In support of homeopathy

[paulyman]

I really wish homeopathy did work. I could brew commercial scale for a mere fraction of the cost I currently brew 36L.

 

[Bribie G]

Hey Stu I eat Paleo and I'm only a couple of years off 70

K
a
a

a

r

kkkkkkkkkkkkkk

 

[technobabble66]

I really wish homeopathy did work. I could brew commercial scale for a mere fraction of the cost I currently brew 36L.

Maybe someone should tell the smack-heads and ice addicts - make their addictions a ***** load cheaper!

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

What I dont get with homeopathy is the fact that the weaker dilution, the better it is supposed to work...

Sort of the opposite to beer... :unsure:

 

[stewy]

Not *entirely* correct. In fact, completely false.
I've recently discovered this amazing new device called "Google". I tried "searching" on the Internets for "double blind randomised control trial herbal medicine"
Apparently some studies have been done.
Note: This was exactly the first search i did, non-doctored. Not all of those results are positive. For example, the third one on Echinacea reports a failure of prophylaxis, but a 10-20% reduction in the risk of infection of an URTI. However, another way of saying this is that Echinacea has been shown to not immunise against the common cold (surprise surprise) but results in a mild to moderate reduction in the incidence. Keeping in mind the subjects could still be pie-eating, smoking alcoholics. So obviously these herbal medicines will be worth squat if you're still a complete idiot with your lifestyle - well, actually not useless, approximately 10-20% effective, apparently.
I don't mean to get stuck into you, Stewy, but your statement is patently not true. I can only assume you might've mixed up "homeopathic" remedies with "herbal" remedies. Very, very different things.
As mentioned above, just check White Willow Bark, St John's wort, Echinacea, Ginger, etc. They're all herbal medicines. They all have significant effects shown in DBRCT's. There are hundreds of other herbal medicines out there. Some have been researched and many others haven't. Many traditional uses have been debunked and many others haven't.
Sadly there're many dubious naturopaths out there that do not chose to use evidence-based medicines/therapies, and there's quite a few that are seriously dangerous in there negligent advice to patients. And sadly they're particularly good at lightening the wallets of foolish &/or trusting people. Any good medical practitioner should know the bounds of their expertise and when to refer. Any good practitioner *does* know this - it's the dodgy charlatans that are the big problem, as are the ones that have blinding faith in their skills/"gifts".
Unfortunately, there's also far too many people out there who are just too trusting or simply want to believe, and these practitioners can easily take advantage of them. Tragically they just don't seem to stop at any point and think "hang on, this guy's full of ****", especially when they or their loved ones are clearly not getting any better or the modality seems patently irrational. Welcome to an unregulated industry! (actually kinda similar to the financial advice industry ).

I'd point out that DBRCT's are *extremely* expensive and the funding is simply not out there for Herbal medicines, hence there is an extreme lack of research for this field - i.e.: money rather than a lack of efficacy is the main reason for the lack of research on herbal medicines. Yet another extremely strong argument for government-funded research organisations rather than leaving it all up to private organisations. CSIRO FTW.

Just as a minor point to consider: for 40-odd years, the message from doctors/GPs/AMA and dieticians was that all fat was bad and we should all be eating low protein diets high in cereals. There were only a few lone voices who decried the ridiculousness of this advice, based on the actual, documented, biochemical research science at the time - namely by a small number of biochemists, nutritional therapists and naturopaths. These lone voices were essentially persecuted by the medical fraternity for years. I think we know how that turned out.
Always make sure you're reading/listening to the actual science, rather than someone else's unfounded opinion or a lobby group. And appreciate the limit of a so-called expert or professional's knowledge.
... exactly the same philosophy to always apply to brewing (as well as life)!

I hope that wasn't too ranty.
And apologies to Stewy or others - this is intended to clarify a misunderstanding rather than have a go at anyone.

Btw, BribieG, the vid in the OP is a pissa. Homeopathic lager - too funny!

I'm well aware of Google. I prefer google scholar when researching as it tends to minimise the junk science. I'm aware there have been many DBRCT's on herbal medicine. I have read several on St John's Wort, Ginger relating to colds & echinacea. I still haven't seen one (doesn't mean they don't exist) that is able to conclude that they work, I've only ever seen 'plausible'. I have read entire studies, not just the abstract & also read several meta analyses. Again, I haven't found a peer reviewed, replicated study that has reached a conclusion of the 3 mentioned herbal meds being efficacious.
Of course if you use google you will find plenty of links to Natural News that will show 'studies' claiming efficacy.....
Also, did you read many of those studies you linked? I read the first 4. None of them have concluded efficacy. The one showing the most promise is based on N=41!!

 

[technobabble66]

@Ducatiboy Stu
Because a German Guy tells us so.
FWIW, he was a doctor.

It's all about potentisation.

If you think about it, we're all drinking homeopathic beer ... and urine ... and faeces.
Basically if I poop (material) in the ocean (solvent) and an earthquake occurs (succession), you're supping on my homeopathic poop. Luckily, both those events have occurred in the last decade. Sleep well. B)

Homeopathic Lager, FTW!!

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

Alll makes sense after reading this on Wikipeadia......they even had a Swiss Scientist bloke . I wonder if the water memory affect would be different with beer....would the water remember what essential property it was supposed to have...

Homeopaths maintain that this water retains some "essential property" of the original material, because the preparation has been shaken after each dilution.[22]Hahnemann believed that the dynamisation or shaking of the solution caused a "spirit-like" healing force to be released from within the substance. Even though the homeopathic remedies are often extremely diluted, homeopaths maintain that a healing force is retained by these homeopathic preparations.[21] Modern advocates of homeopathy have proposed a concept of "water memory", according to which water "remembers" the substances mixed in it, and transmits the effect of those substances when consumed. This concept is inconsistent with the current understanding of matter, and water memory has never been demonstrated to have any detectable effect, biological or otherwise. However one disputed study into the so-called memory of water, conducted by Jacques Benveniste, claims to have demonstrated that that water can be energetically imprinted upon.[23][24][25] Another such study, published in 2003 by Swiss chemist Louis Rey, claims to have found that homeopathically diluted solutions of sodium chloride and lithium chloride have a very different hydrogen bond structure from normal water, as measured by thermoluminescence.[26][27]

 

[technobabble66]

I'm well aware of Google. I prefer google scholar when researching as it tends to minimise the junk science. I'm aware there have been many DBRCT's on herbal medicine. I have read several on St John's Wort, Ginger relating to colds & echinacea. I still haven't seen one (doesn't mean they don't exist) that is able to conclude that they work, I've only ever seen 'plausible'. I have read entire studies, not just the abstract & also read several meta analyses. Again, I haven't found a peer reviewed, replicated study that has reached a conclusion of the 3 mentioned herbal meds being efficacious.
Of course if you use google you will find plenty of links to Natural News that will show 'studies' claiming efficacy.....

Yep, google scholar is much better.
I'm v pleased to hear you've trudged through entire papers - i wish everyone else would bother do the same. However, you've gotta keep it all in an appropriate context.
i.e.: I'm not sure what you're looking for in the results/discussion/conclusions - most science papers talk about "moderate" this and "likely" that. Realistically, it's pretty much impossible to "prove" something. It's more like "the evidence seems to reasonably fit the hypothesis without an unacceptable level of exceptions." Hence, "until someone shows differently, we'll run with this theory". Or words to that effect.
That's basically how the science thing works.
"Proof" is a fallacy the believers propagate.
That's the biggest reason the Climate Change issue is still debated. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

 

[krausenhaus]

Q: What do you call a Medicine that isn't patented by a multi-billion-dollar, multi-national pharmaceutical company?
A: Alternative. Generic


Sorry Topher, couldn't resist

 

[stewy]

.

 

[stewy]

Yep, google scholar is much better.
I'm v pleased to hear you've trudged through entire papers - i wish everyone else would bother do the same. However, you've gotta keep it all in an appropriate context.
i.e.: I'm not sure what you're looking for in the results/discussion/conclusions - most science papers talk about "moderate" this and "likely" that. Realistically, it's pretty much impossible to "prove" something. It's more like "the evidence seems to reasonably fit the hypothesis without an unacceptable level of exceptions." Hence, "until someone shows differently, we'll run with this theory". Or words to that effect.
That's basically how the science thing works.
"Proof" is a fallacy the believers propagate.
That's the biggest reason the Climate Change issue is still debated. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Ummm, yeah, I'm quite well versed in how the science works. Proof is only for maths & alcohol.

When the studies have such small sample sizes it's not possible to reach a conclusion. The ones you linked are all very small. With a large enough sample size it's quite possible to see a significant difference in the groups to conclude with high level of confidence that x is effective at treating y. Most you linked conclude that there is not enough evidence to suggest x is effective in treating y

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

If climate change caused the water to evaporate from a homeopathic solution,therefore making it less effective because it is now stronger, would it create a paradox..?

 

[technobabble66]

Ummm, yeah, I'm quite well versed in how the science works. Proof is only for maths & alcohol.

When the studies have such small sample sizes it's not possible to reach a conclusion. The ones you linked are all very small. With a large enough sample size it's quite possible to see a significant difference in the groups to conclude with high level of confidence that x is effective at treating y. Most you linked conclude that there is not enough evidence to suggest x is effective in treating y

Depends what you're calling "small" or "significant". Morgan Gallop polls used to be conducted with around 100 people, and n=100 is generally considered a decent sample size for "meaningful" statistical analysis. 2 of the first 4 have 300+ in them.
When you say "evidence to suggest x is effective in treating y", again, what are you looking for? Not many medicines/remedies out there claim to treat an illness in the sense of curing it. However, if you're looking for a meaningful or effective reduction in symptoms, then most of those in the link, or thousands of others, do so.
Have you checked the research papers for pharmaceutical remedies for mild to moderate depression, as an example? No cures there. If you're examining whether an herbal remedy is "effective in treating y" you need to check what you mean by "effective" and "treating" and whether you are applying the same rigorous yardstick to all other options.

 

[technobabble66]

Q: What do you call a Medicine that isn't patented by a multi-billion-dollar, multi-national pharmaceutical company?
A: Alternative. Generic


Sorry Topher technobabble66, couldn't resist

Funny bugger.
Also FIFY

 

[technobabble66]

FWIW, my Imperial Stout from the July 2014 Vic Case Swap has been shown to be moderately awesome and is effective in treating sobriety in 100% of cases, where n=1 :lol:

Hey Stewy, it's been entertaining debating with you. Hope you have a great night! How about next time you're in Melb's i'll try to convince you otherwise over a beer or three? It's pumpkin time for me.
Cheers,
Stu

 

[stewy]

Depends what you're calling "small" or "significant". Morgan Gallop polls used to be conducted with around 100 people, and n=100 is generally considered a decent sample size for "meaningful" statistical analysis. 2 of the first 4 have 300+ in them.
When you say "evidence to suggest x is effective in treating y", again, what are you looking for? Not many medicines/remedies out there claim to treat an illness in the sense of curing it. However, if you're looking for a meaningful or effective reduction in symptoms, then most of those in the link, or thousands of others, do so.
Have you checked the research papers for pharmaceutical remedies for mild to moderate depression, as an example? No cures there. If you're examining whether an herbal remedy is "effective in treating y" you need to check what you mean by "effective" and "treating" and whether you are applying the same rigorous yardstick to all other options.

Of course I'm not after a study showing a cure. A significant difference between groups would suffice


Study 1: N=29
Study 2: N= 202 Conclusion - Ada's cog score 1.4 better than placebo; Gerri score .14 better. Yay
Study 3: Conclusion - ...effect of echinacea extracts could not be shown..... One could *speculate* (great science) there might be an effect...
Study 4: N= 42

Do you think these are good studies? Most of those in the link *do not* show a meaningful reduction n symptoms as you claim.
I agree with you regarding studies on depression. We don't have a very good understanding on the cause which makes it difficult to treat.

I apply the same rigorous yard stick to all studies. Until we see DBRCT's that have been replicated, peer reviewed involving large sample sizes, we can't really reach a conclusion with high levels of confidence. Another vital part of the process is a clear explanation of the mechanisms. Without establishing causal regularity & understanding the mechanisms, we can't have predictability, which is vital in effective treatment planning.

 

[stewy]

FWIW, my Imperial Stout from the July 2014 Vic Case Swap has been shown to be moderately awesome and is effective in treating sobriety in 100% of cases, where n=1 :lol:

Hey Stewy, it's been entertaining debating with you. Hope you have a great night! How about next time you're in Melb's i'll try to convince you otherwise over a beer or three? It's pumpkin time for me.
Cheers,
Stu

Haha. When it comes to beer testing, sample size of 1 is plenty to conclude awesomeness!!

Will definitely take you up on a beer in Mel

Sleep well

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

All this DBRCT stuff is well and good, but what if it works for some and not others ? This happens a lot in real medicine. Thats why doctors change medications to see which one works.

 

[goomboogo]

All this DBRCT stuff is well and good, but what if it works for some and not others ? This happens a lot in real medicine. Thats why doctors change medications to see which one works.

This is a problem with what you refer to as real medicine. Throwing darts at the pharmaceutical dart board and hoping for the best is not uncommon when treating depressive symptoms.

 

[Dave70]

Goodness me, this tread with all its links is a bit wordy and has taken so long to read I've developed a crick in my neck.
I'm off to see the chiropractor.