British MPs: Stop funding homeoquackery

Fri, 2010-03-05 13:36

Papal Bull

LSD is an illegal substance. People use LSD. People often have positive psychological experiences with it in the right setting. Would its inclusion in a holistic approach to, say a case of depression, be deemed improper?

I only wonder, because it is one of those weird pharmaceutical grey areas I have noticed with some holisticy types of folk I've had the pleasure of speaking with. Some of them are enamored with its effects and write off the potential for long term, detrimental side effects as hogwash. Some of them see it as an evil pharmaceutical because it is synthesized.

I'm just kind of interested in some of the opinions here on this specific substance and its use in holistic medicine, etc.

Fri, 2010-03-05 14:02

#103

Polly B

Papal Bull wrote:

LSD is an illegal substance. People use LSD. People often have positive psychological experiences with it in the right setting.

Does watching a beer case breathe for five hours count?

Sat, 2010-03-06 04:35

#104

E.P.Houle

Would the dilution factor of LSD qualifiy it as a useless homeopathic remedy?

Sat, 2010-03-06 10:16

#105

bagkitty

Papal Bull... do the folk you have talked to have the same objections to psilocybin?

Sat, 2010-03-06 10:55

#106

Papal Bull

bagkitty wrote:

Papal Bull... do the folk you have talked to have the same objections to psilocybin?

You know, I never thought of asking them about that, but I can't quite imagine that they would object to psilocybin or salvinorin or mescaline, etc., etc. as unnatural.

Sat, 2010-03-06 11:53

#107

Sineed

This thread'll be closed for length pretty soon.

Reminds me of Richard Dawkins' accounts of arguing with creationists. When they demand evidence, he supplies it, and they deny that any such evidence exists.

I suggest that maybe for a subsequent thread, we could discuss the misuse of, "natural," a term that is vastly misunderstood and exploited for marketing purposes.

Sat, 2010-03-06 11:59

#108

bagkitty

Natural? Isn't that the antonym of fictional... [ex. "unobtainium" isn't natural, but uranium is]

Sat, 2010-03-06 14:25

#109

j.m.

Sineed wrote:

This thread'll be closed for length pretty soon.

Reminds me of Richard Dawkins' accounts of arguing with creationists. When they demand evidence, he supplies it, and they deny that any such evidence exists.

I suggest that maybe for a subsequent thread, we could discuss the misuse of, "natural," a term that is vastly misunderstood and exploited for marketing purposes.

I never suggested that evidence doesn't exist. Nor did I insinuate the misuse of natural.

Dirty comparison, Sineed.

Sat, 2010-03-06 14:52

#110

jas

In most contexts, natural means organically derived, i.e., naturally occurring, as opposed to manufactured. I don't think it's particularly controversial to suggest that the term "natural" is nevertheless exploited for marketing purposes.

Sat, 2010-03-06 16:41

#111

bagkitty

Which of course leads me to wonder, if you have put your uranium (as opposed to unobtanium) through enough dilutions, isn't that essentially puttting it through a manufacturing process, leading us to the conclusion that it is not natural?

Wed, 2015-06-03 16:10

#112

bagkitty

Australia weighs in. Australian doctors told not to prescribe homeopathic items as 'they do nothing'

British MPs: Stop funding homeoquackery

Pages