[News] What naturals drugs against sleeplessness?

[archangle]

The basic premise of homeopathy is "like cures like". The water memory crap is new-ish and is nonsense. If water had memory it would think it was dinosaur pee.

Extreme dilution of ingredients is one of the basic premises of homeopathy.

Hahnemann, who invented "Homeopathy" in the 18th century, advocated diluting most homeopathic remedies by a factor of 30C, which is a factor of 10E60. 1 with 60 zeros. Note that the entire Earth doesn't contain 10E60 atoms.

[Sleepster]

This is the same principle behind the allergy injections and drops. It is homeopathy, but there are scientific studies that show that it does work.

The mechanism by which it works is not understood. That is, there is no scientific evidence to support the principle of why it works.

Absolutely, 100% wrong.

The mechanism of allergy shots is very well understood.

It's my ENT who told me this. Based on skin test results they prescribe a set of allergens to be either injected or dropped under the tongue. The dose is slowly increased until they get to the prescribed level, then it stays there for as long as you continue the therapy.

I will ask him the next time I see him, I take it things have changed since he told me that several years ago.

[PaulaO2]

Had a friend whose father was an allergy doc but that was a long time ago. He used the drops vs the injections. I worked in his office one summer and learned some.

The premise was they first determined you were allergic to something. Then they determined what amount of that something it took before you displayed any symptoms. Then they administered less than that amount in doses spread out over time. The idea was to slowly build up your body's natural immunity to it.

Is that the same as homeopathy? No, not really. Yes, it follows the "like cures like" but that's the only bit.

And yes, homeopathy remedies are very, very diluted. Much more so than allergy treatments. For example, I am allergic to lamb's ear plant. I could never cure my allergy to it by taking regular doses of a homeopathic version of that plant. It is far too dilute to do that.

The concept of homeopathic remedies goes against my science-driven thought process. It seems quite ridiculous to even consider it capable of working. Yet, it does.

[PaulaO2]

(stepping into moderator mode)

While this debate is interesting and enlightening, let us continue to be civil in our disagreements.

I am proud of everyone for doing so already.

[zonk]

It has been enlightening thread and wondering if any exam going to be called any time soon - just give us some notice to study a bit more

[Sleepster]

The concept of homeopathic remedies goes against my science-driven thought process. It seems quite ridiculous to even consider it capable of working. Yet, it does.

If something works, then it forms the basis for scientific reasoning. The mechanism by which something works need not be known for us to know that it works.

Science progresses by trying to discover those mechanisms.

Sometimes people misunderstand this and get it backwards. For example, someone could give a perfectly understandable explanation for why something works. The logic used in the explanation might be flawless. However, if the "something" they're discussing in fact does not work, then their argument is vacuous.

You can study the mechanisms by which something works all day long. If, in fact, that something doesn't work you're not discussing science. You're discussing junk.

[archangle]

The concept of homeopathic remedies goes against my science-driven thought process. It seems quite ridiculous to even consider it capable of working. Yet, it does.

The problem is that homeopathy DOESN'T work.

In study after study, it doesn't work.

Yes, some people are happy with it and think it works. The same is true for prayer, voodoo, faith healers, magic crystals, and placebos.

[SuperSleeper]

The problem with this is that some folks have an almost cult-like belief in science. If science can't touch it, test it or perform an experiment on it, they reason that it must not be real.

For some, science and human logic becomes their religion. If the "final authority" of science or "human logic" says something doesn't exist, then they must follow their "religion" and conclude that this is the final "truth".

Only one problem with such a belief system: scientifically established "facts" throughout history have been proven wrong time and time again. Mankind is flawed, and our brains are not perfect computers that are able to scientifically maintain a completely unbiased and perfectly comprehensive test to prove anything.

Reality may not be exactly like you perceive it to be, in other words.

Well, this topic has strayed far from the original post for sure. I won't be adding more to it but wanted to interject the above possibility for folks to consider.

I'll keep this thread open for another 24 hours if anyone wants to add anything. After that, I'll close it to new replies since it has gotten so far off-topic.




PS - this is no way a personal attack on you archangle... you've made some very good points that need to be considered here. thanks!

[archangle]

The problem with this is that some folks have an almost cult-like belief in science. If science can't touch it, test it or perform an experiment on it, they reason that it must not be real.

For some, science and human logic becomes their religion. If the "final authority" of science or "human logic" says something doesn't exist, then they must follow their "religion" and conclude that this is the final "truth".

Only one problem with such a belief system: scientifically established "facts" throughout history have been proven wrong time and time again. Mankind is flawed, and our brains are not perfect computers that are able to scientifically maintain a completely unbiased and perfectly comprehensive test to prove anything.

Reality may not be exactly like you perceive it to be, in other words.

Well, this topic has strayed far from the original post for sure. I won't be adding more to it but wanted to interject the above possibility for folks to consider.

I'll keep this thread open for another 24 hours if anyone wants to add anything. After that, I'll close it to new replies since it has gotten so far off-topic.




PS - this is no way a personal attack on you archangle... you've made some very good points that need to be considered here. thanks!

If Homeopathy works, it IS science. It will show up in statistical studies.

If voodoo works, it IS science. It will show up in statistical studies.

If HooHah root works, it IS science as well. It will show up in statistical studies.

Willow bark extract works. It IS science. We call it aspirin.

Injections of increasing concentrations of diluted allergens work in statistical studies. They are science. It's called immunotherapy or allergy shots.

What the FDA and the founders of "homeopathy" call homeopathy DOESN'T work in statistical studies.

Most herbs DON'T work in statistical studies.

If the latest drugs from GRP pharmaceuticals don't work, it ISN'T science.

Yes, you may have taken homeopathic HooHa root and gotten better. Someone got better after sending money to Jim Baker. Or sacrificing a goat to Mpanda. Someone found a potato chip that looks like the virgin Mary and got better. Someone got better without doing anything in particular.

People simply don't understand the difference between standard pharmaceuticals and homeopathy, herbal remedies, etc. Let's pretend there's a new drug called "XYZ"

When you test XYZ for FDA approval, you will probably find it has a significant and definite effect on the human body. What you're usually trying to determine is whether its effect on the human body is lasting and helpful over time to treat disease A. You're also trying to find out if it has any effects other than the intended ones.

If XYZ gets FDA approval, it will be known that it has a definite effect on the human body in a significant percentage of the patients it is intended to treat. The biggest unknowns will be what the long term outcome may be, or if there is some dangerous side effect in a small number of cases.

When you test homeopathy, most herbal remedies, or faith healing, you don't find the statistical support. Every so often someone will publish a study and conclude that maybe X does work after all. If you read the studies, you will find that what they've found is a statistically very small amount of improvement. It might be something like a few percent, but their scientific conclusion is that it wasn't statistically proven that X does NOT work.

There is a quantum difference between studies of pseudoscientific cures and scientific cures. Scientific cures have statistics that shine out like the noonday sun that SOMETHING is happening. Studies of pseudoscience are like staring in a dimly lit room dark and saying, "I think I can see something out there in the dark. I can't rule out the possibility that something is out there."

There's an even more sinister problem with belief in homeopathy. You may believe that a homeopathic dilution of HooHah root extract has some good effect on your liver, despite having no statistical evidence. Why do you believe that a homeopathic dilution of HooHah root doesn't have some harmful effect on your body despite no statistical testing?

If homeopathy actually does something to the body, why would the effect always be good, not bad?

The same is true for herbal remedies.

You believe in the good with no evidence, yet you dismiss the possibility of harm despite the lack of evidence.

[SuperSleeper]

Thanks for everyone's input into this thread.

Thread is now closed.