Author Topic: If you need any further proof that homeopathy is bad  (Read 1176 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
  • Posts: 29,439
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
If you need any further proof that homeopathy is bad
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/fda-confirms-toxicity-of-homeopathic-baby-products-maker-refuses-to-recall/

In short, the makers of a homeopathic remedy for teething babies refuse to recall the product despite the fact that 400 babies became sick and 10 actually died due to the fact that it contains elevated levels of deadly nightshade! Apparently these guys can't even do their psuedoscience correctly and didn't dilute their product enough to change it from "Toxic" to "Does nothing at all" :rolleyes:

I have no idea why these people aren't being prosecuted.



EDIT: You know what's ironic? Whenever people tell me that something must be better cause it's natural I always point out that belladonna is also natural cause I didn't think anyone would be stupid enough to eat it, let alone give it to babies.
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline BlueFlames

  • 29
  • Posts: 741
    • http://www.shatteredstar.org/ssx
Re: If you need any further proof that homeopathy is bad
Quote
Apparently these guys can't even do their psuedoscience correctly and didn't dilute their product enough to change it from "Toxic" to "Does nothing at all"

Remember that one of the dumbest parts of homeopathy is that the more you dilute the active ingredient, the more powerful the resulting "medication" is considered to be.  If the levels of nightshade were elevated, then the homeopaths who brewed it probably consider it to be too weak to be remotely threatening, but if they had diluted it to the point where you couldn't find a single molecule of active ingredient in the bottle, then it'd be considered too strong to administer to children.

 

Offline DefCynodont119

  • 26
  • Posts: 124
  • Late-Permian Therapsids and 80s hair metal
    • Steam
Re: If you need any further proof that homeopathy is bad
This is horrible, just horrible. My sincerest condolences to those parents.
My gift from Freespace to Cities Skylines:  http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=639891299

 

Offline AtomicClucker

  • 28
  • Posts: 266
  • Runnin' from Trebs
Re: If you need any further proof that homeopathy is bad
Not to say I don't disregard homeopathy... but it still has to have a good pile of science behind it.

And as for supplements and a lot of this homeopathy bull****? It's stupid. People are gullible, and as soon as you say 'dem kids' they lose their minds... and even when dead kids happen.
Blame Blue Planet for my Freespace2 addiction.

 

Offline -Joshua-

  • 210
  • Posts: 1,700
Re: If you need any further proof that homeopathy is bad
Not to say I don't disregard homeopathy... but it still has to have a good pile of science behind it.

It does not, actually. There is a lot of science behind the placebo effect, though!

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
  • Posts: 29,439
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Re: If you need any further proof that homeopathy is bad
If you actually read what homeopathy is, there's no way you can believe it's scientific.

In order to make a homeopathic remedy you take a drop of the active ingredient and add it into water. Then you tap the container against a leather saddle. Then you take a drop of that solution and add it into water. Repeat the process 30 times (ignoring the fact that by the 12th dilution there is unlikely to be a single molecule of the active agent left in the solution)

Remember the leather saddle is important! Without it the remedy won't work! (Most logical people of course will point out that with the saddle it still won't work)


Now what is remotely scientific about that?
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline Mika

  • 28
  • Posts: 473
Re: If you need any further proof that homeopathy is bad
Not to say I don't disregard homeopathy... but it still has to have a good pile of science behind it.

And as for supplements and a lot of this homeopathy bull****? It's stupid. People are gullible, and as soon as you say 'dem kids' they lose their minds... and even when dead kids happen.

I have to ask what homeopathy means to you? Is it what Karajorma describes above, or do you mean it as with the parts of manual therapy included?

For most of the Europeans, homeopathy likely means what Karajorma said, but I have seen that the US homeopaths are actually including manual therapy to their repertoire, and that is definitely with a solid empirical and scientific background. Now if only someone figured out the scientific explanation for the trigger points we would be all set.
Relaxed movement is always more effective than forced movement.

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
  • Posts: 29,439
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Re: If you need any further proof that homeopathy is bad
I have seen that the US homeopaths are actually including manual therapy to their repertoire, and that is definitely with a solid empirical and scientific background. Now if only someone figured out the scientific explanation for the trigger points we would be all set.

By manual therapy do you mean stuff like the similarly completely unproven and likely to actually be harmful chiropractic?
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline Mika

  • 28
  • Posts: 473
Re: If you need any further proof that homeopathy is bad
I don't know what is your context for chiropractic.

No, I don't believe in subluxations or such. But I can easily believe that the bones in joints can be dislocated, yes. I do believe there can be such things as facet locks (don't know if this is an English term) in the spine. And that's where you need to do something like visiting a naprapath or chiropractic to get them back to correct positions. But that has to be done in a smart way.

From what I've done manual therapy (mostly Chinese manual therapy excluding the needles), there's several types of bodies that respond differently to physical stress encountered in sports. For some people, their joints give away. Some people tear their muscles. And some people (like me), the body responds by tightening the surrounding muscle tissue to protect against an actual dislocation. If that what would dislocate happens to be your spine, the muscles around the spine will work hard and your spine could get a facet lock out of that. If that happens, your mobility will be generally reduced.

There was a case where I was not able to rotate my head to look at left, while I could easily look at right. That was a facet lock below shoulder blades, and I could easily identify the moment when that happened - attempting to rotate the head towards left caused a feeling of pressure at that point. The facet lock gave away in a massage treatment where muscles were first warmed around the spine, and then the spine was gently pressed with slowly increasing and rotating force. After the snapping sound, the back and head mobility was restored. Well, the treatment of the muscle trigger points in the surrounding tissue had to be done as well to get rid of the possibility the muscles would pull the facet to a wrong position again.

The medical doctors would have likely ordered a muscle relaxant for this case, I tend to think the manual therapy is the more directed method to the actual point of trouble. But the problem is, finding a good manual therapist is not easy. Some people say that the facet locks pop after some time. I haven't personally been willing to test that one out as I have a training program to follow. The longest time I have experienced such a lock was two weeks and I wasn't particularly amused of the situation.
Relaxed movement is always more effective than forced movement.

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
  • Posts: 29,439
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Re: If you need any further proof that homeopathy is bad
I notice you didn't provide any of the "solid empirical and scientific background" you claimed existed and went straight to anecdotal evidence. People do the exact same thing with homeopathy. That's why it's still a thing even though there's absolutely no scientific way it could possibly work.
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline Dragon

  • Citation needed
  • 212
  • Posts: 6,689
  • The sky is the limit.
Re: If you need any further proof that homeopathy is bad
Actually, acupuncture, massage and manual therapy are (if done correctly, of course) established as legitimate medical techniques. I don't have access to academic journals right now (and even if I did, you probably don't, these things tend to be paywalled), but it really does help. You can probably find some sources on Wikipedia if it meets your criteria of "scientific". It's not just placebo, either. Muscles, nerves and even bones do respond to external stimuli, which can, if applied properly, fix things. You can't do much with bones unless you're doing some very long-term stuff (like spending half your life in a chair... I know something about that), but muscles can be relaxed by kinetic and thermal stimuli. This won't work miracles (like some less legit manual therapists claim), but it'll help with your back pain, at least.

Homeopathy is plain humbug, but don't discount all of alternative medicine because of it. There's a lot of quacks claiming to practice it, but human body can be influenced by things other than chemicals or cutting it up and fiddling with internals. Indeed, I think it's only called "alternative" medicine because until a few hundred years ago, European medicine boiled down to "drink milk with honey, stay warm and pray to God for health".

 

Offline Mika

  • 28
  • Posts: 473
Re: If you need any further proof that homeopathy is bad
Are you advocating that the manual therapy does not work, is scientifically unfounded, or both?

The reason I didn't slap out the scientific articles was because I wanted to know what we are talking about to begin with. Chiropracty can mean different things for different people. For scientific starting point of the discussion would be to know the basics, starting from the myo-fascial pain.

The existence of the trigger points is well-known in the manual therapist circles, it is an empirical observation, and so are the techniques to release them. What is unknown is the actual physical mechanism that creates them, i.e. why does the muscle build the tender spot when it becomes overstressed?

Homeopathy and their dilutions, well, that does not make any sense to me.
Relaxed movement is always more effective than forced movement.

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
  • Posts: 29,439
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Re: If you need any further proof that homeopathy is bad
Actually, acupuncture, massage and manual therapy are (if done correctly, of course) established as legitimate medical techniques. I don't have access to academic journals right now (and even if I did, you probably don't, these things tend to be paywalled), but it really does help. You can probably find some sources on Wikipedia if it meets your criteria of "scientific". It's not just placebo, either.

Okay.

Quote
Using the principles of evidence-based medicine to research acupuncture is controversial, and has produced different results. Some research suggests acupuncture can alleviate pain but the majority of research suggests that acupuncture's effects are mainly due to placebo. Evidence suggests that any benefits of acupuncture are short-lasting. There is insufficient evidence to support use of acupuncture compared to mainstream medical treatments.[80] Acupuncture is not better than mainstream treatment in the long term.

Publication bias is cited as a concern in the reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture. A 1998 review of studies on acupuncture found that trials originating in China, Japan, Hong Kong, and Taiwan were uniformly favourable to acupuncture, as were ten out of eleven studies conducted in Russia. A 2011 assessment of the quality of RCTs on TCM, including acupuncture, concluded that the methodological quality of most such trials (including randomization, experimental control, and blinding) was generally poor, particularly for trials published in Chinese journals (though the quality of acupuncture trials was better than the trials testing TCM remedies). The study also found that trials published in non-Chinese journals tended to be of higher quality.[84] Chinese authors use more Chinese studies, which have been demonstrated to be uniformly positive. A 2012 review of 88 systematic reviews of acupuncture published in Chinese journals found that less than half of these reviews reported testing for publication bias, and that the majority of these reviews were published in journals with impact factors of zero.

from here


Quote
Vertebral subluxation, the core concept of chiropractic, is not based on solid science. A 2008 review found that with the possible exception of back pain, chiropractic manipulation has not been shown to be effective for any medical condition. Commenting on a famous ‘systematic’ review by Bronfort et al., Edzard Ernst stated that it was a notorious example of a pseudo-systematic review that omitted evidence, for instance, of negative primary studies.

from here.



I could go on but I won't. Burden of proof is on those who claimed that these kind of therapies are actually scientific.
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline Dragon

  • Citation needed
  • 212
  • Posts: 6,689
  • The sky is the limit.
Re: If you need any further proof that homeopathy is bad
Well, of course it's not going to cure cold or anything like that. Techniques like that are going to have most effect in muscles, joints and nerve endings. The article on acupuncture you linked also claims that it does seem to help with certain conditions related to joint and muscle pain... which is about what you'd expect from a therapy that involves poking about one's back. It's probably not going to be of much help against allergies or cancer, but there are things that can be fixed that way.

Also, I never said they're scientifically founded (they're not), just that they work and science gives us no reason to say they don't (a very important distinction in science). Yes, there are issues with study quality in quite a few cases, but the point is, the treatments work, even if we do not entirely know how. Acupuncture not being better than "sham acupuncture" only proves that it's not working based on the esoteric humbug as it claims, but something (maybe exerting pressure is enough? Or perhaps the points are less important than we thought?). It's perfectly acceptable to be right for the wrong reasons, though setting those reasons straight is often useful.

You're claiming they have no basis in science, I (and Mika) are only claiming that they work. One thing you should understand is that science is highly incomplete. Things turn out not to work like we thought they did all the time, especially in biology. There are many things we can't explain, many things that we have yet to discover. There is a reason why pinching, poking and massaging various muscles affects other things (though mostly causes the muscles to stop aching). The explanations offered might be pseudoscientific, but this doesn't mean there isn't a scientific one waiting to be discovered.

 

Offline AtomicClucker

  • 28
  • Posts: 266
  • Runnin' from Trebs
Re: If you need any further proof that homeopathy is bad
Not to say I don't disregard homeopathy... but it still has to have a good pile of science behind it.

And as for supplements and a lot of this homeopathy bull****? It's stupid. People are gullible, and as soon as you say 'dem kids' they lose their minds... and even when dead kids happen.

I have to ask what homeopathy means to you? Is it what Karajorma describes above, or do you mean it as with the parts of manual therapy included?

For most of the Europeans, homeopathy likely means what Karajorma said, but I have seen that the US homeopaths are actually including manual therapy to their repertoire, and that is definitely with a solid empirical and scientific background. Now if only someone figured out the scientific explanation for the trigger points we would be all set.

I should elaborate - I think most homeopathy is built on lies perpetuated on lies - why do you think the supplement industry here is so big... and morally bankrupt? People are stupid and believe whatever science is dropped on their morning broadcast from television to Youtube endorsements. Thing like licorice and peppermint have been scientifically shown to be healthy, but tell that to supplement manufacturers and witch-doctors selling people on stupidity that it'll cure your joints and straighten your teeth.
Blame Blue Planet for my Freespace2 addiction.

 

Offline -Joshua-

  • 210
  • Posts: 1,700
Re: If you need any further proof that homeopathy is bad
You're claiming they have no basis in science, I (and Mika) are only claiming that they work. One thing you should understand is that science is highly incomplete. Things turn out not to work like we thought they did all the time, especially in biology. There are many things we can't explain, many things that we have yet to discover. There is a reason why pinching, poking and massaging various muscles affects other things (though mostly causes the muscles to stop aching). The explanations offered might be pseudoscientific, but this doesn't mean there isn't a scientific one waiting to be discovered.

That's not what that means. Having no basis in science doesn't mean "We do not have an explanation on how this works" it means "We have not observed this phenomenon during any properly conducted experiments". We know that gravity exists but we can't explain why it works. We can observe that it does work. Evolution was just as scientific before we found out what DNA was. You can observe the placebo effect, but we're not yet fully able to explain how it works.

That's what medical tests are for: You take two groups, you perform the treaty on the one and you give the other group a fake, something they think the treatment is to account for the placebo effect. The people who are given the treatment (or not) and the people who observe the (lack of) treatment's results should not know which groups got the treatment and which ones did not, and the control group and the treatment group should be random sample of the population.

When you have taken all that into account you've created two tests which differ on only one variable: The treatment itself.
And then you measure the difference between those two tests. "Having no basis in science" means that there have been no such tests that produced a difference in results that can't be accounted for by other factors such as statistical randomness or a botched experiment.

 

Offline Dragon

  • Citation needed
  • 212
  • Posts: 6,689
  • The sky is the limit.
Re: If you need any further proof that homeopathy is bad
The thing is, such tests were, in fact, conducted (and not just in China) and effects were observed. If you're going by that definition, then Kara's assertion would be disproved by the very Wiki article he quoted. Yes, tests were not as strong as they should've been, some studies are disputed, but the overall conclusion seems to be that, under certain conditions and for certain things, acupuncture does work (chiropractic is less extensively studied, so I wouldn't draw conclusion on that).

You mentioned that a trial reduces the question to just one variable, but this is an ideal situation which may not apply in practice. For instance, you need to keep in mind the fact that placebo you're administering to the control group may not be placebo. That is another thing you have to watch out for. Say, you're conducting a drug trial and give one group a tablet you're testing, and the other group an identical tablet of sugar. Can you be completely sure that a sugar tablet is not, in fact, an effective treatment for this disease?

Now, in most cases like this, it's pretty certain than giving the patient sugar won't help him beyond placebo effect. If you know the mechanism, you can guess what will and what won't affect the disease. Now, with acupuncture, you can't be that certain. Is the "sham acupuncture" you're using for control placebo, or is it an effective treatment of its own? This is an effect you have to watch out for when designing trials. It's also greatly complicated if you don't know the mechanism by which the treatment is supposed to work. That's why work in that area has been labeled "inconclusive". As long as nobody is willing to pay for a comprehensive, large-scale study, this is gonna be the best we've got.

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
  • Posts: 29,439
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Re: If you need any further proof that homeopathy is bad
Quote
the majority of research suggests that acupuncture's effects are mainly due to placebo

And then the quote went on to point out the massive publication bias that exists in other research. Yet you still insist "It works! So there must be a reason. It's just that science doesn't understand it yet!"

This is exactly what people who argue in favour of homeopathy do. The difference is that in the case of homeopathy it can easily be proven that not only does it not work, but that it's scientifically impossible for it to work. acupuncture, etc aren't as obviously false, so if people are getting better only due to the placebo effect it is much harder to see the cause.

Now I'm not going to claim that acupuncture doesn't work. Maybe it does. But I'm definitely going to tear strips off anyone who claims it has been scientifically proven that it does or that there is lots of empirical evidence that it does. There quite simply isn't. Anyone who says there is good evidence is wrong, plain and simple.
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline Mika

  • 28
  • Posts: 473
Re: If you need any further proof that homeopathy is bad
Not to say I don't disregard homeopathy... but it still has to have a good pile of science behind it.

And as for supplements and a lot of this homeopathy bull****? It's stupid. People are gullible, and as soon as you say 'dem kids' they lose their minds... and even when dead kids happen.

I have to ask what homeopathy means to you? Is it what Karajorma describes above, or do you mean it as with the parts of manual therapy included?

For most of the Europeans, homeopathy likely means what Karajorma said, but I have seen that the US homeopaths are actually including manual therapy to their repertoire, and that is definitely with a solid empirical and scientific background. Now if only someone figured out the scientific explanation for the trigger points we would be all set.

I should elaborate - I think most homeopathy is built on lies perpetuated on lies - why do you think the supplement industry here is so big... and morally bankrupt? People are stupid and believe whatever science is dropped on their morning broadcast from television to Youtube endorsements. Thing like licorice and peppermint have been scientifically shown to be healthy, but tell that to supplement manufacturers and witch-doctors selling people on stupidity that it'll cure your joints and straighten your teeth.

Ah, I see. That's reasonable.

Quote
Vertebral subluxation, the core concept of chiropractic, is not based on solid science. A 2008 review found that with the possible exception of back pain, chiropractic manipulation has not been shown to be effective for any medical condition. Commenting on a famous ‘systematic’ review by Bronfort et al., Edzard Ernst stated that it was a notorious example of a pseudo-systematic review that omitted evidence, for instance, of negative primary studies.

Nice wording there, researchers! :lol: I mean, they investigated pretty much everything else but the one that seemed to have some merit they left alone! Makes me wonder how well did they actually investigate the test subjects themselves?

From Wikipedia article spinal manipulation:
Quote
A 2010 systematic review found that most studies suggest SM achieves equal or superior improvement in pain and function when compared with other commonly used interventions for short, intermediate, and long-term follow-up.
, the article in question is: Dagenais S, Gay RE, Tricco AC, Freeman MD, Mayer JM (2010). "NASS Contemporary Concepts in Spine Care: Spinal manipulation therapy for acute low back pain". Spine J. 10 (10): 918–940. The myo-fascial pain article at Wikipedia lists 13 published peer-reviewed articles related to the manual therapy (but not necessarily to spinal manipulation), 12 of them being from 2000s.

And yes, if you go look at Wikipedia, you'll find differing opinions in the sentences before and after. So the published results are inconclusive, but what is not clear is why. I tend to think this is related to the test group not being analyzed properly either by the Physicians or by the Therapists, but your opinion is as good as mine. Some of the pain can be eliminated with spinal manipulation, while some of it cannot, and the reason likely lies in what is actually causing the pain. The same treatment doesn't and shouldn't cure everything. And that's how you start to find the good ones, they are the ones with realistic views on what they can do and actual skills to analyze the situation.

For the others, the reason I'm defending some of the chiropractors is first that what is actually done differs vastly between the countries, and secondly, because some of the techniques they employ are useful. Interestingly, I don't even recognize the chiropracty listed in the Wikipedia article compared to what it is here. Also, does anybody actually believe that chiropracty is rooted on some kind of "modern" discoveries? These manipulation techniques are far older, and go along with the bone fracture treatment skills that modern medicine mostly adopted and integrated - what our generation has expanded is the bone fracture treatment with surgeries that were not feasible before.

As far as I'm aware, the possible issues arising with the manual therapy and spine are mostly related to force being applied sharply and suddenly to the affected area, or the patient having a pre-existing condition in the spine like ruptured vertebra discs. The greatest risk lies in the manipulation of the back of the neck area, where applying sudden pressure can rupture an artery or damage the spinal cord. But it is also that the practitioner would need to be an idiot to do that. The force needed is usually no greater than the force that is applied on the back while doing a somersault.
Relaxed movement is always more effective than forced movement.

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
  • Posts: 29,439
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Re: If you need any further proof that homeopathy is bad
Stop cherry picking.

Quote
Low back pain. A 2013 Cochrane review found very low to moderate evidence that SMT was no more effective than inert interventions, sham SMT or as an adjunct therapy for acute low back pain. The same review found that SMT appears to be no better than other recommended therapies. A 2012 overview of systematic reviews found that collectively, SM failed to show it is an effective intervention for pain. A 2011 Cochrane review found strong evidence that suggests there is no clinically meaningful difference between SMT and other treatments for reducing pain and improving function for chronic low back pain. A 2010 Cochrane review found no current evidence to support or refute a clinically significant difference between the effects of combined chiropractic interventions and other interventions for chronic or mixed duration low back pain. A 2010 systematic review found that most studies suggest SMT achieves equivalent or superior improvement in pain and function when compared with other commonly used interventions for short, intermediate, and long-term follow-up.Specific guidelines concerning the treatment of nonspecific (i.e. unknown cause) low back pain are inconsistent between countries.
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]