A few questions on homeopathy..

"Michael" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:c33kt9$jcv$1
@news-reader1.wanadoo.fr:

Quoted message said:

I went to a homeopath a week ago (first time) and he gave
me a book he wrote. It covers the history, which I find
very interesting. Then I

found

Quoted message said:

an even better book on the web, written by a homeopath:
accampbell.uklinux.netindex.htmlOpen ↗
After reading

this

Quoted message said:

book I've come to a personal conclusion that it's a
placebo. In my case,

my

Quoted message said:

homeopath gave me a diet (nothing weird, just a normal
balanced diet

with

Quoted message said:

more fiber). He also made me swear to exercise at least 3x
a week for

30

Quoted message said:

minutes, which I also did. I went to him for
stress/anxiety and it has definitely improved, but I think
it's the exercise and diet that are responsible and not
the sugar pills.

I have a few questions that aren't clear to me. I looked
up some of my medicine, for example "Actaea racemosa".
Here's what it says:

Backache Depression Dysmenorrhea Fibromyalgia Menstrual
problems and PMS Migraine Osteoarthritis Postpartum
depression Tinnitus

I got that from this link: vitacost.comsciencOpen ↗
e/hn/Homeo_Homeoix/Actaea_racemosa.htm

So my questions are:

1) It appears to be used for a bunch of conditions that I
do not have. I don't know why I'm taking this.

2) More importantly, wouldn't taking this medicine give me
symptoms of

the

Quoted message said:

problems listed above if I don't already have them? From
the "provings"

I

Quoted message said:

read about, it seemed the medicines caused healthy people
to become ill

and

Quoted message said:

therefore they believed that would cure someone who had
the same

symptoms.

Quoted message said:

But this isn't logical. First, I would get the syptoms I
don't have, and second it just doesn't make sense! For
example, if I have a stomach

ache,

Quoted message said:

giving me a medicine which causes stomach aches isn't
going to improve

my

Quoted message said:

stomach ache. I see how this can work with vaccines and
allergies, but

not

Quoted message said:

things like diarrhea, stomach aches, etc. In the book my
homeopath gave

me

Quoted message said:

it claims that insomnia is cured by a homeopathic medicine
made from

coffee.

Quoted message said:

That doesn't make sense either.

I'm very curious if you have ideas on the questions above.

Michael

Michael,

Homeopathy has never been proven effective. The whole
concept should have been left in the history books, but
unscrupulous people keep digging it up and foisting it on
others as a cure all. In short, homeopathic remedies are BS.

Your posting begs the question of why you were seeking
medical advice.

r

--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with
DLT tapes.

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: A few questions on homeopathy..
From: "Rich Andrews." [email hidden]
Date: 3/15/2004 12:36 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

See Rich's reply below.

Another example of the *gang*, with a few lies thrown in.
There are studies comparing homopathy with placebo. They
have been posted, yet this lie Rich tells gets repeated.

Jan

Quoted message said:

"Michael" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:c33kt9$jcv$1 @news-reader1.wanadoo.fr:

Quoted message said:

I went to a homeopath a week ago (first time) and he gave
me a book he wrote. It covers the history, which I find
very interesting. Then I

found

Quoted message said:

an even better book on the web, written by a homeopath:
accampbell.uklinux.netindex.htmlOpen ↗
After reading

this

Quoted message said:

book I've come to a personal conclusion that it's a
placebo. In my case,

my

Quoted message said:

homeopath gave me a diet (nothing weird, just a normal
balanced diet

with

Quoted message said:

more fiber). He also made me swear to exercise at least
3x a week for

30

Quoted message said:

minutes, which I also did. I went to him for
stress/anxiety and it has definitely improved, but I
think it's the exercise and diet that are responsible and
not the sugar pills.

I have a few questions that aren't clear to me. I looked
up some of my medicine, for example "Actaea racemosa".
Here's what it says:

Backache Depression Dysmenorrhea Fibromyalgia Menstrual
problems and PMS Migraine Osteoarthritis Postpartum
depression Tinnitus

I got that from this link: vitacost.comscienOpen ↗
ce/hn/Homeo_Homeoix/Actaea_racemosa.htm

So my questions are:

1) It appears to be used for a bunch of conditions that I
do not have. I don't know why I'm taking this.

2) More importantly, wouldn't taking this medicine give
me symptoms of

the

Quoted message said:

problems listed above if I don't already have them? From
the "provings"

I

Quoted message said:

read about, it seemed the medicines caused healthy people
to become ill

and

Quoted message said:

therefore they believed that would cure someone who had
the same

symptoms.

Quoted message said:

But this isn't logical. First, I would get the syptoms I
don't have, and second it just doesn't make sense! For
example, if I have a stomach

ache,

Quoted message said:

giving me a medicine which causes stomach aches isn't
going to improve

my

Quoted message said:

stomach ache. I see how this can work with vaccines and
allergies, but

not

Quoted message said:

things like diarrhea, stomach aches, etc. In the book my
homeopath gave

me

Quoted message said:

it claims that insomnia is cured by a homeopathic
medicine made from

coffee.

Quoted message said:

That doesn't make sense either.

I'm very curious if you have ideas on the questions
above.

Michael

Michael,

Homeopathy has never been proven effective. The whole
concept should have been left in the history books,
but unscrupulous people keep digging it up and
foisting it on others as a cure all. In short,
homeopathic remedies are BS.

Your posting begs the question of why you were seeking
medical advice.

r

--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with
DLT tapes.

"Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: A few questions on homeopathy.. From: "Rich
Andrews." [email hidden] Date: 3/15/2004 12:36 AM Pacific
Standard Time Message-id:
<[email hidden]>

See Rich's reply below.

Another example of the *gang*, with a few lies thrown in.
There are

studies

Quoted message said:

comparing homopathy with placebo. They have been posted,
yet this lie Rich tells gets repeated.

Jan

There was no lie here, Jan. The "studies comparing
homeopathy with placebo" have been shown to be faulty
research with spurious results. You may not agree with this
assessment, but to call Rich's comment a lie is just another
iteration of your habit of calling every who disagrees with
you a liar.

--Rich

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: A few questions on homeopathy..
From: [email hidden] (Jan)
Date: 3/15/2004 12:28 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Ooops, forgot to post studies, see below

Jan

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: A few questions on homeopathy..

Quoted message said:

From: "Rich Andrews." [email hidden] Date: 3/15/2004 12:36
AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id:
<[email hidden]>

See Rich's reply below.

Another example of the *gang*, with a few lies thrown in.
There are studies comparing homopathy with placebo. They
have been posted, yet this lie Rich tells gets repeated.

Jan

Quoted message said:

"Michael" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:c33kt9$jcv$1 @news-reader1.wanadoo.fr:

Quoted message said:

I went to a homeopath a week ago (first time) and he
gave me a book he wrote. It covers the history, which I
find very interesting. Then I

found

Quoted message said:

an even better book on the web, written by a homeopath:
accampbell.uklinux.netindex.htmlOpen ↗
After reading

this

Quoted message said:

book I've come to a personal conclusion that it's a
placebo. In my case,

my

Quoted message said:

homeopath gave me a diet (nothing weird, just a normal
balanced diet

with

Quoted message said:

more fiber). He also made me swear to exercise at least
3x a week for

30

Quoted message said:

minutes, which I also did. I went to him for
stress/anxiety and it has definitely improved, but I
think it's the exercise and diet that are responsible
and not the sugar pills.

I have a few questions that aren't clear to me. I looked
up some of my medicine, for example "Actaea racemosa".
Here's what it says:

Backache Depression Dysmenorrhea Fibromyalgia Menstrual
problems and PMS Migraine Osteoarthritis Postpartum
depression Tinnitus

I got that from this link: vitacost.comscieOpen ↗
nce/hn/Homeo_Homeoix/Actaea_racemosa.htm

So my questions are:

1) It appears to be used for a bunch of conditions that
I do not have. I don't know why I'm taking this.

2) More importantly, wouldn't taking this medicine give
me symptoms of

the

Quoted message said:

problems listed above if I don't already have them? From
the "provings"

I

Quoted message said:

read about, it seemed the medicines caused healthy
people to become ill

and

Quoted message said:

therefore they believed that would cure someone who had
the same

symptoms.

Quoted message said:

But this isn't logical. First, I would get the syptoms I
don't have, and second it just doesn't make sense! For
example, if I have a stomach

ache,

Quoted message said:

giving me a medicine which causes stomach aches isn't
going to improve

my

Quoted message said:

stomach ache. I see how this can work with vaccines and
allergies, but

not

Quoted message said:

things like diarrhea, stomach aches, etc. In the book my
homeopath gave

me

Quoted message said:

it claims that insomnia is cured by a homeopathic
medicine made from

coffee.

Quoted message said:

That doesn't make sense either.

I'm very curious if you have ideas on the questions
above.

Michael

Michael,

Homeopathy has never been proven effective. The whole
concept should have been left in the history books,
but unscrupulous people keep digging it up and
foisting it on others as a cure all. In short,
homeopathic remedies are BS.

Your posting begs the question of why you were seeking
medical advice.

r

tinyurl.comtinyurl.comOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

"Are the Clinical Effects of Homeopathy Placebo
Effects?..."

Quoted message said:

(Meta Analysis of Placebo Controlled Trials) Linde K, et
al, Lancet 1997 Sep 20;350(9081):834-43

INTERPRETATION: "The results of our meta-analysis are
not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical
effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo."

"Four studies on the effects of a single remedy on
seasonal allergies had a pooled odds ratio for ocular
symptoms at 4 weeks of 2.03 (1.51, 2.74)."

And if the persons were allergic to something with a short
blooming season, such as olives, one would get the same
results with tap water.

METHODS: We sought studies from computerised bibliographies
and contracts with researchers, institutions, manufacturers,
individual collectors, homeopathic conference proceedings,
and books. We included all languages. Double-blind and/or
randomised placebo-controlled trials of clinical conditions
were considered.

Our review of 185 trials identified 119 that met the
inclusion criteria. 89 had adequate data for meta-analysis,
and two sets of trial were used to assess reproducibility.

Two reviewers assessed study quality with two scales
and extracted data for information on clinical
condition, homeopathy type, dilution, "remedy",
population, and outcomes.

FINDINGS: The combined odds ratio for the 89 studies entered
into the main meta-analysis was 2.45 (95% CI 2.05, 2.93) in
favour of homeopathy.

The odds ratio for the 26 good-quality studies was 1.66
(1.33, 2.08), and that corrected for publication bias was
1.78 (1.03, 3.10).

Four studies on the effects of a single remedy on seasonal
allergies had a pooled odds ratio for ocular symptoms at 4
weeks of 2.03 (1.51, 2.74).

Five studies on postoperative ileus had a pooled mean effect-size-
difference of -0.22 standard deviations (95% CI -0.36, -
0.09) for flatus, and -0.18 SDs (-0.33, -0.03) for stool
(both p < 0.05).

INTERPRETATION: The results of our meta-analysis are not
compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of
homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found
insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is
clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition.
Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is
rigorous and systematic

tinyurl.comad09Open ↗

tinyurl.comaa13Open ↗

tinyurl.comacwmOpen ↗

tinyurl.comacyfOpen ↗

tinyurl.comfe09Open ↗

medscape.com455872Open ↗

tinyurl.coma7ryOpen ↗

tinyurl.comad14Open ↗

fda.gov096 home.htmlOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

bmj.comFu1Open ↗

bmj.com169Open ↗

focusnewsletter.orgplacebo.htmOpen ↗

---
Recent attempts to resolve the controversy surrounding
homoeopathy have centred on the 180 or so controlled trials
to date. A criteria based review in 1991 found that the
evidence was positive but not conclusive. Kleijnen, J.,
Knipschild, P., & ter Riet, G. Clinical trials of
homoeopathy. BMJ 1991; 302: 316 323. In a 1997 update, other
workers concluded that 73% of the existing trial data
supported homoeopathy being more effective than placebo,
with the pooled odds ratio from a criteria based meta-
analysis of 89 trials suggesting homoeopathy showed around
twice the overall mean effect of placebo. The difference was
significant and proved robust in sensitivity analyses that
included correction for publication bias. Linde, K.,
Clausius, N., Ramirez, G., Melchart, D., Eitel, F., Hedges,
LV., & Jonas, WB. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy
placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled
trials. Lancet 1997; 350: 834 843 A third working group,
independently set up by the European Commission, selected 17
comparisons in 2001 patients for a meta-analysis. The pooled
P value was highly significant, and the group commented that
"it is likely that among the tested homeopathic approaches
some had an added effect over nothing or placebo." Linde,
K., Clausius, N., Ramirez, G., Melchart, D., Eitel, F.,
Hedges, LV., & Jonas, WB. Are the clinical effects of
homoeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-
controlled trials. Lancet 1997; 350: 834 843. Are these
findings "meta-errors" or, however implausible, does
something tangible lie at the core of homoeopathy?

To interpret these findings as arguing for homoeopathy
having an effect may now be more plausible than our previous
hypothesis of serial false positive results.3 32 For now, we
conclude that this study has failed to confirm our original
hypothesis that homoeopathy is a placebo.

Reilly, DT. & Taylor, MA. Potent placebo or potency? A
proposed study model with initial findings using
homoeopathically prepared pollens in hay fever. Br
Homoeopathic J 1985; 74: 65 75. Reilly, DT., Taylor, MA.,
McSharry, C., & Aitchison, T. Is homoeopathy a placebo
response? Controlled trial of homoeopathic potency, with
pollen in hayfever as model. Lancet 1986; ii: 881 886.
Reilly, DT., Taylor, MA., Beattie, NGM., Campbell, JH.,
McSharry, C., & Aitchison, TC. Is evidence for homoeopathy
reproducible? Lancet 1994; 344: 1601 1606. [PubMed]

Randomised controlled trial of homoeopathy versus placebo in
perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial
series Morag A Taylor, research associatea, David Reilly,
honorary senior lecturer in medicinea, Robert H Llewellyn-
Jones, lecturerb, Charles McSharry, principal immunologistc,
and Tom C Aitchison, senior lecturer in statistics BMJ
2000;321:471 476 (19 August)

BMJ 2000;321:471476 (19 August) Randomised controlled trial
of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis
with overview of four trial series
a.University Department of Medicine, Glasgow Royal
Infirmary, b Department of Psychological Medicine,
University of Sydney, c University Dept of Immunology,
Western Infirmary, Glasgow d Department of Statistics,
University of Glasgow, Glasgow Discussion "To interpret
these findings as arguing for homoeopathy having an effect
may now be more plausible than our previous hypothesis of
serial false positive results.3 32 For now, we conclude
that this study has failed to confirm our original
hypothesis that homoeopathy is a placebo.

Jan

Quoted message said:

Michael,

Homeopathy has never been proven effective. The whole
concept should have been left in the history books,
but unscrupulous people keep digging it up and
foisting it on others as a cure all. In short,
homeopathic remedies are BS.

I agree homeopathy has never been proven effective. But it's
interesting to note that here in France, many doctors have
chosen to become homeopaths. The visits are reimbursed, as
is the medicine. That I find very interesting, because if
it's never been proven effecive why is it paid for by both
government and private insurance?

I think the power of placebo is not to be underestimated. My
wife is convinced that the homeopathic medicine has helped
her allergies and asthma. And she's not totally wrong cause
she's stopped Zyrtec and cut down on her asthma medicine. I
believe it's the placebo effect. But anyway, I'm curious
what homeopaths say about my questions above, because I find
them intriguing.

Quoted message said:

Your posting begs the question of why you were seeking
medical advice.

Good point.

Michael

In article <[email hidden]>,

Rich Shewmaker said:

"Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:20040315152823.06673.00001559@mb-
m25.aol.com...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: A few questions on homeopathy.. From:
"Rich Andrews." [email hidden] Date: 3/15/2004 12:36 AM
Pacific Standard Time Message-id:
<[email hidden]>

See Rich's reply below.

Another example of the *gang*, with a few lies thrown
in. There are

studies

Quoted message said:

comparing homopathy with placebo. They have been posted,
yet this lie Rich tells gets repeated.

Jan

There was no lie here, Jan. The "studies comparing
homeopathy with placebo" have been shown to be faulty
research with spurious results. You may not agree with
this assessment, but to call Rich's comment a lie is just
another iteration of your habit of calling every who
disagrees with you a liar.

Indeed. Jan can't seem to get the concept of intentionality
through her head. For a lie to be a lie, the person telling
it has to KNOW what he is saying is false and INTEND to
deceive. Jan ignores this and is rather quick to label
people who have done nothing more than express a
disagreement with her (myself included) as a liar.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do
|you inconvenience me with questions?"

Orac said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Rich Shewmaker said:

"Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:20040315152823.06673.00001559@mb-
m25.aol.com...

Quoted message said:

>Subject: Re: A few questions on homeopathy.. From:
>"Rich Andrews." [email hidden] Date: 3/15/2004 12:36
>AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id:
><[email hidden]>
>

See Rich's reply below.

Another example of the *gang*, with a few lies thrown
in. There are

studies

Quoted message said:

comparing homopathy with placebo. They have been
posted, yet this lie Rich tells gets repeated.

Jan

There was no lie here, Jan. The "studies comparing
homeopathy with placebo" have been shown to be faulty
research with spurious results. You may not agree with
this assessment, but to call Rich's comment a lie is just
another iteration of your habit of calling every who
disagrees with you a liar.

Indeed. Jan can't seem to get the concept of intentionality
through her head. For a lie to be a lie, the person telling
it has to KNOW what he is saying is false and INTEND to
deceive. Jan ignores this and is rather quick to label
people who have done nothing more than express a
disagreement with her (myself included) as a liar.

I don't think that Jan is ignoring anything. She just is a
pathologic liar who has no regard for the truth. Jan likely
knows that people are not intentionally telling the untruth
to deceive.

Since Jan is unable to logically counter the points that
other people make she uses an accusation of lying to
discredit the person. I believe that Jan is well aware of
what she is doing. She is likely a psychopath with no
conscience and there is much evidence from her posts that
this is the case.

I think it VERY important not to treat Jan as someone who is
mentally ill with a cognitive disorder to explain her
responses. Jan is simply a shill for alternative medicine
who discredits skeptics with lies and bearing false witness.
While she might have a mental illness, it certainly is not
her major problem IMO.

Aloha,

Rich

-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------

The best defense to logic is ignorance

I have had amazing effects from some homeopathic remedies
and others did nothing.

Homeopathics saved me thousands of dollars for operations I
did not have on my children and many, many weekend in the
emergency ward of the local hospital. I did the chem.cut
medication stuff for a few years with my first child and
then found Naturopathic Doctors using homeopathy to get more
lasting relief. I had not problems that could not be handled
after that with any of my three children.

"Michael Akins" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Michael,

Homeopathy has never been proven effective. The whole
concept should

have

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

been left in the history books, but unscrupulous people
keep digging it

up

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and foisting it on others as a cure all. In short,
homeopathic remedies are BS.

I agree homeopathy has never been proven effective. But
it's interesting to note that here in France, many doctors
have chosen to become homeopaths. The visits are
reimbursed, as is the medicine. That I find very
interesting, because if it's never been proven effecive
why is it paid for by both government and private
insurance?

I think the power of placebo is not to be underestimated.
My wife is convinced that the homeopathic medicine has
helped her allergies and asthma. And she's not totally
wrong cause she's stopped Zyrtec and cut down on her
asthma medicine. I believe it's the placebo effect. But
anyway, I'm curious what homeopaths say about my questions
above, because I find them intriguing.

Quoted message said:

Your posting begs the question of why you were seeking
medical advice.

Good point.

Michael

Michael said:

minutes, which I also did. I went to him for
stress/anxiety and it has definitely improved, but I think
it's the exercise and diet that are responsible and not
the sugar pills.

I agree. Regular exercise and better eating habits can fix a
lot of things.

Tsu Dho Nimh

--
When businesses invoke the "protection of consumers," it's a
lot like politicians invoking morality and children - grab
your wallet and/or your kid and run for your life.