Homeopathic "medicine" and other alternative methods of healing

[Dagobahn Eagle]

First off, too get in the mood, let's watch as James "the amazing" Randi shoots down homeopathy. His view, basically, is that homeopathy is ineffective (presumably except from the placebo effect which must be present) as

1. The idea, which is that if you dilute a substance significantly, its effect upon ingestion is reversed, has no backing, and
   
2. That the ratio of medicine:non-medicine of the doses are far too small to have any effect anyway.

Wikipedia has more.

 

Now, I have a friend who's shamelessly crazy about everything alternative, up to, but very likely not limited to, a belief that she's protected by "the ones up there" 24 hours a day. This, coupled with the films on "the Amazing" Randi I've seen on Google Video, are to be blamed for me making this thread. Homeopathic "medicine" is sold at ludicrous costs all over Europe; faith healing and acupuncture is widespread; and psychics, in the year of 2007, claim to be able to read your mind.

 

What are your opinions on alternative medicine, psychics, faith-healing, et al?

[Samnmax221]

I'm a huge Randi fan, the man debunked Uri Geller, Peter Popoff, and Sylvia Browne among others. For thousands of years alternative (Well alternative today) medicine was the only thing practiced, disease was far more widespread then than now. If you can't see the correlation here I have massive contempt for you.

 

[Nancy Allen``]

Homeopathic therapy? Why not? The vapour water I can tell for a fact is better for colds than anything you can buy off the shelf. Marajuana is mostly illegal but even some doctors will promote it for pain relief. Detox programs are too expensive, there are alternate ways of doing this, I swear by orange juice. But does that mean that you should rely solely on alternate medication? No, what you should do is go with what works best for you.

[Samnmax221]

Homeopathic therapy? Why not? The vapour water I can tell for a fact is better for colds than anything you can buy off the shelf.

Thats common knowledge, therefore not alternative.

Marajuana is mostly illegal but even some doctors will promote it for pain relief. Detox programs are too expensive, there are alternate ways of doing this.

Use of Marijuana for medical purposes is also widely known to be effective, the only reason it could be considered alternative is because it's against the law in most places. Detox programs aren't all that necessary because Marijuana by itself is not toxic enough to kill you.

[Nancy Allen``]

Boil up lizards and scorpions to drink? That's alternative. If it works, better than conventional medication, then go for it.

 

As an aside, certain types of medication are a big no no, the type that contains codine is one I can think of, because it can be deadly to some.

[Windu Chi]

Boil up lizards and scorpions to drink? That's alternative. If it works, better than conventional medication, then go for it.

Some people drink snake venom, Nancy.

I surely hell would not drink snake poison, but they say it make them stronger or live longer or something like that.

Snake venom could relieve arthritis, this article discuss that snake venom could relieve arthritis by a synthetic form of venom minus the toxins.

I believe a lot of things in nature could lead to treatments to health problems or cure diseases like AIDS, if we have not destroyed whatever those things are yet; by rainforest destruction, that may exist in nature.

As an aside, certain types of medication are a big no no, the type that contains codine is one I can think of, because it can be deadly to some.

You are talking about a derivative of opium codeine; used as an antitussive (to relieve coughing) and an analgesic (to relive pain).

Yes I agree; deadly to some since we all have different health characteristics.

So, a lot of treatments will have complex effects on different kind of individuals of our species.

[Windu Chi]

Now, I have a friend who's shamelessly crazy about everything alternative, up to, but very likely not limited to, a belief that she's protected by "the ones up there" 24 hours a day. This, coupled with the films on "the Amazing" Randi I've seen on Google Video, are to be blamed for me making this thread. Homeopathic "medicine" is sold at ludicrous costs all over Europe; faith healing and acupuncture is widespread; and psychics, in the year of 2007, claim to be able to read your mind.

 

What are your opinions on alternative medicine, psychics, faith-healing, et al?

Psychics: unless they have Force Heal, I'm not trusting them.

Also I don't trust no one who can read my mind.

Alternative medicine: maybe; the plants and the lifeforms(their genes or organisms in their cellular make up) in nature maybe beneficial to us; fighting diseases and general health treatments.

Faith healing: Well, that is the religious department, not my cup of tea.

[ET Warrior]

As an aside, certain types of medication are a big no no, the type that contains codine is one I can think of, because it can be deadly to some.

So can penicillin, which is arguably one of the most important medical discoveries ever. Some people are allergic to it and it will kill them. Does it mean the medicine itself is a big no no? I dare say not, it simply means that one should let actual doctors take care of them (You know, those people who spend 10+ years after high school and hundreds of thousands of dollars on tuition learning their trade) as opposed to some guy who thinks that the gutter water that runs by his church has healing properties.

[Nancy Allen``]

Of course doctors should be the ones to get it right, most of the time. If a better option exists however, whether it be homeopathic medicine or something else, people should take it.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Homeopathic therapy? Why not?

Randi explains it quite well in the video from my first link. Homeopathic pills contain virtually or literally none of the anti-dotes they claim to, and either way, the theories it is based on are void and do not stand up to scientific testing.

 

Thats common knowledge, therefore not alternative.

This might help in the question of alternative versus non-alternative:

Alternative medicine describes practices used in place of conventional medical treatments. Complementary medicine describes practices used in conjunction and cooperation with conventional medicine, to assist the existing process. The term complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is an umbrella term for both branches. CAM includes practices that incorporate spiritual, metaphysical, or religious underpinnings; non-European medical traditions, or newly developed approaches to healing.

--

Wiki

.

 

Of course doctors should be the ones to get it right, most of the time. If a better option exists however, whether it be homeopathic medicine or something else, people should take it.

Of course. But come on, homeopathy?

 

Homeopathy attempts to treat the sick with extremely diluted agents that, in undiluted doses, produce similar symptoms in the healthy. However, processes use cause the dose to be exactly zero in most cases: Its adherents and practitioners assert that the therapeutic potency of a remedy can be increased by serial dilution of the drug, combined with succussion, or vigorous shaking. This is, however, not supported by chemistry or physics. Homeopathy regards diseases as morbid derangements of the organism,[4] and states that instances of disease in different people differ fundamentally.[5] Homeopathy views a sick person as having a dynamic disturbance in a hypothetical "vital force", a disturbance which, homeopaths claim, underlies standard medical diagnoses of named diseases.[6]

 

Scientists describe homeopathy as pseudoscience [7] and quackery.[8] The theory that extreme dilution makes drugs more powerful by enhancing their "spirit-like medicinal powers"[9] is inconsistent with the laws of chemistry and physics. Placebo-controlled clinical trials have given mixed results, but most have methodological problems, with better-quality trials (e.g. those more likely to use double-blind techniques) more likely to give negative results.[10] Additionally, cases have been reported of life-threatening complications resulting from attempts to treat serious conditions solely with homeopathic remedies.[11][12]

--

Wiki

.

[Spider AL]

Belief in the effectiveness of homeopathy is not supported by evidence, therefore it is irrational, and like all irrational beliefs it is intrinsically worthless and may well result in negative consequences for the person who holds it, and for those around them.

 

Beliefs must be based on reason and evidence to be valid. End of story.

[SkinWalker]

Homeopathic therapy? Why not?

 

Simply put: because there's no reason to believe it works. Indeed, there is considerable evidence against it. Finally, simple logic dictates that it is useless, since homeopathy is based on the concept of "infinite dilution." This means that the substance, arsenic for instance, is diluted to the point that it simply isn't molecularly present in the water. Every single homeopathic remedy is no different than distilled water you can pick up at any Walmart for .58 cents a gallon.

 

With regard to "alternative" methods, that are generally worthless as well. Studies conducted on the most prominent of these, such as herbals like Echinacea, aromatherapy, and biofeedback, have shown to be less helpful than placebo. Many "alternative" treatments are downright harmful, such as cellular injection (the injection of foreign cells from animals) and Ayurvedic "medicine."

 

Some helpful links:

 

"alternative" health practice

Quackwatch

Kevin Trudeau: Pseudo-Advocate for the Consumer

The Pseudoscience of an "Infomercial" Conman (includes a brief overview of homeopathy)

[Fish.Stapler]

I'll go with "Crock of ****" for one thousand Alex.

 

 

Taken directly from wikipedia (not exactly the most reputable source, but I'm tired, so here goes).

 

"

Homeopathy attempts to treat the sick with extremely diluted agents that, in undiluted doses, produce similar symptoms in the healthy. However, processes use cause the dose to be exactly zero in most cases: Its adherents and practitioners assert that the therapeutic potency of a remedy can be increased by serial dilution of the drug, combined with succussion, or vigorous shaking. This is, however, not supported by chemistry or physics. Homeopathy regards diseases as morbid derangements of the organism,[4] and states that instances of disease in different people differ fundamentally "

 

1. Dose to be exactly zero? What are you taking then!?

2. Not supported by chemistry or physics, and uses INTENSE SHAKING to rid you of your disease.

 

Seems fishy to me. I'm going to toss my lot in with proven chemistry and physics, thanks. Homeopathy can be summed up preciesly by this, in my opinion.

 

"Heres the history of our medicine.

"I have a sore throat."

2000 BC : "eat this root"

1200 AD : "That root is heathen, say this prayer."

1500 AD : "That prayer is superstition, drink this elixir."

1800 AD : "That elixir is snake oil, Take this pill."

1900 AD : "That pill is ineffective, Take this antibiotic."

2000 AD : "That antibiotic is artificial, Here why dont you eat this root."

 

A step back in time...

[Tyrion]

Homeopathic medicine does not make sense because it ignores many chemical and physical laws in an illogical fashion: by diluting a substance you simply spread it's molecules and atoms farther apart; they do not transfer any qualities to the surrounding molecules that would help the human body become immune to it. As Skinwalker says, all homeopathic water does is transform toxic or septic water into just tap water.

 

As for alternative medicine, I think that the nomenclature is a bit misleading; after all, how far is "alternative"? Is it simply using different herbs or plants in a carefully concocted formula that has been tested through the generations and has successfully worked, or is it the use of insect feces and orangutan hair mixed together in yellow matter custard from a dead dog's eye? Herbalism is still a viable discipline of medicine, largely because current western medicine derives many of its prescriptions from organic substances like poppy flowers and whatnot.

 

Granted, I'd still much prefer western medicine to other alternative medicine, but only because we're much more careful about what the substances are and what they can do than alternative practitioners.

[Nancy Allen``]

If something does work, better than the more accepted form of, in this case medication, shouldn't it be used? Would that include homeopatic medicine? The difficulty is that how the body would react to any type of treatment is as individual as the person who would get the disease in the first place. Now certainly conventional means has a proven track record, but if they don't work, it shouldn't be a simple case of tough luck, the option for unconventional means should be open.

[SkinWalker]

If something does work, better than the more accepted form of, in this case medication, shouldn't it be used?

 

If it works, it *is* medicine. Like Tyrion said, there is no "alternative." Herbal remedies are drugs. Period. Some work. Some don't. Very, very, very few work better than their pharmaceutical analogs. Why take an herbal compound of unknown quantity, unknown concentration, and unknown purity, when evidence-based medicines are available. Aspirin is a compound that occurs naturally in plants (tree bark I think). If you take two aspirins, you're taking a medically proven and tested dose of a pure compound of known quantity and quality. Who knows what's in an unregulated, untested, herb that may or may not be the advertised product. It isn't pure. It isn't controlled for concentration or quantity. It's likely no one has tested it efficacy for the purpose you're taking it for nor for contraindications (interactions with other compounds, substances or drugs).

 

Would that include homeopatic medicine?

 

Homeopathic "medicine" isn't medicine. Its water. Read the links I left above.

 

but if they don't work, it shouldn't be a simple case of tough luck, the option for unconventional means should be open.

 

Pure poppycock. Why subject someone to additional risks if they are already faced with a malady? That's called magical thinking.

[Nancy Allen``]

If someone is sick, and none of the conventional methods work, what then?

[SkinWalker]

Make them comfortable as possible and stick with evidence-based medicine. It makes no sense to try things that aren't demonstrably effective, safe or viable just because the person isn't responding to the best medical treatment known to science.

 

That's not to say that there aren't situations in which experimental treatments aren't worth trying, but these are treatments that medical science is already working on. Researchers have hypotheses about new treatments all the time and occasionally they are given opportunities to test these with terminal patients or with patients where other treatments aren't working.

 

But this doesn't mean they are calling in witchdoctors and shamans or sacrificing chickens. That's what most so-called "alternative" methods amount to.

[Nancy Allen``]

That's exactly what I'm saying, we should not throw up our arms, throw it into the too hard basket and allow someone sick to suffer just because we have too much of an ego to only accept our ways.

 

I'm not sure if you're a medical expert, but wasn't there some type of placebo or homeopathic medication that was looked into recently that was discovered to be benificial in some form or another?

[Dagobahn Eagle]

That's exactly what I'm saying, we should not throw up our arms, throw it into the too hard basket and allow someone sick to suffer just because we have too much of an ego to only accept our ways.

It's got nothing to do with "ego", Nance. Doctors reject homeopathy because it's been proven to not work, not because they "only accept their own ways".

 

And they aren't "throwing it in the too-hard basket", they're spending fortunes on researching actual medicine that actually does work, rather than resorting to ineffective and potentially dangerous drugs.

[Tyrion]

That's exactly what I'm saying, we should not throw up our arms, throw it into the too hard basket and allow someone sick to suffer just because we have too much of an ego to only accept our ways.

 

The reason doctors don't prescribe everything outside the box once traditional methods fail to work is because they follow the model of "to help, or to at least to do no harm." The latter portion is crucial to what you're saying, as it doesn't take much foresight to realize the potential danger of prescribing things to patients without knowing what the outcome could be.

 

I'm not sure if you're a medical expert, but wasn't there some type of placebo or homeopathic medication that was looked into recently that was discovered to be benificial in some form or another?

 

Er, a placebo should not have been beneficial in and of itself, as it contains no other substance other than perhaps sugar. If it works, it's most likely the result of a stronger willpower that the patient gained from believing the pill was working, rather than anything actually based in chemistry. Homeopathic would fall under the same thing.

[Jae Onasi]

Answering a bunch of stuff here....

 

Homeopathic medicine--just open a bottle of Perrier and hand it to the patient, you'll get the same result.

 

placebo effect

n. The beneficial effect in a patient following a particular treatment that arises from the patient's expectations concerning the treatment rather than from the treatment itself.

 

Placebo effect works about 30-35% of the time. It does not mean the placebo pill itself is effective (because it's usually nothing more than a sugar pill). It just means the patient got better because he a. believed the pill would make him better or b. his body healed itself.

 

Believe me, docs do not just throw their hands up in the air because of ego if the usual treatments aren't working. If I have a person who's just not responding to a treatment appropriate for their condition, I send them to the appropriate sub-specialist. If the specialist can't figure it out, that person ends up getting sent to one of the university centers that are researching that particular condition, and they go from there.

 

Why don't doctors prescribe alternative treatments on a regular basis? There are several reasons.

 

1. We don't want to make the situation worse (or keep it from getting better) by using something that may have no value. Sometimes people discover things on accident that make a particular condition better, but those things go through a lot of study before they become part of the standard of care.

 

2. We often don't use herbals because the potency can vary tremendously, ie the amount of the effective ingredient can vary wildly from plant to plant, which means it can vary wildly from pill to pill as a result. You don't want someone getting varying doses, and especially don't want doses that aren't enough to be adequately effective or worse are too strong and cause overdose damage.

 

3. In the US, at least, using alternative 'treatments' that are outside the acceptable standard of care makes us wide open to malpractice lawsuits. If I try to prescribe a homeopathic or herbal medicine for an aggressive bacterial eye infection, and the person's eye infection gets so bad that he ends up losing some portion of his sight in that eye, I would be held liable, because use of homeopathic eye drops is not considered an acceptable standard of care.

 

How are these standards of care developed? They're created by the academic leaders in that particular medical specialty based on the tons of research going on in the field, and standards are usually established only after studies show the various medications or other treatments are effective. Some treatments get fast-tracked in the US if they show a reasonable effectiveness rate (AIDS treatments being the most noteworthy), but they're still subject to a lot of study, and some standards of care may change again based on later research. Every common condition has a set of treatments that are considered acceptable/efficacious. For extremely rare conditions that don't have an established standard, or for those patients who are not responding to the conventional treatments in established standards, what happens is the specialist will usually study the condition, confer with other experts in the field, study the disease, how it works, its cause, etc., and in conjuction with pharmacologists (or other experts for non-drug remedies) develop a potential treatment plan. Those get tested to see if they work, and if so, further studies are developed from that. There are standards on how experimental treatments are established and tested, so it's not a 'let's throw x at the problem and see if it works'.

I take a couple vitamins/herbals myself, but only because I've seen some decent studies indicating their benefits, have seen they have a low risk profile, and chatted with my doc about it.

 

Aspirin--is a derivative of the active ingredient found in willow bark.

 

Marijuana--in the past has been used for a. treatment of nausea in chemotherapy and b. treatment of glaucoma. I don't know much about oncology other than to say the treatments have gotten much better and the anti-nausea meds have improved tremendously, so it's not as useful as it may have been at one time. With glaucoma, 40 years back the only real treatment was pilocarpine, and if that didn't work the patient was screwed. Marijuana does have the effect of lowering pressure in the eye (high pressure contributes to the damage), and so some people did find a benefit from it when the one conventional treatment failed. However, the number of effective treatments for glaucoma have just exploded over the last 10-15 years, and so even if it was legal, I'd probably never even suggest it as an option.

 

Codeine--can cause deadly reactions in those who are allergic, just like any medication or herbal remedy can cause such allergic reactions. Codeine and its analogues are great pain relievers for those who are not allergic, however.

[tk102]

Belief in the effectiveness of homeopathy is not supported by evidence, therefore it is irrational, and like all irrational beliefs it is intrinsically worthless and may well result in negative consequences for the person who holds it, and for those around them.

 

Beliefs must be based on reason and evidence to be valid. End of story.

I would like to hear your take on the placebo effect, Spider. Placebos are irration and yet to some extent, they are effective. I know science often uses placebo as baseline for measuring effectiveness, which is to say it defines the effectiveness of placebo as zero. However, if the symptoms have been reduced by placebo, isn't that something of a benefit that should not be discounted?

[ET Warrior]

But the placebo affect has nothing to do with the actual effectiveness of the 'drug'. In general the people who get better while using a placebo would have gotten better had they done nothing.

 

I cannot imagine a doctor would ever ACTUALLY prescribe a placebo for a patient who was genuinely sick, because the only benefit a placebo may have is causing the patient to THINK they will get better. However, they can still get this benefit by receiving ACTUAL medication, as well as the benefits of the medication itself.

 

It is also not irrational that placebos do have a percentage of effectiveness, simply because some people do get better, and it is known that a persons state of mind can have an effect on their health.

[tk102]

But the placebo affect has nothing to do with the actual effectiveness of the 'drug'. In general the people who get better while using a placebo would have gotten better had they done nothing.

Given a fixed length of time in which changes in symptoms are studied, placebo decreases symptoms. Of course a doctor would use whatever is the best choice of medication, that's not my point.

It is also not irrational that placebos do have a percentage of effectiveness, simply because some people do get better, and it is known that a persons state of mind can have an effect on their health.

Thank you, that's what I was looking for. The irrational belief here then is not intrinsically worthless is it?

 

And a step farther... if there is no other known medical option, is it moral to take away someone's belief in a placebo just because it is an irrational belief?