Does homoeopathy work or not?

[David Maes]

I wanted to know whether homoeopathy works or not. Of course, I am not a homoeopath or a chemist myself.

So first, I visited a website which was full of professors and scientists in the field of pharmocology and medical science.
There, homoeopathy was labeled as nothing more than pseudoscience.
Homoeopaths are deceivers who try to earn money with something which doesn't work anyway, because the concentration of active product in homoeopathy is so low that you could as well just drink a glass of water.
People should go to real doctors and not waste any time going to homoeopaths.

Next, I asked a chemist.
The relevant chemist said the following...

In homoeopathy, the concentration is not important, what is important is the dynamisation.
And why would the science community be against the homoeopaths?
Well, that's rather simple; each time someone goes to a homeopath, he doesn't go to a scientist, so scientists lose money in that case. That's the reason why scientists are so against homoeopathy.

I visited a website of medical scientists, I talked to chemists...
And they both say the opposite.

Who do I have to believe now?
Is it about money?

And if it is about money, how can I ever know what's the truth?

[David Maes]

That's what I find the hard part; if I want to know something about physics for example, then I can't rely on myself cause I'm not a physicist.

So if I want to know something about physics, then I have to rely on what a physicist says. The only problem is, how can I be sure that this physicist tells me the truth?

I think we will never know.

Science magazines publish their stories in a way that they have more sales.
Well; I have a theory; in life, it's all about the money.
I think no scientist will ever publish anything if he can't earn any money with it.
That's unfortunate, cause this makes those scientists prejudiced, not objective.

For example, when a company is sponsor for a scientist, then I think this scientist will never publish results which count against the company which is his sponsor.

I also think that a science magazine will never publish things which would count against their readers, i.e. the science community. For example if the science community is against homoeopathy, then the science magazine will only publish things which count against the homoeopaths.
And why would the science community be against the homoeopaths?
Well, that's rather simple; each time someone goes to a homeopath, he doesn't go to a scientist, so scientists lose money in that case.

The question is, if someone really wants to know whether homoeopathy works or doesn't work, how can he ever know this in a world where everything is about the money?

[Graybeard]

Articles and manuscripts that have been peer reviewed are usually free from bias. (trial by envy ... lol)

The internet allows you instant access to multiple points of view ... read all sides of an issue and then form your own opinion.

There are no guarantees. In the end, if it concerns your own health your decision is the wisest

cool bananas ... greg

[dolly]

Hello David. Instinctually my initial response is, perhaps; many individuals place their well-being on that of others. An attempt to listen/pay attention to what a person is feeling/experiencing physically, mental or emotionally in many cases enables a person to correct what ails them. There are times when we ingest too much of something, other times too little. Then of course that which we should not.

PEACE dolly

[labelwench]

Hello David,

There are several forms of alternative treatment, of which homeopathy is but one.

IMHO, the true value of homeopathy lies in it's recognition that our health runs deeper than the chemical and biological aspects readily presented.

For maintaining health, personally tend more toward the alternative of naturopathy. For emergency service or the need for serious pain alleviation, the standard medical system is likely the most accessible and effective.

As others have noted, one must do their own research to determine where they desire to place their trust on such a personal matter.
The philosophy of naturopathic practice is often described by six core values.[19] Multiple versions exist in the form of the naturopathic doctor's oath,[20] various mission statements published by schools[21] or professional associations, and ethical conduct guidelines published by regulatory bodies:[22]

First, do no harm; provide the most effective health care available with the least risk to patients at all times (Primum Non Nocere).
Recognize, respect and promote the self-healing power of nature inherent in each individual human being. (Vis Medicatrix Naturae, a form of vitalism[23]).
Identify and remove the causes of illness, rather than eliminate or suppress symptoms (Tolle Causum).
Educate, inspire rational hope and encourage self-responsibility for health (Doctor as Teacher).
Treat each person by considering all individual health factors and influences. (Treat the Whole Person).
Emphasize the condition of health to promote well-being and to prevent diseases for the individual, each community and our world. (Health Promotion, the Best Prevention)

General philosophy
Homeopathy is a vitalist philosophy in that it interprets diseases and sickness as caused by disturbances in a hypothetical vital force or life force and sees these disturbances as manifesting themselves in unique symptoms. Homeopathy maintains that the vital force has the ability to react and adapt to internal and external causes, which homeopaths refer to as the "law of susceptibility". The law of susceptibility states that a negative state of mind can attract hypothetical disease entities called "miasms" to invade the body and produce symptoms of diseases.[24] However, Hahnemann rejected the notion of a disease as a separate thing or invading entity and insisted that it was always part of the "living whole".[25]

[David Maes]

Hello David. Instinctually my initial response is, perhaps; many individuals place their well-being on that of others. An attempt to listen/pay attention to what a person is feeling/experiencing physically, mental or emotionally in many cases enables a person to correct what ails them. There are times when we ingest too much of something, other times too little. Then of course that which we should not.

PEACE dolly

Chemists often deliver placebos to people; and people often heal by those placebos.
It's inevitable that some people just get ill if you don't give them anything.
For some people, you have no other choice than to give them a placebo.

The placebo effect is a factor which cannot be underestimated in homoeopathy.
The evidence about the effectiveness of the homoeopathic treatments and medicines is also insufficient; so homoeopathy is not a science!

However the question is does it work?
The chemist I met claims it doesn't work for big diseases like cancer for example; but for other things like allergy or angina for example, he says it sometimes really works!

[David Maes]

And why would the science community be against the homoeopaths?
Well, that's rather simple; each time someone goes to a homeopath, he doesn't go to a scientist, so scientists lose money in that case. That's the reason why scientists are so against homoeopathy.

I visited a website of medical scientists, I talked to chemists...
And they both say the opposite.

Who do I have to believe now?
Is it about money?

And if it is about money, how can I ever know what's the truth?

The chemist I talked to, changed his mind about the money issue; he said it would be sad if it would be all about the money; but he also said some scientists are against homoeopathy just as a matter of principle. But he says it remains that when someone goes to a doctor who practises homoeopathy, it means he doesn't go to a doctor who doesn't practise homoeopathy, which means that the doctor who doesn't practise homoeopathy loses money.

About the fact whether homoeopathy works or not, personally, I still find it hard to know who I have to believe, because scientists say the opposite.

[David Maes]

That's what I find the hard part; if I want to know something about physics for example, then I can't rely on myself cause I'm not a physicist.

So if I want to know something about physics, then I have to rely on what a physicist says. The only problem is, how can I be sure that this physicist tells me the truth?

I think we will never know.

Science magazines publish their stories in a way that they have more sales.
Well; I have a theory; in life, it's all about the money.
I think no scientist will ever publish anything if he can't earn any money with it.
That's unfortunate, cause this makes those scientists prejudiced, not objective.

For example, when a company is sponsor for a scientist, then I think this scientist will never publish results which count against the company which is his sponsor.

I also think that a science magazine will never publish things which would count against their readers, i.e. the science community. For example if the science community is against homoeopathy, then the science magazine will only publish things which count against the homoeopaths.
And why would the science community be against the homoeopaths?
Well, that's rather simple; each time someone goes to a homeopath, he doesn't go to a scientist, so scientists lose money in that case.

The question is, if someone really wants to know whether homoeopathy works or doesn't work, how can he ever know this in a world where everything is about the money?

If you want to, you can find the corrected version of this post under www.toequest.com/forum/forces-nature/4225-unsolved-problems-2.html#post86552

(I don't feel like correcting everything once more.)

[David Maes]

Homoeopathy would sometimes also work for chronical diseases, allergy, angina...
Not for cancer.

The chemist also says that homoeopathy works with animals also!
The only problem then is: how can there be a placebo effect with an animal?

The chemist also says that some products used as a 'normal' medicine are imitated homoeopathic products; they imitate homoeopathic products because homoeopathic products have such a great success.

[David Maes]

I don't really know whether I have to believe in homoeopathy or not.