A few questions on homeopathy..

Discussion in 'Health and medical' started by Michael, Mar 15, 2004.

  1. Michael

    Michael Guest

    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 an even better book on the web,
    written by a homeopath:
    http://www.accampbell.uklinux.net/homeopathy/index.html
    After reading this book I've come to a personal conclusion
    that it's a placebo. In my case, my homeopath gave me a diet
    (nothing weird, just a normal balanced diet with more
    fiber). He also made me swear to exercise at least 3x a week
    for 30 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: http://www.vitacost.com/science/-
    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 problems listed above if I don't already
    have them? From the "provings" I read about, it seemed
    the medicines caused healthy people to become ill and
    therefore they believed that would cure someone who had
    the same symptoms. 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, giving
    me a medicine which causes stomach aches isn't going to
    improve my stomach ache. I see how this can work with
    vaccines and allergies, but not things like diarrhea,
    stomach aches, etc. In the book my homeopath gave me it
    claims that insomnia is cured by a homeopathic medicine
    made from coffee. That doesn't make sense either.

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

    Michael
     
    Tags:


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

    > 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
    > an even better book on the web, written by a homeopath:
    > http://www.accampbell.uklinux.net/homeopathy/index.html
    > After reading
    this
    > book I've come to a personal conclusion that it's a
    > placebo. In my case,
    my
    > homeopath gave me a diet (nothing weird, just a normal
    > balanced diet
    with
    > more fiber). He also made me swear to exercise at least 3x
    > a week for
    30
    > 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: http://www.vitacost.com/scienc-
    > 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
    > problems listed above if I don't already have them? From
    > the "provings"
    I
    > read about, it seemed the medicines caused healthy people
    > to become ill
    and
    > therefore they believed that would cure someone who had
    > the same
    symptoms.
    > 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,
    > giving me a medicine which causes stomach aches isn't
    > going to improve
    my
    > stomach ache. I see how this can work with vaccines and
    > allergies, but
    not
    > things like diarrhea, stomach aches, etc. In the book my
    > homeopath gave
    me
    > it claims that insomnia is cured by a homeopathic medicine
    > made from
    coffee.
    > 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.
     
  3. Jan

    Jan Guest

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

    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

    >"Michael" <[email protected]> wrote in
    >news:c33kt9$jcv$1 @news-reader1.wanadoo.fr:
    >
    >> 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
    >> an even better book on the web, written by a homeopath:
    >> http://www.accampbell.uklinux.net/homeopathy/index.html
    >> After reading
    >this
    >> book I've come to a personal conclusion that it's a
    >> placebo. In my case,
    >my
    >> homeopath gave me a diet (nothing weird, just a normal
    >> balanced diet
    >with
    >> more fiber). He also made me swear to exercise at least
    >> 3x a week for
    >30
    >> 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: http://www.vitacost.com/scien-
    >> 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
    >> problems listed above if I don't already have them? From
    >> the "provings"
    >I
    >> read about, it seemed the medicines caused healthy people
    >> to become ill
    >and
    >> therefore they believed that would cure someone who had
    >> the same
    >symptoms.
    >> 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,
    >> giving me a medicine which causes stomach aches isn't
    >> going to improve
    >my
    >> stomach ache. I see how this can work with vaccines and
    >> allergies, but
    >not
    >> things like diarrhea, stomach aches, etc. In the book my
    >> homeopath gave
    >me
    >> it claims that insomnia is cured by a homeopathic
    >> medicine made from
    >coffee.
    >> 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.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
  4. "Jan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > >Subject: Re: A few questions on homeopathy.. From: "Rich
    > >Andrews." [email protected] Date: 3/15/2004 12:36 AM Pacific
    > >Standard Time Message-id:
    > ><[email protected]>
    > >
    >
    > 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
    >

    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
     
  5. Jan

    Jan Guest

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

    Ooops, forgot to post studies, see below

    Jan

    >Subject: Re: A few questions on homeopathy..
    >>From: "Rich Andrews." [email protected] Date: 3/15/2004 12:36
    >>AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id:
    >><[email protected]>
    >>
    >
    >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
    >
    >>"Michael" <[email protected]> wrote in
    >>news:c33kt9$jcv$1 @news-reader1.wanadoo.fr:
    >>
    >>> 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
    >>> an even better book on the web, written by a homeopath:
    >>> http://www.accampbell.uklinux.net/homeopathy/index.html
    >>> After reading
    >>this
    >>> book I've come to a personal conclusion that it's a
    >>> placebo. In my case,
    >>my
    >>> homeopath gave me a diet (nothing weird, just a normal
    >>> balanced diet
    >>with
    >>> more fiber). He also made me swear to exercise at least
    >>> 3x a week for
    >>30
    >>> 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: http://www.vitacost.com/scie-
    >>> 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
    >>> problems listed above if I don't already have them? From
    >>> the "provings"
    >>I
    >>> read about, it seemed the medicines caused healthy
    >>> people to become ill
    >>and
    >>> therefore they believed that would cure someone who had
    >>> the same
    >>symptoms.
    >>> 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,
    >>> giving me a medicine which causes stomach aches isn't
    >>> going to improve
    >>my
    >>> stomach ache. I see how this can work with vaccines and
    >>> allergies, but
    >>not
    >>> things like diarrhea, stomach aches, etc. In the book my
    >>> homeopath gave
    >>me
    >>> it claims that insomnia is cured by a homeopathic
    >>> medicine made from
    >>coffee.
    >>> 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

    http://tinyurl.com/

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

    http://tinyurl.com/ad09

    http://tinyurl.com/aa13

    http://tinyurl.com/acwm

    http://tinyurl.com/acyf

    http://tinyurl.com/fe09

    http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/455872

    http://tinyurl.com/a7ry

    http://tinyurl.com/ad14

    http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/096_home.html

    >http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/322/7279/169/Fu1

    http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/322/7279/169#resp5

    http://www.focusnewsletter.org/placebo.htm

    ---
    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
     
  6. > 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.

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

    Good point.

    Michael
     
  7. Orac

    Orac Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Rich Shewmaker" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > "Jan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
    > m25.aol.com...
    > > >Subject: Re: A few questions on homeopathy.. From:
    > > >"Rich Andrews." [email protected] Date: 3/15/2004 12:36 AM
    > > >Pacific Standard Time Message-id:
    > > ><[email protected]>
    > > >
    > >
    > > 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
    > >
    >
    > 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?"
     
  8. Rich.

    Rich. Guest

    On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 00:13:57 GMT, Orac <[email protected]> wrote:

    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > "Rich Shewmaker" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> "Jan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
    >> m25.aol.com...
    >> > >Subject: Re: A few questions on homeopathy.. From:
    >> > >"Rich Andrews." [email protected] Date: 3/15/2004 12:36
    >> > >AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id:
    >> > ><[email protected]>
    >> > >
    >> >
    >> > 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
    >> >
    >>
    >> 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
     
  9. Gymmy Bob

    Gymmy Bob Guest

    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 protected]> wrote in
    message
    news:[email protected]...
    > > 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.
    >
    > > Your posting begs the question of why you were seeking
    > > medical advice.
    >
    > Good point.
    >
    > Michael
     
  10. Tsu Dho Nimh

    Tsu Dho Nimh Guest

    "Michael" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >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.
     
Loading...