Article on homeopathy from the Guardian

[siestatime]

http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/wellbeing/story/0,,2210104,00.html

"Waiter, there´s a nanoparticle permeating my soup."

Not the same somehow.

[Jocky]

This article is permeated by the usual nanoparticles of misunderstanding which infest those who persist in believing that hoeopathy is anything other than a catalyst for a placebo effect.


if the medicines really are ineffective, why is it that so many people who have tried homeopathy have found that it makes a difference to their wellbeing?

If it can really make a difference to "so many people", then why does it have no effect in blinded trials? Because anecdote does not equal evidence ::)

[Admin]

All she's basically saying is that science shows that it doesn't work yet some people believe it works for them (they perceive a benefit).

That's a pretty good description of a placebo treatment!

Anyone with a smidgeon of rationality can see it for what it is. ::)

[bindeweede]

If homeopathy worked, there'd be no Traviata or Boheme;)

http://dcscience.net/?p=21

[mahakala]

Actually, the only thing you all can say with certainty is that homeopathy doesn't make any sense in view of the current understanding of medicine and science.

Kind of like a lot of things we now take for granted when they were first introduced.

Anybody who has used homeopathy in all its various forms, under a variety of circumstances, can see clearly that it is not just a placebo.

[Mongrel]

Actually, the only thing you all can say with certainty is that homeopathy doesn't make any sense in view of the current understanding of medicine and science.

Kind of like a lot of things we now take for granted when they were first introduced.

...before we knew a lot more about the world we live in.

Like cures like is the basic principle behind homeopathy, and that was based on a single incident that was probably an allergy.

It then goes on to ridicule the principles of EBM, physics and chemistry and has now turned it's lecherous gaze upon quantum physics\mechanics. It's had 200 years to come up with any form of compelling evidence and all they've got hand waving, bluster and nonsense...

[bindeweede]

Ratbags Holistic Health Academy
Training course for homeopaths
Some may think that all you have to do to become a homeopath is get a copy of Materia Medica and practice diluting and succussing. There is in fact a comprehensive training program.

Remove the brain. It does not have to come out in one piece, so any method may be used which does not damage the skull too much.
Blend the brain with 10 times its weight in sand.
Take 10% of the mixture and blend that with 10 times its weight in sand.
Repeat step 3 20 times.
Pour the final mixture back into the cavity where the brain was.
If the brain was removed by trepanning or arthroscopy, seal the hole in the skull with a cork (do not use a rubber bung). If the entire top of the skull was removed, put the top back on carefully and apply an electric current vertically until the bone knits again.
Succuss the head twice on each side with a brick.
Award certificate of competence.It should be noted that some less reputable training institutions have been offering accelerated courses which leave out the first 6 steps. To ensure that your homeopath has been properly trained, look for the horizontal scar running around the head just above the eyes, or ask to see the cork.


[From http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/homeopathy.htm}

[Admin]

Actually, the only thing you all can say with certainty is that homeopathy doesn't make any sense in view of the current understanding of medicine and science.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Is there an alternative understanding of medicine and science where things like antibiotics, transplants, life-saving cancer treatments, brain surgery, etc., don't work but homeopathy does then?

Honestly! I don't know which is the most stupid: homeopathy itself or the numbskulls who believe in it.

[mahakala]

I see that your concept of medicine is um, rather limited, which of course is a common tactic that can be used to exclude anything which doesn't fit with one's particular prejudices.

And by the way, perhaps you could differentiate a little between certain people's meager attempts to explain things, and the reality that they just don't know.

Do you now where the information in your computer is stored?

Anyway, tell your narrow minded b.s. to a friend of mind who uses Aconite 200C quite regularly to control his arrythmia, a life threatening medical condition, just as one example.

[bobdezon]

Its not about prejudices its about efficacy. Homeopathy does not work except as a placebo. It is water, that is all. If it did work it would kill everyone on the planet. I mean all the worlds water has filtered through every substance on earth at some point. Homeopaths tell us some solutions can be dangerous. If it had any truth to it we would all be very ill very well or very dead.

[Mongrel]

I see that your concept of medicine is um, rather limited, which of course is a common tactic that can be used to exclude anything which doesn't fit with one's particular prejudices.
Well, there goes my irony meter...

And by the way, perhaps you could differentiate a little between certain people's meager attempts to explain things, and the reality that they just don't know.
Luckily it was already broken


Do you now where the information in your computer is stored?
Yes, some of us dislike wallowing in our own ignorance.


Anyway, tell your narrow minded b.s. to a friend of mind who uses Aconite 200C quite regularly to control his arrythmia, a life threatening medical condition, just as one example.
1) Anecdotes are not data
2) Arrythmia is a catch-all term for 'irregular heart beat' and it ranges from mild annoyance to full blown cardiac arrest. The majority of irregularities can be controlled with stress exercises, dietary changes and exercise.

[vbloke]

I see that your concept of medicine is um, rather limited, which of course is a common tactic that can be used to exclude anything which doesn't fit with one's particular prejudices.Touché


And by the way, perhaps you could differentiate a little between certain people's meager attempts to explain things, and the reality that they just don't know.Perhaps you could differentiate between 2 unlabelled homeopathic preparations?


Do you now where the information in your computer is stored?Yes; the principle and methods behind this are very well understood.


Anyway, tell your narrow minded b.s. to a friend of mind who uses Aconite 200C quite regularly to control his arrythmia, a life threatening medical condition, just as one example.Anyway, tell your irrational b.s. to this baby girl (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/homeopaths-baby-died-of-infections/2007/11/05/1194117926205.html?s_cid=rss_news).

[mahakala]

So nobody can tell me where the information on my computer is stored?

Interesting that you attack my anecdotes using anectodes.

I can tell by your rabid responses that really it all comes down to this, "I don't understand it so therefore it is bollocks." Or, "I don't like so it must be bollocks." Or, "there are a bunch of prats using it so it must be bollocks."

Of course millions of people are wrong. You handful are right.

[mahakala]

Oh, by the way thousands of people die every year because of mistakes in hospitals and reactions to drugs prescribed by doctors.

[JJM]

Oh, by the way thousands of people die every year because of mistakes in hospitals and reactions to drugs prescribed by doctors.
The Imperfections of real medicine do not validate your kooky theories.
http://pandabearmd.com/blog/2007/11/10/everything-you-need-to-know-about-complementary-and-alternative-medicine-part-1/

[Admin]

So nobody can tell me where the information on my computer is stored?

On the hard drive?


I can tell by your rabid responses that really it all comes down to this, "I don't understand it so therefore it is bollocks." Or, "I don't like so it must be bollocks." Or, "there are a bunch of prats using it so it must be bollocks."

But we do understand it. That is how we know it doesn't actually work. People can perceive a small benefit from homeopathy for self-limiting conditions - i.e. a placebo effect.

This is all very well understood.

[vbloke]

So nobody can tell me where the information on my computer is stored?I could, if you wanted to know about hard drives or flash memory. it's a bit technical, but I'm sure you'll get the gist of it if you try.


Interesting that you attack my anecdotes using anectodes.For every "this person was cured" story, there's a "this person died" story. this is precisely why anecdotes are worthless, they're not hard data and can be subjectively flawed.


I can tell by your rabid responses that really it all comes down to this, "I don't understand it so therefore it is bollocks." Or, "I don't like so it must be bollocks." Or, "there are a bunch of prats using it so it must be bollocks."Ironically, I recently qualified as a practising homeopath, so I know of what I speak. During my lessons, there was never once any hard facts on the supposed mechanisms of action of homeopathic remedies, only speculation, and belief. You cannot build a system of medicine of belief alone, or else you're back to blood letting, leaches and the four humours again.

Homeopathy "works" via a mechanism that has no basis in physical reality, water cannot, does not and will never be able to store information in the way homeopaths believe it does. If it did, then it would be irretrievably tainted by particulates from the air, the container and other things it has come into contact with. Not to mention, any contaminants from the lactose pills. Plus, how does water memory translate into a lactose crystal lattice?


Of course millions of people are wrong. You handful are right.No, the placebo effect is a powerful tool. It is not "wrong" to believe in homeopathy as a therapeutic tool, it is wrong to believe that it can replace conventional medicine; even as an adjunct to traditional therapy it is severely lacking, as it's supposed benefits vanish under close scrutiny and proper testing.

[Admin]

Oh, by the way thousands of people die every year because of mistakes in hospitals and reactions to drugs prescribed by doctors.

What does that say about homeopathy?

Absolutely nothing. ;)

[mahakala]

Doctor Jean-Marcel FERRET, doctor to the French soccer team from 1993 to 2004http://www.boiron.com/images/03_temoignages_arrptitre.gifhttp://www.boiron.com/images/03_temoignages_guillemetsg.gif
When using homeopathy directly on the soccer field, I find that the results are almost immediate.

http://www.boiron.com/images/03_temoignages_guillemetsd.gifI am a doctor that uses homeopathy and not a homeopath. I am open to all techniques. I consider that there is only one medicine comprising various techniques. We doctors have to know how to use the entire arsenal. As a sports doctor, I quickly discovered that except for anti-inflammatories and muscle relaxants, I was very limited in the care of athletes. I therefore tried to find something else. I began to use homeopathy, first occasionally, and then more and more.

At first, the athletes were surprised and some of them even wary. So I explained how and why homeopathy acts. The greatest value in sports? Its speed of action. I can use it directly on the soccer field, within seconds of the trauma, and note the results almost immediately. For example, in traumatology with Arnica, and without any adverse reactions on the stomach or liver. I also use homeopathy to treat ORL, stress or dermatology problems.
The players are highly trained. Therefore, they are a population at risk with a slightly defective immune system. We have to protect their health, accompany them in their performance by limiting the risks to a maximum. This involves emphasis on prevention, taking into account the personality of each player. I try to get to know them as well as possible, on all levels. I now know that this approach is that of homeopathy. Abroad, I have often been told that France is ahead in sports medicine. Homeopathy has certainly contributed to this

[mahakala]

Meta-analyses are rigorous studies that involve scores of clinical trials and aim to assess the quality of the studies that have been carried out and the consistency of the results.
http://www.boiron.com/images/04_recherche_clinique_02.jpg
In less than one decade, the conclusions from meta-analyses involving homeopathy have convinced their authors of the acceptability of homeopathic clinical trials and their positive results.
Trial methods with recognised reliability
In 1991, a meta-analysis was published which involved the meticulous study of 107 trials1 (javascript:void(0);) . As regards methods used for the clinical evaluation, the conclusion was clear: “it is wrong to say that homeopathy has not been evaluated according to the modern method of controlled trials”. Among these clinical trials, a large majority (81 to be exact) has had positive results concerning the efficacy of homeopathic treatment.
Ruling out the notions of chance and the placebo effect
A similar study was conducted in 1996 at the European Parliament's request2 (javascript:void(0);) . It examined the data from trials involving the efficacy of homeopathic medicines in relation to a placebo or to no treatment. Comparisons were retained satisfying all of the experts' requirements, who finally concluded that “the number of significant results was clearly not down to chance”.
A year later (1997), a study involving the analysis of 89 trials was published3 (javascript:void(0);) taking close account of the criteria specific to the homeopathic therapeutic method. It concluded that even if evidence of the complete efficacy of homeopathy in the treatment of a single given patient were insufficient, “it was impossible that the clinical effects of the homeopathy were exclusively caused by a placebo effect”.
In August 2005, the weekly journal The Lancet published a new study4 (javascript:void();) on the effectiveness of homeopathy. In its editorial the journal drew some surprisingly controversial and unfavourable conclusions on homeopathy. It concerns an analysis which like the 3 previous meta-analyses concludes that homeopathic medicine is effective. However, to arrive at the opposite conclusion, the authors implicitly removed series of trials afterwards, retaining just 14 (8 on homeopathy) of the 220 initial trials (110 of which were on homeopathic medicine). In December 20055 (javascript:void();), The Lancet printed 4 letters from researches in response to this publication. The conclusions are that: 19% of the homeopathic trials and 8% of the allopathic trials are of the best quality; the 110 trials on homeopathic medicine show a positive treatment effect in relation to a placebo which is absolutely comparable to that shown by the trials on conventional medicines.
These meta-analyses highlight the perfectibility of the research conducted in homeopathy and the necessity of rigorously and systematically pursuing them. But they also show that the reliability of the testing to which homeopathy is already subjected is beyond doubt.
http://www.boiron.com/images/lire_rub_ocre_01.gifhttp://www.boiron.com/images/04_recherche_clinique_01b.jpg More : Meta-analyses: p.11-15 (http://www.boiron.com/download/04_recherche_homeo/P11_15_en.pdf)
(extract from the book "La recherche en homéopathie", coordination Doctor Philippe Belon, 2004)

[mahakala]

Kooky theories?

Yeah, real life experience is a kooky theory.

Trying to improve patient outcomes is a kooky theory.

[Admin]

Kooky theories?

Yeah, real life experience is a kooky theory.

No, 'real life' is what leads us to all sorts of false conclusions because we don't know how to assess things properly.

This 'you've got to try it for yourself' or 'I've seen it with my own eyes' approach is exactly how not to evaluate things. Especially complex things like medical interventions (!)

[mahakala]

Boy are you lost in space.

Seeing it again and again, under a variety of circumstances, does lead to certain conclusions about what works and doesn't work, and when, even if one is not sure why.

We are not talking about a person buying a homeopathic remedy over the counter, or going to see a classical homeopathist once or twice.

You seem to have the very much mistaken idea that homeopathy is used only by the uninformed and uneducated and those who don't know the pitfalls of subjective prejudice in the use of medicinal substances.

That is the farthest thing from the truth.

It is increasingly used under a variety of circumstances because it improves patient outcomes. That is the bottom line in healthcare.

I could in fact give you hundreds of examples but of course you are more informed than I am, so what's the point, eh?

And, I might add, perhaps you find that your dislike of homeopathy is more important than the health and well-being of others. If this was not the case, you would be advocating for the rational use of homeopathy as complimentary medicine alongside all the other forms of medicine that are out there.

After all, that is the way the world is going. Perhaps you were a luddite in past lives and are wanting to be left behind? ::)

[bobdezon]

I cannot believe that we have a practitioner of homeopathy telling you its bullshit and yet you still belive in its efficacy. You really are contrary to common sense. ::)

[mahakala]

You're such a mindfucker.

You put intepretations into other people's mouths so you can argue with them, discount them, and generally beat up on them. You've been playing that game for years.

So fuck off.

[Admin]

Do I spot an Argumentum ad Hominem? ;D

[bobdezon]

You're such a mindfucker.

You put intepretations into other people's mouths so you can argue with them, discount them, and generally beat up on them. You've been playing that game for years.

So fuck off.

I see? how exactly would you know Ive been "playing that game for years" Do you know me in real life perhaps?

Such an eloquent conversationalist, no wonder you are so popular at after dinner events. A veritable Oscar Wilde it would appear. ;D

[JJM]

No, 'real life' is what leads us to all sorts of false conclusions because we don't know how to assess things properly.

This 'you've got to try it for yourself' or 'I've seen it with my own eyes' approach is exactly how not to evaluate things. Especially complex things like medical interventions (!)Yes.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3144061#post3144061
The second Paragraph by fls:

It wasn't until we began to seriously consider the possibility that we were wrong, that we began to make progress.

[Mojo]

In less than one decade, the conclusions from meta-analyses involving homeopathy have convinced their authors of the acceptability of homeopathic clinical trials and their positive results.
Trial methods with recognised reliability
In 1991, a meta-analysis was published which involved the meticulous study of 107 trials. As regards methods used for the clinical evaluation, the conclusion was clear: “it is wrong to say that homeopathy has not been evaluated according to the modern method of controlled trials”. Among these clinical trials, a large majority (81 to be exact) has had positive results concerning the efficacy of homeopathic treatment.
This meta-analysis (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=1825800&ordinalpos=7&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum) actually concluded that "the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homoeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials".


A year later (1997), a study involving the analysis of 89 trials was published3 (javascript:void(0);) taking close account of the criteria specific to the homeopathic therapeutic method. It concluded that even if evidence of the complete efficacy of homeopathy in the treatment of a single given patient were insufficient, “it was impossible that the clinical effects of the homeopathy were exclusively caused by a placebo effect”.
Again, this one (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=9310601&ordinalpos=21&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum) concluded that "insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic." While they concluded that their analysis of the 89 trials was "not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo", a later study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=10391656&ordinalpos=19&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum) of the same data by a team including most of the same authors found that "there was clear evidence that studies with better methodological quality tended to yield less positive results". For some reason, while homeopaths are fond of citing the first study, they don't seem to mention the second one.


In August 2005, the weekly journal The Lancet published a new study4 (javascript:void();) on the effectiveness of homeopathy. In its editorial the journal drew some surprisingly controversial and unfavourable conclusions on homeopathy. It concerns an analysis which like the 3 previous meta-analyses concludes that homeopathic medicine is effective. However, to arrive at the opposite conclusion, the authors implicitly removed series of trials afterwards, retaining just 14 (8 on homeopathy) of the 220 initial trials (110 of which were on homeopathic medicine).
Note that the authors of the two meta analyses mentioned above called for more high-quality research. The authors of the 2005 papers concentrated on just that.

[bindeweede]

Dr Ben Goldacre's article today on the BadScience page is excellent, brilliant. And it's not just me saying so.

http://www.badscience.net/2007/11/a-kind-of-magic/#more-578

Also shocking the tricks some of the believers have tried.

[Admin]

Here's a nice little story demonstrating the efficacy of homeopathy: homeopathy for eczema (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/baby-death-call-for-homeopath-rules/2007/11/19/1195321684868.html).

This is what can happen when placebo treatments like homeopathy are used in place of real medical intervention. :sad:

[Matt]

So nobody can tell me where the information on my computer is stored?

I could give it a go, I am a qualified IT professional. But really why?


Interesting that you attack my anecdotes using anectodes.

Tu quoque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque). OK I'll agree anecdotal evidence is next to worthless. Lets ignore that then. What else you got?


I can tell by your rabid responses that really it all comes down to this, "I don't understand it so therefore it is bollocks."

That would be Argumentum ad ignorantiam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance) So lets ignore that. If Homeopathy can be proven to be more effective than a placebo a dilutions beyond the molar limit then clearly we should investigate further.

However a clear demonstration that the effects claimed for homeopathy are inconsistent with our knowledge of science should provoke investigations in both directions. If we are to suspect that there is something deficient with our understanding of the science involved shouldn't we also double check the claims themselves to see if they can be substantiated.


Or, "I don't like so it must be bollocks."

I don't see that argument being made. I guess it would be Argumentum ad Odium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_spite)


Or, "there are a bunch of prats using it so it must be bollocks."

Yes agreed, that would be a Genetic Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy)

However there's another argument you've missed out. the double blind clinical study. It proves that homeopathy is no better than a placebo.

Seriously if homeopathy were real then to tell the difference between a homeopathic preparation and plain water all we'd have to do is run a double blind trial. If there were a difference then it'd be apparent.

We can argue until we're blue in the face about molar limits and water memory but the facts are the facts. No-one can reliably tell homeopathic remedies from water through a simple double blind test. That's the facts as I see them.

So whilst others arguing against you may have included fallacies with their rhetoric they have also mentioned something very much not fallacious. The direct evidence that leads them to suspect that homeopathy is bollocks.

So lets ignore these red herrings and you can tell me why homeopathy fails to perform under double blind conditions.

Oh and your friend with arrhythmia, yes I will happily pass on my view of homeopathy to him. If he's happy taking it then all well and good but it should be no substitute for conventional tested medicine.


Of course millions of people are wrong. You handful are right.

Aha this one your fallacy I'm afraid. Argumentum ad populum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum)

[Cuddles]

However there's another argument you've missed out. the double blind clinical study. It proves that homeopathy is no better than a placebo.

The really fun part is that the double blind placebo controlled trial was in fact invented mainly because of homeopathy. Medicine around that time wasn't really much good, with many practices, such as bloodletting, actually being much more harmful than not doing anything. Homeopathy was just one nutty idea among many, but people noticed that it often seemed better than other treatments, despite it not actually containing anything. This made them realise that not doing anything, or even better not doing anything but pretending you have, is what medical practice should be compared against, rather than just making crap up. Homeopathy failed this straight off, since there was no difference between giving people water with nothing in it and giving people water with nothing in it. However, as a direct result of this, medicine left the world of quackery and entered the world of science.

[jdc]

Dr Ben Goldacre's article today on the BadScience page is excellent, brilliant. And it's not just me saying so.

http://www.badscience.net/2007/11/a-kind-of-magic/#more-578

Also shocking the tricks some of the believers have tried.

Yep, the Bad Science article was great. BTW - Did you see that the Daily Mail had bought the Guardian article?

Some new blogs have sprung up in defence of homeopathy now. They're listed in my latest blog post (shameless plug, I know) and by others including Gimpy (who, as usual, was way ahead of me on this one).

http://jdc325.wordpress.com/2007/11/29/did-you-just-call-me-a-cult/

http://gimpyblog.wordpress.com/2007/11/26/homeopath-bloggers/

[mesaysi]

All she's basically saying is that science shows that it doesn't work yet some people believe it works for them (they perceive a benefit).

That's a pretty good description of a placebo treatment!

Anyone with a smidgeon of rationality can see it for what it is. ::)

I used to use St John's Wort on my bed ridden mother during her especially bad days. She suffered from depression (obviously be stuck in bed non-stop) she never knew that I slipped it in her food. On those days she was quite a bit happier.
Now how can that be a placebo if she was unaware of what was happening? I don't claim to know what I'm talking about but I do wonder how that would have worked since she did not know.


I know I stuck my nose in the middle of a discussion and I'm sorry to all for that.

[Admin]

I used to use St John's Wort on my bed ridden mother during her especially bad days. She suffered from depression (obviously be stuck in bed non-stop) she never knew that I slipped it in her food. On those days she was quite a bit happier.
Now how can that be a placebo if she was unaware of what was happening? I don't claim to know what I'm talking about but I do wonder how that would have worked since she did not know.


I know I stuck my nose in the middle of a discussion and I'm sorry to all for that.

St. John's Wort isn't homeopathy!

[mesaysi]

St. John's Wort isn't homeopathy!

Sorry...when I looked it up it was under that category. :-[

[Admin]

Sorry...when I looked it up it was under that category. :-[

There's a lot of confusion between homeopathy and herbal remedies.

St. John's Wort does actually work but it's a herbal remedy. O0

[mesaysi]

There's a lot of confusion between homeopathy and herbal remedies.

St. John's Wort does actually work but it's a herbal remedy. O0

Okay, that does make me me feel a little less stupid. Thank you for clearing that up for me.

[Mojo]

There's a lot of confusion between homeopathy and herbal remedies.

St. John's Wort does actually work but it's a herbal remedy.

It works, but, like any medication that actually has any effect, can also interact with other medicines being taken, so it's not a good idea to give it to someone without their or their doctor's knowledge.

[Mongrel]

Was the depression diagnosed? If it wasn't that serious (clinically speaking) you may also have seen regression to the mean.

[Cuddles]

It works, but, like any medication that actually has any effect, can also interact with other medicines being taken, so it's not a good idea to give it to someone without their or their doctor's knowledge.

In fact, I believe St. John's Wort is known to have several dangerous interactions with some common medications, and is really not a good thing to be taking without advice, especially if the person does not even know they are taking it.

Mesaysi, medicating someone without them even knowing, let alone giving their consent, is one of the worst things you can possibly do.

[mesaysi]

In fact, I believe St. John's Wort is known to have several dangerous interactions with some common medications, and is really not a good thing to be taking without advice, especially if the person does not even know they are taking it.

Mesaysi, medicating someone without them even knowing, let alone giving their consent, is one of the worst things you can possibly do.

She almost NEVER went to the doctor. I was brought up doing everything at home. When she did go to the doctor it was them trying to tell her a bunch of bull I won't get into right now. And I never gave her St.John's Wort while she was on any other meds.

Now as for a teenage daughter trying to help her mother through unimaginable pain and depression...well I couldn't car less who thinks it was wrong. It helped her to some degree and that is all that matters to me.

Cuddles, you didn't hear the screams of pain, you didn't sit up night after night trying to console a dying woman. I won't go on. I'm sure I've said too much as it is.

[mesaysi]

Cuddles,

I am sorry I went off on you like that. You touched a very sensitive nerve. But you didn't know, and I feel horrible for yelling at you like that. It was undeserved.

[jdc]

Link for info on SJW - http://nccam.nih.gov/health/stjohnswort/