Homeopathic Remedies In Thailand?

[jayjay2001]

Hi everyone,

I did a search for my inquiry, and only came up with a discussion about homeopathy dated a few years back.

Does anyone know where I can homeopathic remedies? I live in Pattaya, but I know it's a long shot to find something in Pattaya. I don't want to order from outside of Thailand, so I'm looking for somewhere here in Thailand.... if not Pattaya, then ideally Bangkok or even Chiang Mai.

Thanks for any info you have.

Kind regards,

JJ

[GoodKarma]

HI there is a good website with lots of home remedies (not quite the same as homeopathic I know)

www.earthclinic.com the main contributor is actually from Thailand so I would think many of the remedies contain ingredients easily available here.

[jayjay2001]

goodkarma,

thanks for your reply. i'll check out the link. thanks again.

JJ

HI there is a good website with lots of home remedies (not quite the same as homeopathic I know)

www.earthclinic.com the main contributor is actually from Thailand so I would think many of the remedies contain ingredients easily available here.

[Deeral]

THe is no such thing as a homeopathic remedy - as homeopathy has been shown to have no curative properties of it own.

An equivalent to homeopathy would be to drink a glass of water whilst at the same time ripping up the money you'd have spent on homeopathic medicine and throwing into the wind. - just as effective and costs exactly the same.

However with a small variation you could save the money!

[fullwhenempty]

THe is no such thing as a homeopathic remedy - as homeopathy has been shown to have no curative properties of it own. An equivalent to homeopathy would be to drink a glass of water whilst at the same time ripping up the money you'd have spent on homeopathic medicine and throwing into the wind. - just as effective and costs exactly the same.

Unfortunately millions of people, who like their freedom of choice, don't agree with your brilliant analysis. Several countries allow homeopathy and in India it is fully integrated into their health care system.

If you want to talk about dubious claims, walk into any pharmacy and tell me how many 'remedies' say 'CURE' on the label?

That's right.

None.

[tim armstrong]

THe is no such thing as a homeopathic remedy - as homeopathy has been shown to have no curative properties of it own.

An equivalent to homeopathy would be to drink a glass of water whilst at the same time ripping up the money you'd have spent on homeopathic medicine and throwing into the wind. - just as effective and costs exactly the same.

However with a small variation you could save the money!

I find it strange, that when talking about curing illness, there are some people that are just not that interested in exploring all the alternative options, but seem to be hung up on only a few - usually western concepts of health and disease. I suppose all those homeopathy students doing their 6-10yr degrees in universities all over India should really throw in the towel and see that despite the long history of homeopathy and its whacko principles, (curious that it hasn't been stamped out yet),western science really does have all the answers. Of course western medical research is unbiased, independent and only interested in finding cures for disease, for the benefit of humankind, not shareholders. But enough.

To the original question, I have a homeopath travel kit prepared in Oz, that has been very useful, and no problems through customs etc. That may be the way to go and you can renew it as needed. Regards.

[Deeral]

People who HAVE fully explored alternative medicines will know there is NO EVIDENCE to support their effectiveness.your "examples" are not evidence of efficacy they are examples of how gullible people can beA cursory look at the theory behind Homeopathy will show even the most unscientific on minds what a load of hogwash it is

You may well feel that it has some merit - but do some critical research and you will see that you and everyone else has been mislead.any benefits that are attributed to Homeopathy are more easily attributed to other factors in the patient's situation - it's just that people are not very good judges of cause and effect.

Supplements, Complimentary and Alternative Medicines are exactly what they spell out...S.C.A.M.s

Edited January 20, 2011 by Deeral

[Deeral]

THe is no such thing as a homeopathic remedy - as homeopathy has been shown to have no curative properties of it own.

An equivalent to homeopathy would be to drink a glass of water whilst at the same time ripping up the money you'd have spent on homeopathic medicine and throwing into the wind. - just as effective and costs exactly the same.

However with a small variation you could save the money!

I find it strange, that when talking about curing illness, there are some people that are just not that interested in exploring all the alternative options, but seem to be hung up on only a few - usually western concepts of health and disease. I suppose all those homeopathy students doing their 6-10yr degrees in universities all over India should really throw in the towel and see that despite the long history of homeopathy and its whacko principles, (curious that it hasn't been stamped out yet),western science really does have all the answers. Of course western medical research is unbiased, independent and only interested in finding cures for disease, for the benefit of humankind, not shareholders. But enough.

To the original question, I have a homeopath travel kit prepared in Oz, that has been very useful, and no problems through customs etc. That may be the way to go and you can renew it as needed. Regards.

THe medical establishment has no problem with any form of medicine that can show it works - Homeopathy has been tested in many. many clinical trials and hass bbeen shown to offer no benefits above that of the placebo effect - this is repeatedly found to be the case.If there was any evidence to the contrary it would be thoroughly (and has been too) examined.

It really doesn't matter how long you study something if it doesn't work, it won't make it any more likely to work.

Perhaps you'd care to lay out for us the basic theory behind Homeopathy?It IS good for a laugh!

you won't have any problems with homeopathic medicines through customs - because there NOTHING in them - they are merely sugar pills with a drop of water on them! - I think that's legal in most countries?

Edited January 20, 2011 by Deeral

[Deeral]

THe is no such thing as a homeopathic remedy - as homeopathy has been shown to have no curative properties of it own. An equivalent to homeopathy would be to drink a glass of water whilst at the same time ripping up the money you'd have spent on homeopathic medicine and throwing into the wind. - just as effective and costs exactly the same.

Unfortunately millions of people, who like their freedom of choice, don't agree with your brilliant analysis. Several countries allow homeopathy and in India it is fully integrated into their health care system.

If you want to talk about dubious claims, walk into any pharmacy and tell me how many 'remedies' say 'CURE' on the label?

That's right.

None.

You are unfortunately presenting a false argument here. Saying that there are other dubious practices (e.g. labeling") in medicine does in no way make homeopathy any more effective than it already isn't.

As for the use of Homeopathy in National health services - this is a very disturbing affair - it has been allowed in several countries and the think ing behind it is really not critical or scientific.What IS true about Homeopathy is that there is NOTHING in the pill except sugar and water - so allowing it on one level does no harm and if people want to PAY MORE than they need for a placebo effect, well then apart fro the loss of money, no harm done.however it is when Homeopathy makes claims to "cure" or "Remedy" specific diseases and is used to the exclusion of other proven medication, then it becomes DANGEROUS.For instance some Homeopaths believe that vaccinations are not needed and homeopathy will work instead.Various claims have bee made for homeopathy and regardless of what country includes it in their National Health system one thing is sure - there is no demonstrable effect from the treatment apart from the dangers of not taking the correct treatment.

[Deeral]

Citing freedom of choice is a false argument too.when people are ill - especially chronically they may turn to ANYTHING in the hope of finding relief - unfortunately Quacks like homeopaths make money out of these unfortunate people.To call this choice is not really correct - this is SCAMMING gullible people - taking money of the weak and infirm.

So if you make this choice you are basing it on misleading information that ignores the facts and are it is costing you more money - I doubt if anyone in possession of all the facts would make that choice.

I note that nowhere has any of the proponents of Homeopathy put forward any clinical studies that support their claims - this is because they don't exist.The only studies that do are published in - believe it or not Homeopaths magazines and alternative medicine mags, they are not scientific studies and seriously flawed in they methodology and approaches.

[nephron]

Talking about the "long history" of homeopathy is false too, since it was invented by one man 200 years ago. It doesn't have the thousands of years that many herbal remedies (some that work, some that don't) have behind them.

[Deeral]

It is a very worrying trend too that alternative medicines are allowed to run within scientific medical institutions.In most countries this seldom happens - however in Thailand, hospitals quite happily offer services that have no medically proven merit whatsoever. Running side by side with established medical facilities you find find all sorts of "quack" therapies offered by Thai hospitals.These therapies can be dangerous and when operating "under the wing" of a hospital or similar they are given a seal of approval that they don't deserve. The hospitals themselves are partly to blame in this as they are often quite happy to see these quacks operating there as they get extra income for themselves.Skin clinics, hair restorers, testosterone, steroids etc., chiropractics, massages, herbalists and lord knows what else - all with no proven medical merit. Many practitioners who are either banned or prevented from working in the West find a suitably gullible market here in Thailand and a very lax system of regulation that allows almost every medical crank to operate with impunity.

Once in a hospital, it is very difficult for the layman to identify which of the services offered are genuine medical treatments or merely quackery offered by people in white coats claiming 6 years training in absolute rubbish.

Edited January 20, 2011 by Deeral

[fullwhenempty]

It is a very worrying trend too that alternative medicines are allowed to run within scientific medical institutions.In most countries this seldom happens - however in Thailand, hospitals quite happily offer services that have no medically proven merit whatsoever.

Eminent health ministers and highly qualified policy-makers appear to disagree with you.

I agree, some of the practices of Thais, especially in the villages, seem bizarre. However, there IS a difference between 'Eye of Newt' and traditional methods of healing, which the WHO fully endorse.

Once in a hospital, it is very difficult for the layman to identify which of the services offered are genuine medical treatments or merely quackery offered by people in white coats

The same argument is levelled at modern medicine by natural practitioners and unfortunately for you, millions are voting with their feet. The profit-driven 'pill for every ill' paradigm is a failure. Disease is far more complex than symptom=drug. 90% (more or less) of disease is chronic and degenerative disorders, for which modern medicine has no answer. That is a staggering failure and the real root of people's disaffection. To blame alternatives and seek to deny access to them is arrogant and criminal.

claiming 6 years training in absolute rubbish.

Really? Ayurvedic practitioners in India train for 6 years in mainstream medicine before going on to learn Ayurveda. They are far better placed to tell which methods have any merit.

This 'rubbish' argument is a double-edged sword. Every person, in every country, over thousands of years knows 'You Are What You Eat'. The glaring omission of nutrition from Doctors training is indefensible. Being qualified in 'looking in the wrong direction' is nothing to be proud of.

By all means protect the public from charlatans but science cannot prove natural practitioners are any more charlatans than mainstream Doctors. They use misleading arguments. A herbalist for instance can prescribe a multi-herb combination that has many actions on the body and mind, which our present system of trials is unable (and unwilling) to test for. If the practitioner also recommends diet, exercise, hydrotherapy, stress management, emotional healing and bodywork, how can a lab identify which action produced the benefit? It can't. Nor can it patent it. The mechanistic medical monopolists use this to sell the misleading argument that 'It's not been proven scientifically, therefore it's bogus'.

Isn't this 'rubbish'?

So what if homeopathy is only 200 years old? It's older than modern 'scientific' medicine. The cholesterol theory is only a decade or two old. Will you disqualify it? There are many more 'discoveries' of 'diseases' such as high cholesterol which are highly profitable but which are simply 'diseases of the fork'. That's what you put in your mouth. So why isn't the system addressing that root cause instead of making billions on treating the symptom? Isn't this quackery?

When modern medicine addresses the underlying cause of disease and stops managing the symptoms, Doctors might once again be called Healers. As much as they delude themselves that they are the chosen ones, the public increasingly see them as drug peddlers. Doctors have lost the art of healing and it is an art, as much as a science.

Homeopathy may be suspect but I don't know of anyone who goes to a homeopath when their arm is hanging off. The reality is that many people try the orthodox system first and when they realize it can do nothing, they go elsewhere. 200,000 die just in America alone from taking the prescribed dose of medicines. How many people has homeopathy killed? It is a rare event when the actions of a homeopath threaten lives. If it weren't, the corporate media would be all over it.

In the end, how I spend my money is frankly none of your business. As much as you try, you don't yet own my body, so stop acting as if you do. Take the best of modern medicine and marry it to the best of natural medicine, instead of this stupid adversarial attitude which you have been brainwashed into adopting.

[BoonToong]

I remember seeing this over a year ago. It's funny, whatever your views of medicine are (providing you don't take yourself too seriously).......

Enjoy

[fullwhenempty]

I remember seeing this over a year ago. It's funny, whatever your views of medicine are (providing you don't take yourself too seriously).......

It is funny. For a hatchet job.

The hospitals themselves are partly to blame in this as they are often quite happy to see these quacks operating there as they get extra income for themselves.Skin clinics, hair restorers, testosterone, steroids etc., chiropractics, massages, herbalists and lord knows what else - all with no proven medical merit.

Further to my last, I fail to understand to some of your complaints.

I had a Thai g/f who went to a skin clinic and they were successful in clearing up her acne. A Thai Doctor treated her.

You may be correct but can you give specific examples of which hair restorers, testosterone and steroids are bogus? Cortico-steroids are a common prescription for painful arthritis.

I recently saw a friend who was losing his hair and who arrested the loss with two 'washes' of Apple Cider Vinegar. I don't know what the Thai hospitals offer but I know what he will think of you, if you tell him it's quackery.

Chiropractic in the U.S. successfully defended themselves in court against attack by the AMA. They had significant support from the public. I don't accept that you need monthly money-spinning treatments for 'subluxation' but besides that, the chiros I have met offer more than simply whacking you in the back.

To suggest massage doesn't have any benefit is defying thousands of years of historical use. Therapeutic massage with sesame oil is a major treatment in Ayurveda and in LOS is, at a minimum, helpful for relief of physical and mental tension. It moves the lymph, dislodges obstructions and helps get blood into areas where it may be stagnant.

How can you say herbalism has no proven benefits when 25% of pharmaceuticals are derived from plants? Even Hippocrates had 400 herbs for medicinal use.

As far as the supplement industry is concerned, I agree. It is said that 90% of OTC (over the counter) Echinacea products have NO echinacea in them. You can tell the genune article, the tip of your tongue will tingle. As for the rest, they are of equally dubious value, for a variety of reasons.

Edited January 21, 2011 by fullwhenempty

[Deeral]

It is a very worrying trend too that alternative medicines are allowed to run within scientific medical institutions.In most countries this seldom happens - however in Thailand, hospitals quite happily offer services that have no medically proven merit whatsoever.

Eminent health ministers and highly qualified policy-makers appear to disagree with you.

I agree, some of the practices of Thais, especially in the villages, seem bizarre. However, there IS a difference between 'Eye of Newt' and traditional methods of healing, which the WHO fully endorse.

Once in a hospital, it is very difficult for the layman to identify which of the services offered are genuine medical treatments or merely quackery offered by people in white coats

The same argument is levelled at modern medicine by natural practitioners and unfortunately for you, millions are voting with their feet. The profit-driven 'pill for every ill' paradigm is a failure. Disease is far more complex than symptom=drug. 90% (more or less) of disease is chronic and degenerative disorders, for which modern medicine has no answer. That is a staggering failure and the real root of people's disaffection. To blame alternatives and seek to deny access to them is arrogant and criminal.

claiming 6 years training in absolute rubbish.

Really? Ayurvedic practitioners in India train for 6 years in mainstream medicine before going on to learn Ayurveda. They are far better placed to tell which methods have any merit.

This 'rubbish' argument is a double-edged sword. Every person, in every country, over thousands of years knows 'You Are What You Eat'. The glaring omission of nutrition from Doctors training is indefensible. Being qualified in 'looking in the wrong direction' is nothing to be proud of.

By all means protect the public from charlatans but science cannot prove natural practitioners are any more charlatans than mainstream Doctors. They use misleading arguments. A herbalist for instance can prescribe a multi-herb combination that has many actions on the body and mind, which our present system of trials is unable (and unwilling) to test for. If the practitioner also recommends diet, exercise, hydrotherapy, stress management, emotional healing and bodywork, how can a lab identify which action produced the benefit? It can't. Nor can it patent it. The mechanistic medical monopolists use this to sell the misleading argument that 'It's not been proven scientifically, therefore it's bogus'.

Isn't this 'rubbish'?

So what if homeopathy is only 200 years old? It's older than modern 'scientific' medicine. The cholesterol theory is only a decade or two old. Will you disqualify it? There are many more 'discoveries' of 'diseases' such as high cholesterol which are highly profitable but which are simply 'diseases of the fork'. That's what you put in your mouth. So why isn't the system addressing that root cause instead of making billions on treating the symptom? Isn't this quackery?

When modern medicine addresses the underlying cause of disease and stops managing the symptoms, Doctors might once again be called Healers. As much as they delude themselves that they are the chosen ones, the public increasingly see them as drug peddlers. Doctors have lost the art of healing and it is an art, as much as a science.

Homeopathy may be suspect but I don't know of anyone who goes to a homeopath when their arm is hanging off. The reality is that many people try the orthodox system first and when they realize it can do nothing, they go elsewhere. 200,000 die just in America alone from taking the prescribed dose of medicines. How many people has homeopathy killed? It is a rare event when the actions of a homeopath threaten lives. If it weren't, the corporate media would be all over it.

In the end, how I spend my money is frankly none of your business. As much as you try, you don't yet own my body, so stop acting as if you do. Take the best of modern medicine and marry it to the best of natural medicine, instead of this stupid adversarial attitude which you have been brainwashed into adopting.

Sorry but this poster just doesn't get it.

THe efficacy of any treatment is - or isn't - demonstrated by a well proven process of clinical trials - these results are then re-tested etc etc.

None of the stuff your are talking about has ever managed to pass muster in clinical trials - THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THEY WORK.

When you cite your "girlfriend getting better" - all that shows is how little you understand about the process of healing and the process of PROOF.most clinical trials are carried out on as many people as possible over a period of time - they are monitored by others, written reported pawed over retested etc etc - and "unorthodox" doesn't work - there is no proof.

The "proof" that is published about quackery usually fails at the fist post - in that it turns out to be selective reporting by someone who practices that particular form of quackery.

It would be lovely to think that magic, magnetism or "etherial energy existed and could cure us, but sadly these things violate centuries of accumulated wisdom and scientific practice.

When you stand bck, take a deep breath and apply some critical thinking to it you will see that the weak and gullible are being scammed.

As for "doctors" that train in medicine and then practice quackery - try googling something like "Why do even some clever people still have stupid ideas"

Edited January 21, 2011 by Deeral

[fullwhenempty]

Sorry but this poster just doesn't get it.

Since you haven't determined the extent of my knowledge or experience before reaching your conclusion, I don't think much of you either.

The Indian system of homeopathy became popular because important people saw evidence that it worked, particularly with animals, who aren't likely to be baffled by BS. Likewise in the UK and likewise in Germany. In India the system became regulated to remove the quacks. I've been to India and I've observed their natural health systems and also met some of the best known homeopaths in the South. Everyone I saw had long lines seeking treatment and practitioners were highly respected.

There is little point waving studies that are conducted by the same pharmaceutical foxes who are in charge of the hen-house. The Lancet review of studies has been accused by journal 'Homeopathy' and the mainstream medical 'Journal of Clinical Epidemiology' as 'enormously flawed and downright inaccurate'. Instead of showing homeopathy doesn't work, the conclusion should have been that, at least for some ailments, it is effective.'

Study how Aspartame, GM foods and Vioxx were approved before relying on studies. An experienced colleague of mine is a trial Doctor defending legal cases who has spent decades in medical research and can tell you what a crock many trials are. You also seem unaware that many drugs have not had long term studies conducted on them. They are released into the wild very quickly and the public become the 'trial'.

Even if homeopathy only works by placebo or for some ailments, it may be considered worthwhile because it is far cheaper to use this system than to provide expensive modern medicine to the whole population. Poorer countries simply cannot afford it. How else do you think they are maintaining their health? Wishful thinking?

I don't need to conduct a scientific study to recognize that a friend had serious acne before the treatment and a clear complexion after. Likewise the other people in the clinic she attended. If such an outcome doesn't fit into your 'quack' belief system, who cares. Everyone else is enjoying a massage.

[fullwhenempty]

This author articulates far better than I the case for homeopathy. It also highlights the flaws in the science used by the Lancet...

The Case FOR Homeopathic Medicine: The Historical and Scientific Evidence

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/the-case-for-homeopathic_b_451187.html

[Deeral]

Sorry but this poster just doesn't get it.

Since you haven't determined the extent of my knowledge or experience before reaching your conclusion, I don't think much of you either.

The Indian system of homeopathy became popular because important people saw evidence that it worked, particularly with animals, who aren't likely to be baffled by BS. Likewise in the UK and likewise in Germany. In India the system became regulated to remove the quacks. I've been to India and I've observed their natural health systems and also met some of the best known homeopaths in the South. Everyone I saw had long lines seeking treatment and practitioners were highly respected.

There is little point waving studies that are conducted by the same pharmaceutical foxes who are in charge of the hen-house. The Lancet review of studies has been accused by journal 'Homeopathy' and the mainstream medical 'Journal of Clinical Epidemiology' as 'enormously flawed and downright inaccurate'. Instead of showing homeopathy doesn't work, the conclusion should have been that, at least for some ailments, it is effective.'

Study how Aspartame, GM foods and Vioxx were approved before relying on studies. An experienced colleague of mine is a trial Doctor defending legal cases who has spent decades in medical research and can tell you what a crock many trials are. You also seem unaware that many drugs have not had long term studies conducted on them. They are released into the wild very quickly and the public become the 'trial'.

Even if homeopathy only works by placebo or for some ailments, it may be considered worthwhile because it is far cheaper to use this system than to provide expensive modern medicine to the whole population. Poorer countries simply cannot afford it. How else do you think they are maintaining their health? Wishful thinking?

I don't need to conduct a scientific study to recognize that a friend had serious acne before the treatment and a clear complexion after. Likewise the other people in the clinic she attended. If such an outcome doesn't fit into your 'quack' belief system, who cares. Everyone else is enjoying a massage.

You seem little confused on the placebo effect. - I already metioned that. and the disadvantages of homeopathy therein. and citing other areas of concern iin medicine does not in any way justify homeopathy.

The extent of your "knowledge" is self-evident.What you might want to check is your understanding or critical thinking.Sadly your example of a acne-ed friend is a prime example of your lack of critical thinking.

as for your citation - again an example of

how Homeopaths and other quacks try to publish quasi-scientific literature as scientific.

By example you are actualy supporting the case against homeopathy

Edited January 22, 2011 by Deeral

[fullwhenempty]

again an example of

how Homeopaths and other quacks try to publish quasi-scientific literature as scientific.

By example you are actualy supporting the case against homeopathy

You are making this up, aren't you? Your assertions aren't even 'quasi-scientific'. They are simply expressions of bias, typical of fundamentalist deniers. They dismiss all evidence presented by the opposing team and simply bleat incessantly about the validity of 'studies' conducted by foxes who are in charge of the henhouse.

I've linked to an article presenting a defence of homeopathy, with references. Enough of the 'airy wave'. If they are bogus, explain why.

I've also asked you twice now, to back up your criticism of 'quack' treatments in Thai hospitals with evidence.

Three strikes and you are out.

[BoonToong]

Three strikes and you are out.

I hope Arnica stocks are high in Thailand........

[fullwhenempty]

I hope Arnica stocks are high in Thailand........

Nawww... Arsenicum Album.

[Deeral]

You really have a problem with critical thinking don't you?

They're not my opinions, they are the opinions of all the major medical institutions, publications etc in the world.THere is not one iota of genuine evidence to support your hocus-pocus.you have resorted to cloudy and unsubstantial even tidbits of gossip and quasi- scientific notions which are precisely what will let you down in the end. Your own health will suffer from your denial of proven help and a reliance on the "mystical and whimsical"

Actually you claim you are entitled to spend you money on whatever you like. OK - so what about your responsibilities? Your wife family etc all left without when you go prematurely.Using homeopathy instead of medicine is the same as driving without a crash-helmet - you are not an island others rely on you to be alive - if not to yourself you owe it to them.

[dominique355]

( ... )

I don't need to conduct a scientific study to recognize that a friend had serious acne before the treatment and a clear complexion after. Likewise the other people in the clinic she attended. If such an outcome doesn't fit into your 'quack' belief system, who cares. Everyone else is enjoying a massage.

Two things come to my mind:

1. Did the acne condition improve AFTER the treatment or BECAUSE of the treatment? Without exact and comparative studies nobody knows why her condition improved. Did she change her diet, has her stress level change etc?

2. A single occurrence is totally irrelevant, scientifically and statistically.

Usually doctors are not very well suited to make scientific studies with their patients, simply because (medical) doctors have no training in scientific and in particular in pharmaceutical research. They learn how to apply the results, that's all.

Unfortunately some doctors believe their somewhat limited scope of operation with a few dozens of patients (with the same condition) allows them to scientifically solve a problem. That's not serious. (You may have noticed, I don't trust doctors )

[fullwhenempty]

'You really have a problem with critical thinking don't you?'

I do indeed but I fear the irony is lost on you.

Since you once again dodged the challenge,...

"STRIKE 3!

'They're not my opinions, they are the opinions of all the major medical institutions, publications etc in the world.'

In the world? Wow! Your reach is impressive. You've checked India? How long have you been reading Hindi? How about Germany? France? Where is your source for such a statement?

According to the NEJM France is the 'the number one ranked country in the world for health performance'. And I read... 'around 40 percent of the population uses homeopathic medicines and around 30 percent of its family physicians prescribe them'. Bugger me. That's an awful lot of 'sugar pills'. Get over there quick! Vast numbers of even orthodox doctors seem to have completely lost their critical thinking! The national insurance system reimburses for homeopathic treatments. Help! Help!

'THere is not one iota of genuine evidence to support your hocus-pocus.'

It isn't MY hocus-pocus. There's no homeopath in LOS that I know of. If I have a problem and can't resolve it myself I go and see my Doctor. If he cannot cure me and only 'treat' me, I go elsewhere. I realize this is heretical but it has a certain logic to it, don't you think?

'you have resorted to cloudy and unsubstantial even tidbits of gossip and quasi- scientific notions which are precisely what will let you down in the end. Your own health will suffer from your denial of proven help and a reliance on the "mystical and whimsical"

This is a nice delusion. I believe there is a pill for it.

OK - so what about your responsibilities? Your wife family etc all left without when you go prematurely.Using homeopathy instead of medicine is the same as driving without a crash-helmet - you are not an island others rely on you to be alive - if not to yourself you owe it to them.

My parents died painfully and early, under orthodox care. My sister is on pig hormones for life. Granny died of hospital-borne infection. Grandad died of liver failure after too many drug cocktails. My 1 year was almost prematurely aborted and nearly died of 'complications'. I read the study that said they should have been ok.

Frankly I wish I'd shirked my 'responsibility'.

Edited January 22, 2011 by fullwhenempty

[Deeral]

'You really have a problem with critical thinking don't you?'

I do indeed but I fear the irony is lost on you.

Since you once again dodged the challenge,...

"STRIKE 3!

'They're not my opinions, they are the opinions of all the major medical institutions, publications etc in the world.'

In the world? Wow! Your reach is impressive. You've checked India? How long have you been reading Hindi? How about Germany? France? Where is your source for such a statement?

According to the NEJM France is the 'the number one ranked country in the world for health performance'. And I read... 'around 40 percent of the population uses homeopathic medicines and around 30 percent of its family physicians prescribe them'. Bugger me. That's an awful lot of 'sugar pills'. Get over there quick! Vast numbers of even orthodox doctors seem to have completely lost their critical thinking! The national insurance system reimburses for homeopathic treatments. Help! Help!

'THere is not one iota of genuine evidence to support your hocus-pocus.'

It isn't MY hocus-pocus. There's no homeopath in LOS that I know of. If I have a problem and can't resolve it myself I go and see my Doctor. If he cannot cure me and only 'treat' me, I go elsewhere. I realize this is heretical but it has a certain logic to it, don't you think?

'you have resorted to cloudy and unsubstantial even tidbits of gossip and quasi- scientific notions which are precisely what will let you down in the end. Your own health will suffer from your denial of proven help and a reliance on the "mystical and whimsical"

This is a nice delusion. I believe there is a pill for it.

OK - so what about your responsibilities? Your wife family etc all left without when you go prematurely.Using homeopathy instead of medicine is the same as driving without a crash-helmet - you are not an island others rely on you to be alive - if not to yourself you owe it to them.

My parents died painfully and early, under orthodox care. My sister is on pig hormones for life. Granny died of hospital-borne infection. Grandad died of liver failure after too many drug cocktails. My 1 year was almost prematurely aborted and nearly died of 'complications'. I read the study that said they should have been ok.

Frankly I wish I'd shirked my 'responsibility'.

So now you're grasping at straws - QED

[fullwhenempty]

Two things come to my mind:

1. Did the acne condition improve AFTER the treatment or BECAUSE of the treatment? Without exact and comparative studies nobody knows why her condition improved. Did she change her diet, has her stress level change etc?

Because. She had 6 sessions and the improvements were obvious.

'Why Most Published Research Findings Are False'

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/

[Sheryl]

Fullwhenempty and Deeral, cease and desist the flames and the debate.

The thread asks about where to get homeopathic treatments, not for people's opinions of them. In my experience debates about this and other "alternative" or complementary treatments never get anywhere other than acrimonous and inevitably degenerate into flaming which is strictly against forum rules.

If further posts continue to stray off topic into a debate about the validity of homeopathy, the thread will be closed. if anyone other than the one person who replied as information on where to obtain, please share it.

[Deeral]

Fullwhenempty and Deeral, cease and desist the flames and the debate.

The thread asks about where to get homeopathic treatments, not for people's opinions of them. In my experience debates about this and other "alternative" or complementary treatments never get anywhere other than acrimonous and inevitably degenerate into flaming which is strictly against forum rules.

If further posts continue to stray off topic into a debate about the validity of homeopathy, the thread will be closed. if anyone other than the one person who replied as information on where to obtain, please share it.

Looks like you are trying to suppress a debate about homeopathy?

or should I start another topic?

[Deeral]

THe OP asked for information about "remedies" of which there are none - this this quite clearly demonstrated by extensive and multiple clinical trials - I think it is misleading to suggest that there are remedies.

Edited January 22, 2011 by Deeral