Cochrane review: Homeopathy for treatment of irritable bowel syndrome, 2019, Peckham et al

Anyone who maintains on a blanket basis that homeopathy works should watch a teething baby given a fake homeopatic remedy containing sugar.

 

We'll mark that down as "Depressive symptoms very much improved."

 

Does anyone have any evidence of a fractious teething baby's red inflamed cheeks and gums being cured by a few sugar onlly granules? Or can hypothesise a mechanism? However I regularly observed it happen with homoeopathic Chamomilla teething granules.

 

I'm not aware of any clinical trial for homeopathic remedies for teething babies, but no trial has ever found homeopathy effective, nor does its rational stand.

To prove it has any effect on teething pain, you'd need something more convincing than someone's observations, which are, as you should know, of no scientific value.

 

I suspect that trials of homoeopathy are rarely done because of lack of funding. Homoeopathic suppliers don't have the deep pockets of pharmaceutical companies.

 

Lol
The Boiron family, who own the biggest homeopathy company settled in Lyon, are amongst the 100 richest families in France.

 

We shall have to agree to differ.

 

No. That's not a matter of disagreement. Bring proofs of what you're asserting.

The profits made by Boiron are huge. Their research credits are way lower than any other pharmaceutical companies (nearly non existing), and the raw materials they use are cheap (water and sugar). That's one of the most profitable sections of the pharmaceutical industry.

 

I suspect you are wrong. Plenty of trials have been done and shows homeopathy does not work. It also makes plenty of money for people selling it.

This website is about evidence based medicine so you can’t be surprised at people following what many trials have shown over your anecdotal story.

 

Lack of funding is never an excuse for supplying inadequately tested treatments - which is fraud. Nobody forces people to sell bogus medicines.

 

This line is also used by some proponents of bogus medical treatments for ME/CFS. "Sure, there are no trials showing that this drug works, or in fact trials have shown that it doesn't work, but I have seen it work anecdotally and therefore I in my infinite wisdom and clinical judgement know that it works for a subgroup and I'll continue to prescribe it (for profit) until I get struck off the medical register." And so these doctors continue to defraud the public with treatments that don't work.

 

I had many discussions in PR and maybe here too about homeopathy. I know you all disagree with homeopathy with the above arguments. Which is fair enough, makes sense, I don't really want to go all over again but I must emphasize that it helped me to relieve some symptoms.

It would be unfair if I didn't mention. I don't know how it did this as I don't know many conventional medicine works (or does not work) either.

However, the article has a huge problem as homeopathy never works like conventional medicine; homeopath is someone like a magician (I know it is completely deluded thinking) guessing whatever the substance is causing the person's symptoms and preparing / prescribing the remedy based on that substance. It is different for each person. One remedy for all, -based on the same symptom is used for babies and animals at times, however it is not regarded as proper homeopathic treatment.

Please don't get angry with me, I'm not defending homeopathy I just feel guilty to deny the benefits that I got from homeopathy. I've been on many remedies some helped some didn't. Never helped for POTS, cognitive problems, vertigo, palpitations, nausea. But helped insomnia, intestinal problems of both kind, gas, indigestion, some skin problems to a degree, menstruation- menopausal problems, and more I can not remember right now.

I'm so gonna regret posting this.

 

Yes. Good double blind trials of homeopathy as described above would be easy and cheap. The homeopathic medicine makers are rich and could fund these studies. Like pharma fund trials of their drugs because they have to get them licensed and so design them to favour the drug and spin the results like there's no tomorrow. No surprise that homeopathic medicine makers don't fund large trials. They don't have to to get licensed, so and they don't want to risk proving they don't work. Rather than Cochrane wasting time doing reviews of poorly conducted studies, they should be funding or at least campaigning for decent well-powered double blind trials which can convincingly debunk or support homeopathy once and for all.

 

What homeopaths should be doing is not expensive clinical trials on humans, but small and inexpensive experiments on say plants that can convincingly demonstrate that the homeopathic remedy isn't just water. That would demonstrate that there is something to the idea.

 

Makes me think that in fact homeopath's way of working is, I believe, a highly bespoke and personalised approach, or at least that is the impression a patient will get. Maybe this is a key ingredient of placebo effect? Might be interesting if there were a trial of homeopathic 'remedies' with one arm as per typical treatment, and another which still administers exactly the same intervention, but without any of the personal attention, just "there it is, get it down you!"

 

I take a homeopathic remedy in liquid form every day. In Germany it is delivered to every household via a tap over the kitchen sink. I know my experience is only anecdotal so don't be too hard on me, but I swear it's effective in reducing symptoms of thirst, especially dry throat.