I FULLY believe that just because we don't understand something or haven't seen it, it can still exist. But the fact is that water or any molecule cannot "remember" what a molecule looks like or can retain its "energy" to perform the same effect that the drug does. We DO know how water works, and it cannot behave the way homeopathy believers say it does. So, based purely on science, homeopathy can do no better than a placebo. Sure, an article may have evidence saying otherwise, but ask yourself if this article was written by researchers, what year was it written, what methods did they use, did they have any controls, did bias seem to exist in either the researchers or the participants? That last one is a huge problem. A scientist cannot carry out an experiment with the goal of proving something works; the goal of an experiment is never to PROVE or DISPROVE. If this is their approach, serious bias is introduced, and the results become absolutely meaningless because data has been twisted around to suit someone's ulterior desires. There is a reason that science journals exist: every article submitted has to go through intense scrutiny and testing by other research groups before it's approved for publication for the entire scientific community. Articles generally take months, even years, before publication because of this.

And if you find something outside of accepted science that works for you, go ahead and use it. I'm just really dismissive of companies that use pseudo-science to cheat people out of their hard-earned money. As paying customers, we should be very well-informed about what things we're spending our money on, and homeopathy is one of the things I believe innocent people are being cheated on because there are no science journal articles that make homeopathy to be anything more than the placebo effect.

I have not tried the protocol, nor do I intend to. Most of the protocols I have seen on this thread list very low calorie intakes (500 to 1000). Low calorie intake alone will make you lose weight, so there're no need to introduce placebos or hormones to facilitate "fat movement." Weight loss is only calories ingested - calories burned. As long as you get a negative number, you lose weight. And it's not "modern medicine" to say that someone should eat less and move around more. This has been the way to lose weight for as long as life has existed because it's the healthy and natural way that this occurs. Why try to make it harder on yourself by messing with your hormones or severely lowering your calorie intake (and therefore your energy level) just to lose some pounds?

Always remember: people will say anything to take your money away, even at your health's expense. So I'm a strong advocate for consumer knowledge. Find out what you're paying someone for and what you're doing to yourself before you hand over your money and inject yourself with a substance you don't know much about. Know the science, know the manufacturer, read the journal articles, and ask the pharmacist or doctor or researcher what they know; after all, he or she has been going to school specifically to master science and understand how it works. With the internet at your fingertips, it is incredibly easy to get all the answers and all the facts you need before buying into someone's lie. Take advantage of this before you let someone else take advantage of you.

lol. I'm well aware of how studies work. And yes, there are modern, peer reviewed studies that did find that beyond all comprehension homeopathic medicine worked.

Here's an excerpt that talks about the Swiss Government's findings:


"In late 2011, the Swiss government's report on homeopathic medicine represents the most comprehensive evaluation of homeopathic medicine ever written by a government and was just published in book form in English (Bornhoft and Matthiessen, 2011). This breakthrough report affirmed that homeopathic treatment is both effective and cost-effective and that homeopathic treatment should be reimbursed by Switzerland's national health insurance program.

The Swiss government's inquiry into homeopathy and complementary and alternative (CAM) treatments resulted from the high demand and widespread use of alternatives to conventional medicine in Switzerland, not only from consumers but from physicians as well. Approximately half of the Swiss population have used CAM treatments and value them. Further, about half of Swiss physicians consider CAM treatments to be effective. Perhaps most significantly, 85 percent of the Swiss population wants CAM therapies to be a part of their country's health insurance program.

It is therefore not surprising that more than 50 percent of the Swiss population surveyed prefer a hospital that provides CAM treatments rather to one that is limited to conventional medical care.

Beginning in 1998, the government of Switzerland decided to broaden its national health insurance to include certain complementary and alternative medicines, including homeopathic medicine, traditional Chinese medicine, herbal medicine, anthroposophic medicine, and neural therapy. This reimbursement was provisional while the Swiss government commissioned an extensive study on these treatments to determine if they were effective and cost-effective. The provisional reimbursement for these alternative treatments ended in 2005, but as a result of this new study, the Swiss government's health insurance program once again began to reimburse for homeopathy and select alternative treatments. In fact, as a result of a national referendum in which more than two-thirds of voters supported the inclusion of homeopathic and select alternative medicines in Switzerland's national health care insurance program, the field of complementary and alternative medicine has become a part of this government's constitution (Dacey, 2009; Rist, Schwabl, 2009).

The Swiss Government's "Health Technology Assessment"

The Swiss government's "Health Technology Assessment" on homeopathic medicine is much more comprehensive than any previous governmental report written on this subject to date. Not only did this report carefully and comprehensively review the body of evidence from randomized double-blind and placebo controlled clinical trials testing homeopathic medicines, they also evaluated the "real world effectiveness" as well as safety and cost-effectiveness. The report also conducted a highly-comprehensive review of the wide body of preclinical research (fundamental physio-chemical research, botanical studies, animal studies, and in vitro studies with human cells).

And still further, this report evaluated systematic reviews and meta-analyses, outcome studies, and epidemiological research. This wide review carefully evaluated the studies conducted, both in terms of quality of design and execution (called "internal validity") and how appropriate each was for the way that homeopathy is commonly practiced (called "external validity"). The subject of external validity is of special importance because some scientists and physicians conduct research on homeopathy with little or no understanding of this type of medicine (some studies tested a homeopathic medicine that is rarely used for the condition tested, while others utilized medicines not commonly indicated for specific patients). When such studies inevitably showed that the homeopathic medicine did not "work," the real and accurate assessment must be that the studies were set up to disprove homeopathy... or simply, the study was an exploratory trial that sought to evaluate the results of a new treatment (exploratory trials of this nature are not meant to prove or disprove the system of homeopathy but only to evaluate that specific treatment for a person with a specific condition).

After assessing pre-clinical basic research and the high quality clinical studies, the Swiss report affirmed that homeopathic high-potencies seem to induce regulatory effects (e.g., balancing or normalizing effects) and specific changes in cells or living organisms. The report also reported that 20 of the 22 systematic reviews of clinical research testing homeopathic medicines detected at least a trend in favor of homeopathy.* (Bornhöft, Wolf, von Ammon, et al, 2006)

The Swiss report found a particularly strong body of evidence to support the homeopathic treatment of Upper Respiratory Tract Infections and Respiratory Allergies. The report cited 29 studies in "Upper Respiratory Tract Infections/AllergicReactions," of which 24 studies found a positive result in favor of homeopathy. Further, six out of seven controlled studies that compared homeopathic treatment with conventional medical treatment showed that homeopathy to be more effective than conventional medical interventions (the one other trial found homeopathic treatment to be equivalent to conventional medical treatment). All of these results from homeopathic treatment came without the side effects common to conventional drug treatment. In evaluating only the randomized placebo controlled trials, 12 out of 16 studies showed a positive result in favor of homeopathy."

Of course no one is asking you to do so, just asking if you had. And actually the evidence is showing, with increasing regularity that it is not a matter of calories in vs. calories burned. It is patently false that that formula will result in weight loss for everyone. Otherwise counting calories would work universally, which it does not. It does seem that the quality of calories consumed (nutrient density) plays in quite a bit.

I will agree that a restricted calorie, nutrient dense diet that is inherently low in carbs, adequate in protein and free of refined foods will likely get a good result with or without "placebo." The nice thing about this protocol is that it produces results that are reproducible, quick and confidence boosting. Once someone feels what it's like to eat "clean" and lose inflammation there is more incentive to keep doing so.

Isn't it great there are so many paths to wellness and that we CAN all be informed consumers?

My sister and her fiance are doing this through a doctor. 3 weeks and she has already lost 22 lb. She's doing injections though, and I cannot find anywhere to buy injections online.

She does feel better, both she and I have Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. I also have MS, and fibromyalga, although I wonder if the fibro dx was in error and it was MS all along. Anyhow, I am definitely going to try the diet even if I can't get the injections as it sounds as though it will help my autoimmune disorders.

If anyone has injections, please let me know where to get them.

Thanks,
Suz

Starting hcg injections (again) as soon as they get here. Should be here in a few days! I'll keep you guys posted.

I started again, drops this time. Today is my first VLCD day. Funny how, since Christmas I've weaned myself of sugar and the chocolate coffee drinks I love and have not had cravings for them for months-I had my husband get me a reese's pb cup the other day and it was just plain awful tasting. So, now that I KNOW I can't have that stuff, that's all I've been thinking about today. My first day!! Gah.

lol! I know that feeling. Good luck gals! Enjoy the journey!

some good clinical info about the benefits of calorie restriction:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1318480/?tool=pubmed


and the anti-inflammatory benefits when you do:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19103747

Yesterday sucked. I going to go thru my old posts and find the ones from this thread so I can read how it went the first time I did it. It was over 1 1/2 years ago so it's hard to remember. I think the first three days blew and then I was ok. But I seem to remember feeling better on the 2nd day b/c I'd lost a few pounds-this morning it was only .6, and granted that's better than nothing but I was hoping for more.

It's also about the inches lost, not just the pounds . Hang in there, packrat!