ahhh..good question, Alexandra. I am also looking for one and would really appreciate to know...

thanks!

Sure, will keep you posted !

Claims of homeopathy's efficacy are usupported by scientific and clinical evidence. These two videos explain it:

Richard Dawkins: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYqQ_n2vOOI

James Randi: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWE1tH93G9U

Save your money.....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7291282/NHS-should-not-fund-unproven-homeopathy-say-MPs.html

NO! Somebody has to stand up to these "experts". Those scientists can prove anything with their "facts" and their "scientific method".

Hi there,

one of the best homeopaths in Switzerland should be Dr. Ursula Wolf. She is now a professor in Bern, but might still have her practice in Zürich open.

Homeopathy is widely used in both Switzerland & Germany and is actually a part of  the education in medicine in some universities (e.g. Zürich, Bern). That doesn´t mean it is proven that it always works, and scientifc results are mixed as far as I know. But 1.) so are results for mainstream western medicine (what you normally think about as medicine) & 2.) there´s still a lot of scientifc work to be done before we can dismiss homopathy as a medical practice. Each to their own, I would say.

Thank you all for your imput, it's appreciated. I suppose it is like for everything it works if the person is competent enough in the concerned subject. Agree with the fact that science does not prove everything. There are fields where science has proven to be completely useless too.

Oh crud.

Homeopathy is widely used in both Switzerland & Germany and is actually a part of the education in medicine in some universities (e.g. Zürich, Bern).
A combination of the argument from authority and the argument from popularity. You note as much on the next line:

That doesn´t mean it is proven that it always works, and scientifc results are mixed as far as I know.
The scientific results are categorically not mixed. It's probably true if you look at the complete literature, more studies report positive results from homeopathy than negative ones. For a medical trial to be taken seriously it needs to be (1) of a significant size; (2a) placebo-controlled; (2b) double-blinded; (3) published in a peer-reviewed and reputable journal, by (4) researchers that don't have competing financial interests. I don't think there is one article that fulfills those criteria and reports homeopathy to work better than placebo.

But 1.) so are results for mainstream western medicine (what you normally think about as medicine)
That is not true. There may be many treatments that don't work for 100% of people -- antidepressants and cancer therapies being commonly cited examples -- but that is not the same thing as saying the scientific results are mixed. Comparing the consensus results on homeopathy with those of approved therapies is a hideous, hideous false equality.

& 2.) there´s still a lot of scientifc work to be done before we can dismiss homopathy as a medical practice.
I am not so sure about that. While I'm sure that not every homeopathic remedy has been tested to the degree I outlined above, but most "mainstream western", as you say, trial drugs are rejected long before they get to that stage as well. The tests are very simple and the homeopaths have had two centuries to come up with the evidence, yet failed. Basically, if you find a cure for something that hurts, you are going to make enormous quantities of money out of it. The motivation is huge, and the fact that nobody has produced these results yet is very very telling.
That's before we get to the laughable mechanism by which it's supposed to work, as described very nicely, accurately, and comically in the videos above.

Each to their own, I would say.
I would completely disagree. Each to their own is fine for things that don't matter, but about the worst way to approach healthcare. How can a person with no training in medicine/pharmacology, no scientific literacy, co-evaluate various treatments? Presenting real an false medicine side-by-side is just very dangerous. 

I suppose it is like for everything it works if the person is competent enough in the concerned subject.

I'm not quite sure I follow this. Are you saying that a treatment works if the person administering it is competent enough to make it work?

Agree with the fact that science does not prove everything.

Indeed. Some things it quite convincingly disproves as well.

There are fields where science has proven to be completely useless too.

A classic.

hehe, hayes, let´s take this over a drink sometime. I am very flattered you took the time to analyse my answer, thank you. There´s quite a bit of overinterpretation making me unsure if you actually are more interested in shouting at the moon than in understanding what I wrote, eh, but anyhow.

Tja hannat,

Basically I was quite happy to ignore this thread while it was nothing, and the few posts that had been made were links that described homeopathy for what it is: water. I regard the alt med movement as something that's pretty dangerous in general, as I think I said.

The contents of your post were not particularly complicated -- don't worry, I was capable of understanding it. I reacted becuase I think that it presents a very misleading picture.

Hi! 

I've heard from a few persons  that Dr Ryser Alain was an excellent homeopath/osteopath, but I haven't checked it yet myself.

Dr. Alain Ryser

Chemin des Colombettes 2,
1202 Genève

+41-22-734-5255

A friend highly recommends:

DR PIERLUIGI FACHINOTTI
Rue des Gares 9
1201 Genève
téléphone
+41 (0) 22 734 33 90
téléfax
+41 (0) 22 734 33 91
email
[email protected]

Sam73 and Mozambique,

Thank you !

"good homeopath" ...sounds like an oxymoron...

A parliamentary committee in the UK has just demanded that the UK government should end its state funding for homeopathic treatments because they are "scientifically implausible" and work no better than placebos: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61L26E20100222

Homeotathy is really a waste of time and money.

Alexandra, look what you did here!!!

These anti-homeopathy dudes flew into a rage!!!

Good job!!!

Yep, it was not the purpose but it seems like there is a lot to say about the subject. 

... If homeopathy would be really that useless, there would be no need for shooting at it so much, because people would stop it and return to the normal pharmaceutical drugs...

Anyway, I read an article about this lady while sitting in my doc's waiting room. She has also been strongly recommended to me by a friend:

Dr méd. Brigitte Zirbs
spéc. FMH en médecine interne, homéopathie
Route de Saint-Julien 263
1258 Perly

Téléphone: 022 771 26 00

She was a "normal" doc but then she switched to homépathie because of various reasons. She also uses biorésonance for intolerances of food.

... If homeopathy would be really that useless, there would be no need for shooting at it so much, because people would stop it and return to the normal pharmaceutical drugs...

Pling!

Basically, I think some people respond well to homeopathy, and some not at all.  Either way, unlike conventional medicine, it is regarded as safe.  SO if someone wants to give it a shot, by all means why not.  Conventional western medicine, on the other hand is generally not considered safe. (@Hayes- have you seen the recent stats on the "epidemic proportions" of fatal drug interactions?)  Plus how many scientific studies for conventional drugs are....1) of a significant size; (2a) placebo-controlled; (2b) double-blinded; (3) published in a peer-reviewed and reputable journal, by (4) researchers that don't have competing financial interests. Not to mention that the studies need to control variables adequately in the first place, something that is often not done.  While I do believe that conventional medicine has its place, I applaud the alternative medicine movement, and although I personally haven't had any incredible results with homeopathy, I believe very strongly in naturopathy and a holistic approach to analyzing the human body.  That said, people do need to realize that some natural-based products are still drugs and/or dangerous, and treat them accordingly.  All I can say is that if there would be half the money invested into alternative medicine as into conventional drugs, I think we'd have a lot more answers and quite possibly a lot less nasty side effects (have you SEEN what gets yanked off the market because, apparently, they forgot to figure out how dangerous it is?).  Ah, but then what would all the drug company reps do...?

well, there seems to be a deep misunderstanding of what constitues science, but everyone is entitled to their beliefs. Spending public money though on fending the evil eye or killing and torturing animals to make "alternative" remedies is just deplorable...of course pharmaceutical companies are companies and are interested in making money, often by endangering the public or torturing animals too, which is equally deplorable. But this has nothing to do with what constitues science.

Basically, I think some people respond well to homeopathy, and some not at all.

Indeed -- that's the whole point of placebo control. It looks like some people respond well to placebo as well. Folk that have worked in medical research for decades are still occasionally surprised by the strength of the placebo effect. The human brain is extremely powerful.

Either way, unlike conventional medicine, it is regarded as safe.
Rhetoric and a false comparison. It's true the homeopathy is regarded as safe. A true homeopathic remedy is about as safe for human consumption as any substance can be: pure water; it doesn't get much safer than than. Although I suppose the person preparing the remedy could drown. Conventional medicine is unsafe -- as a general statement that's absurd. Anything is less safe than water. Cheese, spaghetti bolognese, dust, beer, asprin, chemotherapy. It's effectively the same as saying don't get out of bed because it's dangerous out there.

SO if someone wants give it a shot, by all means why not.
Here is why not. A homeopathic practitioner doesn't need to have the training that a doctor does - nicely exemplified by the fact that they don't even claim to treat the cause, only the symptom. Alt Med treatments severely delay diagnosis on serious illnesses. That is why they are dangerous. Now I'm not saying that were you to get some serious disease you would go to a homeopath, it's not that clear cut: in the beginning the patient typically doesn't know what is causing their symptoms. So they go to their practitioner who tries and fails to cure them, they try different things, naturopathy, healing touch, prayer, acupuncture, etc. None of them work. When that patient finally gets to a real doctor, it is too late.
Now I would like to believe that most people only use homeopathic remedies for colds, achey ankles, mild headaches, etc. But the more it is used on things that would get better by themselves anyway, the more its false efficacy becomes manifested. People propagating false information about the benefits of homeopathy inevitably means, unfortunately, that wave of bullshit crashes over someone that simply isn't that clever.

Conventional western medicine, on the other hand is generally not considered safe.
Sorry. I just don't know how to argue against that. The claim that IN GENERAL WESTERN MEDICINE IS NOT CONSIDERED SAFE. It's not true.

(@Hayes- have you seen the recent stats on the "epidemic proportions" of fatal drug interactions?)
I *have* seen House, you know! Actually, this could be interesting, and in honesty the answer has to be no, I haven't. Since you seem to be raising a genuine point, show me these recent stats and I'll have a look. Just provide a link that exemplifies your point.

Plus how many scientific studies for conventional drugs are....1) of a significant size; (2a) placebo-controlled; (2b) double-blinded; (3) published in a peer-reviewed and reputable journal, by (4) researchers that don't have competing financial interests.
The answer is 18,411. Actually no, I've no idea, but the answer is in the tens of thousands.

Not to mention that the studies need to control variables adequately in the first place, something that is often not done.
That's true, and pinpoints the fact that the scientific method, while perfect in itself, can only be carried out to the best of the scientists' abilities. But if the researcher is genuine, then it is something that is done to the best of their abilities. This is what I do -- I know I can't do it perfectly but I do it to the very best of my ability.

While I do believe that conventional medicine has its place,
Since you've said TWO times that conventional medicine is generally considered unsafe, I'd be curious to know why you think it has its place.

That said, people do need to realize that some natural-based products are still drugs and/or dangerous, and treat them accordingly.
This is a great point, and frequently overlooked -- some herbal remedies in particular can be horrific. A lot of this stuff has active properties, but since it's not licensed and sold as medicine,  the quantities of active ingredient are completely unregulated. Liver damage is a common outcome. One should not neglect the fact that an awful lot of what goes into conventional medicine has its origin here as well -- those that were proven effective were assimilated and became Medicine. Those that were not, or have not been sufficiently tested for license, became Alternative Medicine.

All I can say is that if there would be half the money invested into alternative medicine as into conventional drugs, I think we'd have a lot more answers
That money is seriously not necessary. Billions of dollars -- billions of GOVERNMENTAL DOLLARS, I might add -- were pumped into Alt Med research in the US during the last Bush administration. Which is hardly unexpected since he never bothered to appoint scientific advisors. Null. Money that could have gone to nurses and hospitals.

Ah, but then what would all the drug company reps do...?
I agree that the methods of the pharmaceutical companies are a disgrace.

> .. If homeopathy would be really that useless, there would be no need for shooting at it so much, because people would stop it and return to the normal pharmaceutical drugs...

If astrology would be really that useless, there would be no need for shooting at it so much, because people would stop reading horoscopes and believing in them.

Science is not done by popular belief or consensus.

@ Hayes-  because something works some of the time, does not mean that it is the placebo effect.  Conventional drugs don't work the same on everyone.  If something that is non-invasive, and safe works for someone by all means continue.  If you have cancer, maybe better to go the traditional route as well.  One method generally doesn't exclude the other.  (Personally, like I said, my interest is more in natural medicine) if you are taking antibiotics, it's not a bad idea to take probiotics at the same time to make sure that your intestinal flora stays healthy and that you don't kill off so many bacteria that you start having a problem with yeast, for example. Conventional medicine generally has worse side effects than natural medicine when used as directed (research studies on most supplements vs. the warning labels on the stuff your doctor gives you).  And I disagree, many conventional medicines are not based on natural things, they are created in a lab, for a pharmaceutical company TO MAKE MONEY.  That said, some of them work.  And that is why, although I don't consider it safe I consider it useful.  I just think that people need to research their options and decide for their whole body rather that just treating symptoms (a lot of meds are marketed for symptoms and not necessarily the underlying cause of them).  As for perscription drug interactions here's some random sites I just googled...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/23/AR2007022301780.html

http://www.communicationagents.com/sepp/2003/10/29/medical_system_is_leading_cause_of_death_and_injury_in_us.htm

http://www.bottomlinesecrets.com/hot_topics.html?aid=34222&sid=hottopm1

http://psychservices.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/56/1/22

Long story short, it's not the drugs that are as bad in themselves rather than the approach of popping a pill for everything instead of looking for the least invasive way to treat the underlying cause.  I'm not saying do acupuncture for a stage 3 cancer.  But maybe for pain, it could work really well.  And that is definitely less dangerous that being on narcotics.  And arguing the placebo effect, doesn't cut it because something that works sometimes under some circumstances doesn't make it useless in all circumstances.  Maybe the right control groups aren't tested, maybe their problems stem from different sources, and they are all in 1 control group because they have pain.  And although painkillers could address most of the pain, from most of the sources, maybe acupuncture only helps with some of them. Until we understand a lot more about the human body, we will not be able to explain why some things work.  

Natural medicine is becoming more mainstream, that's good.  Now I just hope it's a matter of time until natural medicines are subjected to the same strict regulations as regular pharmaceuticals (I believe this is already happening in Germany).  Now send me some links for Bush's alt. medicine research...and if billions of dollars were pumped into it, then he should have by all means had scientific advisors, but that speaks badly of Bush, not of natural medicine.

Anyone wondered why only women recommed homeopaths and men criticise???

It looks like only women use (read: believe in) homeopathy.

@ Hayes-  because something works some of the time, does not mean that it is the placebo effect.
No, the issue I have is with the word "work". I am extremely happy to admit that after taking homeopathic remedies, a lot of patients get better. However, I'm extremely unhappy to admit that the recovery is anything to do with the treatment. In reasoning it's called the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. If a cure works no better than a placebo, I don't really know what else to say on the subject. It seems like your argument about better controls boil down to something like "I would prefer it if these people just made less effective placebos".

If something that is non-invasive, and safe works for someone by all means continue.
That's the biggest issue that surrounds all of alt med. Works for someone. Hey, I got better -- it can work for you too... It's called an anecdote; it's not called evidence. You are saying again that it works for some fraction of people but how on earth can you claim that is known? Placebo works for the same fraction of people.

(Personally, like I said, my interest is more in natural medicine)
I hear this a lot: it's an issue of sacred cows. Homeopathy's rubbish, acupuncture is rubbish, but healing touch, that's where it's at man. Or UFOs aren't real, the Loch Ness Monster is obviously a joke, but Bigfoot is round my dustbins every evening. Doesn't it all just fill the place of waning religiones? It gives people back a feeling of control. Natural must be better because it's..... natural. People at least think they understand trees and plants but don't understand what goes on in a lab. I totally see where it comes from. It's an alternative to the system, The Man, and those Big Phat Farmers. I'd love to be able to ignore reality as well.

Conventional medicine generally has worse side effects than natural medicine when used as directed (research studies on most supplements vs. the warning labels on the stuff your doctor gives you).  
Yeah, of course conventional medicine has worse side effects. It has active ingredients in it. Stuff that, you know, does stuff.

And I disagree, many conventional medicines are not based on natural things, they are created in a lab, for a pharmaceutical company TO MAKE MONEY.
Again, if you read my post, you will see that I said "an awful lot of what goes into conventional medicine has its origin here". First of all, that means that our knowledge of this treatment has its origin there. Yes, sure, all medicine is *manufactured* in labs, out of things that have been *brought into the lab* from *outside the lab*.

That said, some of them work.  
[posterity]

And that is why, although I don't consider it safe I consider it useful.
To go back to what I said last time about it being safer-to-stay-in-bed, yeah, sometimes it's useful to get out.

As for perscription drug interactions here's some random sites I just googled...
Instead of random sites, I would recommend linking to sites that prop up your point.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/23AR2007022301780.html
We are unable to locate the page you requested. The page may have moved or may no longer be available.

http://www.communicationagents.com/sepp/2003/10/29/medical_system_is_leading_cause_of_death_and_injury_in_us.htm
This is seven year-old article distributed in MS Word format that claims to be distributed in press by the Nutrition Institute of America. Quackwatch lists the Nutrition Institute of America as a Questionable Organization, but I can't find them at all! Googling it in quotes just finds a load of links that point back to your article. I'd suggest that this is a utterly bogus.

http://www.bottomlinesecrets.com/hot_topics.html?aid=34222&sid=hottopm1,
A six year old blog post promotional article that doesn't link to source. Typical. Jay S Cohen? In 2004 he published a few public hysteria books for which, at the time your article was published, I assume he was doing the publicity. The article claims the he is a voluntary associate professor at UCSD, but certainly isn't listed on their pages (although the age of your article may explain that). More telling, I can't find any obvious reference to him as a researcher or academic. I search for his work on PubMed, and there are JS Cohens; 2 of them -- but is he the dentist or the gynecologist? My suspicion is that he is a quack MD that volunteers so he can call himself associate of a research institution.

http://psychservices.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/56/1/22
Waits indefinitely for the webserver to reply.

You asked me have you seen the stats? I said no, show me the stats.
Sorry, this is not convincing. 

I'm not saying do acupuncture for a stage 3 cancer.  But maybe for pain, it could work really well.  And that is definitely less dangerous that being on narcotics.
Oh! Maybe it could work really well for something that has a huge psychological component! That's.... remarkably familiar...

Of course it's less dangerous than being on "narcotics" -- because, I say copy-pasting, it has active ingredients in it. Stuff that, you know, does stuff.

And arguing the placebo effect, doesn't cut it because something that works sometimes under some circumstances doesn't make it useless in all circumstances.
Sorry, placebo effect does cut it here as well. Acupuncture is quite well placebo tested against sham acupuncture -- it performs no better. However, I concede that it is very hard (although not impossible) to double-blind the test.

Natural medicine is becoming more mainstream, that's good.
That's subjective. I see no evidence to suggest that natural medicine becoming more popular is a good thing. The reverse in fact. Primarily for the delays diagnosis reason that I made before.

Now send me some links for Bush's alt. medicine research...
Firstly, for the record, I didn't say it was Bush's, I said he pumped a lot of money into it. What Bush did was to quadruple it's budget over 4 years in the beginning of the 2000s. What I had in mind was the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, one of the National Institutes for Health. Its injected operating costs run to 1.5 BUSD. The quoted figure doesn't include the independently obtained grant money of its researchers.

Alexandra and Apacat,

There is a guy in Geneva called Alain Vernede. Last time I checked he was just opposite Placette. He is an Iridologue (hope that right or I'll probabaly get a thousand mails on spelling) and my experince is that he is able to diagnose just about anything from the eyes, and prescribe to fix it. Worked wonders for my daughter which the conventional doctor never even got near to and the answer was so simple it didn't even need any medication.

Sorry, I'm not sure if he speaks English.

No, it wont work for everyone but each type of medicine has its areas of strength

Allan

Thank you Allan !

Great act, one of my favourite comedians. But that is what he is. An an Irishman that puts priests in the same category and in a sack is not trying to be taken seriously....I hope for his own health's sake. Some Irish are very touchy when you attack their priest.

If you read my post, you'll see I refer to iridology. I was amazed by what can be seen. As I said, in my daughters case, she didn't need any medicine which is better than continuing to pay for prescriptions which didn't work. The diagnosis, once she was installed in front of the camera, took about 5 seconds, and I exaggerate not. Totally none intrusive to boot.

In my own case, the Iridologist spotted something which was dangerous but cured with just a change of diet. A quack? I think not because, I did get it checked out by my doctor. She wanted to prescribe a lifetime subscription to anti-cholesterol tablets. He prescribed a change of diet and told me what to avoid.

The doctors solution was expensive, but it makes lots of money for the drug companies who's reps are almost permanent fixtures in the doctors diary and offer doctors just about anything they can think off as encouragements to prescribe their drugs.

Six months later, my doctor had to eat her words (you'll have to take tablets for the rest of your life!).

As I said, not the solution for everything or everyone but if you get an honest person, it's worth a look. Homeopathic drugs? Maybe a lot of water and not cheap in CH so be careful is my advice. But that goes for standard drugs also.

Thanks again afor this link to a very funny act.

Allan

And the message is?...........blank or did you hit the post button too quickly?

Oops, didn't see the picture when I checked via an e-amil window, That's the problem with videos.

Thanks

Allan