicated, was time consuming something we didn't have the time for.
3- Results: we are accustomed to the results of raw herbs, I must say neither the grinned herbs that comes in a capsule or the homeopathic remedy had the same effect on the patients. we would normally get a reaction from the patients after the 2 or 3rd time the took the raw herbs. It took around 6 with homeopathic remedy, and some of the patients that used the grinned herbs never notice any effects.

now some variables to considered:

1- Each person react differently, some people are faster and some people are slower to react. for a period of around 6 months we gave 400 people homeopathic therapy, 400 grinned herbs, and the rest raw herbs.
based on their testimony the average time for some kind of response was:
1- Raw herbs: 2 or 3 times
2- Homeopathic remedies: 6+ times
3- grinned herbs: extremely random from 4 times to never.

2- The once again placebo effect, although there has been studies showed that placebo does not influence the acupuncture treatment, the same can't be said about the whole treatment. Let me put it this way, someone comes in with frozen shoulder with a limited range of motion, with only one needle in LI-10, I can give the person almost full range of motion, anything that happens after that can be placebo. So i'm realistic even the raw herbs can be placebo - but my saying is always the same "if placebo is curing you of cancer, do you care?" - but yes I must admit that placebo can be present.

Now, i must also admit the following:
1- I'm not a homeopathic practitioner, and might very well be giving the wrong doses and might be using the wrong homeopathy for the wrong treatment.
2- I might try again in the future, but if I can get a train homeopath whom is well verse with the doses and therapies.
3- Although, maybe because of the doses or my lack of knowledge the homeopathic remedy didn't work as well as the raw herbs, but in most of the cases there was still a reaction on the patient, so i don't discard the healing properties they might have, again it might just be a wrong use of it, not the remedy itself.

unfortunately for now until I find the right person I'm stock with a room full of herbs..

Final message, I think that for the remedy to work you must consult someone that is well verse on the therapy.

a reply to: Atsbhct
I thought they used alcohol, my mom makes homeopathis drops, and it is distilled water, as in stripped to nothing so it can absorb whatever is added to it? And alcohol. At least thats how she makes it

a reply to: FlyersFan

I did acupuncture for one year, one a week, first I did it after shoulder surgery when the pain in my shoulder area would not go away, I remember one treatment, with this Indian man that was all about aruveya, my pain went away after just that first time.

The rest I had it because some anxiety and panic attacks with another lady an American one, and I have to say that until this day I have not been in the emergency room again, now when I feel the panic or anxiety coming I can stop it and is not often like it used too.

I am big on homeopathy and so far works well for me, prescribe drugs are a big problem with my body, as I seem to get very bad side effects with most of them and is not the drug itself but the fillers that are use on them.

originally posted by: gmoneystunt
a reply to: grainofsand

most of these studies are done by big pharma to discredit homeopathy. Homeopathy does not get funded like pharmaceuticals. So most of the studies are biased.

The essential oil of thyme (thymus vulgaris) is utilized as a flavor enhancer in a wide variety of foods, beverages, confectionery products and in perfumery for the scenting of soaps and lotions.1 It possesses some antiseptic, bronchiolytic, antispasmodic and antimicrobial properties that make it popular as a medicinal herb and as a preservative for foods.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Thyme has some antimicrobial properties is enough to show that homeopathy works. According to your study we should take thymol out of our mouthwash because it doesn't work.

So show me all the reputable studies that prove it works.
Oh wait, you can't, because EVERY STUDY undertaken proves that it's all nonsense.

People should stop wasting time on this and consider the reality that all drugs are actually made from natural compounds anyway. These things are not magically created from some kind of antimatter. They are distilled, blended, derived and produced FROM NATURAL REMEDIES.

Codex Almimentarius and no I don't buy this study. You do realize that the doctored up concoctions by big pharma are based on real nutrients and supplements and minerals and herbs, all this natural pathetic stuff, is actually the basis of their medicines.

I run with the pharmakeia word in scriptures meaning pharmacist and those feeding us poisons.

To each their own, but don't try to control others, they don't care, at all.

umm.edu...

In order to get even mixed results mentioned, it means it damn good. Also have to tell you, the part that no one knows how it works in humans, or if its just those test animals.

The reason they performed the tests to begin with is due to it having a long time usage from grass roots people who know it works. So listen to the people. They are the real experts.

Lets look at b 17 eh.

www.articlesbase.com...

The scientific research behind Vitamin B-17 is solid. It began in the early 1950's with an American physician and medical researcher named Dr. Ernest T. Krebs and his son Dr. Ernst T. Krebs Jr. For research purposes they developed a purified, synthesized version of vitamin B-17 and called it Laetrile. Widespread animal experimentation took place in numerous laboratories around the country during the 1950's and 1960's with excellent results. Other prominent physicians and researchers in other countries also began to research Laetrile. Dr Hans Nieper of Germany, Dr. Ernesto Contreras of Mexico, and Dr. Manuel Navarro of the Philippines.

By 1973 an American Dr. named Dr. Philip E. Binzel began treating his cancer patients with Laetrile combined with additional nutritional therapies. Soon other physicians followed, Dr. John A. Richardson, CA. and Dr. W. Douglas Brodie, NV. and many more.

Dr. Binzel treated his patients with Laetrile for 20 years and wrote a book documenting his experiences using the Laetrile protocol. His book is called, "Alive and Well, " and you can read it online for free.

Real Scientists. Many successful studies and 20 years of research.

You can believe whatever tickles your fancy, but I'm not buying what you're peddling. And couching something in terms that say, "just wait for the conspiracy folks" when this is a very real conspiracy, is just plain manipulation, distortion, and since it serves the agenda of the elites, murder incorporated thugs at the top of our dog pile here, it also serves: extortion, (that is what I call their monopolies), nepotism, depopulation, enslavement, murder, and every other thing you can think of.

a reply to: Rocker2013

Actually they did, but big pharma could to patent natural ingredients, so there came the synthetic variations made big pharma more money and people get more side effects due to the fillers.

I can do penicillin with not problem, but any of the expensive antibiotics containing sulfa send me to the ER swollen from head to toe.

Medicinal Plants and the Pharmaceutical Industry

There is a trend for synthetics to replace natural compounds in Prescription and Over the Counter (OTC) Pharmaceuticals. Today, ephedrine, salicylates, vitamins, and xanthines are mostly synthetic and steroids are often semisynthetic. While agreeing with Farnsworth and Bingel (1977) that 25% of modern prescription drugs contain at least one phytochemical

www.hort.purdue.edu...

Synthetic Drugs — Fake Substances, Real Dangers

www.socialworktoday.com...

This interesting also, that back in the 90s big pharma reports were praising the great array of natural sources for medications because it was at that time that they were trying to patent some natural sources and now we see that a modern report from the OP is telling that natural sources are not good, it was publish by Merck

Importance of biodiversity to the modern

Merck Frosst Centre for Therapeutic Research, PO Box 1005, Pointe Claire ± Dorval,
Que bec, Canada, H9R 4P8

Abstract: Natural substances have long served as sources of therapeutic drugs. Many
substances have been derived from traditional medicine, e.g. digitalis (from Foxglove),
ergotamine (from contaminated rye), quinine (from Cinchona), etc. More recently, many
antibiotic, antifungal and anticancer agents have been derived from bacteria, fungi, plant and
animal sources. While newer techniques of combinatorial chemistry and large scale screening
of synthetic products as well as de novo design are now a mainstay for new drug discovery, the
search for new natural products continues as an importance source of structural diversity.
Genomic research continues to identify molecular targets for disease which can derive speci®c
screening assays. All major drug companies screen plant, bacterial and fungal extracts, as well
as synthetics. However, rarely, is a screening active discovered ideally suited for marketing as
a drug due to suboptimal bioavailability, half-life, toxicity, speci®city, etc. More often, natural
products provide lead structures which are starting points for chemical modi®cation to derive
an optimal drug.

Many new companies have been set up in the last few years to exploit natural products. As
well, new techniques of combinatorial biosynthesis and gene transfer offer possibilities for
identi®cation of novel substances heretofore unaccessible for testing. It is critical that biomass
diversity be maintained to provide future structural diversity and provide leads and drugs for
pharmaceutical targets that will emerge in the coming years.
pharmaceutical industry*

pac.iupac.org...

Big Pharma in general—and biotech in particular—are having trouble coming up with new-to-nature molecules they can successfully patent and turn into blockbuster medicines. They know the healing power of natural substances. But natural substances are not supposed to be patentable. Or if they are patentable because a new process is involved, the patent protection may be weaker. As we have noted many times, drug companies are not interested in medicines that cannot be patented or that hold weak patent protections, because they don’t earn enough money for the substances to be taken through the multi-billion-dollar FDA approval process and thereby gain a complete government-enforced monopoly, which brings with it the power to charge huge sums for the product.

Now they’re trying to get the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to change patent law about natural substances.


Pharma and biotech companies were dealt a blow in their efforts to “patent nature,” as it were, when the US Supreme Court struck down patents on human genes in 2013. In its decision, the court wrote that Myriad Genetics, the private company seeking a patent on two genes which account for most inherited forms of breast and ovarian cancer, “did not create anything. To be sure, it found an important and useful gene, but separating that gene from its surrounding genetic material is not an act of invention.”

www.anh-usa.org...

If natural ingredients are a hoax why big pharma is fighting to take hold of nature for the purpose to patent nature

a reply to: Unity_99

Sometimes you have to spell things like you do to a child, but is worth the research and findings, great post.



I used to have a powerful engine to do searches that will thin out propaganda from good information but the big Google has gotten away with taking the engine away when absorbing other search programs, so it takes longer for me to find information after spending time thinning out propaganda.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: StoutBroux
You do actually understand how 'small' these doses are in homeopathy yeah?
Active ingredients in medical drugs are vastly higher, so I still don't see your claim standing up.

After reading the replies from most of the people who are defending homeopathy I think it is safe to say that the vast majority of them have no clue as to what it is.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: StoutBroux
You do actually understand how 'small' these doses are in homeopathy yeah?
Active ingredients in medical drugs are vastly higher, so I still don't see your claim standing up.

After reading the replies from most of the people who are defending homeopathy I think it is safe to say that the vast majority of them have no clue as to what it is.

This isn't surprising news to you is it?

a reply to: Grimpachi

That is why when a report comes out that tells how bad natural medicine is it takes center stage regardless if the sources are true or not, what can I say, you are right about that.

You are a winner.

a reply to: gmoneystunt

There is no mention of that in the paper you linked to. Post up the source you are referencing.

a reply to: marg6043

Homeopathy isn't "natural medicine". It's magic. By definition, it's "supernatural medicine", i.e. bunk.

OP link:

The study was conducted by Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), and to avoid bias, the evidence was assessed by an independent contractor. “No good-quality, well-designed studies with enough participants for a meaningful result reported either that homeopathy caused greater health improvements than placebo, or caused health improvements equal to those of another treatment,” the report found.

I read through many of the pdfs. These results are what I read at the end of specific lists of illnesses.

For each condition, although some studies reported that homeopathy was more effective than placebo, these studies were not reliable. They were not good quality (well designed and well done), or they had too few participants to give a meaningful result, or both.

For each condition, although some studies reported that homeopathy was as effective as or more effective than another treatment, these studies were not reliable. They were not good quality (well designed and well done), or they had too few participants to give a meaningful result, or both.

For each condition, only one study that compared homeopathy with another treatment was found, and this study was unreliable. It was either poor quality (poorly designed or poorly done) or unknown quality, or it had too few participants to give a meaningful result, or both.

The findings of studies on health conditions not already considered by the overview did not alter the overall conclusions of the NHMRC review. Although some studies reported results favouring homeopathy, none were high-quality studies judged to be at low risk of bias. In addition, these were only selected examples of studies on those health conditions.

And Finally:

it is unlikely that a review of primary studies (rather than of systematic reviews) would have altered the findings. This is because the studies on homeopathy identified through this process were generally small and of poor quality (either poorly designed or poorly done). Due to the poor quality of the evidence base, the Homeopathy Working Committee had to apply caution when considering the results reported by studies. For some health conditions, this meant that no conclusion could be made on whether or not homeopathy was effective. For other
conditions, this meant that NHMRC could not be confident that the results reported by studies were reliable.

So instead of saying something to the effect of "there is not enough reliable data to determine if homeopathy is as effective as modern treatments and medicine", they did a blanket statement of ............... Oh wait, here it is.
The NHMRC didn't state at all "Homeopathy does not effectively treat any health condition". They said this:

Findings

There was no reliable evidence from research in humans that homeopathy was effective for treating the range of health conditions considered: no good-quality, well-designed studies with enough participants for a meaningful result reported either that homeopathy caused greater health improvements than placebo, or caused health improvements equal to those of another treatment. For some health conditions, studies reported that homeopathy was not more effective than placebo. For other health conditions, there were poor-quality studies that reported homeopathy was more effective than placebo, or as effective as another treatment. However, based on their limitations, those
studies were not reliable for making conclusions about whether homeopathy was effective. For the remaining health conditions it was not possible to make any conclusion about whether homeopathy was effective or not, because there was not enough evidence.

Conclusions

Based on the assessment of the evidence of effectiveness of homeopathy, NHMRC concludes that there are no health conditions for which there is reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective.

www.nhmrc.gov.au...

It's the sites reporting the finding which are coming to the hardline conclusion.

a reply to: StoutBroux

Correct, there is not enough reliable data to determine if magic is as effective as modern treatments and medicine. In other words, magic does not effectively treat any health condition.


Magic water doesn't work. It's not that difficult to grap.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: StoutBroux
You do actually understand how 'small' these doses are in homeopathy yeah?
Active ingredients in medical drugs are vastly higher, so I still don't see your claim standing up.

After reading the replies from most of the people who are defending homeopathy I think it is safe to say that the vast majority of them have no clue as to what it is.

This isn't surprising news to you is it?

Nope

The only thing that's surprising me is that some still haven't looked up what it is.


Should I tell them its only water?

If you get cancer, have homeopathic treatment and see how long you last, get one of those homeopathic Drs to diagnose you too.... what? homeopathy can't diagnose cancer?

a reply to: Grimpachi

As like cures like and the more diluted a substance is, the more powerful it is, I will leave this homeopathic comment to cure all of the homeopathic stupidity in this thread:

Boobies.