We believe in science until it comes to herbal medicine, then BS is cool.

[originalpckelly]

Head On, apply directly to the sucker.
Head On, apply directly to the sucker.
Head On, apply directly to the sucker.

Head On, available at most locations with no integrity.

And Head On is but one of many different BS "cures" that are pushed out there in the market. You have the right to buy anything you want to, but you should know that what you're buying is BS. If you keep buying it, then you're a stupid ass, but you're an informed stupid ass.

I'm sorry, but selling a product that is not proven to provide the effects it claims is fraud in my book, and that other book, you know that dictionary thing.

People on our side make fun of the stupid mofundies who believe in creationism, but we'll buy this BS?

Yeah, we're hypocrites, science is science.

[eShirl]

1. Head On is herbal medicine?

if you say so...

[originalpckelly]

2. Oh terribly sorry, I've got my quackery confused, it's homeopathic.

:eyes:

[eShirl]

4. ok then, rant on

:D

[originalpckelly]

11. I shall, I shall rant on!

The lack of rationality in our society has wide-ranging implications!

:P

[uberllama42]

35. How dare you attack my right to believe things contrary to evidence!?

Why can't you just let live in my own reality? HeadOn is real for me.

[EOTE]

74. Ain't that the truth.

More wide ranging than you can probably imagine:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3367953

[woo me with science]

6. Homeopathic = 99 percent water.

That amazing water with a "memory"....probably left over from the repressed memory salesquacks.

[uberllama42]

36. If water has a memory,

does it remember the properties of drain cleaner which was dissolved in it last time it ran through the waste stream?

Somehow the folks who buy into this stuff never think about that. If they knew anything about chemistry, they wouldn't accept homeopathy for a second.

[Posteritatis]

76. Ever hear about the homeopath who drank distilled water?

He died from an overdose.

[woo me with science]

82. bwah! nt

[Ilsa]

118. I don't know about Head-on, and from what I've read, it is a scam,

but there are hormone patches, nicotine patches, nitroglycerine pastes, etc. There are numerous transdermal medications that are very effective, but HO isn't one of them, unless you count placebo effect.

[woo me with science]

3. You are right. The expansion of this crap is alarming.

More and more, homeopathic and other garbage remedies are mixed in right alongside the actual medications in drugstores and supermarkets. I wish the FDA would come down hard on these snake oil salesmen.

This is the natural result of scientific illiteracy in the general population and the spread of woo.

[originalpckelly]

7. It's very alarming to me...

Especially Head On, it really is included right next to medically sound products.

[SOS]

79. It would also be nice if the FDA came down on Merck and Pfizer.

nt

[lligrd]

5. Most Drugs Are Derived From Plants

Simply science without the chemicals.

[MNBrewer]

8. and fungus and bacteria

[originalpckelly]

9. Many medicines are.

I fail to see how that relates to this.

[Muttocracy]

31. I think they're responding to the herbal part - herbal medicine can be legit

homeopathy is not legit by definition (the whole water memory nonsense)

[FVZA_Colonel]

39. And aren't the plants "healing" properties simply the result of

chemicals the plants themselves produce? I've never understood this automatic fear of those same products derived from artificial sources.

[kimmerspixelated]

85. That's right.

A lot of folks don't realize that Big Pharma can't patent nature, so they have to add chemicals/synthesize, and wamma-they are in business! They are synthesizing their formula based on the natural form- SOMETHING THEY KNOW WORKS!

[Bluestar]

10. I have a rare, "incurable" disease

If I had continued to follow allopathic medicine, I would now be in a wheel chair. Holistic medicine has enabled me to lead a fairly normal life. I know hundreds of other people who can attest that they have improved their health through holistic methods. I don't think you should make judgments about things that have been proven to work in many cases.

The best idea would be to combine the best of allopathic and holistic medicine (like they do in Europe) but the AMA will never give up their hold on the American public.

[originalpckelly]

15. If something works, then it should be able to stand up to peer-review.

If it is a "cure" or effective treatment, then it should be possible to duplicate it, and possibly even find its method of action.

[The Diest]

17. But there is no money in it. You cant market bee pollen or echinacea

and make a billion bucks off it. So why would they bother to research it and peer review it?

[MonkeyFunk]

23. bullshit

There's huge money in selling snake oil.

You think herbal medicines and homoepathic "cures" are all made by mom & pop outfits?

[Schema Thing]

25. huh? You can market something as humble as rice and make money

you can certainly market exotic plants and make money.


And in fact, that is just what may hucksters, and some sincere people, are doing.


and I say this as someone who believes that herbal remedies are usually the better medicine, if they work at all.

[Schema Thing]

26. "Zicam" is just zinc

that's a multimillion dollar product. Yeah, it has some proprietary delivery, but it is essentially just zinc.


It works too, for me.

[aquart]

29. Yep. The zinc works.

[uberllama42]

37. People sell that stuff now.

Aren't they making money off of it?

What about medical research by the government? That usually prevents the pharmaceutical market from operating as an oligopoly. Even if the Big Pharma firms colluded and decided not to do certain research, they could not guarantee that the government would not test the technique in question and then put the patent up for bid, which they do frequently.

[JVS]

52. If you can market bottled water, you can market bee pollen and echinacea

[kenny blankenship]

73. You can market it, you just can't patent it.

Which is the argument herbal medicine proponents often make to explain why drug companies are ignoring shelves full of "good medicine", which herbalists sell. Drug companies don't want to test potential products, they say, and go through the expense of obtaining FDA approval for these products if they can't get an exclusive right to sell (patent) them, therefore they don't market herbal remedies. The underlying idea there being that unless the drug company has a new process for extracting a previously unidentified medically effective chemical compound from a plant, or a new process for synthesizing that compound, then the herbal remedy can't be patented as a new "drug", and since anyone can then get in on the action there will be insufficient profits to warrant the pharmaceutical company marketing that remedy and getting FDA approval.

The linkage between the classification of something as an "herbal remedy" and the impossibility of obtaining a patent for it may be valid, but the size of the herbal remedy market, despite the lack of patent rights for the vendors, seems to cast doubt on the idea that there are never sufficient profits in herbal remedies to motivate drug companies to do formal testing and get FDA approval.

[jeanruss]

20. me,too

I also have had great success with alternative remedies for my family. Germany really has the best of both worlds. Thomas Jefferson warned that if the medical community wasn't harnessed by the Constitution, it could lead to an autocracy, and he was right. We are losing our health freedoms more and more every day.

[Aragorn]

54. Be specific then. Cure somebody else if you believe that.

What disease and what treatment?

[Bob Dobbs]

12. Trust Big Pharma. Trust Big Pharma.

Rinse. Repeat.

There is a lot of stuff out there unworthy of trust.

Often times, for-profit health "science" is not real great "science".

[originalpckelly]

14. No one need be trusted if it's a real treatment.

If something is proven effective, then of course it can be duplicated.

You don't have to trust someone with science, and in fact blind trust makes science worse.

Far too often in the history of humanity has the credibility of a person giving an idea been placed ahead of the idea's own merits.

[DramaOnHwy61]

90. well said, originalpc. That, and your sigline. nt

[Posteritatis]

13. butbutbutnatural! butbutbutgood! (nt)

[The Diest]

16. The scientific method requires money. Name a biotech company

that will invest millions so that they can turn around and tell you that the dandelions in your lawn will detoxify your liver. Seriously.

I am a biologist and have spent a lot of time in research. It costs a fortune, and if your original hypothesis was wrong then you just spend a ton of money on nothing.

There are a lot of untested claims about herbs, however most herbs were used for thousands of years by aboriginal people to treat illness. Example: the people we now call the Navajo used Mormon tea for urinary tract infections and as a diuretic. In a way that plant has been tested for thousands of years on people, not on some animals in a lab (which I am against anyway). I have a feeling that scientists would find in experiments that the plant is, in fact, a diuretic. In fact, I could take some Mormon tea myself and see if increases my pee output. But then my study would have to be peer reviewed, and published in a journal, and who would publish in a journal my personal pee record.

I know what you are saying about the "believe anything" culture. I have some friends who believe any and every book that is put on the shelf in the metaphysical store, yet they make fun of "fundies".

For myself, I prefer herbal remedies because every 2 or 3 years when I actually take an FDA-approved drug for something I end up with an allergic reaction, hives for ten days, and I figure its my body's way of saying "Get that shit outta me!"

[originalpckelly]

19. True, but if it is such a wondercure, then it should merit attention.

What you're getting at is the difficulty of proving every little assumption wrong, not proving that it is right.

It's like a courtroom, one must prove that someone is guilty, not prove they are innocent.

I could say that the pink monkeys who fly out of my ass at midnight can cure cancer, but the burden of proof is on me, the person claiming that, to prove my claim, not on someone else to disprove it.

[The Diest]

30. LOL. Sorry about those monkeys! nt

[ColbertWatcher]

64. I would like to know more about...

...your cancer-curing, flying, pink ass-monkeys, please.

[sakura]

21. The OP is talking about homeopathic remedies, not herbal remedies.

There's a big difference. I'm a biologist too, and I completely agree with what you're saying about pharma being unwilling to fund drugs or active plant ingredients that aren't patentable. Many of the most well known and effective drugs out there have plant or fungal precursors. But in today's marketplace, the research would not have been done to prove them effective, because it wouldn't have been cost effective or profitable to the company doing the testing. That's not the point of the OP, however. It was specifically talking about Head On which is a homeopathic remedy. Homeopathy, where like is used to treat like, and ingredients are diluted so much that only an "imprint" of the molecules remain in the water is, um, complete bullshit. Herbal remedies are not-- they actually may contain active ingredients.

[originalpckelly]

24. Well, to be accurate, I'm lumping all this shit together.

So, I guess I see your point.

However, there must be evidence to prove a claim.

But this all assumes that big corporations are the only ones doing medical research, there are government labs and colleges doing research too. If these cures are so effective, why not do research in those settings?

[sakura]

28. Yes, but research has changed in recent years.

Most of the big schools now look to patent their research finds. Even though a study is paid for with government money, there are big private dollars to be made. It's sad, really sad, but that's how it is.

[conscious evolution]

112. A lot of research is being done

Just not in this country.
In China and India,countrys with centuries of experience with homeopathic medicines,hospitals and universitys have begun to use formal scientific methods to gain more understanding of such drugs and treatments.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

33. Quite true. Herbs tested over thousands of years on people.

There are many therapies denounced as quackery that have been scientifically studied, but the establishment ignores them.

Read up on Linus Pauling (winner of two Nobel Prizes) and vitamin C, for a start.

Cancer salves:
http://www.cancersalves.com/introduction/salves.html


Another example:
Patent on Pulsed Magnetic Field Device to treat malignancies:
http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=4665898.PN.&OS=PN/4665898&RS=PN/4665898

Vitamin C to treat cancer:
http://www.doctoryourself.com/riordan1.html

Dr. Tullio Simoncini's website - curing an 11-year old boy of brain cancer with baking soda:
www.curenaturalicancro.com

For this feat, he had his medical license revoked by the Italian authorities.

There are many more examples.

[Aragorn]

55. did anyone get your pun?

Peer reviewed....

[The Diest]

65. LOL! I didn't even get it til you pointed it out! nt

[Poll_Blind]

18. So true, and it gets SO much worse, like where I live...

  First: I'm sure your opinion may draw fire but ya know what? Empiricism ROCKS!

  I live in Eugene, Oregon which is counter-culture capital of the West Coast.

  And usually that is a fabulous thing. I love listening to people who worship crystals or nature, or whatever. I'm a hardcore atheist but I think a beautiful poetry of sorts exists in just about every pursuit or belief of humanity.

  And so I revel in the differences. It keeps life exciting.

  However, the one thing that really makes me sad is how many people subscribe to the notion that potions, lotions, creams, ointments, herbs, salves, poultices, pills can cure their ills- when those items have not been empiricially-tested for their worth as medicines. Moreso, the self-administering "patients" tend to believe "more of a good thing" is better and tend to dose themselves outside of the guidelines of even the manufacturers of these untested items.

  Worse? Does it get worse? Sure, they give the shit to their kids. The same person who would spend all weekend camped out in a tree to prevent it from being cut down, or protest against war, or spouse abuse, or sexual assault, or any of a number of really great ideas...will turn around and suck down an eyedropper full of some extract or concoction, many of which are manufactured without quality standards or any sort of medicinal oversight.

  And they'll squirt it in their kids' mouths without batting an eyelash.

  One of the things this town has taught me is that you can be counter-culture to the MAX and still not think for yourself.

  Most of this starts as "word of mouth". You'll have, say, allergies and you'll be talking to someone and they'll be like "Hey, take some of these (whatever) tablets. Big pharma doesn't want you in on the secret." But what are you really ingesting?

  Or go into a health food store, of which there are quite a few here, and the twenty-something behind the counter will assure you any one of these four products are just what you need.

  And so many just swallow the story whole with nothing more than the recommendation of an unlicensed, untrained stranger.

  But the bottles they come in, the artwork on 'em. You'd swear a fucking Indian shaman took time out of his busy schedule just to craft that item for your benefit. They got bottles with pictures of the moon goddess, and they got bottles shaped...oh I can't even describe it but you feel like you're getting something so authentic, so genuine, it must be good for you.

PB

[originalpckelly]

22. Wow, very good post.

Lots of insight, often times I see the same. It's like people who are trying to be different are falling into the stereotype of what it is to be different!

[Muttocracy]

32. there are some of those "extracts" that have scary heavy metals in them too

Great post. Science and medical literacy fails among many liberals too. Sigh.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Quantess]

43. Eugene, OR, I am so sorry to disappoint you, is not the counter-culture capital of the west.

I do understand your frustration with panhandling hippies, with their stinky patchouli and dreadlocked hair. I don't like it, either.

However, I don't understand how you reasoned that, because these dumbass weirdos like herbs and natural, organic products, that you are now opposed to natural, organic products, and herbs. How do you make sense of that?

[distantearlywarning]

27. I totally agree.

And I applaud you for being the latest person to try to throw themselves on that grenade in this venue. As a survivor of the Airborne Wars, I wish you the best of luck in your quest to increase the critical thinking skills of the suckers of DU!

:toast:

[Exultant Democracy]

34. Head on rub crap on your head.

[DramaOnHwy61]

38. ahem critical thinking skills...

I don’t see the issue being allopathic VS homeopathic VS herbal VS whatever.
In fact, all of these approaches have demonstrated their effectiveness backed by a huge amount of experimental data. And I venture to say that we haven’t even identified many other effective ways to cure and heal.

To homeopathy in particular:
First, I have proven its sometimes extraordinary effectiveness and lack of side effects on myself over the course of ~30 years. That’s already more than enough for me, it’s been “peer reviewed”, thank you very much.
Second, I always was, and continue to be skeptical about the theory of how it works, which sounds to me like it was hammered and bent on top of empirical observations. Hahnemann was after all a product of his time, in which you just HAD to have a theory if you wanted to be part of the "in" crowd...
Third, I sense that homeopathy (as well as the “memory of water”) may soon be satisfactorily explained in terms of quantum physics. Very much like, for example, telekinesis has been.
Fourth, you gotta hand it to homeopathy, due to its nearly infinite dilution, it is really inexpensive to produce in volume. But not quite as inexpensive as a "good night's sleep", or "laughter", both of which remain the best medicines albeit with even less "active ingredients" :)

(Poll_) ... you can be counter-culture to the MAX and still not think for yourself.

Totally agree. Since homeopathic and some other remedies are really in the realm of “subtle energies”, by definition they don’t follow the rules of “more is better”, “bigger is better”. Funny how we are almost possessed and cursed by this silly mindset!

So, IMO we have a huge spectrum of cures and approaches at our disposal – always had. Critical thinking skills (and an open mind) are therefore needed much more when it comes to discerning what is the most appropriate cure for our ailment of the day. And by appropriate I mean the most effective, the least traumatic or disruptive (=side effects), the least expensive, whatever criteria.

[MonkeyFunk]

41. No

your own anecdotes are NOT "peer review".

Real science has yet to show that homeopathy has any benefit. If the benefit exists, double-blind studies should easily show it, but so far, that hasn't happened.

Anybody who could prove that homeopathy works would likely win a Nobel prize - it would overturn a lot of our very basic understandings of chemistry, physics, physiology and medicine. It would be one of the most groundbreaking discoveries in the history of mankind - yet nobody's managed to do it.

[DramaOnHwy61]

47. sorry but my post wasn't at that level.

You may want to read it again.

I don't know about nobel prizes but I'm prepared for "many basic understandings in chemistry, physics, physiology and medicine" to be overturned.
For peer-reviewed homeopathy journals, here is a (US) link. Outside of the US they abound.
http://www.amfoundation.org/homeopathinfo.htm#JOURNALS

[Quantess]

48. Fuck it! Let's all get drug addled on antidepressants, whatever.

Being hooked on antidepressants, such as Effexor-XR, has worked out SO PEACHY for me! Here's a middle finger pointed your direction, MonkeyFunk. :hi:

[GaYellowDawg]

51. Thank you, Tom Cruise. nm

nm

[Aragorn]

57. consider lithium

considering your anger and abusive language

[MonkeyFunk]

60. What's that got to do with anything I wrote?

You don't like anti-depressants, therefore homeopathy works? That's absurd.

[Posteritatis]

78. It's all about the false dilemmas

"You think basic logic refutes homeopathy? That must mean you're in Big Pharma's pockets!"

The wooösphere's utterly dependent on them in these types of 'discussions.'

[Aragorn]

56. By that "logic"

I have proved, for 50 years, that avoidance of medical treatment whenever possible, is the best way to stay alive. And I am licensed to practice medicine.

But I don't think my good fortune means sick people should not get help. I understand the difference between being healthy and thinking my good luck is from holistic practices. And that a single case (as in "my own experience") means nothing to the billions of humans in the world.

[DramaOnHwy61]

81. that's not my "logic" at all.

Jeez, where was I advocating that sick people should not get help?
If anything, what I said is that sick people should not necessarily force themselves to blindly follow one therapeutic approach just because that's what the corporate-MSM-advertising-so-called-scientific machinery imposes on them.
To me, in the end it's very much about people needing to get smarter, and learning to subjectively separate the chaff from the wheat be it Mercks' Vioxx, Head-on, Reiki, a good-night's-sleep or regular snake oil.
That's what I would define as progress in democracy, BTW.

[The Diest]

66. We lack the ability to test many of these remedies.

That doesn't mean they don't work.

As an example, a dear friend of mine practices Reiki. There is heat POURING out of her hands while she does it, and it feels awesome. I don't give a crap what FDA says, it FEELS GOOD!

[MonkeyFunk]

70. What special technology is needed to test these "remedies"?

Why can't a simple, double-blind test show the efficacy of homeopathy? What is it about homeopathy that makes it impervious to testing?

And if your friend is generating heat in her hands, why is that not measurable?

It seems woo-woos always claim that their special talent isn't "testable".

[Posteritatis]

75. It's like a kid's invisible friend that only he has the power to see. (nt)

[DramaOnHwy61]

83. let me help you some more, monkey,

I already gave you a link upthread, here's just an example of a recent, simple double-blind paralellized test that demonstrated the effectiveness of the homeopathic approach.
Like I said there are dozens more, some with pretty spectacular results, at the same site.
And tons more on european websites. Most abstracts are in english, so no need to strain your linguistic skills.
I find it amazing how here in the US, we keep insisting on our right to live under a rock (to put it mildly).

Efficacy of Arnica montana D4 for Healing of Wounds After Hallux Valgus Surgery Compared to Diclofenac

January 1, 2008

by Jens-Hagen Karow etal.

Jens-Hagen Karow, Hans-Peter Abt, Markus Frohling, Hanns Ackermann. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. January 1, 2008, 14(1): 17-25. doi:10.1089/acm.2007.0560.

Objective: This study was undertaken to answer the question: “Is Arnica D4 as efficacious as diclofenac in relation to symptoms and wound healing after foot surgery?”

Methods: In this randomized double-blinded, parallel-group study (GCP-standard), the efficacy of Arnica D4 10 pillules (taken orally, 3 times per day) and diclofenac sodium, 50 mg (taken orally, 3 times per day) were investigated for equivalence in 88 patients 4 days after hallux valgus surgery. Outcome parameters were (1) postoperative irritation, (2) patient mobility, (3) rated pain, and (4) use of analgesics. The hierarchic equivalence test based on one-sided Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney-U confidence intervals (CIs) was used. Equivalence was perceived, when the lower margin of the 95% CI was >0.36 corresponding to a range of equivalence of 1/2 standard deviation.

Results: Arnica D4 and diclofenac were equivalent for wound irritation (lower margin of the 95% CI on day 4: 0.4729 for rubor; 0.3674 for swelling; 0.4106 for calor) and patient mobility (0.4726). A descriptive analysis showed the superiority of Arnica D4 with respect to patient mobility (p = 0.045). With respect to pain, Arnica D4 was inferior to diclofenac (lower margin of the 95% CI 0.026). No significant differences were found regarding the use of additional analgesics during the 4 postoperative days (Dipidolor,® Janssen-Cilag, Neuss, Germany; p = 0.54; Tramal,® Grünenthal, Aachen, Germany; p = 0.1; and Novalgin,® AVENTIS-Pharma, Bad Soden, Germany; p = 0.1). Arnica D4 was significantly better tolerated than diclofenac (p = 0.049). Nine (9) patients (20.45%) of the diclofenac group and 2 (4.5%) of the Arnica D4 group reported intolerance. There was no disturbance in wound healing in any of the patients. Arnica D4 is 60% cheaper than diclofenac.

Conclusions: After foot operations, Arnica D4 can be used instead of diclofenac to reduce wound irritation.

source: http://nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org/articles/view,265

[End Of The Road]

97. Welcome to DU!

I'm really glad to have you here -- a biologist who is open to not-traditionally-Western medicine. :yourock:

I'll always try the 'scrip first, but if it doesn't work or causes side effects, I carefully move on. Such was the case with my husband's back pain; the pharmaceuticals made him miserable, but acupuncture finally provided relief. Has it been scientifically proven as effective? Dunno, don't care, it's not expensive and it worked.

[DramaOnHwy61]

103. thanks for the welcome, rest assured I won't overstay it...

frankly, the discussion level around here is mostly quite depressing.
Do I hear your husband! I lived with extreme back pain for ~15 years.
After pharmaceuticals nearly ruined my stomach, kidney and liver I went for a different approach.
Worked miracles, never had any pain since, although I won't say what or how here because it's not peer-reviewed-double-blind-tested-scientifically proven-and-talked-about-in-internationally-recognized-symposia-with-published-proceedings :sarcasm:
BTW I'm an engineer.
Cheers

[The Diest]

114. Well after a C-section when I almost croaked from rejection of drugs,

and then a very recent reaction to an OTC (FDA approved!!!!) I have now decided allopathic medicine is just pretty crappy unless for emergency purposes.

Yes, I know there are those of you who swear by your meds, I salute you. I swear by the fact that I will never take them again unless forced, or in an emergency.

I DO know enough about Biotech to know that it is a Business i.e. capitalist venture. $$$$$Money good$$$$$$

[DramaOnHwy61]

116. ROFL just realized the welcome wasn't for me

that was fun.

[BlueJazz]

111. Welcome to DU !

I live 2 houses from Diane Stein...Nice Lady.

[varkam]

94. ahem...personal experience...

does not make for good evidence when making claims about the efficacy of a given course of treatment.

[DramaOnHwy61]

99. hold it right there...

I think that I am at least as entitled to my claim as are the probably 90% of other posters on this thread who fanatically bash anything non-mainstream without having read even a shred of an article on homeopathy, let alone tried it themselves.
Note that was (and still is) exactly my main point, ie "do your own homework".
Having said that, "personal experiences" are the meat of any scientific study on the efficacy of a given course of treatment.
If the sum of positive "personal experience" results outnumber the neutral (or negative) by a statistically significant amount, that study is entitled to a positive claim, in a nutshell.
Therefore, I would argue that the "gap" between my claim and those of a peer-reviewed double-blind parallelized scientific study is merely a quantitative one, not qualitative.
Ok?

[varkam]

110. Wha?

I never said that you are not "entitled" to your claim, but note that your personal experiences do not generalize to the population at large. Are you familiar with the placebo effect?

I've read plenty of articles on homeopathy, and you know what? It's total and utter bullshit. It isn't a knee-jerk reaction against anything that is not mainstream, as I think there are a few treatment modalities that are not (yet) mainstream, but rather an evaluation on the evidence. There is not a single double-blind, randomized clinical trial that shows homeopathic treatment performs any better than placebo. In fact, the more well-designed a particular study is, the worse homeopathy performs. I've done my homework, and I still think it's nonsense.

Yes, personal experience is the meat of scientific study, but you equivocate on the term personal experience. In fact, many homeopathic studies used objective outcome measures that do not rely simply on self-report that (surprise!) so no effect for homeopathic remedies. Aside from that, the "personal experience" that is the meat of scientific study is done in a controlled setting and compared against the "peronsal experience" of thousands of others who are subject to the same IV as any other participant - in other words, big difference between your "personal experience" and a scientific study. So, again, your personal experience is not too useful in determining the efficacy of a given treatment.

Therefore, I would argue that the "gap" between my claim and those of a peer-reviewed double-blind parallelized scientific study is merely a quantitative one, not qualitative.

Huh? How would you argue that? Okay, I'll humor you then: why is it that homeopathy shows no effect when studied under scientific conditions?

[DramaOnHwy61]

115. I didn't mean you are one of those 90% of other posters...

who don't know what they're talking about.
What I meant is "why is is that you pick on me, offering a personal, positive experience, and not on the 90% other, apparently just mud-slinging posts on this thread". Big difference. Anyway, sorry If I miscommunicated.

...many homeopathic studies used objective outcome measures that do not rely simply on self-report that (surprise!) so no effect for homeopathic remedies.

I don't understand this sentence. You are probably saying that in many studies which rely on objective measurements as opposed to subjective statements by the "patient", results tend not to favor homeopathy.
If so, that would imply some sort of placebo effect, or other self-delusional mechanism. I cannot speak for all studies obviously (more on this below), but I can give you a few points.
- Obviously, to form my opinion I'd only rely on studies where the placebo effect has been nullified, by standard means, regardless of results. On the other hand, I cannot guarantee that I myself am placebo-free :)
- I know that strikingly positive results of homeopathic treatment are had with animals - pets, cattle, horses, lab critters. All objective and devoid of placebo effects, one would think :).
- You will probably discount this, but I repeatedly lowered my blood pressure to normal from pretty high using exclusively homeopathic remedies. (meaning I actually had to MEASURE the blood pressure before and after).
- There is a huge number of GCP-standard studies which document statistically significant benefits of homeopathy. Your assertion "... homeopathy shows no effect when studied under scientific conditions?" is, pardon me, utter bullshit. Unfortunately, this blatant untruth is being repeated over and over. See http://nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org/articles/research.jsp for starters.

To the last point, Yes there is a number of studies with opposite or undetermined results.
And here's where the plot thickens, and things really get interesting, at least to those who are curious enough.

But back to your last point:
...your personal experience is not too useful in determining the efficacy of a given treatment.
Let me try and humor you on this one:
How would a post on this thread have to look in order for you to judge it useful in determining the efficacy of a given treatment?

[varkam]

117. Hmmm...

What I meant is "why is is that you pick on me, offering a personal, positive experience, and not on the 90% other, apparently just mud-slinging posts on this thread". Big difference. Anyway, sorry If I miscommunicated.

Mostly because you chided other people for a lack of critical thinking skills while offering anecdotal experience as proof of efficacy. I found it a little, say, ironic.

I don't understand this sentence. You are probably saying that in many studies which rely on objective measurements as opposed to subjective statements by the "patient", results tend not to favor homeopathy.

Even studies that rely on self-report measures, you find that homeopathic treatments (when double-blinded) perform no better than placebo.


- Obviously, to form my opinion I'd only rely on studies where the placebo effect has been nullified, by standard means, regardless of results. On the other hand, I cannot guarantee that I myself am placebo-free

What study is placebo-free? All studies involve a placebo effect, that's why the best studies are placebo-controlled, so that the investigative medicine can be compared against the placebo effect to see how it performs.

And I can guarantee that you are not placebo free - none of us are.

I know that strikingly positive results of homeopathic treatment are had with animals - pets, cattle, horses, lab critters. All objective and devoid of placebo effects, one would think

Point me to some abstracts that support this claim.

You will probably discount this, but I repeatedly lowered my blood pressure to normal from pretty high using exclusively homeopathic remedies. (meaning I actually had to MEASURE the blood pressure before and after).

Many different things can alter blood pressure, including the placebo effect. Also, that experience is anecdotal.

- There is a huge number of GCP-standard studies which document statistically significant benefits of homeopathy. Your assertion "... homeopathy shows no effect when studied under scientific conditions?" is, pardon me, utter bullshit. Unfortunately, this blatant untruth is being repeated over and over. See http://nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org/articles/researc... for starters.

Not. Impressed. At. All.

For starters, all of the studies were published in CAM or Homeopathic journals which tend not to take a skeptical view of scientific investigation (failing to reject the null hypothesis and all that). In addition, peer-review in many (not all) of the CAM journals can be quite shitty.

Secondly, the studies that I saw were not randomized, were not double-blind, and were not placebo-controlled. IOW - total shit.

Thirdly, the N in the subject pools were much to small to have any sort of significant statistical power. An N of 60 with no control group? Gimme a break.

See, the thing is that if you have poor quality trials that conclude that homeopathy works it doesn't really mean a whole hell of a lot. IOW, your conclusions are only as good as the methods that were used to reach them.

I don't know, perhaps I missed a major, randomized, placebo-controlled study as I don't have time to click on every link. If you have one, though, I'd be willing to take a gander at it.

To the last point, Yes there is a number of studies with opposite or undetermined results.
And here's where the plot thickens, and things really get interesting, at least to those who are curious enough.

?

How would a post on this thread have to look in order for you to judge it useful in determining the efficacy of a given treatment?

I believe that you can probably infer that from what I have written.

[DramaOnHwy61]

119. oh well...

Mostly because you chided other people for a lack of critical thinking skills while offering anecdotal experience as proof of efficacy. I found it a little, say, ironic.
What I can see is an epistemological issue. I don’t see irony.

Even studies that rely on self-report measures, you find that homeopathic treatments (when double-blinded) perform no better than placebo.
Care to provide one lonesome link? Did you read the ones I gave you (ALL double-blinded?)

What study is placebo-free? All studies involve a placebo effect, that's why the best studies are placebo-controlled, so that the investigative medicine can be compared against the placebo effect to see how it performs.
Thanks for the lecture – I obviously meant placebo-controlled. English is only my fourth language.

And I can guarantee that you are not placebo free - none of us are.
Thanks for the lecture and for reminding me that we are both part of the human race – a mildly depressing thought.

Point me to some abstracts that support this claim.
Point to them yourself. Google is your friend. Hint: there’s a really nice one, replicated dozens of times, involving a rat’s intestine.

Many different things can alter blood pressure, including the placebo effect. Also, that experience is anecdotal.
Thanks for the lecture – I told you you would discount this. Come to think of it – do you happen to have a problem with “experience”? Tell me about your mother.

Not. Impressed. At. All.
Do I care? Do you care? If yes, feel free to dig some more. As I said, that was for starters.

For starters, all of the studies were published in CAM or Homeopathic journals which tend not to take a skeptical view of scientific investigation (failing to reject the null hypothesis and all that). In addition, peer-review in many (not all) of the CAM journals can be quite shitty.
Doh, guess what, it’s the National Center for Homeopathy! Again, you may want to dig some more. BTW shitty peer reviews are not a prerogative of CAM journals, believe me. Also there’s publication bias, submission bias, not to mention openly militant anti-homeopathic journals like the Lancet recently.

Secondly, the studies that I saw were not randomized, were not double-blind, and were not placebo-controlled. IOW - total shit.
Now I wonder what studies, if any, you “saw”. Not-placebo-controlled-total-shit? :puke:

Thirdly, the N in the subject pools were much to small to have any sort of significant statistical power. An N of 60 with no control group? Gimme a break.
Ridiculous. Tens of thousands of pubs out there with N<=20. One of my buddies got his PhD with N=12 and no control group. Now *I* need a break.

See, the thing is that if you have poor quality trials that conclude that homeopathy works it doesn't really mean a whole hell of a lot. IOW, your conclusions are only as good as the methods that were used to reach them.
Thanks for the lecture. See, by analogy, your insight is only as good as your understanding, which is only as good as your knowledge, which is only as good as your curiosity. More below about scientific method and paradigm.

I don't know, perhaps I missed a major, randomized, placebo-controlled study as I don't have time to click on every link. If you have one, though, I'd be willing to take a gander at it.
I don't know, perhaps you missed it. But don't worry, just relax and wait for me to spoon-feed one right into your purty little mouth; then I'll be delighted to watch as you take a gander at it.

?
Puzzled? For one, I was hinting at the issues of politics of science, its establishment, and its presumptuousness. Also, I feel this urge to state that (paraphrasing):
“When the observed facts do not correspond to an established theory, the facts
have to be accepted and the theory rejected”.
Feel free to dismiss this as another invalid or irrelevant personal and anecdotal experience.
More to the point, my underlying suspicion is that what we are dealing with here is a possible mismatch between research method and paradigm.
And that’s the domain where I’m really trying to use my critical thinking skills.

(How would a post on this thread have to look in order for you to judge it useful in determining the efficacy of a given treatment?)
I believe that you can probably infer that from what I have written.
I believe that you can probably infer that from what I have written, I am not going to take the time to craft another post.

[varkam]

120. Oy.

Care to provide one lonesome link? Did you read the ones I gave you (ALL double-blinded?)

First off, none (which, by the way, is a big difference from ALL) of the links I clicked on the site you sent me to were abstracts for double-blinded, placebo-controlled trials. Maybe I was just unlucky with my clicking.

And as for links...well, as you say, Google is your friend :D

Thanks for the lecture – I obviously meant placebo-controlled. English is only my fourth language.

No problem!

Thanks for the lecture and for reminding me that we are both part of the human race – a mildly depressing thought.

Hey, again, it's no problem! I'm sorry that your homeopathic remedies have not freed you from the bondage of humanity, but then again what did you expect water to do?

Point to them yourself. Google is your friend. Hint: there’s a really nice one, replicated dozens of times, involving a rat’s intestine.

It turns out that Google is my friend. I poked around and found a few homeopathic sites absolutely foaming at the mouth over the Nieber study. I also foundthis:

In 2003 a group of pharmacologists of the University of Leipzig claimed to have proven the efficacy of high-potency homeopathic Belladonna solutions (D32, D60 and D100). The authors, Franziska Schmidt, Prof. Karen Nieber and Prof. Wolfgang Suess had done in-vitro-experiments with tissue from the rat intestine. Even before the publication of their positive results… the homeopathic community was so enthusiastic about this new proof of homeopathy that in 2003 the three authors were awarded the "Heinrich-Reckeweg-Preis" (worth 10.000 Euros) of the International Society of Homotoxicology (www.uni-leipzig.de/presse2003/homoeopathie.html).

Skeptics soon pointed out that the study was seriously flawed (www.xy44.de/belladonna) and complained with the dean of the faculty where the results were produced. Nothing happened for quite a while, but now the German Pharmacistś Journal (Deutsche Apothekerzeitung) reports in its latest issue (2005, vol. 145, no. 44, pp. 24f.) that the authors have now admitted that their study was flawed; and that, as a consequence, the publication has been withdrawn from the journal Biologische Medizin and the Reckeweg Prize has been returned. Indeed, the award notice was removed without comment from Niebeŕs homepage in the night from November 8 to 9, 2005.

Whoops! The fact that, even though the study was withdrawn and the authors admitted fault, homeopaths are still positively in awe about it (including yourself, apparently) doesn't exactly inspire a lot of confidence in, erm, critical thinking skills.

Doh, guess what, it’s the National Center for Homeopathy! Again, you may want to dig some more. BTW shitty peer reviews are not a prerogative of CAM journals, believe me. Also there’s publication bias, submission bias, not to mention openly militant anti-homeopathic journals like the Lancet recently.

Anti-homeopathic, pro-science...tomato, tomato (hmm, that doesn't work quite as well in the written form).

Now I wonder what studies, if any, you “saw”. Not-placebo-controlled-total-shit?

The studies on the site that you sent me to.

Ridiculous. Tens of thousands of pubs out there with N<=20. One of my buddies got his PhD with N=12 and no control group. Now *I* need a break.

And those studies don't have any significant statistical power either. I'm willing to bet your buddy, though, doesn't use his study as evidence for the effectiveness of a treatment. These are pilot studies. There is a place for pilot studies, but to use them as supporting evidence for efficacy is laughable.

Thanks for the lecture. See, by analogy, your insight is only as good as your understanding, which is only as good as your knowledge, which is only as good as your curiosity. More below about scientific method and paradigm.

Really, you don't have to keep thanking me! I really have absolutely no idea what the hell you mean after your warm thanks, but perhaps that's just because I can only speak two languages.

I don't know, perhaps you missed it. But don't worry, just relax and wait for me to spoon-feed one right into your purty little mouth; then I'll be delighted to watch as you take a gander at it.

Oh, I'll be waiting with bated breath.

Feel free to dismiss this as another invalid or irrelevant personal and anecdotal experience.
More to the point, my underlying suspicion is that what we are dealing with here is a possible mismatch between research method and paradigm.
And that’s the domain where I’m really trying to use my critical thinking skills.

A mismatch between research method and paradigm? What?

I believe that you can probably infer that from what I have written, I am not going to take the time to craft another post.

But I was so looking forward to the massive, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded clinical trial you were going to spoon feed me! Oh well, I guess I'll just have to keep waiting for all this "evidence" that you folks keep yammering on about.

[BuddhaGirl]

106. I use homeopathy pretty regularly

and I have great results. I don't need peer-reviewed research either to convince me. Homeopathy works great on animals too - so no "placebo" affect there! :-)

[varkam]

121. Show me the research.

Do you have the research to support the claim that "homeopathy works great on animals"?

[BuddhaGirl]

126. I'm not speaking from a "research" perspective

but then I'm sure you knew that :-) You can look for it yourself if you're so inclined.

I'm speaking from experience with the actual medicines and many pets (mine, parents', friends). And that is good enough for me!

[Quantess]

40. I disagree. Herbal remedies are not to be pooo-pooh'd.

Many common COMMERCIAL pharmaceuticals are derived from natural sources. Did you not know that before posting, or are you just ignorant?

[spoony]

42. I do wonder when I see their disclaimers

They always say--I assume they are legally bound to say--that "these statements have not been evaluated by the FDA" and that the products aren't meant to treat or cure any disease, and they have those little words at the bottom of the screen even though they're implicitly, and sometimes explicitly, saying "use this to treat xyz".

[2peaches2]

96. YES

the government says all supplements have to have that writing on it. It doesn't mean it doesn't work. I have used homeopathics on my dogs for years and they did great. Every condition cleared up quickly.

[Fleshdancer]

44. When health care isn't affordable, it's easy to believe the BS

Of course people want to believe that smearing crap on their head will cure them. It's cheaper than health care for those who don't have it, and cheaper than the co-pays for those who do. Desperation will almost always trump logic and common sense.

[Quantess]

45. I LOVE CORPORATE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES!

Edit to ask: Does Originalpckelly mean: Original Pharmaceutical Corporation Kelley?

[MonkeyFunk]

61. Please explain

how your objection to the pharmaceutical industry is evidence that homeopathy is effective.

[Iggo]

46. Who you callin' "we", Kimosabe? (n/t)

[Quantess]

50. originalpckelly, now I know who you are.

It's okay. Money is everything.

[mr blur]

53. There's no such thing as Alternative Medicine -

If a treatment is scientifically tested and proven to be effective and beneficial, then it's Medicine. If it fails that, then it's not medicine of any kind and is just Woo/garbage.

[nuxvomica]

58. Head On has worked for me sometimes but not homeopathically

I tried it once out of curiosity and it helped reduce the pain of my headache though it didn't remove it completely. I noticed a cooling sensation in the area it was applied and I think that's because of the menthol so I figure it'll probably work on any headache that is susceptible to treatment by an ice cube. According to the homeopaths I've worked with in the past, menthol should antidote most remedies, especially vegetable remedies like the white bryony the manufacturer claims as an "active ingredient."

[Fox Mulder]

59. So we should trust big pharmacy companies, huh?

:eyes:

[MonkeyFunk]

63. That's the only alternative?

Every time this subject comes up, people chime in with their complaints about "big pharma", as if that somehow proves the efficacy of homeopathy.

It's ridiculous. Can't there be legitimate complaints about the business of pharmaceuticals, and simultaneously, homeopathy is horse crap?

[Nevernose]

67. Supplement Marketers Indicted -- Big (Alternate) Pharma

Supplement Marketers Indicted:
Internet Businesses Generated over $16 Million
with False Claims to Prevent, Treat Diseases
News Release, United States Attorney
Western District of Missouri
February 28, 2008

John F. Wood, United States Attorney for the Western District of Missouri, announced today that two Springfield, Mo., business owners, along with their local companies and their business associates located in Michigan, have been indicted by a federal grand jury for fraudulently marketing several dietary supplements over the Internet with illegal claims that these supplements could prevent, treat or cure a number of diseases. The Springfield businesses sold the products to a Michigan business, which used several Web sites to sell more than $16 million worth of the products in 2005 and 2006.

...
According to the indictment, Thao and Lor, through their Springfield business, Medycinex, Inc., supplied millions of dollars worth of dietary supplements to Pham and his business, Techmedica. Pham sold more than$16.6 million worth of those products in 2005 and 2006, using several different Web sites. Pham distributed some of the supplements to Shua Vang and his business, Naturocare. Naturocare also sold products over the Internet, with sales totaling $12,287.

Under federal law, a dietary supplement may not claim to treat, cure or prevent a specific disease or class of diseases. The indictment alleges the defendants claimed that six products listed in the indictment, which were sold over the Internet, had been proven reliable through clinical testing for the treatment and prevention of diabetes, irritable bowel syndrome, gout, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, heartburn and diarrhea. The indictment alleges that, in reality, no clinical testing had been performed. The dietary supplements that were allegedly marketed as unapproved new drugs and misbranded drugs included Diabeticine (later renamed Diamaxol, and also known as Glucolex), Digestrol (also known as Digesticine), Uricinex (also known as Uricaid), Cholestasys Rx (later renamed Cholestasys), Hyperexol and Prolipamy.

Several Web sites used by Techmedica allegedly contained materially false testimonials, product information, and identification of medical professionals.

The indictment says that Techmedica fabricated fraudulent customer identities using photographs purchased from Istockphoto.com. Testimonials attributed to these fraudulent identities touted the effectiveness of the unapproved new drugs and misbranded drugs. The indictment alleges that Techmedica and Shua Vang (through Naturocare) also posted one of the Istockphoto.com photographs on their Web sites to fabricate a non-existent physician, Dr. Judy Hamilton, for the purpose of lending authenticity to and endorsing product claims about Diabeticine for customers with Type I and Type II diabetes and to endorse Thao. The person identified as Dr. Hamilton was in fact a model from California. This same model's photograph was also used by Pham on another Web site to fabricate a non-existent nurse, the indictment says, Bethany Hunt, RN, to tout the effectiveness of the unapproved new drugs and misbranded drugs.

According to the indictment, Thao’s photograph and credentials were posted on the Techmedica and Naturocare Web sites with claims that Thao was a board-certified naturopathic physician and chief cellular researcher for Techmedica. In fact, the indictment says, none of the institutions from which Thao claimed to have received medical training are accredited institutions of higher education.
...

(More at http://www.quackwatch.org/02ConsumerProtection/FDAActions/thao.html)

The "alternative medicine market is just as big -- and far more corrupt -- than the mainstream pharmaceutical industry.

[BuddhaGirl]

107. quackwatch.org is hardly a reputable site

that guy is a nutcase

[Nevernose]

113. It was a press release from the DoJ

Quackwatch.org was just the easiest place to find it (I'd coincidentally been reading the article just yesterday). He does post the pdf of the actual case filing at an affiliate site, if your interested in reading the charges themselves: http://www.casewatch.org/doj/thao/indictment.pdf

Calling him a nutcase or disreputable doesn't invalidate his claims. He's just a medical doctor who thinks that scientific claims should be vetted scietifically. A medical doctor who got sick and tired of watching charlatans rip people off. Of watching good-intentioned, otherwise-intelligent people buying into malarkey and hokum because they wouldn't know what a logical fallacy was if it jumped up and bit them on the ass.

And he's apparently got a lot of free time :).

[NNN0LHI]

72. No purchase some voodoo trinkets from West Africa and pray over them when you get sick

The benefit is the same as the different flavors of snake oil people are peddling around here.

Don

[DramaOnHwy61]

84. last time I checked, health care isn't an either-or game ...

like a football game, or the presidential primaries.
For some conditions, nothing tops big Pharma.
For some others, homeopathy works amazingly well.
For some others still, a beer works miracles.

[JanMichael]

62. It's even more amazing that so many Americans pour trash

like high fructose corn syrup down their throats several times a day, swallow drugs that come straight from China, and still consider themselves wayyy more intelligent than people that are willing to try alternatives.

Mind boggling, really.

[cephalexin]

69. It has been known for decades that chickenshit is a cure for chapped lips.

;-)

[DramaOnHwy61]

86. agreed. DU can be painful in that respect ...

As said in another post, it seems most Americans proudly keep insisting on their right to live under a rock. :)

[blondeatlast]

68. An "evil" synthesized pharmaceutical has kept me alive for almost 40 years.

I'll "take my chances" with science, thank you very much--but you'd be astonished at some of the "cures" I've been offered by the naturo/homeopathic/herbalist zealots.

[NNN0LHI]

71. Man you have taken a lot of grief over this snake oil originalpckelly

If I would have known we had so many people "invested" in this kind of bullshit I would have started a thread about it long ago. Good to weed out the nutcases early as possible.

Reminds me of the bird flu scare I took a lot of grief over that.

:rofl:

:hi:

Don

[annabanana]

77. true that.. I just assumed that this head-on and it's cousins were mostly

mentholated something or other with a "heal-ish" smell...

[ZombieHorde]

80. Marijuana is herbal medicine, and that works great for nausea.

[BuddhaGirl]

108. great point!

:thumbsup:

[kimmerspixelated]

87. Sure- there's crap out there!

But Gee, I don't think anyone has ever died from something like Head-On, do you??

Head-On and things like that- anything you see advertised on tv is mostly crap-period!

Do some research, first!!!

But any Naturopath, is going to try to solve a problem by going to it's root, to see what the patient might be deficient in, and go from there- sort of like figuring out why your engine is running slow-, instead of just giving it something to rev it up/ or otherwise treat just a symptom. Why someone wants to knowingly put chemicals in their body instead of really looking at the genuine cause of a malady is a bit like putting out weedeater poisons on your lawn-sure you git rid of the dandelions, but now your well- water will be suspect!

[Posteritatis]

88. Head-On? No. Vitamin C "therapy" for cancer? Yes.

And, not that the fact will convince most people who buy into the dichotomy, "herbal" "medicine" consists entirely of "chemicals," just like every other vaguely biological anything on the damned planet. There is no malign substance - let's call it Unnaturalium - that exists in some things but not others which abruptly makes them bad just because they aren't pulled directly from tree bark or composed entirely of it-works-if-you-think-it-works woo.

(Of course, by saying that I'm clearly outing myself as someone who obviously has an unconditional, uncritical love of Big Pharma. That's bullshit too, but don't let that stop people from claiming it in these sorts of discussions.)

[varelse]

89. What is "Head On"?

I work for a supplement manufacturer/distributor, and I've never heard of the stuff. What is it, and what claims do the distributors make for it?

[Posteritatis]

95. Check Youtube for the ads. They're, uh, special. (nt)

[Crunchy Frog]

91. I'm not going to get the vapors over somebody using a harmless placebo

to treat their headache. Is this really the biggest thing you've got to worry about?

[Lone_Star_Dem]

92. My take on the (re)emergence of herbal medicines

One reason is due to the cost of pharmaceuticals and a doctors visit. Both of which are becoming prohibitive for more and more people. Which in turn leads people to try and self-diagnose and self-medicate more. In such cases herbals are often an affordable option. I know people who grow their own herbs for this very reason. If they're getting some benefit from the herbs rather than none from no treatment I can't really say I blame them.

The other is more people are shying away from pharmaceuticals because they're not preforming as advertised/predicted for them. Another aspect of this is people being afraid of the side effects related to their prescribed pharmaceutical.

In regards to side effects, I think more herbals should be required to list potential risks and side effects. Many of them do have certain risk associated with their uses.

[uppityperson]

93. What categories are these...?....

Not the dots, these...
1) If I have a fever from a virus, I can take aspirin/tylenol/etc to bring it down, or I prefer to bundle up and raise my temp since my body is raising my temp to kill off the virus. Help my body do what it is trying to do is...what?

2) I had a naturopathic doctor who wanted to sell me vials of water which had been hooked to something that was hooked to his computer and made them energized in certain ways to help me get rid of my allergies. I declined, but this is...what?

The first I call sound science/medicine, the second quackery/desiring of money, but are those homeopathic, or what?

I have had people try to sell me massage oil that has been "chanted over by a shaman", but have refused, telling them I am capable of doing my own chanting thank you very much (keeping tight grasp on my money). Of course, I'm also supposed to "recharge" the rocks I heat and use for massages by the light of the full moon, which I don't do. I use hot packs, but ones that are not simply rinsed, "recharged" and placed on the second person (Have you never heard of skin fungus you people!!).

Uppity, pragmatic, cynical.

[DramaOnHwy61]

100. none of those are homeopathy.

Here's a good start on the subject http://www.demystify.com/

[pitohui]

98. i don't know what "head on" is but i know when you have no choice you have no choice

there are millions of un- and under -insured in this country, i used to be one of them

i had no access to high tech medical care or Rx medicines, therefore i had no option but to buy the BS and hope it helped me

i agree that homeopathy is worthless, a few herbs did help me tho and were certainly better than my alternative, which was to suffer without hope or relief

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

101. I tried some wild Mediterranean oregano oil capsules from the health food store

and I have to say that it worked in getting rid of my urinary tract infection and it did it within about 3 days. I don't know enough about it to recommend it to anyone for their particular need, but in my case I was very impressed. I couldn't get a quick doctor's appointment (about a one week wait to get in) to get prescription medication and I looked on the Internet for herbal remedies for my problem.

[hokies4ever]

102. You don't know what you're talking about. Let me educate you:

"Herbal medicines" merely refer to the fact that the active ingredient may not be known in that remedy. We're used to thinking about drugs as being a pure dose of an active ingredient to treat whatever the health problem is. Herbal medicines normally contain some kind of active ingredient along with other things that have nothing to do with curing the disease. Herbal medicines normally haven't been scientifically proven, but that doesn't mean that they can't be effective. Just because something hasn't been proven to work doesn't mean that it can't work.

This points to a specific difference between academic scientists and real life doctors. Academic scientists want to know how and why a medicine works. Doctors instead focus on curing the patient. People espousing herbal remedies aren't very interested in how the medicine works, they care about getting it to people who need it for a cure.

[DramaOnHwy61]

104. actually this thread is more about homeopathy...

than herbal medicine, but your contributions is, at least, a constructive one :)

[siligut]

105. I know of some herbal remedies you shouldn’t trust.

This is too funny not to share! Onelife Health Products INC changed their name to Crown Oil and Gas, this is an herbal product company, and the stock went up after the name change. Now this is one herbal company that I wouldn’t trust.

[ZombieHorde]

109. Doesn't this depend on an honest FDA?

If bush pressured NASA to hide global warming, might they cover up other things as well?

I am not familiar with Head On, so my post has nothing to do with that product. My post is only about the FDA.

[Matariki]

122. *believing* in science means you don't understand science.

[Runcible Spoon]

125. yes, exactly!

a very brief and concise summary of my points below.

[eShirl]

123. I just don't want to patronize the Pharmaceutical Industrial Complex if i don't have to

sometimes herbs are enough, sometimes not

[Runcible Spoon]

124. I put the Tiger Balm on a sore muscle, the pain goes away. I don't need a $30 mil. big pharma trial

to prove that, and I don't fucking need big pharma to patent menthol and camphor in order for it to work.

Ever since humankind figured out this plant will kill you and that plant makes your tummy feel better, there has been an evolutionary process of "peer review" in medicine. Maybe not ALL "ancient Chinese secret" cure cancer and yes there is a degree of placebo effect but if you're gonna sit there and tell me that isn't the same as or even less sinister as doctors shoving antibiotics down the throats of people every day when they: A. don't really know what's wrong with the patient or B. know what's wrong and there isn't a drug that will help, just so the patient feels something has been "done" for their sickness, then you are batshit fucking crazy. And I really don't feel I need a peer-reviewed journal to say that.

Those of us who have worked in academia know what a fucking racket the vast majority of peer review becomes when big corporate money enters the picture. The entire spirit of debate over teh veracity of claims made becomes entirely overshadowed by the sheer amount of BRIBES, YES they are BRIBES, doctors and researchers receive to push drugs and treatments.

I don't have my head stuck up some Hopi medicine man's ass and I don't have it stuck up Big Pharma's either. There is something to be said for knowing where a product comes from, who says it works and their motivation for saying WHY it works. I'll take an herbal treatment that in all likelihood won't harm me and might help me over a pricey antidepressant with dependancy risks and a host of side effects. Well, ok I will most likely just go smoke a joint.

Sometimes "scientific" dogmatism is as bad as religious fundamentalism; dogmatism refutes the very spirit of scientific research to begin with.

[Th1onein]

127. I absolutely agree.

I have studied for years and years, and taught people to think like scientists, and still I am met with idiocy. It's absolutely amazing.