Oh yikes, I didn't mean that to be a statistic!!!!! It's *not* a
statistic, because the parameters aren't defined--and that was part of
my point. I think that our assumptions, rhythm, procedures, etc., in
normal prescribing, are very different from those in a "study". My
reason for bringing it up was that the numbers as being given cannot
represent the *reality* of homeopathic practice. Even the studies that
do show a positive effect, sometimes yield "success rates" that puzzle
me, are lower than I can understand--but in real life we *don't* always
"get it right" on the first or even second try--some more often than
others, but *no one* gets it right every time, in the beginning.
So again, my point was--when someone says that homeopathy "works 50% of
the time", I feel it is really, really, absolutely *crucial* to make
plain, 50% of *what*??? Is it 50% of individual prescriptions--in
which case you'd want to know what happens then..
Because if the assertion is that only 50% of *patients* are helped,
well, I don't know... Unless the patients are an unusually challenging
group (but even still...), or prescriber isn't hanging on to their
patients long enough to get more than one try, or isn't getting
feedback, or something. I don't see how someone would stay in business
if only half of their patients were gaining anything for the money
they've spent!
Below:
If you're referring to my post where I said I figured I've helped
"90%", please also note that I am basing this (as I said) on my teeny
little friends-and-family group, most of whom I've been toying with, I
mean prescribing for, for in some cases as much as 10 years. A few
have been going pretty well, where each time the picture changes (or
recurs with minor changes) I'm able to get to a useful remedy without
too much detour (tho I might be weeks or more in *deciding* what to
give--I have that luxury, since they *are* friends and family), then
things are stable for some time.
Other times I'll give a series of "misses" to one person or another,
but eventually get hold of a useful thread, and things finally start
moving.
One I've been trying unsuccessfully to prescribe for since about 10
years ago, and *nothing* so far has made *any* difference!!! Argh, and
yet again argh... I think with everyone else I've at least had
eventual success with one thing or another, tho not necessarily as
"deep" as I'd like. Oh, and two I have just begun with, have so far
one "miss" apiece, and we'll have to see what's next.
I agree! And I did indeed mean to. Remember I said--because they
*are* friends and family, I get to keep trying when I feel I have good
basis for trying again, so not one *has* given up after only one or two
tries. It's a far different situation than a "real practice", but IMO
still meaningful.
And if I were to figure how many I've helped within the first six
months (which at my pace usually means at the first or second
prescription), it looks like my figure would be similar (do I get to
count successful acute prescriptions, which I generally do okay with?
). And if I were to hold it to the number I've helped with my
*first* prescription, well, maybe 50% would be about right--BUT is that
a fair evaluation of the effectiveness of *homeopathy*, or even
"homeopathy as practiced by me" ??? No!!!!! And that is exactly the
point I'm trying to make.
Mm, and there are tons of other variables as well!
How neat that you did that review of your own practice! I'd bet there
were some results that interested and maybe surprised even you--were
there, or was it pretty much as you'd expected? Good idea!!
Anhway, I hope this clarifies what I meant...
Best,
Shannon
