What do you think of alternative health care methods such as homeopathy, indigenous medicine, acupuncture, mind-body medicine and so on?
Have Your Say ( 104 )
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
What do you think are the main reasons why U.S. car sales are so low in Japan?
( 20 )
-
What can be done to ease escalating tensions between the West and Iran over its nuclear program? And should Japan join sanctions against Iran?
( 14 )
-
What do you think of the revised plan to realign U.S. forces in Japan by sending some Marines to Guam, and rotating others to Australia, the Philippines, Hawaii and possibly Iwakuni in Yamaguchi Prefecture?
( 17 )
-
Why are there so many deaths due to snow-related accidents (people falling off rooftops, for example) in Japan this winter?
( 15 )
-
Sony is forecasting a 220 billion yen loss for fiscal 2011, its 4th straight year of red ink despite massive cost cuts and restructuring efforts in recent years. What do you think are the main reasons for Sony's decline?
( 32 )
-
1
Water temperature rising in No. 2 reactor at Fukushima nuclear plant
-
2
Why do Japanese change their attitude when they communicate with foreigners?
-
3
U.S. Navy investigating how parts fell off aircraft near Atsugi
-
4
Confrontation
-
5
California court to decide if SeaWorld whales are illegal 'slaves'
-
- Assistant Language Teacher - TOKYO - late-March start
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥230,000 ~ ¥255,000 / Month
-
- Assistant Language Teacher - Kanagawa Prefecture - late-March start
- Interac, Kanagawa
- Salary: ¥230,000 ~ ¥255,000 / Month
-
- Part Time Assistant Language Teacher - Kanagawa Prefecture - late-March start
- Interac, Kanagawa
- Salary: ¥9,000 / Day per 4 class shift
Order by Time Order by Popularity
104 Comments
Login to comment
0
smartacus
I think a lot of these have a role to play in treating many ailments and in recovery or post-op rehab, but I don't think they can compete with conventional medicine in emergency cases like heart attacks, strokes, etc.
0
TanakaTaro
Homeopathy is great if you want a very expensive placebo.
I'm glad it's a load of rubbish though because if water has memory then we are all drinking crap.
0
britling
Alternative medicine is called alternative medicine because it has never been shown to work. If it did, it would be conventional medicine. The positive effects are due to placebo, or because the patient is also taking conventional medicine, or because the condition clears up by itself, or because it never existed in the first place, etc.
Indigenous medicine such as herbal medicines sometimes do work because they are chemicals that will usually affect the body, but they don't necessarily work as well as tested medicines and it is often dangerous to take them because of a lack of transparent safety procedures in their preparation and the risk of a harmful interaction with each other or conventional medicines. Herbal medicines are sometimes secretly mixed with conventional medicines to get the desired effect (e.g. Viagra in an 'aphrodisiac').
Alternative medicine practitioners often selectively quote research to produce material that appears to support their claims. In academia, just getting published doesn't mean that the research is rigorous. New academic papers are very tentative and, if they produce statistically significant data, await independent verification by other research groups. So, you need to look at studies that review a range of other studies (a 'meta analysis') and assess their methodological rigour and the veracity of their conclusions. You also need to examine research that sets out to directly assess the efficacy of alternative medicine, rather than being concerned with something else altogether (e.g. a chemistry study about water molecules says nothing, and set out to say nothing, about whether homoeopathy cures disease). There are no methodologically-rigorous, properly-replicated studies that reject facts such as that germs rather than supernatural forces cause illness.
I would advise against putting anything into your body that doesn't have a good indication of where it came from, what it's made of and who's accountable if it goes wrong.
0
theFu
50% of the time, people get better without any medical treatment of any kind.
For me and my family, only scientific medical methods that have been proven to work are used. I wish every treatment had double-blind tests to prove the usefulness of the treatment. Some of the older Asian treatments are being proven beyond a placebo effect, but many others actually cause harm.
Personally, I wonder why the alternative treatments don't fund double-blind studies. From what they claim, it seems there wouldn't be any issue in proving the normal 90% success rates. With those studies as proof, insurance would cover their costs allowing them to make billions more $$$.
0
some14some
Seems pharma companies are losing business to alternative health care methods.
0
the_harper
Some of the "alternative treatments" are very effective and others are completely ineffective. The danger of lumping herbal medicine with homeopathy is that a person will reject both because of the poor reputation of one. I can personally vouch for the effectiveness of some herbal and acupuncture treatments, but unfortunately a lot depends on how good the practitioner is at identifying the problem and the correct treatment. The same is true of conventional medicine - your results can vary enormously depending on the skill of your practitioner. Many "alternative" treatments have been shown to be effective in double-blind studies, while others have been shown to be ineffective. It's a mistake to claim that none are effective. At the same time, many conventional treatments have mild to horrific side effects, and the use of some is hard to justify on a purely scientific basis (electric shock therapy for example). It's worth a bit of research about both a proposed treatment and the practitioner - whether the treatment is conventional or "alternative".
0
Mittsu
Mostly a scam, although clearly the mind does have some impact on physical health so belief in this stuff can have some beneficial effects on the believer.
0
Zenny11
Most alternate medicines have prooven themselves over centuries but they are different from modern day medicine.
IMO, both got their place. Modern medicine and medical procedure can be tough on the body and a "Horse Cure" treatment.
Alternate medicine is more about supporting and strenghtening the Body so it can fight by itself.
Short term results I say go to modern medicine, longer lasting health benefits, etc will have to go to alternate/traditional medicines.
0
Junnama
Bloody snake ointment if ya ask me. What happened to the days when you just put opium in medicine. That made everyone feel better when they took it...
0
Foxie
It depends on the medical problem. Japanese kampo helped me more than chemical medicine in a few cases now. I fainted from acupuncture and never tried that again. My friend tried indigenous medicine in Guatemala on her infected leg and she got a really high fever from it and I had to rush her to an ordinary hospital. I think using mixture would be best.
0
tranel
Depends on what kind of alternative medicine we are talking about. Some homeopathic therapies most certainly work, for example. And I can attest to acupuncture as well, it really worked wonders on my back. But, as someone else said, there's a lot of snake oil as well.
Overall though, preventative medicine is always best. I think there is so much we can do to avoid falling ill in the first place, instead of popping pills afterwards. Eat a good balanced diet, exercise regularly, lots of stretching, allow yourself complete time-offs occasionally, and you'll ward off many an ailment.
0
Judderman
some of the thinking or reasoning behind alternative treatments is a litle bit flakey,wishy-washy or vague especially homeopathy.others more directly linked to nature like herbal medicine do seem to work though.For example,i read that the type of medicine i use to lower blood pressure was originally based on the chemical make-up of snake venom.St johns worth tea from flowers can be very efficient in treating depression.
in general these alternative medicines are used to give a more holistic treatment as they seem to concentrate more on the psychological well being of people while modern medicines are more specific to physical side of things.
0
limboinjapan
For those who have been in Japan a long time and had any prolonged interaction with its health care system you will find that Japan has blended both so-called western medicine and traditional medicine.
You can get a variety of treatments on the national health insurance and the reason for this is that when "western medicine" came to Japan the Japanese did not just through out everything they had but instead started testing what they did have scientifically and made note of what actually worked.
This means that when sometimes strong medication is not deemed necessary doctors often prescribe milder "Kampo" unlike what is often referred to as "Chinese medicine" outside Japan "Kampo" are approved and backed by science also approved are certain massage therapies and even acupuncture if a doctor recommends it.
My son has a chronic illness that if we were in a western country he would be required to take daily medication that would be much stronger and with way more side effects, as here in Japan he takes a combination of "Kampo" and so-called conventional medication that do a great job with much less side effects, he has been seen by doctors back home and even they agree that this course of treatment is great but they are not allowed to give it and that the control structure for approval of these "Kampo" do not exist there.
Now there is a big difference between "Kampo" and homeopathy, indigenous medicine, mind-body medicine and so on, yes "Kampo" could be considered "indigenous medicine" except for the fact that Japan decided to actually check to see if they had any real effect and were not dangerous and a good deal of them were proven either not effective or actually harmful, so my point is don't just take something because some one says it works, wait until they do a little bit of research on its safety and effectiveness.
Case in point @Judderman St. John's Wort yes it was used to treat mild depression but has a very dangerous side effect of shouting your blood pressure through the roof causing brain hemorrhages.
Natural does not mean safe hemlock is natural but I wouldn't go drinking any hemlock tea!
0
pointofview
Still not convinced. But conventional medicine eats you from the inside out. It
s huge business which is why it gets approved. So that isnt any better.0
Dewaashita
Depends on alot of factors, too many to list here.
0
Judderman
@limboinjapan
As far as i know,st.johns worth is still prescribed for mild depression in some countries.like with all medicines,the issue of supposed acute side effects can be raised or dispelled depending on which side of the debate youre on.i rememeber reading before that drug companies were to blame for the poor press given to st.johns worth.others believing that this natural remedy is more effective and healthy than powerful synthetic alternatives.
0
CoolCali
ACUPUNCTURE ROCKS!!!
Don't know jack about the other types of "alternative" treatments, but what I do know is that I used to have to go to a chiropractor at least once a week for an "adjustment" when I lived in the states. And I went to many different ones before settling on who I thought was good. But after I moved to Japan 8 years ago, I was a bit worried about my neck and back. My boss told me to try acupuncture and I've never looked back. A few visits a year AND covered by national health insurance... I'm a believer.
0
Sarge
None of these alternative medicines can beat Bufferin.
0
knews
A friend of mine absolutely believes in homeopathy as it completely got rid of her 5-year-old daughter's severe atopic dermatitis when nothing else worked. It is quite interesting to read about homeopathy and how it was developed in the 18th century by a German physician. A couple of thousand different kinds of pills, all from plants like most medicine, for all kinds of ailments. Apparently safe for children, pregant women and the elderly too, with no possibility of overdosing. Like those Bose noise-cancelling headphones, or vaccinations that contain some of the bad stuff to make the body resistant, homeopathy works on the same principle as far as I know.
0
XXXXX
I didn't need it but i tried it just for fun: a friend's grandmother 'blessed' me by praying and crying her eyes out for my soul. I felt lighter for a moment, then the next day I felt the same. Then another time i went to a psychic center which held 'color illumination/aura' sessions in which you sit down in the middle of them and the practitioners prance about under various shades/colors of lighting. I felt lighter for a while, and the next day I felt the same.
0
Ah_so
It depends what you mean by "alternate". For me, if something passes a controlled double-blind test then it is no longer "alternate", it is medicine. This would probably apply to a lot of indigenous medicine.
knews - claptrap like homeopathy will never be anything more than a placebo. However, it it works for you, go for it - the placebo effect may be more powerful than a real drug. The placebo effect is even effective on 5-year-old children.
0
Maria
I've taken homeopathic meds, for nausea/hangovers and for blocked sinuses/hayfever. They worked on both, though the second time I took them for a hangover I threw up immediately. I guess that's a kind of cure! They cleared up the sinuses pretty much immediately, for a few hours. I now use ginkgo extract for the first (not to be used if you are taking blood thinners of have bp problems), and a neti pot for the 2nd.
I've had acupuncture for pain relief on a bad lower back - and oh! the relief! Suffering so much I was unable to sit, after an hour of seitai (a form of massage) and acupuncture, the pain was massively lessened, and after 3 sessions, gone.
I've given kampo for hemerrhoids to my mother to use, after the painful and invasive operation she had for them failed. The kampo cleared them up and continues to keep the 'rrhoids at bay.
I take oregano oil daily for my immune system and colds, and as a result have had a cold only twice in the last 4 years.
I'm not saying I never go to doctors, but I've learnt to question and doubt them.
You naysayers can poo-poo "alternative" medicines all you like, and carry on relying on doctors and pills and surgery, and good luck to you!
0
nisegaijin
For a lot of things, like depression and maybe even some heart conditions, so-called alternative medicine may even be better. The problem is that historically, modern medicine has formed unions and bonded with the governments allowing for corrupt insurance and pharmaceutical companies to monopolize the market and medical education. Sad, very sad.
0
moonbeams
Where as western medicine treats symptoms, Chinese medicine prevents problems from developing through nutrition.
It's best to use natural medicine to stay healthy and western medicine in the case if acute emergencies that require immediate treatment.
It's frightening how the western (including Japan) medical community is ignorant of nutrition and how diseases come to occur ( lack of enzymes in diet).
0
manfromamerica
I disagree. It's not the doctor's responsibility to make sure their patients each enough vegetables and soak in ginseng bath, and yet in spite of that, most doctors will tell patients to eat right, get enough rest, exercise, stop smoking, reduce drinking, etc.
0
manfromamerica
coolcali - totally agree with you on accupuncture. And it does beat Bufferin.
0
Zenny11
I am with Maria. had a few sick people in my family and friends.
For the cancer patients "alternate medicine" was a godsend as some herbs and nutritional advise helped them cope with radiation therapy, chemo side-effects and in general gave them more energy, etc.
Other guys were advised to take "Kampo" rather than other medicines as the effect on their bodies wouldn't be worth the benefits.
Nobody is saying alternate medicine should replace "modern" medicine but a good balance and using each for their strengths will benefit many.
Modern medicine has some decades ago started to realise the value of "alternative/traditional" medicine.
Amazon forests are not called for nothing the "Medicine chest" of the world as most of our Pills, etc use extracts from those plants, etc.
More and more phamaceutical companies are using native tribes/ old medicines to find new cures, etc.
As I said modern medicine is good for a quick cure(often at the cost of some heavy side-efects) but it does little to strengthen and immunize the body against sicknesses.
0
pamelot
@CoolCali : Amen to that! Acupuncture, Shiatsu massage, and moxibustion are the best for lower back pain!
0
smartacus
pamelot
I had a herniated disk and tried acupuncture and a chiropractor but nothing worked. The pain got so severe that I couldn't sit or work without extreme pain. So I had to have surgery.
But acupuncture (and physiotherapy) was good with post-op rehab.
0
moonbeams
They don't have the knowledge of what eating right is. How many doctors do you see with a pot belly? If you really eat right , you won't get fat because the food would be digested in correct combinations instead of sitting in your colon, putrefying. I don't blame the doctors. Modern medicine in general is ignorant to how food works. Otherwise, the population would be repulsed at the artificial foods that make up 90% of the American grocery store.
0
SiouxChef
The only thing that homeopathy "therapies" can treat is dehydration. It, too, is snake oil.
Maria - Sometimes homepathic remedies "work" because they're not really homeopathic (see Zicam with decidedly non-homeopathic concentrations of zinc--which have apparently been responsible for some people permanently losing their sense of smell http://a.abcnews.com/Health/ColdandFluNews/Story?id=7853178.
Nausea, hangovers, blocked sinuses, and hayfever symptoms also go away on their own; see post hoc ergo propter hoc.
A true homepathic remedy is often so diluted that it often doesn't even contain a single molecule of whatever "like" substance the charlatans claim can cure you. And the efficacy of homeopathic remedies always disappears under randomized, controlled studies. Water doesn't have a memory.
Of course, as with acupuncture--which also fails under double-blinded studies ("fake" acupuncture is just as effective as "real" accupuncture http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=2233 )--there is a placebo effect. An expensive placebo effect.
0
SiouxChef
Oh, and as someone else mentioned above . . . surely you realize what we call complementary/alternative medicines that have been proven to work:
"medicine"
0
manfromamerica
Not mine. And besides, just because some don't do it themselves doesn't mean they don't know it. Now if you are talking about herbalism, that's something entirely different. However good nutrition and exercise is hardly a secret.
0
SiouxChef
Eating right, exercising, and getting enough sleep is how you can help your body. There is no alternative medicine that helps to boost one's immune system.
0
Zenny11
SiouxChef.
Disagree there. Alternative/Tradtional Medicine also includes certain foods we eat and why certain dishes are eaten at certain times and in certain regions. Same for spices we use, etc.
It just has become everyday nature today so we don't see it as medicine/etc anymore.
Naturally we need to increase exercise as we have a less physical life-style than our ancestors.
0
SiouxChef
Then I'll rephrase. There is no alternative medicine--including special foods or spices--that can boost your immune system. If you still disagree, please provide the scientific literature that suggests otherwise.
0
Zenny11
Easy check any US medical studies on chinese/asian medicine/cooking and their benefits. Or ask any Nutritionist.
0
bicultural
kampo rocks
0
SiouxChef
A nutritionist isn't an immunologist. If you know of scientific research to support your position, please present it. It is your claim after all.
In the meantime, I contend that there is no alternative medicine--including special foods or spices--that boost your immune system.
0
Zenny11
SiouxChef.
It is not just my claim but common knowledge across the globe. But it takes time to build up the immune system that way.
Either way, can you proof that it doesn't with scientific data?
0
TanakaTaro
No it doesn't. Vaccinations work by building up a resilience to exactly what you want to protect yourself against. For example, a flu vaccine contains the flu virus. This is science.
Homoeopathy is totally different.
Here's an example: I have a rash caused by an allergic reaction to something I ate. Homoeopathy won't treat this by using the same substance that caused my rash, but by taking something that causes similar symptoms. I have a rash, so the homoeopathy remedy might start with poison ivy (sound crazy yet?).
Now, this poison ivy isn't strong enough to cure me. How does Homoeopathy make it stronger? By diluting it with water of course! (Just like adding water to whiskey makes it stronger right?)
Homoeopathic medicines are diluted so much that they contain no molecules of the original substance (they are just water). A Homoeopathic remedy that says "30C" means that you need to consume 10 billion times the volume of the Earth in water to consume a single molecule of the original substance.
Now if you understand that and still believe in Homoeopathy, then there's no help for you.
0
SiouxChef
Then it shouldn't be hard to produce scientific research that supports your position that there alternative remedies and special foods and spices out there that boost one's immune system.
It sounds like you're confusing common knowledge--something commonly known to be true and is true--with a falsehood that a lot of people believe to be true.
With all due respect, I don't think you understand how the immune system works and are repeating what others in the same predicament have said but, again, if you can produce the science, I'm completely prepared to change my position.
0
Klein2
"None of these alternative medicines can beat Bufferin."
Sarge, Bufferin is only as good as willow tree bark.
If you know the meaning for the scientific name for the active ingredient in the Bufferin product, then go to the head of the class.
0
limboinjapan
I wrote this before, the only place I would take any sort of "alternative medicine" is in Japan and that is because "Kampo" have been tested and therefore as others have said are now referred to in Japan as "Medicine" and one of the best example of this is a medicine called "Krestin" derived form mushrooms and used for many years in Japan but with testing and refinement it is one of the only medicines/Kampo that is proven to help boost or maintain the immune system during Chemotherapy.
Japanese doctors still refer to it as Kampo but in the few western countries were it has been approved it is called "medicine"!
0
Zenny11
Her is an advice that my mother Breast-cancer sufferer(35yrs) gave to my wife who had to go through Radiation treatment for same sickness: Beetroot Juice to help ease the effects of the treatment.
And it worked. Many Western Doctors now also recommend similar stuff(granted might not be official).
0
Klein2
Seems as though there are a lot of believers of different kinds posting. If you do not know anything else about a health product, it is best to fall back on the rigorous testing performed by companies and governments. But that is not always reliable. A lot of medicines only have marginal benefit and might not be effective for an individual for any number of reasons.
But there are huge amounts of money spent on promises and treatments that don't work and cannot be explained in any reasonable fashion. Colors, scents, religion, oils, powders, etc. The people who sell these things are crazy or crooks. But some DO work without a placebo effect. The medical establishment should stow the snobbery and emphasize their track record instead.
Three stories: thalidomide, chiropracty, crazy lady.
Thalidomide was a dangerous drug that was very useful for some people. It was tested and approved by most industrialized countries and prescribed for many different things. As we know, when birth defects started showing up among a small share of the people who were taking it, it was clear that it was a mutagen. The medical establishment messed up big time. So you cannot just automatically believe that "medicine" is going to be better than nothing. Double blind testing is necessary but not sufficient.
Smartacus mentions his disk. I had the same thing, probably. It was excruciating pain. I saw a doctor who told me I needed surgery or lots of drugs, and that is it. No alternatives. I knew he was wrong. I lived with the pain and it got worse over the next two months. I did not miss a day of work, but my body was starting to contort. Eventually my back was bent to where my right hip was directly under my throat. I walked around like a pretzel for weeks. I could not sleep correctly. But if I had chosen the drugs, I would have been unable to work. No way I was going to risk paralysis for surgery either.
I went to a chiropractor for the first time after a while. People just got sick of seeing me in obvious pain, and told me I should just see somebody. I was very skeptical. It got better slowly at first, and then it improved rapidly. It was painful. It took about three months, but the cost was not that great, and I never had the feeling that someone was just ripping me off for the money. They diagnosed my problem. Explained it in mostly reasonable terms. Treated me. And it worked. I have had few traditional medical treatments that worked out this well. It might be that usual physical therapy would have been as effective, but a certified medical doctor never presented that option to me. Medicine fails, chiropracty wins.
Pretty recently, a nice older lady and I started talking. It was a pleasant chat until she started telling me about this multilevel marketing thing she was into. This or that plant which worked for this or that indigenous people to cure this or that and now the plant's essence is available in pill form for 2 bucks a tab. This is so obviously a scam, but I wanted to be polite, so I let this go on a bit. Well, the diseases it cured... and the wonders that it could do! By the time I called a halt to the whole thing, it was being pitched as a probable cure for cancer. I know cancer and I know that some goofy plant oil ain't gonna cut it. These vitamin and alternative medicine companies CAN NOT put their claims on labels, so they rely on "word of mouth" or "the internet" or "representatives" to make claims for them. If you are a stupid person, these sales people will find you and sell you anything they can. In general, they do not work. They are overpriced. There is no quality control. No claim. Cheap, reasonable supplements are about as far as anybody should go with this. Eating better foods would be much better for you and cheaper too.
These experiences tell me what. They tell me that you should not expect miracles from medicine or alternative medicine. The cheapest and best health is what you find in a jogging suit and an apple a day, not what you get in a pharmacy or a new age catalogue. Always consider a second opinion. A doctor is usually correct, but they make mistakes. Above all, you are on your own.
0
Klein2
Siouxchef. You are closer to being wrong than you think.
I am a skeptical person, so I am not going to drink more grape juice or eat more garlic or drink more tea just because of a report or two, but as they say, "there is a growing body of evidence" that foods, what some consider to be "health foods", can increase a body's tendency to develop disease conditions.
The definition of "immune function" will wind up being debated in terms of your challenge, but if "making a body less likely to become diseased" is the definition, then the studies below make the point. There are many more. I just kind of picked these.
http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/292/5/E1378 http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/100/10/1050 http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/131/3/1016S
0
SiouxChef
Zenny11 - the plural of anecdote is not data.
0
Zenny11
SiouxChef- Never claimed it was data. Obvious that it was an anecdote and N OT data.
So your point being?
0
Klein2
A good subject for Siouxchef and Tanako to argue about would be ECHINACEA, which has been argued back and forth strongly for over a decade. You will find at least as many studies in good peer-reviewed journals saying it DOES work to raise immune function as those saying it doesn't.
It is all pretty inconclusive, but it illustrates the way that all kinds of factors get dragged into the research. Is it preventive? Is it curative? What is the effective dose? It works in rats and pigs and in vitro, but what about humans? Who knows?
Have at it.
0
Klein2
"what some consider to be "health foods", can increase a body's tendency to develop disease conditions."
Well, I meant to say DECREASE, but depending on the case, INCREASE could fit too.
0
Jkanda
Have to agree with Zenny. I have seen how some spices like Cumin seeds and Dil seeds work wonders with some ilnesses. I am not sure if Ayurveda treatment falls under alternative medicine, but they use some products that you will hardly imagine can treat some ailment.But the trick is to find the authentic Ayurveda treatment is almost like killing yourself. Many claim, and do some expensive publicity but they are hardly doing anything close to what the ancient people did.
I think alternative med. works on each individual in its own way. Beetroot juice is excellent stuff, but not necessarily effective for all. Depends on the type of body of each individual. Same goes for different types of substances and different individuals. I am allergic to Chinese med, Ayurveda.
0
Nessie
Big pharma = alt medicine
Not enough people realize this. Read "Bad Science" by Ben Goldacre for a good look at alternative medicine.
wiki
0
Nessie
More
Moderator: How about posting your views on the subject?
0
Nessie
Thanks, Mod. I did in the post above.
To elaborate, I agree with Britling above. Most alternative medicine is junk science based on junk science, and big pharma is just another alt med player.
0
Ah_so
Maria - from your post I suspect you are mixing up homeopathic medicine with alternative supplements generally.
Homeopathy is mumbo-jumbo, based around a quack theory that a diluted solution of something gets you better. These are often so diluted that there are more molecules of the substance naturally ocurring in the water than are left from the original fluid. Proof of homeopathy would not just turn medicine on its head, but the laws of physics.
Your general supplements (ginko, St. John Wort, echinacea etc) may well do some good, but do not confuse with the mountebanks who peddle homeopathy.
0
isthistheend
Lumping the titled issues together is very unfair to acupuncture. I've received rather significant relief from neck, back problems over the years from Acupuncture administered by a great practitioner whose spent the majority of his life at it, as did his father before him. The history is more than 1000 years I believe. My brother, a trained physcian gets angry at me each time I mention it. "It only works because you believe in it." I grew up in a family of Western physicians and as youngest sibling went of things like Oriental Medicine and brown rice, miso soup, etc. Go figure. But after many years, I still feel I've gained a great deal in my oddessey studying and practicing "Things Japanese".
0
mrskit
Fortunately for me, my MIL is a pharmacist, not distributing one, the one that actually studies all medicine, and knows what powder mixed with what = medicine she told me to stop taking the pill and take kampo, korean red ginseng, and for me, it worked, returned hormones to normal , made body pains and estrogen fluctuations balance, i have started to gain weight (which is a good thing for me) and looking forward to falling pregnant again, after years of delibitating pain and hormone surges, it is amazing to have so much energy and balance in the body korean red ginseng aids in many things it is only ¥10,000 for about one months supply (i was being sarcastic with the (only') but compared to how much I spent on bufferin, paburon, and drs visits and the pill etc, it is same if not cheaper, and feel better!
0
keech2
Nessie, Great posts as always. For a good read, check out "Trick or Treatment" by Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst. Lots of very good information about different alternative treatments. Ernst is the first professor of Complementary Medicine in the UK.
0
SiouxChef
Klein - Here's a good read on the state of echinacea and the research on it:
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=641
0
SiouxChef
Klein2 - It's no fun if you move the goalpost and then immediately confess to as much.
Yes, I'm speaking specifically against claims of boosting the body's immune system.
0
SiouxChef
Nessie - thanks for pointing that out. It's stunning how people decry "big pharma" while gobbling up alt remedies manufactured and marketed by them.
0
SiouxChef
Then why post them?
0
Maria
@Ah So:
No, I'm not. I wrote of occasions in my life when i have taken homeopathic medicine for 2 different health problems I had, and they both worked for me. And if I still had probelms with hayfever and sinuses, I wouild take homeopathic meds again.
I don't know what you mean by "alternative supplements generally" - are you lumping them all together? I don't do that it's not safe.
0
limboinjapan
I think today to many people are looking for an easy way out of everything.
Debating all these "alternatives" things as to boosting your this system or your that system is all BS.
The simple facts are your body takes care of it's self, eat right exercise make sure you get all the vitamins and nutrients you need naturally in your diet and your body produces just what it needs, it does not store anything more then necessary and those are the facts.
Popping loads of supposed miracle boosting crap or even loads of vitamins is one putting your money in the pockets of a bunch of con artist and two giving one more pile of junk your body has to filter out.
The facts are that if you popped a ton of vitamin C your body will just take what it needs and vacate the rest same goes for most things.
Yes on the occasion you will get sick or run down and in most cases rest and proper diet will work just fine, sure if you ate a bit rich one night a Camomile tea can help ease that or something along those line that even a real doctor would tell you can't hurt, but all this garbage whether it popping a "real" medical pill or an alternative pill when you have a cold will really not change much it is up to your body to take care of that virus and all the pills in the world wont change that.
Real immune system booting compounds exist but they are only used to help when you are going through something like Chemotherapy were the cancer and the Chemicals are artificially blocking your natural systems functions, taken any other time is just washing good money and resources down the toilet!
The hardest part in all this is just to stick to a good diet and avoid as much as possible certain chemicals in commercial foods, it may sound impossible but I do it because I react very badly to a certain additive found in most prepared foods but I have worked around it and by that fact my whole family benefits.
Stop looking for the quick and easy way out just be responsible and eat and exercise right and if you actually get sick GO TO A DOCTOR let him or her find what you have and then talk about how best to deal with it.
0
SiouxChef
Or you just got better . . . as we all usually do.
Homeopathy is magical thinking (sympathetic magic, to be exact) and nothing more.
0
Himajin
Doctors are human. They know, but they like to eat and drink like the rest of us. One exception might be internists...many I know have stopped smoking, won't eat junk food...
Zenny, if you're going to make a claim, it's up to you to provide back up. It's not Siouxchief's job to go researching to prove you wrong. Because something is 'common knowledge across the globe', or in the parlance of many a snake oil salesman, and 'ancient forgotten cure' doesn't make it true.
A herniated disc will be better in 3 months anyway in many cases. Not if you have a splintered or fractured disc, but if it's muscle involvement, 3 months is usually the max for pain, treated or untreated. Most ailments like sinuses, back pain,colds, flu, are all self-limiting. They will go away on their own. You'll be in pain longer if you don't treat, but go away they will. People will generally credit with a 'cure' whatever they were doing at the time. You can't know for sure unless you try it both ways....next time your disc pops, go to rehab and get hot packs and traction, see how long it takes to get better. Next sinus problem, try conventional meds, see if the result is the same.
When all these remedies get flying colors in double-blind studies, I'll get on board. Alternative supplements are not regulated at all in the US, you may get pills with next to nothing in them, up to pills with double the recommended dose. There were quite a few cancer patients poisoned by apricot pit supplements which were much too concentrated. 'Big pharma' may be considered a great evil, but all pharmaceuticals go through double-blind clinical studies after years of pre-clinical studies. The same cannot be said for alternatives.
Thalidomide was a sleeping pill. It has been found to have other applications in the past decade or so--
It should simply never have been given to pregnant women. I would assume that drug approval processes have improved since the late 40s and 50s, when thalidomide was approved.
0
Himajin
Maria, 'homeopathy' generally refers to dilutions of substances and the claim is made that the more diluted, the better it works because of the memory or vibrations of the water. James Randi gives talks on homeopathy, and he takes a full bottle of homeopathic sleeping pills in front of his audience at the beginning of the talk and is fully awake when his talk is done. 'Dilution=works better' makes no sense at all.
That, I think is different from what you are doing.
0
SiouxChef
Maria - Do you understand how homeopathy is said to work and still believe in it?
http://darryl-cunningham.blogspot.com/2010/06/homeopathy.html
0
TanakaTaro
Unfortunately, Homeopathy seems to be becoming more popular in Japan:
http://www.japanprobe.com/2010/08/26/homeopathic-treatment-leads-to-infants-death/
Taking placebos for a cold is one thing, but giving them to a baby with a vitamin k deficiency is too stupid for words.
0
Frungy
Wow this topic is very general, and it's lumped everything together into one mess, so I'm going to split out my responses.
Homeopathy - Generally it's complete nonsense, HOWEVER it does show some good results in specific areas like the treatment of immune response, specifically allergies. This is an area of modern medicine that is currently poorly understood, and it might be that Homeopathy stumbled on a method that works in these cases.
Indigenous medicine - This is where a lot of the new drugs in modern medicine are coming from, by asking traditional healers what the use for pain, fevers, etc, then taking the substance, analysing it and identifying the active ingredient. Yes, the concentrated drug made by pharmaceuticals companies is normally much more powerful, but there's a lot to be said for traditional medicine. Fair enough that there's a lot of mumbo jumbo as well, but the same can be said for modern medicine, just look at the medical journals, with yesterdays' scientific fact being debunked as today's scientific fallacy.
Acupuncture - Tried it, and it's great for alleviating inflammation. Not sure I buy into the entire "chi" thing, but for some things it's great and you'll even find it in some major hospitals in the US and UK, especially for post-operative recovery and rehabilitation.
Mind-body medicine - While there's a lot of feel-good psycho-babble in this field the core idea is correct. Psychosomatic illnesses result in people manifesting real injuries for no physical reason, the flip side, the placebo effect results in people making recoveries from real illnesses after taking medication that has no real effect. The effect of the mind on the body is proven and undeniable. That being said some of the people working in this field irritate the hell out of me and you wouldn't catch me in "smile therapy", unless it was the grin of rigor mortis.
All of these fields have something to offer modern medicine, and I think that viewing them as completely separate is a mistake, just like seeing dermatologists (the biggest quacks in modern medicine) as separate from modern medicine would be a mistake. They have something to offer, and only a fool refuses to accept that there is always something new to learn.
0
Zenny11
Frungy.
"Chi","Ki", etc is a good concept but people get confused by the quacks explanation of it, both Medical and Martial Arts.
Having trained for 37yrs Asian MA (mostly Chinese) and the healing, medicines we have to learn with it I got a pretty good understanding what it is and what it isn't.
But that is going off-topic. Over here in japan I tend to prefer the Kampo treatment over the western for most ailments(hardly needed as I don't often get sick).
Also fully agree with other posters that a mix is good.
As for the biggest fallacy of modern medicine is that Flu-medicine cures you, it does NO such thing all it does is to remive the symptoms.
We have an old saying: "Treat a flu it takes 14 days to get better, Leave it alone you will be fine after 2 weeks."
0
Frungy
rofl I love it. I actually discovered a combination of medications that allows me to recover from flu in 48 hours (I take the 3 medications, then I sleep for about 48 hours and when I wake up I'm well), but unfortunately one of them isn't legal in Japan, so I just have to suffer for 2 weeks.
0
SiouxChef
No. It doesn't show any results better than placebo. You were on the right track to begin with: it is complete nonsense.
If you have evidence to the contrary, please share.
0
XXXXX
Cold medicine: was using ru-ru (gold)but I think I developed resistance to it. Then I got kanpo-based med at a local drugstore. It worked.
0
Nessie
Studies show that acupuncture works, but sticking someone randomly with needles works equally well. The whole "great practicioner" concept is just a leftover of Chinese big pharma from back in the day. You do not need special training to administer effective acupuncture.
0
ngeorge
acupuncture works to stop smoking, very effective (personal experience), but it seems easy to lapse back if pretty much all of your friends are smokers.
0
Nessie
Moxibustion with lit cigarettes is highly effective.
0
Ah_so
I am glad the placebo worked for you.
0
Zenny11
Ah so.
If it worked it worked.
Was shocked how much western medication is also Placebo, worth doing a research into how much medicine we swallow that is nothing more than sugar-pills with a few vitamins, etc added in.
Don't be fooled by the fancy ingredient names. ;)
0
Farmboy
I agree. I can't see the point in denying someone else's experience... better to see it as data and find out more about the situation in which it worked, and then read the studies on the method in question.
0
Frungy
What, you're too lazy to use google?
http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/107555303321223008 "The first study found no statistically significant improvement in CD4 T-lymphocytes, but did find statistically significant pretest and post-test results in subjects with stage III AIDS, in CD4 (p = 0.008) and in CD8 (p = 0.04) counts. The second group of studies found specific physical, immunologic, neurologic, metabolic, and quality-of-life benefits, including improvements in lymphocyte counts and functions and reductions in HIV viral loads."
This is in a double-blinded, placebo-controlled study, so the results cannot be dismissed as placebo-related.
So you're wrong SiouxChef, there are some areas where homeopathy shows positive results verified by scientific method.
The leading problem with most of the clinical studies into homeopathy is that they insist that all patients in the groups (control and experimental) receive the same treatment, while homeopaths insist that treatments must be tailored based on the patient's metabolism, type and case history. That's the fundamental stumbling block in current clinical trials with homeopathy, that western medicine insists on a "one size fits all" approach, while homeopathy approaches the issue from the perspective that each individual is different. They're fundamentally different paradigms and reconciling them will require more research and some shifting of perspectives on both sides, but I think that this alone makes homeopathy worthwhile.
0
SiouxChef
No, Frungy--science says that you are. And you're going to have to do much better than the gibberish that homeopath (and notorious quack), Dana Ullman (not a medical doctor) tries to pass off for science. Did you even read this abstract? And weren't embarrassed linking to it? It's Ullman cherry picking data from unrelated clinical trials in Medline and HOMEOPATHIC JOURNALS. This is how all his "research" is done, by the way--willfully ignorant interpretations of others' work labeled as meta analysis.
You haven't shown that homepathy works; you've shown that homeopath Dana Ullman has told you he found that his remedies work (really, they do--now buy his books!).
Furthermore, to point to a study that seems to suggest that homeopathy is effective is NOT to demonstrate that "homeopathy shows positive results verified by scientific method". That's only one part of the method (what actual medical journal was this published in and who was able to replicate these findings?). The scientific consensus just doesn't support your position that magic is real; the mountain of evidence against it is undeniable.
0
Frungy
Gee SiouxChef, all I see is you ranting and claimnig that "science" says something... yet you site no actual proof, and instead settle for slandering a qualified professional affiliated with a major university. Your approach is pretty much the antithesis of scientific, so to claim that "science says" I'm wrong is ironic at best.
Just to prove my point though here are some additional articles, I don't think you can dismiss every single author as a "notorious quack", especially since a number of these authors and co-authors are medical doctors.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10335412 "The study suggests a possible role of homeopathic treatment in HIV infection in symptomatic phase, as evidenced by a statistically significant elevation of base line immune status in persistent generalised lymphadenopathy."
http://www.ijsa.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/10/672 "In multiple regression analysis a longer time since HIV diagnosis, having a higher education level and having a lower CD+ lymphocyte count were associated with the use of homeopathy."
http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749%2898%2970343-4/abstract "Hypersensitivity reactions to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) are very common in HIV-infected patients, leading to drug discontinuation. ... A 6-hour graded challenge with cautious “treating through” of mild reactions enables more patients to take TMP-SMX and is safe and effective. (J Allergy Clin Immunol 1998;102:1033-6.)" (homeopathic desensitisation: Bissuel F, Cotte L, Crapanne J-B, Rougier P, Schlienger I, Trepo C. Trimethoprim-sulphamethoxazole rechallenge in 20 previously allergic HIV-infected patients after homeopathic desensitization. AIDS. 1995;9:407–408)
So SiouChef, science says you're wrong, and you have yet to produce any credible proof to the contrary. Please note that if you read most of the articles that are critical of homeopathy carefully most of them are actually criticising the research methodology and saying that the experimental apparatus was flawed so the results are suspect, they're not saying that homeopathy has been proved wrong, merely that the researchers were sloppy, so please don't post those type of articles as "proof", because that's not proof of anything other than the fact that some researchers were sloppy.
0
SiouxChef
It is your claim; it's up to you to back it up.
Offering up pseudoscience from the likes of Dana Ullman (incredibly worthy of derision) doesn't cut it.
I contend that the scientific consensus does not point to homeopathy "showing good results in specific areas like the treatment of immune response, specifically allergies" or having any efficacy beyond placebo for any other ailment for that matter.
It seems you don't understand how science works. Of course pointing out flaws in experimental design don't disprove the results (but can certainly save someone else a lot of time and money wasting resources trying to replicate findings that are suspect to begin with). Sloppy research is useless research--unless you're just engaged in pseudoscience (ex. Ullman)--in which case, it can be useful to sell your remedies and books.
The scientific consensus regarding homeopathy is that it doesn't work because findings like that which you've cited can't be REPLICATED under tightly controlled, randomized studies. This has been the case for almost two centuries; you apply rigorous controls and the efficacy of the magic water magically disappears.
It's water.
Homeopathy: Failing Randomized, Controlled Trials Since 1835 http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?cat=5&paged=2
0
Nessie
We should never let a little reason get in our way.
0
brianct
so called alternative health care has been around for centuries, and has been an invaluable means to regain health when the othodox methods have proven useless or too dangerous.Ive used homeopathy and herbalism and find them efficient and effective.
0
brianct
not so..heart attacks and strokes arise from dietary failings, and these are best addressed thru alternative methods.If you wait til the disease has reacher a critical stage needing surgery youve been very unwise.
0
brianct
Conventional medicine is called conventional because its what the authorities resort to, fearing radical ideas. Alternative medicine includes such effect procedures as homeopathy, herbalism, diet methods, chiropractor..Most of them have centuries of successful clinical experience behind them . BUT alternative medicine has had to face the Semmelweiss Reflex: the rejection of an idea because it does not fit conventional medical paradigm.
0
neogreenjapan
I believe homeopathy, herbalism, kanpo, needles all work. Counseling works too. Sometimes, when you are under tremendous amount of pressure, a bottle of Suntory works too.
0
brianct
Ever hear of Iatrogenesis?
There are several problems here. You treat herbs from the point of lab chemistry: herbs are not lab chemicals, and not meant to be reduced to agtive ingredients. Herbs are safer than 'tested medicines' which almost invariably reveal dangerous side effects that were ignored in their initial testing! Conventional medicine has a long and unenviable history of marketing medicine that were inadequately tested or not tested at all for safety, eg thalidomide, SSRIs, ambien... 'Conventional medicine' is a euphemism for parmeceutical driven lab chemicals, which are engineered in labs by men who are not physicians.
0
Frungy
I did, I quoted 4 articles from journals, from a variety of fields, not just homeopathy.
Despite this you insist that:
... and then you quote a ranty article written by Joseph Albietz, a medical doctor specialising in... drumroll pediatrics... not immunology, and his entire article quotes on reference, just one, a 2006 editorial on a nearly 200 year old experiment.
Yay, that's convincing, I'll definitely ignore the 4 contemporary articles I quoted, written by a combined total of 20 academics including 9 MDs, 4 of them specialists in immunology, and 2 PhDs and referencing a combined total of 73 pieces of supporting research... in favour of your one ranty pediatrician who references an review of an antique piece of research. A piece of research that, while advanced for its time, is seriously flawed.
You are in no position to lecture anyone on scientific method or appropriate scientific rigor.
I'm going to quit pointing out why you're wrong because you're clearly not open to a rational presentation of evidence, but rather you strongly believe that homeopathy is nonsense, and you will refuse to believe any evidence to the contrary. In short you're the last person who should be talking about what science says, because you clearly have no respect for the scientific method.
0
SiouxChef
You haven't presented any evidence and you haven't pointed to anything I'm wrong about. I realize you still don't understand why you haven't presented sound evidence and I'm sure it must not be fun to be in the minority defending an idea that (strangely) you yourself called nonsense but it is indeed where you sit. The studies you cite are in the minority and not by a small margin. Show me some of this so-called evidence being replicated over and over by other labs. The fact is you can't because it hasn't been.
That was to demonstrate just how long the magic potion has been failing controlled trials. Of course, you should have known as much but instead erected a straw man and proceeded to attack it with argumentum ad populum/verecundiam.
This coming from someone that thinks a few studies with supposedly statistically significant--and unreplicated--results believes is "evidence" that homeopathy works? Disrespect for the scientific method is clinging to a fantastic ideology in the face insurmountable, damning evidence.
Yes, homeopathy is nonsense. So are voodoo dolls--and they "work" by the same non-existent mechanism: sympathetic magic.
0
Maria
Don't know why you're getting so worked up about it, siouxchef. Take a chill pill. Nelson's does a good one. ... But seriously folks, why the emotion? (or are you just enjoying a god argument?) If you don't think something works, don't take it, simple as that.
Different meds work differently for different people, because we're all, er, different. Even 'proper medical doctors' will admit that meds they prescribe may have a good effect on some, none on others, and a bad effect on yet more.
Be aware of what goes into your body, and note the results.
0
Zenny11
I am with Maria.
My medical alert bracelet is not because I can't take certain meds but because I am nearly immune to some. So standard doses won't work for me.
Bad western meds = NO, just a person that don't fit the "recommended" formula/standard that western medicine relies on.
Traditional meds work on me to get relief though, where "western/modern" meds don't.
0
Nessie
If by "alternative," you mean proper diet and exercise.
0
Frungy
My goodness, so many big words and yet a complete lack of understanding of any of them. It's actually hilarious.
It would only be a straw man argument if I misrepresented your position. I didn't. You wrote:
Then you included a link to the article, which cited the two century old research. I attacked your argument fairly with no misrepresentation of your position. You claimed "scientific consensus", I pointed out that you cited a single source and that does not constitute "consensus", furthermore the articles I provided had been accepted in main-stream scientific peer-reviewed journals and had been authored by a significant number of qualified and credible individuals, thus there was further evidence that at least there was no consensus that homeopathy was fraudulent, and that it in fact suggested a degree of acceptance in areas of the medical community.
As such it was not a straw man attack, and you have used the term incorrectly.
For those of you without a classical education what Sioux Chef is saying is that I argued that an idea was popular and hence true (ad populum), and that I argues that an expert said it was true therefore it is true (ad verecundiam).
Again you're incorrect Sioux Chef. Your argument was that there was "scientific consensus". I was not arguing that homeopathy was popular and therefore true (this would be ad populum since popularity does not necessarily mean that something is true), but rather opposing your contention that there was consensus.
In fact you committed the flaw, ad populum, by stating that, "The scientific consensus regarding homeopathy is that it doesn't work" (i.e. an idea is unpopular therefore untrue).
As for ad verecundiam (an appeal to authority), it is not a logical flaw where the subject matter is specialist and I did not in any way imply that my sources were above reproach, merely that they were qualified, had conducted scientific trials that were published in peer-reviewed journals and that in their opinion there was some merit to homeopathy. This is not ad verecundiam, but rather providing credible evidence to support my position.
Again you commited the error of ad verecundiam, because nowhere in his article does Mr Albietz, MD, use the words "scientific consensus", instead you attempted to piggy-back your idea on Mr Albietz's credentials, which is a classical example of ad verecundiam.
In short Sioux Chef, you have misused all three terms. Doubtless your next barrage will include the words, "ad hominem" (a personal attack), but allow me to preempt you by pointing out that it would only be ad hominem if my statements were incorrect or unsupported, and in this case they are quite correct and supported by your own words.
No emotion here, except possibly a little irritation at Sioux Chef using terms that he doesn't fully understand. However there is one thing that I sorely miss in Japan, a jolly good argument, so while Sioux Chef has attracted my ire for sloppy terminology I must thank him for letting me have the closest thing to a good argument that I've had in about 5 years.
Precisely Maria. Western medicine works on a "1 size fits all" medical model. A good example of where this fails is in psychiatry, where western medicine lacks the capability to tell which neurotransmitter (brain hormone) is out of balance. Yes, they can tell that someone is depressed and hence seratonin is too high relative to the other neurotransmitters, but they don't know if that's because dopamine levels have dropped, or whether seratonin levels have increased, so what they do is drop the seratonin levels using SSRi anti-depressants... and then next week the patient comes back anxious because the dopamine levels have gone back to normal and now the seratonin levels are too low. It's like a ridiculous game of see-saw with someone's mental health, mostly based on guesswork, which is why psychiatric drugs fare so poorly in clinical trials (just for reference there are over 40 common neurotransmitters, and the list is growing, and any 1 of them being significantly out of balance can cause mental problems)... so yeah, 1-size fits all is a bit of a ridiculous approach. I'd like to see Western medicine learning something from these other kinds of medicine and moderating it's 1-size fits all/cookie cutter approach to human biology.
0
SiouxChef
Precisely. You suggested that I brought up the 1835 study to rebuke your handful of unverified results and then delved into the fallacious logic:
Now you're just playing games . . . hardly a logical fallacy. When studies like those you've presented have been replicated by other people--and can be replicated by anyone under rigorous controls--they become part of the consensus. They become part of our understanding of what is real. The fact is they haven't and aren't.
I would almost cede this point but you were already swinging at a straw man and seemed to be explicitly citing credentials as the reason for dismissing the study (but, again, dismissing it for a claim not made). Your fallacies remain.
More straw men?!? My idea of Mr. Albietz's credentials? Mr. Albietz using the words "scientific consensus"? This is all coming from you and you alone.
Until you can show these kinds of results being independently and repeatedly verified, you're left holding unsubstantiated results, suspect research, and good old anomaly hunting.
Talk all you want about "western" and "alternative" medicines but these are just euphemisms for "medicine" and "remedies that aren't efficacious".
0
SiouxChef
I like a good argument.
I also don't like seeing people taken advantage of by hucksters. And I don't like seeing my taxes pissed away on nonsense.
0
TimRussert
I always liked Werner Heisenberg on the matter of Science, Which We Are These Days Told Shall Show Us the True Nature of Nature:
"What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning."
0
Frungy
Unverified results? And here I thought you were against herbal medicine, but clearly you're smoking something, because if you actually look at the research I quoted the results are not only verified, but also published in reputable journals. Again you're raising a straw man. I mean really, do you think anyone falls for this sort of misrepresentation?
Again you attempt to "defend" your position by challenging me to prove mine, rather than actually producing any evidence to support your own position. I have already done as you requested, the articles I quoted reference further articles verifying and replicating their results. If you actually took the time to read them right to the end you'd find that. I see no point in producing any further evidence when your basic strategy seems to be to not even read the 4 articles I presented. I could have produced 100, but you won't even read 4, so what's the point?
Okay, let me explain this again with a quote from an article on appeal to authority, because clearly you don't understand the limits on when an appeal to authority is a fallacy, "Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism." (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentfromauthority) Yes...
sigh I'm quoting wikipedia, I feel dirty, it's true what they say, never argue with an idiot, they'll just drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
Look at the articles I quoted again. Even if you dismiss the homeopathic journals as biased there are still two articles out of the four that are from respectable journals, namely the International Journal of STD and AIDs, and the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. Both employed valid statistical technique, and these journals are both peer-reviewed, which means that a group of their peers thought that their research had sufficient validity to merit publication in the journals. To say that this research is "suspect" or "unsubstantiated" without producing a shred of proof to support your contention is not just and sufficient cause to dismiss this research as erroneous or fallacious.
I am open to the possibility that this research may have been rebutted in subsequent publications, however until such evidence is presented the hypothesis that homeopathy has at least some legitimate medical applications must stand.
0
SiouxChef
Being published is not verification of anything, frungy. It's the beginning of the peer review process. Do you really not understand how this works?
Yes. That's EXACTLY how it works. You made the claim--it's up to you to back it up. It's not up to me to prove a negative.
I understand the fallacies I identified quite well, frungy. You can continue to pretend otherwise with your snarky distractions and appeals to others on the forum but would do better to actually present sound evidence that homeopathy "[shows] some good results in specific areas like the treatment of immune response, specifically allergies". A few studies isn't it.
I'm not dismissing any journal out of hand (though some may be worthy of as much). Being published in a journal is the BEGINNING of the peer review process. Which one of your studies' results have been independently reproduced? By whom? By whom else? And where were these incredible, groundbreaking findings published?
Once again, that's the problem with homeopathy: these kinds of results don't survive peer review. Whenever they do, we can expect international headlines announcing how our understanding of physics, chemistry, and biology has been turned on its head; discovering water with magical properties to heal would be a pretty big deal.
It really is a joke; 175 years of special pleading is enough already.
It's water.
0
Frungy
Obviously you've never been published in an academic journal SiouxChef. In my experience the article is first evaluated by a panel of experts at the journal. Only articles that pass the review of this group of peers are included. THIS is the beginning of the peer review process. No journal would risk its reputation by publishing nonsense.
Try getting published in an international journal sometime SiouxChef and you'll see just how difficult it is.
No, that's not how it works. We have two opposing positions. You claim that homeopathy is complete nonsense, I claim that some of it is nonsense but it has shown some good results in specific areas like the treatment of immune response, specifically allergies. I've cited journal articles to prove my point, you've cited an article generally criticising homeopathy. You haven't specifically countered the immune angle at all, and that's where the nub of the argument is.
Your entire idea of an argument is to continue saying "Prove it!", and then ignore every piece of evidence that is presented? What evidence would satisfy you? First Hand - You've already made it clear that the first hand accounts of people who have taken homeopathic medicines and found relief are not sufficient, so that's out. Expert - You've already dismissed quoting experts in the field as "ad verecundiam" flaws in logic. Published - You've dismissed published articles as insufficient. How many articles would satisfy you? You've produced 1 article (from a blog), yet apply a double standard in arguing that 4 articles from journals is insufficient. You fail to acknowledge that you set the bar at 1, and I exceeded it, even if you discount the two articles from homeopathic journals I've provided 2 articles from medical journals.
Why don't you just admit that you have no interest in actually debating this topic in an honest or open fashion, and that no evidence would actually satisfy you?
Oh yes, journals are full of lengthy articles who's abstract says, "Validating that X's article last year was right". Validation is not journal-worthy unless it either modifies or contradicts the original research, it's like a "Me too!" post on a bulletin board. It adds nothing and as such never makes it past the journal's review board.
The only way to do what you propose would be to take a single article and see where it is referenced over time. If the article continues to be referenced then it has credibility and is seen as an important piece of research. Let's take the article by Bissuel et. al.,
Original: Bissuel F, Cotte L, Crapanne J-B, Rougier P, Schlienger I, Trepo C. Trimethoprim-sulphamethoxazole rechallenge in 20 previously allergic HIV-infected patients after homeopathic desensitization. AIDS. 1995;9:407–408
Referenced in: Brewitt B, Traub M, Hangee-Bauer C, Patrick L, Standish LJ. Homeopathic growth factors as treatment for HIV: Recovery of homeostasis and functional immune system. [presentation at Alternative Medicine Symposium at the meeting]. 12th World AIDS Conference, June 28-July 3, 1998, Geneva, Switzerland.
Rastogi DP, Singh VP, Singh V, Dey SK, Rao K: Homeopathy in HIV infection: a trial report of double-blind placebo controlled study. Br Homeopath J 1999, 88(2):49-57.
Brewitt B, Traub M, Hangee-Bauer C, Patrick L, Standish L: Homeopathic growth factors: a low cost survival strategy for functional immunity and improved metabolism. XIIIth International AIDS conference: July 2000 2000; Monduzzi Editore, Italy 2000:81-87.
Danninger T, Gallenberger K, Kraeling J: Immunologic changes in healthy probands and HIV infected patients after oral administration of Staphylococcus aureus 12c: a pilot study. Br Homeopath J 2000, 89(3):106-115.
Fritts M et al. Traditional Indian medicine and homeopathy for HIV/AIDS. AIDS Research and Therapy 2008, 5:25
From this method one can see that Bissuel et. al. 's research is regarded as seminal, having been referenced continuously in various papers and articles. This alone wouldn't mean that it was unchallenged, one can quote a source for the sole purpose of discrediting it, however on actually reading the relevant portions of the research (with judicious use of the "find" function) these authors are quoting Bissuel's study in a supportive fashion.
The research has been supported by similar studies and the results replicated, thus the positive role of homeopathy in dealing with immunological conditions is not science fiction, but rather science fact.
That they lack the ability to fully explain why it happens is not a reason to dismiss it. Newton only came up with the mathematics to explain gravity reasonably recently (and his theory wasn't comprehensive), yet gravity has been around for thousands of years and man has been making use of it for everything from falling off cliffs to dropping boulders on their enemies all that time. All that is required is to show that it works, even if only in a specialised area, an explanation of why can follow later.
0
Himajin
Oh, give me a break...'conventional medicine' is that which is approved following double-blind testing and clinical trials. Trying "radical ideas" without solid proof is what gets people killed. Duh.
Back to top