Once Again, Scientists Conclude That There's No Evidence That Homeopathy Works

Then doctors will revert to ointments again. A lot of people come to doctors and heal if they get attention and a pill to believe in. Mint stuff also does not make you breathe easier. It stimulates cold receptors that make you think there is colder air which has more oxygen. You would have to take off a lot. Sure education is better. But it soothes the mental pain with less side effects than receptor blockers.

Theyd need to send half their morning patients home. They become scribes for work exemptions. At least the general physicians here. Theres little more left they can do but send people home or to specialists.

Best
Kc

Adi wrote:

MadHatter wrote: People should be able to put what they want into their bodies.

It's not just their bodies .

"instead of relying on natural remedies such as ginger root, olive leaf extract and water with maple syrup" <-- Has nothing to do with Homeopathy and all to do with Idiots not doing their research. Syrup and olive leaf extract....omg....*Facepaw*

MadHatter wrote: Mostly my comment was we should not ban things simply because people might do stupid stuff with them. If people want to ignore doctors and not research facts before trusting something as medicine that really is on their own head.

That I will agree with. We just need to teach people to think for themselves and not follow fads or trends that have been proven not to work or haven't been proven to work when there are other things out there that have been proven to work. And that anecdotal evidence doesn't out weigh scientific studies. You're one friend who said this works doesn't beat out years of scientific research.

I agree that it shouldn't be banned. But I think they should be regulated (as should all supplements), and restrictions placed on what claims can be made about their efficacy.

Also, they should not be prescribed by doctors.

Wouldn't homeopathy at least qualify as a myth?

Best
Kc

Adi wrote:

MadHatter wrote: People should be able to put what they want into their bodies.

It's not just their bodies .

There are already laws for negligence that is a nonissue.

Goken wrote:

MadHatter wrote: Mostly my comment was we should not ban things simply because people might do stupid stuff with them. If people want to ignore doctors and not research facts before trusting something as medicine that really is on their own head.

That I will agree with. We just need to teach people to think for themselves and not follow fads or trends that have been proven not to work or haven't been proven to work when there are other things out there that have been proven to work. And that anecdotal evidence doesn't out weigh scientific studies. You're one friend who said this works doesn't beat out years of scientific research.

Education is key like it is with most things in life.

Miss_Leah wrote: I agree that it shouldn't be banned. But I think they should be regulated (as should all supplements), and restrictions placed on what claims can be made about their efficacy.

Also, they should not be prescribed by doctors.

What do you mean by regulated? What level are you suggesting. As for not being prescribed by doctors well what about for people demanding antibiotics for a common cold? Doctors giving people those for colds which they do nothing for any how is breeding super bugs. So what about cases where time and rest are the true answer but the patient insists on something?
Also what about things like a doc telling me to take fish oil due to a family history of high blood pressure and high cholesterol. From what I can find it may or may not help but it cant hurt and thus my believing it may help may indeed help reduce blood pressure due to me being more relaxed that im taking something to boost the effects of a better diet and working out?Sure its not homeopathy but its similar in that its not " medicine" persay. There are a lot of things out there that might help and regulating them as with anything taken over by the government will always much them up.

MadHatter wrote:

Miss_Leah wrote: I agree that it shouldn't be banned. But I think they should be regulated (as should all supplements), and restrictions placed on what claims can be made about their efficacy.

Also, they should not be prescribed by doctors.

What do you mean by regulated? What level are you suggesting. As for not being prescribed by doctors well what about for people demanding antibiotics for a common cold? Doctors giving people those for colds which they do nothing for any how is breeding super bugs. So what about cases where time and rest are the true answer but the patient insists on something?
Also what about things like a doc telling me to take fish oil due to a family history of high blood pressure and high cholesterol. From what I can find it may or may not help but it cant hurt and thus my believing it may help may indeed help reduce blood pressure due to me being more relaxed that im taking something to boost the effects of a better diet and working out?Sure its not homeopathy but its similar in that its not " medicine" persay. There are a lot of things out there that might help and regulating them as with anything taken over by the government will always much them up.

I mean that before it's put on the shelves, the content ought to be tested. Vitamin supplements and essential oils often aren't (ie, if you buy a ginkgo biloba supplement, sometimes, there is actually no ginkgo in it). Currently, supplement manufacturers are NOT required to be tested by the FDA.

There is more of a risk of this in homeopathy because it's diluted to an extreme degree. It's unethical to sell people water and call it homeopathic remedy.

And also, regulations should be in place to prevent false claims - example, in Canada, Vitamin C supplements are not allowed to claim on its packaging that it helps prevent or cure the common cold.

If people want to pursue alternative remedies, then they can. But misleading consumers by preying on (or creating) fears of the medical community, or pushing "natural remedies" in place of proven modern medicine, isn't right.

All that being said, I do think that natural holistic medicine has its place, and a lot of modern medication is derived from natural sources. But we have to be smart about it.

Kaccani wrote: Wouldn't homeopathy at least qualify as a myth?

Best
Kc

myths are cultural articulations about the nature of reality and Being

myths are fundamentally true, even if they are not literally true

homeopathy is more like a lie than a myth, or at best, a hyptnotic suggestion

Homeopathy totally works. I used Honey to stop ants from biting me.

Miss_Leah wrote:

MadHatter wrote:

Miss_Leah wrote: I agree that it shouldn't be banned. But I think they should be regulated (as should all supplements), and restrictions placed on what claims can be made about their efficacy.

Also, they should not be prescribed by doctors.

What do you mean by regulated? What level are you suggesting. As for not being prescribed by doctors well what about for people demanding antibiotics for a common cold? Doctors giving people those for colds which they do nothing for any how is breeding super bugs. So what about cases where time and rest are the true answer but the patient insists on something?
Also what about things like a doc telling me to take fish oil due to a family history of high blood pressure and high cholesterol. From what I can find it may or may not help but it cant hurt and thus my believing it may help may indeed help reduce blood pressure due to me being more relaxed that im taking something to boost the effects of a better diet and working out?Sure its not homeopathy but its similar in that its not " medicine" persay. There are a lot of things out there that might help and regulating them as with anything taken over by the government will always much them up.

I mean that before it's put on the shelves, the content ought to be tested. Vitamin supplements and essential oils often aren't (ie, if you buy a ginkgo biloba supplement, sometimes, there is actually no ginkgo in it). Currently, supplement manufacturers are NOT required to be tested by the FDA.

There is more of a risk of this in homeopathy because it's diluted to an extreme degree. It's unethical to sell people water and call it homeopathic remedy.

And also, regulations should be in place to prevent false claims - example, in Canada, Vitamin C supplements are not allowed to claim on its packaging that it helps prevent or cure the common cold.

If people want to pursue alternative remedies, then they can. But misleading consumers by preying on (or creating) fears of the medical community, or pushing "natural remedies" in place of proven modern medicine, isn't right.

All that being said, I do think that natural holistic medicine has its place, and a lot of modern medication is derived from natural sources. But we have to be smart about it.

OK I agree more or less having quality controls etc. However I still have two questions. One is about doctors prescribing such things with little to no medical value as a way to avoid giving patients that are begging for as I said antibiotics for a common cold something to make them go away because really the only remedy was cold and rest.

The second is about the advertisements. Ill give you an example studies show that a teaspoon or two of apple cider vinegar taken about a half an hour before a meal will help regulate against blood sugar spikes which is great for diabetics or prediabetic people why should they not be able to say that? Or do you think they should? Further as to the vitamin c law mentioned well thats odd because vitamin c may actually help reduce the duration of a common cold and would be better to tell people to take then antibiotics which people have been doing and thus creating super bugs. Do you think changing how it was worded would make it better. As instead of saying prevents colds, they say may reduce duration of cold?