h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Well at least there is some spirited debate happening here. This link may be of use:

http://www.hom-inform.org/

I have used homoeopathy extensively for many years. In the hands of a properly trained and qualified Classical Homoeopath it is a remarkably effective tool for healing. I am interested in what works, and when Homoeopathy is indicated, it works very well.

Many people on this site seem to be confused about this modality. Any homoeopath will tell you that it is a vibrational medicine. So therefore it doesn't actually come into the realm of science, which is an excellent tool for observing and describing the physical world, but not appropriate for describing anything in the emotional or spiritual/vibrational realms. It could, however, if asked the right questions, be useful for verifying results of the actual physical effects it will have on pathological conditions.

The above link joins to one of the Homoeopathic hospitals in Britain. These hospitals have been operating for many years. They wouldn't be still going if they were dispensing rubbish. Simple.

Homoeopathy is an exceptionally cheap form of medicine. A remedy costs a fraction of a cent (what you are paying for when consulting a Homoeopath is their expertise in choosing the corrrect remedy from a list of thousands). Therefore, homoeopathy is used in some third world/developing countries with great effect. It is one of the most commonly used healing methods in India, for instance. India also has some of the best homoeopathic teaching hospitals in the world.

I should also mention that homoeopathy is remarkably effective on animals (so you have just knocked off the placebo effect then and there). There are a number of veterinary surgeons who either have homoeopathic qualifications or who have an animal homoeopath practicing in their clinic, to the benefit of their furry patients. I have used homoeopathic remedies on my animals for many years. Result: 4 very healthy animals, with minimal need for veterinary intervention. They are treated homoepathically for worms, ear canker, sprains and bruises, etc. and respond very well to this treatment.

All I can say is that I use what works. Homoeopathy works for me, and I would recommend it to anyone as a healing modality. The main point is to consult a properly qualified, Classical homoeopath for preference and take their advice. Give the cycle of treatments at least 3 tries (i.e 3 constitutional remedies or specific remedies for a condition) before deciding whether it is the modality for you or not.

Here endeth the second lesson .... I think I'll just choof off and take some homoeopathic tissue salts to improve my calcium absorption ...

>>"These hospitals have been operating for many years. They wouldn't be still going if they were dispensing rubbish."

Without judging homeopathy one way or another, I have to point out that there are numerous alternative medical treatments which have survived for many decades or even centuries, and numerous individuals with a most unlikely (or even quite implausible) approach to medicine who can keep followers convinced for a lifetime.
Unless it is the case that *all* of these treatments actually work, and *none* of the individuals are/were quacks, mere longevity of support could not be considered as more than weak support for the actual efficacy of a treatment.

Presumably, in the case of pets, there *can't* be any significant direct effect from talking to a friendly therapist, though possibly an indirect one from making owners feel happier, or making owners feel the animal is getting better and therefore changing their aproach to the animal (taking a dog with stiff joints for more exercise, etc.)
There *could* also potentially be some effect of the owner's belief making them see and report the animal's condition more favourably.

However, it would seem that pets may be a particuarly good area for double-blind studies to see if there is any difference in [percieved] relief from symptoms between treated and control subjects, whether via 'vibrations' or some more conventionally understandable (if as yet obscure) route.

"So therefore it doesn't actually come into the realm of science, which is an excellent tool for observing and describing the physical world" -

If people are sick, or in pain, or unwell in some sense, then they have a problem in the real, physical world. Can you describe for me what a "vibrational" world is, and whether it really means anything at all if there is no way such "vibrations" can be observed, perceived, or measured in any physical sense?

"The above link joins to one of the Homoeopathic hospitals in Britain. These hospitals have been operating for many years. They wouldn't be still going if they were dispensing rubbish. Simple." - That's not an argument. A lot of things have been around for years that a lot of people fervently believe in, and yet they don't have even a smidgen of evidence to support them. Astrology dates back thousands of years, fortune telling, many of the mainstream religious faiths (many of their tenets are contradict each other (e.g. polytheism vs monotheism) and yet they have existed for millennia, etc. etc. They are still around because many, many people believe in them - which is a totally different thing to them actually being objectively effective.

"Homoeopathy is an exceptionally cheap form of medicine" - as it would be when nobody has to do any proper clinical research.

"It is one of the most commonly used healing methods in India" - again, just because a lot of people believe it works doesn't imply that it actually works.

"I should also mention that homoeopathy is remarkably effective on animals (so you have just knocked off the placebo effect then and there). " - No, the placebo effect is still working, except this time it's on the animal owner. It's the animal owner who wants it to work not the animal itself, and it's the animal owner who will take any sign of recovery or improvement as a vindication of the medicine.

You think animals don't know they're being given medicine? Try telling my cat . The smallest little pill ground up and "meowwwwwwwww" and then off to find a mouse.

Humans on the other hand are mugs who will swallow anything. Millions of copies of the Sun getting sold every day is far more impressive than homeopathy hospitals not getting closed down.

You know I think a restatement Anhaga's brilliantly phrased soul/material interface question would come in handy here. If there is a spiritual/vibrational (I take it we're not talking about simple harmonic oscillators here) world that is healing us then surely its making an impact on the material world. Science explores the material world, so why can it not measure the impact of the spiritual world upon it? In fact, if the spiritual world is to all intents and purposes magic, immeasureable etc. and its having an effect on the material world then wouldn't that make the material world also magic, in which case why does my computer work? Is building in magic resistance the reason why it took Microsoft so many years to make an OS without random crashes?

I think the argument will rage for some time between the scientific and spiritual approaches. My understanding is that in medicine it is difficult to maintain one's professional integrity and investigate alternative medicine.

As an engineer, I live in the scientific world. However, through personal experiences and the accounts of friends and relatives, I think that there is more than circumstantial evidence that alternative therapies do have a positive effect (even if it may be only to help the body help itself). There really should be some sensible scientific study done.

In the mean time, I would suggest that people do try alternative therapies. They may find something that works for them. I've been using a herbal hay fever remedy for a few years now, I'd much rather use that than feel drugged up and drowsy all summer (I don't care what you say, even the non-drowsy ones give me a thick head!)

At the end of the day if it works for you, who cares who is right or wrong!!!

Also, I have a friend who is a vetinary assistant. The Vet she works for uses Reiki on the animals with some success. Reiki is entirely non contact, no remedies or potions are used.

<>

When did they build that then?

Seriously, statements like 'science can't explain it' is just religion in another guise. Science maybe can't (yet) explain spiritual beliefs and emotions in sufficient depth to predict them, due to the huge complexity involved - but it can explain the evolutionary reasons behind them, and in many cases the causes and effects. It can explain the 'why', if not the 'how', and we can shape and alter beliefs and emotions with psychotherapy and drugs for example. These things are real; unlike vibrations or mystic energy, which haven't even been detected never mind treated.

When science finds that a mainstream treatment doesn't work, the treatment gets withdrawn. When science finds that an alternative treatment doesn't work, they insist that it does and make up a new word for it

This is going to seem off-topic, but it isn't. Let me start it with a statement of fact.

I would never go and see a fortune teller.

I am what I consider to be a rational, scientifically minded individual with a strong tendency towards skepticism. But nevertheless I would not go and have my palm read or my cards read even if I was given a ton of money for doing it.

Why? Because I know the experience would play on my mind afterwards. I know that despite my best attempts of my rational self to ridicule the experience, my mind would be busy creating a construct, interpreting events that would happen to me through this construct. Things that agreed with what I had been foretold would be magnified greatly, while anything that did not agree would be shoved quickly under the carpet. That's how my mind works, whether I like it or not.

And, I believe that's exactly what happens when we are presented with a miracle cure or therapy or whatnot (and btw it applies just as strongly to "accepted" medical cures). That's how I see the placebo effect working - I don't underestimate my ability to be influenced.

So if you got better from taking a herbal / homeopathic cure, I won't doubt it for a minute. I will however question whether it was the substance itself that did it, or whether it really was the minutes talking with someone who was kind and gentle and agreed with your view on such things and suggested a tailor made solution for your ills that helped you more.

>>"My understanding is that in medicine it is difficult to maintain one's professional integrity and investigate alternative medicine."

One needn't lose one's integrity while investigating anything, if the investigation is done properly.

Possibly one may fear losing credibility, especially if alternative practicioners used the mere existence of a study-in-progress as some kind of support for their methods.
However, a seriously well-conducted study, *with prior agreement all round* on what the study was and wasn't actually testing, and what types of results would be agreed all round as simply inconclusive, rather than evidence one way or another shouldn't be looked down on by any scientist.

From Potholer:
"However, a seriously well-conducted study, *with prior agreement all round* on what the study was and wasn't actually testing, and what types of results would be agreed all round as simply inconclusive, rather than evidence one way or another shouldn't be looked down on by any scientist."

Yep, absolutely, but when we tried to construct one, *none* of the homeopaths on site would participate in the mere *discussion* of the experiment. Let alone work on an actual real experiment...
If they really believe, why not put it to the test for some vindication?



If you want a nice twist of words, in some ways, yes, Microsoft did have to elminate magic in order to make more stable windows OS. If magic is unexplained phenomena, then the elmination of these (by creating explanations) is essentially what science, research & development, engineering, etc. do, right?

For those of you who have an interest in empirical studies of complimentary medicines, including homoeopathy, this link may be helpful:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmccomplementalternmed/1

You ask what "vibrational" means. Life exists on a number of levels, basically the physical, the emotional and the spiritual. All true healing takes place on all three levels. Whenever I see someone who has a serious illness, say cancer, I ask them what has happened to them in the past three years. Invariably, they have had a major emotional blow in that time (death of a parent, partner or child; serious legal, work or relationship problems or even a lottery win(??). This is an example of an emotional state having an eventual effect on the physical body. Any immunologist will tell you that stressful events have a depressing effect on the immune system, which, unless they are appropriately resolved, will lead to illness.

Vibrational remedies, such as homoeopathy, work on these more rarified levels and have a similar "percolating down" effect, to inspire a positive shift in function in the physical realm. For the empiricists among us, it can be useful to have a look at string theory in physics. The basic idea, as I understand it, is that matter consists of particles of minute vibrating strings (that presumably build up into atoms ... elements ... molecules ... cells etc.). If this theory is correct, then it helps to neatly "explain" vibrational medicine.

I find it somewhat insulting that whenever you mention the extraordinary healing effects of homoeopathy in animals, someone always pops their head up and shouts: You (or the animal) imagined it. Considering what I have seen with my own two eyes, that is just piffle.

It's also insulting to dismiss homoeopathic hospitals (that, I may add, have orthodox medical practitioners on their staffs) as havens for the deluded. And also to dismiss millions of Indians as a bunch of credulous morons. Could this be a somewhat racist attitude??

All I can say, is why not try constiturional treatment with a properly qualified homoeopath (I dare you) for about 6 months. Then come back on this site and give your informed opinion.

Just as a sideline, one of the most interesting people I know is a research physicist at a university. They are also a brilliant astrologer. I guess that person must be really intelligent, as they can hold two opposing views without their head exploding.

Here's a neat little reference I found the other day. It seems apposite to include it in this discussion:

“The world as we know it is constructed without respect for the emotional and the spiritual or an understanding of the fundamental consciousness that underpins human life. It is a representation of our desire to dominate nature rather than to live in harmony with her and this desire has overridden commonsense to the point that it is now a rarity.

We’ve lost faith in our own ability to discern what is good and true for us. Indeed, we’re now encouraged to have no faith in commonsense until it is scientifically proven. And one of the major flaws in the scientific model that dominates is that is relegates a person’s individual experience to the anecdotal. Science is content with the average without studying the exceptional. It speaks only of ‘groups of people’ and lacks interest in the individual’s experience. Of ourselves we know nothing and must rely on experts to inform us. We then rely on outer interventions to treat what is often borne of inner causes.

The Western world values the mind and its rationalism highly. In addition to sport, the scientific tradition of having to prove everything has become our religion. We are taught that reason, logic and consistency are paramount – indeed they are the highest truth. This model encourages us to suppress our emotions and relegates feelings, intuition, faith or irrational behaviour to the less consequential at best and considers it a nuisance and a sign of weakness at worst.”

Petrea King. Your Life Matters.

"I find it somewhat insulting that whenever you mention the extraordinary healing effects of homoeopathy in animals, someone always pops their head up and shouts: You (or the animal) imagined it. Considering what I have seen with my own two eyes, that is just piffle".

People imagine effects when they're unknowingly given vitamin C. In fact sometimes thinking you've been given treatment actually works as a real cure. Its not insulting, its the way people are.

As for the rest, its a nice little story that certainly appeals when people want to feel special, alternative, or indeed natural. Unfortunately I've heard lots of stories like this, and lots unlike it but on the same subject. I pick the one with evidence. Are you saying that instead I should guess? Or perhaps make something up for myself? Or just accept what you tell me?

As for your connection between string theory and 'vibrational' medicine, how does it neatly explain anything? In fact pretty much all matter vibrates string theory or no, but you just happen to be using the same word with completely different meanings. What link is there beyond linguistic?

"Invariably, they have had a major emotional blow in that time (death of a parent, partner or child; serious legal, work or relationship problems or even a lottery win(??). This is an example of an emotional state having an eventual effect on the physical body."
Sure, this is plausible. And it should be easily verifiable statistically, so let's find the scientific medical studies that bear this out.


To add to what Potholer said, the physics of string theory is such that the effect is extremely short ranged. By short ranged, I mean short on the scale of the nucleus of an atom. So a set of strings, vibrating together to make up a quark, which is part of a proton in a nucleus, would not even feel/effect other strings in the same nuclues that weren't part of the same proton. Let alone having the effect propagate far enough to reach another atom...
The vibrations you talk of, which affect an entire body, are unrelated to string theory.


"And also to dismiss millions of Indians as a bunch of credulous morons. Could this be a somewhat racist attitude??"
Ahh, so you've had to resort to playing the race card. You must really believe in the merits of your argument...


"All I can say, is why not try constiturional treatment with a properly qualified homoeopath (I dare you) for about 6 months. Then come back on this site and give your informed opinion."
And all I can say is why not come up with a scientifically valid experiment that will prove or disprove the efficacy of homeopathy. It surely won't take more than 6-12 months. And then we'll have settled the issue to everyone's satisfaction.

oops, that was BouncyBleepintheMiddle, not Potholer.

Well, going to a homooepath for six months would constitute a test.

"The race card", well that was a non-sequteur if ever I heard one. I do happen to believe in my argument. You seem to think that science has a monopoly on truth, and I have no right to my opinions or experiences.

As for finding funding for empirical research into homoeopathy, I can't see that happening. Medical research is funded by chemical companies who wish to manufacture drugs for a profit. There is no profit in doing expensive or far reaching research into homoeopathy (or natural therapies, for that matter) as there is no profit to be made from homoeopathic remedies. Another skew to that is that you find research into pharmacological activity in plants is largely geared toward non-ubiquitious chemicals that may provide raw material for drugs, which will generate a financial return. Any information regarding the medical actions of the plant is incidental to this.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

May you life be a long and happy one and may your chickens never turn to emus and kick your dunny donwn.

LOL

St.F.

Me going to a homeopath constitues a test, but it is a statistically insignificant one, as the "error bars" on the results would be infinite.


"The race card" was a non-sequitar, which is why I called you on it. I don't know why you brought it up.


I disagree strongly, I think there is tons of money in homeopathy. That stuff sells. It would doubtless sell a lot more if there was research to back it up. So there is every incentive for someone to conduct that research. So they have. Only the results haven't been what you want to hear. So you come up with some pretty conspiracy theories, to justify yourself.

Did you check the last address I gave you?? It doesn't sound as if you have.

There is no money in homoeopathic remedies as you can't patent them. Therein lies the rub. Similar to plant remedies - you can't patent a plant, unless it's genetically modified, and no self respecting therapist would use GM product.

How to manufacture a homoeopathic remedy:

Take 1 drop of mother tincture (i.e. a 1:8 tincture of whatever it is you are going to make the remedy from, like Arnica). Drop into bottle of sugar pillules. Allow to absorb the vibes, man. Dispense to happy if deluded patients. At some point, I'm not a homoeopath so where I'm not sure, the tincture is diluted and sucussed for a certain amount of sucussions (i.e. thumped on a bench by the homoeopath's long suffering assistant or a machine). The number of dilutions and sucussions determines the potency of the remedy.

All this costs the manufacturer or therapist a fraction of a cent for each pillule (i.e. dose per patient). There really is no profit in it, certainly not to the same extent that there is in manufacturing and distributing drugs. I know there are plenty of manufacturers making homoeopathic remedies, but they tend to be very cheap, anyway, even at retail outlets.

One of the things that gets up my nose about "the West" is its sometimes very condescending attitude to cultures outside its realm. Traditional knowledge (which you can argue successfully is empirical in the "eat, die and learn" school of life) is often dismissed as "superstition". Annoying for those of us who are Indigenous. Very much like Christians being "right" and everyone else heading for the hot spot in the aftelife. That's why I brung up the race card.

I have actually just been asked to help set up a series of tests on homoeopathics in a clinical setting. I'm not sure I want to participate on a number of levels. One being that I am not happy about double blind testing in this environment. I am more in sympathy with the Chinese and Russian research construct that gives the remedy to all participants, for the very good reason that if the remedy does some good, then why should everyone not benefit?? Good point, and what's more some very interesting research has emerged in China and Russia using this method.

What's wrong with trotting off to the homoeopath for 6 months??? When a butterfly flaps its wing in South America a typhoon hits Japan .... We all begin somewhere.

<<"One of the things that gets up my nose about "the West" is its sometimes very condescending attitude to cultures outside its realm".>>



1) Like this is in any way unique to 'the west'.

2) In the context of this topic, it has already been mentioned that homeopathy was invented in Germany. It is not some far eastern mysticism.

3) Frankly a lot of the other cultures are very keen to get hold of western medicine, or indeed developing their own using the same sort of techniques. This is why there is a huge industry in manufacturing fakes.

Finally, you say that there is no money in homeopathy because its cheap to manufacture? Huh? You say it also sells cheaply, which is fair enough, but cheap manufacture and cheap selling price can still leave a decent profit marging I'm sure, and these things sell in quantity. Let me put it this way. We live in a capitalist society, there is as far as I'm aware no government funding for homeopathy, are you suggesting that all these therapists and trendy alternative medicine shops with their made to look natural decor are all doing it out of the kindness of their hearts?

One person going to a homeopathy clinic for 6 months is not any sort of effective test because pretty much any one person in the world is going to have some sort of bias, in addition to the placebo effect. That's why we have large scale studies and statistical treatment. Plus I'm not ill .

Let me dispell this race card issue becuase there seems to be a misunderstanding here.

I wrote : ".. just because a lot of people believe in it doesn't mean that it actually works". That is a fact. It doesn't mean it doesn't work, but purely accepting that lots of people believe in something does not, by implication, mean that it must be true. Loads of people on a train platform might believe that a train is coming down the lines at 9.15, but just because they *believe* it will come along at 9.15 doesn't mean it actually *will* come along.

It doesn't matter who you are, or where you come from, this rule still applies.

I won't, and I don't think anybody should, accept the fact that just because lots of people believe in something should be accepted as proof that that something exists.

It's not "western", it's not "racist" - it's just logic.

Lots of people believe in Scientology - a 'religion' whose origins can be documented all within the last 50 years. Hence, just because lots of people believe in something it does not mean it is true.

It seems that in some of the dicussion here there isn't enough distinction being made between homeopathic remedies and herbal remedies.

Just because something is a herbal 'natural' remedy doesn't mean it has no active ingredients in it - although in many cases modern medicine doesn't know how the observed (an measurable) results are caused. The amount of the herbal substance in the mix is usually quite significant.

This is different to homeopathic remedies where the point is that they are very, very dilute. It seems that some of the posters here are arguing in favour of traditional herbal remedies but calling them homeopathic.