Homeopathy ‘not a cure’ for dengue

[lujanit]

1 minute ago, CGW said:

You argue your case very well with some sound reasoning, though the 200 million people that use it may need a little more persuasion.

It is part of the national health systems in quite a few countries including Switzerland, Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Pakistan, have they all been fooled?

All right how can a 100c or even a 30c dilution (the most common homeopathy 'treatments') of a substance have any medicinal value?  Do you even understand serial dilution?

 

In some cases there may be a placebo effect however homeopathy is utter crap.  Pseudoscience at its worst.

[GroveHillWanderer]

26 minutes ago, CGW said:

The basics of Homoeopathy is that the body can heal itself, we all know it can

No, that's not the basis of homeopathy - if it was, there would be no need to take any of the totally useless homeopathic 'remedies.' You could just take nothing and your body would heal itself. Again, we all know that the body can heal itself and often does for minor infections or viruses (common cold etc) - and sometimes, even more serious ailments such as the dengue under discussion here.

 

The whole basis of homeopathy is that taking absolutely and totally undetectable amounts of something, can have an actual effect on a person's health. It's a totally crazy idea. Did you know for instance, that just diluting a substance is not enough on its own? No, you actually have to strike the container against an elastic object (usually a leather-bound book) after each dilution, for it to be effective.

 

If somebody wants to include homeopathy along with other things in as you say, a more holistic approach then possibly that may have an effect (but that would be from those other things, not from the homeopathy). For instance, anything that has a beneficial effect on a person's state of mind can help. But homeopathy in and of itself does not and cannot affect a person's health (unless, of course you include the placebo effect). But the whole point about the placebo effect is that the person reports an apparent improvement despite the fact that what they had been given had absolutely no medicinal content whatsoever.

 

Perhaps you could explain to me for instance, how waving a substance over the top of a container, such that not a single, solitary molecule of the substance enters the water, can imbue that water with healing powers?

Edited June 18, 2019 by GroveHillWanderer

[CGW]

5 minutes ago, lujanit said:

In some cases there may be a placebo effect however homeopathy is utter crap.  Pseudoscience at its worst.

Yet 200 million people and quite a few national health services believe in it? all taken in by pseudo-science? 

[xylophone]

1 minute ago, CGW said:

Yet 200 million people and quite a few national health services believe in it? all taken in by pseudo-science? 

Obviously. Just utter nonsense.

 

And just because a load of people believe in something that is utterly ridiculous doesn't make it so.......that's proven with prayers and religion.

[CGW]

4 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

No, that's not the basis of homeopathy - if it was, there would be no need to take any of the totally useless homeopathic 'remedies.' You could just take nothing and your body would heal itself. Again, we all know that the body can heal itself and often does for minor infections or viruses (common cold etc) - and sometimes, even more serious ailments such as the dengue under discussion here.

 

The whole basis of homeopathy is that taking absolutely and totally undetectable amounts of something, can have an actual effect on a person's health. It's a totally crazy idea.

We have a different understanding & for sure my understanding is limited - the small amounts stimulate to help the body to heal.

[lujanit]

4 minutes ago, CGW said:

Yet 200 million people and quite a few national health services believe in it? all taken in by pseudo-science? 

Absolutely pseudoscience.  Not ever minuscule repeatable proof that it works ever.  You have to feel sorry for the 200 million people who have not been given a decent education.  As to the national health services being taken in just look at the Thai Dept that promotes homeopathy and you might find your answer. Belief in the supernatural is not based on science.

[GroveHillWanderer]

2 minutes ago, CGW said:

Yet 200 million people and quite a few national health services believe in it? all taken in by pseudo-science? 

Which national health services? None in any developed country that I'm aware of.

 

Here's what the NHS England official website had to say about it:

 

Quote

 

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) advises the NHS on the proper use of treatments.

Currently, NICE doesn't recommend that homeopathy should be used in the treatment of any health condition.

[...]

There have been several reviews of the scientific evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy.

The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee said there's no evidence that homeopathy is effective as a treatment for any health condition.

 

There's no evidence behind the idea that substances that cause certain symptoms can also help treat them.

 

Nor is there any evidence behind the idea that diluting and shaking substances in water can turn those substances into medicines.

 

The ideas that underpin homeopathy aren't accepted by mainstream science, and aren't consistent with long-accepted principles on the way the physical world works.

 

The Committee's 2010 report on homeopathy said the "like cures like" principle is "theoretically weak", and that this is the "settled view of medical science".

 

For example, many homeopathic remedies are diluted to such an extent that it's unlikely there's a single molecule of the original substance remaining in the final remedy. In cases like these, homeopathic remedies consist of nothing but water.

 

Some homeopaths believe that, as a result of the succussion process, the original substance leaves an "imprint" of itself on the water. But there's no known mechanism by which this can occur.

[...]

 

Some people who use homeopathy may see an improvement in their health condition as the result of a phenomenon known as the placebo effect.

 

[CGW]

30 minutes ago, CGW said:

3 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

Which national health services? None in any developed country that I'm aware of.

 

As my previous post, including Switzerland, Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Pakistan, - I will keep an open mind & leave it at that ???? 

[GroveHillWanderer]

Here's a summary of the most comprehensive review of research into homeopathy ever conducted, by the Australian health authorities. Extract below from an article in the Guardian:

 

Quote

Homeopathy is not effective for treating any health condition, Australia’s top body for medical research has concluded, after undertaking an extensive review of existing studies.

 

Homeopaths believe that illness-causing substances can, in minute doses, treat people who are unwell.

By diluting these substances in water or alcohol, homeopaths claim the resulting mixture retains a “memory” of the original substance that triggers a healing response in the body.

 

These claims have been widely disproven by multiple studies, but the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) has for the first time thoroughly reviewed 225 research papers on homeopathy to come up with its position statement, released on Wednesday.

 

“Based on the assessment of the evidence of effectiveness of homeopathy, NHMRC concludes that there are no health conditions for which there is reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective,” the report concluded.

 

“People who choose homeopathy may put their health at risk if they reject or delay treatments for which there is good evidence for safety and effectiveness.”

And I'll leave it there.

Edited June 18, 2019 by GroveHillWanderer

[GroveHillWanderer]

OK, I'm going back on my word. I said I'd leave it there but it wasn't till after I'd written that, that I saw the mention of Switzerland.

 

Here's the situation in Switzerland. As you are no doubt aware, the Swiss have a system of direct democracy using referenda for almost everything. 

 

Homeopathy is covered under Swiss federal health insurance, not because the Swiss health authorities think it's effective (they don't) but because the Swiss people voted in a referendum to have a number of different "alternative therapies" (including homeopathy) covered.

 

Quote

The federal health office admitted in its press release at the end of March that “no evidence has so far been found to prove that complementary and alternative therapies are qualified in terms of effectiveness, appropriateness, and costs.”

A health office spokesman, Daniel Dauwalder, explained that the decision “reflected the will of the people” in a 2009 referendum.

“The health insurance system will cover the cost of alternative therapies according to the principle of trust,” Dauwalder explained. He added however that if the standards of effectiveness, suitability and economy are called into question, then Santé Suisse has the right to deny payment.

 

Edited June 18, 2019 by GroveHillWanderer

[ThaiBunny]

18 hours ago, CGW said:

You argue your case very well with some sound reasoning, though the 200 million people that use it may need a little more persuasion.

It is part of the national health systems in quite a few countries including Switzerland, Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Pakistan, have they all been fooled?

Hundreds of thousands of people are "christians" - numbers of believers have nothing to do with whether something is true

[Grossman]

I recall back home they used to have these phone lines (costing a cr*pload of money of course) where one could call and receive a healing treatment over the phone .. Some distance reiki thing. Apparently it was hugely popular at the time and they even had these massive conventions around that stuff. Considering the amount of people into it, I'm sure combining such treatment with homeopathy would have you running disease free easily into mid 100s.. that is if you don't accidentally venture too far and drop off from the edge of the world into space.

 

Maybe the junta could try some homeopathy and dilute their BS into one millionth of a fraction.. It could actually bring happiness to the people.

[Myran]

21 hours ago, CGW said:

Yet 200 million people and quite a few national health services believe in it? all taken in by pseudo-science? 

Right, which of course means that Shiva and Ganesha are looking after us in our daily lives  – 1.08 billion hindus couldn't possibly be wrong, could they? (look up "Argumentum ad populum")

 

And if modern medicine is so horrible and detrimental to our health, why are we living longer than ever before?

[CGW]

1 hour ago, Myran said:

And if modern medicine is so horrible and detrimental to our health, why are we living longer than ever before?

I'm not sure where the first part of the quote originated but I'm sure you find it "amusing" as you seem to find everything amusing that doesn't agree with your thoughts. 555

As to why are we living longer? are we? or does it depend what side of the social divide we are on? 555

For those that are living longer is it not a fact they are doing so in poorer health than previous years, 555,  I'm sure you are aware that the statistical tracking only started in 1960. 555

[KhunFred]

A very dangerous trend if homeopathy is being promoted as a treatment for dengue. Many will grasp at straws to save money on treatment.

[Myran]

44 minutes ago, CGW said:

I'm not sure where the first part of the quote originated but I'm sure you find it "amusing" as you seem to find everything amusing that doesn't agree with your thoughts. 555

As to why are we living longer? are we? or does it depend what side of the social divide we are on? 555

For those that are living longer is it not a fact they are doing so in poorer health than previous years, 555,  I'm sure you are aware that the statistical tracking only started in 1960. 555

It originates from this: "off course sticking as many obnoxious chemicals in our bodies as possible can only increase our health - & the wealth of Big Pharma".

 

And yes, we are very much living longer and in better health in general.

[BritManToo]

19 minutes ago, Myran said:

And yes, we are very much living longer and in better health in general.

People live the same length of time they always did.

Plato was executed aged 80, 2,500 years ago. 

[CGW]

30 minutes ago, Myran said:

And yes, we are very much living longer and in better health in general.

Ah laughing boys back with more gems:_ ???? 

Living longer sure, for those that can who have the means to get advanced medical care & more importantly have a lifestyle that gives them good health, not sure the predominant poor would agree 555 or in your wisdom do you think those stuffing junk down themselves and are totally inactive are also living longer lives, share your wisdom 555 as I take it you disagree with my statement "off course sticking as many obnoxious chemicals in our bodies as possible can only increase our health - & the wealth of Big Pharma". 555

What do you have to take to maintain peak fitness ?

[CGW]

17 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

People live the same length of time they always did.

Plato was executed aged 80, 2,500 years ago. 

Don't go ruining the "myth" 

[Chazar]

On 6/18/2019 at 6:03 PM, CGW said:

You argue your case very well with some sound reasoning, though the 200 million people that use it may need a little more persuasion.

It is part of the national health systems in quite a few countries including Switzerland, Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Pakistan, have they all been fooled?

All of those except Switzerland Id  take with a pinch of salt and then the facts emerge about the Swiss  study also https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-swiss-report-on-homeopathy/

[CGW]

23 minutes ago, Chazar said:

All of those except Switzerland Id  take with a pinch of salt and then the facts emerge about the Swiss  study also https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-swiss-report-on-homeopathy/

Yes, I agree with you to some extent, I'm not arguing for or against, India has at least 10 university's and lots of followers of Homoeopathy also, but lets be honest you don't see many healthy looking Indians! So that's hardly a positive as I see it.

[moe666]

There is no cure for dengue it is a virus, just medication to make you feel better

 

[moe666]

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

People live the same length of time they always did.

Plato was executed aged 80, 2,500 years ago. 

Life expectancy increased in the US because of better water treatment from the early 1900s to around the 1950s.

[Myran]

3 hours ago, BritManToo said:

People live the same length of time they always did.

Plato was executed aged 80, 2,500 years ago. 

Absolutely wrong. We're not talking about the highest lifespans achieved by individuals, we're talking about the average lifespan of the population. The average lifespan in 1960, when the UN started to keep track, was 52 years. Today it's 72. And the difference just continues to grow if you include older statistical sources.

[Myran]

3 hours ago, CGW said:

Ah laughing boys back with more gems:_ ???? 

Living longer sure, for those that can who have the means to get advanced medical care & more importantly have a lifestyle that gives them good health, not sure the predominant poor would agree 555 or in your wisdom do you think those stuffing junk down themselves and are totally inactive are also living longer lives, share your wisdom 555 as I take it you disagree with my statement "off course sticking as many obnoxious chemicals in our bodies as possible can only increase our health - & the wealth of Big Pharma". 555

What do you have to take to maintain peak fitness ?

Nope, not just a select few, but the general population. Look up the UN's statistics about it if you care about facts...

[CGW]

13 minutes ago, Myran said:

The average lifespan in 1960, when the UN started to keep track, was 52 years. Today it's 72. And the difference just continues to grow if you include older statistical sources.

Your just quoting the first article on google that agrees with what you think is the truth, the truth lies deeper - http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20181002-how-long-did-ancient-people-live-life-span-versus-longevity

I don't trust statistics or certain versions of history today, all are paid for in some form, trusting statistics from long ago? Your going to be able to find something to back up what you say, especially if it is a common misconception.

[Myran]

1 hour ago, CGW said:

Your just quoting the first article on google that agrees with what you think is the truth, the truth lies deeper - http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20181002-how-long-did-ancient-people-live-life-span-versus-longevity

I don't trust statistics or certain versions of history today, all are paid for in some form, trusting statistics from long ago? Your going to be able to find something to back up what you say, especially if it is a common misconception.

Not sure what you're getting at, because that article proves my point. While there were people who became fairly old hundreds of years ago average lifespan has increased dramatically thanks to modern medicine and public health.

 

And of course you don't trust statistics or facts, due to them disproving what you're trying to claim. This is just like trying to discuss with an anti-vaxxer – they cling to a single report that backs up what they say, while ignoring the thousands of reports that establish that they are wrong.

[BritManToo]

8 hours ago, Myran said:

Absolutely wrong. We're not talking about the highest lifespans achieved by individuals, we're talking about the average lifespan of the population. The average lifespan in 1960, when the UN started to keep track, was 52 years. Today it's 72. And the difference just continues to grow if you include older statistical sources.

Average lifespan is still the same, if you exclude child death from the old stats, or include abortion in the modern stats.

It's interesting that in the modern world up to 40% of fetus are aborted, but that isn't included in lifespan statistics.

 

The main difference is you're more likely to be aborted in the womb today, than to die in childhood.

Edited June 19, 2019 by BritManToo

[Myran]

3 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Average lifespan is still the same, if you exclude child death from the old stats, or include abortion in the modern stats.

It's interesting that in the modern world up to 40% of fetus are aborted, but that isn't included in lifespan statistics.

 

The main difference is you're more likely to be aborted in the womb today, than to die in childhood.

Again, absolutely wrong, and we're not discussing abortion, so stop trying to derail things. While less child deaths is a big factor in the much increased average lifespan, it's far from the only one. We have greatly reduced the risk of dying in our 20s, 30s, 40s, and so forth as well. https://www.popcouncil.org/uploads/pdfs/councilarticles/pdr/PDR281Bongaarts.pdf

 

This will be my last message in this discussion.

[BritManToo]

53 minutes ago, Myran said:

We have greatly reduced the risk of dying in our 20s, 30s, 40s, and so forth as

Complete BS. When you exclude child mortality and war .......

"Back in 1994 a study looked at every man entered into the Oxford Classical Dictionary who lived in ancient Greece or Rome. Their ages of death were compared to men listed in the more recent Chambers Biographical Dictionary.

Of 397 ancients in total, 99 died violently by murder, suicide or in battle. Of the remaining 298, those born before 100BC lived to a median age of 72 years. Those born after 100BC lived to a median age of 66. (The authors speculate that the prevalence of dangerous lead plumbing may have led to this apparent shortening of life).

The median of those who died between 1850 and 1949? Seventy-one years old – just one year less than their pre-100BC cohort."

 

"Taken altogether, life span in ancient Rome probably wasn’t much different from today. It may have been slightly less “because you don’t have this invasive medicine at end of life that prolongs life a little bit, but not dramatically different”," 

 

From

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20181002-how-long-did-ancient-people-live-life-span-versus-longevity

Edited June 20, 2019 by BritManToo