Homeopathy

Burrell College of Osteopathic Medicine
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
the problem with that whatstheharm website is it uses testimonials and case reports rather than evidence-based data or studies, which is exactly how homeopathy and the like popularize themselves.

the harm from "alternative" remedies is usually 1) people pursue them instead of modern medical care or 2) they involve crazy-ass infusions or other dangerous practices. it's a tight line to walk with patients who are into this stuff, since dismissing their beliefs can be taken personally and hurt your relationship with the patient (and further drive them away from seeking evidence-based help). i usually say something to the effect of "there's no scientific evidence showing that it works, so i can't recommend it to you. i would also be very careful, since the risks and side effects are also unknown. if you decide to try it, be careful." of course, if the patient says something like, "i want to be injected with bovine adrenal hormone," my response would be something more like, "no, no, no, no, no, no."
 
At the end of the day, people have the right to pursue whatever method of treatment they wish. If they want to spend their money on herbs and natural remedies, who are we to stop them? Our obligation as professionals is to educate, inform, and offer our skillset and knowledge for healing. If a patient decides to reject our opinion, that's their prerogative.
 
I have my doubts about homeopathy. Aromatherapy is the way to go.
 
werd said:
the problem with that whatstheharm website is it uses testimonials and case reports rather than evidence-based data or studies, which is exactly how homeopathy and the like popularize themselves.

the harm from "alternative" remedies is usually 1) people pursue them instead of modern medical care or 2) they involve crazy-ass infusions or other dangerous practices. it's a tight line to walk with patients who are into this stuff, since dismissing their beliefs can be taken personally and hurt your relationship with the patient (and further drive them away from seeking evidence-based help). i usually say something to the effect of "there's no scientific evidence showing that it works, so i can't recommend it to you. i would also be very careful, since the risks and side effects are also unknown. if you decide to try it, be careful." of course, if the patient says something like, "i want to be injected with bovine adrenal hormone," my response would be something more like, "no, no, no, no, no, no."
Click to expand...

I think it is fair to approach someone on their own footing.
 
Kadava Reviva said:
I have my doubts about homeopathy. Aromatherapy is the way to go.
Click to expand...

Aroma therapy is a complete scam! It's all about crystal healing and redirecting the flow of one's chakra. Clogged chakra points are truly the source of all illness.

EDIT: That reminds me of a dentist I've met who earnestly believes in crystal healing. He uses different types of crystals to "diagnose" and treat his more gullible patients as a side-job to his dentistry. Kind of shady, if you ask me.
 
Given that the placebo effect is so strong I assume you could probably help quite a few patients by giving them homeopathic stuff (I think they do this rather effectively in Germany for certain conditions).

Granted the ethics of this in the American system would obviously be pretty questionable.
 
surftheiop said:
Given that the placebo effect is so strong I assume you could probably help quite a few patients by giving them homeopathic stuff (I think they do this rather effectively in Germany for certain conditions).

Granted the ethics of this in the American system would obviously be pretty questionable.
Click to expand...

If you think that a placebo is going to help the patient with their symptoms (whether real or imagined), I don't see an ethical issue with recommending one.
 
ipicac reduces nausea? :woah:

these people are batsh** crazy..... i mean come on. and apparently they were mutilating coyotes for their experiments... that's obviously behavior of productive members of society
 
I hate to say this but homeopathy truly does work.It requires a lot of patience to go through homeopathy.If you want a two week result,then homeopathy is not for you.I have personally battled with fungi infections ranging from sinusitis to thrush(hairy tongue/tongue coloration) to GI problems which eluded many allopathic doctors and dentists for 6 years.It took a homeopath just 90days to handle the situation.Homeopathy truly does work even if it is not scientific as many would say.

I dread allopathic doctors these days because their prescriptions revolve so much around antibiotic which itself is an enemy of the intestinal flora.

Systemic fungi infection is an area allopathic is yet to come to terms with but which many homeopaths handle with pleasure.I have seen and experienced it worked even when i did not believe in it.Throughout the 3 months i took those drugs, i was in doubt if it was actually working and after 60days, i thought of throwing them away.But today, i am glad i never did cause this is my 5th of fungi/yeast infection free after taking homeopathy.The key to homeopathy is patience,the right match and potency.
 
vill said:
I hate to say this but homeopathy truly does work.It requires a lot of patience to go through homeopathy.If you want a two week result,then homeopathy is not for you.I have personally battled with fungi infections ranging from sinusitis to thrush(hairy tongue/tongue coloration) to GI problems which eluded many allopathic doctors and dentists for 6 years.It took a homeopath just 90days to handle the situation.Homeopathy truly does work even if it is not scientific as many would say.

I dread allopathic doctors these days because their prescriptions revolve so much around antibiotic which itself is an enemy of the intestinal flora.

Systemic fungi infection is an area allopathic is yet to come to terms with but which many homeopaths handle with pleasure.I have seen and experienced it worked even when i did not believe in it.Throughout the 3 months i took those drugs, i was in doubt if it was actually working and after 60days, i thought of throwing them away.But today, i am glad i never did cause this is my 5th of fungi/yeast infection free after taking homeopathy.The key to homeopathy is patience,the right match and potency.
Click to expand...

I just hope you never come down with anything actually life threatening because you will probably die from it


but thank you for standing as a real life example of the points ive been trying to make.
 
Last edited:
vill said:
I hate to say this but homeopathy truly does work.It requires a lot of patience to go through homeopathy.If you want a two week result,then homeopathy is not for you.I have personally battled with fungi infections ranging from sinusitis to thrush(hairy tongue/tongue coloration) to GI problems which eluded many allopathic doctors and dentists for 6 years.It took a homeopath just 90days to handle the situation.Homeopathy truly does work even if it is not scientific as many would say.

I dread allopathic doctors these days because their prescriptions revolve so much around antibiotic which itself is an enemy of the intestinal flora.

Systemic fungi infection is an area allopathic is yet to come to terms with but which many homeopaths handle with pleasure.I have seen and experienced it worked even when i did not believe in it.Throughout the 3 months i took those drugs, i was in doubt if it was actually working and after 60days, i thought of throwing them away.But today, i am glad i never did cause this is my 5th of fungi/yeast infection free after taking homeopathy.The key to homeopathy is patience,the right match and potency.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you have HIV, SCID, or a T cell dysfunction, but I'm sure your homeopath told you that troll.
 
In case you are wondering what Vill is talking about, google "The Yeast Connection" - it's a set of books written by an allopathic physician. A lot of naturopaths and homeopaths swear by it.
 
As far as I know blooding letting was a procedure carried out with conviction by "qualified" doctors in the past. I just find it ridiculous when health professionals just cry foul and point fingers at homeopathy today with all the self-righteousness they can muster. It is especially sad that rather than applying or talking of any scientific concept we are throwing in science, evidence, ethics etc as weasel words. Just my two cents.
 
Last edited:
generationX said:
As far as I know blooding letting was a procedure carried out with conviction by "qualified" doctors in the past. I just find it ridiculous when health professionals just cry foul and point fingers at homeopathy today with all the self-righteousness they can muster. It is especially sad that rather than applying or talking of any scientific concept we are throwing in science, evidence, ethics etc as weasel words. Just my two cents.
Click to expand...

are those monopoly money cents?

the reason we DONT blood let anymore is because of the implementation of evidence based medicine and a deeper understanding of physiology. Homeopathy is an abandonment of those principles. To cite past mistakes is about as asinine as you can get in this debate. Physicians can trace roots in some manner all the way back to witch doctors. Humanity has always had "healers". so obviously we had to grow and obviously we are still growing.

but the steps, procedures, and tactics that allowed us to make these positive changes (like cease blood letting) are completely rejected in things like homeopathy. It doesnt represent "that which we still don't know". It represents an observable step in the direction from which we just came.


you call it self righteous, but it comes from a place that wants to help people. if we were half the swindlers that exist in such practices wed just let you piss your money and health away and bank on it later.
 
generationX said:
As far as I know blooding letting was a procedure carried out with conviction by "qualified" doctors in the past. I just find it ridiculous when health professionals just cry foul and point fingers at homeopathy today with all the self-righteousness they can muster. It is especially sad that rather than applying or talking of any scientific concept we are throwing in science, evidence, ethics etc as weasel words. Just my two cents.
Click to expand...

1) the difference is what is being practiced now. Yeah, medicine wasn't always what it is now, but it's gotten a lot better. The key is it adjusts to fit the evidence, not hold steadfast to some "laws" that someone made up regardless of what contradicting evidence exists.

2) how exactly are "science, evidence [and] ethics" weasel words? Assuming you know what weasel words means, please explain how that makes sense.
 
Sephiroth said:
1) the difference is what is being practiced now. Yeah, medicine wasn't always what it is now, but it's gotten a lot better. The key is it adjusts to fit the evidence, not hold steadfast to some "laws" that someone made up regardless of what contradicting evidence exists.

2) how exactly are "science, evidence [and] ethics" weasel words? Assuming you know what weasel words means, please explain how that makes sense.
Click to expand...

Saying scientifically proven, evidence shows, unethical etc without an actual parallel or example, to me, is just throwing in weasel words.
 
SpecterGT260 said:
are those monopoly money cents?

the reason we DONT blood let anymore is because of the implementation of evidence based medicine and a deeper understanding of physiology. Homeopathy is an abandonment of those principles. To cite past mistakes is about as asinine as you can get in this debate. Physicians can trace roots in some manner all the way back to witch doctors. Humanity has always had "healers". so obviously we had to grow and obviously we are still growing.

but the steps, procedures, and tactics that allowed us to make these positive changes (like cease blood letting) are completely rejected in things like homeopathy. It doesnt represent "that which we still don't know". It represents an observable step in the direction from which we just came.


you call it self righteous, but it comes from a place that wants to help people. if we were half the swindlers that exist in such practices wed just let you piss your money and health away and bank on it later.
Click to expand...


What makes you think homeopaths do not want to help people?
Homeopathy schools teach medical anatomy, physiology and almost all of the medical subjects you are taught in Med school.
And take your fervor a notch down, keep your statements limited to the discussion without attacking me ad hominem. I am not trying to troll anyone and I would appreciate the same from others.
 
SpecterGT260 said:
the reason we DONT blood let anymore is because of the implementation of evidence based medicine and a deeper understanding of physiology.
Click to expand...

Actually, allopathic doctors do practice blood-letting today - only we've changed the name to "phlebotomy".

Blood letting is the recommended treatment for hemocromatosis and polycythemia.
 
Ur late to this game.... We've covered that. Blood letting and phlebotomy are not equal and phlebotomy is only indicated for hemochromatosis. These hair splitting technicalities do not sand as valid counterpoints


Edit: missed ur edit. Not trying to correct your usage. Just pointing out that 1 or 2 scenarios where it is still used really stands as the exception that proves the rule if anything and moving away from blood letting as a primary approach was a major move forward in medicine. We ALL get the hemochromatosis story early in med school due to its irony. So let's not split hairs because I'm sure you understood the point
 
Last edited:
generationX said:
What makes you think homeopaths do not want to help people?
Homeopathy schools teach medical anatomy, physiology and almost all of the medical subjects you are taught in Med school.
And take your fervor a notch down, keep your statements limited to the discussion without attacking me ad hominem. I am not trying to troll anyone and I would appreciate the same from others.
Click to expand...

Didn't say they don't want to help people.... This is why I'm so full of "fervor".... People seem unable to read. What I said was physicians WANT to help. Please explain how this translates into ANYONE else not caring.

And homeopaths are taught A&P in a manner more equivalent to undergrad than to med school.... I have taken circuitry but I'm not about to go build a supercomputer. You cannot reconcile the concepts of homeopathy and physiology. They are mutually exclusive. Therefore to accept homeopathy one can only have a rudimentary understanding of Phys.
 
SpecterGT260 said:
Just pointing out that 1 or 2 scenarios where it is still used really stands as the exception that proves the rule if anything
Click to expand...

True, advances in medical science have caused us to reduce the number of conditions for blood letting to only a select few.

In my opinion, homeopathic remedies should not be rejected just because they are homeopathic remedies. While we do have an obligation to ensure that whatever recommendations we give our patients will not harm them more than benefit them, simply rejecting an entire box of "potential tools" [because, for the most part, it is not profitable for research organizations and corporations to devote money to studying them] is unwise.
 
Slaol said:
True, advances in medical science have caused us to reduce the number of conditions for blood letting to only a select few.

In my opinion, homeopathic remedies should not be rejected just because they are homeopathic remedies. While we do have an obligation to ensure that whatever recommendations we give our patients will not harm them more than benefit them, simply rejecting an entire box of "potential tools" because [for the most part] it is not profitable for research organizations and corporations to devote money to studying them in-depth is unwise.
Click to expand...

I agree with this when alternatives have sound science or a rational mechanism behind them. I think chiropractic, acupuncture, herbalism, ect all have uses but at the moment they are swimming in pseudo spiritualism and false premises so whatever benefits we see are unfocused and lost within the inherent placebo

But homeopathy spits in the face of basic physics in ANY treatment it attempts. It is placebo by functional definition
 
SpecterGT260 said:
And homeopaths are taught A&P in a manner more equivalent to undergrad than to med school.... I have taken circuitry but I'm not about to go build a supercomputer. You cannot reconcile the concepts of homeopathy and physiology. They are mutually exclusive. Therefore to accept homeopathy one can only have a rudimentary understanding of Phys.
Click to expand...

What about a MD or DO that integrates homeopathy into their practice?

EDIT: I think your answer below also addresses this.
 
SpecterGT260 said:
I agree with this when alternatives have sound science or a rational mechanism behind them. I think chiropractic, acupuncture, herbalism, ect all have uses but at the moment they are swimming in pseudo spiritualism and false premises so whatever benefits we see are unfocused and lost within the inherent placebo
Click to expand...

Fair enough.
 
There are docs that adopt some goofy practices in an attempt to reconcile knowledge and belief. More often than not at the end of the day you get a "well I just believe" sort of explanation as they compartmentalize and isolate the conflicting inputs. I personally believe we shouldn't "cross streams" so to speak. It strikes me as combining church and state
 
I always think about "Do no harm" principle first and I would only be upset if a patient was going in harm's way by a) receiving homeopathic or any other care and b) was refusing a allopathic treatment modality in favor of the "alternative" to his/her peril. Other than that it is only rational and ethical to not say anything ignorant such as it is quackery unless you can prove it with finality which I don't think we can do as of today. There will always be counter arguments. The scientific and rational way to make a statement about homeopathy, in my opinion, is "the claims have not been thoroughly tested scientifically for its efficacy."

I have received homeopathic treatment from a professional homeopath under different circumstances, once in middle of nowhere for an ailment with clear objective signs associated with it; and treating which is my own speicalty. I benefited from it when there was nothing else available. I cannot reconcile this fact with apparent lack of congruence between our idea of human body and theirs yet its efficacy which is not all placebo effect.
 
The "it works, I can't explain it but it works" statements are the very embodiment of the placebo effect. Why is it so hard for people to accept that personal anecdote does not validate treatments. This WHY we developed evidence based medicine. For all you know the illness that "resolved" w homeopathic treatment was due to resolve on its own. Give us a Dx, Hx, and HPE and you may lend credence to the claim, but I still doubt it.
 
generationX said:
Saying scientifically proven, evidence shows, unethical etc without an actual parallel or example, to me, is just throwing in weasel words.
Click to expand...
I can see your point, but it doesn't really apply here. If we were talking about something more remote and I were to say something like "there is evidence that chocolate is good for you" then yes, I would need to cite what evidence there actually is. Here, we are not talking about there maybe being some studies out there, we're talking about our entire body of knowledge of biochemistry and physiology. In that case, I guess you could be asking for a lesson on these subjects? But claims like this, or things about chakras or chi don't work given our understanding of human biology. I may enjoy me some Naruto now and then, but there are no chakra channels IRL. Same deal. We know how it works, and that's not it.

generationX said:
The scientific and rational way to make a statement about homeopathy, in my opinion, is "the claims have not been thoroughly tested scientifically for its efficacy."
Click to expand...
what if it has been thoroughly tested but there still isn't any support for it? at what point to you give it up as a failed hypothesis?

I have received homeopathic treatment from a professional homeopath under different circumstances, once in middle of nowhere for an ailment with clear objective signs associated with it; and treating which is my own speicalty. I benefited from it when there was nothing else available. I cannot reconcile this fact with apparent lack of congruence between our idea of human body and theirs yet its efficacy which is not all placebo effect.
Click to expand...
So how do you know the homeopathic treatment did anything? Post hoc ergo propter hoc?
 
Sephiroth said:
I can see your point, but it doesn't really apply here. If we were talking about something more remote and I were to say something like "there is evidence that chocolate is good for you" then yes, I would need to cite what evidence there actually is. Here, we are not talking about there maybe being some studies out there, we're talking about our entire body of knowledge of biochemistry and physiology. In that case, I guess you could be asking for a lesson on these subjects? But claims like this, or things about chakras or chi don't work given our understanding of human biology. I may enjoy me some Naruto now and then, but there are no chakra channels IRL. Same deal. We know how it works, and that's not it.


what if it has been thoroughly tested but there still isn't any support for it? at what point to you give it up as a failed hypothesis?


So how do you know the homeopathic treatment did anything? Post hoc ergo propter hoc?
Click to expand...

Can you PM me the link to the study that convincingly proved homeopathy to be a sham?
I am all for the knowledge and less about arguing.
 
Last edited:
generationX said:
Can you PM me the link to the study that convincingly proved homeopathy to be a sham?
I am all for the knowledge and less about arguing.
Click to expand...

you just plain didnt read what he said.... this isn't an individual study... can you find ONE that suggests it does work?

the issue is that the dilution factors are in contradiction to basic principles of physics and physiology, enzyme kinetics.... you name it. "water memory" is a subject for people who simply erroneously believe that we have not fully characterized water all the way to the mathematical and theoretical level.... this isnt just a "well we havent seen it yet". the principles are mathematically impossible
 
SpecterGT260 said:
you just plain didnt read what he said.... this isn't an individual study... can you find ONE that suggests it does work?

the issue is that the dilution factors are in contradiction to basic principles of physics and physiology, enzyme kinetics.... you name it. "water memory" is a subject for people who simply erroneously believe that we have not fully characterized water all the way to the mathematical and theoretical level.... this isnt just a "well we havent seen it yet". the principles are mathematically impossible
Click to expand...

👍
 
SpecterGT260 said:
you just plain didnt read what he said.... this isn't an individual study... can you find ONE that suggests it does work?

the issue is that the dilution factors are in contradiction to basic principles of physics and physiology, enzyme kinetics.... you name it. "water memory" is a subject for people who simply erroneously believe that we have not fully characterized water all the way to the mathematical and theoretical level.... this isnt just a "well we havent seen it yet". the principles are mathematically impossible
Click to expand...

Plus, I don't want to drink water that remembers all of the dinosaur poo it has had in it.
 
mmmcdowe said:
Plus, I don't want to drink water that remembers all of the dinosaur poo it has had in it.
Click to expand...

someone earlier made that exact point and I almost pooped myself with glee.


If their fundamental belief is that "less is more" and the more dilute the more powerful, then ANYTHING we put in the water will be simply overshadowed by polluted runoff and even more so by dino crap. Unless they have some technique for removing memory from water? going to google search....
 
SpecterGT260 said:
someone earlier made that exact point and I almost pooped myself with glee.


If their fundamental belief is that "less is more" and the more dilute the more powerful, then ANYTHING we put in the water will be simply overshadowed by polluted runoff and even more so by dino crap. Unless they have some technique for removing memory from water? going to google search....
Click to expand...
I believe the person who is doing the diluting has to BELIEVE in homeopathy for it to work, kind of like any other mystical treatment that is out there.....
 
placebo.gif
 
I go through this thread and chuckle;because there are just too many show of words and ego massage.I am not surprised cause i know nothing one says will ever convince allopathic students.

Homeopathy is not effective because to many it lacks scientificity.Now, when has science become the sole parameter of measuring the effectiveness of a thing?Long before the advent of scientific inquiry, our forefathers took care of their health without any scientific intervention.My point is, stop making science the ultimate; for the are making things that science itself cannot justify.With time homeopathy will get to that point of scientificity.

I am a living witness of homeopathy.There are MDs who are now homeopaths because they truly want to help people get better and not just prescribe drugs and get a fat pay-check.

Pray you don't find yourselves in a chronic problem where many medical doctors will fail you and feed your life with antibiotics.Then holistic medicine will definitely be your last resort.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060821001752AA4KlA1

http://www.indiastudychannel.com/experts/25839-Do-Homeopathy-medicines-really-work.aspx

http://www.alexbekkermd.com/
 
vill said:
Homeopathy is not effective because to many it lacks scientificity.Now, when has science become the sole parameter of measuring the effectiveness of a thing?Long before the advent of scientific inquiry, our forefathers took care of their health without any scientific intervention.My point is, stop making science the ultimate; for the are making things that science itself cannot justify.With time homeopathy will get to that point of scientificity.
Click to expand...

"Our forefathers" also burned witches at the stake for hexes and made a sacrifice every morning to ensure the Sun would rise. No, science is not perfect, but its the best we have right now. Your anecdotal evidence doesn't have much value, nor does the experience of "our forefathers", which is so nebulous a statement that it is essentially worthless.
 
vill said:
I go through this thread and chuckle;because there are just too many show of words and ego massage.I am not surprised cause i know nothing one says will ever convince allopathic students.

Homeopathy is not effective because to many it lacks scientificity.Now, when has science become the sole parameter of measuring the effectiveness of a thing?Long before the advent of scientific inquiry, our forefathers took care of their health without any scientific intervention.My point is, stop making science the ultimate; for the are making things that science itself cannot justify.With time homeopathy will get to that point of scientificity.

I am a living witness of homeopathy.There are MDs who are now homeopaths because they truly want to help people get better and not just prescribe drugs and get a fat pay-check.

Pray you don't find yourselves in a chronic problem where many medical doctors will fail you and feed your life with antibiotics.Then holistic medicine will definitely be your last resort.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060821001752AA4KlA1

http://www.indiastudychannel.com/experts/25839-Do-Homeopathy-medicines-really-work.aspx

http://www.alexbekkermd.com/
Click to expand...

I... I can't say this in a positive light (and trust me I am trying) I think you lack the mental fortitude for this conversation. Our "forefathers" also enjoyed a life expectancy of 30 before science came along. These ancient remedies.... Many of us would already be senior citizens in the society who used them. How is this lost on you people?

And I resent the statement about prescribing drugs just to get a fat paycheck, so if you wish to contest my above statement about you I'm going either with 1) not a personal attack, rather observed fact or 2) turnabout is fair play.

As homeopathy is put under increased scrutiny it falls further and further behind. It will not enjoy any "scientificity".
 
I wonder if Dr. Beckerstill has a license. The one thing ill say for homeopathy is its safe, because its just water, unless it prevents you from getting other medical interventions. I have a feeling that if dr becker is still licensed he is very careful to send people with real or atleast nonchronic disease to other physicians.
 
hey may be in it for the kickbacks from homeopathic sponsorships. how much do you think they pay to have an MD give them a thumbs up rather than the kick to the crotch they deserve?
 
vill said:
Systemic fungi infection is an area allopathic is yet to come to terms with but which many homeopaths handle with pleasure.I have seen and experienced it worked even when i did not believe in it.Throughout the 3 months i took those drugs, i was in doubt if it was actually working and after 60days, i thought of throwing them away.But today, i am glad i never did cause this is my 5th of fungi/yeast infection free after taking homeopathy.The key to homeopathy is patience,the right match and potency.
Click to expand...

Actually, we are well aware of systemic fungal infections. They KILL YOU incredibly rapidly without treatment. Yes kill you.

What you are talking about is colonization. Everyone is colonized with fungi/yeast because it is pervasive just like everyone is colonized with Staph and strep. When the bodies defenses break down they can cause real disease.

generationX said:
What makes you think homeopaths do not want to help people?
Homeopathy schools teach medical anatomy, physiology and almost all of the medical subjects you are taught in Med school.
And take your fervor a notch down, keep your statements limited to the discussion without attacking me ad hominem.
Click to expand...

First that wasn't an ad hominem.

Second just because rudimentary anatomy and physiology are taught in homeopathic schools does not mean they are the same level as in medical school. Furthermore even if they were taught to the same level, it doesn't make the tenents of Homeopathy right, logical or useful.
 
Slaol said:
In my opinion, homeopathic remedies should not be rejected just because they are homeopathic remedies. While we do have an obligation to ensure that whatever recommendations we give our patients will not harm them more than benefit them, simply rejecting an entire box of "potential tools" [because, for the most part, it is not profitable for research organizations and corporations to devote money to studying them] is unwise.
Click to expand...

Please actually look up the tenents of homeopathy and come back and see if you agree with the above statement.

To summarize, homeopaths take compounds that cause the same symptoms they are trying to treat and then dilute so much that there literally could not be a molecule of the compound still in the "treatment." The more dilute and the more likely there is no compound in the mixture, the stronger they claim it is.
Basically they say they work because water has "memory."

The claims that homeopaths don't just treat the symptoms is false. Their "treatments" are derived from the exact symptoms they are trying to treat. It is not holistic, it is symptom based. Res ipsa loquitur.

It is also ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
"Homeopathy conference ends in chaos after delegates take hallucinogenic drug"
Replies
47
Views
4K
Bryan O’Blivion
Bryan O’Blivion
S
What's wrong with homeopathy?
Replies
36
Views
4K
Drogba
D
Top