Homeopathy medicines are ineffective.

There is an entire industry dedicated to trying to convince people that homeopathy is bogus. It can be very effective, but a fair amount of knowledge is required to get it right.

Has anyone got any actual scientific evidence that supports the operation of homeopathy that can be published here to counter this so-called 'industry'? It would seem that proper scientific clinical trial results would be a good start - anyone know any?

Before the Homeopaths, answer to this query,one question really needs to be answered.

Has any one provided any scientific evidence that homeopathy never works.

Till date there is no such research papers available.If these are there , let these be published here.

Every reseach till date tried to prove & conclude that homeopatic dilutions doesn't work & it is not in accordance with the Avagadro's law.

That similiar cures similiar could not be refuted,& there are no strong scientific evidences against it.

Homeopathy works.period.

Murthy

Sbahl,

The scientific research did NOT set out to prove anything like what you said. Quite the opposite, actually - they were trying to see if the claims were indeed justified. That is, it set out to try to find good evidence that it DOES work.

They simply asked these questions: What is the evidence that it does work? What is the proof that this evidence supports the conclusions?

So Murthy, we would love to see conclusive proof. Your problem seems to be with the word 'conclusive' - the scientific standard for 'conclusive' is quite high...

Zep, who is 'we'? Your other buddies at randiland?

No such place, I'm afraid, Daisy. Unless you mean the JREF forum. But I post on a lot of other forums, some of which have nothing to do with JREF of anything like that. But I fail to see why any of that would stop anyone HERE from providing information HERE for people to read HERE.

However, if it helps you, by 'we' I mean THIS forum and its inhabitants. Do you not agree that a conclusive proof of anything is a good thing to have?

Zep, you are a very active poster at randi.org, which I have no doubt you know is also referred to as randiland. Your history there is one of active contempt of homeopathy. Plenty of proof out there of homeopathy's efficacy, but randiland skeptics don't want proof, they want to dismantle homeopathy and peoples' ability to choose to use it.

Did someone else tell you all that, Daisy? Or did you determine it yourself from your own research?

Zep, I posted your own contemptuous words about homeopathy on a different thread.

Daisy

I had been there where Zep is now, (a non believer and skeptic of homeopathy) ,but now I am wiser..much wiser.

One has to experience the miracles of homeopathy..but unfortunately some skeptics won't try it the way it should be tried.

They feel they knew it is water, and hence useless to try.

Let them remain in their shelves. They can't in any way stop the spread of homeopathy.

The more they try to pass on misinformation, the more popular homeopathy will become.

Murthy

i think they are against as homeopthay didnt hide the fact same 'medicine' is diluted nd works this way etc . in other treatments they dont even tell any thing like in that detail abt the manufacturing of medicine etc thats y .

and surgery isnt a part of Allopathy from the start.Earlier in old days as history tells us ppl use to do surgery even when allopathy or other methods were not available. all docs use 2 do surgery 2 i dont know y homeopathy dont do much surgery or they even do now days.

i m not a homeo practioner just a new user of homeo med. so hv no such info lolz .

Actually, up to Hahnemann's time, it was the barbers who did surgery, not doctors at all. Doctors thought surgery was butchery.

Daisy,

Would you be so kind as to post my 'contemptuous words' here in this thread too so I can see what has made you so angry. I can't seem to find anything in another thread...

Daisy,

Again, I will ask: Did someone else tell you all that? Or did you determine it yourself from your own research?

Everyone else,

Please point out ANY misinformation I have supplied here on this forum. Show me where I have told you stuff that is not true. I need to know what it is, rather than have vague accusations with no actual facts to back them up.

this is a homeopathic forum not a place for debating whether it works or not. don't believe homeopathy works? go somewhere else. very simple.

Yes kppy3.Very simple indeed.

Rajiv

Kppy3 and Rajivprassad,

Please show me where I have stated any beliefs in anything to do with that subject. Please show me where I initiated or even continued a debate on that subject.

Not responding means you agree I have done no such thing.

Dear ZepOz,

Your beliefs are coming through your statements ever since you have become active on this forum.

Any way.Lets stop this.You carry on with what you wish on this forum.Those who wish to engage with you will do so.

Rajiv

Rajivsajjad,

So you agree you are unable to produce any evidence I have disrupted this forum, said anything negative about homeopathy, or have even been impolite. Thank you. And I can assure everyone that will continue to be the case. I just hope the same courtesy is extended to me in return...

But now you think you are a mind reader as well, Rajiv - without me saying anything here at all about my beliefs, you are quite certain about what they are, and are prepared to advise others accordingly. Do you think that is wise or polite to do?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=68718&page=8

Post 310. Your own words. 'thieving scoundrels'

Yes ZepOz, I am a professional student of Behavioral Sciences.Reading people's mind is my profession and specialization.About to be awarded a Doctorate in the field from India's top institution of management stusies.

Don't humour or kid people that you are a believer in homeopathy.Your views are coming loud and clear to all the members of the forum.One does not need a doctorate in Psychology or Behavioral Studies to read your mind on this topic.

But you are messing into an area of which you have absolutely no knowledge or appreciation.

Al these 'pseudo - scientific' questions that you are raising are not able to hide the strongly help preconceived notions of yours.

Anyways people can see what is what.

Rajiv

The following summary, from the articles of Dr.Domenico & Dr.Cosimo lore from university of Siena Itly, perhaps needs attention of some of us, for understanding the view point of the authors on homeopathy & the reaction of conventional medical sciences.

SUMMARY:

hroughout its over 200-year history, homeopathy has been proven effective in treating diseases for which conventional medicine has little to offer. However, given its low cost, homeopathy has always represented a serious challenge and a constant threat to the profi ts of drug companies. Moreover, since drug companies represent the most relevant source of funding for biomedical research worldwide, they are in a privileged position to fi nance detractive campaigns against homeopathy by manipulating the media as well as academic institutions and the medical establishment. The basic argument against homeopathy is that in some controlled clinical trials (CCTs), comparison with conventional treatments shows that its effects are not superior to those of placebo. Against this thesis we argue that a) CCT methodology cannot be applied to homeopathy, b) misconduct and fraud are common in CCTs, c) adverse drug reactions and side effects show that CCT methodology is deeply fl awed, d) an accurate testing of homeopathic remedies requires more sophisticated techniques, e) the placebo effect is no more “plausible” than homeopathy, and its real nature is still unexplained, and f) the placebo effect is nevertheless a “cure” and, as such, worthy of further investigation and analysis. It is concluded that no arguments presently exist against homeopathy and that the recurrent campaigns against it represent the specifi c interests of the pharmaceutical industry which, in this way, strives to protect its profi ts from the “threat” of a safer, more effective, and much less expensive treatment modality.

Daisy,

Do you REALLY need to quote out of context (i,e, in error) to try to make a point? Or do you just not read and comprehend what is right there before you? Or check the context of the quote just a little bit?

Personally I suspect you did a little Google search but then didn't check your reference properly before quoting it, yes? Just saw only what you wanted to see and that's all?

Frankly I'm saddened at the blatant attempt to be rude to me here. I've not been rude to you...