Free Homeopathic treatment anyone?

superscaper

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673605671772/abstract

But I suppose the Lancet is only the oldest peer reviewed medical journal in the UK so they must have missed what these "great results" by "drs, the government and hundreds of years of so called pharmaceutical companies" actually were.

Need_More_Money_2

toffeepennys wrote: »

as you have correctly pointed out it is not free, however thats where your opinion is shot down.

it has been tested on numerous occassions by drs, the government and hundreds of years of so called pharmaceutical companies and all have shown great results.

Coudl you share the peer reviewed references please because I don't believe they exist.

toffeepennys wrote: »

the theory behind homeopathy is that like cures like,

A hypothesis that was put forward with no basis.

toffeepennys wrote: »

the results cannot be shown in a chemical equation but PHYSICS

I'm a physicist. I'm not aware of any physics that can show how homeopathy could work. If someone could demonstrate how the selective 'memory effect' works, that homeopathy relies upon, they would probably win the nobel prizes for physics, chemistry, AND medicine!

toffeepennys wrote: »

we know that exposure to radiation causes cancer, yet we use it on a daily basis to treat cancers.

Indeed we do as has been already mentioned by someone else on this thread. The difference is that we use very high radiation doses to kill off tissues. This relies on that fact that the effects of radiation at high doses are different (non-stochastic) compared to at lower doses. In contrast homeopathy uses no measureable amount of the supposed 'like'.

toffeepennys wrote: »

if you are opinionated enough to voice your self in a public forum, you should at least have the intellegience to do the research to back it up.

I'd love to see your research evidence.

toffeepennys wrote: »

the governement trialled these so called mumbo jumbo treatment themselves during each war and found a significasnt drop in the mortality rate 16.4 per cent on a treatment for mustard gas burns as oppossed to a 51.8 per cent mortality rate before treeatments.

Do you have a link to a reputable source for this?

toffeepennys wrote: »

as you have pointed out though we all pay for it so perhaps we are all intittled to an opinion on how its used.

Agreed and it is reasonable to ask for evidence that treatments work if we are going to pay for them. No evidence has been presented to support homeopathy, so far as I am aware.

toffeepennys

my research is a whole lot more than yours.

my information unlike yours is not my opinion but that of actual doctors

My information comes from MATERIA MEDICA

toffeepennys

M.E DEAN the mustard trials 1941-42

superscaper

toffeepennys wrote: »

my research is a whole lot more than yours.

my information unlike yours is not my opinion but that of actual "doctors"

My "information" comes from MATERIA MEDICA

"M.E DEAN the mustard trials 1941-42" British Homoeopathic Journal 33:1–12

Can you quote anything that doesn't come from a self justifying, vested interest alternative medicine "journal"?

superscaper

By "Materia Medica" do you mean the Homeopathic Materia Medica? Hardly a scientific journal if so. In wikipedia you'll find it in the pseudoscience category. Surely you don't count that equal in veracity and objectivity to The Lancet (which is the journal I used to provide a link)?

Need_More_Money_2

toffeepennys wrote: »

my research is a whole lot more than yours.

An interesting assumption. What makes you believe this?

In the interests of the debate it would be useful if you could share the results and sources of your extensive research.

toffeepennys wrote: »

my information unlike yours is not my opinion but that of actual doctors

How do you know my information does not come from 'actual doctors'? What are you defining to be an 'actual doctor'?

toffeepennys wrote: »

My information comes from MATERIA MEDICA

Ah, so from an extensive search of unbiased peer reviewed sources!:rolleyes:

Just because something is in a book or on a web site, does not mean it is correct.

superscaper

Need_More_Money wrote: »

How do you know my information does not come from 'actual doctors'? What are you defining to be an 'actual doctor'?

And of course the link I gave to the Lancet has nothing to do with actual doctors. :rolleyes:

toffeepennys

the actual materia medica i was referring to is written by DR Andrew Lockie.

As for your mention of WIKIPEDIA, i am insulted that you feel the need to bring a site of such standing into the same conversation.

this is a site that the description is added my morons who use it as a reference book.

it is not a credible argument for any theory.

Dr Andrew Lockis is a certified doctor, havinggraduated from medicine at aberdeen university, he then gained his membership from the faculty of homeopathy having studied at the london omeopathic Hospital, he gained membership at the Royal Council of General Practictioners, has a diploma in Obstetrics, Gynacology, and familyplanning. He has written and co written numerous books on homeopathy, as well as practising as a homeopathic consultant.

therefore am inclined to beleive him and all his theories over the ramblings of a disgrunteled blogger!

superscaper

toffeepennys wrote: »

the ramblings of a disgrunteled blogger!

Is that a description of the Lancet link I posted? Personally I wouldn't put my entire opinion in the hands of a single doctor. There are doctors who believe in creationism, there doctors who pretty much will believe anything. Just being a doctor doesn't substitute for published peer reviewed research in respected journals.

So a guy who makes a living from homeopathy supplies your objective proof that homeopathy works?

By the way homeopathy isn't a theory, if you knew anything about science you'd know that.