Notwithstanding my extreme scepticism about some of the matters dealt with in these threads, I will note some recent interest in the therapeutic effects of LSD on alcoholism:
[url=http://www.nature.com/news/lsd-helps-to-treat-alcoholism-1.10200]
LSD helps to treat alcoholism
Retrospective analysis shows hallucinogenic drug helped problem drinkers. [/url]
Also, I have anecdotal evidence of one individual who dabbled in LSD as a youth and is not now an alcoholic.
Ahem.
Notwithstanding my extreme scepticism about some of the matters dealt with in these threads, I will note some recent interest in the therapeutic effects of LSD on alcoholism:
[url=http://www.nature.com/news/lsd-helps-to-treat-alcoholism-1.10200]
LSD helps to treat alcoholism
Retrospective analysis shows hallucinogenic drug helped problem drinkers. [/url]
Also, I have anecdotal evidence of one individual who dabbled in LSD as a youth and is not now an alcoholic.
Ahem.
I read the book ACID DREAMS, and it traces the history and use of LSD. When it was first discovered and it's hallucinogenic properties spread, it became the drug of choice of the establishment. All the US generals and top millitary brass used the drug at parties, the Park Avenue high society people dropped acid at parties, government heads of state dropped acid at their parties. It was a safe and non-addictive substance then.
According to this book, it wasn't until the 60s anti-Vietnam counter culture and the drop out society came into being that the CIA started lacing LSD with cyanide and other bad substances that people started to get "bummers" and get addicted to the substance.
Dr. Hoffer used a chemically pure form of LSD made from top rated drug companies for his research, and he had no bad side effects from his drugs. He mentioned this in a documentary called LSD Pioneers.
Yeah... Two of my SILs were student nurses dosed with LSD. They were told it wasn't optional unless they didn't care to graduate from their program. So, teams of two, one to record and one to take the dose (they took turns) in a white room with two chairs. Traumatic experience for some. While I recognize it was an era that we need to place in historical context, I think using students as unwilling lab rats could be viewed, at the very least, as distasteful.
Yes - besides the CIA-financed LSD experiments on involuntary patients by the infamous Ewen Cameron in Montréal. Val Orlikow, wife of the late NDP MP David Orlikow, whom I knew well (didn't really know her), was one of his victims. I was inspired to read this a couple years back:
Local artist turns to dance to further explore her grandmother's torment at the hands of the CIA
Sarah Anne Johnson, the internationally recognized Winnipeg artist who is best known as a photographer and sculptor, was to have shown House on Fire this month at aceartinc.The work is based on Johnson's grandmother's ordeal as a patient subjected to CIA-funded mind-control experiments in Montreal in the 1950s. It earned acclaim last year in New York, Toronto and Calgary. [...]
Her grandmother, Velma (Val) Orlikow, suffered from post-partum depression after the birth of Johnson's mother. She was sent to Montreal for several treatment stints, totalling three years, under the care of psychiatrist Ewen Cameron.
She was made an unwitting guinea pig in secret brainwashing experiments financed by the CIA that used frequent shock treatments at far stronger than standard levels. She was the subject of 14 experiments with LSD.
Orlikow, who lived until Johnson was in her teens, ultimately led a class-action suit against the CIA that was settled out of court. But the damage to her mind was permanent.
As the title Dancing With the Doctor implies, Orlikow was manipulated into a fondness for the Scottish-born Cameron, who would scold her as a bad wife and mother if she tried to object to his methods.
"She fell in love with him," says the artist. "Apparently he had a way with the ladies... He would charm them."
A friend of mine made the highly unscientific statement to me about hallucinogens and similar medicines that they are the key to unlock a certain door in your mind, and that once the door is opened, it can stay open permanently.
(don't know if he was paraphrasing Huxley)
From my experience, I'd say he was right. And that's not denying the fact that people can also burn their brains to a cinder with them. Any medicine is a two-edged sword.
Gotta love socialist Saskatchewan. In Ontario people had to buy their own acid.
So I'm told. 
I suppose. Although neither of my SIL's were really inclined to drop acid recreationally and both found it a terrifying experience - especially since they weren't told what to expect.
Norway took part in the MK ULTRA experiments as well after WWII. The Nazi's wanted to create a superior Arayan race, and they thought that they would mate Norwegian women with German soldiers to create that superior human species. Norway was occupied by the Germans during WWII, and they HATED Germany. Any women who associated with German soldiers had their hair cut off and they were ostracized right after the war. Many had to flea Norway altogether. Anni-Frid Lyngstad from the rock group ABBA was one such product of a Norwegian mother and a German father, and her mother fled Norway for Sweden when Anni Frid was a little girl.
These children were called Lebensborn babies, and they suffered extreme racism and hatred in Norway. They were used as human guinea pigs in LSD experimentation and other mind control techniques just like Dr. Ewan Cameron conducted in Montreal. The Lebensborn children are now trying to sue the Norwegian government for extreme cruelty.
Interestingly, if this website is true, Lee Harvey Oswald, the one who supposedly killed JFK was a Lebensborn child, and his mother was a Nazi sympathizer. The plot thickens...
I want to stress that MK ULTRA was a disgusting and disgracefully horrible thing to do. Dr. Ewan Cameran was evil. These mind control experiments are not to be confused with the LSD experimentation which took place for finding cures for alcoholism, addictions, and schizophrenia. Although linked in some way, they are not the same.
Gotta love socialist Saskatchewan. In Ontario people had to buy their own acid.
So I'm told.
I also want to add, that Saskatchewan socialists subsidized the top quality pure stuff, not the street riff-raff quality.
You obviously needed a better dealer in the day.
As far as I know the CIA didn't have an outlet store in my city and users had to rely on other sources.
But this is the 21st century and Timothy Leary is dead.
So indeed this is one very small study over a short two year time frame. My disease began in my late 30's and was held in check until my late forties and then deteriorated slowly throughout my fifties. A study that followed patients for two years seems to me to be inadequate to tell me anything about the progression that would occur if these same patients had been followed for three or four decades. I know that I increased my daily amount by diet decades ago and I believe that it slowed the rate of deterioration of my joints from my arthritis. However I still have had two Full Knee replacements before the recommended age for surgery because of genetics and basketball. I doubt if B3 is a cure for arthritis although it is almost certainly a factor in controlling the disease and might limit or at least slow down the damage.
I also believe from my own experience that natural sources of vitamins and other essential nutrients are healthier and have better outcomes for me than taking manufactured supplements. But of course that is merely my anecdotal evidence. I have yet to see any movement to do studies that compare outcomes based on adding specific foods like brewers yeast into ones diet compared to popping a vitamin pill.
I think that the only thing you can do is to read the chapter from Dr. Hoffer's book, Orthomolecular Medicine for Physicians. He also has a book out called Orthomolecular Medicine for Everyone. Both books have a chapter devoted to arthritis, but the first one is better and more detailed and provides a longer list of case studies which he observed. I just quoted you some scripts from the chapter, but you would have to read the whole chapter to get a full understanding of the link between vitamins and arthritis. Niacinamide is very hard to find. You would have to phone around to health food stores to try to locate it.
You will never see a study comparing brewer's yeast to a vitamin pill because there is no money in it.
You are suffering from arthritis. You are in pain. You have not taken a vitamin pill. You will listen attentively and eagerly to doctors who have had one hour of training in vitamins and nutrition as a part of their line of study, and you see them as being experts because they are "nice" to you. Then, you seem to know more about vitamins than the few trained medical doctors who have devoted their lives and careers to studying vitamins and nutrition and making them work in their medical offices. My observation about telling people about vitamins is comparable to that old adage, "you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make that horse drink."
Orthomolecular Medicine for Physicians is extremely hard to find. If you live in a large centre that has a huge library, you can ask them to try to locate a book for you to look at, and then photocopy the chapter for your reference. All the books that Dr. Hoffer has written are appreciating in value, and they are getting more exensive to purchase on the second hand market and harder to find.
That is all I can tell you, sorry.
Great tune, K. And I much enjoyed the documentary of the same name "Timothy Learys Dead". And this reminds me of the CBC Tapestry documentary of last season about the church basement LSD experiments.
Michelle Landsberg, in her book, Woman and Children First, stated to the effect that "psychiatrists, in all their years of training, have only 1 1/2 pages in their textbooks devoted to womens issues."
I find that intriguing, and I'd like to see some more context please, without having to go out and buy the book. What were her exact words, and what "textbooks" was she referring to?
Here is the exact quote that I was referring to:
"'There is an overwhelming pervasiveness of male attitudes in medicine,' says Dr. Elaine Borins, director of the new Women's Clinic at the Toronto Western Hospital. 'I really became aware of it when I went back to medical school to study psychiatry for four years. In several thousand hours of training, I had precisely four hours of supervision by a female.' Fledgling psychiatrists may later decide to devote their attention to specialized corners of their territory (child psychiatry, sexual deviation) but only a page or two of their texts will refer to the emotional lives of women. And the same student psychiatrist may go right through his training without ever having to consider what specific traumas like incest might do to a woman."
Landsberg, Michele, Women and Children First, (Toronto 1982: Macmillan of Canada), pg. 112.
Thank you, Goggles! I'm amazed (and grateful) you went to all that trouble.
LD50 is a standard for measuring toxicity. Not the quack standard - the scientific standard.
I put the reforming psychiatry thread in the science and technology section for two reasons:
1. Because psychiatry is fraught with "non-scientific" principles artificially masqueraded as science.
2. To combat the general publics' general ignorance about the scientific history and study of vitamins in medical research.
Here is the wikipedia definition of "quackery":
"Quackery is the promotion[1] of unproven or fraudulent medical practices. Random House Dictionary describes a "quack" as a "fraudulent or ignorant pretender to medical skill" or "a person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to have skill, knowledge, or qualifications he or she does not possess; a charlatan".[2]"
First of all, Dr. Abram Hoffer did NOT do the LD50 studies himself. Vitamin B3 was isolated in 1935, and these studies were conducted years before.
Secondly, if Dr. Abram Hoffer was a "quack", he would not have retained his status as Director of Psychiatry at the University of Saskatchewan for the practice of non-science, he would have been stripped of his licence to practice medicine both in Saskatchewan and later in British Columbia, he would have lost his status with the Canadian and American Psychiatric Associations. He would never have been able to have a clinic practicing medicine for over 50 years and treating patients.
Thirdly, if vitamin research was a "quackery", then there would never have been NOBEL PRIZES awarded to scientists for their discoveries into isolating vitamins from food and studying their roles on disease.
Even today in Rabble, there is an article about how expensive prescription drugs are and how these costs pose a huge threat to people dependent on them, and the lack of access to affordable proper health care coverage this causes, especially to low income people. Far too many people see these barriers to access as legitimate issues, but then on threads which are devoted to questioning the validity of the science behind them, are woefully unable to see how profit motives and corporate lobbying pushes dangerous and toxic drugs onto the market without proper "scientific" studies nor standards to ward against toxic risks to the general population, and on how these same corporate lobbyists are behind discrediting the scientific validity of vitamins because they are safer, cheaper, and many times, more effective than their patented products.
It sadly surprises me how people are capable of going only so far in challenging our existing health care system. Without taking these fundamental issues seriously, there can be no proper reform of psychiatry. The medical establishment will not do it, it takes awareness, and a public willingness to demand changes. In the mean time, people with mental issues are getting hurt. They aren't getting well, and no one cares because people simply do not take these issues seriously.
He started publishing his findings in the late 50s. He said publicly that his research was praised throughout most of the 50s because much of what he was publishing in the major medical journals was of little value. Then, in 1959, when he first published his findings on vitamin B3 and its effectiveness, that is when he started getting attacked by the mainstream. 1959 until 2009, when he died, that is 50 YEARS of claiming that vitamins are beneficial to health.
You yourself said that these vitamins are toxic. They are dangerous. Now, you are admitting that he didn't kill anyone with it, yet his dosage levels are 1500 to 3000 mg of vitamin B3 per day and higher. He used these dosages for over 50 years and didn't kill anyone with them, but you slammed the vitamins for being TOXIC. You said it.
You cannot have it both ways TB.
Goggles. I mentioned that LD50 was a standard science and not quackery because some might assume that by killing animals in this way Hoffer was doing something that other scientists would not.
I was defending him by correcting the notion that his doing LD50 experiments was quackery.
As bizarre as it might seem that anyone would need to know how much water it takes to drown a dog, that's science, and it's all about the numbers.
The people who claim to speak so authoritively on discrediting Hoffer and vitamins in general are the same ones who have not researched Hoffer nor the history of these discoveries. Do people really believe that formal controlled studies and medical research as a 'science' did not come into being until patent laws became the normal standard of practice?
It is because of this lack of knowledge in general and ignorance of issues which prompts the over use of terms like 'quackery' and 'toxicity', especially in relation to studies and findings from trained medical doctors from highly respected schools of medicine in North America and western Europe.
Goggles. I mentioned that LD50 was a standard science and not quackery because some might assume that by killing animals in this way Hoffer was doing something that other scientists would not.
Hoffer did not perform any LD50 studies. The LD50 study on B3 was done very shortly after isolating the vitamin in 1935 in order to determine it's toxicity level. Hoffer did not start using B3 in studies until 15 years later.
Thank you SW for making your point known to me.
Hoffer "retired" to a private practice just about at the point where he started making extraordinary claims. He wouldn't be the first (nor is he the last) to have been granted a little leniency for providing ineffective treatment (as long as he didn't kill anyone with it) in his dotage after a long and distinguished career.
Hoffer retired around the time that other studies started refuting his earlier claims.
I said that mega-dosing of vitamins was potentially toxic and it is. However, unless someone went to great lengths to *prove* Hoffer killed a particular patient, I have no difficulty believing that he was allowed to fly under the radar out of respect for his previous position. So many other doctors have - certianly, less well-respected doctors have conducted themselves poorly without censure for extended periods of time in SK in the past and more recent years.
And yes, I've read up on Hoffer - prior to contact with you and brushed up just recently. It's not that I don't know, it's that I include resources less than 30 years old and disagree with your conclusions.
You're not really refuting anything I've said.
Goggles. I mentioned that LD50 was a standard science and not quackery because some might assume that by killing animals in this way Hoffer was doing something that other scientists would not.
Hoffer did not perform any LD50 studies. The LD50 study on B3 was done very shortly after isolating the vitamin in 1935 in order to determine it's toxicity level. Hoffer did not start using B3 in studies until 15 years later.
Thank you SW for making your point known to me.
Sure. Bear in mind this is a few days after the initial conversation, so please excuse me if I am a bit spotty on the details, but actually I was responding to k's question about experiments to determine how much it would take to kill a population. I simply said that the method was the scientific standard. Looking back, I see I didn't mention Hoffer at all, though my comment was clearly in his defense.
Yes, what you said was in defence of Hoffer.
I find it frustrating when people casually use the word 'quackery' to either defend vitamin research or to discredit its findings. The word used in this context implied that vitamin research in general is quackery based, but this was somehow scientifically valid. The assumption is that medical researchers who study vitamins and the doctors who prescribe vitamins are somehow less trained and less qualified than the medical researchers who study patented drugs and the doctors who prescribe them. If the validity of LD50 toxicity testing had come up in a thread discussing any other mainstream medical research, the statement in defence would have simply been that LD50 is valid scientific research protocol. The word 'quackery' would never have come up.
'Quackery' is a very powerful word. It is an overused and misquoted term used to discredit anything which threatens the corporate medical status quo. I wish that people would start using that term less and start to examine whose interests are really being served by casually throwing around such terminology so loosely in casual conversations.
It is an overused and misquoted term used to discredit anything which threatens the corporate medical status quo.
Perhaps you should read what I am saying rather than focusing on words you don't like, because I made no such argument.
To the contrary, I thought I said clearly enough that medical science is no justification for gratuitous torture and slaughter.
I may agree with you on some things, but abusive quackery does exist - inside and outside of the accepted medical system. And I reserve the right to call it when I see it.
However, I haven't called anything quackery here, so I am not sure why it is an issue. I'm done with it.
You are making a lot of assumptions, GP.
First of all, it is possible for quackery to be perpetrated by highly qualified individuals. The quackery itself is the continued insistence that treatments work aft they have been show not to.
Hoffer had a theory, and in the early days it seemed to have merit. The process that theories go through in science (and this applied equally to drugs, vitamins, surgical procedures and a variety of non-medical sciences) is that the theory is then critiqued by one's peers (other highly qualified experts). Then the results are tested by replication. In other words, other researchers attempt to do the same thing and see if they get the same results. If they do, that supports the theory. If they don't, or only do some of the time, that means there may be some flaw in the initial study.
Now mind, this is outside whether it's a controlled study or not. And sometimes an uncontrolled study will be subjected to controls in replication. A lot of studies, including pharmaceuticals and vitamins, don't pass replication.
Hoffer had an idea with promise, but it didn't pass the tests that medical treaetments need to pass to be considered effective. That Hoffer, already past the age when most people retire, insisted that it was all a conspiracy doesn't give me more confidence in his claims. Quite the contrary. It's a shame, it was a sad end to a long and distinguished career.
ETA: I'd also refer to any physician who prescribed an inappropriate or proven-ineffective drug to a patient as a quack. It's not about the vitamins, it's about the science behind the claims of what vitamins can do.
perhaps you're also willing to going into the research and merits of all the tier 1 medications that are used today to treat those with schizophrenia; hopefully with the same vigour you've shown to the vitamins discussion here
probably not
at least the vitamins, as you say don't hurt anyone; the same can't be said for the tier 1 pharmacological choices which may be helpful but will most certainly have side effects.
If someone came on here and said they had a perfect pharma cure for schizophrenia or bipolar disorder that had no side effects and was completely wonderful and would make you fart rainbows, I'd call bullshit as fast as you would.
The fact that we don't have a cure and the medications that we do have are far from perfect - in fact, extremely hard to take and stay on - does not make the vitamin claim any more true than if the medications were better. At no time have I said the pharmaceuticals were even close to ideal. But vitamin B isn't the magic bullet, either.
I just had the strangest feeling of deja vu (you can't take a hint)
he said it worked for him, he has provided links if people want to read more
At no time have I said the pharmaceuticals were even close to ideal.
you did say that they meet rigourous scientific standards, cmon man step up! You've already expressed ad nauseum that you love numbers YOU LOVE THEM! but yet you won't show us any... that's insanity
the conspiracy theories that exist today aren't exactly the strangest things that have ever happened in the history of the world. Is there no room in your forebrain to allow for the possibility of systemic negligence? people thought women's brains were small back in the 50's! thats what our recent history of medication has for its foundation those learned men ho ho ho. Stealing insulin from animals is amazing science; what happened(s) in psychiatry is not. Its a hard job because of the inherent inconsistentcy and I continue to salute those who try and make a difference.
Let science repeat their 50 yr old antipsychotic trials and say "well... a good portion of the trial group got sedated at Dose A1. so ...I guess it works" you could see that today; that is if you could get an ethics board to clear you to actually put that stuff into a human. Anyone with a rudimentary grasp of research would know that data can be squashed and molded into almost anything else, research funding comes with confidentiality contracts so whenever something new is actually discovered the results are quickly examined under a magnifying glass and then shelved for 20 years without publication because its not good news.
Okay, so an anonymous person on the 'net claims that vitamins are the miracle cure we're all looking for, the all-cure, if you will. Not only will it cure schizophrenia, it'll take care of you arthritis, cure paralysis and any number of things. Not sure where she stands on the heartbreak of psoriasis, but here we are. I am to take their word for it, in combination with a collection of 30+ year old studies and ignore all other non-corroborating evidence because, well, she says so.
How is that reasonable?
Yes, I like numbers. I like them to add up. When they don't add up, I have questions. Sue me. It's the people who had questions about laetrile who got it off the market, the people who had questions about thalidomyde who proved the link to birth defects and got it pulled off the market. I don't give a hoot whether it's a pharma drug or an herbal remedy - if it doesn't add up, it doesn't add up. I'm an equal opportunity skeptic.
To some degree, data can be manipulated. If it's possible to do so totally, however, there are no answers, and no point in asking any questions at all. We're fucked whether it's vitamins, drugs or leeches, my dear.
I'm going with the numbers that add up - multiple sources. Vitamins don't cure schizophrenia. For most people, they just make really expensive pee.
GP made the extraordinary claim and has only ponied up inadequate, biased, out of date and cherry picked evidence - and asked us to buy these extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence. Sorry, no.
to me this is a mandatory value when discussing other peoples lives, this excellent quote by anvils that went unheeded in the previous thread
I don't mind that there's little support. I'm fairly agnostic/skeptical about much of it. I just wish that whenever people share their own positive experiences with "alternative" medicine there was less of an impulse to "debunk" and condescendingly deny that person's own experience.
GP goes beyond her own experience, though. She's been preaching the gospel since her first post. Vitamin therapy is the all-cure for everything and we should all try it for what ails us. Then she brings in a lot of stuff that's dated and disproven. I am allowed to challenge that. Conversely, you don't have to like it.
"This is an anti-psychiatry thread for people who have been hurt by the mainstream system to voice their concerns and to seek out alternative solutions to help them improve their health. Treatment options like nutrition, and vitamins, yoga, meditation, etc. are welcome to be discussed."
Thanks GP.
I discovered at a young age that it is very easy to lock people up who are acting out, the why of the acting out seems not important, the medications for the acting out are important and they have side effects. IMV it is not about the health of our society, it is about the control of our society.
Well, that is the gist of the most recent screed by Margaret Wente, locking people up for their own good. A little too systematically, in my opinion.
In general, I agree with Timebandit about spurious claims, but it is true that there are woefully few good treatments for mental disorders.
I think, Goggles, if you did not frame your discussion as a general anti-psychiatry thread open to people who want to discuss a number of different alternatives, it might be more true to the actual discussion you are encouraging. If you mainly just want to discuss vitamin therapy, as far as I know, it would be okay for you to start a thread entirely and exclusively on that topic.
The title of this thread is not anti-psychiatry, but reforming the profession (including exposing harm done by misuse and abusive treatments). I didn't take part in the other thread as I disagreed with its premise.
I think vitamin and other nutritional deficiencies play an important part in disease (physical or mental), but the massive vitamin cures strike me as yet another quick fix - one of the problems with the worst of capitalist medical practice.
I think we are particular to the causes and conditions of our lives and that what may be a remedy for one may be toxic to another.
I think we need a clearer understanding of the causes and conditions that people face and why even though some quite naturally suffer, that we would rather shut them up chemically than listen.
An older friend told me that when doctors have pressured her to take antidepressants, she tells them, "I have enough problems without those". She knows of eight people who were on antidepressants who committed suicide.
I did notice that one extremely popular anti-depressant lists suicidal thoughts as one of the side effects
SSRIs may have some issues - IIRC, there are ongoing studies and lots of back and forth on the potential suicidal effects in the medical lit I've read on them.
From an anecdotal prespective, I know there are some babblers who have used them to good effect and I know some people who have found anti-depressant medication to be very helpful (including my mother, who is a chronic depressive). I've known others who haven't found them effective. I'm not sure we fully understand the physical mechanics of depression in the brain yet, so I don't think we'll have a fully effective medication for a long while yet. And not all treatments work for all people.
I remember meeting a fellow several years ago who sang the praises of his particular anti-depressant, but he found it was only necessary for a short period, that it served to 'kickstart' the brain chemically, and therefore himself mentally, into producing the good chemicals, and then conscious retraining on his part maintained a healthy mental balance.
But I personally think that the widespread depression we see is symptomatic of the sad society that we live in. It's very hard to be happy with the kind of lives we live and the apparent world we live in, an idea that was expressed in this thread, started by Revolution Please: Let's Talk
My only experience with psychiatric drugs was one day on a so-called anti-anxiety medication which made me about six times more anxious than how I was already feeling. Was that a homeopathic approach via synthetic chemicals? I didn't wait to find out. I had actually been hoping for a prescription for a mild sedative like lorazepam or Halcyon, but the doctor didn't know me that well and, responsibly, could not give me one. Although I still experience low-grade anxiety and depression, whatever I was experiencing acutely at that time seemed to pass on its own, as I certainly don't seek such remedies currently.
jas, my mother used a similar approach to the young man you mention. She has chronic depression, so even when her life situation is pretty good, she can be struck down with serious depressive symptoms. When my father died, the added stress of situational depression on top of the chronic depression was just too much to cope with, and she used SSRI meds for a couple of years. When she felt able to, she weaned herself off the meds and is doing okay without them. She says she'd use them again if her depression got severe enough.
I haven't used any of the medications myself, but there are several members of my family who live with chronic depression and several others who live with bipolar disorder. As I've said, the meds are light years away from perfect - every single one of them has flaws to varying degrees, and none of them work for everyone across the board. Some of the work for a little while and then stop. I hope we find something soon, but in the meantime, my alarm bells go off whenever I hear the word "cure". We are a long way from fully understanding, never mind curing.
I have hung back on criticism in this thread, for the most part because it doesn't really concern me. Even though it is not about "anti-psychiatry" I think it is okay for someone to have an open space to present an alternative viewpoint, whether I am skeptical or not.
Besides, I have already outed myself as someone who has homeopathy used in my household, even though I have taken enough science classes to understand the basic principles in play. As for the perennial scorn I see in these pages regarding that therapy sorry, but I have to roll my eyes, and I don't buy that all the concern for others' bad choices is genuine.
In that respect, I support Goggles in speaking her mind, and I am generally a strong supporter of alternative therapies that people have found to have good results.
That said, I also think it is in order to point out how any therapy is challenged by research.
I guess the crux for me is that the discussion not be reduced to a pileon over absolutes. THis ain't politics, but rather human bodies and minds, and what works for one does not necessarily work for all.
Yes. But it should also be all right to point out the science that refutes (in the case of homeopathy, resoundingly, whether you like it or not) any treatment or hypothesis - especially in the science and technology forum.
Lots of things are maybes. Some aren't.
Like I said, TB. I'm not stupid, and I understand and don't need to be lectured on the science. We use homeopathy for some things anyway, and I don't think I am going to kill my kids with gangrene because of it.
Sure, point it out research and evidence. I agree that it is important to do so, but looking at the standard response in these threads frankly makes me roll my eyes. And the only difference to my mind with this and conspiracy theorists is that some have scientific studies behind them. Other than that the arguments are equally strident and absolute.
Fact is though, there are some scientists, who do not consider the matter closed (including one of the researchers on the Benveniste experiment - and Benveniste was not even a proponent of homeopathy).
But again, for me personally, I don't really care. I give the kid the pill. The kid stops freaking out.
Likewise, I am fine with Goggles putting the information out there, and with anyone else pointing out the counter information, so long as it doesn't turn into a pissing war.
Sooner or later we have to trust that people are going to do their own due diligence - or not.
I don't think you are stupid and have never said so. Nor did I say you were killing your kids with gangrene or anything else. What I did say, IIRC, is that it's been studied and no evidence for efficacy has been found beyond what could be expected of a placebo. You are characterizing my behaviour unfairly, I think - I don't think I'm lecturing, and it's possible that it could be as much defensiveness on your part than it is hectoring on mine. Let's split it in the middle, shall we?
If you give your kid a sugar pill and it calms her down, great. Placebos can work that way - and the probability (note that this is not an absolute!) is that it is in fact what's going on. But if it's working for you, go with it.
Just don't tell me it isn't placebo without any more evidence than your say-so and expect me not to disagree with you.
ETA: The problem with this for me isn't the folks like yourself who use homeopathic remedies in the way you do - it's when people with serious ailments are talked into using these non-medications to treat themselves, or are talked into treatment for life-threatening illnesses by homeopathic practitioners. There have been cases of people who have died miserably and far too soon because they eschew evidence-based treatment for remedies that have been shown to be ineffective. We can't always trust that people will do their homework and make the best decisions. It's not even about stupidity, it's about desperation and fearing and wishing things weren't as they are. I hate seeing people taken advantage of in that way. It happens more often than it should.
Sure. And I'm not pointing the finger solely and personally at you, but seriously. Do a search on homeopathy on this site, and look at the the arguments and jokes and level of discourse.
You're shaking your head about people not getting the placebo argument? I have to shake mine right back and wonder that anyone imagines I haven't heard it a million times. Why does anyone even need to mention it again?
And not that I want to sidetrack, but knowing probably the same as you do about placebo, I have to wonder how it works on a 4-month old child, where other similar pills did not work, or on a child who is so mad with night terrors she won't respond to her own name. But I don't really care to prove it one way or another.
Again, it's not the evidence. It's the pissing war and the worst case scenarios and the absolutist arguments, and the refusal to accept that some people are going to check out things for themselves and to them their own way.
(edit)
And yes, when it comes to the quacks and the dupes I am just as leery as you are. Frankly I think that is a red herring in this argument, because there is probably as much if not more of that in the regular medical system, using potions that have the full stamp of approval.
I am not shaking my head. Please stop making assumptions and deal just with the words on the page.
Placebo is more complicated than most people think it is. There are some physical effects that can actually happen - one that comes to mind is a double blind study for a hair growth formula - placebo group actually did grow some hair. So there's lots we don't 100% know about placebo as well. I wound up learning far more than I wanted to know about it when we did our MS doc - placebo is a particular problem in trials for that disease because it has a tendency to fluctuate in severity (relapsing and remitting, they call it) so it's very hard to know when something's actually working, or whether it's placebo or whether someone's just having a remission. Although I sympathise with one of our contributors who said "If this is placebo, I'll take it."
So what do we do with worst case scenarios, then? Pretend they don't exist? The reason we have health regulations of any kind is because, while it's okay to a certain extent to choose as you like, real choice starts with real information. If we allow spurious claims to go unchallenged, people aren't making informed choices.
Well whatever it is that you are doing that compels you to repeat these arguments, let me assure you you probably don't need to do it for me, or for anyone else who has heard it a million fucking times.
And frankly that goes for anyone else with a cureall or remedy that they absolutely insist I must agree with.
Yes, I have read that about placebo. I have also read that it works on caregivers as well as patients, and can make them perceive things that aren't really there. So hopefully I won't need to be informed of that again.
I do hope that it makes you feel better to have sorted it out for yourself how it works, though.
And all those worst case scenarios? Does anyone here honestly think they are going to convince someone by endless repetition, by ridicule, and by cracking jokes? As I said, I think that argument is a red herring.
(edit)
Funny, I forgot this time, but usually when I mention homeopathy I'm careful to point out that I am aware there is no scientific evidence to support it, because invariably people are going to just assume that I have never heard that before.
There have been cases of people who have died miserably and far too soon because they eschew evidence-based treatment for remedies that have been shown to be ineffective.
1) I wonder what these cases are. More often than not, they seem to come from personal anecdote - a form of data that you and others here consider to be unreliable. Do you know if any of these cases are cited in medical literature?
2) There are also cases where people die miserably and far too soon when they have eschewed alternative treatments and chosen instead system-sanctioned medical treatments. But you never seem to attribute that to the treatments; it's always to the disease. How would you know?
I asked Sineed in the other thread to cite a study (that she claims there are several of) comparing the success and failure rates of system-sanctioned medicine to alternative therapies. She has yet to cite a single study. So you talk about "facts" and about "real information", but we never seem to see any.
There have been cases of people who have died miserably and far too soon because they eschew evidence-based treatment for remedies that have been shown to be ineffective.1) I wonder what these cases are.
368,379 people killed, 306,096 injured and over $2,815,931,000 in economic damagesWhat is this site?
We are all confronted with new information daily. It comes to us via newspapers, radio, television, websites, conversation, advertising and so on. Sometimes it seems like a deluge.
Not all information is created equal. Some of it is correct. Some of it is incorrect. Some of it is carefully balanced. Some of it is heavily biased. Some of it is just plain crazy.
It is vital in the midst of this deluge that each of us be able to sort through all of this, keeping the useful information and discarding the rest. This requires the skill of critical thinking. Unfortunately, this is a skill that is often neglected in schools.
This site is designed to make a point about the danger of not thinking critically. Namely that you can easily be injured or killed by neglecting this important skill. We have collected the stories of over 670,000 people who have been injured or killed as a result of someone not thinking critically.
We do this not to make light of their plight. Quite the opposite. We want to honor their memory and learn from their stories.
Old friend of ours, Tooker Gomberg, was one of those. In his case, anti-depression medications seemed to aggravate his depression or perhaps, "lifted it" fallaciously, giving him the energy to go ahead with suicide.
