Anyone in for homeopathy?

Homeopathy is major BS. No doubt about it. Basically, if its principles were true, dropping one drop of beer in the ocean would cure all the alcoholics of the world. Yeah, right!

At best, it's nothing more than a placebo.

I'm not.
My idea is: if you want to stop a tsunami(a disease) you have to build a strong, huge concrete wall(a medication), a pebble(a dilution of a dilution?) will have little effect.

I don't believe homeopathy has a place in modern medicine. When you're sick enough that medication is necessary, it's not a matter of activating the "healing system" of your body. It's about augmenting it with chemical agents that will more specifically attack the cause of the illness.

Agreed that homeopathy is largely crap. If you take the stuff that's been proven both through the ages and through science to be effective (honey, garlic, etc...), the collection of "remedies" drops to a fraction and only covers what we'd consider to be minor illnesses and traumas.

Better yet, a number of homeopathic remedies have been shown to have worse side effects and complications than the corresponding pharmeceudicals while also being less effective (if effective at all).

I'm very cautious when someone recommends a "natural" remedy.

homeopathy is a placebo. It is that simple and I'm saddened that so many experiments have been done to prove this because it is simple logic. We understand chemistry and you can calculate that most placebo pills contain zero molecules of active ingredient and the whole 'water-memory' thing is obviously absolute crock because if water had memory it would remember all the thousand of animals that have pissed it out over the billions of years it has been on Earth not the supposed healing properties of some herbal thing it was next to for a few minutes.

If we're spend thousands or millions of dollars disproving alternative medicine at least start with stuff that has a miniscule chance of being correct (eg. naturopathy/herbal supplements) rather than homeopathy which was never going to work.

At best, it's nothing more than a placebo.

And at worst it can prevent people from choosing legitimate and possibly life-saving treatment. Also, it takes valuable public health dollars out of the system. Correct me if I am wrong but I believe homeopathy has been officially endorsed by Prince Charles and that some public health money in Great Britain goes toward homeopathy.

I highly recommend the book Trick or Treatment - Alternative Medicine on Trial by Professor Edzard Ernst and Dr. Simon Singh. The books draws heavily on studies by The Cochrane Collaboration. From their website

Cochrane is a global independent network of health practitioners, researchers, patient advocates and others, responding to the challenge of making the vast amounts of evidence generated through research useful for informing decisions about health. We are a not-for-profit organisation with collaborators from over 120 countries working together to produce credible, accessible health information that is free from commercial sponsorship and other conflicts of interest.

As long as we are on the topic of pseudo-science, I want to mention the term "Gish Gallop". It was named after Duane Gish who was an American biochemist, a former vice-president of the Institute for Creation Research and the author of numerous publications about creation science. The Gish Gallop consists of spewing so much bullshit at your opponents that they spend all of their time trying to refute your claims and have no time left over to make their own case. Generally, in the shuffle, no one is supposed to notice that you have provided no evidence to substantiate your claims. This technique is highly effective in politics as well.

Any pro?
Or don't you dare to answer?

Further on the Cochrane Collaboration, their reviews generally contain a PEARLS section (Practical Evidence About Real Life Situations) which gives a short summary, often including something like

Caveat

Selective reporting of outcomes, adverse events and inclusion of people with cardiovascular disease in many of the trials included in previous reviews of the role of statins in primary prevention make the evidence impossible to disentangle without individual patient data. Caution also needs to be taken regarding the fact that all but 1 of the trials had some form of pharmaceutical industry sponsorship. Overall, the populations sampled within this review were white, male and middle-aged. Therefore, caution needs to be taken regarding generalisability to older people who may be at greater risk of side effects, and to women who are at lower risk of CVD events.

They do not do any primiary studies of their own. What they actually do is review all available studies ini different areas and try to determine what legitimate conclusions (if any) can be drawn. As you can see above, they will point out where studies are possibly flawed or biased (either intentionally or unintentionally).

I remember the mass homeopathic overdoses from a few years back. And although the NHS provides homeopathy, you can just feel their disdain for it in their own site.

The homeopathic overdoses do little to sway the 'believers' since they generally consider the fact that you can't overdose a plus and it just further supports the creed that conventional medicine is dangerous while homeopathic 'treatments' are safe.

Also just claiming they do nothing is problematic as well because the placebo effect is real and can be substantial. In fact several surgical procedures are actually just placebos as well: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-h-newman-md/placebo-surgery_b_4545071.html , http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110810/full/476142a.html

Homeopathy is akin to astrology, but more dangerous. The dangers come from convincing the patient that they do not need conventional medicines, which can lead to a worsening of their condition or even death. I would bundle chiropractors in with these shamanic idiots. My brother in law was recently told by his chiropractor to stop taking his blood pressure medication. Like an idiot (or more of an idiot than seeing one in the first place), he did as bid. Needless to say he fell ill within a week and nearly died. Lukily he went to see his doctor, who saved his life.
I am constanly amazed at our readiness to believe in bullshit, be it religious, homeopathic or from phishing. Maybe it's Darwinian and these guys are, in some perverse way, helping us to weed the garden. Stupidity should lead to extinction. Heh heh.

Homeopathy is akin to astrology, but more dangerous.

When you consider Presiden Reagan consulted an astrologist in order to help make important decisions I have to wonder.

helping us to weed the garden

Lately I've been in favour of removing almost all warning labels from things. I think that warning labels advising against standing on the very top step of a ladder are completely unnecessary. Likewise with warnings advising "wearing this Superman suit does not enable the user to fly", or labels on hammers stating "not for internal use". I think the sooner we can weed out the people whom these labels are protecting the better (preferably before they reproduce). I refer you to the first 15 minutes of Idiocracy.

I think that warning labels advising against standing on the very top step of a ladder are completely unnecessary.

Or the warning that the package may contain nuts on a bag of nuts. Sadly, the presence of those warnings means there was a lawsuit at some point to justify the warning. So people really are that stupid.

many (not all) homeopathic products would work, IF they'd not been diluted to homeopathic dilutions but provided in more concentrated form...

And that's the sad reality of homeopathy.

many (not all) homeopathic products would work

Few herbal remedies and/or dietary supplements have been shown to have the claimed medicinal effects, which is why they are still sold as 'supplements' (legally supplements just have to be safe to eat) and cannot claim to 'treat' any specific conditions ('help', 'promote', 'aid', 'support' do not require proof of efficacity).

the package may contain nuts on a bag of nuts.

That's just typical of the state we find ourselves in due to our litigious society as you mention and the Health and Safety SS. I remember filling out COSHH (control of substances hazardous to health) forms when I worked in a pharmacology lab and one that I came across was for water. It said that spillages should be mopped up, yes you guessed it, with plenty of water.

It's a shame that litigation seems to be directed at medicine and rational treatment, but seems to leave the protected domain of chiropractice, aromatherapy, Toronto blessings, crystal healing and all that guff, well alone.

As a species we are doomed to become extinct before our time since the majority out there are so stupid that they purposely elect even more stupid people to govern us. Wisdom is to be feared, Dog forbid that a rational person were to lead a modern country. Sorry, minor rant coming on.

the package may contain nuts on a bag of nuts.

I remember filling out COSHH (control of substances hazardous to health) forms when I worked in a pharmacology lab and one that I came across was for water.

What is easier: have extra unnecessary labels & documents or adding myriad exceptions to the work place safety and food labelling laws?

I would rather have these redundant warnings & safety information than have safety laws full of loopholes.

(PS more people are hospitalized by an over-consumption of water than dehydration during marathons so perhaps the warnings are not as ridiculous as they appear)

What is easier: have extra unnecessary labels & documents or adding myriad exceptions to the work place safety and food labelling laws?

Does it have to be either or? In their place, of course they're important, but when not, they can be misleading. A whole industry has been built around this guff. If somebody decides to swallow a hammer because they didn't realise it wasn't for internal use, then I doubt a label telling them so would make much difference.

Let's be clear - a warning label on a bag of peanuts stating "may contain nuts" is one thing (it's redundant and stupid); a warning label stating a product was made with peanut oil is something else entirely. I'm not saying all warning labels are stupid and should be removed. Just the ones that would be obvious to anyone with more than three brain cells.

Getting back on the topic of homeopathy, if people were given even the most rudimentary education in science they would be able to see that homeopathy is nothing but nonsense. Unfortunately, much of what passes for science education consists of rote memorization. What must first be taught is the scientific method and skills in analysis and critical thinking. Students must be taught to be skeptical and to question rather than to blindly accept without reasonable proof. Is it reasonable to assume that water can be imprinted with the memory of the substance it contained? Then what is this mechanism and if shaking the water is the method then why isn't all the water we flush down the toilet imprinted with the memory of what it is flushing?

Students must be taught to be skeptical and to question rather than to blindly accept without reasonable proof.

Nail on the head!
But how many come here and are at DaniWeb, just asking for code, not how it works? Is it their fault or education's? Reciting a math formula or a psalm from the bible seems to be more important than what the formula or verse mean.

Students must be taught to be skeptical and to question rather than to blindly accept without reasonable proof.

I agree but it is unreasonable to expect people to research the evidence supporting every claim of every product they use. That is one of the reasons why government regulations are necessary -> they entrust the examination and evaluation of evidence to a bunch of experts who then judge whether there is reasonable proof for the claim.

IMO the best approach is to legislate that these products clearly label the amounts of different things in the product (if less than 1 ng of the 'active ingredient' is in it they should be forbidden from putting it on the label) and to force them to clearly state that the product has not been demonstrated to be better than a placebo.

This discussion reminds me of the Geritol fiasco a few years ago (1960s). I remember those Geritol commercials -- it was the cure for almost everything.

Never ever take iron supplements without consulting your doctor! See this info.

it is unreasonable to expect people to research the evidence supporting every claim of every product they use

Let's take all those "miraculous" anti-aging face creams. Anyone with eyes, ears and a TV set (unless they are watching nothing but reality crap and game shows), or an internet connection should be aware that all face creams are basically just a moisturizer and a scent. Even the fancy, $100 an ounce, used by Beyonce creams are just a few cents worth of moisturizer plus a nice smell. Anyone who has been taught critical thinking and analysis can plainly see the difference in lighting between the before (light from above or below to exaggerate wrinkles) and after (direct light to hide wrinkles) shots. Ever notice in the TV makeover shows, the woman is always scowling in the before shot and beaming in the after shot?

And why is it that these creams are always endorsed by some 30-something super model but sold to 50-something women?

It's one thing for a product to claim "eases cold and flu symptoms". You can drop $5 on it and see for yourself. But when a product makes extraordinary claims it requires extraordinary proof.

A while back, a researcher published a famous study linking vaccines with autism. This was an extraordinary claim which should have been subject to peer-review, verification and replication. It was not (at least not for a while). During that time untold numbers of parents withheld vaccines from their children with the expected results. Since then we have found out that the study was funded by an anti-vaccine group with a specific agenda. The study has been completely discredited but is still being touted by the likes of Jenny McCarthy as "proof".

A few months ago a "friend" tried to sell us green (or was it blue) algae pills from a company called Stem-Tech (trying to cash in on the stem-cell bandwagon). I told her to email me any serious studies that have been done to support her claims of its miraculous healing powers. I never heard back even though she claimed there were numerous studies. Ten minutes of my own research got me several serious reports on the Stem-Tech scam.

Homeopathy, magnet therapy, crystallography <edit - apologies for using the wrong term here - I meant the new-age crap> - all complete crap. If you can get it, watch the first few seasons of Penn & Teller's Bullshit.

Crystallography, I think you'll find is a bona fide area of physical chemistry. My old prof (who was an X-ray crystallography nut), would have a screaming fit to hear such blasphemy RJ. Heh heh

Of course, you are correct. I meant the new age crystal whack jobs and used the wrong term. Apologies.

I am disgusted. As I am typing I have the news on and they are reporting about a psychics/mediums fair that is in town this weekend. They reported the event without adding that there is no scientific evidence to support the claims of either psychics or mediums.

Homeopathy and the followers thereof (homeopathetics ?) serve a semi useful purpose.
Their early death helps remove the lower IQ strata, generally improving the species.
Hopefully they don't get a chance to breed.

The other question,
How come the psychics on the live tv show dont say hello to me as I click through looking for something interesting

Why is it you never see the headline "Psychic Wins Lottery"?