594Views117Replies

Author Options:

Is homeopathy a proven science? Answered

Hi again people!

This is yet another question to which i have to get definitive answers. 

Is Homeopathy a proven science?

Alternate medicines like homeopathy, Ayurveda are so common in my country, that most people tend to believe them blindly and are ready to take "medicines" from them for all kinds of problems, from Not-really-worth-bothering stuff like common cold, to moderate stuff like diabetes, and even extreme life threatening cases like cancer.

To be honest, even i didn't bother looking into them much and few years back, i thought MAYBE it does work, after all so many people take it. But in my recent years, i have developed a condition known as psoriasis, so i had to start bothering as most people force me to take these medicines, as thus far, "Allopathy" does not have treatment to this condition. But alternative medicines claim they do. i was getting a little skeptical. When i started really questioning stuff, i didn't get quite satisfactory answers. Doing a little research on my own, i have seen videos from one of my favourite intellect, Prof.Richard Dawkins. He says that homeopathy is mostly bogus. When i question this to the people around me, specially the elders, they just throw it out of the window, and tell me that i am too young to understand stuff, and people who claim things know nothing about these kind of stuff. It is the same in case of Ayurveda.

How far are these claims true? Is homeopathy(Alternative medicine in general) a bogus? If that is the case, then why is it so famous? Why is the community adopting it despite all this? Or have i misunderstood the concept? Do pardon me if my question was too long :)

50 Replies

user
Josehf Murchison (author)2013-02-05

Many modern treatments started in homeopathic treatments.
Opium to morphine
Curare for one and Belladonna or Deadly Nightshade used as an anesthetic going back to the middle ages.
Called witchcraft and voodoo at times homeopathy was frowned upon by the church.
To tell the truth the only reason homeopathy is not wider spread is three reasons.
1 production, they can’t make enough to treat everyone.
2 patents, can’t patent natural products in short can’t patent a recipe.
3 the placebo effect, some treatments need you to believe.
My wife was dealing with postpartum depression the antidepressant she was prescribed had bad side effects when she switched to St Johns whort and she felt much better.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

Are you confusing "homeopathy" with "naturopathy"? The latter involves the use of unrefined or non-synthetic drugs derived directly from plants, as with your examples, along with yew bark (-> aspirin), eucalyptus, aloe vera, etc.

The former, homeopathywhich is what the OP was asking about, involves the use of similarity magic and belief in nonphysical water memory, in particular through the use of > 10-24 dilutions (i.e., where there is less than one molecule of the original solute present).

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

Curare and Belladonna or Deadly Nightshade you cut it like there is no tomorrow.

Curare and Belladonna are a poison to a healthy person but diluted it is a treatment to the sick.

I believe that is homeopathy.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

Well, there's dilution and there's homeopathic "dilution." Belladonna is used therapeutically now as a pain reliever, in few-milligram dosage. The amount in the raw plant is much higher than that, so yes, it's diluted by a factor of 100 to 1000. Similarly for other active ingredients as you mention.

Homeopathy deals with dilutions of 1,000,000,000,000 to 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

You are pushing the dilution to the extremes some homeopathic dilutions are as low as 3 and some are as high as 1000. Some homeopathic dilutions even go as high as 1x10-30 but not all homeopathic dilutions are high.

In the case of pure Curare one of the most deadly toxins on earth, the amount that would fit on the head of a pin touching your skin will kill you in seconds. So in its case a high dilution is prudent.

He also asked about alternative medicines like homeopathy and that would be naturopathy like the St Johns whort which I mentioned.

You are right at the extreme dilutions like writing the prescription on a piece of paper and pining it to their coat.

Not a joke some homeopathic treatments are just that, however I am not talking about voodoo.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

Sorry, can you point me toward homeopathic remedies with such sensible dilutions?

What I have found is that the "standard unit" in professional homeopathy is called "C", and refers to a 1:100 dilution. Typical preparations are no less than 6C, and usually more like 8C to 12C (the latter being the 10-24 I like to quote, since it is approximately Avogadro's number).

Sensible preparations, such as you quote (for things like St. John's wort, chamomille, and other "herbal remedies") are comparable to standard medicines (milligrams to 100's of milligrams of the active ingredient, mixed with a binder to make pills). At least in the U.S. those preparations are labelled "herbal" or "naturopathic", not "homeopathic."

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
lanceearlhaines (author)kelseymh2013-02-16

Avo's # is 6.02X10^47 times larger than your supposed approximation and is a whole number not a fraction. By using just magnitude of the factor as a comparison your approximation is still off by a factor of 16.02 times that number. If you were 16x taller would that be approximately your height? NO! Cmon man use the brain cells.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
kelseymh (author)lanceearlhaines2013-02-16

Sorry. Avogadro's number is 6.02 x 1023 (the most recent CODATA value is 6.02214129(27) x 1023 mol-1, where the value in parentheses is the standard deviation on the last two quoted digits). A homeopathic value of 12C corresponds to a dilution of 10-24, which means less than one molecule of the original solute per mole (18 g) of water.

I use my brain cells all the time. I get paid good money to do so, unlike the homeopaths, and apparently some others.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

Curate isn't a poison though it's a paralysing agent. It suppresses the voluntary nervous system but leaves the autonomic alone afair.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

First of all you are mistaken about the autonomic, one of the common usages of Curare is during abdominal surgery it stops the intestines from wriggling around like a bucket of worms while you are trying to stich them back together, and the intestines are not the voluntary nervous system.

I would have to check because I don’t know where Curate comes from but Curare from the poison arrow frog used for a thousand years as poison darts and poison arrows. Ok maybe you typoed, but it is called a neurotoxin and the science is called toxicology.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

Warfarin in low dose is a blood thinner given to those prone to clots, it's also Rat poison! It's a dose issue or concentration issue. You can drink enough water to kill you but just the right amount keeps you in tip top shape. This is not Homeopathy. This is people not seeing the forest for the trees.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Josehf Murchison (author)2013-02-07

Hey they use bloodletting today; they use leeches to treat reattached limbs and maggots to debris wounds, even parasites to treat obesity. These are all treatments from the middle ages.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

well, as (Dr.)Kelsey pointed out, i am not talking specifically about the middle age treatments. Sure, some of them might be proven, but they are not diluted to that extreme. Don't get confused between these two topics. But according to the basic definition of homeopathy, they involve dilutions of at-least 10^30(or so). There is a clear difference. It just defies the current knowledge we have about our universe. Sure we might not know everything, but hey, if that is the case, it should have proposed theories with evidence. Assuming anything without evidence is dangerous. :)

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

Don’t go waving doctorates especially when it is not your doctorate and it is the wrong one Dr. Kelsey is a physicist not a toxicologist.

At least in this discussion I reference common examples you can research and what you are saying is not the basic definition of homeopathy.

The basic definition of homeopathy is the use of a substance that creates the same symptoms in a healthy person as the symptoms of the illness being treated.

Digoxin or digitalis a traditional herbal remedy is a cardiac glycoside extracted from the foxglove plant it will create atrial fibrillation and sometimes heart failure in a healthy person but prevents them in a person with a heart condition.

The definition you are using is pressed to the extremes of homeopathy and that is tantamount to saying all forms of homeopathy is writing the prescription on a piece of paper and pining it to their coat. By the way that is a homeopathic treatment used by some practitioners.

All homeopathic treatments are not dilutions of 1X10-30 and dilutions of 1X10-30 are not the definition of homeopathic treatments. Nor is it the practice of all homeopathy practitioners.

Twenty years ago bloodletting the use of leaches was considered a useless practice however today leaches are used therapeutically in the treatment of reattached severed limbs.

I am not saying all homeopathic, chiropractic, acupuncture, or naturopathic treatments work because some do work and some don’t work.

However you are saying this is what it is and none of it works and that is not correct.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

i don't think any physician worth their salt would include digoxin in the realm of homeopathy. while digitalis purpurea is listed as a possible homeopathic preperation, when it's homeopathic it's prepared in the 6C to 30C dillution range (6c = one part in one trillion or 1/1,000,000,000,000).

when it's used in digoxin, the kind of medicine you'll get from a doctor, its nowhere near that diluted. it's typically available as a 0.05 mg/ml oral solution and 0.25 mg/ml or 0.5 mg/ml injectable solution.

the fact that in the wrong dose, in the wrong patient, that the medicine has the opposite effect than desired (i.e. killing them dead instead of curing an illness) does not mean that it's a condition of "like cures like"

just because something has been listed in a homeopathic preperation list, doesn't mean that any medication that contains that ingredient is homeopathic.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digoxin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digitalis_purpurea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_homeopathic_preparations

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

Wikipedia is good for a quick reference source but if you read on you might not want to call it the bible.

This page was last modified on 28 January 2013 at 18:51.
Who modified it?
Red print means no supporting reference.

First to start 1:10 ratio is a long ways from 1X10-30 hey you referenced Wikipedia how come the dosages start at 1X 1D 1:10?

How about 2X, 2D, 1C 1:100 or a 1% saline solution used in every ER salt and distilled water.

When a homeopathic treatment is recognized by the medical community it becomes modern medicine that is why you can’t find homeopathic treatments that work it is now modern medicine.

1ml=1g 1mg=1/1000g Digoxin dosage goes from .5mg/ml to 1ng/ml or 6X, 6D, 3C or 1x10-6 any chemist knows you mix by weight.

I went to this page and checked its references.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathic_dilutions

1. Goes to a book at Google Books where you can also find the books I wrote there.
2. Goes to Wikipedia.
3. Goes nowhere.
4. Goes nowhere and to Wikipedia.
5. Goes nowhere.
6. Goes nowhere.
7. Goes nowhere.
8. Goes to a book at Google Books where you can also find the books I wrote there.
9. Actually went somewhere.
10. Goes nowhere.
11. Actually went to the EPA and Wikipedia
12. Goes to Wikipedia and Google Books where you can also find the books I wrote there.
13. Actually went somewhere and to Wikipedia.
14. Goes to Wikipedia.
15. Goes to Wikipedia.
16. Goes nowhere.
17. Goes nowhere.
18. Goes nowhere and to Wikipedia.
19. Goes nowhere and to Wikipedia.
20. Goes nowhere and to Wikipedia.
21. Goes nowhere and to Wikipedia.
22. Goes nowhere.
23. Goes nowhere.
24. Goes nowhere.
25. Actually went somewhere and to Wikipedia.
26. Goes to Wikipedia.

Now let’s examine these references.
Self-referencing.
Links to nowhere.
4 references that actually went someplace other than Wikipedia out of 26.
And 3 easily obtainable books.
7 out of 26 references that can be checked.

Worst of all, this page is 6 days old and many of the reference links don’t work.
This page was last modified on 6 February 2013 at 20:04.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)Josehf Murchison2013-02-12

A brief skim of online suppliers shows that most sell in 12C, 30C & 200C dilutions. I randomly hit on a catalogue, and found 7ml of 200C "glacial acetic acid", for £3.50.

That is, you're paying good money for a teaspoon of pure water that once stood near some vinegar.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)Josehf Murchison2013-02-13

So what? 6D = 6X = 1 part in six is the original substance.

6C, which is where the majority of homeopathic suppliers start is one part in a billion.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Josehf Murchison (author)Kiteman2013-02-13

You would think a company like Bayer.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)Josehf Murchison2013-02-13

Until they all sign up to alltrials.net, I won't trust pharmacos' own publicity.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0865478007?ie=UTF8&camp=213733&creative=393185&creativeASIN=0865478007&linkCode=shr&tag=bs0f-20&qid=1359572124&sr=8-1&keywords=goldacre

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Josehf Murchison (author)Kiteman2013-02-13

Can’t tell who I worked for walking writ they can do that if you quit, I don’t trust any of them look at the lists of side effects or birth defects due to prescription drugs things like thalidomide.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)Josehf Murchison2013-02-13

Exactly.

However, pharmaco products are more reliable than homeopathy.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Josehf Murchison (author)Kiteman2013-02-13

The problem is pharmaceutical companies get their drug ideas from homeopathy and other natural treatments, synthesize the active ingredient, and patent the synthesized active ingredient.

So to say homeopathy and other natural treatments don’t work is to say modern pharmaceuticals don’t work.

Check this article out from National Geographic the first sight is a short breakdown of the second sight.

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/storm_watch_stories3&stormfile=Venom__The_bite_that_heals_05_02_2013?ref=ccbox_weather_topstories

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/02/venom/holland-text

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

no one is arguing that natural treatments don't work. natural compounds are the basis of every medicine we have.

naturopathy IS NOT THE SAME as homeopathy. period.

claiming that they are is just rediculous.

the entire meat of the claims of homeopathy revolve around the concept of water memory and other similar drivel, the premise of the entire practice is that THE MORE dilute you make the preperation THE MORE effective it is. which is simply patently false.

naturopathy simply states that there are compounds, that exist in nature, that have medicinal value. which should be greeted with a resounding "duh"

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

It was you that asked me for links wasn’t it?

Go to the full article the second link for more in-depth information.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/02/venom/holland-text

Quote from this article

“Venom-based cures aren’t a new idea. They show up, for example, in Sanskrit texts from the second century A.D., and around 67 B.C. Mithradates VI of Pontus, an enemy of Rome who dabbled in toxicology, was supposedly saved twice on the battlefield by shamans who administered steppe viper venom to his wounds. (Crystallized venom from the snakes is now a medical export from Azerbaijan.) Cobra venom, applied for centuries in traditional Chinese and Indian medicine, was introduced to the West in the 1830s as a homeopathic pain remedy. John Henry Clarke’s Materia Medica, published around 1900, describes the venom as alleviating many ills, even those caused by venom. “We should always endeavour to use the same drug to cure as produced the symptoms,” the author wrote. Clinical applications of carefully diluted cobra venom included “Angina pectoris. Asthma. Dysmenia. Hay-fever. Headache. Heart, affections of. Oesophagus, spasmodic stricture of. Ovaries, affections of. Plague ... Throat, sore.” But be careful, it was noted: “The curative dose [is] just within the limit of the pathogenetic dose.” Walking such a fine line, physicians of old likely hastened patients’ deaths as often as—or more often than—they prolonged their lives.”

I do believe the word in bold is homeopathic.

By the way I agree water memory is fuddle doddle.

However that doesn’t change the fact pharmaceutical companies get their drug ideas from homeopathy and other natural treatments.

A quote from that article.

“We aren’t talking just a few novel drugs but entire classes of drugs,” says National Geographic Society Emerging Explorer Zoltan Takacs, a toxicologist and herpetologist. So far, fewer than a thousand toxins have been scrutinized for medicinal value, and a dozen or so major drugs have made it to market. “There could be upwards of 20 million venom toxins out there waiting to be screened,” Takacs says. “It’s huge. Venom has opened up whole new avenues of pharmacology.”

This article is more on the origin of modern pharmaceuticals not homeopathy in of its self specifically Venom.

Many modern treatments started in homeopathic treatments.

Opium
Belladonna or Deadly Nightshade.
Curare from both plants and animals.
leeches to treat reattached limbs and maggots to debris wounds.
Digoxin or digitalis a traditional herbal remedy from the foxglove plant.
And many more.
Modern pharmaceutical companies are in the business of making a profit and to profit from their research they need to paten.

See orphan drugs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_drug

https://www.scripps.edu/philanthropy/landing/sem/2011-07/orphan_diseases.php?origin=ggdisorphan

http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/DevelopingProductsforRareDiseasesConditions/default.htm

You cannot paten a plant or animal.

See US Patent Office and Canadian Intellectual Property Office.

http://patft.uspto.gov/

http://www.cipo.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cipointernet-internetopic.nsf/eng/Home?OpenDocument

However pharmaceutical companies can paten synthetic forms of the active ingredient in the homeopathy or naturopathy treatment.

See US Patent Office and Canadian Intellectual Property Office.

So Modern pharmaceutical companies travel around the world finding homeopathic or naturopathic treatments,

See
http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/storm_watch_stories3&stormfile=Venom__The_bite_that_heals_05_02_2013?ref=ccbox_weather_topstories

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/02/venom/holland-text

Locate the active ingredient, synthesize the active ingredient, and patent it so they can profit from their research. Then the source becomes proprietary knowledge.

See
http://thesaurus.com/browse/proprietary+knowledge

So you won’t find links to homeopathic treatments that work because it is proprietary knowledge.

Unlike Wikipedia all my links work and none are self-referencing.

You are already taking homeopathic or naturopathic treatments so how can you say they don’t work when you already take them?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)Josehf Murchison2013-02-15

You're arguing about the wrong thing.

Nobody has said that pharmaco do not get a lot of their resources or inspirations from natural substances. I gave you a list of examples myself.

The subject is homeopathy, which, since it's invention (see your own link about quinine), means dilution to the point where the "treatment" is effectively pure water, accompanied by a claim that the dilution and shaking has made the treatment more potent.

That was the original question, and the answer remains that homeopathy is a fraudulent con.

Unless you are going to stay on topic, there is no point continuing this exchange.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Josehf Murchison (author)Kiteman2013-02-15

I am afraid it is you that doesn’t get it.

The question is “Alternate medicines like homeopathy” not just homeopathy. And he mentioned specifically Ayurveda. (The generic term for traditional medicine in India.)

You are already taking homeopathic, naturopathic, and traditional medicines, so how can you say they don’t work?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)Josehf Murchison2013-02-15

... because I *don't* take homeopathic, naturopathic* or "traditional" medicines.

The first two are woowoo, the last is such a vague term as to be utterly meaningless.


*Naturopathic "medicine" is all about "healing fields" - utter nonsense.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Josehf Murchison (author)Kiteman2013-02-15

you do you just dont know it

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)Josehf Murchison2013-02-16

That is a really feeble argument.

Try naming some.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Josehf Murchison (author)Kiteman2013-02-16

Aspirin; willow bark tea, goes all the way back to before Christ.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspirin

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)Josehf Murchison2013-02-16

*sigh*

You aren't listening. That is what I and Crapflinger said - a medicine found in nature, but now synthesised commercially without a plant in sight.

It's not homeopathy, it's not naturopathy, it's only "traditional" in the sense that its bionatural precursor was used centuties ago. Nobody has used the actual willow bark for over well over a century.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Josehf Murchison (author)Kiteman2013-02-16

Ok so let me see if I have it right.
Traditional medicine (Lets just use that term to reduce typing) doesn’t work because the pharmaceutical company’s haven’t stolen it from a witch doctor, synthesized the active ingredient, patented the active ingredient so they can profit from their theft.
Have I got it right?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)Josehf Murchison2013-02-16

*sigh*

You aren't listening. That is what I and Crapflinger said - a medicine found in nature, but now synthesised commercially without a plant in sight.

It's not homeopathy, it's not naturopathy, it's only "traditional" in the sense that its bionatural precursor was used centuties ago. Nobody has used the actual willow bark for over well over a century.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Josehf Murchison (author)Kiteman2013-02-16

To quote Albert Einstein
If you have two men that agree all you have is two men that agree, however if you have two men that argue you have learning and learning leads to knowledge.

I is done did lernned to put up a link in my replies see.

http://josehfmurchison.webs.com/

Hey Kiteman do you sell t-shirts actually there is more than just t-shirts at your website?

Sorry but how can I listen.

That is a keyboard in your hands not a mike.

You are not talking.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayurveda

"According to a 1990 study on ayurvedic medicines in India, 41 percent of the products tested contained arsenic, and 64 percent contained lead and mercury.[34] A 2004 study found toxic levels of heavy metals in 20 percent of ayurvedic preparations made in South Asia and sold in the Boston area, and concluded that ayurvedic products posed serious health risks and should be tested for heavy-metal contamination.[58] A 2008 study of more than 230 products found that approximately 20 percent of remedies (and 40 percent of rasa shastra medicines) purchased over the Internet from both US and Indian suppliers contained lead, mercury or arsenic.[5][59][60] In 2012 the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stated that Ayurvedic drugs have links to lead poisoning on the basis of some cases presented where some pregnant woman had taken Ayurvedic drugs toxic materials were found in their blood.[61]

Ayurvedic proponents believe that the toxicity of these materials is reduced through purification processes such as samskaras or shodhanas (for metals), similar to the Chinese pao zhi, although the ayurvedic technique is more complex and may involve prayers as well as physical pharmacy techniques. However, these products have nonetheless caused severe lead poisoning and other toxic effects.[59][62]
"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pao_zhi

"Pao Zhi processing may involve such means as roasting, honey frying, wine frying, earth frying, vinegar frying, calcining, or other means. This is a kind of alchemical processing used in everyday preparation of herbal, mineral and animal medicinals."

notice the use of the word "alchemical" which is a derivitive of alchemy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchemical


Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

Nice data that is what 23 years old that gets less until vage in 2012.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)Josehf Murchison2013-02-15

You're arguing about the wrong thing.

Nobody has said that pharmaco do not get a lot of their resources or inspirations from natural substances. I gave you a list of examples myself.

The subject is homeopathy, which, since it's invention (see your own link about quinine), means dilution to the point where the "treatment" is effectively pure water, accompanied by a claim that the dilution and shaking has made the treatment more potent.

That was the original question, and the answer remains that homeopathy is a fraudulent con.

Unless you are going to stay on topic, there is no point continuing this exchange.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)Josehf Murchison2013-02-13

Sorry, I fail to see any mention of using the venom at ridiculously high concentrations.

Maybe I missed that quote? It does mention homeopathic uses of venom, none of which are carried out today, since the "curative" dose was the almost toxic dose...

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Josehf Murchison (author)Kiteman2013-02-14

Go to the full article the second link for more in-depth information.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/02/venom/holland-text

Michal is a literary device.

By the way I agree water memory is fuddle doddle.

However that doesn’t change the fact pharmaceutical companies get their drug ideas from homeopathy and other natural treatments.

Do you mean concentrations or dilute.

A quote from that article.

“We aren’t talking just a few novel drugs but entire classes of drugs,” says National Geographic Society Emerging Explorer Zoltan Takacs, a toxicologist and herpetologist. So far, fewer than a thousand toxins have been scrutinized for medicinal value, and a dozen or so major drugs have made it to market. “There could be upwards of 20 million venom toxins out there waiting to be screened,” Takacs says. “It’s huge. Venom has opened up whole new avenues of pharmacology.”

This article is more on the origin of modern pharmaceuticals not homeopathy in of its self specifically Venom.

Many modern treatments started in homeopathic treatments.
Opium
Belladonna or Deadly Nightshade.
Curare from both plants and animals.
leeches to treat reattached limbs and maggots to debris wounds.
Digoxin or digitalis a traditional herbal remedy from the foxglove plant.
And many more.

Modern pharmaceutical companies are in the business of making a profit.

See orphan drugs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_drug
https://www.scripps.edu/philanthropy/landing/sem/2011-07/orphan_diseases.php?origin=ggdisorphan
http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/DevelopingProductsforRareDiseasesConditions/default.htm

You cannot paten a plant or animal.

See US Patent Office and Canadian Intellectual Property Office.
http://patft.uspto.gov/
http://www.cipo.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cipointernet-internetopic.nsf/eng/Home?OpenDocument

However pharmaceutical companies can paten synthetic forms of the active ingredient in the homeopathy or naturopathy treatment.

See US Patent Office and Canadian Intellectual Property Office.

So Modern pharmaceutical companies travel around the world finding homeopathic or naturopathic treatments,
See
http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/storm_watch_stories3&stormfile=Venom__The_bite_that_heals_05_02_2013?ref=ccbox_weather_topstories

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/02/venom/holland-text

Locate the active ingredient, synthesize the active ingredient, and patent it so they can profit from their research.

Then the source becomes proprietary knowledge.

See

http://thesaurus.com/browse/proprietary+knowledge

So you won’t find links to homeopathic treatments that work because it is proprietary knowledge.

Unlike Wikipedia all my links work and none are self-referencing.

You are already taking homeopathic or naturopathic treatments so how can you say they don’t work?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)Josehf Murchison2013-02-14

I think you're mixing up your terms.

Homeopathy is the use of ridiculous dilutions to "treat" conditions.

Using naturally-occuring materials as the basis to develop treatments after noticing potentially-useful pharmacological effects of the raw matetial is called "science".

C.f. aspirin, penicillin, Galantamine hydrobromide, atropine, quinine, digitalis, opiates, Aescin...

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
lanceearlhaines (author)Kiteman2013-02-16

I think you're mixing up YOUR terms. What you call "Science" I call qualitative observation, then trying to make your observations fit a preconceived model. This is the antithesis of the scientific method. It's Ok though, most people have no clue what Science is, even after being taught.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)lanceearlhaines2013-02-16

You really ought to pause at think before throwing that kind of insult at a science teacher.

I will be charitable this time, and assume you simply misread what I typed in your eagerness to assert some sort of credibility, but you really ought to do a little checking before you try and score points against anybody else.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)Josehf Murchison2013-02-15

The link may not say water memory, but it's whst they mean.

From your link;

Hahnemann believed that large doses of drugs aggravate illness and that the efficacy of medicines thus increases with dilution. Accordingly, most homeopathists believed in the action of minute doses of medicine.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
crapflinger (author)Kiteman2013-02-15

this is the entire meat of what Josehf is missing about homeopathy. the bit that makes a treatment homeopathic isn't what the treatment is made of, it's the belief that the power the treatment has to cure/treat an illness resides in the dilution of the substance used in the treatment.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Josehf Murchison (author)Kiteman2013-02-14

no I am not read the article

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

getting ingredients from nature IS NOT HOMEOPATHY! it's naturopathy.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)crapflinger2013-02-14

Actually, it's not naturopathy, either. Apparently (wikipedia says) naturopathy is about healing fields and such-like, just as woowoo as homeopathy.

@Josehf, argue all you like, I'm talking about the homeopathists' use of the word homeopathy, the diluted-to-pure-water no sense. Getting ingredients from nature isn't homeopathy.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer