- Published:April 24th, 2009
- Comments:2 Comments
- Category:Community, Homeopathy, News
At the heart of the debate between orthodox (conventional) medicine and homeopathic medicine is the different perspectives of the two.
Allopathic (conventional) medicine’s argument has always been that Homeopathic treatment can not claim cure using scientific terminology as it hasn’t been trailed properly within the disciplinary framework of current science.
Well, not necessarily true anymore. its been a while now that alternative and holistic medicine is being tested around the world using the tools of scientific evidence.
in 2008′ The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety of the Northern Ireland Gov has published a research clamming to have a significant evidence that homeopathy, and a range of other traditional therapies do work. this is an independent evaluation report of a gov department. institutional. The project, run by ‘Get Well UK’ in Northern Ireland for over a year, has found that acupuncture, chiropractic, homeopathy, osteopathy, reflexology and aromatherapy can offer significant health improvements to NHS patients.
Check the link, the numbers talk for themselves.
http://www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/index/hss/complementary-alternative-medicine.htm)
2 Comment
I accept that there is a lot about the universe that we can’t explain, and have no problem that there is no proven scientific explanation homeopathy.
BUT, we need to see DECENT evidence that it works. And as such there really isn’t any for homeopathy. After 200 years of trying!
As anyone with a bit of an idea about scientific research will tell you, in order to see if an intervention works, randomised, controlled, double blind studies are the gold standard trials. Most studies like this that have been conducted on homeopathy have shown no difference between it and a placebo. Any studies that were conclusive were only marginally so, and the conclusions were not replicated when the trials were repeated.
So, there is no decent evidence to show that it is effective, yet plenty to show that it has the same effect as placebo.
Look at the DECENT trials on the effectiveness of steroids, or antibiotics, to see conclusive evidence that an intervention works. They are worlds apart from the homeopathy ‘evidence’.
I don’t want to offend anyone, and i accept that there are may different ways of approaching a situation. But i need to see DECENT evidence that something works, before i spend money on what is essentially a sugar pill.
We, as a human race, must keep our critical faculties about us. There are plenty of alternative therapies that do appear to work, acupuncture, reflexology, chinese herbal medicine. Homeopathy, has had 200 years to refine it’s methods and blossom, yet it has not. It’s just become fashionable again, that’s all.
Here’s a quote by Jack Killen, acting deputy director of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine: “There is, to my knowledge, no condition for which homeopathy has been proven to be an effective treatment.”
I encourage you to do a little digging for yourself and look into the evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathy like i did. It’s no better than placebo.
Thank you for your comment.
As for research, i can assure you am on top of the knowledge at hand. i am obviouesly familier with the Placebo argument and i find it the least intelligent claim ever delivered from conventional science. how on earth can it be a placebo effect when a terriable dermatitis condition of a 3 months old baby, who is unable to mentally process a situation of placebo, is completely cleared after given a homeopathic remedy ? how can it possibly be a placebo when a horse suffering from a post-injury wound that refuses to heal acutely, given a homeopathic remedy and a significant improvement is shown ?
Homeopathy is not trying to produce decent evidance for 200 years, so it could than sell itself in billions and become a money-making giant like the pharmacutical business, its been busy helping the sick.
i think the real issue here is the results. and with that you can not argue. homeopathy has very good results helping people with their suffering. you see one can not claim to “accept that there is a lot about the universe we cant explain”, and at the same time ask to see only decent evidence before one spends its money. these two conditions do not logicly live together, and i think this is where the debate is based.
The oldest philosophical debate is between the materialistics, and the non-materialistics. its between those who believe the world is only what one can see and understand here and now, and those who truly accept they can not understand and explain every thing infront, but they can witness its effects. these 2 school of thoughts never managed to work together, it seems one has to pick a side. and when i am on the cross roads, and i need to choose a path – one claimming ownership on reality through the very limited current systems of preception, and one focusing on results, and on being humble through understanding that reality can be more than what meets the eye, i remember that once very scientificly-orientated people believed passionatly that the world is flat, and so i choose the later path.
kind regards,