| Revision as of 00:09, 12 December 2001 view sourceEgern~enwiki (talk | contribs)0 edits Attempted to restore NPOV← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:10, 12 December 2001 view source Egern~enwiki (talk | contribs)0 edits Further attempt at NPOVNext edit → | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| Recent research indicates that in certain situations the further diluted a substance, the more its ]s tend to clump together. Some see this as the beginnings of evidence supporting homeopathic therapies. However this doesn't explain why the substances need to be diluted, just that they might remain active after this preparation (not in the non-concentrations of homeopathic medicine, though), and many scientists doubt that it has any implications with regard to homeopathy at all. Homeopathy proponents argue that not knowing the underlying mechanism for why something works is irrelevant, pointing to ] as an example of a drug that was used for years before anyone knew why it worked. However, critics argue that whereas aspirin was ''known'' to work, homeopathy has yet to prove itself, meaning that understanding the underlying theory remains important in determining whether it really does have benefit. Proponents argue, however, that homeopathy is, in fact, effective, and reject this criticism as irrelevant. | Recent research indicates that in certain situations the further diluted a substance, the more its ]s tend to clump together. Some see this as the beginnings of evidence supporting homeopathic therapies. However this doesn't explain why the substances need to be diluted, just that they might remain active after this preparation (not in the non-concentrations of homeopathic medicine, though), and many scientists doubt that it has any implications with regard to homeopathy at all. Homeopathy proponents argue that not knowing the underlying mechanism for why something works is irrelevant, pointing to ] as an example of a drug that was used for years before anyone knew why it worked. However, critics argue that whereas aspirin was ''known'' to work, homeopathy has yet to prove itself, meaning that understanding the underlying theory remains important in determining whether it really does have benefit. Proponents argue, however, that homeopathy is, in fact, effective, and reject this criticism as irrelevant. | ||
| Some homeopathic practitioners may ascribe the lack of definitive support from controlled trials to the the absence of emotional doctor-patient bond that is necessary in order for treatment to be successful |
Some homeopathic practitioners may ascribe the lack of definitive support from controlled trials to the the absence of emotional doctor-patient bond that is necessary in order for treatment to be successful. Others contend that this is a ] take on the subject. Despite these claims, debate continues on the results of further trials, as it likely will as long as homeopathy is a flourishing business. | ||
| '''Additional information''' | '''Additional information''' | ||
Revision as of 00:10, 12 December 2001
Homoeopathy is a traditional method in treating disease. The principle relies on using highly diluted remedies that, were they to be taken in larger amounts, would actually produce the symptoms of the disease being treated. Its underlying philosophy, on which the cures are based, explores ways in which the human mind, body and soul works.
Conventional medicine views symptoms as signs of illness. Modern treatments are intended to fight disease by targeting the pathogen causing the symptoms. According to homeopathy, however, symptoms are actually the bodies way of fighting 'dis-ease' (verb not noun.) Homeopathy teaches that symptoms are to be encouraged, by way of prescribing a remedy in miniscule doses that in large doses would produce the same symptoms seen in the patient. These remedies are intended to stimulate the immune system, helping to cure the illness.
Homeopathy is generally unregulated, prompting suggestions that homeopathic doctors could potentially cause more damage than harm. Also, proponents of convential medicine charge that patients who rely fully on homeopathic techniques, denying any conventional medicine, are at risk of leaving some easily treatable diseases (such as some early skin cancers) until they become untreatable.
Proponents and opponents of homeopathy disagree over whether scientific trials with the use of placebos have shown success with homeopathic methods. Some clinical trials have produced results supporting homeopathy, but critics contend that these trials are flawed. In 1997, the British medical journal Lancet published a meta-analysis of 89 clinical trials, with a resultingly ambiguous conclusion that served as fodder for both supporters and critics of homeopathy.
Dilution Process
A remedy is the name that omeopathy uses to refer to any substance that is part of a homeopathic treatment. A number is assigned to the level of dilution involved in the remedy; the higher the number, the greater the dilution, and, according to homeopathic theory, the stronger the remedy. For example, a value of 30X is considered stronger than 15X.
Critics argue that diluting substances as much as homeopathy does would not only vastly decrease any effects the substance in question has, but in fact completely destroy the healing agent. Critics also argue that homeopathy arose at a time when existing medical practice was often harmful to the patient (bleeding, toxic substances such as mercury, and purging), and was thus benign in comparison.
Recent research indicates that in certain situations the further diluted a substance, the more its molecules tend to clump together. Some see this as the beginnings of evidence supporting homeopathic therapies. However this doesn't explain why the substances need to be diluted, just that they might remain active after this preparation (not in the non-concentrations of homeopathic medicine, though), and many scientists doubt that it has any implications with regard to homeopathy at all. Homeopathy proponents argue that not knowing the underlying mechanism for why something works is irrelevant, pointing to aspirin as an example of a drug that was used for years before anyone knew why it worked. However, critics argue that whereas aspirin was known to work, homeopathy has yet to prove itself, meaning that understanding the underlying theory remains important in determining whether it really does have benefit. Proponents argue, however, that homeopathy is, in fact, effective, and reject this criticism as irrelevant.
Some homeopathic practitioners may ascribe the lack of definitive support from controlled trials to the the absence of emotional doctor-patient bond that is necessary in order for treatment to be successful. Others contend that this is a pseudoscientific take on the subject. Despite these claims, debate continues on the results of further trials, as it likely will as long as homeopathy is a flourishing business.
Additional information
- Homoeopathic Medical Association (HMA)
Citations:
/Talk