Ever heard of homoeopathic medicine? 19 replies

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

random_soldier1337

I live on Gaming Forums

411 XP

17th June 2008

0 Uploads

2,038 Posts

4 Threads

#1 4 years ago

Without using Google.

Just wondering if people further west are aware that there is such a thing. I'm gonna be moving abroad soon and your answers may give me a small idea of what is the likelihood of obtaining it in Europe and the American continents, seeing as the treatment is suiting me better (at least in my current situation).




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,337 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,145 Posts

5 Threads

#2 4 years ago

I saw a small shop for it once, but that's not there any more. I think it's mostly one of those American things - though it's doubtless available privately in the UK, either in person or via the net, and I guess it's possible some NHS hospitals have decided it's easier to hand that stuff out than it is to spend doctor time.




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

216,838 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

19,998 Posts

6 Threads

#3 4 years ago

It is relatively popular in Germany. Some doctors specialize in it, you certainly can get all sorts of homeopathic "medicine" in pharmacies. Most of the stuff would be classified as over the counter drugs in Europe or the US, so you could just look up online pharmacies in the country you want to move to and look whether they have what you need.




random_soldier1337

I live on Gaming Forums

411 XP

17th June 2008

0 Uploads

2,038 Posts

4 Threads

#4 4 years ago

Nemmerle;5740777I saw a small shop for it once, but that's not there any more. I think it's mostly one of those American things - though it's doubtless available privately in the UK, either in person or via the net, and I guess it's possible some NHS hospitals have decided it's easier to hand that stuff out than it is to spend doctor time.[/QUOTE]

So just the stuff in the UK? No doctor's to hand out a prescription or anything? That would make it sort of hard to figure if what I'm buying is what is best to aid me...

[QUOTE=MrFancypants;5740779]It is relatively popular in Germany. Some doctors specialize in it, you certainly can get all sorts of homeopathic "medicine" in pharmacies. Most of the stuff would be classified as over the counter drugs in Europe or the US, so you could just look up online pharmacies in the country you want to move to and look whether they have what you need.

Why the quote on "medicine"?

And anything on doctor's outside of Germany? Again, kind of hard to know if what I'm buying is what is going to cure me, especially if the instructions on it might be vague or if it just says what's inside.




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,337 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,145 Posts

5 Threads

#5 4 years ago
random_soldier1337;5740785So just the stuff in the UK? No doctor's to hand out a prescription or anything? That would make it sort of hard to figure if what I'm buying is what is best to aid me...

There's no legal regulation of homoeopathic practitioners in the UK.

Since the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee has said there is no evidence that homoeopathy is effective as a treatment for any health condition, I'm not even sure how such a thing would be meant to work. How can they say that one homoeopath is selling nonsense when their stance is that the entire subject is nonsense?

There are homoeopathic professional associations in the UK. But since they're not regulated - and since there'd be nothing to judge the effectiveness of regulation against any way - that's pretty much meaningless.




random_soldier1337

I live on Gaming Forums

411 XP

17th June 2008

0 Uploads

2,038 Posts

4 Threads

#6 4 years ago

Nemmerle;5740788There's no legal regulation of homoeopathic practitioners in the UK.

Since the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee has said there is no evidence that homoeopathy is effective as a treatment for any health condition, I'm not even sure how such a thing would be meant to work. How can they say that one homoeopath is selling nonsense when their stance is that the entire subject is nonsense?

There are homoeopathic professional associations in the UK. But since they're not regulated - and since there'd be nothing to judge the effectiveness of regulation against any way - that's pretty much meaningless.

Yeah I don't get how that really works either. I'm not a legal system buff, but if their stance is that the entire thing is nonsense, why even allow any selling of such medicine or any practitioners? Can't quacks be held accountable for possible endangering of their patients, since they don't really know what they are doing? Or is there some ulterior motive like government revenue or such. As is the case with alcohol and tobacco products (at least here).

The other issue to be addressed (if Wikipedia is to be believed) is that any other form of medicine other than Allopathic is lumped into alternative medicine and apparently, useless, because "it couldn't be proven scientifically". Isn't there the fact to consider that most Western governments (as far as my knowledge goes) lobby Allopathic. How would the degree of bias/influence vs. actual proof be noted?




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,337 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,145 Posts

5 Threads

#7 4 years ago

random_soldier1337;5740791Yeah I don't get how that really works either. I'm not a legal system buff, but if their stance is that the entire thing is nonsense, why even allow any selling of such medicine or any practitioners? Can't quacks be held accountable for possible endangering of their patients, since they don't really know what they are doing? Or is there some ulterior motive like government revenue or such. As is the case with alcohol and tobacco products (at least here).[/QUOTE]

-shrug- They may just consider it too bothersome, or believe that people without real problems will go there instead of the NHS - thus relieving pressure on the conventional health service.

Or perhaps it would just be a bad political move. You'd lose the votes of people who believed ardently in it and what would you really stand to gain?

[QUOTE=random_soldier1337;5740791]The other issue to be addressed (if Wikipedia is to be believed) is that any other form of medicine other than Allopathic is lumped into alternative medicine and apparently, useless, because "it couldn't be proven scientifically". Isn't there the fact to consider that most Western governments (as far as my knowledge goes) lobby Allopathic. How would the degree of bias/influence vs. actual proof be noted?

I wouldn't know much about that.

The fact that the tobacco industry lost their conflict with science gives me some degree of faith in it - and the fact that it took so long for them to lose puts certain limits on that faith. Allopathic medicine's been around for a pretty long time - people generally seem to die with it less today than they did a hundred years ago - and so that seems reasonably solid to me. We should generally choose to be part of the group in which fewer people die if we want to live.

Why did Allopathic medicine become dominant in the first place? Why did - and again we'd be going back hundreds of years here - why did one group of people come to be respected and one group not? One explanation, and I can't think of much other, is that it worked. Whereas the alternative didn't work or for whatever it was worth didn't work as well.

It also seems to me that science is not particularly hard to do in the big cases. Small effects, we can argue about - there's a certain amount of statistical dishonesty, or mistakes, that go on there. And a certain amount of flaws in experimental design. When you're refining the edges, or dealing with some complicated issue, then that makes things hard to see. But when you're talking about larger effects - the difference between a placebo and a working medicine for instance - then for sure the placebo will have some effect, and probably the person will go off feeling better for a while. However, that's the sort of change I'd expect to be relatively easy to see in terms of long term health outcomes, and I think that if homoeopathic medicine worked as it's advertised to, people would have seen that - and scientists would have looked into it. So that, by now, we'd know about it.

All that's on one side. Now maybe some of them are more or less important than others, I won't argue that. But look at the number of them. And on the other there's lobbying. You can question lobbying, of course, and I've little doubt that it has some perverse effects on what form medical science takes - especially in the early years when it's not clear how things are going to come down before we see much of the evidence. But at the end of the day the tobacco industry still lost, and homoeopathy has, to my mind, had long enough to show it works even in spite of political obstacles that might be against it.

But I really don't have the time or interest to look into the issue in much depth.




random_soldier1337

I live on Gaming Forums

411 XP

17th June 2008

0 Uploads

2,038 Posts

4 Threads

#8 4 years ago

From observation, I believe the reason for it taking a back seat (other than it's not properly proven and quackery) is it seems homoeopathic medicine takes relatively longer compared to conventional medicine. E.g., pop a pill for a cold and it shows effects within an hour and a half at best but with homoeopathic you have got to keep taking regular doses for a few days to be cured. Call it a placebo if you will, I sure haven't had a particularly healthy lifestyle and it seems to work better for whatever reason. Who knows, maybe the time factor may throw the empirical results off?

But more realistically, there's also the fact that there seem to be very few quacks or sloppy doctors there as compared to here, even in conventional practices. Given the shitty treatments that take place here you can try your best to keep up your health and pray that you don't catch something nasty. I swear all they are really concerned about is making a quick buck.

Might as well take the quack that works if they all have to be quacks and hope it's nothing serious.




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,337 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,145 Posts

5 Threads

#9 4 years ago

random_soldier1337;5740797From observation, I believe the reason for it taking a back seat (other than it's not properly proven and quackery) is it seems homoeopathic medicine takes relatively longer compared to conventional medicine. E.g., pop a pill for a cold and it shows effects within an hour and a half at best but with homoeopathic you have got to keep taking regular doses for a few days to be cured. Call it a placebo if you will, I sure haven't had a particularly healthy lifestyle and it seems to work better for whatever reason. Who knows, maybe the time factor may throw the empirical results off?[/QUOTE]

There are long term studies, it's a well developed area. Stuff like cystic fibrosis treatment methodologies can take decades to show an effect.

... As far as I'm aware, people don't generally take medicine to cure the common cold - there are too many things to pin down adequately and it's not particularly important anyway. Certainly I'd feel rather ashamed of myself if I wasted a doctor's time on a sniffle.

We take cold medicine you can buy in any pharmacy to alleviate the effects; sore throat, runny nose, headaches etc - and they're pretty darned effective. But we don't have a cure for it. Give it a few days, take a bit of chicken soup and don't exert yourself too much, and it usually gets better all on its own.

Which is the same effect from waiting for it to pass, at least in the example, that you'd suggest the homoeopathic stuff has. Which would imply that the homoeopathic stuff doesn't actually do anything as compared to just taking it easy for a bit and waiting for your body's immune system to kill it off.

[QUOTE=random_soldier1337;5740797]But more realistically, there's also the fact that there seem to be very few quacks or sloppy doctors there as compared to here, even in conventional practices. Given the shitty treatments that take place here you can try your best to keep up your health and pray that you don't catch something nasty. I swear all they are really concerned about is making a quick buck.

Might as well take the quack that works if they all have to be quacks and hope it's nothing serious.

Come to Europe, we have real doctors =p




random_soldier1337

I live on Gaming Forums

411 XP

17th June 2008

0 Uploads

2,038 Posts

4 Threads

#10 4 years ago

Nemmerle;5740799There are long term studies, it's a well developed area. Stuff like cystic fibrosis treatment methodologies can take decades to show an effect.

... As far as I'm aware, people don't generally take medicine to cure the common cold - there are too many things to pin down adequately and it's not particularly important anyway. Certainly I'd feel rather ashamed of myself if I wasted a doctor's time on a sniffle.

We take cold medicine you can buy in any pharmacy to alleviate the effects; sore throat, runny nose, headaches etc - and they're pretty darned effective. But we don't have a cure for it. Give it a few days, take a bit of chicken soup and don't exert yourself too much, and it usually gets better all on its own.

Which is the same effect from waiting for it to pass, at least in the example, that you'd suggest the homoeopathic stuff has. Which would imply that the homoeopathic stuff doesn't actually do anything as compared to just taking it easy for a bit and waiting for your body's immune system to kill it off.

Oh yeah, common cold. Bad example.

Personally, I've taken anti-allergy pills for whenever I've gotten allergies. Never worked. At least, for whatever reason, my allergies didn't alleviate and only became worse with allopathic. And not taking any medicine and "resting" it off didn't much either other than just letting it get worse. And most doctors being the quacks they are suggested some shite steroid crap. Didn't think to inform us, though. Had to find out the hard way when things didn't get better at all and just seemed to fuck up once the steroid had done it's crap. But this seemed to work strangely.Though, one man over a few weeks at best hardly counts as a statistic, I suppose.




  • 1
  • 2