Thread: Why does Homeopathy seem to irk skeptics the most?

One of the reasons why doctors prescribe the expensive medication rather than the cheaper generic brand is not because doctors are in on "it" but because they know that the placebo effect works better with the expensive brand than the generic. Yes, the placebo effect has to be taken into account even in medication that actually works.

Originally Posted by AllEvil

Its one of the few I've heard of. The other ones I've heard of (acupuncture, aromatherapy, etc) at least sound like they have the benefit of being relaxing.



No. It gets ire for being stupid. It gets the most ire for being well known.

Let us look at some of these "alternative medicines" on the Cochrane library (evidence based practice database of systematic reviews) or for the those who have never come across this sort of thing before - someone looking hard at a large number of scientific papers, picking those that have been well conducted (large number of people enrolled, double blind study etc) and then weighing up the evidence to see what is the overall result

Now this is just ONE of the many reports about acupuncture on Cochrane

Eleven trials with 2317 participants (median 62, range 10 to 1265) met the inclusion criteria. Two large trials compared acupuncture to treatment of acute headaches or routine care only. Both found statistically significant and clinically relevant short-term (up to 3 months) benefits of acupuncture over control for response, number of headache days and pain intensity. Long-term effects (beyond 3 months) were not investigated. Six trials compared acupuncture with a sham acupuncture intervention, and five of the six provided data for meta-analyses. Small but statistically significant benefits of acupuncture over sham were found for response as well as for several other outcomes. Three of the four trials comparing acupuncture with physiotherapy, massage or relaxation had important methodological or reporting shortcomings. Their findings are difficult to interpret, but collectively suggest slightly better results for some outcomes in the control groups.
Authors' conclusions

In the previous version of this review, evidence in support of acupuncture for tension-type headache was considered insufficient. Now, with six additional trials, the authors conclude that acupuncture could be a valuable non-pharmacological tool in patients with frequent episodic or chronic tension-type headaches.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...07587/abstract

Originally Posted by Makedde

Those 'highly skilled' idiots think that putting a child on drugs for ADHD is more beneficial than simply putting the kid on a diet and removing sugar from their diet. Because nothing else works, drugs are always best, right?
No wonder we have tons of over medicated people out there, doctors are never willing to accept that sometimes they are wrong.

A common theme of your posts is your utter contempt for medical doctors. I'm not sure what your reasoning behind this is, but it is clearly irrational. With that being said, not all doctors are pediatricians, and thus we do not all see children with ADHD. Pediatricians undoubtedly exhaust all options before starting medications. Similarly to a general practitioner who first offers "lifestyle management" to newly diagnosed hypertensive patients (e.g. low salt diet, increased aerobic exercise, weight loss regimen), pediatricians certainly also offer "lifestyle management" to ADHD patients (decrease simple sugars, regular exercise, etc) before starting medications.

Regarding these medications, they are FDA approved to treat ADHD so there is no reason for these pediatricians to "accept that sometimes they are wrong" because they aren't wrong.

If you were a pediatrician, and a mother came to you with her hyper child who you diagnosed with ADHD, what would you do after the child failed "lifestyle management" options? It's very easy to criticize others, but for once try to put yourself in their shoes.

Now let us look at Aromatherapy

Four studies have been included in this review; but none had data in a form that could be used. The additional analyses conducted using individual patient data from Ballard 2002 revealed a statistically significant treatment effect in favour of the aroma therapy intervention on measures of agitation and neuropsychiatric symptoms.
Authors' conclusions

Aroma therapy showed benefit for people with dementia in the only trial that contributed data to this review, but it is important to note there were several methodological difficulties with this study. More well designed large-scale RCTs are needed before clear conclusions can be drawn on the effectiveness of aroma therapy. Additionally, several issues need to be addressed, such as whether different aroma therapy interventions are comparable and the possibility that outcomes may vary for different types of dementia.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...03150/abstract

So not many studies but many nursing homes do use it - but I suspect that is because it is preferrable to the normal smell of Eu de Wee

Originally Posted by Makedde

As I said, if it works for someone, then who are you to tell them that it doesn't and they shouldn't waste their money?

Because people in the know (like physicians) have an obligation to only advise treatment methodology that is substantiated by clinical trials that yield stastically significant results. Anything otherwise would be a dereliction of their duties and an affront to the Hippocratic Oath.

I am sick to death of doctors claiming something doesn't work because the science hasn't determined it.

So if a group of people state to me that eating horse feces cured their cancer, should I start recommending to all of my cancer patients to start eating horse feces? You reasoning is HUGELY flawed. You actually condemn doctors for adhering to the scientific method?! Yeah, how dare they. Would you rather they all recommend random untested treatment modalities to their patients instead (like eating horse feces to cure cancer)?!

People come on TV saying that such and such a thing helped with their pain and some idiot doctor comes on and says that there is no evidence it works.

YES!!! That's a doctor's job! If there is no evidence behind the efficacy of a certain treatment, then no doctor in his right mind would recommend it. What is your aversion towards science and evidence-based medicine?!

And if the dude on TV really had something that worked, he would have conducted a randomized clinical trial proving a statistically significant result!

Those doctors need to shut up and let people use whatever they wish to make themselves feel better.

No doctor will hold a gun to your head and force you to not take a placebo, so I fail to see your point here. If you want to be an idiot and take something not backed by clinical research, be my guest.

Why should they shut up? Because they actually care that their patients undergo treatment that is backed up by stastitically significant evidence?!!! Because they actually want their patients to get better?! Because they don't want to lose their medical license?!! How dare they.

Originally Posted by Makedde

Those 'highly skilled' idiots think that putting a child on drugs for ADHD is more beneficial than simply putting the kid on a diet and removing sugar from their diet. Because nothing else works, drugs are always best, right?
No wonder we have tons of over medicated people out there, doctors are never willing to accept that sometimes they are wrong.

while it is true that some poor behaviour issues are related to diet (and poor sleeping patterns are another significant contributor) simply reducing sugar intake won't do squat when a child has a diagnosis of ADHD.

I seriously doubt many doctors hand out meds to pre teens without looking at all factors.

maybe some do - but these would be the exception rather than the rule.

I think though that meds in conjunction with behavioural intervention therapies would work better than meds alone, but a significant number of parents find these therapies too challenging.

Originally Posted by suede

Yes it does. You asked "does it?" and I showed you evidence that it does.


Any so-called "snake oil" therapy. Of all of them, why does Homeopathy seem to irk the skeptics the most?


*sigh* I have. No need to make they more complicated than it is.

no.

you didn't answer my question.

I haven't really seen any evidence that homeopathy irks sceptics more than the whole range of other alternative therapies.

I am not wanting to make it complicated. its just if you make a claim like that, it should be an accurate claim, and I haven't seen that it is.

Originally Posted by suede

I don't think Googling for the number of results is a great indicator, but isn't comparing Homeopathy with Naturopathy like comparing apples and oranges? Homeopathy is a type of medicine where Naturopathy is like a natural MD who prescribes remedies that include things like Homeopathics.


Then your answer should be skeptics aren't more irked by Homeopathy compared to any other "snake oil" remedy.

Not sure why this is so difficult for the Homeopathy haters.

you've also no evidence that I am a homeopathy hater.

got a homeopathic remedy for feelings of irrational persecution?

I understand there are some good flower remedies for this kind of thing.

OK, so why does homeopathy seem to irk the skeptic community the most out of all alternative medicines?

Who exactly is saying that it does? Can you give me a specific example of someone who says that Homeopathy is worse than other forms of snake oil?

You have constructed a strawman argument.

Me: You're the expert here, right? Give us some examples of "alternative" medicines that work but are not scientifically proven.

That's not what this thread is about.

That appears to be a tacit admission that you cannot provide any such examples.

Originally Posted by AllEvil

No. It gets ire for being stupid. It gets the most ire for being well known.

Still trying to find where you get that Homeopathy is more well known than other Alt therapies. In my experience, it is not. I still got people asking me "what is that?" when I mention Homeopathy, but never when I mention things like Accupunture, Chiropractic, or Naturopathy.