Talk:Evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathy

I've also heard that many people don't drink enough water and that Homeopathy improves their health by increasing their water consumption. Is that an urban myth or should it be added to the article? WSC (talk) 06:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a joke by people who, er, make fun of homeopathy. :) Despite the fact that homeopaths like to drone at lengths about the "memory of water", dilutions and succusions, most homeopathic "remedies" that I've seen are in the form of small sugar pills. And I doubt that even the liquid ones contain enough water to influence one's daily intake.--ZooGuard (talk) 07:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The pills are something that RW's material lacks, incidentally. I do agree that the above is probably a joke. ^moral 08:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The pills are mentioned in the main article - Homeopathy#Mass production.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the "theory" on transferring the water memory to the sugar is missing and there isn't a larger space dedicated to it. This is particularly problematic since many, if not most, homeopathic remedies are delivered as pills. ^moral 09:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't these pills require one to drink some water to take them? WSC (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... I have never considered that before... ^moral 16:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Combative article

The article does not read impartially and appears to single out straw-man arguments about Homeopathy, that discredits the article to anyone reading and looking for real information.

More effort should be made to be impartial rather than opinionated.^{— Unsigned, by: 99.239.111.114 / talk / contribs}

The impartial truth would be an empty page I suppose. - Grant (Talk) 20:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I came here expecting a picture of tumbleweeds. There were no tumbleweeds... Nullahnung (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Truth be told, I expected the same. I was quite confused when I first saw this page. - Grant (Talk) 21:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

This is because it spawned off from homoeopathy after it grew a little too big. ^sshole 09:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for you highly specific and detailed feedback. I will action that immediately. ^moral 09:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Culled sections

I've cut two massive bullet-point lists from this. The first one was out of place since it's discussing physical evidence regarding claims made for the supposed mechanism of action for homeopathy - that this alone doesn't prove "homeopathy works as a medicine" is obvious, and doesn't need repeatedly laboured over 8 bullet points. The second is 19 bullet points that seem to repetitively say "if homeopaths admitted it was a placebo, this would be fine". Again, this has nothing to do with the evidence base for "homeopathy works as a medicine" or "claims for the supposed mechanism of action". It's simply labouring a very simple point that is already covered. ^sshole 09:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

evidence for homeopathy

I introduce myself as an ordinary beneficiary of homeopathy. I was converted to homeopathy some 50 years ago (now I am 68), due to "absence of well being after a Malaria attack was treated with Quinine. After experiencing "ill-being for three months" I consulted, on the advice of a friend, a homeopath and the result was nothing short of a miracle. I slept soundly after a long time. Mind you, I got just one dose of what is derogatorily called "sugar pills". I was astonished and started studying the subject myself and a became a homeopath to myself and my family. I am not a qualified or registered practitioner, but a few friends apart from my family consult me. I do not earn anything out of that.

With the above background I wish to say the following:

Many times I prescribed homeo pills for infants (a few days old) and children of all ages and achieved highly satisfying cures (not suppressions).

How can any body say that placebo effect works on infants?

It is true that there is no satisfactory explanation of how homeopathy works, but it works - is something any unprejudiced observer can prove to himself by trying it on himself.

Please note an example. Fruits were good foods; everybody knew it - even before the theory of "vitamins and minerals" was established. So too is homeopathy. It works - can be proved by anybody. It is for scientits to say how. I am not one. But I can take the challenge of proving its efficacy in practice.^{— Unsigned, by: Kjsastry / talk / contribs}

“”It works - can be proved by anybody.

except it doesn't and it can't. Many have tried to prove the efficacy of homoeopathy and no one has succeeded. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 08:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Not really worth long rebuttal, you clearly have made your mind up, but some reading around the subject wouldn't hurt. Just to be clear, you haven't provided evidence, you have provided anecdote. The placebo effect has plenty of evidence backing it up and yes, it does appear to work in infants. It works in all sorts of situations where it has absolutely no right to work. 'Sugar pills' is not a derogatory term, merely an accurate one. If you are able to demonstrate any measurable difference between a homeopathic pill and a normal sugar pill then you'll be the first. The problem being that if you can tell the difference, then pretty much by definition it is not homeopathic. If you're not qualified or registered in any way then you should be very wary about giving any kind of medical advice to anyone, other than 'consult a qualified professional'. You do not test treatments by testing them on yourself. You are unable to be an impartial judge of success. This is the whole reason that randomized blinded trials were developed. Unfortunately they overwhelmingly show that homeopathy is useless, which is why homeopaths resort to anecdote. Worm (talk) 10:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)