![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]Shown: posts 9 to 33 of 41. Go back in thread:
Posted by SLS on March 11, 2003, at 22:56:22
In reply to Re: homeopathy » Rachel2, posted by ShelliR on March 11, 2003, at 21:14:10
> I am in the process of trying homeopathy. I think it's helped me, but I can't tell because I have been also trying other ADs and opiates through the process. Generally though I was waking up very, very depressed in the morning and waiting for the opiate to take effect. I was in so much pain. Since I've done homeopathy, I don't wake up with that horrible depression in my chest. I am generally not subject to placebo effects so I do credit the homeopathy. And I wouldn't want to get into a discussion here about why it works, or doesn't work--you can probably guess why.
Hi Shelli.
It wasn't my intention to bash herbology or naturopathy so much as it was to vent how it irks me that the word homeopathy should be used in ignorance and as a euphemism so often in health food stores and attendant literature.
I am truly interested to know what sorts of things you are trying. I guess I'd understand if you are reluctant to do so. As I stated in my picayune post, I have no doubts that St. John's Wort and other plant extracts can have therapeutic effects. The same is true of vitamins, minerals, amino acids, and fatty acids. After all, from plants come drugs. I think this often escapes the memory of the masses now a days. Miracle drugs are even to be derived from the toxic skin exudations of South American tree frogs. I would certainly want to know what it is that is improving your condition so that I might be able to improve my own. I'd drink fermented elephant piss if it were to bring me into remission. Well, on second thought...
Does your consultant call himself a homeopath?
- Scott
Posted by Cecilia on March 12, 2003, at 0:38:38
In reply to Re: homeopathy » ShelliR, posted by SLS on March 11, 2003, at 22:56:22
I tried it-went for a year to a homeopathic doctor who`s written books on the topic. None of the "remedies" she tried had any effect on me. Basically, they`re sugar pills, but when you`re desperate you`ll try anything. At least they have no side effects, unlike the many meds I`ve tried, none of which have worked either. Cecilia
Posted by viridis on March 12, 2003, at 1:50:01
In reply to Re: homeopathy, posted by Cecilia on March 12, 2003, at 0:38:38
In my opinion, "homeopathy" (narrowly defined, involving doses so small that any active ingredient is essentially nonexistant) is just silly.
We saw a homeopathic vet for quite a while, who failed to detect a major heart problem with a beloved dog and instead prescribed homeopathic "cures" while he went downhill steadily, until a canine cardiologist correctly diagnosed the problem. He died not long afterwards, but at least had a pretty good quality of life in his last days, with real meds that alleviated fluid buildup in the lungs etc.
My wife still swears by homeopathic treatments for allergies etc., but I think this is just placebo effect. We argue about this quite a bit (or used to; now I don't bother, since placebo effect is fine with me if it works).
I do think that many herbs have beneficial effects (at therapeutic doses), and use various "alternative" treatments, if there's some active ingredient present. And, some homeopaths may genuinely address lifestyle and nutrition issues in a positive way. I just don't buy the ultradiluted dose approach -- as a scientist, it seems highly improbable that this would work.
Posted by Rachel2 on March 12, 2003, at 2:43:48
In reply to Re: homeopathy » Rachel2, posted by ShelliR on March 11, 2003, at 21:14:10
> Rachel,
>
> I am in the process of trying homeopathy. I think it's helped me, but I can't tell because I have been also trying other ADs and opiates through the process. Generally though I was waking up very, very depressed in the morning and waiting for the opiate to take effect. I was in so much pain. Since I've done homeopathy, I don't wake up with that horrible depression in my chest. I am generally not subject to placebo effects so I do credit the homeopathy. And I wouldn't want to get into a discussion here about why it works, or doesn't work--you can probably guess why.
>
> Are you trying homeopathy?
>
> Shelli
>Shelli,
I've thought about trying homeopathy. My therapist knows a psychiatrist that says it has worked better for his patients than traditional meds. He doesn't practice in my area, so I can't go see him. My psychiatrist said it worked for about 50% of her patients that tried it. I went to a homeopathic doctor, but he didn't want to work with me while I was trying other meds because he wouldn't be able to tell what's doing what. So now I'm trying to decide what to do next. It's hard to make decisions when you're depressed and everything seems hopeless.
Posted by ShelliR on March 12, 2003, at 9:58:10
In reply to Re: homeopathy » ShelliR, posted by SLS on March 11, 2003, at 22:56:22
>
>
> I am truly interested to know what sorts of things you are trying. I guess I'd understand if you are reluctant to do so. As I stated in my picayune post, I have no doubts that St. John's Wort and other plant extracts can have therapeutic effects. The same is true of vitamins, minerals, amino acids, and fatty acids. After all, from plants come drugs. I think this often escapes the memory of the masses now a days. Miracle drugs are even to be derived from the toxic skin exudations of South American tree frogs. I would certainly want to know what it is that is improving your condition so that I might be able to improve my own. I'd drink fermented elephant piss if it were to bring me into remission. Well, on second thought...
>
> Does your consultant call himself a homeopath?
>
>
> - Scott
Yes, the doctor does call himself a homeopath. (and he is an MD) And I don't understand why it works but there are double blind studies showing that it does. Also he treated many of the survivors of 9/11 at no charge. His background is anesthesiology. He does a test on your body, then prescribes those little pills that someone on this thread called sugar pills. I had met a few people who independently had worked with him and had success so I decided to try.Shelli
Posted by ShelliR on March 12, 2003, at 10:03:56
In reply to Re: homeopathy, posted by Rachel2 on March 12, 2003, at 2:43:48
> Shelli,
>
> I've thought about trying homeopathy. My therapist knows a psychiatrist that says it has worked better for his patients than traditional meds. He doesn't practice in my area, so I can't go see him. My psychiatrist said it worked for about 50% of her patients that tried it. I went to a homeopathic doctor, but he didn't want to work with me while I was trying other meds because he wouldn't be able to tell what's doing what. So now I'm trying to decide what to do next. It's hard to make decisions when you're depressed and everything seems hopeless.
>My homeopathetic doctor did not make me give up anything to treat me; I wouldn't have done that, I don't think.
Shelli
Posted by Jack Smith on March 12, 2003, at 12:11:43
In reply to Re: homeopathy, posted by viridis on March 12, 2003, at 1:50:01
> as a scientist, it seems highly improbable that this would work.
I have no opinion on homeopathy because I am just not familiar with it. I just have one comment on the above. It seems that there are quite a bit of MD's who now practice homeopathy. My ex-GP now practices it exclusively and left a major HMO to do it. It seems that these scientists think that it does work.JACK
Posted by Rachel2 on March 12, 2003, at 17:15:20
In reply to Re: homeopathy, posted by ShelliR on March 12, 2003, at 10:03:56
>
> > Shelli,
> >
> > I've thought about trying homeopathy. My therapist knows a psychiatrist that says it has worked better for his patients than traditional meds. He doesn't practice in my area, so I can't go see him. My psychiatrist said it worked for about 50% of her patients that tried it. I went to a homeopathic doctor, but he didn't want to work with me while I was trying other meds because he wouldn't be able to tell what's doing what. So now I'm trying to decide what to do next. It's hard to make decisions when you're depressed and everything seems hopeless.
> >
>
> My homeopathetic doctor did not make me give up anything to treat me; I wouldn't have done that, I don't think.
>
> ShelliHe doesn't want me to give up anything I might be on at the time I start treatment, he just doesn't want me making changes in meds or trying other new treatments at the same time. That makes sense to me because as I understand it you need to be able to notice any changes that the homeopathy might be causing. If you're also making changes to your meds you won't know if it's a side effect of the meds or the homeopathy. So right now it's homeopathy or strattera. I'm going to go look for a coin to flip.
Posted by Questionmark on March 12, 2003, at 18:00:06
In reply to Re: homeopathy, posted by Rachel2 on March 12, 2003, at 17:15:20
i have a lot of faith in alternative and herbal medicine, but i have much doubt in regard to homeopathy. i especially agree with the person(above on this thread) who basically said that the ultra-low or virtually nonexistent doses in homeopathy is probably just a crock. But maybe if one doesn't have much s**t in their system, more reasonable homeopathic doses of certain things might be beneficial. i don't know.
If you can find a homeopathic dr. or, especially, an "alternative" physician, i would suggest giving them a shot before starting the Strattera, cuz that's more of a commitment and what not (the Strattera).
P.S., Do you drink tea? Caffeine can really give me a nice boost sometimes... especially if your anxiety isn't too bad this might be a bit helpful at times. Good luck.
Posted by viridis on March 12, 2003, at 19:52:13
In reply to Re: homeopathy » viridis, posted by Jack Smith on March 12, 2003, at 12:11:43
I'm certainly not an expert on homeopathy, but there are a couple of things I've gleaned that might explain the successes that have occurred. Most of this is based on my wife's experience with homeopaths, so is second-hand but I assume pretty accurate (and, we also worked with a homeopathic veterinarian for a while).
The key thing she's emphasized is that the homeopathic doctors she's seen have spent a lot of time getting a detailed history, asking about nutrition, sleep, stress, etc., and then have recommended lifestyle and diet changes (in addition to prescribing the diluted meds). This is how our vet worked too, and despite the failure with our dog, she did have some successes too (e.g., identifying a food allergy that caused recurrent yeast infections in a dog's ear, which subsided once we changed diets).
So, my understanding is that homeopathy is often a more comprehensive approach that may genuinely pinpoint nutritional deficiencies, harmful behaviors, and so on, and correcting these may be of great benefit in itself (plus the confidence that detailed attention from a doctor inspires).
The other thing is that, although I don't know the details of all the "succusations" (serial dilutions), some of the preparations may not be so dilute. If so, I can believe that some of the herbs might actually do something.
And then there's the possibility of placebo effect, which I don't think can be dismissed entirely, especially if a patient has developed a good relationship with an attentive doctor. My wife uses homeopathic cold remedies and is sure they help; they do nothing for me (but I don't expect them to work).
I still can't believe that the ultradiluted preparations work, simply because after a certain number of 1 in 100 dilutions, chances are that there's nothing left of the original substance. People have tried to come up with explanations ("water memory", etc.), but none have held up. So, I still can't buy this aspect of homeopathy, although I do think that the "whole person" approach (which I think overlaps with "holistic medicine") is very sensible.
Posted by SLS on March 12, 2003, at 21:31:04
In reply to Re: homeopathy » SLS, posted by ShelliR on March 12, 2003, at 9:58:10
Hi.
> Yes, the doctor does call himself a homeopath. (and he is an MD) And I don't understand why it works but there are double blind studies showing that it does.That what does? What is he giving you?
I hope your homeopath is able to accomplish that which your allopaths have not - your long-term remission. I will be looking on with great interest. If you respond, you better believe I'll be taking a trip down your way.
Good luck. You deserve it!
Sincerely,
Scott
Posted by Jacob on March 12, 2003, at 22:13:32
In reply to Re: homeopathy » ShelliR, posted by SLS on March 12, 2003, at 21:31:04
Is the doctor you've described in NYC?
I'd be very interested in his name, as I live there and have a child who has been quite disturbed since 9/11, is on medication, but we are looking for more of a "cure" than we've seen so far on an AP. THanks.
Posted by the blue professor on March 12, 2003, at 23:19:52
In reply to Re: homeopathy ShelliR, posted by Jacob on March 12, 2003, at 22:13:32
Please do not any of you waste your money on this homeopathic nonsense. There has never been any scientific tests that show that there is any benefit at all from these preparations.
In these 'medicines' there are literally no traces at all of the "active" ingredients said to be at work. Preparations are usually well beyond Avagadro's Limit, which means that there have been so many one-in-ten (or one-in-one-hundred) dilutions made, that it is VERY unlikely for there to be even one molecule or atom of the original substance, present.
As an example, for a particular homeopathic sleeping pill (having caffeine as its 'active ingredient'), you would have to consume over sixteen swimming pools full of the pills to have any chance at all of getting only ONE MOLECULE of caffeine.
This is a money-making scam and that is all it is. If the modus operandi of homeopathic medicine were correct, you could cure everything by simply drinking tap water. This water would be FAR, FAR more likely to have at least one molecule of ANY substance than a homeopathic preparation would.
Posted by stjames on March 12, 2003, at 23:37:46
In reply to Re: homeopathy » viridis, posted by Jack Smith on March 12, 2003, at 12:11:43
It seems that these scientists think that it does work.
>
> JACK
MD's that just want your money and realize people
are gullible, perhaps. Qwack MD's at best.
http://www.ncahf.org/search/webglimpse.cgi?lines=1&ARCHID_2=2&lines=on&query=homeopathy
Posted by ShelliR on March 12, 2003, at 23:47:38
In reply to Re: homeopathy ShelliR, posted by Jacob on March 12, 2003, at 22:13:32
> Is the doctor you've described in NYC?
>
> I'd be very interested in his name, as I live there and have a child who has been quite disturbed since 9/11, is on medication, but we are looking for more of a "cure" than we've seen so far on an AP. THanks.Jacob,
He's outside Washington d.c. His office is always filled with children; he does work a lot I think with ADHD, etc.
Shelli
Posted by viridis on March 13, 2003, at 0:36:38
In reply to Re: homeopathy ShelliR » Jacob, posted by ShelliR on March 12, 2003, at 23:47:38
This almost becomes a metaphysical argument -- faith vs. evidence. Proponents of the "ultra-dilution" approach simply assert that it works by means that we don't understand; scientifically-minded people demand an explanation. This is sort of like religion. Religion and science are different; not mutually exclusive, but the criteria for acceptance of basic principles are fundamentally different. Homeopathy (at least at present) demands faith wihout evidence.
But hey, if it makes people feel good, then great -- like religion. (BTW, I'm not against religion; it's just a different way of thinking).
Posted by daizy on March 13, 2003, at 4:59:16
In reply to Re: homeopathy, posted by stjames on March 12, 2003, at 23:37:46
You may find this interesting!
Posted by stjames on March 13, 2003, at 11:15:29
In reply to Re: homeopathy, posted by daizy on March 13, 2003, at 4:59:16
As with Benveniste's original experiment, Randi insisted that strict precautions be taken to ensure that none of the experimenters knew whether they were dealing with homeopathic solutions, or with pure water Two independent scientists performed tests to see whether their samples produced a biological effect. Only when the experiment was over was it revealed which samples were real.
To Randi's relief, the experiment was a total failure. The scientists had been no better at deciding which samples were homeopathic solutions than pure chance would have done.
Posted by Jack Smith on March 13, 2003, at 13:16:13
In reply to Re: homeopathy » Jack Smith, posted by viridis on March 12, 2003, at 19:52:13
A few comments, this is an interesting discussion and I think our disagreement is very small.
> I'm certainly not an expert on homeopathy
Neither am I. Just thought I would clear that up.
> I still can't believe that the ultradiluted preparations work, simply because after a certain number of 1 in 100 dilutions, chances are that there's nothing left of the original substance. People have tried to come up with explanations ("water memory", etc.), but none have held up. So, I still can't buy this aspect of homeopathy,
I agree that the "water memory" thing just doesn't add up. But, just because there has not been an adequate explanation provided by western science does not mean that it is all bunk. The best example of this is accupuncture--I think just about everyone recognizes that accupuncture is clinically effective for a range of things, most notably pain. Yet, western science has still not offerred an adequate explanation for it--though there have been better theories than the "water memory" one for homeopathy.
> I do think that the "whole person" approach (which I think overlaps with "holistic medicine") is very sensible.
I think this is the most tragic aspect of modern psychiatry/psychology. Too few take such an approach. It seems that there is a great divide between those who see mental illness as chemically based and those who seem them as rooted in past experiences or in negative thought patterns. I do not see the two as incompatible. The common insulin analogy with the diabetic, in fact, tends to support both theories. Just as you wouldn't tell a diabetic to not take insulin and just get over it, you wouldn't tell a depressive to just stop taking their meds and just get over it. HOWEVER, just as you wouldn't tell a diabetic to not learn to adjust their lifestyle to deal with their disease, you should not tell a depressive the same. Psychotherapy/CBT or whatever is useful in teaching a person, who may very much need medicine indefinitely, how to deal with their chronic condition.
Thanks for listening.
JACK
Posted by Jack Smith on March 13, 2003, at 13:21:30
In reply to Re: homeopathy ShelliR, posted by the blue professor on March 12, 2003, at 23:19:52
> Please do not any of you waste your money on this homeopathic nonsense. There has never been any scientific tests that show that there is any benefit at all from these preparations.
Although, I have never used homeopathy and have no immediate plans to explore it, I just want to say that the above statements are just as extreme as those coming from the Church of Scientology re psychiatry.
Twenty years ago, we would have heard the same thing about accupuncture. Still, today, there is not an adequate western explanation for how it works (though there are interesting theories, but they remain just that, theories). YET, there are few in the medical profession that doubt that accupuncture is EXTREMELY effective in pain relief and OFTEN works when western medicine fails.
Thanks for listening.
JACK
Posted by Jack Smith on March 13, 2003, at 13:23:51
In reply to Re: homeopathy, posted by stjames on March 12, 2003, at 23:37:46
> It seems that these scientists think that it does work.
> >
> > JACK
>
>
> MD's that just want your money and realize people
> are gullible, perhaps. Qwack MD's at best.
That was precisely my point. Just because someone doubts something BECAUSE of their scientific background does not make their doubts any less valid someone else's beliefs.JACK
Posted by Jack Smith on March 13, 2003, at 13:27:57
In reply to Faith vs. evidence, posted by viridis on March 13, 2003, at 0:36:38
> This almost becomes a metaphysical argument -- faith vs. evidence. Proponents of the "ultra-dilution" approach simply assert that it works by means that we don't understand; scientifically-minded people demand an explanation. This is sort of like religion. Religion and science are different; not mutually exclusive, but the criteria for acceptance of basic principles are fundamentally different. Homeopathy (at least at present) demands faith wihout evidence.
>
> But hey, if it makes people feel good, then great -- like religion. (BTW, I'm not against religion; it's just a different way of thinking).
Good analogy but not a perfect one. Your reference to "science" is to western science which cannot explain everything. Those who subscribe to a different "science" are not necessarily the same as those who put their ultimate faith into a higher being. Well, I guess you could say that the western scientist puts his ultimate faith in the scientific method, even when it fails, as it often does, to explain a lot of phenomena.JACK
Posted by stjames on March 13, 2003, at 14:11:40
In reply to Re: homeopathy » stjames, posted by Jack Smith on March 13, 2003, at 13:23:51
> That was precisely my point. Just because someone doubts something BECAUSE of their scientific background does not make their doubts any less valid someone else's beliefs.
>
> JACKIt has been proven homeopathy does not work, and I think I have posted enough links to support that.
Posted by ShelliR on March 13, 2003, at 15:22:12
In reply to Re: Faith vs. evidence » viridis, posted by Jack Smith on March 13, 2003, at 13:27:57
Posted by Jack Smith on March 13, 2003, at 15:44:29
In reply to Re: homeopathy, posted by stjames on March 13, 2003, at 14:11:40
> It has been proven homeopathy does not work, and I think I have posted enough links to support that.
>StJames,
I respect you and am grateful for the advice you have offered me in the past so it is with this respect that I add the following comment--your statement is simply false. Anyone with a cursory understanding of statistics knows that it is almost impossible to prove a negative. Moreover, as viridis so eloquently pointed out, a lot of these things go to something greater than science. I wonder if you could show me a link proving that Jesus was not the son of G-d. (As a Jew, this is my belief but I would laugh at someone who purported to prove it). I see a redirect coming any minute but I hope Dr. Bob recognizes this as a discussion involving medication and alternatives to it.
Thanks for listening.
JACK
P.S. Notwithstanding the above, I ain't sold on homeopathy and have no plans on trying it in the near future.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.