Is Homeopathy Effective?

[Subduction Zone]

I always find it rather humorous when people tell me that I am optimistic when I hope that they can understand a simple concept.

 

[Tiberius]

I always find it rather humorous when people tell me that I am optimistic when I hope that they can understand a simple concept.

My rating on your post was intentional.

 

[Trailblazer]

Is there any evidence to show that this works?

The evidence is the fact that it works to cure diseases, not always, but sometimes, because there are many factors involved. Whether it works or not is mostly contingent upon finding the correct remedy.

Also, if a very small amount is required, how can it be effective if the dilution process dilutes the active ingredient so much that there often isn't a single molecule of it left in the homeopathic medicine?

Because it is not the molecules of the substance that are curative, it is the homeopathic preparation.

If a person has some infection that causes, say, a fever, then homeopathy would suggest that a very small dose of something that causes a fever will work to cure the infection. My question is this: Since the body ALREADY has a substance available to it that can cause a fever (namely, the initial infection), why can't it just take a very small dose of that and use that as a homeopathic treatment without the person needing to do a single thing? Why is it that whatever is causing the illness is not enough to stimulate the healing process, but a very tiny extra amount is?

What is causing the illness is the imbalance in the body and this is why the body is susceptible to disease and cannot fight off the infection. The remedy is needed to stimulate the vital force which is what brings the body back into balance after which time the symptoms subside. Sometimes the body is able to do that on its own and the symptoms remit without treatment.

Has this energy been measured in any objective way?

Not that I am aware of.

Again, I wonder why the initial cause of the illness was not sufficient to do this.

See above.

 

[Tiberius]

The evidence is the fact that it works to cure diseases, not always, but sometimes, because there are many factors involved. Whether it works or not is mostly contingent upon finding the correct remedy.

The trouble is that you can't show that the disease was cured by some other means, perhaps the patient was taking standard medicine as well, or perhaps their own immune system was able to fight off the infection.

When these possibilities are controlled for, the success rate of homeopathy falls to the same as a placebo.

Because it is not the molecules of the substance that are curative, it is the homeopathic preparation.

Then why bother with the substance at all?

What is causing the illness is the imbalance in the body and this is why the body is susceptible to disease and cannot fight off the infection. The remedy is needed to stimulate the vital force which is what brings the body back into balance after which time the symptoms subside. Sometimes the body is able to do that on its own and the symptoms remit without treatment.

So, it's kind of like if there is a building on fire, you can put a flame near the sprinkler system and that will trigger the sprinklers to put the fire out, is that it?

Not that I am aware of.

Then there's no evidence that it exists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The evidence is the fact that it works to cure diseases, not always, but sometimes, because there are many factors involved. Whether it works or not is mostly contingent upon finding the correct remedy.

Because it is not the molecules of the substance that are curative, it is the homeopathic preparation.

What is causing the illness is the imbalance in the body and this is why the body is susceptible to disease and cannot fight off the infection. The remedy is needed to stimulate the vital force which is what brings the body back into balance after which time the symptoms subside. Sometimes the body is able to do that on its own and the symptoms remit without treatment.

Not that I am aware of.

See above.

No, that is by definition not evidence. It is actually cherry picking and nothing more. If you do not count the times that it does not work then you cannot count the supposed times that it did work.

And you are back to claiming that water has a magical memory. That is pure woo woo.

 

[Trailblazer]

I am leaving this thread again. I see no point discussing this any further. It is as pointless as discussing God or religion.

Happy trails.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am leaving this thread again. I see no point discussing this any further. It is as pointless as discussing God or religion.

Happy trails.

It is only pointless because you refuse to learn the basics of science and evidence. You handicap yourself hugely when you do that.