Homeopathy.. Srsly??

[Shelli]

Up until tonight, although I had never used anything labeled a "homeopathic remedy", I had always thought that homeopathy was herbal in nature. Well, how wrong was I? :stunned:

My sister-in-law gave my husband a homeopathic remedy to try for his cold and he brought it home for me to look up to see what it was, and in doing so, I found out that homeopathy is nothing like what I thought it was and I started this thread because I wouldn't doubt that there are a lot of people who don't know. :school:

As an example, I'll use what my husband brought home:

Oscillococcinum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscillococcinum)

The ingredients of a one gram tube of Oscillococcinum are listed as:

Active ingredient: Anas Barbariae Hepatis et Cordis Extractum (extract of Muscovy Duck liver and heart) 200CK HPUS 1x10-400g[8]

Inactive ingredient: 0.85 g sucrose, 0.15 g lactose (100 percent sugar.[9])

The 200CK indicates that the preparation entails a series of 200 dilutions of the starting ingredient, an extract from the heart and liver of a Muscovy Duck.[8] Each step entails a 1:100 dilution, where the first mixture contains 1% of the extract, the second contains 1% of the first mixture, etc.[8] The K indicates that it is prepared by the Korsakovian method, in which rather than 1% of the preparation being measured out at each stage and then diluted, a single vessel is repeatedly emptied, refilled, and succussed, and it is assumed that 1% remains in the vessel each time.[citation needed] Chemically, it is essentially impossible that the final pill will contain any of the original extract[8][10] (although as with other homeopathic treatments, it is argued that it is not the presence of the molecules of these ingredients that provide the therapeutic value, although the mechanism is not known[8]).

Under the 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, only those substances listed in the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the United States (HPUS) and prepared according to the guidelines therein may be marketed as homeopathic. Only preparations of Oscillococcinum made according to those guidelines may be thus labeled. The FDA's acceptance of HPUS manufacturing standards is merely statutory, and does not constitute an endorsement of the underlying theory or medical use of homeopathy.

It is generally considered harmless. When Boiron's spokeswoman Gina Casey was asked if a remedy made from the heart and liver of a duck was safe, she replied: "Of course it is safe. There's nothing in it."[9]

:blink:


So, then I looked up "homeopathy".


Homeopathy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy)

Homeopathy (from the Greek hómoios- ὅμοιος- ("like-") + páthos πάθος ("suffering"))[1] is a form of alternative medicine first expounded by Samuel Hahnemann in 1796, that treats a disease with heavily diluted preparations created from substances that would ordinarily cause effects similar to the disease's symptoms. These substances are serially diluted, with shaking ("succussing") between each step, under the belief that this increases the effect of the treatment. This dilution is usually quite extensive, and often continues until no molecules of the original substance are likely to remain.[2]


General philosophy

Homeopathy is a vitalist philosophy in that it regards diseases and sickness to be caused by disturbances in a hypothetical vital force or life force in humans and that these disturbances manifest themselves as unique symptoms. Homeopathy maintains that the vital force has the ability to react and adapt to internal and external causes, which homeopaths refer to as the "law of susceptibility". The law of susceptibility states that a negative state of mind can attract hypothetical disease entities called "miasms" to invade the body and produce symptoms of diseases.[37] However, Hahnemann rejected the notion of a disease as a separate thing or invading entity[57] and insisted that it was always part of the "living whole".[58]




Historical context

Homeopathy came about in the late 18th century, when mainstream medicine employed such measures as bloodletting and purging, the use of laxatives and enemas, and the administration of complex mixtures, such as Venice treacle, which was made from 64 substances including opium, myrrh, and viper's flesh.[25][26] Such measures often worsened symptoms and sometimes proved fatal.[27][28] While the virtues of these treatments had been extolled for centuries,[29] Hahnemann rejected such methods as irrational and unadvisable.[30] Instead, he favored the use of single drugs at lower doses and promoted an immaterial, vitalistic view of how living organisms function, believing that diseases have spiritual, as well as physical causes.


Rise to popularity and early criticism

Homeopathy achieved its greatest popularity in the 19th century. In 1830, the first homeopathic schools opened, and throughout the 19th century dozens of homeopathic institutions appeared in Europe and the United States.[43] By 1900, there were 22 homeopathic colleges and 15,000 practitioners in the United States.[19] Because of then-current medicine's reliance on unscientific blood-letting and other untested, often dangerous treatments, patients of homeopaths often had better outcomes than those of the doctors of the time.[44] Homeopathic remedies, even if ineffective, would almost surely cause no harm, making the users of homeopathic remedies less likely to be killed by the treatment that was supposed to be helping them.[37] The relative success of homeopathy in the 19th century may have led to the abandonment of the ineffective and harmful treatments of bloodletting and purging and to have begun the move towards more effective, science based medicine.[28] One reason for the growing popularity of homeopathy was its apparent success in treating people suffering from infectious disease epidemics.[45] During 19th century epidemics of diseases such as cholera, death rates in homeopathic hospitals were often lower than in conventional hospitals, where the treatments used at the time were often harmful and did little or nothing to combat the diseases.[46]

From its inception, however, homeopathy was criticized by mainstream science. Sir John Forbes, physician to Queen Victoria, said the extremely small doses of homeopathy were regularly derided as useless, "an outrage to human reason".[47] James Young Simpson said of the highly diluted drugs: "No poison, however strong or powerful, the billionth or decillionth of which would in the least degree affect a man or harm a fly."[48] Nineteenth century American physician and author Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. was also a vocal critic of homeopathy and published an essay in 1842 entitled Homœopathy, and its kindred delusions.[49] The members of the French Homeopathic Society observed in 1867 that some of the leading homeopathists of Europe were not only abandoning the practice of administering infinitesimal doses, but were also no longer defending it.[50] The last school in the U.S. exclusively teaching homeopathy closed in 1920.[37]



Revival in the late 20th Century

The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (sponsored by New York Senator, and Homeopathic Physician Royal Copeland) of 1938 recognized homeopathic remedies as drugs. By the 1950s there were only 75 pure homeopaths practicing in the USA.[51] However, in the mid to late 1970s, homeopathy made a significant comeback and sales of some homeopathic companies increased tenfold.[52] Homeopathy was also revived worldwide;[53] for example, Brazil in the 1970s and Germany in the 1980s.[54] The medical profession started to integrate such ideas in the 1990s[55] and big mainstream pharmacies started competing for this business.[56]

Read on... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy)



My brother-in-law told my husband that Oscillococcinum tasted like sugar cane. :orly:


The first thing that came to mind as I was reading all this, besides "what ridiculous crap is this?", was "Scientology". :bullshit:

[ChuckF]

homeophobe

[Shelli]

:lol:

[Crumb]

Generally homeopathy can summed up as "like cures like, dilution makes it stronger" :shrug: Basically just placebo.

[Shelli]

And it's big business. :spend: What a racket. :nanadeal:

[The Lone Ranger]

Indeed, the premise behind homeopathy is incredibly stupid.

There are lots of scams out there, but when it comes to a scam with a completely idiotic premise, it's hard to beat "homeopathic medicine."

Cheers,

Michael

[viscousmemories]

Homeopathy was a favorite target of the critical minds at JREF back when I used to post there. From what remember it's far worse than useless - it's downright dangerous.

[Garnet]

How so vm? Aren't homeopathic remedies so diluted that they basically don't do anything?

[godfry n. glad]

Yeah...The wiki site states that homeopathic 'cures' are generally considered 'harmless', but the admonitions from practitioners to have their 'patients' NOT consult other, more mainstream, practitioners ARE harmful.

I'm more familiar with naturopathy, which includes a lot of workable therapies, but also includes the patently ridiculous, like homeopathy. I use a Naturopathic Doctor for my massuesse, but that's because she's a friend and neighbor. She does not have a patient load, but works as a research naturopath, writing and advising on diet supplements.

It seems around here that the predominant methodology is to work in concert with typical physicians to do what is called "complementary" or "collaborative" care, instead of "alternative". Here in Puddle City, the state's largest medical educator and researcher, the state medical school, has joined forces with the National College of Naturopathic Medicine, the Western States Chiropractic College, and the Oregon College of Oriental Medicine to jointly do research and address community health problems.

Of course, we know that traditional medicine has never engaged in any asinine practices. They'd never consider opening veins for illnesses, using 'humors' as the basis of therapy, denying germ theory, prescribing laudanum for minor discomforts, or removing body parts just for the income derived from the surgery. Oh, nooooo...that would be barbarian.

But then, I even remember an M.D. telling me that cocaine was a relatively harmless pharmaceutical, in terms of addiction.

The point is that almost all these practitioners have moved beyond the stereotypes most of us have. Plus, it varies from state to state, dependent upon whether there is any realistic regulation of training and practice, or not. Yes, the quacks are still there, and probably in higher numbers amongst the more "holistic" practitioners, but that does not exempt those packing around M.D. designations after their names. They, too, can garner quack status easily enough...and do. Meanwhile, those packing N.D. or D.C. designations are becoming more trustworthy....just like the DO doctors did.

[Qingdai]

I'm guessing people skip treatments that work and do homeopathy instead. Not a good idea.

I think homeopathy is great, if I get a patient that says homeopathy is "too strong" for them. I know exactly what I am dealing with :cuckoo:

It does make a nice placebo for the person who is stressed because they feel they should be doing something, but really be shouldn't taking another pill.
Plus if you do the constitutional diagnosis, you talk to them a really long time about their health concerns, which is a great stress reliever.

Now for a homeopathy joke, "how do you know when you've overdosed on homeopathy?"
"You haven't taken it at all!"

[erimir]

Of course, we know that traditional medicine has never engaged in any asinine practices.Which has little to no bearing on the subject of homeopathy.
They'd never consider opening veins for illnesses, using 'humors' as the basis of therapy, denying germ theoryI submit that it is practices such as chiropractic (as a cure for something other than back pain) and homeopathy that are in the spirit of those primitive superstitions, and not modern medicine.

I do, of course, support unbiased, independent studies of the efficacy of modern medical drugs and practices and harsh punishments for doctors that are abusive, incompetent or frauds, before you go accusing me of being their lackey or something.

[godfry n. glad]

Of course, we know that traditional medicine has never engaged in any asinine practices.Which has little to no bearing on the subject of homeopathy.



It doesn't?

When we are talking about a "health care modality" which competes with what you call "modern medicine"?

It seems that you don't wish to acknowledge that at one time, what you call "modern medicine" was just as barbaric and backward as you seem to think anything which is not "modern medicine" currently is.

In comparison to "modern medicine" (allopathic medicine) homeopathic medicine has no discernable benefit to offer beyond what allopathic medicine offers. The same cannot be said of select types of naturopathy, chiropractic, or oriental medicines. They have actually had some measurable efficacy.

[Corona688]

It seems that you don't wish to acknowledge that at one time, what you call "modern medicine" was just as barbaric and backward as you seem to think anything which is not "modern medicine" currently is. We'll admit all you want, it's just not fucking relevant that medicine as practiced in old times was often ignorant. But homeopathy is still practiced apparently, and no longer has the excuse of ignorance.

[godfry n. glad]

It seems that you don't wish to acknowledge that at one time, what you call "modern medicine" was just as barbaric and backward as you seem to think anything which is not "modern medicine" currently is. We'll admit all you want, it's just not fucking relevant that medicine as practiced in old times was often ignorant. But homeopathy is still practiced apparently, and no longer has the excuse of ignorance.

You just don't get it do you, Coronary?

Medicine is still practiced apparently, and there are physicians still dabble in bullshit like being cut-happy assholes and Medicare grifters (way too many, actually), and they have no recourse to ignorance whatsoever. They're just assholes, out-and-out....not the deluded ignorant.

[Corona688]

And this has what relevance? Some doctors are bastards, therefore homeopathy is legit medical practice? Some doctors are bastards, therefore modern medicine is wrong? Traditional Chinese medicine(but not too traditional since we know mercury's bad now) isn't completely wrong in all respects, therefore...um...profit! You're intelligent enough to understand the difference between the practice, the science, and the people that undertake it.

Does the slightest mention of anything remotely related to any pet peeve of yours really deserve a beserking driveby rant by The Incredible Godfry?

[godfry n. glad]

Well, Coronary, why don't you improve your reading comprehension before posting?

My point here is that blanket condemnations (like yours, usually) deserve a retort because the usual implied or explicit tag line is to see a physician. This does not necessarily bode well for the sufferer, nor, depending upon the physician, does it mean they will receive any care any better than what they might receive from the wackjob homeopath. Depending, they may have a worse outcome...say, if they happened to have been referred to dipshit physician, whose murders have basically been covered up by the local hospital and medical association.

So...If you come in with your pronouncements about how shitty some care provided is, I'm going to treat it with the suspicion it deserves. I certainly wouldn't accept ANY suggestions from you about health care because you offer up over-generalized blanket condemnations about those who don't happen to have an M.D. title.

I think you're just a shill for the AMA. Or, some pharmaceutical company...yeah, that's the ticket. You're a Big Pharm shill.

[Corona688]

I think you're just a shill for the AMA. Or, some pharmaceutical company...yeah, that's the ticket. You're a Big Pharm shill. And I think you're just trying to get a rise out of me, unless you've finally abandoned skepticism for schizophrenia. Though from what the rest of you're saying that may not be too far off. Fuck big pharma, any medical model which doesn't at least incorporate the germ theory of disease deserves nothing but mockery no matter how badly you think doctors of whatever kind abuse whatever system.

[Naru]

You just don't get it do you, Coronary

Well, Coronary, why don't you improve your reading comprehension before posting?

NAME BURN ALERT

Please remain calm, Corona's shattered ego will soon recover. Please lift your tray into the upright and locked position and wait for godfry to stop frothing.

[Shelli]

Homeopathy was a favorite target of the critical minds at JREF back when I used to post there. From what remember it's far worse than useless - it's downright dangerous.

How so vm? Aren't homeopathic remedies so diluted that they basically don't do anything?IMO, homeopathy is a danger to people's health who forgo actual medical treatment that could have helped them in favor of homeopathy which has no effect other than placebo.

[Doctor X]

You just needed more Qi.

--J.D.

[LadyShea]

I got a homeopathic "first aid" kid for Kiddo's baby shower. 6 or 7 bottles of sugar pills that probably cost 50 bucks.

[Shelli]

Good grief. Whadda racket. :facepalm:

[The Lone Ranger]

If you live in any large city, there's a more or less 100% chance that the water you drink contains trace amounts of just-about every commonly-used drug. (Medicinal drugs and recreational drugs, by the way.)

So, if homeopathic claims were true, you could get all the drugs you need (and then some!) in a glass of ordinary tap water.

Cheers,

Michael

[BDS]

HOmeopathy is an easy target, because it sounds so whacky. If your homeopathic remedy isn't working, you can just take less of it, to make it more powerful.

However, vacines sounded whacky, too, before we learned how effective they are. Who would intutitiveluy think you could prevent disease by injecting someone with the germs that cause the disease?

Although the research supporting the efficacy of homeopathic remedies is scanty, it is not nonexistant. Some studies (on some particular remedies)have shown efficacy. As with many drugs, clinical efficacy does not necessarily prove that the supposed mechanism works -- the drug may work because of some mechanism that has not been postulated.

By the way, homeopathy was a leading form of medicine in the late 1800s, and homeopathic hospitals had better cure rates than other hospitals. However, this was probably because non-homeopathic treatments were ALSO ineffective, back then, and because homeopaths were early believers in sterilization and cleanliness.

[ChuckF]

Although the research supporting the efficacy of homeopathic remedies is scanty, it is not nonexistant. Some studies (on some particular remedies)have shown efficacy.
Cool. Can we see them?

[Corona688]

However, vacines sounded whacky, too, before we learned how effective they are. How do you think vaccines were invented? Someone just injected someone else with damaged/stressed/closely related disease vectors for the sheer unadulterated hell of it? It sounds like a weird idea but a basic understanding of how the immune system deals with invaders suggests ways to exploit it to one's advantage.Who would intuitively think you could prevent disease by injecting someone with the germs that cause the disease? Intuition has nothing to do with it. It is not intuition that tells me a treatment with no active ingredients whatsoever cannot be differentiated in any way from unhomeopathic water.

[ChuckF]

Intuition has nothing to do with it. It is not intuition that tells me a treatment with no active ingredients whatsoever cannot be differentiated in any way from unhomeopathic water.
Whoa, slow down. What if the treatment is applied directly to the forehead?

What say your dastardly medical industry masters now?!

[Dingfod]

But water has an excellent memory, yeah, excellent. It's cool how water remembers me being in it and it in me.

[Qingdai]

Although the research supporting the efficacy of homeopathic remedies is scanty, it is not nonexistant. Some studies (on some particular remedies)have shown efficacy.
Cool. Can we see them?

I'm so tired I'll answer.

Just for you Chuck, how is research in the Ukraine anyway?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17362845?ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum


I think this is a more typical result though:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17362845?ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

[ChuckF]

Those are the same link.
:psst:

[BDS]

Cool. Can we see them?

If you do a PubMed search (just follow Qindai's link) you can find them just as easily as I can.

Personally, I'd never recommend homeopathic remedies, and they seem whacky to me. I'm simply suggesting that there are more strange things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than you have dreamt of in your philosophy.

A one minute search shows these links (if I looked further, I could probably find better ones):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18550913?ordinalpos=13&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14734789?ordinalpos=123&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

This article might prove interesting (although I can't tell from the abstract):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18564960?ordinalpos=12&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

[ChuckF]

This (http://www.hpathy.com/papersnew/milogram-homeopathy-fundamentalism.asp) looks to be the full text.

[BDS]

It is not intuition that tells me a treatment with no active ingredients whatsoever cannot be differentiated in any way from unhomeopathic water.

Yes it is. Homeopaths have an entire theoretical framework supposedly explaining how the water is "potentiated". Of course the framework may be complete malarky, but if (as I suspect is the case with you) you claim that "potentiated" water cannot be differentiated from "unpotentiated' water without knowing or understanding the claims of the homeopaths, you are merely using your intuition.

[ChuckF]

Haha that site I just linked to has some forums and I was about to say that they desperately need trolling but they have a couple of rock stars there already. I need to troll them as a voodoo practitioner looking to break into homeopathy. Not voodoo as in the Haitian syncretic folk belief but voodoo as in the black magic depicted in Weekend at Bernie's 2.

[ceptimus]

Homeopaths should explain what they mean by 'potentiated' water, and how they reset it back to unpotentiated water when they've finished with the remedy.

Based on our scientific understanding of water molecules, this 'potentiated' water is impossible. The homeopaths need to explain how such a phenomenon goes unnoticed in normal chemical reactions and only shows itself when they wield their magic.

[BrotherMan]

But water has an excellent memory, yeah, excellent. It's cool how water remembers me being in it and it in me.

Swim in the abyss too long and soon enough the abyss swims into you.

... ... ...:lolhog:

[fragment]

How do you think vaccines were invented? Someone just injected someone else with damaged/stressed/closely related disease vectors for the sheer unadulterated hell of it? It sounds like a weird idea but a basic understanding of how the immune system deals with invaders suggests ways to exploit it to one's advantage.
Just out of interest, how do you think vaccines were invented? Do you really think an understanding of how the immune system deals with invaders preceded inoculation? Looking up variolation (smallpox inoculation), it was practiced in China at least as early as the 16th century.

[erimir]

Of course, we know that traditional medicine has never engaged in any asinine practices.Which has little to no bearing on the subject of homeopathy.It doesn't?No, it doesn't. Not if we're discussing how homeopathy doesn't work.

Two wrongs make a right (fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right_(fallacy))

Saying "Well, the medical establishment has ineffective treatments too!" is just the ranting of someone who has a pet peeve he must go on about whenever a related subject is brought up. It doesn't say anything about homeopathy to talk about cut-happy surgeons.
When we are talking about a "health care modality" which competes with what you call "modern medicine"?You seem to have a strange idea of what I think "modern medicine" is, as I will explain.
It seems that you don't wish to acknowledge that at one time, what you call "modern medicine" was just as barbaric and backward as you seem to think anything which is not "modern medicine" currently is.You see, the word "modern" refers to the present times. I would not consider 18th and 19th century medicine to be modern medicine. Sure, some things from those times could be considered modern, such as modern philosophy which is considered to start with Descartes, or Modern English, which is considered to start around 1550. But those distinctions are based on events within philosophy and the history of English, not arbitrary time periods. Modern medicine has as one of its bedrocks the acceptance of germ theory.

Notions such as the four humors and practices such as blood-letting are not informed by germ theory, therefore I would not consider them to be modern medicine at all.

Modern medicine begins when scientific medical research begins and is refined, germ theory is proven and accepted, antibiotics are discovered, and primitive practices such as humorism and blood-letting are abandoned. Homeopaths and Straight Chiropractors did not get the memo, and as I already said, I think that homeopathy and the notion that "subluxations" can cause all sorts of illnesses are the true spiritual successors to those old, discredited practices.

Now, if this were the 1700s, then yes, those would be modern medicine, since the 1700s would also be "modern times", and the medicine of the day would be "modern medicine".
The same cannot be said of select types of naturopathy, chiropractic, or oriental medicines. They have actually had some measurable efficacy.What's your point? I didn't call them all totally useless. No doubt that they do work for some things.

But that some of their practices happen to work doesn't redeem their practitioners in my eyes. If you are basing your view of what causes human disease based on unscientific and unfalsifiable ideas such as meridian lines that qi flows through, or subluxations of the spine that cause kidney disease, etc. then I don't respect that form of medicine. I'm not generally in favor of treating schools that teach based on theories such as "vertebral subluxations impair Innate Intelligence and thus can cause almost any disease" as serious medical educational establishments.

That doesn't mean that none of it works, and there is a place for the practices of naturopaths, chiropractors and so forth that have been shown to work. But that's not the same as a validation of their mystical theories.

For what it's worth (and in your case, I'm suspecting it's little, as you will continue to believe that any criticism of alternative medicine is tantamount to being a shill for corrupt doctors and Big Pharma regardless of what I say), I also support science when doctors do not. For example, I'd agree with Newsweek's Sharon Begley here ("Why Doctors Hate Science") (http://www.newsweek.com/id/187006) and support effectiveness research, even tho it's not what Big Pharma and friends would necessarily want.
Fuck big pharma, any medical model which doesn't at least incorporate the germ theory of disease deserves nothing but mockery no matter how badly you think doctors of whatever kind abuse whatever system.:yeahthat:

[Plant Woman]

I wish there were more studies being done on the placebo affect.

[The Lone Ranger]

It's generally thought that vaccination as a systematic practice began with Edward Jenner around 1796. He noted that milkmaids exposed to cowpox rarely developed smallpox. (While milking cows, milkmaids would be exposed to the cows' open sores.) Indeed, the root of "vaccination," vacca, is derived from the Latin for "cow."

Jenner reasoned that something in the cows' open sores must be responsible for the disease, and that exposure to cowpox could somehow "strengthen" one against smallpox, a very similar (because, as we now know, closely-related) but much more serious disease in humans. So he deliberately injected people with cowpox, and showed that the practice, which he called "vaccination," greatly reduced their likelihood of developing smallpox.

Cheers,

Michael

[Qingdai]

Those are the same link.
:psst:

Whoops, I told you I was tired. I'd link again, but apparently I am more distracted and even more tired now.

[fragment]

It's generally thought that vaccination as a systematic practice began with Edward Jenner around 1796. He noted that milkmaids exposed to cowpox rarely developed smallpox. (While milking cows, milkmaids would be exposed to the cows' open sores.) Indeed, the root of "vaccination," vacca, is derived from the Latin for "cow."

Jenner reasoned that something in the cows' open sores must be responsible for the disease, and that exposure to cowpox could somehow "strengthen" one against smallpox, a very similar (because, as we now know, closely-related) but much more serious disease in humans. So he deliberately injected people with cowpox, and showed that the practice, which he called "vaccination," greatly reduced their likelihood of developing smallpox.
Which is a case of observation leading to hypothesis, leading to experiment, leading to confirmation of hypothesis. That's quite the opposite of what Corona implied, which was that understanding "immune system response to invaders" led to vaccination. Jenner predates germ theory of disease (and presumably also any coherent scientific account of the immune system) so I don't know what invaders Corona was even talking about. As an aside, this also means Jenner doesn't fall under the label "modern medicine" as defined by erimir, which IMO suggests there's something a bit whack with erimir's definition.

There's plenty of "common knowledge" about the history of science that turns out to be drastically oversimplified, and at worst outright myth, when you start to actually look at the facts. Ironically. History tends to be more interesting than any of the myths, and more enlightening of both actual and best practices of science.

[Crumb]

As an aside, this also means Jenner doesn't fall under the label "modern medicine" as defined by erimir, which IMO suggests there's something a bit whack with erimir's definition.
I am confused as to why when it was discovered has anything to do with whether or not it is part of modern medicine. Modern medicine is what medicine is practiced now, it is not what was discovered after a certain date. Vaccinations are certainly part of modern medicine.
Which is a case of observation leading to hypothesis, leading to experiment, leading to confirmation of hypothesis. That's quite the opposite of what Corona implied, which was that understanding "immune system response to invaders" led to vaccination.
Sounds like the basic scientific method to me. Which is something that is not a part of homeopathy.

[fragment]

As an aside, this also means Jenner doesn't fall under the label "modern medicine" as defined by erimir, which IMO suggests there's something a bit whack with erimir's definition.
I am confused as to why when it was discovered has anything to do with whether or not it is part of modern medicine. Modern medicine is what medicine is practiced now, it is not what was discovered after a certain date. Vaccinations are certainly part of modern medicine.
erimir's the one who tied the term "modern medicine" to that which happened after particular events ("Modern medicine begins when scientific medical research begins and is refined, germ theory is proven and accepted, antibiotics are discovered, and primitive practices such as humorism and blood-letting are abandoned."). I'm the one questioning that approach to definition.

Personally I'd prefer to ditch the term "modern" and use terms like "scientific" and "evidence-based", using definitions based on which practices are involved in the investigation of reality rather than ones based on historic sequence.

Which is a case of observation leading to hypothesis, leading to experiment, leading to confirmation of hypothesis. That's quite the opposite of what Corona implied, which was that understanding "immune system response to invaders" led to vaccination.
Sounds like the basic scientific method to me. Which is something that is not a part of homeopathy.
I agree. In broad outline at least, I won't burden the thread with a long series of qualifications. But I also think having a good understanding of the history of science is really useful for making clear claims about what scientific methods are and whether they have been used in specific cases, such as homeopathy. That's why I think it's important to question and clarify incorrect history.

[BDS]

The explanation of how vaccines were invented sounds reasonable. How was homeopathy invented? I don't have any idea, but there was probably some reason for developing it.

My main point was just to say that mocking things about which we are ignorant is risky (although, doubtless, many things about which I am ignorant deserve mocking).

[ChuckF]

My main point was just to say that mocking things about which we are ignorant is risky (although, doubtless, many things about which I am ignorant deserve mocking).
I don't know if it's "risky," as I can't imagine much risk involved, and neither do I think that one needs to be particularly expert in the pseudoscience of homeopathy to mock it, any more than one needs to be OT III to make fun of Scientology.

[godfry n. glad]

So...How many people are killed every year as a result of homeopathy?

How many have to live with the mistakes of homeopaths imposing some kind of limitation upon their lives?

What percentage does that represent of all the people treated by homeopathic therapies?

[ChuckF]

So...How many people are killed every year as a result of homeopathy?
I don't know. Maybe some people die because they go to a homeopath instead of seeking real treatment. Maybe not. Perhaps some are stalked and diluted to death by a homeopathic maniac. Personally I suspect that homeopathy is one of the more benign forms of quackery.
How many have to live with the mistakes of homeopaths imposing some kind of limitation upon their lives?
Probably not many, because homeopathy is quackery. I don't imagine many people OD when their homeopath gives them some water with TWO molecules of active ingredient rather than none.
What percentage does that represent of all the people treated by homeopathic therapies?
10-12, or 12X on the X scale.

[godfry n. glad]

So ChuckF doesn't have a clue and doesn't even know where to start getting one. So, he's basically mocking out his ass.

Why am I not surprised?

[Naru]

So ChuckF doesn't have a clue and doesn't even know where to start getting one. So, he's basically mocking out his ass.

Why am I not surprised?

This post is seriously lacking in your signature name burns, godfry.

[ChuckF]

So ChuckF doesn't have a clue and doesn't even know where to start getting one. So, he's basically mocking out his ass.

It's called a prolapsed rectum and I am taking a 24X preparation of sodium chloride (that means 1 part NaCl per 1024 parts water - I think so, at least - this very legitimate science is so confusing!) for it, thank you very much.

[Shelli]

By the way, homeopathy was a leading form of medicine in the late 1800s, and homeopathic hospitals had better cure rates than other hospitals. However, this was probably because non-homeopathic treatments were ALSO ineffective, back then, and because homeopaths were early believers in sterilization and cleanliness.Homeopathic hospitals' rise in popularity back in the 1800's was not only due to "medical" treatments of the day being ineffective in curing the ailment, but also in that they were often lethal, so it was considered a plus if you emerged from treatment alive and not worse off than you were to begin with. :brainsurgery:

[Shelli]

The explanation of how vaccines were invented sounds reasonable. How was homeopathy invented? I don't have any idea, but there was probably some reason for developing it.


Hahnemann's concept (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy#Hahnemann.27s_concept)

Hahnemann conceived of homeopathy while translating a medical treatise by Scottish physician and chemist William Cullen into German.[37] Being skeptical of Cullen's theory concerning cinchona's action in malaria, Hahnemann ingested some of the bark specifically to see if it cured fever "by virtue of its effect of strengthening the stomach".[38] Upon ingesting the bark, he noticed few stomach symptoms, but did experience fever, shivering and joint pain, symptoms similar to some of the early symptoms of malaria, the disease that the bark was ordinarily used to treat. From this, Hahnemann came to believe that all effective drugs produce symptoms in healthy individuals similar to those of the diseases that they treat. This later became known as the "law of similars", the most important concept of homeopathy.[37] The term "homeopathy" was coined by Hahnemann and first appeared in print in 1807, although he began outlining his theories of "medical similars" in a series of articles and monographs in 1796.[39]

Hahnemann began to test what effects substances produced in humans, a procedure which would later become known as "homeopathic proving".[40] These time-consuming tests required subjects to clearly record all of their symptoms as well as the ancillary conditions under which they appeared. Hahnemann saw these data as a way of identifying substances suitable for the treatment of particular diseases.[40] The first collection of provings was published in 1805 and a second collection of 65 remedies appeared in his book, Materia Medica Pura, in 1810.[41] Hahnemann believed that large doses of drugs that caused similar symptoms would only aggravate illness, so he advocated extreme dilutions of the substances; he devised a technique for making dilutions that he believed would preserve a substance's therapeutic properties while removing its harmful effects,[2] proposing that this process aroused and enhanced "spirit-like medicinal powers held within a drug".[42] He gathered and published a complete overview of his new medical system in his 1810 book, The Organon of the Healing Art, whose 6th edition, published in 1921, is still used by homeopaths today.[37]


Yep, there was "some reason" alright. :shakeipu:

[godfry n. glad]

By the way, homeopathy was a leading form of medicine in the late 1800s, and homeopathic hospitals had better cure rates than other hospitals. However, this was probably because non-homeopathic treatments were ALSO ineffective, back then, and because homeopaths were early believers in sterilization and cleanliness.Homeopathic hospitals' rise in popularity back in the 1800's was not only due to "medical" treatments of the day being ineffective in curing the ailment, but also in that they were often lethal, so it was considered a plus if you emerged from treatment alive and not worse off than you were to begin with. :brainsurgery:


Yep. And medical mistakes are still the third largest killer in the US, after heart disease and cancer. Medical mistakes tote up three times as many deaths each year than gun deaths.

Perhaps we should stop talking about gun control, and start talking about doctor control.

[ChuckF]

It should also be pointed out that the incidence per 100,000 of mistakes by medical doctors is thousands of times higher than the incidence per 100,000 of medical mistakes committed by witch doctors. So you know, stick with the witch.

[Shelli]

I don't want the medicine I take to have "spirit-like medicinal powers". I want it to work, tyvm. :viagra:

[Shelli]

Ethical and safety issues of homeopathy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy#Hahnemann.27s_concept)

As homeopathic remedies usually contain only water and/or alcohol, they are thought to be generally safe. Only in rare cases are the original ingredients present at detectable levels. This may be due to improper preparation or intentional low dilution. Instances of arsenic poisoning have occurred after use of arsenic-containing homeopathic preparations.[6] Zicam Nasal Spray, which contains 2X (1:100) zinc gluconate, reportedly caused a small percentage of users to lose their sense of smell;[158] 340 cases were settled out of court in 2006 for 12 million U.S. dollars.[5][159]

Critics of homeopathy have cited other concerns over homeopathic remedies, most seriously, cases of patients of homeopathy failing to receive proper treatment for diseases that it is claimed could have been diagnosed or cured with conventional medicine. Several surveys demonstrate that some (particularly non-physician) homeopaths advise their patients against immunisation.[7][160][161] Some homeopaths suggest that vaccines be replaced with homeopathically diluted "nosodes", created from dilutions of biological agents – including material such as vomit, feces or infected human tissues. While Hahnemann was opposed to such preparations, modern homeopaths often use them although there is no evidence to indicate they have any beneficial effects.[162][163] Cases of homeopaths advising against the use of anti-malarial drugs have been identified.[8][164][165] This puts visitors to the tropics who take this advice in severe danger, since homeopathic remedies are completely ineffective against the malaria parasite.[8][164][165] Also, in one case in 2004, a homeopath instructed one of her patients to stop taking conventional medication for a heart condition, advising her on 22 June 2004 to "Stop ALL medications including homeopathic", advising her on or around 20 August that she no longer needed to take her heart medication, and adding on 23 August, "She just cannot take ANY drugs – I have suggested some homeopathic remedies ... I feel confident that if she follows the advice she will regain her health." The patient was admitted to hospital the next day, and died eight days later, the final diagnosis being "acute heart failure due to treatment discontinuation".[166][167]

In 1978, Anthony Campbell, then a consultant physician at The Royal London Homeopathic Hospital, criticised statements made by George Vithoulkas to promote his homeopathic treatments. Vithoulkas stated that syphilis, when treated with antibiotics, would develop into secondary and tertiary syphilis with involvement of the central nervous system. Campbell described this as a thoroughly irresponsible statement which could mislead an unfortunate layman into refusing conventional medical treatment.[9] This claim echoes the idea that treating a disease with external medication used to treat the symptoms would only drive it deeper into the body and conflicts with scientific studies, which indicate that penicillin treatment produces a complete cure of syphilis in more than 90% of cases.[65]

A 2006 review by W. Steven Pray of the College of Pharmacy at Southwestern Oklahoma State University recommends that pharmacy colleges include a required course in unproven medications and therapies, that ethical dilemmas inherent in recommending products lacking proven safety and efficacy data be discussed, and that students should be taught where unproven systems such as homeopathy depart from evidence-based medicine.[168]

Edzard Ernst, the first Professor of Complementary Medicine in the United Kingdom, has expressed his concerns about pharmacists who violate their ethical code by failing to provide customers with "necessary and relevant information" about the true nature of the homeopathic products they advertise and sell:

"My plea is simply for honesty. Let people buy what they want, but tell them the truth about what they are buying. These treatments are biologically implausible and the clinical tests have shown they don't do anything at all in human beings. The argument that this information is not relevant or important for customers is quite simply ridiculous."[169]

[ChuckF]

Edzard Ernst, the first Professor of Complementary Medicine in the United Kingdom, has expressed his concerns about pharmacists who violate their ethical code by failing to provide customers with "necessary and relevant information" about the true nature of the homeopathic products they advertise and sell:

"My plea is simply for honesty. Let people buy what they want, but tell them the truth about what they are buying. These treatments are biologically implausible and the clinical tests have shown they don't do anything at all in human beings. The argument that this information is not relevant or important for customers is quite simply ridiculous."
That guy probably has a cell phone.

[Shelli]

Quackwatch ~ Homeopathy: The Ultimate Fake (http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.html)

Stephen Barrett, M.D.

Homeopathic "remedies" enjoy a unique status in the health marketplace: They are the only category of quack products legally marketable as drugs. This situation is the result of two circumstances. First, the 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which was shepherded through Congress by a homeopathic physician who was a senator, recognizes as drugs all substances included in the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the United States. Second, the FDA has not held homeopathic products to the same standards as other drugs. Today they are marketed in health-food stores, in pharmacies, in practitioner offices, by multilevel distributors, through the mail, and on the Internet.


Read on.. (http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.html) :ducky:

[godfry n. glad]

It should also be pointed out that the incidence per 100,000 of mistakes by medical doctors is thousands of times higher than the incidence per 100,000 of medical mistakes committed by witch doctors. So you know, stick with the witch.

Post proof or retract.

[ChuckF]

It should also be pointed out that the incidence per 100,000 of mistakes by medical doctors is thousands of times higher than the incidence per 100,000 of medical mistakes committed by witch doctors. So you know, stick with the witch.

Post proof or retract.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v317/ChuckF/livetarot_clip_image001.jpg

There are also numerous randomized double-blind clinical cleromancy trials as well as a sizeable corpus of meta-augury that supports my contention. I'll just need to feel the bumps on your skull before I post them.

[Shelli]

:rofl:

[Watser?]

:lol:

[Shelli]

Srsly though, as an atheist, I have to wonder how can anyone who doesn't believe in god can believe that the supposed "spirit-like medicinal powers" of water are supposed to cure one of anything other than thirst? :magic:

[godfry n. glad]

There are also numerous randomized double-blind clinical cleromancy trials as well as a sizeable corpus of meta-augury that supports my contention. I'll just need to feel the bumps on your skull before I post them.

Just as I thought...trafficking in non-peer reviewed sources by distinctly unscientific researchers. Produce cleromancy trials reports as adjudicated by a qualified panel and a link to the corpus of meta-augery, or submit to a quicksilver enema to clear your thoughts.

[godfry n. glad]

Srsly though, as an atheist, I have to wonder how can anyone who doesn't believe in god can believe that the supposed "spirit-like medicinal powers" of water are supposed to cure one of anything other than thirst? :magic:

You know somebody who doesn't believe in god who uses a homeopathic physician?

[The Lone Ranger]

Homeopathy was founded by Samuel Hahnemann in 1796. It is founded on a vitalistic philosophy, and holds that diseases are as much "spiritual" in nature as physical. According to standard homeopathic doctrine, the way to treat diseases is through administration of heavily-diluted preparation of substances that would normally cause symptoms similar to those of the disease in question.


According to the notion of vitalism, living organisms function because of some sort of mysterious "vital force" that distinguishes them from non-living matter. Accordingly, vitalism holds that the most basic processes in living beings cannot be explained through physical or chemical laws. The doctrine has been considered more or less completely disproved in biology for well over a century.





Hahnemann rejected many then-"mainstream" medical practices (such as blood-letting) as "brutal" and "irrational." This, apparently, is what led him to seek alternate notions of what causes diseases and how diseases should be treated.

[That the "mainstream medicine" of Hahnemann's day was indeed brutal and very-often both irrational and ineffective was by no means an unwarranted conclusion. Many treatments were used for no particularly good reason other than that they were "traditional," despite a total lack of evidence for their efficacy. Indeed, many standard treatments of the day were ineffective at best and often very dangerous to patients.]



Supposedly, Hahnemann conceived of homeopathy while translating a medical treatise from English into German. The treatise was by the Scottish physician William Cullen, and in it, Cullen theorized that extracts from the bark of trees in the genus [i]Cinchona could be used to treat malaria. (Cullen had noted that natives in malaria-plagued areas often used Cinchona bark as a treatment.)

Incidentally, Cullen was correct. Quinine is derived from the bark of trees in the genus Cinchona, and quinine is an effective anti-fever drug and malaria treatment.


Anyway, Hahnemann was skeptical of Cullen's theory and set out to test it. He ingested some Cinchona bark to see if it would cure a fever. Shortly after he ingested the bark, Hahnemann became feverish and suffered from joint pain and shivering. As it happens, these are early symptoms of malaria, the very disease that the bark was supposed to cure. [In all probability, it was entirely coincidental that Hahnemann became sick after ingesting the Cinchona bark.]


Hahnemann apparently concluded that the reason Cinchona bark was an effective anti-malarial agent was because it caused symptoms similar to the disease it was intended to treat. This led him to develop the concept of the "law of similars," which is the most fundamental principle of homeopathy. According to the law of similar, all effective drugs work by producing symptoms similar to the symptoms of the disease they're intended to treat. In other words, if you want to find a drug that will be effective in treating a particular disease, find one that, when you ingest it, produces the same symptoms that the disease does.


In trials with human subjects, Hahnemann and his followers noted that large dosages of their drugs generally only made patients' conditions worse, so he conceived of the notion that the less of the drug was used, the more effective it would be. Before long, he and his followers were diluting their drugs so much that it was often the case that their treatments contained no active ingredients.


In fairness, while the "effectiveness" of homeopathic medicine is almost-certainly due entirely to the placebo effect, it's worth keeping in mind that many of the "mainstream" treatments used during Hahnemann's time were, in fact, worse than useless. So, in the early days of homeopathic medicine (before what most people would regard as the advent of "modern medicine," founded as it is on principles such as the germ theory, rather than pseudoscientific notions such as "humors" that plagued medical practice for so long), homeopathic treatments often were more effective than were "mainstream" treatments. Not because homeopathic treatments had any actual value, but because they were less likely to sicken (or even kill) patients than were some of the then-standard "mainstream" treatments.

Cheers,

Michael

[Dingfod]

Srsly though, as an atheist, I have to wonder how can anyone who doesn't believe in god can believe that the supposed "spirit-like medicinal powers" of water are supposed to cure one of anything other than thirst? :magic:

You know somebody who doesn't believe in god who uses a homeopathic physician?I know of a few.

[The Lone Ranger]

Hmph. Here I spend all that time typing, and Shelli sneaks in by posting links.

[Shelli]

Well, I don't know about anyone else, TLR, but I'm pretty impressed that you knew all of that off the top of your head. :=)

[The Lone Ranger]

Oh, I had to look up Hahnemann's and Cullen's names, and the dates and all.

Cheers,

Michael

[Shelli]

Well, I'm still impressed. So there. :girltong:

[godfry n. glad]

I got a homeopathic "first aid" kid for Kiddo's baby shower. 6 or 7 bottles of sugar pills that probably cost 50 bucks.

I saw a sociopathic "first aid" kit for my chickens. It was a hatchet in a wooden box. $17.95 per kit.

[Kael]

Yep. And medical mistakes are still the third largest killer in the US, after heart disease and cancer. Medical mistakes tote up three times as many deaths each year than gun deaths.

Perhaps we should stop talking about gun control, and start talking about doctor control.Who the fuck is talking about gun control? I don't know if you missed it, but this thread is about homeopathic medicine. Not gun control, not medical malpractice or doctors mistakes, homeopathic medicine.

You have some serious hang-ups, don't you? Can't talk about anything even remotely medical without launching into your diatribe, can't talk about cellphones without shouting from the rooftops that they're the root of all society's evils, or whatever... I'd blame it on old age and associated senility, but I know a number of old folks that aren't nearly as tetchy, so I don't know what your deal is.

Did a doctor screw up a surgery on you or a loved one because he was talking on his cellphone, or something? Just curious.

[godfry n. glad]

Yep. And medical mistakes are still the third largest killer in the US, after heart disease and cancer. Medical mistakes tote up three times as many deaths each year than gun deaths.

Perhaps we should stop talking about gun control, and start talking about doctor control.Who the fuck is talking about gun control? I don't know if you missed it, but this thread is about homeopathic medicine. Not gun control, not medical malpractice or doctors mistakes, homeopathic medicine.

You have some serious hang-ups, don't you? Can't talk about anything even remotely medical without launching into your diatribe, can't talk about cellphones without shouting from the rooftops that they're the root of all society's evils, or whatever... I'd blame it on old age and associated senility, but I know a number of old folks that aren't nearly as tetchy, so I don't know what your deal is.

Did a doctor screw up a surgery on you or a loved one because he was talking on his cellphone, or something? Just curious.

You need to take a few deep breaths and imagine your 'escape' place...These outbursts are not good for your health, Kael.

I see you have no reliable figures to support your contentions, do you? No. So you're talking out your ass, too, aren't you?

To answer your last question to the best of my ability...A doctor screwed up a surgery on me. I don't know if he was on a cell phone or not, as I was under anesthetic. However, the nature of the induced injury is certainly commensurate with inattention due to distraction...Perhaps he didn't think he was going to get the gold flake Mercedes and would have to settle for the ink black, instead. It could have been any number of sources. But, his work certainly came nowhere near what he promised, which I was repeatedly assured was not probable in any reasonable measure ('negligible' was the cited chance of the actual outcome) in the end result. He fucked up my hearing, forever, and refused to take responsibility for it by underwriting the cost of the hearing aid I am now required to wear.

After that incident, I started reading about iatrogenic illness and disease. The more I learned, the more outraged I became, particularly since I'd been listening to medical types, and their mindless sycophants, bitch about non-traditional practitioners and how dangerous they are. The problem is, there is insufficient hard evidence to support this, while the medical profession in the US is engaged in trying to buff up its image by pimping "evidence-based medicine" when many of them are still doing shit that kills and injures patients who mistakenly trust them. So, now, when I see or hear dumbshits like you running down alternative practitioners, particularly when you don't know anything about them, and NOT warning about the same damned problems being widespread amongst allopathic medical practitioners....if not worse.

As noted, medical mistakes account for the third largest killer of US citizens. The stats as they stand say that figure is far beyond those of any alternative practitioner group.

But, of course, you don't really care...you just want to piss at somebody whose opinion's don't happen to match yours. I'd expect that your level of frustration is pretty high, too, since you haven't been able to back up a single jot or tittle of the bullshit claims you make, or align yourself with, with any reliable sources.

If you don't like it...put me on 'ignore'.

:facepalm:

....What an ignorant dumbshit. Is it any surprise the roads are dangerous these days? They give idiots like Kael driver's licenses. There's another misstep by the government that should be brought to an end. Illiterate, angry, developmentally disabled citizens should probably not be issued any kind of vehicle operation permit or license. Just for safety, y'know.

I'll just drop a line to my state representative...again.

[Kael]

I see you have no reliable figures to support your contentions, do you? No. So you're talking out your ass, too, aren't you?You'd probably have a good point... IF I were making any contentions. As is, I only wonder aloud at your vehemence and borderline obsession with the aforementioned topics.

To answer your question to the best of my ability...A doctor screwed up a surgery on me. I don't know if he was on a cell phone or not, as I was under anesthetic. However, the nature of the induced injury is certainly commensurate with inattention due to distraction...Perhaps he didn't think he was going to get the gold flake Mercedes and would have to settle for the ink black, instead. It could have been any number of sources. But, his work certainly came nowhere near what he promised and what did result, I was assured was not probable in any reasonable measure ('negligible' was the cited chance of the actual outcome).I sympathize, I truly do, to the best of my ability. Rather limited, since all of my own numerous surgeries have gone quite well, yet I would not wish botched surgeries on anyone I know. Now, what does the topic of botched surgeries or doctor screw-ups have to do with homeopathic medicine, so much so that they become the topic of choice for you, eschewing the original topic?

But, of course, you don't really care...you just want to piss at somebody whose opinion's don't happen to match yours. I'd expect that your level of frustration is pretty high, too, since you haven't been able to back up a single jot or tittle of the bullshit claims you make with any reliable sources.Again, I am not making any claims, so I really don't know why you feel the need to disparage them. As far as me not really caring... If all I wanted was to piss at someone with different opinions, as you say, I would be spending my time on another board, perhaps trolling Sov's little corner of the internet. It would certainly provide more lulz than this discussion has so far.

If you don't like it...put me on 'ignore'.People have done far worse on this board in my relatively short time here and I have not put them on ignore. I am not here to ignore people.


....What an ignorant dumbshit. Is it any surprise the roads are dangerous these days? They give idiots like Kael driver's licenses. There's another misstep by the government that should be brought to an end. Illiterate, angry, developmentally disabled citizens should probably not be issued any kind of vehicle operation permit or license. Just for safety, y'know.Now we get to your own 'bullshit claims' and unfounded contentions. In point of fact, I do not drive. I ride the bus and a bike.

Finally, it would seem you are a bit more worked up about this than I am. I insinuated you are old and senile, while you say outright I am an ignorant dumbshit, and further imply I am illiterate and developmentally disabled. Who needs the few deep breaths here?

[Stephen Maturin]

I ride . . . a bike.

Uh oh.

[Kael]

Caught your edit there godfry, and I do begin to see where your coming from a bit more clearly. I understand what your getting at, I think. I still don't understand why you bring that anger to bear against people who wonder what your so pissed about, rather than simply explaining. I also still don't understand why cellphones piss you off so much, aside from driving dangers, but that's a topic for another thread.

ETA: I get what you're saying, but I don't agree. First, recognizing the problems with modern medicine does not make 'alternative' choices any more viable, nor does recognizing the deficiency and idiocy of some of those alternative choices translate to implicit trust in modern medicine. It's not an either-or situation. Second, Homeopathic medicine may be statistically safer than modern medicine, in fact, I would expect it to be, for the simple reason that in the vast majority of uses, homeopathic medicine doesn't do anything. When nothing is done, what can go wrong? Only what was already going wrong. When you're trying to fix a problem by actually going in and changing something, via surgery or drugs, obviously a lot more things can go wrong. On the other hand, your chances of actually fixing the problem also increase dramatically over doing nothing.

[godfry n. glad]

Caught your edit there godfry, and I do begin to see where your coming from a bit more clearly. I understand what your getting at, I think. I still don't understand why you bring that anger to bear against people who wonder what your so pissed about, rather than simply explaining. I also still don't understand why cellphones piss you off so much, aside from driving dangers, but that's a topic for another thread.


Try thrice nearly run down as a pedestrian by drivers attempting to negotiate a turn at the corner at which I was attempting to legally cross, twice as a vehicle driver forced into other lanes on the freeway and, as such, endangering myself and other drivers due to the inattention of drivers on cell phones. Lastly, my best friend was put in the hospital by a dipshit cellphone using driver who T-boned him while on the cellphone.

My frustrations with regards the cell phone issue have been heightened by the lassitude and resistance of those with the ability to either enforce existing law regarding reckless driving, or banning drivers using cell phones (or preferrably, distracted drivers), from the road entirely. The response has been as though if the cell phone is considered beneficial by the user, it somehow becomes sacrosanct and can be used anywhere they like, and they ignore all the printed information and online information about proper etiquette in using the damned things. They are a nuisance, and rapidly becoming a greater and greater danger on the roads. I'm waiting for the evidence that it causes aural and brain damage, which may, or may not, be in the offing.

But that is all off-topic here, whereas, comparative mortality rates between traditional medicine and alternative therapies would be interesting, and cogent. But, as is, it seems that those figures are not available. Such pernicious problems as homeopaths, chiropractors and other heebee-geebee inducers have not become anywhere near as appalling as the medical mistakes, evidently. For some reason, this does not condemn medical practitioners in the same manner in which alternative practitioners are all widely condemned by the few anecdotal stories which float and are repeated endlessly by AMA lobbyists and the sycophants like those here. I don't utilize homeopaths...I don't believe in sympathetic magic. I would not advise their consultation. I do believe in chiropractic's ability to treat back pain, particularly those from muscle spasm; I've experienced it repeatedly. I do believe in the efficacy of massage in helping muscles heal; I've experienced it repeatedly. I believe herbalism, as evidenced in naturopathy and chinese herbal medicine may offer some beneficial medications, as this is basically the same source as that of many pharmaceutical medications now in wide use. Aspirin, for example, is a naturopathic remedy. One that really worked....willow bark. I also believe that complementary medical approaches can be very efficacious by encouraging non-traditional users to utilize some more tested methods in concert with those used by their usual practitioners...Interestingly, this has been a great help in providing 'modern medical care' to some largely alienated immigrant populations...Hmong peoples, for example.

I now rely largely upon my family med doctor to guide me in my decisions about my health....but my family doc just retired, so I'm currently in the middle of vetting yet another physician to determine whether she meets my needs and expectations regarding my personal physician. I also work in the midst of an institution of higher learning for health practitioners and I've learned that physicians and surgeons tend to reflect the wider population in terms of their variety of personality types...including the quacks and dipshits. This of course means that most of them are fairly decent...but that should not be accepted outright as some kind of indicator of reliability or ability. Assess your physician as demandingly as possible. If they offer promises which seem suspect, get it in writing and get another opinion...preferably from a physician who was not schooled at the same institution.

[godfry n. glad]

I ride . . . a bike.

Uh oh.


As a pedestrian and bicyclist, he should be concerned about his health in regards to motor vehicle drivers using cell phones. He is one of the relatively high risk categories for victims of cell phone using drivers. The "tunnel vision attentiveness" imposed by use of cell phones increases the chances of peripheral vision problem type accidents...sideswipes, pedestrian hits, bicyclist hits, and other drivers entering intersections from either side.

[ChuckF]

What causes the tunnel vision that keeps pedestrians and bicyclists from getting the fuck out of the way when they (don't) see me coming with a cell phone to my ear? Because I'm not slowing down. And I and/or a chimpanzee designee may be firing my handgun(s) at random.

[godfry n. glad]

What causes the tunnel vision that keeps pedestrians and bicyclists from getting the fuck out of the way when they (don't) see me coming with a cell phone to my ear? Because I'm not slowing down. And I and/or a chimpanzee designee may be firing my handgun(s) at random.

The shoulder-held missile launcher pointed at you?

[ChuckF]

I'm probably too drunk to notice. Also my eyes are closed.

[Kael]

Actually, the closest I've ever come to being run over while on a bike was when a little old lady (without a cellphone) went right over the crosswalk and stopped just short of traffic, staring intently to her left waiting to merge onto the main road. She did not bother to check the sidewalk, nor did she look back as I jammed my brakes and jumped off my bike so as to avoid slamming into the side of her car. Sadly, my bike veered to the side after I left the seat, and didn't leave a nice ding in her oldsmobile.

The other time I've nearly been run over I was on foot, crossing at a traffic light, when the funny little walking man symbol was up. Oddly, the guy making a left seemed to think it meant he didn't have to watch the crosswalk. Fortunately he seemed to be ahead on his current pedestrian-hitting game, and was kind enough to stop a few feet short and glare at me for my sheer audacity in using the crosswalk. Funnily enough, he didn't have a cellphone either.

I guess these are just anomalies though, right?

[Corona688]

Yes it is. Homeopaths have an entire theoretical framework supposedly explaining how the water is "potentiated". So what? Mathematical probability tells us there is nothing left to be "potentiated". And basic chemistry tells us there's no structure in the constantly-shifting molecular landscape of liquid H2O for any kind of "potential" to hide in. I repeat. This is not intuition. Basic education gives one the tools they need to dismiss it.

[godfry n. glad]

I'm probably too drunk to notice. Also my eyes are closed.


Your life story, no?

That's what you get for fucking with that sacred firewater...or whatever it is those homeos use.

[godfry n. glad]

Srsly though, as an atheist, I have to wonder how can anyone who doesn't believe in god can believe that the supposed "spirit-like medicinal powers" of water are supposed to cure one of anything other than thirst? :magic:

You know somebody who doesn't believe in god who uses a homeopathic physician?I know of a few.

Wow...I'm with Shelli on this one. A skeptic is like not to subscribe to either notion, from my limited experience.

[erimir]

erimir's the one who tied the term "modern medicine" to that which happened after particular events ("Modern medicine begins when scientific medical research begins and is refined, germ theory is proven and accepted, antibiotics are discovered, and primitive practices such as humorism and blood-letting are abandoned."). I'm the one questioning that approach to definition.I'm not trying to write a history of medicine.

I am, however, pointing out that I think it's stupid to refer to humorism and blood-letting as "modern medicine". Perhaps godfry would have been better off talking about how mainstream medicine did all those things, but I don't consider humorism to be modern medicine.
Personally I'd prefer to ditch the term "modern" and use terms like "scientific" and "evidence-based", using definitions based on which practices are involved in the investigation of reality rather than ones based on historic sequence.Of course.

But it seems even wanting medicine to be evidence-based will get godfry's hackles up, because wanting evidence must mean you're a Big Pharma shill (even if you also happen to want to collect evidence about the efficacy of the medical establishment's practices).

The reason I'm more likely to talk about woo-woo quackery (if godfry really wants to know) is basically that MDs who are frauds are just unethical bastards, whereas things like homeopathy are more entertaining to talk about because of how blatantly stupid they are. That's really all there is to it, not any desire to support all people with MDs in all that they do. Treatments promoted by the medical establishment that don't work don't have any ridiculous theories behind them about life energy that's being tapped into with water crystals, they just have bad science or fraudulent science. It's less entertaining, but yes, probably even more important to actually do something about.

[Doctor X]

If you live in any large city, there's a more or less 100% chance that the water you drink contains trace amounts of just-about every commonly-used drug. (Medicinal drugs and recreational drugs, by the way.)

So, if homeopathic claims were true, you could get all the drugs you need (and then some!) in a glass of ordinary tap water.

Cheers,

Michael

Screw that, Science-Boy, what about all of the Homeless Ass washed in the city fountains?!!11!

--J.D.

[godfry n. glad]

In searching around for sources on this, I ran across references to Ivan Illich, who I've seen referenced before...on FF, IIRC...Well, it seems he's a philosopher and one of those "interesting people", like Gregory Bateson, and has written a critique of medicine entitled Medical Nemesis. Having read his ascerbic speech to American volunteers headed to Mexico for a summer volunteer experience (in the 1960s), seen some of his other titles, and seen his work described as 'controversial', it has spiked on my 'must read' list.

Anybody know any more about him? How much of a crank is he? Truly splenetic?

[Shelli]

I got a homeopathic "first aid" kid for Kiddo's baby shower. 6 or 7 bottles of sugar pills that probably cost 50 bucks.

I saw a sociopathic "first aid" kit for my chickens. It was a hatchet in a wooden box. $17.95 per kit.

AIEEEE!! I WILL KEEEEL YOUUUUUU!!!1!
:psychoch:




If you live in any large city, there's a more or less 100% chance that the water you drink contains trace amounts of just-about every commonly-used drug. (Medicinal drugs and recreational drugs, by the way.)

So, if homeopathic claims were true, you could get all the drugs you need (and then some!) in a glass of ordinary tap water.

Cheers,

Michael

Screw that, Science-Boy, what about all of the Homeless Ass washed in the city fountains?!!11!

--J.D.:O_o:




Srsly though, as an atheist, I have to wonder how can anyone who doesn't believe in god can believe that the supposed "spirit-like medicinal powers" of water are supposed to cure one of anything other than thirst? :magic:

You know somebody who doesn't believe in god who uses a homeopathic physician?I know of a few.

Wow...I'm with Shelli on this one. A skeptic is like not to subscribe to either notion, from my limited experience.:thankee:

[Doctor X]

Skepticism is a process, not an attribute

--Your Humble MagNIfIcence

[Shelli]

Process this, you nasty visual giver. :cbird:

[Dingfod]

Wow...I'm with Shelli on this one. A skeptic is like not to subscribe to either notion, from my limited experience.I've known plenty of people that are skeptical about some things but not others; just don't touch their sacred cows.

Me, I'm skeptical even of skepticism.

[Adam]

Who the fuck is talking about gun control? I don't know if you missed it, but this thread is about homeopathic medicine. Not gun control, not medical malpractice or doctors mistakes, homeopathic medicine.

You have some serious hang-ups, don't you? Can't talk about anything even remotely medical without launching into your diatribe, can't talk about cellphones without shouting from the rooftops that they're the root of all society's evils, or whatever... I'd blame it on old age and associated senility, but I know a number of old folks that aren't nearly as tetchy, so I don't know what your deal is.

Did a doctor screw up a surgery on you or a loved one because he was talking on his cellphone, or something? Just curious.

You need to take a few deep breaths and imagine your 'escape' place...These outbursts are not good for your health, Kael.

I see you have no reliable figures to support your contentions, do you? No. So you're talking out your ass, too, aren't you?

Yes, Kael, where are your reliable figures to support all those contentions of yours? Do you have a peer reviewed paper establishing that this thread is about homeopathic medicine? A double blind study demonstrating that godfry can't enter a thread tangentially related to his pet peeves without going into diatribe mode? A research project concluding that you are curious? I thought not! Good day, sir!

[1Samuel8]

Frankly, I think people use "peer-reviewed" as a crutch and they throw it out (along with the "double-blind" buzz word) whenever they can not muster up the courage to simply admit that they believe whatever their doctor or The Scientists say. All academic communities have their own cliques and political shit. Unless you actually reviewed the piece of research literature yourself, calling it "peer-reviewed" is just a leap of faith.




But, his work certainly came nowhere near what he promised, which I was repeatedly assured was not probable in any reasonable measure ('negligible' was the cited chance of the actual outcome) in the end result. He fucked up my hearing, forever, and refused to take responsibility for it by underwriting the cost of the hearing aid I am now required to wear. The thing about "modern medicine" is that in such incidences, you are also up against an elite and a political establishment.

For instance, if you wanted to sue that doctor, in all probability, the judge hearing (fuck, sorry about the pun) your case probably plays golf with the doctor. I know I am being highly presumptuous about the specifics here and making assumptions about your particular case without any substantiation but I am just trying to illustrate a point. When "modern medicine" fails, your are at an unfair disadvantage created by its proponents.




Jenner reasoned that something in the cows' open sores must be responsible for the disease, and that exposure to cowpox could somehow "strengthen" one against smallpox, a very similar (because, as we now know, closely-related) but much more serious disease in humans. So he deliberately injected people with cowpox, and showed that the practice, which he called "vaccination," greatly reduced their likelihood of developing smallpox. Is that really the whole story? because if it is, I would say Jenner sounds fucking crazy. Intuitively, I think it would make more sense to send each person to the farm and tell them to milk some cows -- but no, he figures injecting them is the way to go. Where did that come from?

[ChuckF]

Is that really the whole story? because if it is, I would say Jenner sounds fucking crazy. Intuitively, I think it would make more sense to send each person to the farm and tell them to milk some cows -- but no, he figures injecting them is the way to go. Where did that come from?
:lol:

[Adam]

Yes, that's the entire story. The invention of vaccination went something like this:


Hmmm...
:cletus: :cow:




Y'all get over here! I gots me an idear!
:cletus:




......Profit!
:elf:

[Smilin]

Screw that, Science-Boy, what about all of the Homeless Ass washed in the city fountains?!!11!

--J.D.

We really need to keep Dingfod out of the city fountains.....:D

[Dingfod]

Always remember to bring your towel.

[Dingfod]

Yes, that's the entire story. The invention of vaccination went something like this:


Hmmm...
:cletus: :cow:




Y'all get over here! I gots me an idear!
:cletus:




......Profit!
:elf:
True story, except it wasn't Edward Jenner, it was farmer Benjamin Jesty. With a name like Jesty, you know it has to be :lolhog:

[BDS]

So what? Mathematical probability tells us there is nothing left to be "potentiated". And basic chemistry tells us there's no structure in the constantly-shifting molecular landscape of liquid H2O for any kind of "potential" to hide in. I repeat. This is not intuition. Basic education gives one the tools they need to dismiss it.

"Basic education" supported the intuition that time was a constant, too, until about 100 years ago. Your intuition tells you that anything that supposedly works based on a mechanism with which you are unfamiliar is nonsense. In the case of homeopathy, you are probably right. In the case of time, your great grandfather was wrong.

I don't mean to suggest that we have some sort of intellectual responsibility to carefully examine every whacky notion that confronts us. I've never read Julian Jaynes' "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind", but I still think it sounds whacky. Nonetheless, I recognize that some smart people disagree with me, and I'm not really prepared to argue my case because I don't know enough about it.

By the way, I just went on a business trip with a new colleague. He's a smart, educated guy. It turns out he's also a big Sasquatch believer -- he makes plaster casts of footprints, records cries, etc. He didn't convince me there are Sasquatches romping through the primeveal forests of my native Oregon -- but I wasn't very successful at arguing against their existance, either. That's because he's the expert on the subject, and I'm not.

[BDS]

Here in Eugene, I often see people riding their bikes while talking on cell phones. Sometimes, they fail to come to a complete stop at stop signs.

I bet that would really drive Godfry nuts.

[Smilin]

I also run redlights as well as stop signs in my car coming to work in the morning.

However, it is 3 A.M. central time when I'm heading out for work and I don't feel like waiting for a stupid :asshat: redlight to change, so fuck it...I run 'em

I'm also usually sipping on a beer at that time because I am an early morning drunktard.

I never masturbate or talk on my cell phone at that time though.

Instead, I save those behaviors for the afternoon commute back home.

[Adam]

Your intuition tells you that anything that supposedly works based on a mechanism with which you are unfamiliar is nonsense.

I don't think that's true. I had never heard of thermoelectric cooling or the Peltier effect until my SO-at-the-time bought a wine refrigerator that worked on that mechanism, so I think it's safe to say I was unfamiliar with the mechanism by which it worked, and I didn't tell her that her fridge was impossible nonsense, I did a little research. I think it would be more accurate to say that our intuition tells us that anything that supposedly works based on a mechanism that contradicts our existing understanding of how the world works is nonsense.

[Dingfod]

Here in Eugene, I often see people riding their bikes while talking on cell phones. Sometimes, they fail to come to a complete stop at stop signs.

I bet that would really drive Godfry nuts.Capitalizing the G in Godfry does too.

[godfry n. glad]

Here in Eugene, I often see people riding their bikes while talking on cell phones. Sometimes, they fail to come to a complete stop at stop signs.

I bet that would really drive Godfry nuts.


Yeah...It probably would, BdS.

Fodder for the video captures that feed the 'humor by misery of others' crowd, too.

[BDS]

I don't think that's true. I had never heard of thermoelectric cooling or the Peltier effect until my SO-at-the-time bought a wine refrigerator that worked on that mechanism, so I think it's safe to say I was unfamiliar with the mechanism by which it worked, and I didn't tell her that her fridge was impossible nonsense, I did a little research. I think it would be more accurate to say that our intuition tells us that anything that supposedly works based on a mechanism that contradicts our existing understanding of how the world works is nonsense.

I'll go along with that -- that's why the notion that time is not constant was so revolutionary, it contradicted our intuition that it is constant. Our intuition about medicine is that it's "chemical" or "biological", not (however homeopaths say the water is changed by potentiation, which I don't know or understand).

[Adam]

I don't think anyone is saying that homeopathic remedies don't work because they aren't "chemical" or "biological". Ultimately, the argument that they don't work is based on studies that have consistently found them to be no better than placebos and tests (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11212083) indicating that "potentiated" water is indistinguishable from ordinary water.

Even on an intuitive level, though, that's a pretty naive version of the intuitions that would tell us that homeopathy is probably nonsense. I would think that the relevant intuitions would probably be more along the lines of "vanishingly small doses of anything have very little measurable effect" and "water is just a loose collection of hydrogen and oxygen molecules, not a an organized structure that could conceivably 'remember' anything".

[BDS]

Even on an intuitive level, though, that's a pretty naive version of the intuitions that would tell us that homeopathy is probably nonsense. I would think that the relevant intuitions would probably be more along the lines of "vanishingly small doses of anything have very little measurable effect" and "water is just a loose collection of hydrogen and oxygen molecules, not a an organized structure that could conceivably 'remember' anything".

I think you're right -- that is what our intuitions tell us. My point was that we should recognize that our intuitions ARE intuitions. And that sometimes our intuitions have proven to be wrong (as in the case of time).

Here's a relevant section from the "New Fundamentalist" article that Chuck linked:

Take, for example, that “gold standard” of research quality, the double-blind, randomized controlled trial (DBRCT). Against placebo, it provides at best only equivocal evidence of homeopathy’s efficacy, with some trials proving positive, while others return negative results. To a New Fundamentalist, such inconclusiveness is intolerable (especially because homeopathy appears to contradict the biomolecular paradigm of conventional medicine); the negative trial data are taken as “true,” positive trial data are discounted, and so homeopathy is considered as being no better than placebo (i.e., it does not work). Yet around the world, millions of people have benefited, and continue to benefit from homeopathy. This is usually discounted as mass delusion, the workings of the placebo effect, or self-hypnosis.

The assumption here is that the DBRCT is the best research tool with which to establish the evidence base of any therapy. Indeed, it could be argued that the DBRCT is predicated more on Popperian principles of falsifiability than on naïve inductivism. However, deconstructing the DBRCT’s rationale reveals that it imposes on any therapeutic procedure an implicit and simplistic division of therapy from context. This turns out to be nothing more than an arithmetic convenience that allows the measurements made, statistics gathered, and inferences drawn from a trial ultimately to have significance within a deterministic framework.

It has been demonstrated20 and explained (by analogy with quantum theory’s notion of wave-function collapse during observation)21 that this separation can seriously interfere with homeopathy/CAMs’ therapeutic effects. However, such an explanation of the inconclusiveness of DBRCTs of homeopathy/CAMs has recently been dismissed by New Fundamentalists as “quantum mysticism.”22

What tends to be forgotten by those who promote an overzealous adherence to the DBRCT as the “gold standard” for testing any therapy’s efficacy is that no therapeutic modality, conventional medicine included, is ever practiced in real life according to the DBRCT’s procedural separation of therapy and context. As a result, the evidence-based movement’s increasing hold on the health sciences is now being challenged (even from within conventional medicine), for its exclusion of alternative therapeutic discourses.1,18

Explanations of how homeopathic remedies might work (e.g., the Memory of Water effect)23 are similarly discounted,24,25 regardless of mounting evidence suggesting that memory effects may indeed exist.26–31 They can be explained in materials science terms, as homeopathy’s succussive dilution process inducing observable alterations to the dynamic supramolecular structure of liquid water.29–32 Yet, cancer physician Stephen Sagar, for example, has dismissed the Memory of Water hypothesis as a “belief in undetected sub atomic [my italics] fields.”24,25 Far from delivering the intended coup de grace to the Memory of Water and homeopathy, the use of the term “subatomic” might be seen as inappropriate when describing what is in essence current research in molecular physics, materials science, and chemistry.

This attitude could partly explain why there is so little published research on how cellular water memory effects might lead to cure of the whole patient:33 it would require much closer collaboration and understanding between biomedical and physical scientists than currently exists, assuming it ever were to achieve proper levels of funding.

Now, I haven't read the footnotes 29-32 about the observable alterations to the dynamic structure of water -- and it sounds pretty iffy to me -- but to say there ARE no observable alterations to the dynamic structure of water
WITHOUT having read those footnotes seems a bit overly self-confident.

[Dingfod]

Cellular water? WTF?

Big words do not a scientific explanation make.

[Adam]

Now, I haven't read the footnotes 29-32 about the observable alterations to the dynamic structure of water -- and it sounds pretty iffy to me -- but to say there ARE no observable alterations to the dynamic structure of water WITHOUT having read those footnotes seems a bit overly self-confident.

Making any claim with 100% certainty is over confident, but that doesn't mean that we can't effectively rule out some claims. In the case of dynamic water memory or whatever, it's probably false because

1) It violates our understanding of the world in several ways, as noted.

2) The claim appears here in a paper that's full of crank alarms bell phrases. For valid science to appear in such a paper would also violate our understanding of how the world works.

3) Upon Goolging, the claim appears to be advanced only by those who have already consumed the homeopathic Kool-Aid.*

4) There are other studies, such as the one I linked, indicating that no such alteration takes place. These studies are not full of crank language.

* 2 quarts water, 1.0^-10,000 packet cherry flavored Kool-Aid mix, 2.0^-10,000 cups sugar.

[Dingfod]

Kool-Aid.*

* 2 quarts water, 1.0^-10,000 packet cherry flavored Kool-Aid mix, 2.0^-10,000 cups sugar.Given the staining capacity of cherry flavored Kool-Aid (I wrote that as Kook-aid before correcting it), the diluted Homeopathic Kool-Aid tincture would still be red.

[Adam]

Kool-Aid.*

* 2 quarts water, 1.0^-10,000 packet cherry flavored Kool-Aid mix, 2.0^-10,000 cups sugar.Given the dynamic cellular memory of the water that once contained cherry flavored Kool-Aid, the diluted Homeopathic Kool-Aid tincture would still be red.

:fixed:

[ChuckF]

Pretty good blog post about that article I posted. (http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2008/07/new-fundamentalism-why-lionel-milgrom.html) Some of it quite relevant to the discussion here. It's also full of links about why homeopathy is quackery.

Milgrom says that there is evidence, but that it is rejected because people like Ernst are somehow stuck in an 'old paradigm' of science and that such evidence does not fit in with their 'currently held theory'. This is nonsense.

Image that your partner rushes into the room and says there is a tiger in the garden. Do you believe them? Probably not - despite them being normally truthful. If your partner had said nothing, the chances of there being a tiger in the garden are near zero. What does this new information add to the probability of their being a large carnivorous cat there? The chances are still near zero as it is far more likely that your partner is mistaken, playing a joke or had one too many margaritas. If however, you partner rushed in with pictures on the digital camera and half the street were running down the road screaming, you may wish to re-assess you beliefs about garden-feline interactions. There is a mathematical formulation for assessing the importance of new evidence like this - Bayesean analysis of prior probabilities. It can be summed up as 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'.

Such is the same for homeopathy. Weak evidence will not change the 'scientific paradigm' when the new theory is so highly implausible. There is nothing 'unscientific' about this and nothing 'subjective' in the rejection of such evidence that does exist for homeopathy.

[BDS]

OK, so much for homeopathy. What about Sasquatch, though?

[Adam]

Oh, Sasquatch is different.

...Are you there, Bigfoot? I'm not like the others. I see beyond the monster coating to the misunderstood loner inside. You probably have a wounded raccoon that you tend to every night like this - Rooh! Rooh! But then they shoot you, but you teach us about stuff.
:fry:

[ChuckF]

Sasquatch is pretty well confirmed IMO, having appeared in the documentary movie-film Harry and the Hendersons alongside John Lithgow, and I don't think anyone here is prepared to argue that John Lithgow doesn't exist.

[Dingfod]

All water in the Pacific Northwest has dynamic cellular memory of Sasquatch even if the species is actually currently extinct or is that ex-stinked?

[beyelzu]

Lastly, my best friend was put in the hospital by a dipshit cellphone using driver who T-boned him while on the cellphone.


it was probably your friends fault, thats it, Im going to get friends banned from teh nation's highways.

[BDS]

Sasquatch is pretty well confirmed IMO, having appeared in the documentary movie-film Harry and the Hendersons alongside John Lithgow, and I don't think anyone here is prepared to argue that John Lithgow doesn't exist.

That's exactly what I told my Sasquatch afficianado colleague. I was constantly quoting evidence from Harry and the Hendersons to try to annoy him -- but it didn't work.

By the way, in "The Golden Bough", James Frazier writes about "homeopathic magic". In diet, for example, homeopathic magic would involve eating the flesh of a lion to become as brave as a lion, whereas eating the flesh of a rabbit is said to make one timid as rabbit. This is actually the opposite of homeopathy, in which on drinks water "potentiated" by a poisonous herb that would cause a headache to "cure" a headache. Homeopathic magic evokes the "law of similars" -- you stick a voodoo doll with a pin to cause an injury in the person who looks like the voodoo doll, and whose hair you have affixed to the doll. (There's probably just as much evidence that this works as that homeopathic medicine works.)

[Farren]

...
2) The claim appears here in a paper that's full of crank alarms bell phrases. For valid science to appear in such a paper would also violate our understanding of how the world works.
...


Adam's described what I think is a necessary filter for rational people. An obsessed crank can generate vast numbers of words in a very short space of time. The "I don't think you should dismiss something until you've considered every word" line is frequently an unreasonable position, since deciding that something is not simply an unknown, but a waste of time, shouldn't be an activity that consumes most of your waking life.

In fact groups like the Church of Scientology exploit the line of reasoning mentioned above by deliberately giving lots of words Scientology-specific meanings, so that any argument against Scientology, based on what Scientology texts actually prescribe, is obfuscated by arguments about the critic misunderstanding the prescription. Which means critics have to spend lots and lots of fruitful time absorbing vast amounts of bullshit just so they can dismiss it. Yet the same group relies on equivocation to simultaneously communicate many of the original meanings.

Crank science and simply amateur science have some common indicators and its neither lazy nor unreasonable to factor those into one's evaluation.

The counterinutitive results of the Michelson-Morley experiment that led to the realisation that time is inconstant were fairly rapidly accepted because of the absence of such indicators and the presence of confidence-building indicators, despite contradicting centuries-old assumptions. One gets the strong impression that centuries of non-results wouldn't put off many homeopathy proponents.

[Naru]

Illiterate, angry, developmentally disabled citizens should probably not be issued any kind of vehicle operation permit or license.

Says the guy posting angry, off-topic diatribes misreading other people's posts :roflmao:

[BDS]

Under Sovereignism, homeopathy would be the only form of medicine legally sold to citizens. However, bimbos would be allowed to use allopathic medicine, because who cares if it kills them.

[Farren]

A good evolutionary strategy for Sovereignism, I think.

[Qingdai]

There are different medical ethical issues I think about when I think about homeopathy, the effectiveness of placebos. Frequently, given that someone has a symptom from no known or treatable cause, placebos work and doctors use them.
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSN0323176620080103
Many Doctors Use Placebos on Patients (http://www.webmd.com/news/20080103/many-doctors-use-placebos-on-patients)

I think that a sugar pill (especially one that requires a lengthy questioning of the patients symptoms, another good way to get to the cause of the symptoms) may be a better solution than say, giving out an antibiotic, which has side effects and can lead to drug resistance.
If you are using that anti-biotic as a placebo. For example the patient with a viral cold who demands a pill. The belief in "magic bullets" is strong. I've had patients complain when a doctor didn't give them something, even though the doctor told them the anti-biotics would do nothing for their condition.

Placebos don't work when you tell the patient they are getting a placebo. Homeopathic remedies are about $5 wholesale. Fairly cheap considering the cost of pharmaceutical drugs.

I'm not saying that I believe homeopathy, nor that patients shouldn't get the cause treated, but it makes a pretty good placebo. If it comes to using one.

[godfry n. glad]

I think that a sugar pill (especially one that requires a lengthy questioning of the patients symptoms, another good way to get to the cause of the symptoms) may be a better solution than say, giving out an antibiotic, which has side effects and can lead to drug resistance.

Yeah...Plus, as far as the patient is concerned, it sure beats the hell out of crap like chopping out perfectly healthy uteruses for fun and profit, which seemed to be a major pastime for surgeons during the middle of the 20th century. Too bad they didn't use that same 'medical paradigm' with males and start cutting their nuts off at age 40...starting with surgeons.

[Qingdai]

When all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.

That's another medical ethical issue for me, there is a lot of specialization in medicine. Then there is less time for a general practitioner to actually interview the patient. When is the last time anyone had a full physical or a doctor spent more than 10 minutes of face time with them. A lot gets left out in the rush. Plus patients aren't usually organized enough to present their symptoms in an orderly fashion.


I know I find it fascinating, and this is a good book about the subject:
"How Doctors Think" by Jerome Groopman M.D.

I'm off on a tangent again, aren't I?
:shrug:

[godfry n. glad]

Dr. Barbara Starfield, of Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, is evidently one of the leading researchers into medical inefficiencies and has been arguing for a return of emphasis upon Primary Care providers (Family Medicine, General Practitioners, thing) rather than increasing specialization.

I'd think that with the appalling shortages of physicians in rural America, and the excesses of many specialists in many urban areas, there would be some kind of initiative to redirect medical education into realms where a greater number of people, over a wider geographical spread (within the US, at least) could be served. From what I can tell, there is considerable resistance to such a program, as the burgeoning fields within medicine for income augmentation are all specialist training fields...primary medicine is, all too often, associated with clinical pathology in terms of professional status (near the bottom).

The issues of availability, affordability and perceived safety is a motivator for many to find alternatives. That the alternatives can be potentially more deadly is hardly an issue when one cannot find a doctor, or, if one is available, afford to utilize them. In either case, the knowledge necessary for the erstwhile patient to protect themselves against pernicious "medicine" is absent.

[Shelli]

May the spirit of the Muscovy Duck's liver and heart be with you!
:luke:





:giggle:

[Clutch Munny]

When we are talking about a "health care modality" which competes with what you call "modern medicine"?

Including such modern practices as blood-letting to release surfeit humors.

It seems that you don't wish to acknowledge that at one time, what you call "modern medicine" was just as barbaric and backward as you seem to think anything which is not "modern medicine" currently is.

:eyebrow2:

[Clutch Munny]

Frankly, I think people use "peer-reviewed" as a crutch and they throw it out (along with the "double-blind" buzz word) whenever they can not muster up the courage to simply admit that they believe whatever their doctor or The Scientists say. All academic communities have their own cliques and political shit. Unless you actually reviewed the piece of research literature yourself, calling it "peer-reviewed" is just a leap of faith.

True: Calling something peer-reviewed does not make it so.

True: Something's actually being peer-reviewed, and based on a double-blind study, does not make it methodologically proper, nor, if methodologically proper, actually correct. For example, a well-conducted study showing some degree of an effect or result to 95% confidence has a 5% chance of being substantially misleading nevertheless. (That's why we tend to do more than one, you see.)

False: "Unless you actually reviewed the piece of research literature yourself, calling it "peer-reviewed" is just a leap of faith."

[1Samuel8]

True: Clutch reads my posts and takes notes.

[tyciol]

I don't like how homeopathy violates known laws of chemistry weight. 'Less is more' basically. It operates on the theory that water can absorb an 'essence' of an absent chemical. That's no better than the 'water has emotions' nonsense with ice crystals.

[Dingfod]

:lolwut: