Which one is more scientific: Allopathy or Homeopathy?

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

In allopathy, new medicines (sources are mostly chemical/synthetic) are constantly being created, tested in test-tubes, sick persons, or animals (rats), and going in and out of market every few years once their side effects become obvious to the general public. How many allopathic drugs of yesterday can be found on the chemists' shelves today? They all had their day, and their alluring names have faded into oblivion (because they are declared ineffective or dangerous), only to be replaced by newer drugs.

 

Homeopathic medicines (prepared from many natural substances such as herbs and minerals) used in the times of Dr. S. Hahnemann (200 yrs back) are used even today because of their efficacy. They have been tried and tested on healthy human beings. They are known, trusted, and reliable.

[freeztar]

It's hard to have side effects when all you are doing is drinking water.

 

To answer your question, allopathy is more scientific imo.

[Michaelangelica]

I think both have problems.

 

As your post suggests many treatment decisions are based on the prejudices of the therapist rather than science. Very little surgery is double-blind-tested for efficacy.

 

Although modern medicine is trying to move toward science based interventions; Homoeopathy is not.

 

We also have a major problem in the West with drug company multinationals taking over the scientific agenda due to their immense lobbing and financial power.

[Moontanman]

I would like to ask this question of anyone who has experience in this area. If you had or had a patient with say tuberculosis, pneumonia, toxic shock, meningitis, or anything serious enough to kill would you use homeopathy or allopathy treatments? If a patient didn't respond to Homeopathy would you continue to try with another homeopathy treatment or change to antibiotics? Serious question......

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

I think both have problems.

 

As your post suggests many treatment decisions are based on the prejudices of the therapist rather than science. Very little surgery is double-blind-tested for efficacy.

 

Although modern medicine is trying to move toward science based interventions; Homoeopathy is not.

 

We also have a major problem in the West with drug company multinationals taking over the scientific agenda due to their immense lobbing and financial power.

 

I agree with Michaelangelica. The physicians have their no individual standing. They are run by big pharmaceutical companies. The company decides which medicine has to be given to the patient and which brand, not the physicians. They are afraid of losing their share of the million dollars industry

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

I would like to ask this question of anyone who has experience in this area. If you had or had a patient with say tuberculosis, pneumonia, toxic shock, meningitis, or anything serious enough to kill would you use homeopathy or allopathy treatments? If a patient didn't respond to Homeopathy would you continue to try with another homeopathy treatment or change to antibiotics? Serious question......

 

If a disease condition can be cured in a gentler manner (homeopathy), why not? WHy to subject your body to torture by giving so high material/crude doses. Our body is a temple. If it can not be cured by homeopathy, one should always resort to conventional medicine.

[Galapagos]

If a disease condition can be cured in a gentler manner (homeopathy), why not? WHy to subject your body to torture by giving so high material/crude doses. Our body is a temple. If it can not be cured by homeopathy, one should always resort to conventional medicine.

 

When can a disease be cured by homeopathy? As in, do you have any specific peer-reviewed/published studies demonstrating this, and indicating via what specific biological mechanism curing or healing is taking place?

If you can't provide the above evidence, then homeopathy is as effective as voodoo, holy blessings, and magical spells, and probably shouldn't be prescribed treatment by a responsible or honest doctor.

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

When can a disease be cured by homeopathy? As in, do you have any specific peer-reviewed/published studies demonstrating this, and indicating via what specific biological mechanism curing or healing is taking place?

If you can't provide the above evidence, then homeopathy is as effective as voodoo, holy blessings, and magical spells, and probably shouldn't be prescribed treatment by a responsible or honest doctor.

 

total of 7 links to studies is shown in the thread "The quackery of homeopathy"

[Galapagos]

total of 7 links to studies is shown in the thread "The quackery of homeopathy"

 

Yes, I'm aware of the fact that you spammed a great many links in that thread, and most of them appeared to be spurious or unscientific. Could you please either bring up in that thread, or post here, the reviewed/published studies you are claiming to demonstrate the efficacy of homeopathy, and please highlight the specific biological mechanism by which they are working.

 

The consensus in the scientific and medical communities seems to be contrary to what you are suggesting:

Homeopathy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While homeopathy advocates point to effects of compounds diluted almost out of existence[7][8], claims for efficacy of homeopathic treatment beyond the placebo effect are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical evidence.[9][10][11][12] Common homeopathic preparations are diluted beyond the point where there is any likelihood that molecules from the original solution are present in the final product; the claim that these treatments still have any pharmacological effect is thus scientifically implausible[13][14] and violates fundamental principles of science,[15] including the law of mass action.[15]. Critics also object that the number of high-quality studies that support homeopathy is small, the conclusions are not definitive, and duplication of the results, a key test of scientific validity, has proven problematic at best.[16] The lack of convincing scientific evidence supporting its efficacy[17] and its use of remedies without active ingredients have caused homeopathy to be regarded as pseudoscience;[18] quackery;[19][20][21] or, in the words of a 1998 medical review, "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst."[22]

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

Yes, I'm aware of the fact that you spammed a great many links in that thread, and most of them appeared to be spurious or unscientific. Could you please either bring up in that thread, or post here, the reviewed/published studies you are claiming to demonstrate the efficacy of homeopathy, and please highlight the specific biological mechanism by which they are working.

 

The consensus in the scientific and medical communities seems to be contrary to what you are suggesting:

Homeopathy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

I have not spammed. I have been asked by fellow members of the thread to provide the links, then only I have posted them.

 

Now, do you want me to reproduce the studies again in this thread? Please tell.

[InfiniteNow]

Now, do you want me to reproduce the studies again in this thread? Please tell.

 

That's not really necessary. The studies which you've shown have been laden with methodological fault and do not support your position. This has already been demonstrated in the Quackery of Homeopathy thread.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/medical-science/15280-quackery-homeopathy.html

 

 

Now, do you want me to reproduce the data which debunks those studies again in this thread? Please tell.

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

A study of 75 children with otitis media that was published in Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, parent’s diary scores showed a significant decrease in symptoms at 24 and 64 hours after treatment in favor of those given a homeopathic medicine (P<.05). There were also 20% less "treatment failures" in children given a homeopathic medicine as compared with those given a placebo.

 

[Reference: J Jacobs, DA Springer, D Crothers, Homeopathic Treatment of Acute Otitis Media in Children: A Preliminary Randomized Placebo-controlled Trial, Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, 20,2 (February 2001):177-183.}

[modest]

From the abstract of the above paper:

 

Conclusions. These results suggest that a positive treatment effect of homeopathy when compared with placebo in acute otitis media cannot be excluded and that a larger study is justified.

 

Homeopathic treatment of acute otitis media in children

 

It rather says the deference between placebo and Homeopathy is "not statistically significant".

 

~modest

[InfiniteNow]

It even, by saying that larger studies are needed, states implicitly that no valid conclusions can be drawn from this one paper.

 

 

 

Nancy - Are you familiar with the term "grasping at straws?"

[Tormod]

The physicians have their no individual standing. They are run by big pharmaceutical companies. The company decides which medicine has to be given to the patient and which brand, not the physicians.

 

This is a very strong claim and I'd like to see what you base this on. Since I have seen doctors all my life due to chronic asthma and allergies, I am quite used to talking to doctors and discussing my medical needs with them.

 

In the 1970s I was a guinea pig in drug testing for new medicines against asthma, which turned out to be wildly successful. They let asthmatic people lead relatively normal lives.

 

As far as I know, homoeopathy has little effect against asthma, even though there are claims that it can cure asthma within a week. I have yet to read about such a miracle in a serious journal...

 

Yes, the pharmaceutical industry is a gigantic money machine. But that doesn't validate the claims on homeopathy.

[questor]

Dr. Nancy, what is your degree? I have never seen double blind studies

proving the efficacy of homeopathic remedies. Most of the claims are based totally on empirical observation. Allopathic treatment is superior for accidents or infections, much less so for nutritional or genetic diseases. This will change as genetic therapy becomes more sophisticated.

[enorbet2]

On the surface the question posed by the subject of this thread is merely an exercise in futility something like asking "Which will circle the Earth faster, the SR-71 or Santa Claus?" since only one of them actually exists. I frankly do not understand why the issue of homeopathy continues to be discussed, let alone allowed in the market place like Dr. Frank's particular brand of snake oil. Can anybody name a single chemical reaction that benefits from diluting with water to even one part in one thousand let alone one part in billions? Presently there are rivers that are reputed to contain more parts per million of numerous drugs than that in homeopathic "preparations" to no apparent effect. What could possibly be more cynical, silly and money-grubbing than formulating some mystical sales pitch intended to convince desperate people to pay more for less. If anyone actually believes in this nonsense I suggest the next time you go to the dentist, say to have a root canal or a wisdom tooth removed, ask the dentist to dilute the novocaine to one part in a billion and prescribe one millionth of a pain pill dissolved in a gallon of water for post-operative pain.

 

It's bad enough that this quackery is an affront to science (even to intelligence and logic) while it actually attempts to be validated by science when that is utterly impossible, but worse it violates the Hippocratic Oath which at it's most fundamental says "First, do no harm" while it clearly causes harm, even death, in people who postpone or even eschew altogether, properly tested and proven treatments. Furthermore, it adds to the general confusion and distrust that keeps a large portion of humanity in the Dark Ages.

 

I fully comprehend and personally feel the frustration that exists with modern health care especially as it exists in the insurance and pharmaceutical company driven system in the USA (what? are we now 37th in the world, just behind Slovenia?) and I do believe it is likely to get worse before it gets better, much to our chagrin and shame, but I am absolutely certain that giving any kind of foothold, let alone efficacy, to such utter voodoo as homeopathy is continuing in a very wrong direction, harming thousands if not millions of people who deserve more than smoke and mirrors.

 

It is not my intent to disparage any individual who may simply be duped by such a sales pitch honed over the centuries of faith healing, but it is my intent to treat such a concept with the same disdain I have for Ouija boards and sceances. At least those don't pretend to heal disease and flirt with harm by pretending to be a valid competitor to medicine, let alone physical law.