homeopathy???

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

BABiology

Junior Member
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
20+ Year Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2003
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Well, I didn't know where to post this so I went ahead and posted it here.

What does everyone think about it? About homeopathy?

I myself have been brought up with it and I really like it but unfort. I have seen the bad rep. it has gotten. So basically I just wanted to know what you all think about it...and no I wont be mad at you if you don't like this form of medicine. I would just like to discuss it.


Thanks
 
Originally posted by lukealfredwhite
But "water memory" ?


have you heard the studies being done right now on allopathic medicine??? They are doing dilutions and are finding the reverse effect that it treats!?

ex: asprin...relieve headache
diluted aspring...starts a headache

and no its NOT just "water memory"!
 
Homeopathy is bunk.
 
what are you basing this on???

do you know there are doctors in homeopathy in other coutries....as well as there was here in the USA in the early 1900's! Unfort. they could not withstand the AMA and got wiped out.
Chiropractic, osteopathic were two types of medicine that were not fully wiped out by the AMA.

In the early 1900's there was homeopathic medical schools as well as homeopathic hospitals!
 
Sorry, I suppose I should be more diplomatic. My friends wife is into homeopathy, and, like you, was raised thinking it is real form of medicine. If homeopathic medicine is ingrained in your world paradigm, then more power to you. I certainly respect your right to believe in it, and whatever else you like. Nevertheless, the underlying theory behind homeopathy, like that of chiropractic, is based on illogical assumptions. Since my paradigm is based on logic, I tend to have a hard time with those things that are not. Call me crazy, call me secular, whatever, but I just don't accept healing methods that are based on psuedo-science.
 
Originally posted by daveyboy
Sorry, I suppose I should be more diplomatic. My friends wife is into homeopathy, and, like you, was raised thinking it is real form of medicine. If homeopathic medicine is ingrained in your world paradigm, then more power to you. I certainly respect your right to believe in it, and whatever else you like. Nevertheless, the underlying theory behind homeopathy, like that of chiropractic, is based on illogical assumptions. Since my paradigm is based on logic, I tend to have a hard time with those things that are not. Call me crazy, call me secular, whatever, but I just don't accept healing methods that are based on psuedo-science.

I respect your thoughts...yes I was raised using homeopathy but it was never ingrained into us that it was the only or the one we should use. My parents used allopathic medicine at times aswell.
Homeopathy has not grown much here in the US because people here need hard facts. And with homeopathy laws of science/physics can not explain how it can be possible and is why they can not accept it.
My theory is...if it works then it works! In the late 1800's there was a very large plague going on and homeopathy allopathic medicine was not helping much....whereas homeopathic medicine was. I think people need more knowledge about this subject. Basically if you don't believe in psuedo-science then you must not believe in accupuncture, naturopathy, rolfing , chiropractic.....or even osteopathy????

Come to think about it...isn't the basics of OMM the same as the basic of chiropractic??
 
Originally posted by BABiology
Come to think about it...isn't the basics of OMM the same as the basic of chiropractic??

Some of the methodologies may be similar, but the theories behind them are different. Also, OMM emcompasses a significantly broader scope of treatment (methods) than chiropractic.
 
No, I don't believe in the efficacy of those psuedosciences that you mentioned. Thanks for pointing out their pseudoscientific nature!

Do I consider the basic philosophy of chiropractic to be similar to OMM? No. They are not. A key difference is that both Osteopathic and Allopathic medicine adpat to changing data. If a treatment is deemed to be ineffective it is abandoned for a more effective one. For example, if the current studies on OMM find that spinal manipulation is ineffective, that aspect of OMM will likely fall out of favor. The science of practice evolves as objective data is collected. Quack practices, on the other hand, profess a certain dogma as truth, forever imposing a subjective system on unsuspecting believers.

I guess this must be pseudoscience week on SDN.
 
Originally posted by DrMom
Some of the methodologies may be similar, but the theories behind them are different. Also, OMM emcompasses a significantly broader scope of treatment (methods) than chiropractic.

Yes, I know OMM emcompasses a broader scope of treatment than chiropractic but like you said the methodologiees are similar. I dont have NOTHING against it...I was trying to prove that just because its psuedo-science its doesn't mean its not true or a real form of medicine.
 
Originally posted by daveyboy
No, I don't believe in the efficacy of those psuedosciences that you mentioned. Thanks for pointing out their pseudoscientific nature!

Do I consider the basic philosophy of chiropractic to be similar to OMM? No. They are not. A key difference is that both Osteopathic and Allopathic medicine adpat to changing data. If a treatment is deemed to be ineffective it is abandoned for a more effective one. For example, if the current studies on OMM find that spinal manipulation is ineffective, that aspect of OMM will likely fall out of favor. The science of practice evolves as objective data is collected. Quack practices, on the other hand, profess a certain dogma as truth, forever imposing a subjective system on unsuspecting believers.

I guess this must be pseudoscience week on SDN.

I only mentioned that it was a pseudoscience because thats what it's considered by "people" I agree with you Chiropractic is not COMPLETLY the same but it does have similarities. OMM manipulates to try to avoid a specific diseases (yes according to what I've read...history of DO) Chiropractic manipulates to try to avoid problems in the future and get rid of current problems.
You relate OMM with the practice of homeopathy...I would hope OMM would stop a specific type of manipulation if it was not going to help or not helping....Homeopathy...if you know, will NOT continue to use a SPECIFIC remedy if it see finds ail!! Homeopathy test their remedies and see if it helps. You should read more on this subject before confinding them as "quacks"! I don't think if it was a quack as you call it would survive this long. Studies have shown by controlled clinical trials that it has helped with specific diseases they have done them on.

I just would like for you to read more into this practice....because like osteopathic medicine it was almost completly wiped out by the AMA. Unfort. homeopathy was wiped out more than osteopathic medicine just because it was not agreeing with the laws of science...and basically any MD at that time that would practice homeopathy would be riped of their right to practice medicine! Osteopathic medicine was also almost wiped out.

And for your "quarckery" I guess Queen Elizabeth and other prominent people are using "quacks" to help them with their health. You better let they know!
 
Man, I would love to hear some more about your experiences with homeopathy. I think that there are plenty of uses for. Of course it probably wouldn't be the best choice for something like a sudden rupture of the Aorta or anything, but hey, there is no catchall treatments out there.

Also, please don't use Chiro and Osteopathy in the same sentence...it makes my ears hurt. lol Two totally different things but each have HV/LA in them: the former more exclusively than the later. Email me and we'll talk without the heckling of those who are unable to challenge the dominant paradigm. Later!
 
Well, if the Queen uses it, then it must be legit. Sorry, I didn't know.

Seriously, I stand by my argument. I will say that I definitely believe that some alternative therapies have value, especially for helping people that are not sick reach optimum health. However, because we live in an era where alternative therapies are in vogue, the common man is at a greater risk for fraud from quacks. It is important for those in the health care community to be particularly vigilant against these charlatans. It is one thing to remain open to new modalities, yet quite another to recomend therapies, based on non-sensical theories, with no compelling evidence of merit.

Thanks, and good day.
 
daveyboy you're just closed minded! thats it. it's sad that you have such a closed mind on these types of alternative medications considering that DO's have a bad rep with MD's. You're basically the MD here putting down the homeopaths. You should do more research on it seriously...the AMA has done some research themselves but unfort. without the money to invest in the research it only goes to a certain point.

goooooober......go do some research!


DOSouthpaw....thank you...atleast you are open minded to it. Yes ofcourse it would not help in the case you mentioned but it does help in a lot of other areas that allopathic medicine has not helped! anyway...I will email you...we can talk about it through emails rather! Oh and sorry for using chiro. with osteopathy 🙂 i know it is not similar only in some areas....

by the way....daveyboy Im planning to go into DO and I have nothing agaisnt it...actually I love this area...and is why I will be applying to DO school first rather than allopathic schools, the only thing is that I would like for people to be more open minded. You sound like a lot of MD's out there right now. I wish you would do some more research before closing your mind to this type of practice. Its sad!
good luck with your practice in allopathic medicine!
 
Chiropractic, osteopathic were two types of medicine that were not fully wiped out by the AMA.

Chiropractic is not medicine by any stretch of the imagination. I would love to know what a homeopath is going to do for their patient when their gallstone that you are trying do dissolve with cranberry juice becomes lodged in the hepatopancreatic ampulla and now they quickly begin to suffer from acute pancreatitis?

Medicine is dangerous that is why I plan on spending the next eight years in school and residency to be skilled at it.

Homeopathy is dangerous as well, yet there is no rhyme or reason to the training. scary

+pissed+
 
Wow. So now I am closed minded because I disagree with you? Is that it?

Im not sure why you suggest that I need to do research on homeopathy, but it seems like you equate a dissenting opinion with ignorance. I have read all about homeopathy, about the "law of similars", the "law of dilutions", etc. After reading about it, "researching" it, I concluded that it was nonsense. Im sorry but the whole idea of trying to get maximum dilution for maximum effect....well, I am closed minded.

Now, as for you attacking my commitment to Osteopathic Medicine, thats just plain uncalled for, and really a pathetic argument to begin with. All you really KNOW is that I do not consider Homeopathic theory to be a legitamate therapy. You DO NOT know my opinion on other alternative therapies, although I did clearly state that am open to anything that presents compelling evidence of therapeutic value. Compelling evidence is key. Is that too much to ask?

Thank you, and good day.
 
While I will agree with above posters that the "law of dilutions" is counter -intuitive, I do agree with the homeopathic philosophy that symptoms represent the body's attempt to restore itself to health. Instead of looking upon the symptoms as something which needs to be suppressed, homeopaths see them as signs of the body attempting to help itself. Also, I agree with the homeopathic philosophy of aiming to cure illness instead of controlling the symptoms through the use of medication. An example being allergies - they attempt to cure allergies where as conventional medicine sticks with suppressing the symptoms through medication. Just a thought.
 
Originally posted by Cookie Monster
While I will agree with above posters that the "law of dilutions" is counter -intuitive, I do agree with the homeopathic philosophy that symptoms represent the body's attempt to restore itself to health. Instead of looking upon the symptoms as something which needs to be suppressed, homeopaths see them as signs of the body attempting to help itself. Also, I agree with the homeopathic philosophy of aiming to cure illness instead of controlling the symptoms through the use of medication. An example being allergies - they attempt to cure allergies where as conventional medicine sticks with suppressing the symptoms through medication. Just a thought.

Good post.

I agree. Right idea, but it loses me in the methodology.

I took a 6mo course in homeopathy in college basically for knowledge purposes rather than a practical use.

I wanted to know what I could about it in the event that I someday have a patient who uses homeopathy or asks me about it.

Homeopathy supporters are 100% loyal to the practice. I have yet to use it myself, but I suppose if confronted with a situation where it may be applicable and my other options were not so benign, then what the hell...give it a try.
 
Originally posted by BamaAlum
I think counterstrain is bunk. 🙂
Word, and what about HVLA, and what about that other technique where you put your finger on a "tender point" an hold it for like 90 seconds? I've been watching my brothers NYCOM OMM cd roms., and he's been showing me some passive techniques. I used some passive myo fascial on my gf and man did she dig it.😀
 
How can you possibly believe in "water memory"?!!!! I mean, think of all the substances water has been in contact with - the water coming out of my tap was probably once in the intestine of a cow. If water really retains the memory of a substance, why isn't the ocean just one big homeopathic panacaea - the ocean has been in touch with just about every possible molecule that has ever existed. Or does it only work if the magic homeopath puts a label on the front and charges you $12 for it?

And it's not that it's too expensive to do homeopathic studies - after all, you just need water and people, right? It's that peopld don't want to ruin their careers researching quacky stuff that has been shown to be ineffective.
 
Yer just closed minded!!!!!😛
 
Daveyboy...Im not saying that you are closed minded just because you don't agree with me. Thats fine if you dont agree with the theories behind homeopathy.
I defend it because I have used it and Im using it more and more. I can tell you, I RARELY do I take allopathic medicine. I recently had gallstones and I went to the doctor even though I had an idea of what I had. He confirmed and I went home and I got some homeopathy medicine and I needed NO surgery! Also $6,000 I didnt have to pay! I don't really care if you all say its quackery or doesn't work or this or that. But I can tell you I don't have all these doctor bills, my medications cost me $5-$10. A friend suffered from allergies....he like you all didn't believe in homeopathy...I took his case gave him....I didn't make him pay me back...I gave him some medication and he doesn't have any more allergies!?? Is that quackery???

If you say thats just a placebo effect....well thats fine. Go ahead and think that but I still didn't spent some $6000. on a gallbladder surgery and a friend stopped buying antihistamines which was getting kinda expensive. One damn good placebo! Also in the long run which is better allopathic or non!? What does antibiotic do to you in the long run? What does specific medication do to you in the long run? Basically what Im saying even if it doens't abide by the laws of science, physics or whomever laws...if it has helped people (which it has for the past 100+ yrs) they why not use it! It doesn't cause any side effects either.

Subernaumary

It might not be as expensive as allopathic medicine to do studies but it sure cost! And AMA or other organizations that are against alternative medicine do not want to give the money or the time to research it. You also have the mentality of the early AMA people. If you practice homeopathy you will ruin your career. To my understanding there are some 11,000 physicians in France that use homeopathic medicines. Almost all pharmacies sell homeopathic medicines. There is also several medical schools in France that off degrees in this studies. In India there are over 100 homeopathic medical schools! Homeopathy is very advance in India.
Homeopathy has been growing in many other countries aswell. Eventually it will grow here in the US. AMA has started to investigate it. and some day you yourself...will still be saying "water memory??"

Anyway...I really don't care what you all think anymore. I wont be the one with cancer or renal problems etc. caused by medications in the long run..or becoming immune to antibiotics!

Like I said good luck with your practices and way of thinking
I hope you stick with osteopathic medicine (according to statistics 50+% go into allopathic residencies) and hope you're not one of them.

Have a nice day!
 
Originally posted by Cookie Monster
I do agree with the homeopathic philosophy that symptoms represent the body's attempt to restore itself to health. Instead of looking upon the symptoms as something which needs to be suppressed, homeopaths see them as signs of the body attempting to help itself.


I have to strongly disagree with this statement. When a patient presents with symptoms, this is the body's way of saying that something is wrong. Whether it is an infection, neoplastic process, compression of a nerve or occlusion of a vessel, symptoms will alert the patient that something out of the ordinary is occuring. It certainly is not saying that something out of the ordinary is being repaired.
 
BA biology, your reply to my post was "go do some research". It is funny that you said that because it seems to me like homeopath-huggers, such as yourself, are the ones that need to get off their lazy ass and do some research in their field. The reason that homeopathy is inferior to allopathic and osteopathic medicine is because it is based on word of mouth and personal experience, such as your cute gall stone story, very touching. Taking LSD for allergies or endo for headaches is not alternative medicine, it's alternative crackhead. Of course if you are high enough, you will not feel the pain, temporarily, so you think that homeopathy helped. Bottom line, I have done research in neuroimmunology, biochemistry, and presently, clinical neurology. Researching a field that does not have RESEARCH support even from its own followers would only be a waste of my valuable time. Peace.
 
Originally posted by BABiology

"Basically what Im saying even if it doens't abide by the laws of science, physics or whomever laws...if it has helped people (which it has for the past 100+ yrs) they why not use it! It doesn't cause any side effects either. "

Placebo is a powerful effect. But, hey man, more power to you. So you are not into the natural laws that affect us all, like say, gravity. Cool, man, live by your own rules. I strongly believe in your right to live your life however you like. Oh, and pass whatever good stuff yer smokin' my way, it must be strong!

Originally posted by BABiology
"Anyway...I really don't care what you all think anymore. I wont be the one with cancer or renal problems etc. caused by medications in the long run..or becoming immune to antibiotics!"

Perhaps Chiropractic or Naturopathic is more your thing. We wouldn't want you spreading the pestulance of western medicine after you get your DO.
 
DaveyBoy-

Whats up?
Please enlighten me on the difference between CMT and OMT?
If a patient is treated by a DC or a DO and the DR. provides the same manipulative procedure, then the body is not going to react differently based on the philosophy behind each.
If manipulative medicine is quackery; then it is quackery across the board- including OMT! (I dont fill this is the case).

In addition, if the philosophy of Osteopathic medicine incorporates OMT, then why are you a DO student and not an allopath? Couldn't get in?😕
 
I never said I thought OMT was quackery. I just used it as an example in a previous post. I could have just as easily said if tetracycline were to prove inneffective it would fall out of favor. I used OMT b/c it is currently a hot topic in medicine right now and its efficacy is being researched at some excellent institutions, namely TCOM. OMT will always have applications in PM&R, in one form or another, IMO.

You are right that if one were to get manip. from either a DC or a DO the results would not be affected by the philosophy of the person doing the "manipping". However, I doubt the DO would attempt to treat an ear infection or whatever. They certainly wouldn't go on about subluxations try to sell magnets to a patient. Ya know what I'm sayin' here. So the manip. isn't really my contention at all. Besides, Im bashing homeopaths on this thread, not DC's(of course I'd be happy to mock only DC's if you want to start a new thread).

My real main point is this, and I'm paraphrasing myself here: I am always willing to look into the use of any therapeutic modality, so long as it presents compelling evidence that is effective. If people want to seek dubious treatments from another party, more power to them. I, however, feel that is unethical for physicians to give treatments to patients that do not show evidence of effect.

Now let me address the provocative, far from clever, statement you made about my decision to attend an Osteopathic school rather than an Allopathic school. Despite the fact that I don't view homeopathy to be a legitimate form of medicine or burn candles in my ear, I do prefer a the Osteopathic approach to medical education. And yes, I did have a choice.

Thank you, and good day.
 
Homeopathy sounds really weird but it is not complete garbage. Although, personally, almost every time I have used it my symptoms have gotten worse. It can be really hit or miss in terms of matching a remedy with an individual symptoms.

Here is a good site for begining to look at Homeopathic research.
http://www.homeopathic.org/research.htm

Here is a peak of what you will find.

K. Linde, N. Clausius, G. Ramirez, et al.,
Are the Clinical Effects of Homeopathy Placebo Effects? A Meta-analysis of Placebo-Controlled Trials
Lancet, September 20, 1997, 350:834-843.
This state of the art meta analysis reviewed 186 studies, 89 of which fit pre-defined criteria. Rather than count and compare the number of trials which show efficacy of treatment, the researchers pooled the data from the various studies to assess data. The results showed that patients taking homeopathic medicines were 2.45 times more likely to experience a positive therapeutic effect than placebo

C. N. Shealy, MD, R.P. Thomlinson, V. Borgmeyer,
Osteoarthritic Pain: A Comparison of Homeopathy and Acetaminophen
American Journal of Pain Management, 1998;8:89-91
A double-blinded study to document the relative efficacy of homeopathic remedies in comparison to acetaminophen for the treatment of pain associated with osteoarthritis (OA) among 65 patients. An IRB approved protocol. Results of the study documented better pain relief in the homeopathic group (55% achieved measured relief from homeopathy as compared to 38% from acetaminophen); however, the superiority of this treatment, in comparison with the acetaminophen group, did not reach statistical significance. The investigators conclude that homeopathic treatments for pain in OA patients appear to be safe and at least as effective as acetaminophen, and are without its potential adverse effects including compromise to both liver and kidney function. Many of the patients asked to continue with the homeopathic treatment.

D. Reilly, M. Taylor, C. McSherry,
Is Homeopathy a Placebo Response? Controlled Trial of Homeopathic Potency with Pollen in Hayfever as Model,
Lancet, October 18, 1986, 881-86.
The double-blind study compared a high dilution homeopathic preparation of grass pollens against a placebo in 144 patients with active hay fever. The study method considered pollen counts, aggravation in symptoms and use of antihistamines and concluded that patients using homeopathy showed greater improvement in symptoms than those on placebo, and that this difference was reflected in a significantly reduced need for antihistamines among the homeopathically treated group. The results confirmed those of the pilot study and demonstrate that homeopathic potencies show effects distinct from those of the placebo

J. Jacobs, L. Jimenez, S. Gloyd,
Treatment of Acute Childhood Diarrhea with Homeopathic Medicine: A Randomized Clinical Trial in Nicaragua,
Pediatrics, May 1994, 93,5:719-25.
This study was the first on homeopathy to be published in an American medical journal. The study compared individualized high potency homeopathic preparations against a placebo in 81 children, between ages 6 mo. and 5 yrs., suffering with acute diarrhea. The treatment group benefited from a statistically significant 15% decrease in duration. The authors noted that the clinical significance would extend to decreasing dehydration and postdiarrheal malnutrition and a significant reduction in morbidity.
 
If you believe in it, do it. Tell your friends. Make potions yourself.

Just don't describe homeopathy as scientific medicine.

Hey, maybe it does work for something. Maybe something having to do with immunology or allergies, who knows. But you need those pesky double-blind studies to say so. At least, to be taken on par with standard medicine.

Morphine came from an herb. Same with digoxin and aspirin. Now they are the mainstays of western medicine. They became accepted because they work, and it was proven (for some indications, of course, not all). Homeopaths have to get the evidence to get the respect.

If it's proven, it's no longer alternative!
 
Originally posted by Stillfocused
Homeopathy sounds really weird but it is not complete garbage. Although, personally, almost every time I have used it my symptoms have gotten worse. It can be really hit or miss in terms of matching a remedy with an individual symptoms.


Stillfocus,
Im glad you at least tried it and researched it. Let me just tell you though...with homeopathy there is times that you take the remedy and before all the sysmtoms are cleared they seem to come worse. But they will clear up. Actually with this once you start to feel better and see the symtoms reside you should stop taking it. Let your body do the rest of the work. If you don't stop taking them you will get the symtoms it is said to rid of.

ex: arnica...get rid of pain...if taken when nothing is wrong it will probably eventually cause pain. And this is not usually 6c or even 30c potency, Im talking about anything higher. Then this will at time happen.

One more thing...it is hard for someone who has not studied homeopathy to "self-prescribe". I think a lot of people do this. Then it doesn't work and they have negative feel for homeopathy. You have to be very precise with the modalities/symtoms you have to then pinpoint the exact remedy you need.

Homeopaths usually study about 2-3yrs. then some get certified by a couple of organizations here in the US that control the studies required for homeopaths. There are only a few schools that are "accredited" by the organizations.





Daveyboy....hmmmm, so Im not the only one questioning your route of studies!.....
 
Question the route of my studies all you want, guy. It is good to question things. I would never encourage a person to accept something on blind faith. That would be silly.
 
BAbiology,

This is going to sound mean, so I apologize now, but is English not your native or "first" language? If you are going to succeed in getting into medical school and in the medical profession, perhaps you should take all the money you are saving by avoiding real physicians and enroll in a few English/writing/grammar classes.
 
All talk of proof or lack aside, I'm afraid I'm just sort of skeptical of anything that claims to work by first making the symptoms WORSE. Not that I'm saying all homeopathic philosophy is groundless, but the mechanism is one of the classic con-man routines: If Snake Oil X works, well, you got your $30 a dose's worth. If X doesn't work, you obviously didn't do it right. If X makes things worse, don't worry! That's part of the process.

Of course, pretty much everything gets better eventually, so there's very low risk in the claim. And guarding homeopathy's back by regarding a worsening of the symptoms as progress is probably what has kept it around lo these many years.

Personally, when my allergies act up, philosophy is the last thing on my mind. I want those suckers gone, and if I have to mess up a chakra to do it, bring it on.
 
Originally posted by irish79
BAbiology,

This is going to sound mean, so I apologize now, but is English not your native or "first" language? If you are going to succeed in getting into medical school and in the medical profession, perhaps you should take all the money you are saving by avoiding real physicians and enroll in a few English/writing/grammar classes.



Irish79

English IS MY first language! Infact I also speak two other languages! Also who in the hell told you that you need to know english perfectly to succeed in medicine!! I have come across a bunch of doctors whos grammer is bad! If you think my writing is bad thats because im writing from work and really don't care if I wrote english PERFECTLY....unfortunatly some people do have to work!

FYI...don't say such a stupidity if you don't know the other person. If you just wanted to get your 2 cents in you should have said something like gooooober!

I might even have a better chance in getting into med school than you! So is best for you to just keep it to yourself!
 
The MD and the DO are in a unique position. They stand at the meeting point of science and people. They have access to the full range of medical therapies, from 30x dilutions to gamma knives.

To make responsible choices from amongst all these options, these real doctors need facts. Facts that show them that they are doing the best possible thing for their patient.

The buck stops with them, not the chiropracter, naturopath, or homeopath. Don't accuse them of "conspiracies" (the favored tactic of quack-apologists), but rather work to provide evidence of high quality.

I don't know which bothers me more: Your blind affection for homepathy based on a few anecdotes, or your antipathy for standard medical practice despite the proven power of modern therapies to cure, prevent, and palliate.

As a doctor, you might be dangerous.
 
Originally posted by paramed2premed
I don't know which bothers me more: Your blind affection for homepathy based on a few anecdotes, or your antipathy for standard medical practice despite the proven power of modern therapies to cure, prevent, and palliate.

As a doctor, you might be dangerous.


Paramed2premed

Don't worry....I would never force someone to take something they don't believe in. If I would ever get a patient who would like to take homoepathy....I would encourage it of course depending on the condition. LIke someone previously said homeopathy is not a cure it all just like allopathic medicine is not one either. But if someone comes to me and says they don't like to take anything that is not allopathic medicine...ok...go for it... i would never give them any homepathic medicine.
Basically I think if the person wants to take homeopathy and the disease is one that is helped by homeopathy then I think they should take it. Of course if the disease is not getting better then there should be a change to something else. I think that people here in the US are just too fast at taking allopathic medicine. If you can avoid taking it I think you should. I know you all have read the side effects that it casuses, thats the main reason I say that. I have NOTHING against it if you need it you have to take it.
But if the patients wants something else why not?


I just don't like the doctors (MD's/DO's) that have a negative thought about any and all alternative medicines/therapies that they tell the patient that it will not help them even if the patient wants to take it. I have seen several doctors like that.

I have practice homeopathy for several years myself and I know several people including relatives that have practice this form of medicine for the past 20+ years. They have had success in this medicine and is why I took interest in it since I was younger. I now would like to study medicine because like I said earlier homeopahty is not everything. There are other forms to help people and I would like to study it!

I also use herbs not just homeopathy. And you all better not tell me this is also based on psudo-sciene cause you all should llook at a lot of medications you all take....they might be coming from plants! In this area I also have a lot of cases where the patients has gone to an allopathic doctor and has not gotten much help...they mentioned it to me and I have told them about herbal medicine, they got interested and tried it and got better.

Again...i have nothing against allopathic medicine, I just think there are several way to get treated out there....allopathic is not the only one!

Thanks and have a good day!
 
1) After the initial postprandial (medical term for after eating) pain, some gallstones might just pass through and out of your GI systems. most docs don't recommend taking out the gallstones unless it is very frequent or causes some serious infections. After all, most gallstones pass through and out of your system if you simply do NOTHING! By the way, 80% of the people with gallstones are asymptomatic.

Therefore, instead of thinking that you save $6000 on a surgery, just think that you just wasted $10 on a bottle of water (although in some people's eyes, it is homeopathic medicine....).

2) allergy, asthema and eczema get better as people grow older. some might even disappear altogether. In a few cases, these do get worse with age but more likely they get better.

3) show me a paper on the "pharmacology" of homeopathy... there is NONE... you dilute the substance down to 1 part per million and you are left with nothing!!!! you might as well gulp down liters of water instead. If you take ANY pharmacology, you will see the dose-dependent response curve. There is an optimal dose where you try to max the therapeutic effect WHILE also minizing the side effects. higher than that optimal dose, you get too much side effect and you might die. lower than that optimal, you get less side effects alright but don't get the necessary therapeutic effect you want. And you really go down on that dose, sure, you have no side effect BUT you also have no therapeutic effect either. Is this so hard to understand? how can anyone have the best of one thing (i.e. absolutely no side effect) while still retain the other good thing (i.e. the therapeutic effect). This is not possible. This defies logic.

Next time, when you get prescribed an antibiotics, please water it down by 100,000 times (with ocean water that has the most memory!!) and let's see how your pneumonia progresses.

4) DO manipulate knowing that they are fixing the muscles and nerves. DC manipulate thinking that they are fixing the liver. How is that the same? They will manipulate for different reasons.
 
BA, I don't think that p2p suggested that you might be dangerous as a doctor out of the belief that you'd force homeopathic remedies. Rather, the danger comes in that you'd be, forgive the term, an enabler.

Allopathic medicine is so utterly dominant not because some cabal of MD's decided to off the competition back in the day, but because it has a long track record of working. Osteopathic medicine finally has respect now because it's adopted the rigorous standards that have in the past been more common in allopathic schools.

People go to MDs and DOs "knowing" this. They know that an MD/DO has a level of authority that other claimed healers don't. Whether they know why or not isn't too important. Nearly everyone goes to a traditional physician because traditional medicine works.

So if you do get an MD or a DO, but persist in encouraging remedies that really aren't remedies at all, it's false advertising. The patient thinks, "Well, Dr. BA said that water memory works, and he knows a whole lot more science than I do, so I'll take his word for it." But if your recommendation isn't based on the science behind that degree you worked so hard for, but just personal experience and anecdote, you're not providing the patient the service they came to you for.

Sure, patients might shop around and seek out alternative healing in addition to a physician's opinion, but they know which is which. There's no harm in adopting non-traditional methods that are proven somehow, but becoming a doctor so that you can smush homeopathy in with traditional medicine might not be the best idea.

I think you should go into medicine; the world needs more dedicated physicians. However, if you don't mind me summarizing the advice of the thread, I think that you should also commit yourself to separating your personal opinions on treatment from treatments that are objectively useful. Follow hunches, but do it scientifically, seeking a conclusion based on the evidence rather than trying to find evidence to support a preconceived conclusion. You're not alone in the struggle; every physician has pet beliefs that have to be subordinated to the good of the patient. Part of the discipline of becoming a physician is learning what those are and how they can be turned to strength rather than weakness.
 
The problems with herbal medicine is that

1) The content is not regulated. Therefore, you don't know what you are buying! The label might say, St. John's Warts, but the content might have only 0.5 mg of that substance and the label can lie because it is food supplement and not drug.

2) Herbal meds are not purified compounds. So if you think allopathic drugs have side effects (even though it is purified compound and therefore only has side effects to that compound only), wait until you take herbal supplements and experience all the side effects of all the hundreds of active compounds in those supplements. This is also logic (same as the pharmacology logic I mentioned before).
 
i really think that if you are so gung-ho on homeopathy,why not get more training in it? i just think that enoughpeople confuse DO's w/homeopaths/naturapaths/chiro's that we don't need people feeding the stereotype. in addition, i wonder what the liabilities of doing this are. say u are a DO, u have a patient who wishes to use your skills in homeopathy, u use them, it doesn't work, patient gets worse, sues you. you are going to be tried w/expert witnesses from other do's and they are going to say what u did was out of the scope of your training. unless you are saying that you already know all there is to know about homeopathy and herbs. i am not teying to be insulting, if u believe in the stuff, get the best training in it and there are many people that come to you. but i think that if you are choosing traditional medicine, you have to be willing to accept its tenets. susan
 
Originally posted by BABiology
Irish79


I might even have a better chance in getting into med school than you! So is best for you to just keep it to yourself!

Sure you do, just tell your interviewers the same stuff you've been telling us on this thread.
 

Similar threads

Top