Quote:
|
Originally Posted by onesnowyowl
Homeopathy isn't dangerous--at least not in the United States (or shouldn't be, see proviso). The safety of homeopathic remedies in the U.S. is overseen by the FDA (not that that means much these days for anything, homeopathy or not).
|
But apparently not to the same standards as other drugs, apparently:
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/096_home.html
Quote:
|
FDA regulates homeopathic drugs in several significantly different ways from other drugs. Manufacturers of homeopathic drugs are deferred from submitting new drug applications to FDA. Their products are exempt from good manufacturing practice requirements related to expiration dating and from finished product testing for identity and strength. Homeopathic drugs in solid oral dosage form must have an imprint that identifies the manufacturer and indicates that the drug is homeopathic. The imprint on conventional products, unless specifically exempt, must identify the active ingredient and dosage strength as well as the manufacturer.
|
(Obviously the identity and dosage requirements had to be dropped because homeopathic preperations generally don't *have* any active ingredients - which is why they don't work...)
However, the original artical makes the point in several different ways the homeopathy *is* dangerous. If you use a homeopathic preperation instead of a real drug, you are going untreated. This can obviously be very, very dangerous. It also brings up the point that since homeopathy is for some crazy reason being given special status and being treated as scientific when it is not. In fact, both in the actual practice of homeopathy, and in the homeopathic culture, are dangerously unscientific.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by onesnowyowl
The efficacy of homeopathy is obviously something to be debated. I've found the efficacy depends on the remedy itself--some, like drospera rotundifolia, are known for being anti-spasmodics and anti-inflammatory, and are being researched for use in conventional medicines. Topically applied arnica gel has been shown to be as effective as other topically applied NSAIDs in the treatment of osteoarthritis. My personal experience with arnica is that it helps tremendously to keep bruising and swelling down, so do you think your article against homeopathy is going to change my mind? No.
|
This is the rub, though - it can not only be debated, it can be *tested* scientifically. And it has been. And, as the article points out, when actual, controlled, double-blind tests are done, it fails.
The remedies you mention - are you talking exclusively about homeopathic preperations, or herbal preperations as well (ie, preperations that include a significant amount of the substance in question?). For now, I'd like to stick with homeopathy, other than to mention these two points:
o Of course herbal treatments can work. Many drugs are derived from chemicals found in nature.
o For something to be medicine, it should be tested for safety and efficacy. For various reasons, herbal treatments are generally not well tested. This is a shame.
With regards to the 'arnica gel' you mention that "Topically applied arnica gel has been shown to be as effective as other topically applied NSAIDs in the treatment of osteoarthritis."
Is this a homeopathic remedy, or an herbal preperation?
Do you have a link to a study published in a peer-reviewed medical journal to back that up? Homeopathic journals don't count - from the original article:
Quote:
|
in 1995, only 1% of all articles published in alternative medicine journals gave a negative result. The most recent figure is 5% negative. This is very, very low.
|
Of course, even peer-reviewed journals are not perfect. They make mistakes. Sometimes the study is subtly flawed. But, if the editors of the journals, and the scientists publishing in them are honest and critical, we eventually improve our knowledge. If the journal, and the organizations around a given practice, are dishonest, self-serving, and uncritical, then nothing is gained. The science doesn't improve. I submit this is the case for homeopathy, and many, many other 'alternative' medical ideas.
Here's a page from the American Cancer Society I found with a quick google (not a primary source, but looks to be a good summary:
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/co...p?sitearea=ETO
Quote:
|
Available scientific evidence does not support most of the claims about its effectiveness. [...] It has caused a number of serious reactions, including allergies and at least one death.
|
And, in the 'What is the evidence' section, notice that multiple studies are cited - a single study could be flawed for any number of reasons. It could show an effect where none actually exists. It could miss a real effect. Or it could miss serious side effects. Multiple studies build up a consensus, and help inform responsible medical practitioners when prescribing drugs. Note that some of the studies refer to herbel preperations, and some to homeopathic remedies, and yet none of them showed any positive results.
But, on the other hand, you report great success with it. You don't mention whether it is a homeopathic or herbal preperation. If it's homeopathic, it doesn't work. Period. Homeopathy has been around for about 100 years now, and it hasn't been proven to work. Not only that, but there is no known scientific explanation for how it *could* work. At this point, if homeopathic preperations are ever shown to work by scientific consensus, I will eat my hat, and put the video on youtube.
If it's an herbal preperation, then your experience is at odds with what the studies show (according to that ACS website). Maybe it's the placebo effect. Maybe the particular brand you use is better than the ones used in the tests; maybe it has more of the ingredient, and is thus effective because the doses used in the tests weren't high enough. Maybe it's doctored with actual medicine (which has been known to happen - google for it).
Regardless, rather than go with one person's experience, the smart thing to do is to look for a scientific consensus.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by onesnowyowl
But here's the thing--we need to be wise consumers, and that applies to all medicine--allopathy, homeopathy, naturopathy. Plenty of conventional medical treatments come with risk and adverse side effects. For instance, the commercial for Lipitor says that in rare cases, patients may experience muscle pain or weakness. What they don't tell you is that that muscle weakness might leave you passed out on the floor at your place of business with no ability to explain to anyone what's wrong with you (true story, happened to my mother). Every treatment--even a well-respected statin drug like Lipitor--comes with some risk.
|
I agree 100% with your statement that we need to be wise consumers. However. Drugs, like lipitor, are *tested* for safety and efficacy. Homeopathic remedies are generally not. Since homeopathic remedies are generally nothing more than sugar, water, and alcohol, they are certainly very safe, unless contaminated (manufacturing quality for homeopathic preperations is yet another issue). However, taking a drug that doesn't do anything means you probably aren't treating the condition, which could be very dangerous. Again, the original article covers this. Regular medicines are tested to ensure (to the best of our limited ability) that they are both effective and safe. Homeopathic remedies are not.
In your mother's case, it sounds like she had a very severe reaction - but it was a *known* side effect. Because the drug had been tested, her doctor could explain what was going on. I have no idea why her reaction might have been more severe - perhaps she had a drug interaction, or was just sensitive to the drug. That's unfortunate, but my point is, with 'traditional' medicines, if they are tested, and *continue* to be tested, and proper reporting is done on side-effects, then we can discover dangerous drugs, and pull them, or not use them on people who are at higher risk. Because of medical science.
Now. Medicine in general, and especially the drug industry, is in really, really terrible shape right now. For lots of reasons, and in lots of ways, things are in truly miserable shape. We could go on for hours about the hows and whys. However. Even with all it's flaws, science-based medicine is the *only* way to go. Everything else is just witch-doctoring under a fancier name.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by onesnowyowl
I'm a researcher of all things, so I don't choose remedies without looking into them first--and that applies to everything, conventional medicine and homeopathy. I like to know everything about what I'm putting into my body. I think if people aren't medically literate, they're just as likely to run into problems with the conventional medical establishment as they are with homeopathy.
|
But if you do the research, the scientific consensus is that homeopathy does not work. Period. It has never been conclusively shown to be more effective than a placebo. It is almost certainly 'safe' in that it will produce zero side-effects - *because* it has no effect at all! Now, someone taking a placebo/homeopathic pill for a common cold isn't any worse off than someone who follows conventional medicine, because a common cold is (almost always) going to go away on it's own. Conventional medicine can't cure it. However, if you're taking homeopathic treatments for something more serious, you put yourself in jeopardy.
"There cannot be two kinds of medicine---conventional and alternative. There is only medicine that has been adequately tested and medicine that has not, medicine that works and medicine that may or may not work... If it is found to be reasonably safe and effective, it will be accepted."
(I'm not sure where exactly this is from, but it sums up my point nicely)
-RN
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cj2112
While I am about as far from being new agey as one can get, the best remedy I found for colic when my kids were little was a homeopathic remedy. I have since passed this on to every person I know who has child has had issues w/ colic, and I swear everyone of them thanked me profusely.
Not all homeopathy is bad, not all conventional medicine is good, like Snowy said, you have to be a wise consumer.
|
But has it been scientifically tested? All the anecdotes in the world won't convince me. Proper testing will. I could come up with all sorts of hypothetical explanations as to why it seems to work for you and your friends. But my main point is - if it's tested, and found safe and effective, then great. If not...why use it?