The surprising homeopathy medicines

[Obamot]

Effectiveness of homeopathy: in summary of what we know from what is proven:

Pedro, izentrop and others only emphasize this discrepancy between the skills necessary to practice [Homéo] and the DIY of certain [Allo.] Granule prescribers which will prove to be ineffective obviously and therefore facilitates these then justified smear campaigns. The error comes to make the confusion between inadequate prescription and therefore the ineffectiveness then noted of this one and therefore to throw the bath water and the baby with it.

Well, they're going to have a hard time now, where then ...

To say that homeopathy is not effective, it will be necessary to present a study:
- Official (even if later refuted, claiming that not all researchers were Swiss when it was a guarantee of independence) *;
- Who "match"at 90% (!) when practiced correctly;
- Using the same methodology as that applied to allo studies. (with ad hoc adaptations see at National Health Service / UK);
- Which covers more than 5 million patients, like this study by Dr Gudrun Bornhöft and Pr Peter F. Matthiessen and their teams ... and in particular verified via cross-checked data from Swiss insurers ... because they were interested in reducing the costs (the blow of the snake that bites its tail ... funny without being funny, the study was massacred by bulldozer then, necessarily BigPharma is very present in Switzerland ...);
- In particular based on "a detailed review of all major studies carried out on homeopathy" until there...
- With cases by the thousands (if not millions) tested without side effect;

... I am waiting to see

► View Text

but my little finger tells me that even with that, we are still going to witness a denial of this type of gugusse / s. I don't expect them to change their gowns, since they clearly demonstrated through repeated malicious will that their goal was not so much "the search for the truth"but to harm people (to then pretend to be offended by the reactions.)

_________________________________________________
* The Swiss government funded an evaluation program (Program Evaluation Komplementärmedizin PEK) composed of the analysis of a compendium of studies: descriptive studies of the practice of complementary and alternative medicine in Switzerland (CAM), and an analysis of the Swiss health surveys of 1997 and 2002 on the use of CAM. In May 2005, the main results of the evaluation were made available and presented to the commission, which advised the ministry on hedging decisions. In June 2005, the Minister made the decision to end all existing coverage of the five methods, but drama in 2011, decision was made to cover homeopathy again (and other complementary medicines). The saga is not over, however, but the study does exist!

[Janic]

That's why I posted it. It coincided so well with what you told us for a long time, that I am a little ashamed now to have opposed you sharply at one time, a little out of prudence (and also out of ignorance, because I had wrongly seen a drift, it must be said that in my defense, at that time research was not as advanced as today when it has become commonplace ... and especially at the moment we are talking about it more and more - in conjunction with the multiplier effect of endodrug production, your own perfectly correct term looking at the very recent breakthroughs in the scientific world (the real one and interpreting the data correctly) - unlike the massive "anti" campaigns in the medias, which no longer mean anything ...)

This is why I did not want you, it is necessary that each one makes his experiment step by step (and you had crossed a lot of stages already, therefore with an open-mindedness which misses with much) and most difficult it is good to let go of certain certainties especially if there is nothing (or we know nothing) to replace them.
This is also why, I patiently hold this same speech with Izentrop, pedro and others, hoping that, little by little, the eyes will open in this very particular area, and it often takes time, a lot of time, but c 'is irrelevant in itself because it is not a question of making members (what else?) but of showing a different path that each will explore or not, that is freedom of choice.
What remains a pity, but is easily understood when we know better the course and the personality of the individuals, it is these a priori (pseudo reassuring) which persist, without having made itself the experience in the daily lived of the validity of a concept or a product and therefore do not believe in a simple reading, scientific or pseudo scientific, as if these were words of the gospel and it is valid for each of us.
On a personal level, I am happy that this journey has brought you a plus and has brought down some priorist barriers there too (but who escapes it?)

[Obamot]

I (had) progressed at least in 3 directions ... and my crystal ball tells me that ...

To return to the study which proves the effectiveness of homeopathy (the only one of this scale to my knowledge) and for the anecdote: two studies had been commissioned by the Administration:
1) a meta-analysis of homeopathy trials and trials adapted to conventional medicine, and
2) a wide analysis-compendium incorporating unpublished publications and reports on studies of different methodologies (randomized and non-randomized trials, case series, and experimental studies and including point "1").

The study of Dr Gudrun Bornhöft and Professor Peter F. Matthiessen had been declared as "HTA" (Health Technology Assessment) by the authors and published later in a book (under their responsibility and without the consent of the Swiss Government or the Administration, here is the rub). Bonhöft and Matthiessen's book was then translated into English and published in 2012. That's all we can blame him for: "for having been published without the consent of the state!"

Million dollar question: "should it be published?"

[pedrodelavega]

To say that homeopathy is not effective, it will be necessary to present a study:

Fortunately, it does not work like that: it is up to the person who puts forward the existence of something to prove it because "we cannot prove the non-existence of a phenomenon".

Otherwise it is the door open to all beliefs.
ex: I affirm that God exists! It's up to you to bring me proof to the contrary ....


However, in the case of homeopathy all meta-analyzes (grouping hundreds of clinical studies on thousands of cases) conclude that there is no reliable evidence ( The lancet in 2005, NHMRC in 2015, etc ...) except, perhaps, a Swiss study from 2012 (which is not a meta scientific analysis) to say the least controversial:
http://www.drgoulu.com/2012/07/17/le-ra ... 91WqCiLS70
http://www.lematin.ch/suisse/Le-rapport ... y/17010597
http://www.ouvertures.net/homeopathie-l ... es-vagues/

According to him, the report is "scientifically, logically and morally wrong: it does not contain new facts and misinterprets studies previously denounced as being weak, it creates a new standard of evidence designed to make homeopathy appear effective , and it attempts to discredit randomized controlled trials as the gold standard of evidence. Most importantly, almost all authors have conflicts of interest, despite claims that there are none.

So, like:
1 / There is no reliable evidence of effectiveness.
2 / There is no scientific explanation based on the operation.
I deduce, as for acupuncture or other pseudo-science, that "it is good for those who believe in it as long as it does not bother others" but it is perlimpine powder.

And to conclude, you don't have to be an "expert" on the matter to base your opinion:

Example: For global warming, most of the members of this forum (including myself) agree that it is very real and that human activity is largely responsible for it. We are not "expert" but we have a critical mind and we base our opinion on a serious scientific consensus (IPCC, etc ...) and this even if there are dissenting voices.

For homeopathy, I apply the same logic (and the voices are much less discordant).

[Obamot]

To say that homeopathy is not effective, it will be necessary to present a study:

Fortunately, it does not work like that: It is the responsibility of the one who advances the existence of something to prove it.

wi, wi, wi HAPPILY that you're here huh ... pfffff ... worry, we absolutely don't need you, the proofs are there.
... we expect no more from you loyal intellectual reasoning, nor reverse proofs, then, because your rantings ...!

In short, it is not on the part of an ignorant not knowing how to read or decrypt, that an opinion would be useful

When you have informed your profile on your professional skills, we will talk about it again, because in the meantime, what we see above all is your incompetence and your belief in a perfect, standardized and accepted world, you who take yourself for a "referee" barely able to understand the basics, not even damn about:
1) read correctly, the study clearly dissociates the placebo effect from the effect of homeopathic dilutions, of which the study recognized the observation of a modification of the cells after treatment (you will not get away with a turn smoky hobbies) and to choose, I prefer handpicked German researchers and a government study than the opinion of an anonymous zigotto on a forum, which perpetuates nuisances of all kinds, you really do not make the weight
2) understand that the proportion of Swiss doctors using homeopathy is sufficient in itself to give this credibility, that is: 2 doctors out of 3. You will tell us perhaps that they do not practice medicine scientist while you're at it? And that 1 in 2 of their patients return because they would not have seen an effect?
3) apply the same demands that you impose to try to disqualify this study, but as you will not find any of an equivalent magnitude having SCIENTIFICALLY taken into account the specificities of homeopathy, you have no argument valid to present, it will stop there (not surprised by your reaction, I expected a c ... erie of the kind from you, you really scrape the bottom ... as usual. c It's okay, the only thing you can do would be to buckle it up, then you'd finally be pretty much "good" that would avoid you behaving like a vermin of the fo-fo ...)

[Janic]

Fortunately, it does not work like that: it is up to the person who puts forward the existence of something to prove it because "we cannot prove the non-existence of a phenomenon".

You must be having problems understanding what proof means.
The "proof" is the demonstration of the reality of a fact, a condition, a circumstance or an obligation. The administration is incumbent on the party which avails itself of this fact or of the obligation of which it claims to be a creditor. His offer is only admissible if the demonstration which will be the consequence of his demonstration can be useful for the solution of the claim on which the judge must rule. It is said that the evidence offered must be "relevant".
http://www.dictionnaire-juridique.com/d ... preuve.php


• To be or something which, by their very existence, testify to the reality of something : You are living proof of the success of this treatment.
http://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/fr ... jhUQLH1.99
• In modern medicine, the evaluation of therapeutics often based on an empirical approach known as “based on the evidence” or “based on the facts” which consists in collecting in the most rigorous way possible quantitative data concerning their effectiveness.
• If the level of confidence of information is not sufficient, we will then speak of suspicion, presumption or index, but concurrent indices can mutually reinforce their level of confidence and then be considered as equivalent to proof and accepted as such. We will then speak of a bundle of presumptions.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preuve
Homeo is a fact, a reality recognized and shared all over the world by professionals who practice it, it is in itself a practical proof of its reality and has an official and therefore legal status of recognition and practice already seen.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex ... 73:FR:HTML

It is the responsibility of whoever puts forward the existence of something to provide proof of it because "one cannot prove the non-existence of a phenomenon".

This is a particular point of view because it is no more possible to prove that this phenomenon does not exist! For proof, precisely, all the top scientists and doctors who recognize the effectiveness of these homeo products in their daily exercise.

Otherwise it is the door open to all beliefs.

To suspect these professionals of being naive and falling into some sort of superstition is to insult them with professional incompetence.

ex: I affirm that God exists! It's up to you to bring me proof to the contrary ....

Again, you fall into this usual simplicity.
Does God exist? To do this, we must already start by defining with precision and rigor what this term covers. When the popular expression says that the god of this world is money, does it mean that money does not exist and if money does exist it does mean that it is good god ? We see where this type of discourse that makes the daily bread of philosophers leads.
Here again, the facts (the proofs therefore) of the existence of our material world, from the universe to the atom demonstrate by their very existence, obeying very precise and complex laws, that this owes nothing to the chance and therefore this anti-chance is formulated by a word: god! But one could also call by the term sock or pink elephant as certain spirits, said strong, formulate it, but it was already taken. And this has nothing to do with a negation of the so-called scientific aspect since many scientists (who seek evidence of everything) of high level are justly "believers".
The homeo enters this framework which notes verifiable facts on millions of individuals without particular scientific knowledge, around the world, but who live their sufferings on a daily basis and seek to alleviate or see them disappear, whatever the means used that it is hello, homéo, even even hypnosis or prayers because only the result counts and they let the polemics continue to be insulted in their corner.
Now you are and remain free, fortunately, not to use these means but as this other popular expression says: "if you don't like it don't taste the others"

[Obamot]

It should also be noted, to those who write masked [under pseudo pedrodelavéga as much as zizi_zentrop] that their rascal arguments reveal that the study published in the Lancet predates the 2012-2013 study, it is therefore completely obsolete at present, it's just a little aside to reveal his troll techniques (which are not "beneficial").

Which makes, relatively to this, the study scientifically proving the effectiveness of homeopathy commissioned by the Swiss government quite valid and founded.

This is also why, I patiently hold this same speech with Izentrop, pedro and others, hoping that, little by little, the eyes will open in this very particular area.

This would eventually work with people driven by natural benevolence ... While I reasonably doubt that their goal is to understand, enrich and evolve ... Legitimate aspiration of any humanist approach.

What motivates them more surely, however, is adversity and denial for a rather illusory secondary benefit, "prove to themselves that they are right"at all costs (and not seeking the reason"for herself', proof is the stubbornness not to want to enter the theoretical debate, which they do not know much about elsewhere: here is at least one proof, that of an intellectual imposture ...). Pathetic.

[Janic]

Janic wrote:
This is also why, I patiently hold this same speech with Izentrop, pedro and others, hoping that, little by little, the eyes will open in this very particular area.

This would eventually work with people driven by natural kindness ....

No one knows what tomorrow will be like and we always have to hope that a change of mind can take place and if this is not the case, it does not matter, it is that their experience should not or should not go through there!
I have seen people change their opinion at the end of several decades because faced with an impasse calling into question their belief and confidence in the system in place.

While I reasonably doubt that their goal is to understand, enrich and evolve.

The mere fact of counter arguing shows that, despite everything, it tickles the brain: It is indifference that is more problematic (for this subject to say the least!)

What motivates them more surely, however, is adversity and denial for a rather illusory side benefit, "to prove to themselves that they are right" at all costs. Pathetic!

Which shows that they are humans with their qualities and faults like all of us! It is even reassuring and I am not talking about the subject itself, but about the attitude itself because we are neither "saints" nor disembodied angels.
Indeed, and I have noticed it throughout my already long life; changing your mind is extremely destabilizing (as you can see in politics between left and right) and leaves this unpleasant impression of having been deceived (and worse of being deceived!) which some cannot bear. *
Let us leave time to time and the future will say if these discussions had a particular role in the life of each.

* For those who have miles on the odometer, the communist party blindly supported the communist USSR and was very destabilized when the wall of silence fell and the reality appeared (I am not talking about communism, but the political situation ) and many members abandoned this French communism too dependent on the established system, while others clung desperately to the boat that was taking the water, for lack of anything better. The human being is also a psychic individual (you speak about it often) whose mechanisms of reflection and behavior are often confusing.

[izentrop]

Health Canada is proposing to ban health claims that have not been scientifically proven.

With the current system, explains the text Health Canada, "" an over-the-counter medicine and a homeopathic product may have a similar claim (for example, 'calms the cough'), but (...) only the drug's claim without prescription is supported by scientific evidence. (...) "

http://www.psychomedia.qc.ca/sante/2016 ... omeopathie

"The secret of homeopathy lies in its placebo effect", says Luojin Lyu, a renowned doctor and author in China. As a doctor, Luojin Lyu has worked in China, Japan and the United States. According to him, when they are sick or fragile, people are so desperate that they are ready to try anything.

The doctor studied the value for money of homeopathy: “The medical cost of homeopathy is extremely low. "If a child has a fever and needs emergency medical assistance in the United States, it will cost at least $ 600, while with $ 20, you can buy a package of homeopathic pills at the supermarket."

Homeopathic medicine is almost free from side effects. Its basic component is water. The only side effect is that a disease is not treated in time. What happened to a member of Luojin Lyu's family. "When prescribing drugs, doctors should keep in mind that the most important criterion is not its side effects, but its effectiveness," says the doctor.

The biggest interest is its price, but it's still expensive when you know it's water ... or sugar.
http://www.swissinfo.ch/fre/th%C3%A9rap ... e/42384108

[Janic]

a little analysis:

"The secret of homeopathy is its placebo effect", valued Luojin Lyu, a renowned doctor and author in China. As a doctor, Luojin Lyu has worked in China, Japan and the United States. According to him, when they are sick or fragile, people are so desperate that they are ready to try anything.

It’s unfortunately true, very often, but what this doctor does not specify is that these desperate people sought, first, with existing medicine, whether Chinese, Japanese or American. So failing to see their problem solved, actually anybody would turn to something else.

The doctor studied the value for money of homeopathy: “The medical cost of homeopathy is extremely low. "If a child has a fever and needs emergency medical assistance in the United States, it will cost at least $ 600, while with $ 20, you can buy a package of homeopathic pills at the supermarket."

There we perceive this denigration of which I spoke previously and which is explained later in the article. In America, Japan or China social protection is not the same as in France and this is what interests us here as a priority. Why take drugs at the super market (this is not the case in France where only pharmacies are authorized for this trade) at 20 dollars, while in France the majority of meds are reimbursed and yet they turn more and more more towards alternative medicines including H ;. So this speech did not hold water!

Homeopathic medicine is almost free from side effects. Its basic component is water. The only side effect is that a disease is not treated in time.

another ignorance, the dilutions are generally alcoholic, it all depends on the basic product. moreover, another bogus argument which has no value in France where the doctors are first of all allopaths and were trained to distinguish the pathologies and the allopathic treatments like homeopathic the best adapted (if not they are crossed by the doctor's orders)

What happened to a member of Luojin Lyu's family. "When prescribing drugs, doctors should keep in mind that the most important criterion is not its side effects, but its effectiveness," says the doctor.

And there is the icing on the cake, it happened to the family of…. as if official medicine was not the object of any prescription failure and therefore of ineffectiveness. One only has to read the official mortality statistics to realize that homeopaths have little or no impact on it.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortalit%C3%A9_en_France

And it is on this that his opponents argue! It's pathetic would say ... Obamot and me too!
The big metaphysical question is whether it is better to die scientifically or live empirically ????? As long as it is only empirical which is not the case!