Ministry to try homeopathy in Sing Buri to fight dengue

[jdlancaster]

If the other papers shown are garbage.. I will concede the point.... and will agree with you. ... perhaps I overlooked it in those papers and eupatorium perfoliatum has no effect.... th

[VincentRJ]

This thread has so many posts, so I'm not sure if the following point has already been made.

I've seen assertions that scientific tests have shown that homeopathic treatments are no more effective than a placebo. The point that has perhaps been missed is that a placebo can be effective. Even Jesus Christ knew that.

Remember the story when Jesus was healing the sick and he felt someone from behind touch his cloak. He turned around and asked who has touched him. After some time, a woman came forward and admitted it was she, and claimed that she was cured. Christ replied that it was her faith that had cured her. In other words, she was cured by the placebo effect.

The placebo effect is always at work, even when we take tried and tested pharmaceutical drugs, assuming that we have faith in the efficacy of modern drugs, as most of us do. It is estimated that (very approximately) around 30% of the efficacy of all drugs, on average, can be attributed to the placebo effect.

Placebos are always included in clinical trials of a new drug in order to determine if the new drug is more effective than the placebo. Sometimes the new drug might be only marginally more effective than the placebo, but still better than nothing.

However, if such a drug is only marginally more effective than a placebo, is rather expensive and has noticeable side effects, then taking a true placebo, such as a homeopathic remedy, might be the best option.

The difficulty here, of course, is that a placebo cannot be expected to have any benefits if it's labelled or described as a placebo. That would be giving the game away, which I guess I've just done. Sorry!

[tim armstrong]

Ah, yes, it's Amazing Thailand in so many ways.

It has so many fine medical doctors, then were have this:

"Jakkriss said "homeopathy" was safe and low-cost and had been used in various countries including

the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Switzerland, Belgium, the United States, Australia, India and Malaysia"

And, some people in the above countries have likely tried as iridology, reflexology, aromatherapy, accupuncture,

magnetic therapy, collodial silver, reiki and other unproven or fraudulent medical practices to cure various

diseases and ailments.

If Jakkriss were to read any of the _ethical_, peer-reviewed, medical journals, he would find that

homeopathy is mere insubstantiated quackery.

Acupuncture is quackery ? If so then why are so many western GPs now trained in it ? Oh and its been around just a tad bit longer than western medicine. But of course you are right, - snake oil salesmen have been around for a while- fleecing people. Unlike the big pharmaceutical companies who are only too happy to share their knowledge after their 20 year patents run out, plus the 'sunset ' clauses in commonly used drugs ? Oh, and they really don't mind that some countries can now make generic brand AIDS drugs ? I could go on but LukDod if you ever get to read or see - "The Constant Gardener' it might open your mind.

[jdlancaster]

Yes. .. and a placebo would be a good remedy for political pains..... heh... not sure how much health issues are a political issue in thailand.

[jdlancaster]

Well I think a big issue is plants with medicinal properties and homeopathy being lumped together. ... homeopathy apparently is crazy dilution. ... and I dont agree with homeopathy. ... but I think some plants contain ingredients with medicinal value.... and i think homeopathy hijacks them for profit

[iphad]

if the argument is that homeopathy is akin is quackery..well that is just not true...granted you could ask a medical doctor what he thinks..he would say it doesn't work..as many doctors would say a chiropractor doesn't work.

Although I believe homeopathy has a bigger success rate than a chiropractor & many studies have shown that homeopathy has more success than western medicine that relies on drugs.

Just because a doctor gives you a drug to take..doesn't mean you will be cured..in fact look what's in the drug first.

Usually the side effects outweigh any benefit.

Antibiotics are regularly prescribed...when many times a good diet & the body will heal itself.

Tylenol also regularly prescribed another dangerous drug.

drugs for high blood pressure..yes reduces blood pressure then less oxygen goes to the brain..so a stoke or dementia sets in..it's chronic in the West now.

diabetes another chronic disease ( especially in US) that drugs are encouraged when homeopathy yields better results.

if it's about the OP that dengue fever can't be cured by homeopathy ..there's several if not many cases where it has been greatly beneficial..in Brazil..in India,Sri Lanka,Cuba..and in Thailand with this OP.

Also the fact that no western drug is available..

so to suggest that Thai people are stupid or ignorant by using homeopathy for dengue fever is ridiculous.

Edited July 2, 2014 by iphad

[jdlancaster]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/?term=eupatorium+perfoliatum

partington. . I posted those links... and I went to pub med like you said that you did and typed in eupatorium perfoliatum. ... it gave me these articles

iphad.... what concentration of a substance are you considering homeopathic.... what does that mean to you?

I m curious what is considered homeopathy to you.... please be specific

[iphad]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/?term=eupatorium+perfoliatum

partington. . I posted those links... and I went to pub med like you said that you did and typed in eupatorium perfoliatum. ... it gave me these articles

iphad.... what concentration of a substance are you considering homeopathic.... what does that mean to you?

I m curious what is considered homeopathy to you.... please be specific

Homeopathy is medicine which involves treating the individual with highly diluted substances (given mainly in tablet form), with the aim of triggering the body’s natural system of healing.

I am more into naturopathy which is the treatment of illness by using diet, herbs,plants, exercises, etc., without using pharmaceutical drugs or surgery( as last option) but so in a way I consider it the combination with acupuncture

so collectively I would call it Alternative Medicine.

Specifically to Dengue fever it is homeopathy that has the better results...but since I have never had dengue fever..I am definitely not an expert but judging by the results in many countries it is a worthwhile idea for Sing Buri to administer it, since other options are limited or nonexistent.

[EyesWideOpen]

This thread has so many posts, so I'm not sure if the following point has already been made.

I've seen assertions that scientific tests have shown that homeopathic treatments are no more effective than a placebo. The point that has perhaps been missed is that a placebo can be effective. Even Jesus Christ knew that.

Remember the story when Jesus was healing the sick and he felt someone from behind touch his cloak. He turned around and asked who has touched him. After some time, a woman came forward and admitted it was she, and claimed that she was cured. Christ replied that it was her faith that had cured her. In other words, she was cured by the placebo effect.

The placebo effect is always at work, even when we take tried and tested pharmaceutical drugs, assuming that we have faith in the efficacy of modern drugs, as most of us do. It is estimated that (very approximately) around 30% of the efficacy of all drugs, on average, can be attributed to the placebo effect.

Placebos are always included in clinical trials of a new drug in order to determine if the new drug is more effective than the placebo. Sometimes the new drug might be only marginally more effective than the placebo, but still better than nothing.

However, if such a drug is only marginally more effective than a placebo, is rather expensive and has noticeable side effects, then taking a true placebo, such as a homeopathic remedy, might be the best option.

The difficulty here, of course, is that a placebo cannot be expected to have any benefits if it's labelled or described as a placebo. That would be giving the game away, which I guess I've just done. Sorry!

My god. So James Randi, in his video absolutely shredding homeopathy, has done a great

disservice to mankind by effectively removing the placebo effect? Clearly anybody who

watched the video would no longer believe it even merits the title of a medicine..

[Thai at Heart]

Although i don't say they are wrong about this,as i haven't looked at any research myself, i do want to point out that i think that it doesn't mean so much what a committee from the house of commons says.

just this week another british politicized committee would have us believe GMO foods pose no health risks, no environmental risks and would even be more nutritional. some of the biggest bullshit ever comes from politicized committees.

Indeed. Someone mentioned a while back that we have been doing selective breading (which is exactly the same thing) for 1000s of years and we know that's not true. Oh wait!

selective breeding is most definitely not the same thing, not even close. unless you think that corn can be selectively bred to a soil bacteria to make offspring which then includes BT toxins into every cell of the new "hybridized baceria/plant" organism.

enjoy your meal?

Evolution not your strong point?

Not unless humans have found a way to mate a slug with an elephant. Selective breeding and GMO are completely unrelated practice's.

[VincentRJ]

This thread has so many posts, so I'm not sure if the following point has already been made.

I've seen assertions that scientific tests have shown that homeopathic treatments are no more effective than a placebo. The point that has perhaps been missed is that a placebo can be effective. Even Jesus Christ knew that.

Remember the story when Jesus was healing the sick and he felt someone from behind touch his cloak. He turned around and asked who has touched him. After some time, a woman came forward and admitted it was she, and claimed that she was cured. Christ replied that it was her faith that had cured her. In other words, she was cured by the placebo effect.

The placebo effect is always at work, even when we take tried and tested pharmaceutical drugs, assuming that we have faith in the efficacy of modern drugs, as most of us do. It is estimated that (very approximately) around 30% of the efficacy of all drugs, on average, can be attributed to the placebo effect.

Placebos are always included in clinical trials of a new drug in order to determine if the new drug is more effective than the placebo. Sometimes the new drug might be only marginally more effective than the placebo, but still better than nothing.

However, if such a drug is only marginally more effective than a placebo, is rather expensive and has noticeable side effects, then taking a true placebo, such as a homeopathic remedy, might be the best option.

The difficulty here, of course, is that a placebo cannot be expected to have any benefits if it's labelled or described as a placebo. That would be giving the game away, which I guess I've just done. Sorry!

My god. So James Randi, in his video absolutely shredding homeopathy, has done a great

disservice to mankind by effectively removing the placebo effect? Clearly anybody who

watched the video would no longer believe it even merits the title of a medicine..

Good question, but difficult to answer because of the complexity of human psychology. Perhaps for some people the effectiveness of a placebo remedy might actually be increased as a result of the attacks from the established order, just as sometimes people's faith in their religion can be strengthened when their religion is attacked.

If you do an internet search on the processes of the placebo effect, you'll probably come across statements in scientific journals to the effect that it is not fully understood how a placebo works. However, there seems to be no doubt whatsoever that the placebo effect is real and definitely can have a beneficial healing effect.

Sometimes conventional drugs are prescribed, by a fully qualified medical doctor, for their placebo effect in helping cure an illness for which there is no known, conventionally recognized, drug.

An example would be the flu.Sometimes doctor will prescribe an antibiotic, which is generally only effective against bacterial infections, not the viral infection of the flu.

This practice can be criticized because the body, with regular use of antibiotics, can contribute towards antibiotic-resistance, making the drug relatively useless as a treatment for the bacterial infection for which it was designed. I write 'relatively' useless, because the drug might always retain a certain placebo effect.

There is also a danger in prescribing a placebo for a serious, life-threatening disease. The placebo effect in itself might not be up to the task of curing the disease, and the patient might then die through the lack of a conventionally recognized treatment, which would be a tragedy.

The confusion I see in some of the arguments against homeopathy in this thread is an assumption that because scientific testing has demonstrated that homeopathic treatment is a placebo, the treatment is therefore useless.

Placebos can often be an effective cure for those who believe in them.

[NeverSure]

Maybe some ministry should get into the root cause of the problem and starting talking to the Americans how the control mosquitoes in places like Florida. But then again health ministry probably knows more in their minds than any developed nation.

Do they have Dengue in Florida? Or Malaria? Or any other serious Mosquito-borne disease?

Unfortunately.... http://www.floridahealth.gov/diseases-and-conditions/mosquito-borne-diseases/

[Crushdepth]

Any mention of alternative medicine always brings the nutters out of the woodwork. With friends like these it doesn't need enemies

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[wilcopops]

This thread has so many posts, so I'm not sure if the following point has already been made.

I've seen assertions that scientific tests have shown that homeopathic treatments are no more effective than a placebo. The point that has perhaps been missed is that a placebo can be effective. Even Jesus Christ knew that.

Remember the story when Jesus was healing the sick and he felt someone from behind touch his cloak. He turned around and asked who has touched him. After some time, a woman came forward and admitted it was she, and claimed that she was cured. Christ replied that it was her faith that had cured her. In other words, she was cured by the placebo effect.

The placebo effect is always at work, even when we take tried and tested pharmaceutical drugs, assuming that we have faith in the efficacy of modern drugs, as most of us do. It is estimated that (very approximately) around 30% of the efficacy of all drugs, on average, can be attributed to the placebo effect.

Placebos are always included in clinical trials of a new drug in order to determine if the new drug is more effective than the placebo. Sometimes the new drug might be only marginally more effective than the placebo, but still better than nothing.

However, if such a drug is only marginally more effective than a placebo, is rather expensive and has noticeable side effects, then taking a true placebo, such as a homeopathic remedy, might be the best option.

The difficulty here, of course, is that a placebo cannot be expected to have any benefits if it's labelled or described as a placebo. That would be giving the game away, which I guess I've just done. Sorry!

My god. So James Randi, in his video absolutely shredding homeopathy, has done a great

disservice to mankind by effectively removing the placebo effect? Clearly anybody who

watched the video would no longer believe it even merits the title of a medicine..

Good question, but difficult to answer because of the complexity of human psychology. Perhaps for some people the effectiveness of a placebo remedy might actually be increased as a result of the attacks from the established order, just as sometimes people's faith in their religion can be strengthened when their religion is attacked.

If you do an internet search on the processes of the placebo effect, you'll probably come across statements in scientific journals to the effect that it is not fully understood how a placebo works. However, there seems to be no doubt whatsoever that the placebo effect is real and definitely can have a beneficial healing effect.

Sometimes conventional drugs are prescribed, by a fully qualified medical doctor, for their placebo effect in helping cure an illness for which there is no known, conventionally recognized, drug.

An example would be the flu.Sometimes doctor will prescribe an antibiotic, which is generally only effective against bacterial infections, not the viral infection of the flu.

This practice can be criticized because the body, with regular use of antibiotics, can contribute towards antibiotic-resistance, making the drug relatively useless as a treatment for the bacterial infection for which it was designed. I write 'relatively' useless, because the drug might always retain a certain placebo effect.

There is also a danger in prescribing a placebo for a serious, life-threatening disease. The placebo effect in itself might not be up to the task of curing the disease, and the patient might then die through the lack of a conventionally recognized treatment, which would be a tragedy.

The confusion I see in some of the arguments against homeopathy in this thread is an assumption that because scientific testing has demonstrated that homeopathic treatment is a placebo, the treatment is therefore useless.

Placebos can often be an effective cure for those who believe in them.

"However, there seems to be no doubt whatsoever that the placebo effect is real and definitely can have a beneficial healing effect." - absolutely not so....the placebo effect has been shown to be little or nothing and in fact only "shows up" in cases where measurement is really difficult or subjective.

Homeopathy is based on one single premise and that has no demonstrable basis.....it is water....or alcohol; period.

[wilcopops]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Just simple question does "homeopathy" "cure" Malaria or a broken leg or appendicitis or indeed anything ?

Lets have a list of what the "magic water" and sugar pills actually CURES.

Are you completely stupid or what? There is not even classic medicine remedies for appendicitis or broken leg... They're is surgery but no remedies will do anything against these. As for the list of what homeopathy actually cures, it cures everything from physical problem to difficult psychical problems ( depression for instance ) except cancers or AIDS or anything which requires surgery. But it will be very helpful to recover from, for instance, side effects of chimiotherapy or post surgery shock and even help AIDS patients to restore their immune system.

the lost for what homeopathy cures is simple - NOTHING.

[notmyself]

[Fatty123]

So what's the cure for aids? Shouting at the moon?

[notmyself]

So what's the cure for aids? Shouting at the moon?

Something along the lines of this I imagine.

[wilcopops]

"The point that has perhaps been missed is that a placebo can be effective. Even Jesus Christ knew that."

Not impressed by this citation or the conclusion...placebo only ever has been shown to make minor and temporary difference in subjective areas such as pain.