I not you still have not answered the question If you find the notion of sewerage offensive then tell me how water "forgets" all the other things it has been in contact with but "remembers" the remedies I mean there are all sorts of things from natural bacteria and amoeba through to slime and mould from the pipe linings to the pipe linings themselves and then of course there is all of the things the water comes in contact with before it gets to a treatment plant
LOL! This thread cracks me up. Hmmm, let's see how that might work. "So how come the homeopathic remedy 'remembers' the mother tincture but forgets all the rose petals that's been in it?" "What rose petals? Who said anything about putting rose petals in the water?" "Well, the water must have had rose petals in it at some time. It'll have had all sorts of stuff in it." "Of all the things that's been in it, Why d'ya pick rose petals?" "Dunno - it's just an example. What's the answer to my question?" "As you are obviously insane and have some weird rose-petal fixation, I don't need to take anything you seriously and, anyway, homeopathy works for me so stop being so closed-minded." No, that wouldn't be an ad hom, even if it were true. It's generally a good idea to look up words you don't know the meaning of before using them.
As regarding the question posed by the title of this thread: I really do not believe it is fair to describe as "skeptici[sm]" that doubt which attaches to most (reasonable) people's view of unproven therapies. (And one uses the word, "therapies," rather loosely here.) If homeopathy's acolytes will submit its touted "cures" to the usual double-blind testing, then we will be getting somewhere...
I have no problem with homeopathy. I know a couple of them. I've even used them to a greater degree of success than a medical doctor. Medical doctors want to give you the 'cure' right this minute which means they take care of your symptom ignoring what the cause of the problem is. A homeopathist goes to the root of the problem and treats THAT. Yeah. It takes longer. Sometimes as long as 3 to 6 months before you see some REAL results. But that's okay. I prefer that course of treatment, that is, treating the cause and not the symptom.
Oh please! Really? OK, now is your opportunity explain exactly how a homeopath goes to the root of the problem and what the treatment process is. Feel free to use your own experience as an illustration.
So what you're saying is that you drink water for 3 to 6 months until the condition naturally goes away and then you think it was the magical water that cured you? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
lol Yeah, homeopathy works. Even though not a single study supports the notion. Drink water people, it cures everything.
Billions? Only where it is subsidised - definition of how to go broke - open an homeopathy practice in Australia
Medicare fraud amounts to about $60 billion a year. In my humble opinion, that's not a useful contribution to health care at all. A profitable scam is still a scam that shouldn't be supported by anyone. http://www.nursetogether.com/Lifestyle/Lifestyle-Article/itemid/2408.aspx
To be fair, to a slight extent homeopathy keeps Dr's surgeries clear of the worried well who would otherwise be clogging the system with their imagined illnesses.
True, true, and it does save us from having to fund medication for illnesses such as "social anxiety disorder" although one suspects that the same patients undergoing homeopathy would also take medication for that as well. It is unfortunate though that while they are visiting homeopaths some of the more valid natural therapies like hypnotherapy are being ignored
Right, because people buying stuff means it is works. I guess because Jersey Show is popular it is a becon for an affluent society too eh? Appeal to popularity, it is a fallacy.
If the homeopathy industry generates billions of dollars annually, it should have no problem funding large, high quality trials by independent academic researchers to establish that homeopathy works. I wonder what's stopping it?
Why would they need to if they are already extremely successful? Isn't the main reason to do a study is to gain acceptance from consumers? Looks like they already have. But as to doing a double-blind study, how do you suggest they go about doing that given how homeopathy remedies are prescribed?
That is simply asinine. If they funded a stud,y and the study showed the homeopathy works, they would no longer receive flak. Any reputable company would love to pursue such a study, instead of relying on people ignorance to sell a product. You are simply an apologist.
I think the winking smiley is a hint from Suede that he already knows that. The publicly-funded UK National Health Service is closing down homeopathic hospitals like there's no tomorrow. Haha! Nice one, Suede. How about: 1. Agree on outcome measures 2. Recruit volunteers 3. Give them all consultations with homeopaths; 4. Randomise them into a control group and a treatment group, without telling them or the homeopaths which group they are in 5. Give the control group ordinary sugar pills and make up the "individualised remedies" for the treatment group according to the prescriptions of the homeopaths; 6. Compare the results of the treatment group to the control group
How many were there and how many closed and did budget cuts have any influence? So it can only be a single-blind study?
Bingo. You just defeated your own argument, are you too blinded and ignorant to see? Why care if they are selling a product that works? People spend billions anyway. Honesty is unnecessary.
The pitiful thing is that I believe those studies have already been performed, the homeopathic "remedies" have the same results as the placebos.