29 Dec 08
Does anyone believe in this nonsense? For anyone who doesn't know what it is, Wikipedia has a wonderful article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy
A prime example of the ridiculousness of these "remedies" is Oscillococcinum. Read on and be astonished:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscillococcinum
And here's one more interesting article on a variety of "alternative" medicinal practices including homeopathy:
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.html
Seriously, if anyone believes that homeopathy works I'd sincerely like to know why you think that. I'm flabbergasted. 😕
29 Dec 08
Originally posted by PBE6It is nonsense.
Does anyone believe in this nonsense? For anyone who doesn't know what it is, Wikipedia has a wonderful article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy
A prime example of the ridiculousness of these "remedies" is Oscillococcinum. Read on and be astonished:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscillococcinum
And here's one more interesting article on a v ...[text shortened]... t homeopathy works I'd sincerely like to know why you think that. I'm flabbergasted. 😕
There are some places where insurance companies actually help legitimize this quackery by covering it in their health plans too.
The worst thing about this kind of stuff is when it prevents people from going to legitimate doctors when they have a legitimate health problem.
29 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by PsychoPawnI couldn't agree more. It's scary to think that there are people out there prescribing homeopathic remedies as cures for "energy imbalances" that are actually life-threatening diseases.
It is nonsense.
There are some places where insurance companies actually help legitimize this quackery by covering it in their health plans too.
The worst thing about this kind of stuff is when it prevents people from going to legitimate doctors when they have a legitimate health problem.
I found this a little disturbing. The FDA doesn't have the balls to take a stance on homeopathic remedies, even though they say:
Homeopathic drugs in solid oral dosage form must have an imprint that identifies the manufacturer and indicates that the drug is homeopathic. The imprint on conventional products, unless specifically exempt, must identify the active ingredient and dosage strength as well as the manufacturer.
"The reasoning behind (the difference) is that homeopathic products contain little or no active ingredients," explains Edward Miracco, a consumer safety officer with FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. "From a toxicity, poison-control standpoint, (the active ingredient and strength) was deemed to be unnecessary."
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/096_home.html
30 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by PBE6To give you a nice chill down your spine:
I couldn't agree more. It's scary to think that there are people out there prescribing homeopathic remedies as cures for "energy imbalances" that are actually life-threatening diseases.
I found this a little disturbing. The FDA doesn't have the balls to take a stance on homeopathic remedies, even though they say:
[b]Homeopathic drugs in solid oral dosag ) was deemed to be unnecessary."
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/096_home.html[/b]
http://www.hpathy.com/diseases/intermittent-fever-symptoms-treatment-cure.asp
That site's "myths" section could really have most of the title of their "myth" and "fact" items reversed.
That site is a wealth of crap that barely deserves to be called pseudo-scientific, much less scientific.,
Earlier this year a cosmetic chain was thankfully forced to take a homeopathic "cure" for malaria off the shelves:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/07/1
30 Dec 08
Originally posted by PsychoPawnYes, some health care insurance companies here actually cover this, and other "therapies" such as acupuncture. I think this is a complete travesty and should be forbidden by government as it legitimizes these alternative remedies.
It is nonsense.
There are some places where insurance companies actually help legitimize this quackery by covering it in their health plans too.
The worst thing about this kind of stuff is when it prevents people from going to legitimate doctors when they have a legitimate health problem.
31 Dec 08
1 edit
Interesting. I took Zicam during my last cold, and while it was marked "a homeopathic remedy", I had no clue what the word meant.
The stuff seemed to work. At the office and at home, other people who had the cold were coughing up crud and taking sick days. The worst I got was an occasional sniffle.
Great, now that I know it's probably just a placebo, it won't fool me anymore. 😞
31 Dec 08
Originally posted by SwissGambitZicam does appear to have a couple active ingredients - although I don't know how effective those are or would be.
Interesting. I took Zicam during my last cold, and while it was marked "a homeopathic remedy", I had no clue what the word meant.
The stuff seemed to work. At the office and at home, other people who had the cold were coughing up crud and taking sick days. The worst I got was an occasional sniffle.
Great, now that I know it's probably just a placebo, it won't fool me anymore. 😞
I imagine they can call their product "homeopathic" just to add the keyword so that they can attract the homoepathic market.
31 Dec 08
Originally posted by PsychoPawnYep, I just took a look at their website and it seems that the concentration of zinc in their nasal spray is 33 mmol/L (according to their double-blind study: http://www.zicam.com/files/Zinc_nasal_gel_treatment_common_cold_symptoms.pdf). Homeopathic remedies involve extreme dilutions, usually reported as 24X or 12C or somesuch (incidentally, these particular dilutions have only a 60% chance of containing 1 molecule of the original substance...😕), so I think you're right that Zicam is only trying to appeal to a wider market by using the term "homeopathic".
Zicam does appear to have a couple active ingredients - although I don't know how effective those are or would be.
I imagine they can call their product "homeopathic" just to add the keyword so that they can attract the homoepathic market.
31 Dec 08
Originally posted by PBE660%? I thought the chance was lower than that.
Homeopathic remedies involve extreme dilutions, usually reported as 24X or 12C or somesuch (incidentally, these particular dilutions have only a 60% chance of containing 1 molecule of the original substance...😕),
Still, even if you hit the 60% and got that one molecule it would be a few million or billion molecules away from being effective.
07 Jan 09
Originally posted by PBE6An interesting way of looking at this is by asking 'can it actually be
Does anyone believe in this nonsense? For anyone who doesn't know what it is, Wikipedia has a wonderful article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy
A prime example of the ridiculousness of these "remedies" is Oscillococcinum. Read on and be astonished:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscillococcinum
And here's one more interesting article on a v ...[text shortened]... t homeopathy works I'd sincerely like to know why you think that. I'm flabbergasted. 😕
proved that homeopathy is a sham?'
If, as homeopathy claims, it is not the volume of a given substance
that has therapeutic effect but the probability of a substance being
present in a solvent after serial dilution. Cannot it be said that by the
act of measurement of the effects of this therapy, we are thereby
collapsing the probability wave function and nullifying the results?
07 Jan 09
Originally posted by Thequ1ckYou misunderstand what measurement means in quantum mechanics. Look in the QM topic.
An interesting way of looking at this is by asking 'can it actually be
proved that homeopathy is a sham?'
If, as homeopathy claims, it is not the volume of a given substance
that has therapeutic effect but the probability of a substance being
present in a solvent after serial dilution. Cannot it be said that by the
act of measurement of the effects o ...[text shortened]... therapy, we are thereby
collapsing the probability wave function and nullifying the results?
07 Jan 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI think I read it recently but can't find the link now.
You misunderstand what measurement means in quantum mechanics. Look in the QM topic.
Quantum physics aside, the idea of probability was about before
then with Schrodinger's cat and Einsteins' glove thought experiment.
If somebody says for example you put schrodingers cat under your
bed for a week and without opening the box if the cat hasn't died
in half the time that it is likely to have, you will be cured. How can
you prove that person wrong?