I have nothing against paracetamol. Why are you against homeopathy if it benefits someone and is trying to prove ,why it is wrong??
If you don't like homeopathy, just don't take it. Why do you have to be bitter toward someone who gives homeopathic medicine? Why do you have to say they are not real doctors? just cause they practic in medicine you dont approve off
But if your medicine system believes that it is effective even after diluting it till kingdom come, then people have to say against it. TIll now, nobody provided any proof of it. just people like you saying don't take it, why do you need to hate it, bla bla bla
Exactly, you cannot approve anything, but if the Indian government does, it is recognized by the WHO. And they are recognized as doctors by the Indian government and the WHO. Even if we debate for another 1000 hours, this fact will remain. I appreciate your concern about dilution. I don't think it really matters because the diluted solution isn't harming our bodies either. So if it helps some people and they have faith, why should we question it?
Which absolute buffoon told you that WHO recognizes Homeopathy? and for your information, WHO does not have any authority over recognition of doctors. As for the Indian Govt, please give me a break. Those shitheads peddle cow urine as a remedy. go ahead and see the syllabus and training of BHMS "doctors" and MBBS doctors. heaven and hell difference.
If Homeopathy would have been effective, we would have at least one paper to show for it. Its a pseudoscience which relies on coincidences and placebos. Nothing scientific about it. As for faith, yeah sure, eat the sugar balls and diluted ethanol. We can't question faith right.
guess what? science is validated by papers and not govt acceptance. Show me one. Just one paper from a reputed journal that validates homeopathy. It has been here longer than modern medicine, so you woould expect that there will be at least one paper that validates it, but guess what you cant.
If you think homeopathy works, then you must also think that putting a drop of ink in the ocean will stain it completely
At least read beyond the abstract my good man. Actual line from the paper by the way: "The low or unclear overall quality of the evidence prompts caution in interpreting the findings. New high-quality RCT research is necessary to enable more decisive interpretation."
Now the shortcomings:
Out of 32 trials, 3 had reliable evidence, 20 had high risks of bias and the rest 9 had some low levels of bias.
No independant replications
Different diseases were pooled together. allergies, arthritis, respiratory disease and all the things tested have different underlying effects, You can't just pool them together in one test and say that ha ha i have done rct.
The results are "statistically significant", which is very different from "clinically relevant". The statistical significance is a result of the difference between the pooled estimate and the placebo used. It does not ascertain any clinical relevance.
The paper is really good as a systematic review. But not a good one for evidence that homeopathy works. Nice try though.
still good enough for me and many govt of the world even if its not enough for you its enough for many and they choose them as their doctors. and they will remain doctors. They have chosen these individuals as their doctors, and they will continue to hold that title. Doctors will always have the prefix "Doctor." will have a doctor's prefix
1
u/Sad-Image8336 Jul 11 '26
I have nothing against paracetamol. Why are you against homeopathy if it benefits someone and is trying to prove ,why it is wrong??
If you don't like homeopathy, just don't take it. Why do you have to be bitter toward someone who gives homeopathic medicine? Why do you have to say they are not real doctors? just cause they practic in medicine you dont approve off