ivoryandwines said: I wonder what's your problem with homeopathic treatments? Because afaik around here they are treated as legitimate options for people with medication allergies or when it just plain works reliably and has less sideeffects. I treat colds and throat inflamations (and other inflamations usually depending on severity) with apis in small doses and that's definitly homeopathic. It has never failed me. I treat half my minor ailments with herb teas. it's not like this is somethign I'd ask a [1/?]
Hmm, looks like there’s a difference in meaning here.
In Germany, homeopathic medicine is the catchall for stuff that is not 100% lab-grown afaik, or that’s what I got from the use of the word around these parts here.
I mean it’s a fact that there’s stuff in some plants that helps with some stuff.
(my gp prescribed some stuff with bee venom in it for my inflamed throat, worked like a charm)
(the ‘stuff with bee venom’ is apis. Potence D6, five globuli every [insert time period I forgot rn] btw you can dissolve that stuff in water and put it on external inflamations too. everything that comes from bees has inflammation curing properties.)
apparently the definition of homeopathy is ‘treat similar with similar’, so something that can cause some symptom in healthy people is used to treat an ailment of similar symptoms. However it at some point got ridiculous, when the guy who started it became obsessed with using toxic components in such littles doses that they could no longer be detected in the medication under the belief that it would pull out some weird ethereal magycks from the toxic components. Idk apparently he thought if you rub stuff while you dissolve it in ethanol it becomes suddenly more helpful. [Did I get that right? I’m unsure]
Idk I use D6 (1:1.000.000) for most things, that’s pretty standard even if it sounds little but since most of the stuff in pure form can kill it’s probably reasonable.
Before I read up on it I thought homeopathy is like ‘every medication made directly from nature stuff through distillation or other methods’ instead of ‘we made a thing in labs that can be used to treat this’.
Is there a single double-blind study, anywhere, ever, supporting this claim?
Because if there’s an actual medical property here, then there ought to be. It’s not as though there’s any shortage of research budget to be had for things to reduce inflammations.
I currently do not have the 36 bucks to purchase the entire study buuuut apparently in 2002 they had some findings in relation to Rheumathoid Arthritis: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002432050201617X
I am not actually at all proficient in science/medical jargon, so I’m not too sure what to google for. I just know my GP recommends apis 6X for throat inflammations and the doc I used to see as a kid did too. As I have no degree in medicine I do not feel in a position to argue with specialists.
I am comfortable with arguing with specialists when I have good evidence that their specialty is a fraud. Since in general there is very good evidence that the “like treats like” thing is not actually true, and there’s a lot of outright fraud in that industry, I am pretty distrustful.
I do love it when things have scientific studies about them that proof why they work. But I think some scientists don’t take ‘home remedies’ seriously enough to do extensive studies about them. Just because something hasn’t had a study performed about it doesn’t mean it cannot possibly work.
I don’t think there are any widely-known home remedies that haven’t been studied. Many, many, mainstream medications come from old home remedies like willow bark.ask for a ‘real’ treatment to fix them, but they are uncomfortable enough that I have to do something against them and when my GP recommends things and they work I’m not gonna question if it’s some fancy ‘real’ medicine or just a herbal tea. I’m not exactly sure why homeopathy when practiced by a professional and practiced within common sense should be turned down as a treatment option? honest question. [2/2]Long story short: Because there is literally nothing to “homeopathy”. There’s some stuff that gets that name used for it that’s actually some kind of medicine, but “homeopathy” per se is based on the “and if you remove even more of it it works even better” theory.Basically, there’s nothing that is identified as “homeopathy” that “works reliably” in the sense of “can be shown to work in clinical environments in double-blind tests”. So for the most part, the word means “charging people money and making medical claims that are completely baseless”.
Generations of housewives giving chamomile tea instead of some fancy medicine for tummy aches cannot be all that wrong. I don’t know if chamomile is scientifically proven to relief nausea and stomach aches. But I know it works at least for me (no matter how gross it tastes yeaugh).
I don’t know what of that is placebo-magic but herbal treatments for small illnesses have worked 700 years ago and they still work today.
But they can be all that wrong, sometimes. There’s been some history of well-accepted “home remedies” being really bad ideas. There’s a lot of errors you get if you haven’t got the habit of checking things out and keeping detailed logs.
For the record, chamomile has been scientifically tested as a remedy for various things. Check the citations for some..
Plenty of herbal remedies have been studied for actual effectiveness and the lack of such testing is, as seebs say, a gigantic red flag of bullshit.