My therapist has beliefs I can't agree with

Arnica? That's helped me some, too.

Yes. Based on what I have read, that seems like one of the most successful from the homeopathic remedies. I find it hard to imagine it's just placebo and there is nothing in it, especially because when I started on the recommended dosage, it upset my stomach and I had to reduce the dose somewhat. I doubt that I just imagined that effect.

I use an arnica-based topical cream sometimes as it helps with certain types of pain.

I don't think arnica is homeopathy as it's just a flower with anti-nflammatory properties.. Sometimes it seems homeopathy and alternative medicine are being used interchangeably?

The seperation of medicine does boggle my mind. Look at the properties of the poppy flower. Many flowers have medicinal uses, and arnica is just another. Chamomile, lavendar...

No one wants to research things that aren't related to patents and don't have potential to make money, particularly in the United States. In Germany, St. John's Wort is the first line antidepressant prescribed, and there are many research studies on its effectiveness. That somehow Zoloft is considered evidence-based in the US but St. John's Wort is not really has little to do with science and such conclusions seem absurd to me.

I also think think things like poppy flowers and cannibus plants are regulated to control money that can be made. I first was suprised CBD oil hasn't been banned and health food stores haven't been raided to confiscate the CBD oil that contains traces of THC but have concluded times are changing, and since people have more access to information, public expectations and demands have changed.

Isn't this similar to how vaccines work, where a small amount of pathogen is used to trigger a response in the immune system?

That's how I thought homeopathy works too. I tried homeopathy once like 10 years ago and am not a big fan, but it sounds to me that vaccines are a form of homeopathy.

Do you or anyone know what the protocol is for making and releasing herbal or homeopathic things like vitamins or supplements to the public and the claims that they make?

Quote:

Originally Posted by octoberful I use an arnica-based topical cream sometimes as it helps with certain types of pain. I don't think arnica is homeopathy as it's just a flower with anti-nflammatory properties.. Sometimes it seems homeopathy and alternative medicine are being used interchangeably? The seperation of medicine does boggle my mind. Look at the properties of the poppy flower. Many flowers have medicinal uses, and arnica is just another. Chamomile, lavendar... No one wants to research things that aren't related to patents and don't have potential to make money, particularly in the United States. In Germany, St. John's Wort is the first line antidepressant prescribed, and there are many research studies on its effectiveness. That somehow Zoloft is considered evidence-based in the US but St. John's Wort is not really has little to do with science and such conclusions seem absurd to me. I also think think things like poppy flowers and cannibus plants are regulated to control money that can be made. I first was suprised CBD oil hasn't been banned and health food stores haven't been raided to confiscate the CBD oil that contains traces of THC but have concluded times are changing, and since people have more access to information, public expectations and demands have changed.

I think there's something about how they can't make medical claims? Like they couldn't say, "Cures strep throat!" They could say something like, "May be able to help with sore throat symptoms." Ah, looking at a box of a supplement here, it has a boxed disclaimer saying "These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease."

But the issue here is not whether there are more ways to treat illnesses than western medicine will admit to or understands or envisions.
The issue, as I understood it was whether one would hire a therapist who holds different beliefs than one holds. The one I hired way back when I was in my 20s, was into native american spirituality stuff and liked going to sweat lodges etc. Not my thing, but it made no difference to what I did in her office. The two women I hired this time I tried therapy, both ascribed to a religion (one was jewish and one was christian scientist or exploring it)- and I am completely a-religious/agnostic leaning to complete atheist. But their belief in a god had no bearing on me or the usefulness or lack of usefulness of therapy for me, despite the lack of scientific proof of any god's existence.
Other people believe in all sorts of things I don't or engage in activities I would not and so forth. Therapy is already woowoo and completely goofy. As long as the therapist isn't trying to make you believe it or take part in it - what concrete difference about therapy does it make to you in terms of what you are hiring a therapist to do? But at the same time, if a therapist has beliefs that disturb you or a haircut that you don't like or furniture you think is too cold etc - why not find one more to your liking if it is going to be a sticking point? I don't think it matters the actual sticking point if there is one that is sticky enough - a new therapist would seem to be easy enough to find.

I learned a lot from a T that seemed in every way a bad fit. He worked thru a Church which not only was I not a member but on the other side of the world from my philosophical beliefs. No choice. A big caveat...T never pushed his *beliefs*, was comfortable working with someone that didn't share his or the Churche's, accepted no for an answer. No was a big thing I learned to say. I always explained my no. He did at times push his educational know-how. He was a well trained, educated, respected in his field professional. That was the reason I stayed with him. We could work together. That's the bottom line, I guess. There has to be working rapport & mutual respect.

No, not at all. Vaccines and homeopathy aren't at all the same, though I can see why you might think so given how you've described them.

With homeopathy, the way they claim it works is that diluting something literally makes it stronger. So say you take a drop of some curative substance and put it in a glass of water, and then give someone a tablespoon of that water to help with what ails them. A homeopath would say that it's more powerful if instead you take that tablespoon from that glass, mix it into a swimming pool, and then give the sick person a tablespoon of the water from the swimming pool. Or even better yet, take the tablespoon from the swimming pool and add it to a different swimming pool, and give someone a tablespoon of that... and you can keep on that chain forever.

The end result is that many homeopathic remedies don't contain even a single molecule of the substance they're labeled as. So homeopathic arnica might have a picture of a lovely plant on the container, but in reality not one molecule of the stuff in that container has anything to do with that plant.

With vaccines, in contrast, the goal is to create the immune response but not harm the person. So the pathogen is weakened (killed or attenuated), not because it paradoxically makes it stronger, but because the weakened version strikes the balance we're looking for--it's capable of creating a strong enough immune reaction to protect the person later on from the actual pathogen, but weak enough for the vaccine itself to not hurt them.

This is what I meant above when I said there must have been something in the Arnica that I was taking given that I sensed an effect. There is also the part in homeopathic medicine that claims if an otherwise toxic substance is diluted that much, it will actually have the opposite effect and eliminate what higher doses cause.

I do understand the clash or values though when someone feels quite strongly about something another person does not, and vice versa. After all, compatible basic values are very important in all relationships and incompatible values often cause the failure of a specific interpersonal combo. I think the latter type of incompatibility was actually what caused escalating conflicts and eventually the so-called rupture without repair with my first T. And Ts often interpret that sort of thing as negative transference, which is incorrect IMO.

I don't get worked up about compatible values with others in real life with real people. I have strong opinions about any number of things but as long as someone else isn't trying to fob theirs off on me, I am willing to let them have whatever crazy ideas they want. I don't usually care about whether someone's values align with mine. I know what mine are and don't care what someone else's are. I have been good friends with people whose politics are as far from my own as possible for example.
So, to me, because I wouldn't care with a real person, I certainly wouldn't with a therapist.

I think the majority is not that open-minded. People judge and extrapolate. I think what I bolded above is important - many therapists impose their beliefs (explaining the client's symptoms with stuff that fits in their pet theories, for example) on clients even if they do not fit.

Is marijuana and CBD oil considered homeopathic?

If so, I'm all for it!

I'd rather treat chronic pain issues with something natural than to use some chemical concoction thrown together in a supposedly sterile lab.

Of course, I'll have to wait until I retire to reap the benefits of medical marijuana and CBD oils.

Something about passing random drug tests at work!

No, marijuana and CBD are not unless someone comes up with a super low dose, homeopathic formula if these. The evolution of cannabis strains is going in the opposite direction.

There are THC free cbd oils. Get the sort that say thc free (don't get full spectrum)

I can definitely understand and respect that perspective. For me, there are many beliefs where it wouldn't matter if mine clashed with my therapist's (religion, opinions on art and literature, views on economic policy...) but also some where a significant clash would be a dealbreaker (homophobia, certain areas of biomedical ethics). And some in a grey area. A strong belief in homeopathy to the point of actively practicing it and recommending it to patients/clients would to me raise questions about whether this person can understand my worldview well enough to be an effective therapist for me.

But if I'd already decided based on our interactions that they were otherwise trustworthy and had acceptable judgment, then maybe I would decide a belief in homeopathy didn't matter. Though I'd still probably worry in that case that they might recommend homeopathy to me down the line, in which case all hell would probably break loose.

Would it be different than any other recommendation a therapist might make that one had no intention of following or trying?

No, but for me that cuts both ways... It would be like any other recommendation they might make that I had no intention of following but that nonetheless might make me think they were startlingly stupid, irresponsible, or just daft, in a way that would lead me to cease considering them useful.

Ok, thanks. I thought the concept was that diluting the substance results in more powerful therapeutic effect rather than making the substance itself stronger, which seems in line with allergy shots or vaccines.

I'm an out of the box type of thinker so the concept itself doesn't seem outrageous. (Of course i am not saying anyone who doesn't believe in something is not an out of the box type of thinker.) In nanotechnology, substances are manipulated at the atomic and molecular level in a way that actually makes the substance stronger in some cases, which would have seemed crazy to anyone years ago.

Years ago, I felt ripped off after trying homeopathic medicine. I also purchased a remedy that I now know is completely bogus. I was surprised that the practitioner that practiced that way was also a licensed pharmacist. Saw him twice. Some will try to squeeze as much money out of sick people as they can whether it be allopathic or homeopathic or chiropractic, etc.

I'm in the camp that my Ts beliefs would impact my decision whether or not to see him, so I can relate to the OPs concerns. My Ts beliefs in certain things would lead me to question if my T was crazy at worst; at best, it would diminish his credibility.

No, if giving a smaller dose of a vaccine were just as effective (let alone more effective), then we would give a smaller dose! With vaccines, the aim is the smallest amount that's still effective at stimulating the necessary immune response. Completely different than homeopathy. With allergy shots, the dose starts off very small and builds as the immune system habituates to larger and larger amounts without setting off a severe reaction. So the opposite of homeopathy.