Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:

Homeopathy medicine for various disease conditions http://www.trusthomeopathy.org/research ... dence.html

Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:

Ubjon wrote:Those that are interested in the effectiveness of homoepathy might want to review the Cochrane Institutes website as they have looked in to this

Homeopathy for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder or hyperkinetic disorder - http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/c ... frame.html

Homeopathy for chronic asthma - http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/c ... frame.html

Homeopathy for dementia - http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/c ... frame.html

Homoeopathy for induction of labour - http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/c ... frame.html

Homeopathic medicines for adverse effects of cancer treatments - http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/c ... frame.html

Complementary and miscellaneous interventions for nocturnal enuresis in children - http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/c ... frame.html

The long and short of it seems that current clinical trials on homoepathy have been of poor quality and we need to the results of correctly carried out clinical trials before drawing any conclusions - http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/c ... frame.html

Homeopathy medicine for various disease conditions http://www.trusthomeopathy.org/research ... dence.html

Shrunk wrote: It would have been more accurate to say that, at present, we have no means of telling the difference. If homeopaths are some day able to devise a reliable method of demonstrating that their treatments are more effective than placebo, or theists are able to devise a method to demonstrate that god exists, then their claims will be taken seriously. Until then, they should be dismissed just as a people who believe in fairies are dismissed.

TMB wrote:
I use any medical system that works. I dont like the side effects of allopathy, but use them when I think they are appropriate. Likewise with alternative therapies. If they work, I use them. I have been placed in scenarios and presented with some stark choices with my family and chosen allopathy in some cases, alternative in others. Perhaps these have not been thr right decisions whn I have chosen allopathy, but I hav had some excellent outcomes from alternatives, and even managed to get allopaths to change their perspective.

Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:
I repeat. Many things in this world cannot be explained by 'science' and that is the beauty of the wonder of life. You can either live in the mainstream and wait until its widely accepted, then you believe it, or you can look back thousands of years and believe what your forefathers believed before 'science' came along.

TMB wrote:No issue with allopathy being able to smash bacteria with the wonders of antibiotics, but how will it deal with the oversue of the drug and the inevitable arms race that ensues when treating this way, as bacteria become increasingly resistant. Not only this, also the damage caused by using antibiotics on the overall person. Allopathy is shortsighted as a result of the approach it takes, and is almost unable to treat the entire person. Even homepathy falls short of this ideal, to treat the entire person, simply due to logistics and lack of complete knowledge about any patient.

Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:
Conventional medicine's approach is of compartments. Cardioligist is looking after heart compartment. Gastreontologist is looking after .......and so on, as if different compartment has nothing to do with each other.

campermon wrote:

Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:
Conventional medicine's approach is of compartments. Cardioligist is looking after heart compartment. Gastreontologist is looking after .......and so on, as if different compartment has nothing to do with each other.

But it works to save lives and prolong healthy lives (see my previous post). I'm afraid that you just have to suck it up 'Dr'.

Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:
Homeopathy medicine for various disease conditions http://www.trusthomeopathy.org/research ... dence.html

Listed below are medical conditions where positive findings for homeopathy have been reported in at least one systematic review, randomised controlled trial (RCT) or non-randomised study.

Download full list of references for all conditions: Clinical research evidence in favour of homeopathy (7 pages). For more complete details of the research, visit the research section of the Faculty of Homeopathy's website, which includes details of those RCTs that were either negative or non-conclusive.

Dr. Nancy Malik wrote: Not just anti-biotics but many other conventional medicines are over perscribed
http://dartmed.dartmouth.edu/fall06/htm ... _label.php

Of the 725 million prescriptions he analyzed, 15% were written without evidence of safety or effectiveness. In other words, these drugs were not approved by the FDA for the condition they were prescribed for and there were few or no reports in the scientific literature supporting the use.

Dr. Nancy Malik wrote: I repeat. Many things in this world cannot be explained by 'science' and that is the beauty of the wonder of life. You can either live in the mainstream and wait until its widely accepted, then you believe it, or you can look back thousands of years and believe what your forefathers believed before 'science' came along.

Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:

I repeat. Many things in this world cannot be explained by 'science' and that is the beauty of the wonder of life. You can either live in the mainstream and wait until its widely accepted, then you believe it, or you can look back thousands of years and believe what your forefathers believed before 'science' came along.

tytalus wrote:

As for Edison's light bulb, it is curious to consider that apparently the light bulb had already been invented, and Edison's attempts (which vary in number depending on who you ask) were to develop a commercially viable product...

Arcanyn wrote:
What does it actually mean "to treat the entire patient"? If we give someone antibiotics to kill the bacteria which have infected their toe, how is this deficient? Their problem is that there are a whole bunch of bacteria in their toe getting up to no good, and the antibiotics get rid of them. Once this is done, what more is there to do? Why do we need to 'treat the entire patient', when there's nothing wrong with the rest of the patient?

DST70 wrote:

Dudely wrote:You are denying huge mounds of studies that show it to be placebos.

That's not quite right — huge mounds of studies show it to have no statistical significance better than placebo.

Ubjon wrote:
Well its their money they are wasting so I guess that we may as well leave them to it. One thing I would like to see is a law put in place to protect individuals from their carers and guardians to ensure that they get the proper medical attention that they need.

Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:Why do you seek to deprive people of homeopathic treatment if it is the medicine of their choice?

DST70 wrote:
I haven't read all of this thread so forgive me if I missed something. As far as I know though, the claims against homeopathy (or acupuncture, qi gong therapy etc) stem from (1) inconclusive/poor performance in RCTs, and (2) implausability of the proposed therapeutic mechanism. (If there are more I'd be interested to hear them.) As evidence based medicine is the dominant model these days, (2) is not a sufficient reason to discount a treatment, but (1) is.

The RCT has only become the benchmark test since the 60s after the thalidomide disaster, and it has its shortcomings, just like everything else. I think TBM has it right in saying:

"... my post pointed out the issue with evidence based, repeatable systems in that there is much that gets missed, just because its not possible to capture all of reality in a neat bundle and describe it in its completenes."