People killed, or otherwise maimed, by homeopathy

[Madz25]

Nice to know that Pharm hasn't changed in two years. St John's Wort isn't technically homeopathic, though, since homeopathy really has nothing whatsoever to do with "natural" or "herbal" medicine. It's just quackery invented in the 19th century.

 

i dont think pharm has changed in the last 5+ years lol

perhaps thats why the probation?

[DddMmm]

I can give my opinion from what I know. My father is both a medical doctor, a surgeon actually (and an admirable one I have to add - i'm not trying to brag or anything, but I honestly admire him as a doctor, he's one of the best ones i've ever met) and a homeopathic doctor. In my country, homeopathy MUST be practiced by a medical doctor. It is somewhat a medical specialty there (although it is considered alternative medicine).

 

Homeopathy is a very ancient medical practice that can be amazingly effective, for certain conditions, IF PRACTICED PROPERLY by someone who knows what he's doing.

 

In Canada, although there is an association of naturopathic doctors, ANYBODY could still practice homeopathic medicine...And that's where the problem lies. Practiced by the wrong person, it can be and will probably be ineffective and even dangerous.

 

Voila, that's just my opinion

[A-Stark]

No, homeopathy dates from the 19th century. Nothing "ancient" about it at all.

 

Homeopathy (also spelled Homoeopathy or Homœopathy) is a form of alternative medicine, first proposed by German physician Samuel Hahnemann in 1796, that treats patients with heavily diluted preparations which are thought to cause effects similar to the symptoms presented. Homeopathic remedies are prepared by serial dilution with shaking by forceful striking, which homeopaths term "succussion," after each dilution under the assumption that this increases the effect of the treatment. Homeopaths call this process "potentization". Dilution often continues until none of the original substance remains.[1]

(Wiki)

[ploughboy]

Homeopathy is a very ancient medical practice that can be amazingly effective, for certain conditions, IF PRACTICED PROPERLY by someone who knows what he's doing.

 

It's water.

[rmorelan]

It's water.

 

Which is amazingly effective for some medical conditions - like dehydration for instance.

[Tango Charlie]

Homeopathy is a very ancient medical practice that can be amazingly effective, for certain conditions, IF PRACTICED PROPERLY by someone who knows what he's doing.

 

Diluting a solution until there's nothing left of it whilst shaking vigorously produces well-shaken water. People who improve after homeopathic "treatments" do so either because of placebo effect, or because the body was in the process of healing itself anyway. Homeopathy is pseudo-medical nonsense.

[ploughboy]

Which is amazingly effective for some medical conditions - like dehydration for instance.

 

Concur. Inarguable. Unsure how often dehydration is indication for a homeopathic Rx.

[rmorelan]

Unsure how often dehydration is indication for a homeopathic Rx.

 

By your standards, or by the standards of some naturopaths

 

I can see a new line of products coming out right now. Actually pretty much this is what the entire bottled water industry actually is - "magic water" from some far off land that is somehow better than the local water. Oh and comparatively it is extremely expensive

[thoughtkinetic]

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/279/15/1200?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Incidence+of+adverse+drug+reactions+in+hospitalized+patients%3A+a+meta-analysis+of+prospective+studies&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

 

An Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) is one in which the drug has been properly prescribed, and is not the result of physician error or accidental (or intentional) overdose. These are serious concerns for users of allopathic medicine, and can be fatal.

In the U.S. alone, there were 106,000 fatal ADR's in 1994. That's only one year...

[hungryjoe]

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/279/15/1200?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Incidence+of+adverse+drug+reactions+in+hospitalized+patients%3A+a+meta-analysis+of+prospective+studies&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

 

An Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) is one in which the drug has been properly prescribed, and is not the result of physician error or accidental (or intentional) overdose. These are serious concerns for users of allopathic medicine, and can be fatal.

In the U.S. alone, there were 106,000 fatal ADR's in 1994. That's only one year...

 

What does this have to do with homeopathy? Sure, ADR's are really high (in the US, I'd like to see a similar study in Canada). If you're suggesting that means everyone should get a jar of shaken water instead of a legitimate prescription then I'd have to label you as delusional.

 

These types of scaremongering tactics are oh-so beaten to death among alternative medicine fanatics. They always turn to it after objective reasoning disproves their bunk pseudoscience. It's disgusting.

[thoughtkinetic]

If you're suggesting that means everyone should get a jar of shaken water instead of a legitimate prescription then I'd have to label you as delusional.

 

I'm not suggesting anything. I have many reservations with homeopathic medicine but I was trying to point out that whatever mortality exists in homeopathic medicine is eclipsed by that of allopathic. This is not a scare tactic, it's reality.

[Mourning Cloak]

I'm not suggesting anything. I have many reservations with homeopathic medicine but I was trying to point out that whatever mortality exists in homeopathic medicine is eclipsed by that of allopathic. This is not a scare tactic, it's reality.

 

The mortality resulting from the use of legitimate drugs is far eclipsed by the mortality secondary to NOT taking them when you need them. In other words, the fatality rate of taking homeopathic cures instead of real medicine for acute leukemia (or diabetes or cholera or pick your disease) is 100%.

[thoughtkinetic]

The mortality resulting from the use of legitimate drugs is far eclipsed by the mortality secondary to NOT taking them when you need them. In other words, the fatality rate of taking homeopathic cures instead of real medicine for acute leukemia (or diabetes or cholera or pick your disease) is 100%.

 

 

Unfortunately the 5 year survivorship for leukemia is ~50%, and continues to drop off after year 5, and the overall cancer rate really hasn't changed in 20 years.

[Mei_Mei_girl]

I understand why many people want to turn to natural medicines for treatment when conventional medications really can be quite dangerous. To treat conventional medicines as the god of health without taking into account the reality of its flaws is quite dangerous I think.

 

(although of course I am not opposed to conventional medicine at all and fully plan on prescribing to future patients; with care and realization that both conventional and natural medicines are not black and white)

[A-Stark]

Unfortunately the 5 year survivorship for leukemia is ~50%, and continues to drop off after year 5, and the overall cancer rate really hasn't changed in 20 years.

 

What the hell are you talking about? "Leukemia" is a large family of different diseases, many of which have 5 year survival rates considerably better than 50%. The nature of any survival time is that, inevitably, more people will die as more time passes, but that doesn't tell you anything about the particular disease process in and of itself. To take one example pre-B cell ALL in the pediatric population carries a >95% 5 year survival rate in the lowest risk category.

 

What is the "overall cancer rate" anyhow? Annual incidence? Age-adjusted mortality rates? Or something else entirely?

[A-Stark]

I understand why many people want to turn to natural medicines for treatment when conventional medications really can be quite dangerous. To treat conventional medicines as the god of health without taking into account the reality of its flaws is quite dangerous I think.

 

(although of course I am not opposed to conventional medicine at all and fully plan on prescribing to future patients; with care and realization that both conventional and natural medicines are not black and white)

 

Eh? Homeopathy is quackery. Anything that is evidence-based should be used - this does not extend to wonky crystals or magnets, much less overpriced "herbals" with minimal active ingredients.

[astrogirl]

The really dangerous thing about some herbal medicines (not homeopathic, I'm talking about actual herbs that are taken in large enough quantities to actually do something) is that some of them do work but they are completely unregulated and can interact with other herbs or conventional drugs, or make an underlying condition worse, or have side effects without people realizing it. But people don't understand the need to be careful about taking herbs or to tell their doctor what herbs they're taking, because they think they are "natural" and couldn't possibly hurt them.

 

It also bugs me that everything outside the realm of conventional medicine is referred to as "natural" as though conventional drugs were brought to us by aliens in a spaceship or something like that. It all came from nature at some point!

[orange123]

I can give my opinion from what I know. My father is both a medical doctor, a surgeon actually (and an admirable one I have to add - i'm not trying to brag or anything, but I honestly admire him as a doctor, he's one of the best ones i've ever met) and a homeopathic doctor. In my country, homeopathy MUST be practiced by a medical doctor. It is somewhat a medical specialty there (although it is considered alternative medicine).

 

Homeopathy is a very ancient medical practice that can be amazingly effective, for certain conditions, IF PRACTICED PROPERLY by someone who knows what he's doing.

 

In Canada, although there is an association of naturopathic doctors, ANYBODY could still practice homeopathic medicine...And that's where the problem lies. Practiced by the wrong person, it can be and will probably be ineffective and even dangerous.

 

Voila, that's just my opinion

 

I second this. My grandfather, is a homeopathic doctor, and his drugs are effective. Clearly the experience of the practitioner and their training is a BIG factor. That's why I get the heeby-jeebies when people just make blanket statements all the time. Keep an open mind. Learn to see the good in both sides, and then as future doctors, integrate the best of both worlds. Don't close off potential solutions just because they are against your belief systems.

[Mourning Cloak]

* gets some popcorn *

[O'Neill]

I second this. My grandfather, is a homeopathic doctor, and his drugs are effective. Clearly the experience of the practitioner and their training is a BIG factor. That's why I get the heeby-jeebies when people just make blanket statements all the time. Keep an open mind. Learn to see the good in both sides, and then as future doctors, integrate the best of both worlds. Don't close off potential solutions just because they are against your belief systems.

 

I thought homeopathy was just water? What drugs are you talking about that are effective?

[beng]

I second this. My grandfather, is a homeopathic doctor, and his drugs are effective. Clearly the experience of the practitioner and their training is a BIG factor. That's why I get the heeby-jeebies when people just make blanket statements all the time. Keep an open mind. Learn to see the good in both sides, and then as future doctors, integrate the best of both worlds. Don't close off potential solutions just because they are against your belief systems.

 

I don't think evidence based medicine is a belief system.

[Tango Charlie]

I don't think evidence based medicine is a belief system.

 

It's the same argument pseudo-science advocates always use. They accuse science of being "dogmatic" and "biased" in its approach to quackery like intelligent design or homeopathy. Apparently, the fact that we require evidence before we will concur with the efficacy of homeopathy is close-minded.

 

In that case, how about we bring back bloodletting, too? I always thought bloodletting had way more flash than simply shaking a glass of water around and charging someone $100 to drink it.

[orange123]

It's the same argument pseudo-science advocates always use. They accuse science of being "dogmatic" and "biased" in its approach to quackery like intelligent design or homeopathy. Apparently, the fact that we require evidence before we will concur with the efficacy of homeopathy is close-minded.

 

In that case, how about we bring back bloodletting, too? I always thought bloodletting had way more flash than simply shaking a glass of water around and charging someone $100 to drink it.

 

At the risk of getting involved, read this article:

 

Title: Homeopathy: increasing scientific validation

Authors: Reilly,D.

Source: Altern.Ther.Health Med., 2005, 11, 2, 28-31, United States

 

The author raises some valid points to consider. Homeopathic medication is a useful adjunct and sometimes the only available medication in some cases:

 

"As the above spectrum of results show, homeopathy can offer therapeutic options when

 

* conventional care has failed or reached a plateau;

 

* no conventional treatments exist;

 

* conventional treatments are contraindicated;

 

* side-effects of conventional treatments are not tolerated;

 

* patients are reluctant to accept conventional treatment.

 

The two dimensions of care need to be considered: the direct effects of the remedy and the therapeutic impact of the method of approach on the patient. Sometimes homeopathy is supportive rather than curative, and in addition to the specific effects, it shows the positive effects of the nonspecific/context/values dimensions through its enhancement of the therapeutic encounter.

 

* GPs and practice nurses can use Colocynthis for colic in infants younger than 6 months of age when no conventional drugs are available."

 

* The therapy can reduce allergic sensitivity (eg through homoepathic desensitization, useful when conventional injections are thought to be too dangerous).9-12

 

* The complications of surgery can be reduced (eg, by using Arnica cover at the time of dental extraction).13

 

* Homeopathy can offer useful care in degenerative illness when conventional care is failing, for example in rheumatic illness;14 in viral illnesses for which no drug treatments exist; and in those cases of anxiety or depression when psychotropics are best avoided or are ineffective."

 

 

The author also raises the point that metanalyses have shown that homeopathy is not all due to the placebo effect.

 

In conclusion then, let's not completely disregard homeopathy as a valid option. It is suitable in some instances. Clearly it won't be a go-to choice in the case of cancer, but even then, homeopathic remedies as an adjunct, do improve the quality of life. By the way, all I'm doing here is adopting a moderate, open stance. I'm neither entirely FOR homeopathy as the sole choice, nor am I solely FOR allopathic remedies as the only option. It's best to integrate best of both worlds.

[Tango Charlie]

In other words, when real medicine has been exhausted and there is nothing left to be done, sometimes giving people expensive water and telling them it's medicine is the best way to do move on.

[O'Neill]

What? are you for real? I can only assume that you missed the bioethics lecture about not lying to your patients or giving them false hope when none exists. It's not ok to give people something that you don't think works and tell them its going to work if you don't believe it yourself.

 

I don't think he's saying that he would do that. He's saying that homeopathic doctors give people water, telling them it will help them (like real medicine).