Free Homeopathic treatment anyone?

Need_More_Money_2

toffeepennys wrote: »

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

Is it peer reviewed? So, having the title Dr means everthing you say is correct does it? :rolleyes:
What about the many Drs and scientists who have shown homeopathy does nothing more than invoke the placebo effect.

toffeepennys wrote: »

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.

In general I would agree with you about people who rely on web sites for their information. However, wikipedia is surprisingly good.

toffeepennys wrote: »

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

You like making assumptions about people, without any evidence, don't you? I suppose that fits with belief in homeopathy.

To paraphrase Billy Connolly. Imagine there was a huge motorway pile up with lots of severe casualties. Do you think people would be relieved if someone pushed their way through the crowd shouting "Let me through, I'm a homeopathist" ? :rotfl:

superscaper

Need_More_Money wrote: »

In general I would agree with you about people who rely on web sites for their information. However, wikipedia is surprisingly good.

And we wouldn't have to resort to it if toffeepennys actually gave the sources. I even provided a link for my citation and I even added the missing source to toffeepennys own article quote myself. Can hardly accuse me of not researching anything or just rambling.

toffeepennys

are you people refusing to accept the published and very reputable works from the book i keep mentioning
the title to be exact is


the family guide to homeopathy

DR ANDREW
LOCKIE

superscaper

toffeepennys wrote: »

are you people refusing to accept the published and very reputable works from the book i keep mentioning
the title to be exact is


the family guide to homeopathy

DR ANDREW
LOCKIE

????? Why should we when you refuse to accept the Lancet which is far more reputable.

You really don't understand the words "peer reviewed publication" do you?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Healing-Power-Water-Masaru-Emoto/dp/1401908772/ref=sr_1_3/026-5274242-8307661?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191692696&sr=1-3


Look I know believe in praying to water because there's a book on it, by a DOCTOR and everything!!!! I must accept everything he says unquestioningly and ignore all the journal publications.

toffeepennys

Homeopathic Motions

Posted by apgaylard on September 27th, 2007
There is an early day motion (EDM) before the House of Commons, protesting risks to funding of NHS homeopathic hospitals. As of 27th September 2007 it had collected 197 signatures from Members of Parliament.

It contains a number of impressive assertions. Are they relevant? Are they backed up by good evidence? Let’s examine them one at a time.
“That this House welcomes the positive contribution made to the health of the nation by the NHS homeopathic hospitals …” A Lancet paper in 1997 [1] gave some hope to the advocates of homeopathy. In a review of 89 studies the authors said that their findings “were not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are completely due to placebo”.

Need_More_Money_2

toffeepennys wrote: »

are you people refusing to accept the published and very reputable works from the book i keep mentioning
the title to be exact is


the family guide to homeopathy

DR ANDREW
LOCKIE

Who says it is reputable? You didn't answer if you believe everything someone says just because they have the title Dr

superscaper

Now I'm confused, you've just posted an article supporting my stated opinion!

toffeepennys

Doctors who practise homeopathy have all qualified in medicine before studying homeopathy. This means that they can treat their patients with either homeopathic or conventional medicine – whichever is in the patient’s best interest.
“To say that homeopathic medicines are no better than placebo is nonsense. Sense about Science quotes a study published in The Lancet in August 2005, which based its conclusion on only eight trials out of a possible 110. Had a different selection of trials been included in the final eight, the conclusion would have been very different.

superscaper

Is this the same Sense about Science that says "...it has not been embraced by medical science. The scientific evidence shows that homeopathy acts only as a placebo and there is no scientific explanation of how it could work any other way. "

Why is it you can't provide a link to an independant peer-reviewed publication?

Need_More_Money_2

toffeepennys wrote: »

Doctors who practise homeopathy have all qualified in medicine before studying homeopathy. This means that they can treat their patients with either homeopathic or conventional medicine – whichever is in the patient’s best interest.

Is this true? So far as I am aware Homeopathy is not regulated so anyone can call themselves a Homeopathic practitioner. Is there anything stopping me calling myself that and dispensing water to people?
I'm still wondering why you put so much faith in that book just because it was written by someone with the title Dr.

toffeepennys wrote: »

“To say that homeopathic medicines are no better than placebo is nonsense. Sense about Science quotes a study published in The Lancet in August 2005, which based its conclusion on only eight trials out of a possible 110. Had a different selection of trials been included in the final eight, the conclusion would have been very different.

Could you post the actual references in the Lancet because I'd like to go and read what they actually say?