# Homeopathy



## SonofEagles (Jan 12, 2008)

Greetings all,

What is the general feeling about homeopathy? 
I had my first visit with a homeopath last week. Recovery is taking a lot longer than I thought and drugs are not an option for me so I gave HP a chance.
The lady I saw was familiar with depersonalization and the whole 'unreality' feeling. After reviewing my whole life story and how DP started she prescribed Plutonium Nitricum C-30. Plutonium as she explained helps make the DP 'shift'. I don't know if it's the placibo effect or the plutonium hard at work but something seems to be working right. I have not had an anxiety attack yet and I have had some really comfortable moments of complete reality.
Any thoughts?


----------



## HereIsEverywhere (Dec 22, 2008)

I have no idea what that is you are talking about, Plutonium Nitricum C-30. I tried to google it but the couple sights I looked at seemed like babble not written in proper sentences that was really confusing. Do you know of anywhere I can read up on it? Or perhaps you can explain?


----------



## SonofEagles (Jan 12, 2008)

http://abchomeopathy.com/r.php/Plut-n

http://web.mac.com/joylucas/iWeb/Site/R ... up%208.pdf

These are two links with info on Plut-n. The second link, it's a pdf document, on page 6 explains more on what plutonium does.


----------



## HereIsEverywhere (Dec 22, 2008)

SonofEagles said:


> http://abchomeopathy.com/r.php/Plut-n
> 
> http://web.mac.com/joylucas/iWeb/Site/R ... up%208.pdf
> 
> These are two links with info on Plut-n. The second link, it's a pdf document, on page 6 explains more on what plutonium does.


The first link said no info available. And the second link is the same babble I didn't understand at all from another site.


----------



## Matt210 (Aug 15, 2004)

My philosophy when it comes to alternative medicine is that there is a reason it is alternative - there is no scientific evidence behind it, and it usually does not work. When it does work, it is usually a placebo effect. Which is fine, its probably harmless.

But I wouldn't expect any miracle cures for homeopathic doctors.


----------



## SonofEagles (Jan 12, 2008)

Those were and to some extent still are my feelings on homeopathy but I will definitely give this remedy a try and see if it works. So far something seems to be helping; no racing thoughts, no anxiety and a definitely more laid back attitude.
What impressed me was the homeopath's knowledge of depersonalization; unlike all 'conventional' doctors I have been to who dismissed it as nothing.
My remedy is a 9 week long process so will keep you posted if plutonium really is the cure for DP


----------



## HereIsEverywhere (Dec 22, 2008)

Matt210 said:


> My philosophy when it comes to alternative medicine is that there is a reason it is alternative - there is no scientific evidence behind it, and it usually does not work. When it does work, it is usually a placebo effect. Which is fine, its probably harmless.
> 
> But I wouldn't expect any miracle cures for homeopathic doctors.


No that's not necessarily true. My mom and I have gotten terrible bladder infections. Doctors would prescribe antibiotics, we laid off the sugar, took cranberry pills and drank a lot of water. Antibiotics can be dangerous and unnecessary when there is a perfectly well-known alternative. I never did go to the doctor for it, but she did (she was pregnant at the time) and her doctors said it cleared up better and faster than the patients they give antibiotics to.

On the converse, conventional, 'tested' drugs have horrible side effects (sometimes death) and you never know who tested them or what their intentions are. Some tests with negative results are suppressed.

That being said, cranberries for urinary help is well known and can be found all over the internet and in books. I can't find a stitch on this treatment! It's all about being smart and choosy, just like with conventional medicine.


----------



## Matt210 (Aug 15, 2004)

That's a misconception about the differences between homeopathy and conventional medicine.

First of all - infections by nature are usually bacterial or viral. If they are bacterial you need antibiotics, not cranberry juice. If they are viral you don't have many options other than have a healthy lifestyle and wait for it to clear up itself.

Don't get me wrong - doctors are quite often complete idiots in general, but its not fair to criticize conventional medicine because a doctor gave out antibiotics when he shouldn't. I know nothing about bladder infections and their reaction to cranberry juice, but if there is something proven about it then regular doctors would prescribe it. If your doctor constantly prescribes you medicine then you have a bad doctor.

But the cranberry juice you describe is not homeopathic medicine. Perhaps you are confusing homeopathy and naturopathy. Homeopathic medicine is based on the ideology that 'like cures like'. Small doses of plants, herbs, etc are diluted to the point where they do nothing and the patient is fed a placebo with no scientific evidence behind it.


----------



## HereIsEverywhere (Dec 22, 2008)

Matt210 said:


> That's a misconception about the differences between homeopathy and conventional medicine.
> 
> First of all - infections by nature are usually bacterial or viral. If they are bacterial you need antibiotics, not cranberry juice. If they are viral you don't have many options other than have a healthy lifestyle and wait for it to clear up itself.
> 
> ...


No. You do NOT need antibiotics for all bacterial infections. What about probiotics? You know like... yogurt for digestive health. It's not good to kill off ALL bacteria. It causes other problems. As far as "my" doctor. I don't have one. I haven't had insurance since the age of 12. I've been lucky that I've had no major illnesses, and the minor ones I cured with remedies available to me.

Perhaps I don't understand the distinction of homeopathy so I can't argue that. But just because the FDA didn't put a huge stamp on Cranberries as a cure for bladder infections doesn't mean they aren't. Thinking the government is the be all end all of cures is a grave error. Drugs make money. In other words, even if cranberries were proved to cure UTIs as well or better than antibiotics, the drug companies are going to want you to doubt it, and buy their artificial substance. So please don't presume that I NEED antibiotics instead of cranberry pills.


----------



## Johnny Dep (Feb 8, 2009)

HereIsEverywhere said:


> Matt210 said:
> 
> 
> > That's a misconception about the differences between homeopathy and conventional medicine.
> ...


Your the one whose presuming too much. There is no logical connection between your big cranberry story and Homeopathy.


----------



## HereIsEverywhere (Dec 22, 2008)

Johnny Dep said:


> HereIsEverywhere said:
> 
> 
> > Matt210 said:
> ...


I admittedly said perhaps I didn't understand the distinction. I was merely replying to his assertion that I "needed" antibiotics, aside from the issue of homeopathy.


----------



## Matt210 (Aug 15, 2004)

I never said you personally needed antibiotics - I didn't even know if your infection was bacterial or viral. If you have a bacterial infection the best option is antibiotics. It is the best line of defense we have against them. I shouldn't have used the word 'need' perhaps because this is not to say that no bacterial infection will go away without antibiotics. But think back to before the invention of antibiotics and how many people died. Not all of them certainly - and I bet if they all had doctors who would have told them about cranberry juice (assuming it actually works, again I know nothing about it) several more would have survived. But there are many many cases where a bacterial infection is just not going to go away without antibiotics. I've had a severe bacterial infection of my throat that was mistaken for a viral infection for months. My doctor refused to give me antibiotics - suggested a ton of other remedies, and it just went on and on. To the point where I was hardly conscious - I had a dangerous fever, I was on so much OxyContin to kill the pain I had no idea what was going on. Only then did my doctor realize it was indeed bacterial. Antibiotics cured me in about 3 days.

All of this previous statement is not even really relevant to my argument. My argument was that most doctors are not in the pockets of the drug companies. If something like cranberry juice or yoghurt actually works - they will prescribe it. This is what I mean when I say that if it worked, it wouldnt be alternative. My doctor is always updating me on the newest discoveries in health regarding diet, vitamins and so forth. Ideally, doctors are professionals whose goal is to get you better - if you don't need to be on a drug they won't put you on one (9/10 - i'm not saying there aren't sinister docs out there). In contract - at best, homeopaths are quacks with good intentions who really believe the placebos they feed their patients work. At best, a person might get better through the placebo effect, one of the strongest effects on human health that exists.


----------



## Guest (Apr 15, 2009)

Matt210 said:


> I never said you personally needed antibiotics - I didn't even know if your infection was bacterial or viral. If you have a bacterial infection the best option is antibiotics. It is the best line of defense we have against them. I shouldn't have used the word 'need' perhaps because this is not to say that no bacterial infection will go away without antibiotics. But think back to before the invention of antibiotics and how many people died. Not all of them certainly - and I bet if they all had doctors who would have told them about cranberry juice (assuming it actually works, again I know nothing about it) several more would have survived. But there are many many cases where a bacterial infection is just not going to go away without antibiotics. I've had a severe bacterial infection of my throat that was mistaken for a viral infection for months. My doctor refused to give me antibiotics - suggested a ton of other remedies, and it just went on and on. To the point where I was hardly conscious - I had a dangerous fever, I was on so much OxyContin to kill the pain I had no idea what was going on. Only then did my doctor realize it was indeed bacterial. Antibiotics cured me in about 3 days.
> 
> All of this previous statement is not even really relevant to my argument. My argument was that most doctors are not in the pockets of the drug companies. If something like cranberry juice or yoghurt actually works - they will prescribe it. This is what I mean when I say that if it worked, it wouldnt be alternative. My doctor is always updating me on the newest discoveries in health regarding diet, vitamins and so forth. Ideally, doctors are professionals whose goal is to get you better - if you don't need to be on a drug they won't put you on one (9/10 - i'm not saying there aren't sinister docs out there). In contract - at best, homeopaths are quacks with good intentions who really believe the placebos they feed their patients work. At best, a person might get better through the placebo effect, one of the strongest effects on human health that exists.


So, I'm a nutritional therapist in the making, should I quit now because you think it's placebo effect to fix the problem from the inside/prevent it in the first place rather than prescribe drugs to mask the symptoms? Do you have any understanding about how the immune system works? It strengthens by fighting off infections, and if you keep whamming on the old antibiotics, it doesn't get a chance to do this. There are obvious exceptions, but don't think for one moment that alternative = less effective. Also don't get confused between alternative and complementary. 
A great example is my little brother. When he was born, he had SEVERE allergies, he was ALWAYS ill. My family GP, who I have utmost respect for because he is one of those people who actually cares and certainly no idiot/quack, suggested homeopathy because nothing was helping. It cleared his allergies up in no time, and I don't see how placebo effect works on a baby who doesn't know what the hell a placebo, homeopathy or even an allergy is.
In my opinion it's judgmental and shortsighted to just dismiss something because you don't see why or how it works.

/rant


----------



## York (Feb 26, 2008)

> First of all - infections by nature are usually bacterial or viral. If they are bacterial you need antibiotics, not cranberry juice.


The reason cranberry juice works with urinal infections is the fact that cranberry will make you pee more, and this gets rid of the infection. It all depends on where the bacterial infection is in your body. Matt, I'm sorry, you are right about a lot of things but when it comes to medicine, I think you need to do a bit more research.


----------



## Matt210 (Aug 15, 2004)

DIsclaimer: I don't want to start a true argument about this,merely a debate. I hope no one has taken anything i've said before this or after this as offensive. There is nothing wrong with pursuing nutritional medicine, or even naturopathy - neither of these are homeopathy and each has some important aspects to them. Nutrition is obviously SO important - more so than pharmaceuticals, and while naturopaths can be quacks as well they also offer some great advice. My point of arguing all of this has been to argue the difference between alternative medicine and mainstream medicine - not the difference between alternative doctors and mainstream doctors.

I've actually taken a course on alternative medicine, and honestly all of you who are disagreeing with me did not read my posts properly. I never said that cranberry juice did not work on infections - in fact I repeated multiple times that I had no idea if it did or it did not.

Again it bears repeating that *neither nutritional therapy or drinking cranberry juice is homeopathy* - and neither is naturopathy . Because I don't have the energy to search out medical journals I will just link you to the wikipedia page on what homeopathy is. I know wikipedia is not always accurate but it will suffice as a good general description of homeopathy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy

Please note the following accurate passages:

_Homeopathy is a form of alternative medicine that treats a disease with heavily diluted preparations created from substances that would ordinarily cause effects similar to the disease's symptoms. As first expounded by German physician, Samuel Hahnemann, in 1796, homeopathic preparations are serially diluted, with shaking ("succussing") after each step, under the belief that this increases the effect of the treatment. *This dilution often continues until no molecules of the original substance remain.*[1]_

Please note that these substances are SO DILUTED that they become absolutely nothing - just sugar pills, or water. They are the definition of placebo. Additionally, note that as I said before - homeopathy works on the basis of LIKE TREATS LIKE. Cranberry juice does not cause urinary tract infections therefore cranberry juice is not a form of homeopathy.

_Specific pharmacological effect with no active molecules is scientifically implausible[14][15] and violates fundamental principles of science,[16] including the law of mass action.[16] Supporters claim that studies published in reputable journals support the efficacy of homeopathy; however, there are only a handful of them, they are not definitive and they have not been replicated.[17] Several high-quality studies exist showing no evidence for any effect from homeopathy, and studies of homeopathic remedies have generally been shown to have problems that prevent them from being considered unambiguous evidence for homeopathy's efficacy.[9][11][12][18][19] The lack of convincing scientific evidence supporting homeopathy's efficacy[13] and its use of remedies lacking active ingredients have caused homeopathy to be described as pseudoscience[20] and quackery_


----------



## Matt210 (Aug 15, 2004)

Phasedout24 said:


> So, I'm a nutritional therapist in the making, should I quit now because you think it's placebo effect to fix the problem from the inside/prevent it in the first place rather than prescribe drugs to mask the symptoms? Do you have any understanding about how the immune system works? It strengthens by fighting off infections, and if you keep whamming on the old antibiotics, it doesn't get a chance to do this. There are obvious exceptions, but don't think for one moment that alternative = less effective. Also don't get confused between alternative and complementary.
> A great example is my little brother. When he was born, he had SEVERE allergies, he was ALWAYS ill. My family GP, who I have utmost respect for because he is one of those people who actually cares and certainly no idiot/quack, suggested homeopathy because nothing was helping. It cleared his allergies up in no time, and I don't see how placebo effect works on a baby who doesn't know what the hell a placebo, homeopathy or even an allergy is.
> In my opinion it's judgmental and shortsighted to just dismiss something because you don't see why or how it works.
> 
> /rant


I also feel the need to address a couple things in here because I don't think they were covered in my first post. Again, it is well documented that doctors overprescribed antibiotics for years, and still do to an extent. For a while they would prescribe them for anything - including viral infections. I am finding this is changing. I am in no way saying that antibiotics are always the number 1 line of defense. I am saying that a great deal of bacterial infections require antibiotic treatment.

As for your second part, this is more what i wanted to address: There are two examples of where homeopathy's principles actually do work (and are accepted by mainstream medicine). The first is in some vaccinations. As you know, many vaccinations have a small amount of the virus contained in them to strengthen your immune system's ability to fight the virus. This has been proven by scientific research, and in addition to this the virus is not diluted to the point where it is untraceable in the vaccine like in homeopathy. The second is in treating allergies. More and more evidence is coming out that small exposure to the substance that the individual is allergic to over time can completely eliminate an allergy. Some doctors proclaim that severe food allergies will not exist in 5-10 years. This is now practiced by *regular old family doctors* which simply proves my point that if an alternative medicine works, it will no longer be alternative.


----------



## HereIsEverywhere (Dec 22, 2008)

I lost focus half way through the posts but I got the main point. I don't think I understood what homeopathy was, as I've already admitted. I thought it was a synonymous with "alternative medicine". Now I see that assumption was incorrect.


----------



## Guest (Apr 15, 2009)

So first you say it doesn't work and then you say it does? Jeez make your mind up :lol:

I know homeopathy isn't nutritional therapy.........kinda goes without saying......but those two little words 'I think' put before 'homeopathy doesn't work' make a world of difference.....or 'in my opinion'......many things in life are subjective/down to personal opinion.

And yes , vaccination is a very good example of homeopathy working.

I wouldn't use wikipedia as a source myself as although it's a helpful tool, ANYONE can post and edit it.

The point is, you would have been better off saying ' I don't believe homeopathy works' than 'Homeopathy doesn't work'.................ya get me? Little more palatable and less arrogant..........in my opinion anyway


----------



## Guest (Apr 15, 2009)

HereIsEverywhere said:


> I lost focus half way through the posts but I got the main point. I don't think I understood what homeopathy was, as I've already admitted. I thought it was a synonymous with "alternative medicine". Now I see that assumption was incorrect.


""Complementary medicine is used together with conventional medicine. An example of a complementary therapy is using aromatherapy to help lessen a patient's discomfort following surgery".

"Alternative medicine is used in place of conventional medicine. An example of an alternative therapy is using a special diet to treat cancer instead of undergoing surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy that has been recommended by a conventional doctor".
But this is not an accurate distinction. Alternative practitioners don't suggest to their clients that they stop receiving conventional care. What most practitioners strive for is to develop a working relationship with a client's family doctor, with the client's health as their shared goal.
"


----------



## Matt210 (Aug 15, 2004)

Phasedout24 said:


> So first you say it doesn't work and then you say it does? Jeez make your mind up :lol:


I still don't believe homeopathy works, no - meaning that I think its pointless to go see a homeopathic doctor. Vaccinations and treatment of allergies using exposure are both now proven and both practiced by mainstream doctors. When things are scientifically proven, doctors will use them.

Nutritionists and the like (what you are pursuing) are entirely different because you help people live a balanced lifestyle. A person doesn't need to be sick to go see one and thus they offer a whole different realm of expertise from a doctor.

I think mostly this was all just a big misunderstanding. I don't ever mean to be offensive, but I rarely put "I believe" or "I dont believe" in front of my beliefs. Technically everything is subjective. I don't feel the need to say "I believe the earth is round" - even though technically I have no way of proving it is round, and there are people out there that still deny it is round. I say "The earth is round" and I say "Creationism isn't real" "Homeopathy doesn't work" and so on and so forth. Anyone is free to disagree with me, and I welcome the debate - but I don't feel the need to state that something I believe is a fact is a belief. Just how I am - don't mean to be arrogant at all.


----------



## Guest (Apr 16, 2009)

Oh dear. I did a Biology degree, and even now I see things that I was once told were 'scientifically proven' have been shown to be the reverse...........and then back again...............and so on.

Just because something hasn't been 'scientifically proven' doesn't mean it doesn't work.

And just because something isn't used by a doctor doesn't mean it doesn't work.

I think you need to realise that 'scientifically proven' is a very broad term and can even be used when just ONE scientific paper has shown that something 'DOESN'T NOT' cause suchandsuch by using stats tests that manipulate figures to the nth degree. I remember in my dissertation the difficulty in choosing statistical tests where I could clearly see WHY they showed the relationship they did.

Plus the fact, science is only based on life as we know it - and that isn't necessarily the be all and end all - there is SO much we don't know and all proof is based on human collected information.

I could go on for hours about this but what it boils down to is that I personally just really object to people coming along and stating that something doesn't work just because they don't happen to think it's feasible. I don't intend offense and I'm sure you didn't either, you just hit on a raw nerve here


----------



## Matt210 (Aug 15, 2004)

I realize how often science flip flops. I do some work looking through scientific journals for nutrition information for a food company, and every other day there is a story how one day Vitamin D prevents cancer, the next it causes it. Vitamin C supplements have been "proven" to boost immune health and prevent colds more times than I can count, only to have the next journal say that vitamin C only works in natrual forms and that we only need a limited amount of it and so on and so forth.

But I still stand by my point - doctors will do their best to give you optimal treatment based on scientific evidence. Alternative medicine quite often sticks to theories that have no basis behind them time and time again and ignores the facts.

I know neither of us mean offense to one another with this, but it seems like a passionate subject for both of us. I have just seen one too many people believe in the quacks that sell BS like Homeopathy and Reflexology and have seen people waste good money and time to see their conditions worsen because they ignored conventional doctors.


----------



## Guest (Apr 17, 2009)

Yes they do use things that have been scientifically proven, but again - what value does 'scientifically proven' have.........and why are peoples actual experiences not worth more over a statistical test which manipulates numbers based on tiny probablities? Don't fret, I love a good debate as long as people don't start resorting to insults and take it too personally (which I am guilty of sometimes I must admit!)

I don't think you can bulk reflexology in there really. I wouldn't call it an alternative therapy, more of a complementary one - and it works for me, I love it - but as a relaxation therapy rather than a treatment for something. I used to go to a wonderful lady who really picked up what areas are bothering me with no clues or prior info. Haven't been for a while but it definitely helped me.

Also it dates back thousands of years, with evidence found in ancient China, ancient Egypt, India and also with the North American Indians. I doubt they were too worried about 'scientific proof'  And look at the pyramids, we're still not 100% sure how they managed that to my knowledge - but they did......... makes you think they knew something we don't 

Just keep an open mind hey?


----------



## Guest (Apr 21, 2009)

SonofEagles said:


> What is the general feeling about homeopathy?


Essentially that it's junk- or pseudo-science. This guy makes a pretty convincing argument:

http://cdn4.libsyn.com/skeptoid/skeptoi ... 0fe8c664e3


----------



## peachy (Feb 9, 2008)

i havent read all these posts but i've had supposed "uti" problems for 6 months now and every doctor i went to gave me hardcore antibiotics and told me to drink lots of cranberry juice. so it isnt voodoo magic. it's just what is known to help. it is more of a preventive measure to keep them from coming back in the future but if you feel one coming on, you can stop the process before it becomes unmanageable and needs antibiotics. in the end, after being sent from doctor to doctor for six months who were putting me on stronger and stronger antibiotics (that were making me sicker and sicker), the first person to try something DIFFERENT was my alternative medicine doctor. turns out i had a candida infection and the 6 month treatment of antibiotics made me far worse. i'm not busting chops of GP's, im saying....

especially for dp, i think it'd do a lot of us well to keep our minds open to every option. if we go to a quack, we go to a quack. we learned our lesson. as long as we arent harming ourselves SO WHAT? we realize now what doesn't work. but why cut off ANY resources to getting better? especially when some of the underdogs are the ones that know something about depersonalization. if your underlying issue is anxiety, depression, or OCD, then you'll probably find much help going to psychiatrists. however, when there is another issue different than those three big ones, SOME doctors tend to want to clump dp with one of those big three to treat it, even if it isn't a central or root issue. please don't assume that every person was made to fit in a box and a perfect little label to go with them.


----------



## peachy (Feb 9, 2008)

Matt210 said:


> Some doctors proclaim that severe food allergies will not exist in 5-10 years. This is now practiced by *regular old family doctors* which simply proves my point that if an alternative medicine works, it will no longer be alternative.


exactly... if an alternative medicine works, it will no longer be alternative. which means there have been ideas that were considered "alternative medicine" at one point that became part of the common knowledge of regular family doctors. but it takes time for these ideas to be tested, to be sure of, and of course no regular family doctor is going to want to have any information that has any potential of being wrong. so while they are sorting these ideas out over however long of a time it would take (i can guess it could take a long while knowing science and it's preciseness) you could have already found out about this new treatment source and known if it was beneficial or not without having to wait for it to hit mainstream. 
where do you think this big cheese of medicine started? through experimentation, through looking at all possibilities, through trying something *alternative* to the norm. isn't that basically what we are saying by using the term "alternative medicine"? please correct me if i've got this part wrong.


----------



## Hoffy (Apr 26, 2009)

Anyone ever hear this story...


> The story that's most often told is that in 1899 the head of the U.S. Patent Office sent his resignation to President McKinley urging the closing of the office because "everything that could be invented has been invented."


I thought it might be relevent whether it's true or not. 

My only question pertaining to the original post is... Where the hell did they find Plutonium 236 to originally start the homeopathic solution with??? It's a man-made substance highly controlled for WMD's. Be glad it's homeopathic, you don't want that stuff in your body. Which leads to the mind being our greatest asset in life. If it's placebo effect that makes homeopathy work, it doesn't matter. It worked.


----------

