In the past few years, my physician has introduced me to homeopathic remedies
for a number of physical ailments and discomforts.  In fact, many times he
starts treatment with a homeopathic remedy rather then a prescription.  Some
of them work "like a charm", others don't.  Let's take this opportunity to
share experiences with homeopathy.

37 responses total.

Since I entered this item, I will start.  I recently had minor surgery to
remove some unwanted growths. A friend gave me some Arnuca and said it works
wonders to help you heal faster and with less complications.  Has anyone had
experience with this substance?

Do you mean arnica? (Wolf's Bane? Mountain Tobacco?). Its a counter-irritant.
It was dropped from the U.S. Pharmacopeia in 1961. However it is not
necessarily homeopathic. Audrey, you might want to define homeopathy,
and the jargon associated with the dilutions, etc. 

Right after I enterd this item, I realized I was being too general with the
term "homeopathy", and I also realized I spelled Arnica incorrectly.  I was
too tired to change the entry. But I also suspected strongly you, Rane would
get the topic to be more specific.  I am taking Arnica right now, and I would
put it into the category of a remedy.  I believe Homeopathic remedies are
natural substances which consist of a small amount of whatever is ailing an
individual.  For some reason, the small amount of the substance is supposed
to counter the negative effects to the body of the ailment.

Boy, can I use a GOOD counter-irritant in my life.  Right now, in the schools,
I have a lot of "irritants".  

Rane, what category would you put something like saw palmetto berries and
Zinc, now being used to counter enlarged prostates in men in lieu of
pharmacological agents like Proscar?

Also, what is Wolf's Bane?  Sounds like it might be interesting.

Wolf's Bane is another name for Arnica, a flowering plant. Obviously
a lot of very useful medicines come from plants - from Belladona to
Vitamin A. I don't know anything about Palmetto, but zinc is an
essential element (it is part of the enzyme carbonic anhydrase). But
whether these have any affect upon enlarged prostates would take study.
The fact is, though, that a lot of people *believe* that a lot of
ordinary and not so ordinary substances, especially herbs, have 
medicinal properties, even though in many cases research shows that
there is none. There is an interesting general book called _Magic and
Medicine of Plants_, published by Reader's Digest. The title captures
the essence of the subject.

*homeopathy* is "a system of medicine that stresses the administration
of very small doeses of medicines that, when given to a healthy person,
would produce symptoms of the disease. The system is based on the
principle of 'like cures like'". Homeopathy emphasizes that as the
concentration of the does decreases, the medicinal effect increases.
Some homeopathic medicines available in health food stores can be
shown to probably contain none of the "active ingredient". Homeopathy
is bunk - but psychotherapy may not be.

Rane, Rane, Rane, I am smiling but I am not sure you fully understand the
mind/matter connection involved in the healing process.  I Know psychotherapy
can work.  It doesn't always, depends on many factors including the skill of
the therapist and the mindset of the client (and probably the alignment of
the moon and stars. . .)  But this is also true of pharmocology and checmical
treatments.  I don't have the research literature to know if there have been
any controlled studies regarding herbal treatments of various ills, but there
is much anecdotal evidence for relief using the "medcine of plants".

The only place where we may be at odds here, is that you seem to debunk the
usefulness of homeopathy and herbal treatments in total, and I say, try it,
it may work.  And if it does, these kinds of relief are less intrusive then
most medical ones.

 I believe it depends on your perspective.  The mind is capable of healing
the body to at least some extent.  This is called the placebo effect,
and has been clearly demonstrated for a variety of conditions.  How you
get there (to the placebo effect) depends on your mindset, beliefs, etc. 
Some people get there with homeopathy and herbal remedies.
 That homeopathy works by the chemical constituents of its products is, of
course, bunk.  Herbal medicine may or may not work depending on what
exactly are the chemical constituents - probably a goodly number of these
remedies are bunk as well.  Which is what Rane said.

I oreder books from other libraries in the job I do at a library here whee
I live and alot of patrons are  asking forhomeopathic remedies and natural
cures.  I hear alot but some do not seem safe..of the "natural remedies"
One patron wanted to kknow how to tell a female aloe plant from a male  plant
because one of them you can ingest and one you use  topical.  Alot ofhte
remidies come from  mexico and old southern hill people.  My mother and
grandmother used to do those things and knows alot of old folk remedies as
they are called.
I never went to a doctor much at all till I fgot to be e a teenager and mom
used alot of  handed down remidies

I personally believe that there are a number of ailments that just go away
on their own anyway, so (within reason) you can just wait them out.  The
tricky part is knowing when to give up and go to a real doctor.

Audrey misread me; Bret read me OK. One distinction I sought to make
is between the absence of active ingredients in homeopathic medicines
(because the "principle" is that the greater the dilution, the greater
the effect) and whatever placebo effect they may have (depending upon
the hype, the label, the shape of the bottle - what-have-you). Medicine
should seek to understand these effects as it would save resources to
cure those maladies that can be cured with "colored water" (and time).

Thanks for the clarification, Rane.  Wouldn't some immunizations fall under
Bret's definition of homeopathy?  

i thought the same thing audery..very interesting isn't it?
most medicines started out as n natural a long time ago...not we use synthetic
too much.

Re:10  Not "medical" immunizations (eg. polio, tetanus, etc).  In those,
there is an ingredient which can be *measured* and (usually) a direct
resulting effect (which can be demonstrated in a double-blind randomized
fashion).  I am not familiar enough with homeopathy to know if they offer
immunizations based on a homeopathic principle...  I suppose if they did,
and if they offered enough of them, they might get confused with
accupuncture :-)

 hi Bret..in what way is it possibly confused with  accupunture

Vaccinations don't involve ingredients that induce symptoms; they induce the
disease itself.  

Odakim - shooting you up with blanks amounts to accupuncture...

Scott - some do, some don't.  What they do do is induce immunity (most
commonly antibodies).

hmmmmm? something to think about some more

Item #35 in the Synthesis conference is about homeopathy.  Here's some 
text from it so you won't have to link the whole thing over:

#4 of 51: by kami landy (kami) on Thu, May 26, 1994 (15:48):
We use homeopathy quite a bit, especially for things that alopathic 
medicine tends to ignore or handle badly.  We've had mixed results, 
perhaps partly because the remedies tend to be quite fragile; they can be 
antidoted by such things as mint, coffee, eucalyptis, camphor, clove, and 
other strong aromatics.  

I don't think belief enters into the matter at all, since the appropriate 
remedy will have a fairly quick effect on a small baby or animal.  
Perhaps the hardest aspect of this sort of treatment, other than 
remembering to avoid mint, is finding the exactly right remedy; there 
seem to be many, for example, for different kinds of colds.  Of course, 
that's one of the things I like about this kind of treatment- it is more 
specific, more tailored, than "take two aspirins...".  

Our family doctor is a GP who practices both homeopathy and alopathic 
medicine.  I think his range of treatment is slightly limited by his 
medical training, that is, he tends to look at illnesses symptomatically 
rather than systemically but I do like the fact that he looks to a 
homeopathic solution before bringing out the big guns.  So far, neither 
boy has ever been given antibiotics.  

I haven't tried the flower remedies.  Tempted to, although they are a bit 
beyond my level of credulity.  I've used medicinal herbs a bit, and tend 
to look for dietary solutions to some problems, rather than using drugs.  

#18 of 51: by Michael Delizia (md) on Fri, Jun 17, 1994 (16:26):
The AMA's position is that the apparent success of homeopathy and 
other alternative medicines is due to the fact that most symptoms 
eventually go away without any treatment.  There was an article in 
a recent issue of Natural Health magazine by a man who had 
consulted a traditional physician for blood in his urine.  The 
doctor referred him to a urologist, who performed an expensive and 
painful series of invasive procedures, only to conclude that there 
was absolutely nothing wrong.  The man went home and a day later 
the hematuria went away by itself and never recurred.  The point of 
the article was to contrast the overkill of traditional medicine 
with the gentle and natural procedures of alternative medicine 
practitioners.  

This provoked an angry letter from a traditional physician who 
pointed out that hematuria is the presenting symptom of bladder 
cancer, and those expensive and painful tests *had* to be done in 
order to rule that out.  If the physician had adopted a wait-and-
see attitude and the patient had had bladder cancer, the patient 
(or his widow) would now be suing for malpractice, with good 
reason.  As it happens, he didn't have cancer.  If he had gone to 
an alternative medicine practitioner and had taken some homeopathic 
preparation for a few days and the hematuria had gone away, as it 
in fact did, the patient would now be singing the praises of 
homepathy for "curing" his nonexistent bladder problem.  *All* 
homeopathic cures, says the AMA, are in this category.  

#19 of 51: by M. T. Anslin (mta) on Sat, Jun 18, 1994 (19:54):

They say that until their pharmacological researchers "discover" a remedy 
and develop a way to make a fortune from it.  Then it's a "breakthrough 
in medical science brought to you by Eli Lilly and the AMA" 

That isn't to say that homeopathy is incapable of attracting charletans 
or that the placebo effect has nothing to do with why some remedies work 
--but I find the cynical, patronizing attitude of MDieties most 
infuriating!  

#20 of 51: by kami landy (kami) on Sun, Jun 19, 1994 (12:45):
One of the things I like about homeopathy is it's specificity.  If I 
offer my boys a remedy and it's the right one, they'll take it quite 
willingly.  Now, mind you, all the bottles look alike and they certainly 
can't read the labels.  They also seem to work very fast, at least in the 
case of Chamomile for the baby and stuff like that.  On the other hand, 
there have certainly been plenty of inconclusive or ineffective uses of 
remedies, especially for Michael and me, and I don't know if it's because 
a.) I've antidoted the remedy by accident, b.)I picked the wrong remedy 
or c.)homeopathy is the wrong treatment modality for that particular 
problem.  

#21 of 51: by Terrie Burley (keman) on Sun, Jul 17, 1994 (18:08):
I think that just buying those homeopathic remedies found in stores is 
not enough.  Only a trained homeopath can make an accurate recommendation 
for using this type of treatment.  The way I understand it, this is a 
*holistic* treatment and the "symptom names on the bottles may not be 
completely accu-rate for the *whole* problem.  I also understand that 
these initial confer-ences can be a little expensive, but the homeopath 
need only meet with you once to make the diagnosis (unlike Western 
doctors who can find reasons to require several return visits).  Of 
course, I did find out most of this information from my "Quack" 
chiropractor.  All I know is that I would like to at least try homeopathy 
to deal with an ongoing arthritis problem.  

#22 of 51: by kami landy (kami) on Mon, Jul 18, 1994 (14:09):
Hi Terrie!  We finally get to meet you.  Welcome!  Hm, one of the things 
I like about homeopathy is that it's fairly safe and easy (?) to take 
more control of treatment at home.  The single-substance remedies sold in 
stores are the same as you'd get from  homeopath, and they often refer to 
the same books that one can get to keep at home.  Certainly, the blurb on 
a bottle doesn't give the whole picture, but with practice one can get 
the hang of using emotional, environmental, and other symptoms to clarify 
the physical ones in choosing a remedy.  It also helps to take a class or 
workshop or join a study group.  If you have a chance to come into Ann 
Arbor before you go away, do look up Branwen Gates.  A really neat woman, 
British trained homeopath, with a really pragmatic approach.  She might 
have some good suggestions to get you started.  

#25 of 51: by Michael Delizia (md) on Wed, Jul 20, 1994 (14:16):
I wondered just how small a homeopathic dose might be, so I read 
up on it.  If you look at the labels on the bottles of 
homeopathic medicines, you'll see that they use the symbols "3x," 
"4x," etc.  The manufacturer will mix one part of, say, arsenic 
with nine parts water.  That would be a 1x mixture.  Then they'd 
mix one part of that mixture with nine parts water to get a 2x 
mixture.  One part 2x to nine parts water equals 3x.  And so on.  

An actual formula for one commercially produced remedy contains 
the following:  Alfalfa 3x, Arsenicum album 12x, Echinacea 
angustafolia 3x, Phosphoricm acidum 6x, Picricum acidum 12x, 
Ferrum phos 6x, Gelsemium 12x, Scutellaria 12x.  Something that 
says "Arsenicum album 12x" would be .000000000001 arsenic, or 1 
part per trillion.  I wonder what effect such an insignificant 
quantity of something can have.  Homeopaths will tell you that 
there is an actual physical cause-and-effect, as unlikely as that 
seems.  

#26 of 51: by becca price (becca) on Sun, Aug 28, 1994 (22:41):
for what it's worth, I once had a MD-type py hysician (local to AA - and 
shn all be nameless) who was into homeopathy.  He gave me a homeopathic 
remedy for a bad case of gingivitis - which served to make it worse, 
since the "remedy" was stinging nettle, and seemed to exacerbate the 
condition.  A few weeks later (this was sever a   al years ago) my 
parents sent me a plane ticket to come visit them, cause it had gotten so 
bad I couldn't eat or swllow.  One visit to the doctor for an antibiotic 
and topical  anaestheia, and I was cured in about 3 days.  sorry, but 
neveragain.  

becca...sorry you had a bad experience.  however, your example only points
out the importance of adequate diagnosis.  antibiotics may have been the only
remedy for you, or there may have been (other) homeopathic remedies.  but if
you don't have a proper diagnosis to begin with, you're shooting in the dark
with traditional medicine as well as homeopathy.

Well...with traditional medicine your gun is more likely to be loaded...

The one homeopathic preparation that I've found really works is 
called "S-s-s-sting Stop," which is supposed to be applied to minor 
skin irritations.  We spent a couple of weeks in the north woods last 
summer, and were turned on to this preparation by some friends.  Like 
many homeopathic ointments and gels, it contains higher (10%) 
concentrations of the active substances.  I bought a tube of it when 
we got back, and I've also sampled other preparations made by the 
same company, specifically "Arniflora" arnica gel, "Califlora" 
calendula gel, and "Triflora" arthritis gel.  

I have to use my nose to tell me how strong these preparations are.  
The arnica and calendula gels smell mainly like their witch hazel 
base.  "S-s-s-s-sting Stop" and "Triflora," however, have strong 
medicinal smells, implying that they contain high concentrations of 
something other than witch hazel.  As to effectiveness, "S-s-s-sting 
Stop" works; the calendula gel makes a nice after shave; I *think* 
the arnica gel has some effect on muscle aches, but I wouldn't swear 
to it; I don't know if the "Triflora" gel does anything at all.  

Originally homeopathy referred to the use of treatments that created
analogous effects to the ailment - sort of a sympathetic cure, though
not based in any science. One branch of homeopathy, however, is that
"high dilution" (to the point of absence of ingredients) branch. I'm
not sure who is to say which of the former category is "homeopathic", or
not. That anti-sting stuff could be any number of soothing paliatives -
who says it is "homeopathic"? To be that, it would have to *cause* skin
irritation when applied to healthy skin. 

No, it would have to contain minute doses of a substance which
would cause the same symptoms in a healthy person.  It doesn't
actually have to cause the symptoms, I don't think.  Anyway, the
tubes these preparations come in are all labeled "Homeopathic
remedy," or some such.  When it comes to ointments and gels meant
for topical application, it appears the doses in these homeopathic
remedies are considerably higher than the in the pills meant to be
taken internally.  (But the more dilute the medicine, the *more*
powerful it is, according to homeopathic rules.  Someone once
joked that for the absolute maximum effect you shouldn't take the
medicine at all.)

Yes, not no. We are saying (almost) the same thing. The term homeopathic
means of the same illness (pathology). So if some concoction was found
the cause the same symptoms as (say) cholera (like, an emetic), that was
prescribed. However this is a metaphysical concept, so the *dilution*
idea arose to keep the "essence" (metaphysics) without the negative
effects of the concoction itself. Your "homeopathic" ointments and gels
could be quite effective, because the vehicle may be a useful treatment,
even though the "homeopathy" is claimed for some other ingredient at
vanishingly low concentrations.

This response has been erased.

i have a feeling that a lot of medicine these days are psychosomatic....if they
work tho, that is the best way to do it...why load the body up with drugs if
the only thing stopping you from healing is the mind?  :)

But you are loading up the mind with a lot of psycho-drugs....is that
good for the mind?

it depends....drugs for the mind, i think are a bad idea, and i really don't
lie the fact that they are being used more and more.  on the other hand, 
making the mind think that they are taking drugs that they are not, i can
see being put to good use.  there are times that the body just gets too over-
stressd from drugs going through it.  this is also would be good for somebody
that has been through drug-rehab.  on the other hand, i would not reccomend
that particualr treatment with something like morphine....

psychosomatic "cures" and/or treatments, even illnesses, are _real_.  They
are _somatic_ diseases or responses to _psycho_ stimuli.  Placebo effect of
many drugs or home remidies are just as effective as if the remidy itself
brought on the effect.

Don't knock what works.

that's my opinion!!!!!!  :)

mine too!!!!!! it is amazing what the mind can do when it believes enough.

As far as iam concerned Iam not  even an amateur at homeopathy, But i would
like to relate some of
my experiences. We have a family doctor who is a homeopath. He was
a physician in the Indian Airforce, holds a masters degree in medicine.
 But he has taken to homeopathy. Whatever medicine he gives me has
not produced immediate effects, but sort of aggravated the disesase 
and then reduced it, but without any side effects, none whatsoever at all.
The doctor told me that in homeopathy, they try to build up the immunity of
our body so that the next time the disease does not recur. He also 
teaches us a course in meditation , which he said would be helpful in
combating the stress produced by a disease/normal work pressures.
hence i have been taking homeopathic tablets and have been keeping healthy

Personally I feel, there is basically something wrong with
the allopathic concept that unwanted growths should be removed.
I don't understand why they can't keep surgery as the 
last resort.  Mind u I am not against allopathy.  After if u
get shot only allopathy can save u ie if u are saveable.  But my
doctor has time and again directed me to a  homeopathic for many of my
ailments.  The main problem is because homeopathy takes sometime for furing
any ailment, people  get disheartened by the time.  They don't want to wait
and they want overnight remedy for everything.  Even if homeopathy tells
u that it can cure AIDS, nobody is going to believe it, because
allopathy has not yet made any headway in that area.  They are mostly
accustomed to seeing corporate hospitals spending millions of dollars to save
a say heart patient for example and ll those fancy instruments that  if
someone says I can cure u with tablets alone they view bhim with suspicion.
Forgive the spelling mistakes, my modem is so slow that I can see what I typed
on the screen only 15 seconds after I have typed it.

Homeopathy is nothing but a wat of money! You have to understnd what a
homeopathic drug is made. If you take 1ml of the drug and dilute it with 9ml
of water, it gives you what it is called a 2X concentration. If you dilute
this with 9ml more, and repeat this 9 more times, you have a 2X concentration.
Most homeopathic drugs are 6X strength, or 1 part per million. Now, if you
take in account that avagodo's number (6.02X10 to the 30th power), you might
not even have 1 molecule in the entire concentration. As a pharmacist, I can
tell you that if you use a homeopathic drug and it seems to work, I have a
good shrink that you can talk to(it is in you head). Save you money people!!
As others have pointed out, we do get a lot of our drugs from plants, but
don't get herbal medications confused with homeopathic medications. Do
yourself a favor, if a MD prescribes a homeopathic drug, go see another doctor
or talk to your pharmacist. I would like to answer anyone's questions if you
have them.

6.022E23. Also, don't you mean the first 1:10 dilution is 1X, while 10
such sequential dilutions is 10X? Your point, though, is well taken: 
homeopathy is nonsense (but, like a lot of nonsense, soothes some peoples
psyches). 

Rane is right. I types that very late at night. When you make a homeopathic
Rx, you start with a mother tincture that is a 1:10 dilution. that is a 1X
If you dilute this 10 more times (9mls of water with 1 ml of the first
dilution) you get an 2X or 1C. 

IMHO(InMyHumbleOpinion) Homepathic remedies are definitely more of a mental
cure. Narural remedies, however are completely valid. Most
allopathic(chemically derived) medicines are sythesised from a natural
counterpart. The drug companies will tell you that the reason for chemically
sythesising them is for consistency in the dosage, but it actually has more to
do with the fact that you can't get a patent for a plant but you can patent a
chemical(profit rears it's ugly head). For example, asprin was originally a
chemical created to mimic the effects of slippery elm bark. The interesting
thing about all of this is that most natural remedies usually have no side
effects and it's extremely hard to overdose with many natural remedies.
Chemically derived medicines usually have side effects and a very "narrow
window" for dosage. Natural medicines focus on giving the body the tools it
needs to overcome illness, whereas most chemical medicines focus on removing
the symptoms. The bottom line is that your body is producing these symptoms to
protect you in most cases, and just supressing the symptoms is not a way of
curing illness.

I have to contend that that doesn't make a great deal of sense. First,
everything is a chemical. Natural medicines are usually mixtures of
chemicals, usually quite variable in strength and composition. Synthesized
medicines are single chemicals, or intentionally made mixtures. A chemical
may have a side effect, whether it is natural or synthetic. Side effects
may be mitigated by admixtures. 

The main reason that drug companies synthetize drugs is to have a pure
product of consistent activity, certainly better than the impurity and
inconsistency in natural drugs (that have not been purified). Natural
drugs may have some serendipitous advantage resulting from admixtures that
have not been studied and incorporated into mixtures of synthetics.

Drug companies cannot patent a common chemical. For example, aspirin
cannot be patented, although drug companies make enormous amounts of
aspirin.  (The active ingredient in aspirin is salicylic acid. Esters of
this occur naturally in plants, such as wintergreen and sweet birch. Pure
salicylic acid decoposes on exposure to light, and the natural esters are
mostly liquids. However the acetyl ester (for which salicylic acid acts as
the base) is a solid, is not decomposed by light, and dissociates to
salicylic acid slowly when ingested. These properties make it a desirable
form in which to provide a dose of salicylic acid - hence, aspirin.)

What drug companies do do to establish a proprietary market (which
certainly does increase their profit) is synthesize variations on a drug -
a methyl group here, a hydroxyl there, etc - which makes it a different
chemical, and hence patentable. The change may or may not be very
efficacious. Probably of more value to drug companies is a different
copyrightable *name*, to distinguish their product from a competitor's
identical product.

Natural and synthetic drugs act identically, and may act to cure or
suppress symptoms, but do so identically.

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss