science of homeopathy

[olofgrace]

I am an occasional lurker on this board and am currently in a
discussion on another list where many are skepitcal of homeopathy as
unscientific "New Age hooey". Can anyone point me to scientific
research available on-line which proves homeopathy to have more than a
placebo effect? Any condition -- doesn't matter. Or a scientifically
based reference for how homeopathy works?

Thank you.
Marie

[jpgregorich@aol.com]

Dana Ullman has been collecting this info for many years and has plenty of
articles/summaries on his website at:
_http://homeopathic.com/articles/research/index.php_
(http://homeopathic.com/articles/research/index.php)
Jim
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Lucy De Pieri]

Hi Marie
have you come across the book the George Vithoulkas Science of Homeopathy? There are several chapters in the book that look at homeopathy from a scientific point of view. The book was written in the later 70s or early 80s, but the science is pretty sound.
Well, if by "New Ahe hooey" they mean a healing method that has been around for about 200 years, perhaps these folks could read some books instead of high jumping to conclusions. By reading a bibliography of Hahnemann they hopefully make them realize that this is certainly not "New Age hooey". By the way homeopathy has been around much longer than the current version of medicine!!!
I hope this will help
Kind regards
Lucy

olofgrace wrote:
I am an occasional lurker on this board and am currently in a
discussion on another list where many are skepitcal of homeopathy as
unscientific "New Age hooey". Can anyone point me to scientific
research available on-line which proves homeopathy to have more than a
placebo effect? Any condition -- doesn't matter. Or a scientifically
based reference for how homeopathy works?

Thank you.
Marie

---------------------------------
Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[arista000]

Here's an idea for an empirical demonstration: take a mallet, him them
on the head, then administer Arnica in the appropriate potency.
That ought to convince even the most hardened "skeptics". (A TRUE
skeptic is typically open-minded.)

Seriously, though: I don't think anyone is obliged to play by the
rules imposed (as usually) solely by the "skeptics". As a matter of
fact, the same "scientific" research that such people like to rely on
is FAR from being flawlessly "objective".

They will most likely *never* be convinced, regardless of the amount
and quality of proof you provide. And that's because the parametres of
what is "scientifically" convincing are tailored-made by and to their
positivistic frame of mind.

Not only is beauty in the eyes of the beholder - so is TRUTH.

And anyway: who cares if they believe or not?

But for those who'd *really* like to learn, the Ullman archive is, of
course, an excellent starting point.
All the best,

A.
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "olofgrace" wrote:

[Shannon Nelson]

Ah, the ol' Arnica Experience! )
On a gentler note, they could just buy a good book on home prescribing
(easiest to try if you have kids at home!), and try it; give it a truly
fair shot. The better books are fairly meaty--I'm not talking about
just a pamphlet--and include chapters on how-to, theory, history,
principles, guidelines, etc. My husband went from skeptic to believer
the first time our then-infant daughter got prescribed for by phone for
an 11-o'clock screaming acute. We took the prescribed remedy from our
little home kit, popped it in her mouth, and watched in awe as her
screams stopped, mouth closed, and she eased off to a peaceful sleep.
Fifteen years on, when one of my kids gets injured (and one of them
used to do it quite regularly), I give the remedy five minutes to kick
in--that is, five minutes before the screaming stops, and a big sigh
and sudden peace. It's really remarkable. Once you've seen *that*
happen a few times, when someone starts going on about "placebo", it's
hard to think just what to say! Or treated yourself for a significant
injury, and felt the distress suddenly melt away. To some of us that
is so much more meaningful than "studies"!!
Best wishes and good luck!
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[olofgrace]

Thank you for all the replies. I found the Ullman site very
interesting!

I know that those who choose not to be will not be persuaded. However
many involved in this discussion even have used remedies in the past
but are very worried about either "New Age" or "hooey". Others are
truly open minded, but of a scientific nature, and just want the
facts. Then there are the "I think its bunk" people, who of course
keep the conversation lively. Then, there is me, high on inspiration
but low on the ability to explain. But I just love learning about
it.

so, thanks again. Back to lurkdom

Marie

[Dr.Waheed ud Din Taj]

hi plz visit this site
http://www.prafullvijayakar.com
bye for now
Waheed

[Steve Scrutton]

The 'science' of homeopathy seems to worry a lot of people, and homeopathy is frequently being criticised as 'unscientific'. I note from the replies you have already received that you have been pointed in some good directions, and homeopathy does have considerable scientific underpinning now. The problem is that however much homeopathy is supported by science, no-one in the conventional medical world seems to notice - or perhaps they just don't want to know.

So I take another tack too, and that is to question the validity of the 'science' that backs conventional medicine. After all, this is where the attacks on homeopathy come from, and they are based on the assumption - "We are scientific - you are not!!"

I have written an article for 'Homeopathy in Practice' (the journal of the Alliance of Registered Homeopaths in the UK) - entitled "The Science of Drugs" - published this month (Autumn 2006 edition). This looks at just how 'scientific' drug research, drug testing, and drug reporting are, and the more you look at this, the less scientific it proves to be. Indeed, I call it junk science, bought science; science that is not rational or independent, but done in the service of the Pharmaceutical companies.

Why else can new drugs come on to the market, apparently tested as being effective and safe, hailed as being 'wonder drugs', only to be withdrawn as either ineffecitve or unsafe just a few years later? The withdrawal of conventional drugs is not an occasional occurence. It has been a regular, if largely unpublicised feature of conventional medicine from Thalidomide (and before) to Vioxx.

The purpose of writing the HIP article was to suggest that when detractors criticise homeopathy, we should not just run off trying to justify ourselves (important as that is). We should also question the assumptions that underlies the criticism.
Steve Scrutton
Homeopath
Registrar, Alliance of Registered Homeopaths
www.stevehomeopath.co.uk
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[DCR]

Well said Steve.

Years ago I had followed the trail backwards - through the publication records - concerning a well referenced 'study' that clearly showed that nutrition was an unnecessary consideration in health and treatment of certain diseases. Many people referred to the study when making their point - since it was clear that 'science' had proven their point - but no one apparently read the study. I finally found a copy. Of the 18 test subjects - 10 were cadavers, 2 were athletes and 2 were senior citizens, I don't remember the others. From this test population it was 'scientifically proven' that nutrition was not a factor in the health and healing of humans. Hmmmmmm? Wish I had kept the study - and the published paper - and the list of papers and books that referenced that study for years after. It would certainly help more people ask for details before believing the published 'studies' and so called 'hard science' of the allopathic medical community.

[Shannon Nelson]

Donna, that's amazing!
On a slightly less amusing note I recall one which "proved" that
vitamin E does not prevent heart disease. The daily dose they used to
"prove" this was 40 IU. Could it have been a typo? I'd like to think
so, but who knows? And even 400IU is I believe only considered a
moderate dose. But to a casual reader (or someone who read only the
abstract; or someone unfamiliar with therapeutic dosages) I suppose it
would have looked convincing.
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]