Homeopathy and Alternative medicines do not work
Debate Rounds (3)
First you classify the idea that alternative medicines not working as a belief. Then, you claim that they do not have a scientific basis - while admitting there are results. Then you resort back to your "belief" that any scientific results are due to a placebo effect!
Science is based on physical observation. It is scientific fact that exercise contributes to greater good health. One of the effects is stress relief. Now although this is caused by a internal chemical reaction, it is not observed by the exerciser.
Just because exercise makes people relaxed as a whole, it does not predict whether this person being relaxed is due to exercising or some outside "placebo effect".
Similarly, since there are results of alternative medicine working. You cannot jump to a conclusion that it is due to a placebo effect without proper testing.
Quote: "The scientific community regards homeopathy as nonsense, quackery or a sham, and homeopathic practice has been criticized as unethical. The axioms of homeopathy are long refuted and lack any biological plausibility. Although some clinical trials produce positive results, systematic reviews reveal that this is because of chance, flawed research methods, and reporting bias. The postulated mechanisms of action of homeopathic remedies are not only scientifically implausible but precluded by the laws of physics."
I admit I used the word believe wrongly at the beginning. What I meant to say is that I trust today's scientific community's methods of research and if they have proved that homeopathy is quackery, I have no reason to say they are not correct.
Now coming back to the real topic, you see that it is not my belief and that systematic tests by the scientific community have proved that homeopathy is nothing but nonsense. I think its safe to accept the results of the scientific community, don't you think so?
Because medical practice of the time relied on ineffective and often dangerous treatments, patients of homeopaths often had better outcomes than those of the doctors of the time. ... The relative success of homeopathy in the 19th century may have led to the abandonment of the ineffective and harmful treatments of bloodletting and purging and to have begun the move towards more effective, science-based medicine. One reason for the growing popularity of homeopathy was its apparent success in treating people suffering from infectious disease epidemics. During 19th century epidemics of diseases such as cholera, death rates in homeopathic hospitals were often lower than in conventional hospitals, where the treatments used at the time were often harmful and did little or nothing to combat the diseases.
From the above you can see that there were better results with homeopathy than the greatest medical procedures of the time.
Just because modern medical advancement has outpaced both homeopathy and historic medical procedures does not prove it nonsense!
It was clearly recognised to be very effective at one point. It has merely been outperformed -not disproven.
You claim that homeopathy was better than the 'greatest' medical procedures of those times. As you can see from the above quote, better does not mean it works. Something that does not work is better than something that does harm.
Mathtwin forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.