The saddest thing is that in some countries (like France...) Homeopathic medicines are actually reimbursed by social security (and therefore paid for by everyone who pays taxes). We're still waiting for double-blind, vs placebo, clinical trials to show how efficacious they really are.
The idea is that they are as good as placebos (which are proven to be useful in some cases) so they are actually somewhat useful.
While I think that "real" placebos would be better for this than de facto placebos with bullshit pseudoscience attached to them, it's still not completely stupid to reimburse them if they do provide the same level of relief as active medicine through placebo effect.
Of course they're not effective at killing bacteria, but there are some domains in which placebos have their place.
Edit - to be clear, the reason given for reimbursing them is explicitely that they are good as placebos, they are not claimed by the French social security to be useful as active medicine.
You have to be very careful when endorsing placebos.
The research I've heard about basically says "placebos only have subjective effects". The classic study was on asthma. Participants receiving the placebo reported feeling better, but had no measurable improvement in lung function.
So relying on a placebo for a subjective feeling of improvement could be dangerous whenever what's needed is an actual, objective improvement -- ie, "whenever something is actually wrong".
"Would you go to a doctor who you knew dispensed ineffective sugar pills to the sick?"
It depends a little on what else they could dispense. I would rather they give out homeopathic medicines then give out antibiotics, in the face of unreasonable demands from their patients. I'd more rather they successfully educate their patients. I'm not sure the degree to which that's typically possible.
Would that not logically justify reimbursement for anything taken for its placebo effects - which would be literally anything as research[1] showed placebo effect occurs even when the subject knows they are taking a placebo? It feels more like justification after the fact.
It's available on the NHS in the UK too. There was an evidence check into it. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-respon... - which found it to be without evidence. However, the government changed as the report was published and they decided not to act on the findings.
Not sure. I have not seen the data myself, but I have heard more than one that acupuncture has had demonstrated benefits in clinical trials. And chinese medicine usually fares relatively well when put in clinical trials as well. I wouldn't discard everything out there, but homeopathy is, for me, clear BS - from the theory to the data generated.
>With an eye to the enormous Chinese market, pharmaceutical companies have explored the potential for creating new drugs from traditional remedies.[126] Successful results have however been scarce: a 2007 editorial in Nature said that while this may simply be because TCM is largely irrational pseudoscience, advocates have argued that it is because research had missed some key features of TCM, such as the subtle interrelationships between ingredients.[126]
I am not saying there might be merit in some of the practices, however to say "usually fares relatively well when put in clinical trials" is incorrect.
Oh, I was not talking about the principles of Chinese Medicine itself, more about the plants they actually used. I know several of them have been put in clinical trials contexts, and while some did fail, several of them showed actual efficacy as medicines.
Stopped clocks put in clinical trial contexts have been shown to occasionally tell the actual time, too.
Mercury sulfide, asbestos ore and lead oxide might give you an erection thanks to the placebo effect, but pornography has been proven to be much more effective with fewer side effects, and can be delivered efficiently over the internet.
The amount of failures eclipses the amount of successes by a lot. I didn't say we shouldn't still study them, but the idea they are "pretty good usually" is false.
I believe OP is saying IF "alternative medicine" can pass the proper clinical trials, then it no longer deserves the "alternative" label, and is just medicine.
Let homeopathy go through trials. Let it fail & put these discussions to bed.
How can you possibly not be aware that homeopathy has gone through trial after trial and has always failed? Have you ever used google or wikipedia? There are NOT two valid sides to this argument.
Oh, I know, I have seen the studies. I meant, we are still waiting for clinical trials to prove that they work, because so far all trials show it's just like placebo.
But if there's trials that show they don't work, then you don't need to wait for positive results. The question isn't open, the question has been answered with a "no".
Absence of evidence where you should expect evidence is evidence of absence.
I used to think chiropractors were charlatans, but in desperation I saw one for TMJ, vertigo, and tinnitus, and within 4 sessions of targeted treatment, I haven't felt this good in about 6 years. The TMJ is gone and the tinnitus has subsided. I don't think they're a cure-all, and I'm just a random guy on the internet, but I think there are legitimate treatments.
If a doctor that administers a number of effective and proven treatments also practiced "vertebral subluxation" or bloodletting I would classify that doctor as a charlatan.
Quackery runs amok in their industry, as evidenced by their major trade groups' stance on vaccination,[1] and genetically modified plants.[2] Ironically, while also supporting "alternative elective course of action" in lieu of vaccination they also support "enforcement efforts against quack medicines...that endanger the public health..."[3]
If I implied that I did not mean to. Effective "alternative" treatments are absorbed in to mainstream medicine and become standard practices. I could see chiropractic being on-par with orthopedic physical therapy if they were to disavow the pseudo-science plaguing the field.
Two years ago, I injured my back. I'm not sure exactly what did it, but I had trouble walking across a room while using a cane -- it was bad.
Despite the recommendations of friends, I DIDN'T go to a chiropractor and within a month I was much much better. Today my back has never felt better. I'm not sure that this proves that one shouldn't go to chiropractors, and I'm just a random guy on the internet so what does this prove?
I've also had tinnitus, and it too subsided WITHOUT chiropracty. I'm glad that not going to a chiropractor cured me.
The efficacy of any kind of treatment is hard to determine, and the subjective interpretation of our own experiences is always hard to keep in perspective. Anyway, I'm glad that you're ailments abated (with the chiropractor's help).
I understand what you're saying, and I appreciate the logic, but I had constant pain for years and this was a sudden, dramatic improvement within HOURS of seeing this chiropractor. Maybe it was all just a coincidence, I'm not making a scientific claim, only that the success should garner further study. If you read the case study I linked to above, you'll find I'm not the only one.
Allow me to come to your defense and congratulate the skeptics in the audience for completely missing the goddamn point.
There is no need to be afraid of the idea that a chiropractic procedure might have possibly worked. If an alt-med procedure works, and there are rigorous scientific studies to back it up, congratulations, it is now science-based medicine. Science-based medicine is not particularly picky, and if physical manipulations or sticking people with needles is shown to work as a treatment for a particular condition, it's no worse a modality than any other.
The reason to reject chiropracty and acupuncture as fields despite their occasional successes because of their lack of rigor, and tendency to keep using treatments after they have been shown to be ineffective or dangerous or both. Some practitioners still adhere to the original, discredited foundations of their fields (sublaxations, nonallopathic lesions, qi), some practitioners will happily treat for conditions for which their methods have been proven completely ineffective, and some practitioners will happily injure patient after patient with fractured vertebrae and punctured lungs. And their professional organizations have shown no ability or desire to regulate their practitioners.
Both of which are scientifically proven to work in some cases. Acupuncture can actually relieve pain[1], and as long as a point of going to a chiropractor is to give muscles a massage rather than to pray and inhale incense sticks, then it helps as well.
People report relief from chronic pain after taking placaebo. Cancer patients have relief from pain after cognitive behaviour therapy - a psychological intervention.
I have no problem accepting that someone feels pain, has acupuncture, and then no longer feels that pain. I do have a problem with the bullshit mechanisms that acupuncture suggests.
Since acupuncture has reasonable few side effects and long term pain medication has some scary side effects it's not so easy ro just dismiss it out of hand even though we know it is nonsense.
> I do have a problem with the bullshit mechanisms that acupuncture suggests.
Correct. No arguments from me on that. However, as noted in the Wikipedia article, few modern day acupuncture therapist actually incorporate the original concepts of qi and meridians in their practice.
What I was saying was the actual insertion of needles can release endorphins and that's a plausible explanation for reduced pain besides just the placebo effect.
A lot of communication is non-verbal, body language, tone of voice, etc. It is incredibly easy to misinterpret when you are only given a small part of the communication. :)
That is correct, however one "rational" explanation I've heard for this fact is that homeopathic remedies have a placebo effect and sometimes manage to replace actual medicine to cure minor ailments. Apparently homeopathy is less expensive than the real stuff so social security has less to reimburse.
I'm not sure if that's true or just a clever excuse to keep homeopathy reimbursed though. An other element to consider is that Boiron, the largest homeopathic manufacturer in the world is a french company.
> An other element to consider is that Boiron, the largest homeopathic manufacturer in the world is a french company.
Yeah, and they have actually moved their site to my home town in France, and they have detestable practices. They grab all the land around them to expand their operations (even though it used to be land reserved for agriculture) by threatening the mayor to leave the city if they don't get everything that they want. They're just a bunch of bullies and I wouldn't be surprised there's some shady thing going on with them and politicians at the national level.
> pparently homeopathy is less expensive than the real stuff so social security has less to reimburse.
Then we are really reimbursing a very expensive form of sugar. I'm not sure who we are kidding but there is no science behind that kind of policy - and if placebo can make such claims, then it should be Open-bar for products making health claims all across the board, from supplements to food items. Yet these are actually controlled, while the regulations on homeopathics benefit from special provisions. No need to prove anything.
Years ago, I dated a French woman while she was here (in the USA) for a couple of months. She took homeopathic medicine and said that she knew that it worked because it was provided by the national health service! (One night she saw a full moon and remarked to me that it meant it would rain. When I said that I didn't think so, she was surprised and said "All farmers know the full moon brings the rain.")
I have no idea on how they do those clinical studies which say that there is no difference between a placebo and actual homeopathic medicines. And what I read of USA, I have doubts that these studies are really done by independent personnel and not by those who get directly/indirectly paid by companies like Merck, J&J, etc.
I myself take homeopathic medicines for various ailments (small or big) and have seen improvement in my physical condition every time. Also a lot of people I know rely on homeopathy and not one has ever said that it did not give the desired results. The only factor is that the doctor should be able to diagnose the patient properly and have enough knowledge to understand how each chemical interacts with the body and with other chemical to be able to make a compound that will help the body in overcoming the disease. Homeopathy is as much about the medicines as it is about the knowledge and experience of the doctor.
You and the people you know are being scammed, spending your money for nothing. You see improvements because your body is recovering all on its own - it's pretty good at that.
Homeopathic "medicines" contain no chemicals that interact with the body or form compounds, which is exactly why anyone who isn't a complete idiot should immediately understand that it's all a bunch of bullshit.
Your homeopath peddler (who does not deserve to be called "doctor") understands absolutely nothing about your body, he has merely memorized a bunch of arbitrary meaningless rules.
>I have no idea on how they do those clinical studies which say that there is no difference between a placebo and actual homeopathic medicines.
So read up on them. Here's a good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy it is very well researched and you can review the papers yourself.
>I have doubts that these studies are really done by independent personnel and not by those who get directly/indirectly paid by companies like Merck, J&J, etc.
Oh come on!! Do you really think the National Science Foundation[1] is a Merck shill? or the scientific journal Bioethics?[2]
>have seen improvement in my physical condition every time
Please note, the types of things homeopathy is prescribed for are self limiting. Your body will heal over time without intervention, so yes! You will feel an improvement! The remedy you took has nothing to do with it though.
"Please note, the types of things homeopathy is prescribed for are self limiting. Your body will heal over time without intervention, so yes! You will feel an improvement! The remedy you took has nothing to do with it though."
Not exactly. The medicine course brought the illness down to a level where i could really not make out if I still have the problem or not. The problem again surfaced to a very lesser extent after 3 years of finishing the course. What I am talking about is Sinusitis and there is no treatment of it in allopathy apart from operation and the allopathic doctors themselves say that after operation it will again return in 1-2 years.
Why I said that I do not believe the tests that are done by US agencies because most of the tests that are done by US agencies come out to be heavily influenced by the private sector companies who have their business interest in those studies incase the result come out that go against what they claim after few years when skeletons tumble out.
I do not reside in US so my opinions are based on what I read in major newspapers.
So you can downvote me to any extent but I have experienced the results on myself and have seen the difference and hence highly doubt those studies. And when I say the doctor really matters that is because you can go for the same illness to many doctors and the medicines that some will give you will show less/no effect at all. So the experience level and understanding of different chemicals and their bonding really does matter.
First of all, I accidentally omitted the word "generally" which was meant to be there. What I meant to say was "Please note, the types of things homeopathy is prescribed for are GENERALLY self limiting. Your body will heal over time without intervention, so yes! You will feel an improvement! The remedy you took has nothing to do with it though."
> What I am talking about is Sinusitis and there is no treatment of it in allopathy apart from operation and the allopathic doctors themselves say that after operation it will again return in 1-2 years.
>The best treatment, first line, is nasal irrigation with saline solution to just move the stuff along. If you took all the people in the world who say they have chronic sinusitis, and you put them all on nasal saline irrigations, a big proportion would not have any symptoms anymore.
>After that would be medications, like steroids, which are anti-inflammatory drugs. And if you can actually culture bacteria from a patient’s sinuses and know what you’re treating, antibiotics are appropriate. Decongestants, when appropriately used for a limited duration, are incredibly effective at relieving the obstruction and letting the sinuses drain.
>The sinusitis patients who do well are the ones who really abide by using the neti pot or the saline irrigation bottles. And whether we add additional medications or not to the saline, it’s that mechanical flushing and lavage that really has a tremendous effect. Because it’s getting rid of the mucus, getting rid of all the inflammatory cells and whatever bacteria are there.
The vast majority of sinusitis cases resolve on their own within 10 days. The cause of most cases is a viral infection.
Chronic sinusitis can be caused by asthma or allergies, which are known to spontaneously reverse with age. Or pollutants, etc, which can be removed from your living environment, even on accident.
Sinusitis surgery is far from the first line of treatment.
Sinusitis surgery isn't just one surgery, it is tailored to the individual patient and their causes and symptoms. for example, removal of infected, swollen, or damaged tissue if that is what is causing it. Can remove some bone if the sinuses are unusually small, or polyps if that is what is causing it. While it is true that sinusitis can reoccur after surgery, it is far from guaranteed. "Will again return in 1-2 years" is absolutely stupid and false. It depends a lot on the patient, their immune system, the type of surgery, the cause, and importantly, post-op care. Not to mention luck!
I had a chronic cough for years, caused by post nasal drip. No medications helped at all, I tried all of them. Nobody could figure out what was even causing it. One day though, it resolved completely by itself. I still do get mild flareups once in a great while for a week or two though. People have even been known to spontaneously recover from cancer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_remission
The other interesting thing is in the case of cervical cancer. The Human papillomavirus virus (HPV) can cause precancerous changes in the cervix. Mostly, these changes just reverse themselves. When you get an abnormal pap test, as long as the changes aren't very advanced, the course of action is "wait and see" to see if your body fixes the problem. In the vast majority of the cases it does, only a few with abnormal pap test will go on to develop cervical cancer. I had an abnormal pap with "low grade changes" several years ago. My heart skipped a beat when I heard the news. Guess what? We just retested me in a year and I was good to go. My body fixed itself.
>I have experienced the results on myself and have seen the difference and hence highly doubt those studies.
For example, if everytime I had a cold I did 25 situps in the morning. My cold always went away. I can not then conclude that 25 situps in the morning is a cure for the cold.
Please review the cited studies (See the GP) for bias.
My problem was not that developed in a month or two but was there from a long time and it took couple of months after I started taking the medicine to get cured and I could see the effect on myself on a weekly basis (It wasn't that one day I woke up and found that I am cured).
And you mean to say that just because my mind thought that what I am taking is real medicine hence my body developed the immunity to fight back the bacterial growth by itself? It is not necessary that what people do not understand now does not mean that it is wrong/flawed/fake. We are not so advanced to know each and everything about chemistry and biology and human body.
I have seen multiple results and have also tested myself by stopping the medication and again starting it and seeing the results for numerous other ailments, hence my belief stands.
>My problem was not that developed in a month or two but was there from a long time
Yes, and this is called chronic sinusitis, which is what I posted about.
>It wasn't that one day I woke up and found that I am cured
Real medicine is the same way.
>We are not so advanced to know each and everything about chemistry and biology and human body.
Correct, however we know enough to know that homeopathy is bull-fucking-shit.
>I have seen multiple results and have also tested myself by stopping the medication and again starting it and seeing the results for numerous other ailments, hence my belief stands.
As I said before, this is false reasoning. See my GP.
So if I was taking Fake/No medication, then I should believe that my body developed the ability to fight and stop the disease without any the help of any external agent just because my brain was thinking that I am taking real medication?
Homeopathic remedies have been shown to be no more effective than placebos. The thing is, placebos actually are effective to some degree. So the problem isn't that homeopathy isn't effective, it's that the entire premise of why they are effective is total BS, and people are getting ripped off.
Understand that you are drinking plain water when you take a "homeopathic medicine". It is indistinguishable from the stuff that comes out of your tap.
