Homeopathetic remedies work as well as a packet of sugar.
Originally posted by DataWraith
Of course not because they are in th pockets of big pharma and their poisonous agenda.
Originally posted by Panic2k11
Its all about the power of self delusion, hypnosis, faith. You can will yourself to die (nocebo) you can will yourself to live (placebo) the limitation is the same as the effect on reality that you can exert with your brain.
Originally posted by Amanda5
reply to post by ollncasino
Well it does stand to reason that the established members of society would have this opinion. There are many many regular people who turn to homeopathy and state that it works. I imagine the establishment need to keeps the pharmaceutical money coming in and telling the public that something does not work is a tactic they are willing to try.
Long gone are the days that anything a government spokesperson stated was taken as up front truth. Should people want to engage in homeopathy as a option - so be it - freedom of choice for all!
Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
i do understand.
homeopathic medicine is NOT dangerous
nor is it comparable to a placebo, regardless what this paid mouthpiece says.
it is all of the above because no 'study' was actually performed.
opinion is hardly a study and where's the source 'evidence' ??
in case you didn't read the OP, there is no 'study' included or a link to one.
it is an OPINION piece, nothing more.
rubber and glue, which are you ?
Homoeopathy is based on a premise that 'like cures like' meaning a substance that causes a set of symptoms in a healthy human being cures the same when consumed by a person exhibiting the same symptoms before consuming it.
If the person actually gets better, it is not delusion. You may call it suggestion, but not delusion.
Originally posted by snowspirit
I was under the assumption that homeopathy was about taking a tiny bit of a substance to trigger the body to heal.
Or taking a tiny bit of a substance to build your immune system.
I must be completely wrong and will take the time to go and reread exactly how it's supposed to work.
Maybe I'm thinking about vaccines, because that's how they say they're supposed to work.
By my logic, if a vaccine works, so does homeopathy
Originally posted by Chai_An
Yes they think anything that a person can do to improve their health without spending a fortune with them is rubbish. It's understandable and predictable of them. Lets say it's a placebo and people are getting well off of sugar pills, so what as long as they get well which should be the focus.
Originally posted by trollz
My dad uses natural medicines and in my entire lifetime I don't remember him ever once getting so much as a cold. If he's never been sick, he must be doing something right.
Homeopathy is 'rubbish', says chief medical officer,
Originally posted by Pardon?
I certainly can't disagree with the findings OP.
Homeopathy is the "emperor's new clothes" of the natural medicine world.
For the poster above who says it works on a quantum level, oh please. You're deluding yourself.
The terms-of-reference for the PEK study stated that the results of the study would determine which complementary medicines, if any, would continue to be supported by the national insurance program in Switzerland. However, before the study was completed and the final draft report reviewed by the international Review Board, the government announced that it would withdraw support for all complementary approaches to medicine.
Considerable uproar followed, including protests from many scientists involved in the study (including the scientific director of the program) about political interference in the scientific process:
"The international review board of PEK has publicly protested at political interference in the scientific process."
"There is a consensus among the review board members that the final PEK process deviated from what would have been expected by conventional standards."
ECH evaluation of PEK report
According to the European Committee for Homeopathy's evaluation of the PEK report, the results were, for the government, surprisingly positive towards complementary medicines. According to the ECH evaluation:
The PEK study showed that the quality of homeopathic care was superior to that of conventional care. This difference could not be explained by the seriousness of the illnesses, because homeopathic doctors saw even more seriously and chronically ill people. (Page 2)
Whereas the authors of the overall PEK report drew the conclusion that there is sufficient evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathy, the authors of the meta-analysis came to a different conclusion. This seems rather odd, because both groups of authors based their conclusions on the same extensive literature search and predefined inclusion criteria. (Page 4)
The Swiss Association of Homeopathic Doctors (SVHÄ) highly criticizes the PEK report and asserts that the study has serious flaws. (Page 5)
The meta-analysis was conducted at the Department of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM) of the Bern University, under the direction of Prof. Dr Matthias Egger. The ISPM did not include any expert from the field of homeopathy. It was not before January 2005 that homeopathic experts were allowed to peruse the meta-analysis. ISPM Director Prof Egger repeatedly has pronounced his conviction that homeopathy cannot be effective because its working mechanism is implausible. This does not seem to be a particularly unbiased position. (Page 6)
Although homeopathy and other CAM therapies proved to be cost-effective and may save millions of Swiss Francs on the health budget, the Swiss government decided to exclude all CAM therapies from the compulsory health insurance scheme as from 30 June 2005. (Page 6)
A conference scheduled for April 2005 to present and discuss the results of the PEK was cancelled because the National Health Office suppressed the publication of the study data. (Page 7)
Some collaborators were coerced into deleting all PEK related data from their computers. (Page 7)
A final meeting of the international Review Board (of 6 professors from Switzerland, Germany, Denmark and the UK responsible for the scientific quality of the PEK) to be held in June 2005 for a final assessment of the project, was cancelled. (Page 7)
A recommendation in the report's final draft to keep homeopathy, anthroposophical medicine and herbal medicine in the compulsory health insurance scheme was deleted in the final publication. (Page 7)