Is there any scientific Research in Homeopathy?

In: Homeopathy

[Edit]

From our video partners

Asthma
How to prevent and treat an asthma attack.

One View: No

If there were, believers of homeopathy would surely quote the results of such tests. The apparent lack of such test results indicates that there is none.

There are however independent test that definitively prove that homeopathic solutions have no physical effect on human beings, other than the placebo effect.

Results of double blind tests of homeopathic treatments are consistent with that of placebos.

Evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy relies almost exclusively on testimonial evidence, which is scientifically invalid.

Testimonial evidence is not scientific for the following reasons:

It does not take into consideration the total number of people tried it.
It only reflects the opinions of those who choose to relay it (usually those who improved)
Information is not collected uniformly. (i.e. after one week,year, etc)
It usually contains opinions of those whose condition improved by itself, or by other means.
It is never collected from those who die.

NEVER avoid real medical treatment for life threatening conditions!

There are very, very few reliable studies which show any evidence that Homeopathic remedies have anymore effect than a placebo. It is safe to assume that most alternative medicines have not been subjected to rigorous double-blind clinical studies by their proponents. In fact the proponents of Homeopathic remedies recommend against such trials and hold little hope that they can be of any service to them.

Homeopathic techniques may be beneficial in some cases, but not in others, so it is hardly scientific to make statements about their effectiveness. The concept of clinical testing is a tried and tested method for proving the efficacy or effectiveness of a drug, remedy or therapy. Clinical Trialling of drugs, remedies and therapies is a relatively recent testing method when compared to the age of the earth. It is however as old as medicine itself whether it be herbal, alternative or modern medicine. It is hard to believe that any form of medication is not developed without the very minimal tests required to ascertain that it will firstly not kill the patient and secondly improve, however minimally, their affliction. Some would argue that alternative medicines have a history far predating "real' medicine but this makes very little sense as "real" medicines are the result of the evolution of the many home, herbal and ancient remedies of the past. The clinical testing methods used by the pharmaceutical industry are difficult to apply to alternative medicines, because the advocates of alternative medicines do not want their products to be judged by their actual effectiveness but by the perceived outcomes they invoke in their recipients. For instance, homeopathic doctors sometimes treat mild fevers with warm blankets since the body has already recognized that heat is crippling to its infectious invaders, instead of chemically suppressing the body's ability to maintain a fever. It is hard to reconcile such a treatment with anything more than a cold. Certainly a small child suffering from a life threatening viral infection is very likely to die if the only "cure" we could offer would be a warm blanket. Contrast this with the establishments technique of treating the symptoms with a clinically proven drug which effectively fights and eventually kills the infection. Since homeopathic techniques are claimed to work with the body's natural defenses, it is almost impossible to prove any effect clinically, because their only claimed effect is boosting the immune system. The claim being that "This exactly how homeopathic techniques are intended to work, following the policy of" "Doctor, first do no harm".

Hippocrates, circa 400 B.C., is credited with creating the oath to which all doctors swore. The oath was subsequently named in his honor and survives to this day as the Hippocratic Oath. From this early date physicians were already organized into a guild, with regulations for training and the promotion of a professional ideal. To paraphrase from this oath, a doctor's responsibility is to "first, do no harm.

There is another reason why the scientific numbers are so scarce, and it has nothing to do with science. It involves money. Corporations refuse to fund the continual testing of remedies and or therapies which show absolutely no effectiveness in treating their target ailments as they are far more interested in marketing products which work and will in turn be a profitable investment. The "active ingredient" portion of homeopathic remedies is so infinitesimal in nature, so commonly available and so inexpensive to acquire as to make them enormously profitable to any manufacture so naturally if there was any market you can be sure the major drug companies with their vast plants and supply networks would have an enormous share of it. Natural substances, because they cannot be patented and monopolized, would be being marketed enthusiastically if they could be proven to have any worth in fighting any form of disease or ailment. Successful testing would only provide competition for their chemical products which are often enormously expensive to produce in comparison . A surprisingly large percentage of the "real" medicines are based upon plants, but until a corporation can chemically synthesize the plant material artificially, they cannot usually be manufactured cheaply enough to mass market in a manner economical to the end user, the patient.

Other important things you should know about your Homeopath.

1. Many Homeopaths will categorize you into a stereotypical group after several brief questions about your life and base your treatment on this grouping.

2. The "active"component in Homeopathic remedies is usually so dilute as to be undetectable even under en electron microscope. This "active ingredient is succussed (activated) by rigorous shaking of the container in which you can not detect it?

Most important is the scientific evidence or total lack of it which is often being intentionally misrepresented. For instance, Google this: homeopathy "clinical evidence".

A Word of Caution

Relying on scientific studies can be a very dangerous practice unless you are given all the details, and this means all the details, of the studies. For example, a study may conclude that the active ingredient of a drug effectively treats a health problem, but not disclose all of the ingredients that are in that drug: some of which may actually be harmful to your body, or aggravate the condition being treated in the long term. This is not as uncommon as you may think. For example, anti-depressants causing increased depression and suicide rates. Another study might find that a natural substance is an ineffective treatment, but after taking a closer look at the study, you may find that such small amounts were used that it would not have worked on an ant, or that the pharmaceutical funding the study altered the substance from its natural form before testing it.