But if homeopathy were true,a tiny dangerous impurity present in the water at the start of the dilution process would become stronger throughout the process.
One of my problems with homeopathy is they seem to think only the desired chemical's effect is amplified, not those of any impurities.
(One of my problems with homeopathy is they seem to think only the desired chemical's effect is amplified, not those of any impurities.
my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to,
Thu 7 Feb 2008, 17:58,
archived)
That's a good pointbut only in terms of addressing the theory that Homeopathy itself puts forward. Personally though I see no reason to address, or engage with, that theory in a scientific way. My stance here is entirely empirical and practical, and can be summed up as:
Given that Homeopathic medicine demonstrably works for some people, why not use it?
(Given that Homeopathic medicine demonstrably works for some people, why not use it?
mofaha ┐( ˘_˘)┌ ʅ(́◡◝)ʃ,
Thu 7 Feb 2008, 18:07,
archived)
Because it's more expensive than treating people with sugar pills or some other placebo,and may divert money away from more effective treatments.
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to,
Thu 7 Feb 2008, 18:09,
archived)
Again, I hear youbut the fact remains that sometimes Homeopathy works for people when other methods, placebo included, fail.
I don't have the figures, but I am willing to bet that the amount of money spent by the NHS on Homeopathy is tiny when compared to the amount of money spent on 'conventional' drugs and treatments.
Despite everything that's been said here, I still don't see a single reason to withhold a potentially helpful treatment from people, particularly one that's so clinically risk-free.
(I don't have the figures, but I am willing to bet that the amount of money spent by the NHS on Homeopathy is tiny when compared to the amount of money spent on 'conventional' drugs and treatments.
Despite everything that's been said here, I still don't see a single reason to withhold a potentially helpful treatment from people, particularly one that's so clinically risk-free.
mofaha ┐( ˘_˘)┌ ʅ(́◡◝)ʃ,
Thu 7 Feb 2008, 18:24,
archived)
In a perfect world, the NHS would offer every potentially beneficial drug available.But there always has to be a cost-benefit assessment.
I'd be happy for there to be more research done into homeopathy and for it to be compared to other treatments, Science should work by looking at any possible explanation without prejudice.
Normally, treatments aren't offered to patients until this kind of assessment has been done, and it should be the same for homeopathy.
(I'd be happy for there to be more research done into homeopathy and for it to be compared to other treatments, Science should work by looking at any possible explanation without prejudice.
Normally, treatments aren't offered to patients until this kind of assessment has been done, and it should be the same for homeopathy.
my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to,
Thu 7 Feb 2008, 18:29,
archived)