Degrees in homeopathy slated as unscientific

106 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Sat, 2007-03-24 09:47

N.R.KISSED

quote:

Sure it's absurd, if you're just hurling around vacuous rhetoric. But what happens when you need to invoke evidence? Stress aggravates symptoms of all kinds of physical conditions, and it can inhibit people taking proper health measures. But all the old "theories" (stress "causing" ulcers, miscarriages, allergies, IBD, breast cancer, heartburn, hypertension, Tourette's, acne, infertility, schizophrenia, MS, eczema, etc. etc. etc.) have been debunked and buried, one after another, with the advance of scientific research and knowledge. And, not so coincidentally, the success rate in treating and/or curing many conditions has advanced as well - once the hocus-pocus is deleted.

A couple of things are becoming increasingly clear
A)you don't possess any systematic manner of assessing empirical resulst. I guess maybe you consult the Tarot to determine which scientific results to believe or maybe you just read popular science.
B)You have a rather simplified and linear understanding of causality. There is rarely if ever a single cause in the etiology or expression of any disease process. You fail even to realize that your own statements contradict each other claiming that stress "aggravates symptoms" symptoms but has no causal role in the expression of a disease process. Disease is not a singular isolated event, with a singular isolated cause or cure. It is well established that psychoemotional factors play a prominent role in the both the mediation and expression of disease. That is a central premise behind the fields of neuroimmunology and neuroendocrinology.

Your general hypothesis appears to be

A)physiology operates in isolation of any interactions with social, psychologicl or even physical elements of environment.

Therefore psychoemotional factors have no or little impact on physiology, health or well-being and there are no social determinants of health.

Sorry to break it to you Dr. Science but emotional and cognitive processes are an inseparable component of human physiology and are henceforth inextripably connected any physiological proess.

As Hans Seyle demonstrated any organism under severe prolonged stress will experience break downs in essential physiological mechanisms of homestatic regulation and will eventually die. There are countless human and animal studies that verify this.

Sat, 2007-03-24 09:52

#53

Unionist

quote:

Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
[b]I've never claimed homeopathy works by the mechanisms claimed. I did question the irrational hysteria around it's harmfulness.[/b]

Homeopathy is as harmless as sitting in a rocking chair reading a newspaper.

Unless you're missing your colonoscopy appointment at that very moment.

Homeopathy is as harmless as praying to God to cure you.

Unless you are doing so in preference to seeking medical advice.

Homeopathy won't kill you. Neither will religion. Nor will the Tooth Fairy. But they will all make you a lesser (and in some cases sicker) human being.

quote:

It was never my intention to defend homeopathy, it has been my intention to encourage some critical awareness and examine underlying assumptions that lead to sloppy reasoning.

I agree with encouraging critical skepticism in place of blind faith in approaching science and other received truths, most of which require some element of indirect experience in order to appreciate. But a very ineffective way to encourage such critical awareness, in my humble opinion, is to lend the slightest credence whatsoever to bullshit medicine or other superstitions.

Sat, 2007-03-24 09:56

#54

Unionist

quote:

Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
[b]
Sorry to break it to you Dr. Science but emotional and cognitive processes are an inseparable component of human physiology and are henceforth inextripably connected any physiological proess.[/b]

I'm not sure why you're getting personal and calling me names, but let's assume you are capable of writing more briefly and answering a question I posed earlier:

[b][i]EVIDENCE???[/i][/b]

Sat, 2007-03-24 09:59

#55

TemporalHominid TemporalHominid's picture

quote:

Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]Why don't we abandon the thread topic altogether and just talk about all the pseudoscientific nonsense in the world that passes for "alternative" medicine?
Let's see now. We've done homeopathy. Likewise psychotherapy. TCM was dispatched without a fight.
Next we could tackle:
Aromatherapy
Colonics
Ear-candling
Faith healing
Iridology
Magnet therapy
Orgone therapy
Reiki
Rolfing®
Therapeutic Touch
Urine therapy[/b]

I think what the problem is, people will admit for example "I like physical contact with human beings", and then some smooth talker will say, "well have I got a product for you! For 4 easy payments of $67.99 I have a Therapeutic Touch program that will heal all that ails you. Pharmacists and scientists and governments and doctors have conspired to keep this information away from you! They don't want you to be healthy. Oh, and I have some therapeutic magnets too. Scientists don't want you to know about magnets. Your's for only $300 dollars each."

Sometimes when I hear these claims, I want to buy some cheap fridge magnets and start a business of massaging people with my hands and magnets for $200 dollars a session. Then I remember that I have a responsibility to my fellow humans not to bullshit them into spending cash on crap that won't help them.

These alternative medicine schemes are not harmless, especially when their proponents are lobbying governments to include health coverage for these "treatments". People pursue courses of treatment that do not stand up to scientific robustness.
$300 dollars spent on a magnet to heal a foot sprain could have been spent on a $17 dollar neoprene compressor bandage and purchasing access to a public pool to exercise to strengthen the foot. A magnet therapy program will leave a person vulnerable to more injury, maybe even end up with surgery, and affect their quality of life and independence. These alternative medicine schemes are expensive and the potential to do harm is great.

[ 24 March 2007: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]

Sat, 2007-03-24 10:22

#56

TemporalHominid TemporalHominid's picture

quote:

Originally posted by Albireo:
[b]Much about dilution in this extremely skeptical article about homeopathy...
[url=http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.html]Homeopathy: the ultimate fake[/url].[/b]

it always amazes me, how often this evidence is posted and linked to by others and by myself, and it is ignored over and over again. Thanks Albireo for posting this information. I fear though that the evidence will be ignored again.

I find it funny that there are not enough water molecules on earth to fill a homeopath bottle or gel tablet with the indicated diluted concentration, yet people will still buy the homeopathic remedy.
The dilution processes are time consuming and costly, attributing to the expenisve price tag of the remedy.

15ml Liquid Dilutions Agnus Castus 30X, costs $8.99. Angus Castus allegedly alleviates cold testicles. I am advised by my homeopathic retailer to apply this to my testicles every day for 90 days.

There are not enough molecules on earth to dilute Agnus Castus 30x, but the claim is the essence of Agnus Castus will alleviate my cold testicles. I have to apply this liberally to my scrotum so over a 90 day period I will need about one dozen bottles. The cost: $114.35 after gst, not including shipping.

Meanwhile, I am (unknowingly) developing testicular cancer which I have not gotten checked because of the advice of my homeopathic retailer. 90 days later my cancer has progressed, and possibly spread to other tisses and organs.

I finally go see an oncologist many months later after being referred by my family doctor, and I tell my homeopathic retailer about the development. The retailer say, "oh if you had only applied it every day and believed in the power of the product you would have been fine."

[ 24 March 2007: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]

Sat, 2007-03-24 11:06

#57

CMOT Dibbler

quote:

Homeopathy won't kill you.

Actually, I think it might depending on what products the homeopath in question stocks.

quote:

Neither will religion.

Again it might, but only if your paticularly fanatical about it.

quote:

Nor will the Tooth Fairy.

Your right about that.

quote:

But they will all make you a lesser (and in some cases sicker) human being.

But couldn't a placebo affect be useful?

Doesn't how you feel have some effect on how you heal?

[ 24 March 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

Sat, 2007-03-24 11:13

#58

N.R.KISSED

quote:

I'm not sure why you're getting personal and calling me names, but let's assume you are capable of writing more briefly and answering a question I posed earlier:

Well I apologize if calling you Dr. Science caused you undue distress but your circular reasoning is somewhat frustrating.

quote:

EVIDENCE???

So you have evidence that thinking and feeling are not physiological processes? That's interesting. You also have evidence that these physiological processes have no impact on other physiological processes? An interesting hypothesis that cognitive and emotional process have no impact on the central nervous system.

quote:

Unless you're missing your colonoscopy appointment at that very moment.

If your choosing not to do a colonoscopy whether it is because you are visiting a homeopath or dancing the Hootche Kootch. It is the choice not to have a colonoscopy that is dangerous not the homeopath or the Hootche Kootch.

quote:

I agree with encouraging critical skepticism in place of blind faith in approaching science and other received truths, most of which require some element of indirect experience in order to appreciate. But a very ineffective way to encourage such critical awareness, in my humble opinion, is to lend the slightest credence whatsoever to bullshit medicine or other superstitions.

Firstly I have not seen any evidence of a critical enquiry into the methods and claims of science.
Nor when it comes down to it a convincing arguent on how you personally determine what constitutes good science vs. bad science or good evidence or bad evidence. You will pardon my ignornace but your posting EVIDENCE in big letters didn't really didn't clarify it for me.
So how do you determine the truth what makes you choose one authority over another, is it the reputation of the journal, is it the reputation of the scientist, because unfortunately ultimately I'm not in the position to gather and analyze all the data and even when you do specialize in an area you realize their are limits to the amount you can research and analyze. You also become aware that there are often within disciplines competing theories and alternate explanations and vast unchartered territories. Yet it seems to me that to both you and M. Spectre it is preferable to ignore these uncertainties and instead make false claims of absolute certainty. THe end result is that all similar discourses result in any speculation/disclipline outside a rather narrow materialistic, mechanistic reductionism gets dismissed by your intellectual authoritarianism. IF you believe this makes you a better person so be it I will stick to speculation and uncertainty.

Sat, 2007-03-24 11:31

#59

TemporalHominid TemporalHominid's picture

Homeopathy provides no greater understanding of the nature of health and disease, where as science based medicine does provide greater understanding.

Scientific process aims to disprove an hypothesis. The hypothesis must be falsifiable, and the procedure repeatable. Therefore medical practices are always under scrutiny, peer reviewed and challenged daily. When an hypothesis doesn't stand up to robust data collected, a new hypothesis is formed and tested.

Does Homeopathy do this? The short answer is no.

Homeopathy is stagnant. The extraordinary claims of homeopathy are also falsifiable by doing properly controlled trial methods. Homeopaths try to defend their art from this scrutiny by claiming it is outside the scope of objective methods.

[ 24 March 2007: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]

Sat, 2007-03-24 11:48

#60

N.R.KISSED

quote:

But couldn't a placebo affect be useful?
Doesn't how you feel have some effect on how you heal

Placebo is actually a psychological effect by which expectation in the efficacy of a given treatment actually promotes,healing, symptom reduction ,well-being or however you wish to define health.

Sat, 2007-03-24 11:52

#61

Unionist

quote:

Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
[b]
So how do you determine the truth what makes you choose one authority over another, [/b]

Double blind trials. Lots of them. Oh, and no yapping about "God" and "faith".

quote:

If your choosing not to do a colonoscopy whether it is because you are visiting a homeopath or dancing the Hootche Kootch. It is the choice not to have a colonoscopy that is dangerous not the homeopath or the Hootche Kootch.

Yes, that's what I said. Is there an echo in here? I guess the main difference is that dancing the Hootchie Kootchie doesn't involve a belief system that "allopathic" medicine is harmful and fraudulent - which homeopathy does. So homeopathy is dangerous and harmful only in that it turns people's brains to mush and switches off their normal rational sense of self-preservation.

[ 24 March 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

Sat, 2007-03-24 11:58

#62

Unionist

quote:

Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
[b]But couldn't a placebo affect be useful?
Doesn't how you feel have some effect on how you heal?
[/b]

Maybe, but it's not homeopathy that does that. In fact, if you hear the evidence and start seeing that homeopathy is bunkum, then even the placebo effect would disappear, right? So the only way homeopathy can work is on ignoramuses.

Great system.

Sat, 2007-03-24 12:05

#63

N.R.KISSED

quote:

Double blind trials. Lots of them. Oh, and no yapping about "God" and "faith".

So do you conduct these double blind studies yourself? Or are you placing your faith in some higher authority?

Sat, 2007-03-24 12:51

#64

Bubbles

quote:

My Bell's palsy was cured in two weeks with prednisone.

(M.Spector)

quote:

Long-term use of prednisone could cost you the health of your bones.
If you have IBD, your doctor has probably prescribed steroids such as prednisone to decrease inflammation during an acute flare-up. The common side effects of steroids range from annoying to debilitating but they will go away when the dosage is tapered down and discontinued. However, many people who are prescribed steroids for an inflammatory condition are not aware of the potentially serious and permanent effects that can occur with high dosages and/or prolonged use. One of these conditions is steroid-induced osteoporosis.

[url=http://ibdcrohns.about.com/cs/prednisone/a/steroideffects.htm]One of the side effects.[/url]

quote:

The following side effects are common (occurring in greater than 30%) for patients taking Liquid Pred:
Increased appetite
Irritability
Difficulty sleeping (insomnia)
Swelling in your ankles and feet (fluid retention).
Nausea, take with food.
Heartburn.
Muscle weakness.
Impaired wound healing.
Increased blood sugar levels. (Persons with Diabetes may need to have blood sugar levels monitored more closely and possible adjustments to diabetes medications).
The following are less common side effects (occurring in 10 to 29%) for patients receiving Liquid Pred:
Headaches
Dizziness
Mood swings
Cataracts and bone thinning (with long-term use).
This list includes common and less common side effects for individuals taking prednisone. Side effects that are very rare, occurring in less than 10% of patients, are not listed here. However, you should always inform your health care provider if you experience any unusual symptoms.

[url=http://www.chemocare.com/bio/liquid_pred.asp]Predisone side effects[/url]

[url=http://moon.ouhsc.edu/jgeorge/Crystal.htm]A predisone tragedy[/url]

quote:

Side Effects of Prednisone
The most commonly encountered side effects are:
Sodium retention
Increased appetite
Increased fat deposits
Increased acid in your stomach
Increased sweating, especially at night
Increased hair growth
Acne on the face, back, and chest
Bone and muscle problems
Growth problems in children
Eye problems
Increased sugar in the blood
Increased sensitivity to the sun
Delayed wound healing
Decreased ability to fight infection
Thrush (Candida) growth in the mouth

[url=http://www.transweb.org/reference/articles/drugs/pred.html]Want to go on?[/url]

[url=http://www.life.ca/nl/82/drugs.html]And where do all these drugs end up? In your drinking and bath water.[/url]

Sat, 2007-03-24 12:53

#65

Unionist

quote:

Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
[b]
So do you conduct these double blind studies yourself? Or are you placing your faith in some higher authority?[/b]

I used to have debates like this when I was 14 years old:

"Did World War II actually happen? How do we know, we weren't there? Maybe all these books are lying? Does the world exist? Really? Maybe everything that looks "red" to everyone else really looks "blue" to me, but it's just a linguistic confusion? Do you exist? Maybe everything, including you, is just a figment of my imagination?"

N.R.KISSED, you are on a roll trying to defend the indefensible (pseudo-science and bullshit medicine), and instead of just sitting back and reflecting, you are reverting to the kinds of mental gymnastics that we all went through, as part of growing up, before moving on with life.

Sat, 2007-03-24 12:57

#66

Unionist

quote:

Originally posted by Bubbles:
[b]
Predisone side effects
A predisone tragedy
And where do all these drugs end up? In your drinking and bath water.[/URL][/b]

Growing up is hazardous too, Bubbles. We do it anyway. We don't go into hibernation and dream about eternal childhood.

Sat, 2007-03-24 13:23

#67

CMOT Dibbler

quote:

Maybe, but it's not homeopathy that does that.

Would sugar pills be considered homeopathic?

Sat, 2007-03-24 13:23

#68

N.R.KISSED

quote:

N.R.KISSED, you are on a roll trying to defend the indefensible (pseudo-science and bullshit medicine), and instead of just sitting back and reflecting, you are reverting to the kinds of mental gymnastics that we all went through, as part of growing up, before moving on with life.

You continue to make ridiculous claims that you cannot even articulate let alone provide any evidence to support. You repeatedly demonstrate that you lack even a basic understanding of scientific methodology. You continuously make unwarranted appeals to authority without any credible basis. You repeatedly fail to engage on the majority of the points I make. Your responses are generally not much far above adolescent snickering and then you have the nerve to imply I am lacking in intellectual rigour or maturity. The reality is that you don't have any answers so you engage in infantile attacks. You possess in an inability to refect on any assumptions that you have or your claims to authority and knowledge. You just keep repeating that I am defending pseudo science without evidence. You just categoricallly deny the existence of a link between stress and health, something that has been validated by countless studies in a variety of disciplines. There is no logical consistency to the information you claim as true and tbat what you say is false, and you are incapable of outlining(beyond the most simplistic science 101ism) how you determine the validity of your claims) Essentially there is little substance to any argument you make. I can only conclude that you are desparately afraid of intellectual curiousity and uncertainty. It is rare to see such consistent examples of appalling logic and flawed reasoning. If you engaged had these kind of discussions when you were fourteen it is quite clear that your intellectual rigour has seriously regressed. It also appears to be a definitive shift from the moral high ground which you claimed previously in reference to personal attacks.

[ 24 March 2007: Message edited by: N.R.KISSED ]

Sat, 2007-03-24 13:41

#69

Unionist

quote:

Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
[b]
You just categoricallly deny the existence of a link between stress and health, something that has been validated by countless studies in a variety of disciplines. [/b]

You read the list of health issues that I said used to be attributed to stress, but were later discovered not to be so. If, instead of ranting, you could be so kind to agree or disagree, and perhaps cite your reasons, then you could start to measure up to your supercilious comments.

And lay off the "countless studies". Cite one.

Oh, and I don't need to prove that creationism is wrong or homeopathy doesn't work or the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist or stress doesn't cause peptic ulcers. In science, as in the law, the burden of proof is upon they who make the claim.

Your move, sir.

ETA: Oh, by the way, if you want to turn this into a debate on whether stress can lead to health problems, stop right now. [b]I agree[/b]. Does this mean you have given up on defending homeopathy (because that's the topic of this thread)? If so, let's shake hands and start a fresh thread on your other stuff (Ayuvedic, traditional Chinese, whatever). But I have no interest in drowning the narrow subject of this thread in a broad-ranging, impossible-to-settle argument about the interrelationship between psycho-emotional stressors and physical or mental health.

[ 24 March 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

Sat, 2007-03-24 13:42

#70

Unionist

quote:

Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
[b]
Would sugar pills be considered homeopathic?[/b]

Uhhh, no, they wouldn't, what is your question supposed to mean??

ETA: Some homeopathic medicines, if we believe the manufacturers' claims about degrees of dilution, may be tantamount to sugar pills, but that's not what the theory says.

[ 24 March 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

Sat, 2007-03-24 14:11

#71

N.R.KISSED

quote:

And lay off the "countless studies". Cite one.

quote:

Though it was an error to take ulcer psychosomatics as an article of faith, care must be taken not to throw the baby out with the bath water by assuming that with the discovery of HP the case is closed. Only 20% of HP-infected individuals ever develop an ulcer,15 usually after several decades of infection, and many ulcers develop in the absence of HP.16 Helicobacter pylori must therefore be conceptualized not as the cause of peptic ulcer but as one risk factor among, potentially, many. Helicobacter pylori infection has been estimated to carry a risk ratio of approximately 4 for ulcer17 and to be responsible for 48% of the population attributable risk.18
Some of the best case-control studies do support an association of ulcer with life stress;29,30 a cross-sectional association of ulcers with shift work31 is particularly convincing because of a bias in the opposite direction (sick workers are commonly assigned to the day shift) and is complemented by reports linking ulcer with poor sleep.32 But it is prospective studies, most of them published since 1990, that have provided the most compelling evidence of a causal role for psychological stress in peptic ulcer. A variety of natural and man-made catastrophes in various populations have been followed by surges in the number of diagnosed ulcers.33–36 Among defined cohorts initially free of ulcer, psychological stress and distress at baseline have generally been found to predict excess ulcer development over the following years,32,37–41 though there have also been contrary reports.42,43 Follow-up studies of patients with endoscopically diagnosed peptic ulcer have uniformly found stress and distress to worsen clinical course over months to years.44–48 On the basis of the published evidence I have estimated that psychological factors contribute to 30–65% of cases of peptic ulcer.49

[url=http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/31/1/29]Peptic Ulcers and its discontents[/url] This is an article by Dr. Susan Levenstein in the International Journal of Epidemiology. There are 71 referenced article I await your analysis of the data and methodology. Causality is much more complex than your simplistic assumptions would imply.

Sat, 2007-03-24 14:29

#72

CMOT Dibbler

Didn't another reputable scientist descover that bacteria caused ulcers?

Sat, 2007-03-24 15:32

#73

Unionist

quote:

Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
[b]This is an article by Dr. Susan Levenstein in the International Journal of Epidemiology. There are 71 referenced article I await your analysis of the data and methodology. Causality is much more complex than your simplistic assumptions would imply.[/b]

I said nothing about how causality works. My aim is to heap scorn on bullshit medicine and the non-scientific claims that are made in its favour. I have no interest (as I already said) in starting a separate debate on the role of stress in health. I do challenge you to provide any scientific evidence, whatsoever, for either homeopathy or for the other "alternative" medical theories that you mentioned.

If your argument is reducible to: "well, people who believe in this stuff feel better, so why begrudge them that", then I will concede your point. Ignorance is bliss. But if your point is that it verifiably makes sick people healthy, I'm still waiting. As is the world scientific community.

Sat, 2007-03-24 15:38

#74

Sineed

That was the Australian physician [url=http://www.vianet.net.au/~bjmrshll/]Dr. Barry Marshall,[/url] who in his desperation to prove that H. pylori caused ulcers, actually drank a petri dish of the stuff.

On his website, he links to [url=http://www.quackwatch.com/search/webglimpse.cgi?ID=1&query=homeopathy]Qu... which has lots to say about homeopathy:

quote:

The dilution/potentiation process in homeopathy involves a stepwise dilution carried to fantastic extremes, with "succussion" between each dilution. Succussion involves shaking or rapping the container a certain way. During the step-by-step dilution process, how is the emerging drug preparation supposed to know which of the countless substances in the container is the One that means business? How is it that thousands (millions?) of chemical compounds know that they are required to lay low, to just stand around while the Potent One is anointed to the status of Healer? That this scenario could lead to distinct products uniquely suited to treat particular illnesses is beyond implausible.

Sat, 2007-03-24 16:02

#75

N.R.KISSED

quote:

My aim is to heap scorn on bullshit medicine and the non-scientific claims that are made in its favour.

My point has consistently been that you can't tell the difference. You make ridiculous claims ask me to refute the ridiculous claims and then ignore it when I do.How can you claim to have even the slightest claims to understanding science.

Sat, 2007-03-24 17:15

#76

CMOT Dibbler

quote:

Uhhh, no, they wouldn't, what is your question supposed to mean??

Well, actually....it's not important.

Sat, 2007-03-24 17:16

#77

Southlander

The whole point of homeopathy is that the drug the medicine is made from is harmful. It cuases the same effects as the symptoms you already have. By mixing the harmful substance with the water, the water becomes activated in some way. It is diluted to increse it's potency. It doesn't amke sceintific sense, but neither does several other things that seem to work. The placebo effect itself for a start off. No one can explain the placebo effect, but we all accept it works, thats why you're crying out for double blind tests.

Sat, 2007-03-24 18:38

#78

Unionist

quote:

Originally posted by Southlander:
[b]It doesn't amke sceintific sense, but neither does several other things that seem to work. [/b]

Not quite. It doesn't make scientific sense, and it doesn't work either. It's a hoax - fooling people. It doesn't cure any disease. Look it up.

quote:

[b]No one can explain the placebo effect, but we all accept it works, thats why you're crying out for double blind tests.[/b]

Who "all accept it works"? Placebos can cure cancer? Influenza? Prevent heart disease? Early-detect prostate issues? Show me some credible studies, please.

The reason for double blind tests is to avoid cheating, either deliberate or subconscious. Not because the bullshit "works" - but because humans are fallible, and you want to take the subjective elements out.

[ 24 March 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

Sat, 2007-03-24 18:43

#79

Unionist

quote:

Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
[b]
How can you claim to have even the slightest claims to understanding science.[/b]

I don't. I defer to your genius. But at least I'm defending science, while you're defending magic. I'm not trained in these fields, but I'm comfortable with my position.

Sat, 2007-03-24 18:46

#80

Sineed

More from the link in my previous post:

quote:

However, despite the large number of comparative trials carried out to date there is no evidence that homeopathy is any more effective than placebo therapy given in identical conditions.

Sat, 2007-03-24 18:59

#81

Bubbles

[url=http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1532]Science discovers what homeopaths have long suspected, that water is more complex then conventional science assumed.[/url]

Sat, 2007-03-24 19:13

#82

500_Apples

Regarding the link above,

I feel the need to inform those who might not be scientifically well-versed, that New Scientist magazine is not a serious scientific journal. They are the equivalent to science that Macleans is to Canadian politics. They very often have sensationalist cover stories. I once had a subscription but I didn't renew it one I realized they didn't follow up on their sensationalism. For example, a few years ago, they had a cover story saying pendulums would swing at different speeds during a solar eclipse, with all these arguments, and they said this would break down relativity perhaps and bring back the ether. They were discussing an upcoming experiment on the subject. Unfortunately, they never ran the follow-up story on the results of the experiment, which just goes to show. They did this crap all the time.

Anyhow, even beneath the sensationalist opening paragraphs, you find quotes from other scientists saying that research is not relevent to homepathy.

Sat, 2007-03-24 19:22

#83

Bubbles

[url=http://www.nychomeopathy.com/about.html]Here something insomniacs can try out. Watery coffee as a cure.[/url] [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

Sat, 2007-03-24 19:30

#84

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

I especially liked this part:

quote:

The infinitesimally small dose of the remedy stimulates your immune system to cause your own body to heal itself. If you are having insomnia, for example, the tiny dose of Coffea Cruda “calls your bluff” in a way, saying to your body: “Insomnia? I’ll show you real insomnia!” Your body then pushes against the remedy’s stimulus and comes back to its natural, healthy state, which is to sleep at bedtime.

So homeopathy can cause my immune system to - put me to sleep? [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

Sat, 2007-03-24 19:46

#85

N.R.KISSED

quote:

But at least I'm defending science, while you're defending magic. I'm not trained in these fields, but I'm comfortable with my position.

Yawn [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

Sat, 2007-03-24 19:49

#86

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

quote:

Originally posted by Southlander:
[b]No one can explain the placebo effect, but we all accept it works...[/b]

The placebo effect is unreliable and is no substitute for real treatment.

Otherwise there would be no need for the science of medicine. We would simply have to find ways of tricking people into feeling better, like hypnosis, without attacking the underlying cause of the medical problem.

In fact, it's unethical for a medical practitioner to prescribe a placebo instead of a real treatment. The only legitimate use for placebos is as a control in double-blind clinical tests.

Sat, 2007-03-24 20:08

#87

TemporalHominid TemporalHominid's picture

quote:

Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
[b]
Would sugar pills be considered homeopathic?[/b]

they would be if they were 30x diluted [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

Sat, 2007-03-24 20:23

#88

Polly B

quote:

Originally posted by Sineed:
[b]
On his website, he links to [url=http://www.quackwatch.com/search/webglimpse.cgi?ID=1&query=homeopathy]Qu... which has lots to say about homeopathy:
[/b]

Hasn't the Quackwatch guy been discovered to be somewhat of a quack himself? I can't remember where but I am sure I could find it.

Sat, 2007-03-24 20:35

#89

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Please do, if you can.

It's a vile slander, and I'm sure we'd all like to set the record straight.

Sat, 2007-03-24 20:41

#90

Unionist

Oh no, here we go. Barrett has got to be one of the most controversial figures around. Now we can debate whether Barrett is genuine and forget about homeopathy!

My head hurts. Pass me 10E-50 gram of arnica, please.

Sat, 2007-03-24 20:44

#91

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Hey, dissing Barrett is just another [i]ad homeo-nem[/i] attack designed to avoid discussing the real issue.

Sat, 2007-03-24 20:47

#92

Bubbles

quote:

Growing up is hazardous too, Bubbles. We do it anyway. We don't go into hibernation and dream about eternal childhood.

Unionist I am not sure what you were getting at.

I was merrily trying to point out to Spector that there are serious drawbacks to many of the 'science based' conventional drugs. Side effects, pollution, expence. The body has the potential to cure itself of nearly any desease. If we can stimulate our body into dealing with the problem itself, then that makes more sence to me then using pharma potions, many of which are longlived and show up again in our water and food.

Sat, 2007-03-24 20:48

#93

Unionist

quote:

Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]Hey, dissing Barrett is just another [i]ad homeo-nem[/i] attack designed to avoid discussing the real issue.[/b]

[img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

I agree, but if I hear one more assault on science from the mystics, I'm asking the moderators to Barr Itt.

Sat, 2007-03-24 20:52

#94

Unionist

quote:

Originally posted by Bubbles:
[b]
Unionist I am not sure what you were getting at.[/b]

What I was getting at is that people's health and longevity have improved dramatically since the 19th century because of the "allopathic" medicine that the homeophiles revile. All drugs, medical procedures, surgery, etc. entail risks. Hospitals kill people. One camp says: "Dump them all! Return to nature!" The other says: "Carry on, good job - now identify and reduce the risks!"

The rest of your post is just a breathtaking dismissal of all science based on some idea you've heard that the body can cure itself and just needs to be stimulated. Please.

Sat, 2007-03-24 22:13

#95

Southlander

quote:

Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]The placebo effect is unreliable and is no substitute for real treatment. The only legitimate use for placebos is as a control in double-blind clinical tests.[/b]

Exactly that is why. If placebo's have no effect there is no need for them in double blind tests. The control would be no medicine, not a sugar pill.

Sat, 2007-03-24 22:18

#96

Cueball

If someone argues with this point I will die laughing.

Sat, 2007-03-24 23:10

#97

Albireo

quote:

Would sugar pills be considered homeopathic?

Most homeopathic remedies [i]are[/i] sugar pills. Little round white ones. Very tasty. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

Sat, 2007-03-24 23:12

#98

Albireo

Here is an effective remedy:

[img]http://hirr.hartsem.edu/images/nerds.gif[/img]

Sun, 2007-03-25 05:58

#99

TemporalHominid TemporalHominid's picture

quote:

Originally posted by Polly Brandybuck:
[b]
Hasn't the Quackwatch guy been discovered to be somewhat of a quack himself? I can't remember where but I am sure I could find it.[/b]

there were also unproven allegations being spread by the chiropractic and homeopathic crowd that he and other critics sexually molested children, all the ad hom attacks on Barrett amounted to zilch. Scientology lawyers do the same thing. The aim is create enough doubt about a person's character even if the allegations are unfounded. Repeat something often enough (even without proof) and people believe them to be true.

[ 25 March 2007: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]

Sun, 2007-03-25 06:22

#100

Unionist

quote:

Originally posted by TemporalHominid:
[b]Repeat something often enough (even without proof) and people believe them to be true.
[/b]

Right. And even if they were true? Here's how the pseudo-science mafia logic operates:

1. [Insert a name] is a well-known debunker of homeopathy [or name some other faith-based healing].

2. [Insert a name] lied about her academic credentials.

THEREFORE,

3. There must be some truth to homeopathy after all.

Sun, 2007-03-25 09:35

#101

Sineed

We all know about USian neo-cons using nit-picking effectively in their attacks against progressives. It's the same thing here: tiny factual errors are crowed over as proof of lack of legitimacy.

Pages

Topic locked