quote:

---

Alternative therapies are now a degree subject at some British universities. But do they deserve these credentials? Jim Giles reports.

As debate rages in the United States over whether intelligent design should be taught in science classes, another topic that many researchers see as a pseudoscience is claiming scientific status within the British education system.

Over the past decade, several British universities have started offering bachelor of science (BSc) degrees in alternative medicine, including six that offer BSc degrees in homeopathy, a therapy in which the active ingredient is diluted so much that the dose given to the patient often does not contain even a single molecule of it. Some scientists are increasingly concerned that such courses give homeopathy and homeopaths undeserved scientific credibility, and they are campaigning to get the label removed (see Commentary, page 373).

---

quote:

---

Lord, what bullshit. I mean, okay, fine, you believe in this stuff and you get a nice placebo effect out of it, then great. More power to you. But there are people who want to see homeopathy funded by medicare and recognized as a valid medical science. What crapola.

---

In Britain there is a Royal Homeopathic Hospital funded on the NHS, it is also a common treatment option in other parts of Europe.

There is also the question "valid medical science" it is important to make a distinction between theory and practice and there are problems with both.

For instance psychiatric journals routinely publish fraudulent studies either ghost written or funded by pharmaceutical companies, data is suppressed, methodologies corrupted in order to present drugs in a favourable light. Eli Lilly is in a law suit now concerning suppression of information surrounding the drug Zyprexa.

There has been problems in the veracity of research also in major medical journals.

There are general methodological problems inherent in clinical trials, they are not the be all and end all of scientific proof.

In terms of practice clinical judgement is fraught with non-scientific approaches. Doctors frequently make quick judgements( in non emergency situations) and ignore alternative explanations as well as ignoring patients own expressions of symptoms or distress, this can lead to disasterous results.

It is difficult medical technology has allowed for some amazing life saving and altering interventions but that does not mean that there are great gaps in the understanding of human biology, health and healing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Unfortunately, I think a lot of naturopaths also dabble in homeopathy, which is too bad.

---

quote:

---

Six major disciplines define the areas of naturopathic practice. These are Asian Medicine/Acupuncture, Botanical Medicine, Clinical Nutrition, Homeopathic Medicine, Physical Medicine, Lifestyle Counselling and Prevention.

Each is a distinct area and includes both diagnostic principles and clinical practice, as well as therapeutic skills and techniques. Instruction in all the naturopathic therapies is provided.

---

quote:

---

It's a scandal!

---

Here's a suggested comparison. I provide data outlining the life-threatening and disabling side- effects of psychiatric medications/"treatments and you provide comparable information for homeopathic treatments.

quote:

---

What's your point? That psychiatry is more of a fraud than homeopathy?
You may well be right. But it's not the topic of this thread.

---

The topic is on homeopathy vs. "valid medical science."

Psychiatry is considered valid medical science whereas homeopathy is not. Psychiatry costs the public health system billions and has had a negative impact on users, can the same claim be made against homeopathy?

If psychiatry is considered valid medical science what does that say about the criteria for assessing valid medical science?

The implicit message in challenging the validity of homeopathy is that it is somehow dangerous.

The question also arises even if something is not scientifically validated can it still have health benefits. Are relationships built around exploration and promotion of health , healing in themselves. There is evidence to suggest yes.

These are just a few of the questions arise in reference to health care.

These things can also occur with convential medicine.
My partner's father was in hospital recently and he had a roomate who had come in essentially in perfect health, to have what appeared to be a pimple on his forehead examined after a series of bad diagnostic judgements and procedures this person is near death and has experienced severe permanent disability( his extremities are shrivelled to the point of dropping off.)Another time my partner's father was in hospital he was on a respirator and he repeatedly(over a period of hours) told the nurse that he was having trouble breathing. The nurse just checked the respirator and told him not to worry. He nearly died as a result the respirator was faulty.

Do you actually have evidence that those seeking homepathic treatment are at greater risk? That would be scientific.

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:

Do you actually have evidence that those seeking homepathic treatment are at greater risk? That would be scientific.

---

quote:

---

Science has norms, even in a "profit-driven society" such as ours. Homeopathy doesn't match up to them. That's why I have no intent of debating with you.

---

[ 22 March 2007: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

I've occasionally asked the pharmacist why they carry this stuff. I get a sort of shrug in reply.

---

quote:

---

So "alternative" medicine actually is increasing the burden on our health care system by virtue of the time and resources being wasted as health care professionals scramble to keep up with all this utter bullshit in order not to lose credibility in the eyes of their patients

---

Probably one of the bigger burdens on the medical system is the unwarranted prescription of pharmaceuticals for seniours or psych. patients. You also paint with a rather broad stroke calling "alternative medicine" bullshit including empirically validated treatments such as mindfullness meditation and acupunture, treatments that are derived from non western cultural approaches to healing that are quite distinct in outlook. Sorry but dismissing ayuvedic , traditional chineese or indigenous methods of healing is nothing short of cultural supremism. Even the presently maligned homeopathy does have some empirical support depending on whose claims you wish to privilege.

quote:

---

As far as the lack of side effects of homeopathy goes, well, any drug that has the potential to be effective is going to have side effects because it does something; ie, it will have physiological effects beyond those that are desired. So homeopathy doesn't have side effects because it doesn't do anything at all. Easy peasy.

---

I'm not talking about side effects like " dry mouth and constipation. I'm talking about disabling condtions like tardive dyskinisea, akathesia neuroleptic malignant syndrome, obesity diabetes, blood clots, liver failure,strokes, impotence and other sexual dysfunctions, to name a few not to mention blunted emotion and cognitive impairments. These are just from the use of neuroleptics and symptoms that are reported in much higher percentages in patient responses than discussed in the "scientific literature." Not to mention increased impulsivity, violence and suicidality in people taking SSRI's as well as the horrific syndromes associated with withdrawal from SSRI's and benzodiazepines. That's just psychiatry, so much for do no harm.

I am not even advocating homeopathy I am just challenging some of the hyperbole suggesting it is overwhelmingly dangerous. I am also pointing out there are any number of "conventional" medical treatments and practices that are lacking in scientific validation(let's talk ECT. There is also a great deal of quackery and non-sense coming from physicians, I constantly hear it from my clients.

To me the attraction to alternative treatments are two-fold,
1)alternative practicioners tend to spend more time with their clients, which helps build trusing and empathic relationships. Such relationships are essential( and empirically validated) for any genuine healing relationship. NOt only do such relationships reduce stress and anxiety a solid relationship is better at ensuring the patient follows a healthy regime. It was actually interesting I read an article in my UoT alumni mag and it had an interview with the head of the Wasser Pain clinic(he is a neurologist) and he spoke extensively on the importance of empathic relationship in his work.

2) The other is that people often go to alternative practiciouners to help them with chronic conditions that conventional medicical treatments have had little luck with. Anecdotaly people seem to find relief. Is this due to condition 1)? perhaps. Is it due to placebo also perhaps but one needs to understand the nature of placebo. Placebo is the belief in the efficacy of a treatment(and is therefore potentially a component in any treatment)and as such it has proven to be extremely powerful in promoting healing. It is not inert but an active psychological component of healing that should not be mistaken for "no effect." As such it could be actually argued that if someone goes to a practicioner and reaps the benefit of relational factors and placebo than that is more healing than not. This may piss off traditional health care people because frequently they are themselves not aware of the importance of relationships or placebo.

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by angrymonkey:
If it can pass double blind testing I'm all for it. Otherwise, you're in the realm of faith and hope - which is fine but it's the last avenue that I would want to approach. Not in place of conventional medicine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sineed:
Drug stores carry it because customers request it. At the end of the day, pharmacies are a business.
[RANT]
The rise in "alternative" medicine really pisses me off, as a health care professional, because I now have to read about this crap, as well as keep up on legitimate medical advances as part of my continuing ed. The doctors I work with are stressed by people wasting their time with stuff they've downloaded like chelation "therapy," so they have to spend a good part of their days debunking nonsense. So "alternative" medicine actually is increasing the burden on our health care system by virtue of the time and resources being wasted as health care professionals scramble to keep up with all this utter bullshit in order not to lose credibility in the eyes of their patients.
[/RANT]

As far as the lack of side effects of homeopathy goes, well, any drug that has the potential to be effective is going to have side effects because it does something; ie, it will have physiological effects beyond those that are desired. So homeopathy doesn't have side effects because it doesn't do anything at all. Easy peasy.

---

Despite the efforts of "Healthcare Professionals" the Death Rate remains precisely 100%.

The notion that a "real drug" has undesired effects is a fine justification, but one could say the same of shooting anyone who is sick....

quote:

---

But what do you have Faith and Hope in? That's the question.

---

I belive in reproducible results. I might have hope in many other options if I was desperate enough.

quote:

---

The other is that people often go to alternative practiciouners to help them with chronic conditions that conventional medicical treatments have had little luck with. Anecdotaly people seem to find relief

---

Or, anecdotaly, people do not become better.

The sins of Big Pharma are legion; I personally wouldn't work for them. But surely there is a special place in hell for people who hold out false hope to the desperately sick for the sake of making a few bucks.

quote:

---

There's no such thing as alternative medicine really; there's therapy that works and therapy that doesn't work.

---

Well there is Ayuvedic and tradional chineese medicines which are based on comprehensive systems with principles that are fundamentally different than those of western medicine. Naturpaths also operate on holistic principles that are for a large part absent in traditional western medicine. So these would represent an alternative to conventional western theory and practice.

There are also plenty of medical treatments whose efficacy and scientific is questionable yet they are accepted as being scientific.

quote:

---

And the vast area constituting what we don't know is all too often occupied by quacks looking to sell their products or maybe just promote themselves as medical mavericks, taking perverse pleasure from their pariah status...But surely there is a special place in hell for people who hold out false hope to the desperately sick for the sake of making a few bucks.

---

quote:

---

And yeah; homeopathy should be classed as a religion rather than a science

---

quote:

---

Well there is Ayuvedic and tradional chineese medicines which are based on comprehensive systems with principles that are fundamentally different than those of western medicine.

---

I had thought that ayurvedic medicine was of South Asian origen (hence the "vedic" part) but anyway, I've known people with mental health diagnoses who have benifited a great deal from it. That and similar methodologies which emphasise balance and imbalance in all aspects of life.

One of my team members at work is a practitioner of reiki, pranic healing, and yoga. He also teaches meditation and relaxation techniques.

[ 23 March 2007: Message edited by: oldgoat ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
Well there is Ayuvedic and tradional chineese medicines which are based on comprehensive systems with principles that are fundamentally different than those of western medicine.

---

quote:

---

They certainly are.
"Traditional Chinese Medicine" for example is based on the concept of balancing your "chi" or "qi". Your "chi", by the way, is a personal energy field that has never been detected by even the most sensitive of scientific instruments. In other words, it doesn't exist. TCM is founded on a myth.

---

There are plenty of things that science at once did not detect but now they do. There is still much that remains known about health, physiology, and healing. Western medicine still operates to a large degree on models that are mechanistic and reductionistic, it remains lacking on understanding systems and operations.There is plenty that is unknown in physics in terms of the nature and operations of energy. You keep insisting that science has achieved some sense of perfect knowledge. It seems you don't have much of an understanding of how science operates. This is more of a representation of the faith and hope you have for western intellectual traditions than anything that could be demonstrated empirically. It also is clearly demonsratably culturally supremist.

There are plenty of components of experience that cannot be "detected" science i.e. love, hope, consiousness itself...The extreme logical positivists of behaviourism rejected any reference to cognitive events because they were not observable. Is this your position?

quote:

---

I had thought that ayurvedic medicine was of South Asian origen (hence the "vedic" part) but anyway

---

quote:

---

I love these arguments like "psychiatry and homeopathy both have no evidence to support them - so let's go with homeopathy!!!".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Southlander:
Why has no one spoken about acupuncture? how does sticking needles in people help? Is it scientific?

---

You want to talk about needles, start a new thread.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
There are plenty of things that science at once did not detect but now they do. There is still much that remains known about health, physiology, and healing.

---

They can measure electrical charges of atomic particles, but they can't detect this bodily energy field that is supposed to be so strong that it's the "vital energy" controlling our individual health and well-being, and needs periodic "adjustment" by practitioners of TCM - for a small fee, of course.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:

If that's what you get out of the arguments than I can only suggest that you are empirically challenged.

---

Before I believe in your homeopathy superstitious nonsense, I may as well go whole hog and believe in God, Heaven, the Afterlife, the Whole Holy Nine Yards. The Eternal Rewards are much greater that way.

quote:

---

If you have detected a certain sarcastic dismissal of homeopathic, naturopathic, acupunctural, meditative...

---

Hasn't it been proven that if you are really stressed out you are more likely to get sick? If that is the case, wouldn't stress reduction techniques like meditatation help somewhat in the battle against illness? I relize of course that it should be coupled with other healthy lifestyle choices like not smoking and not eating at Mcdogfood's. However couldn't it be considered one component in a healthy life style? I relize there is a lot of snake oil on health food store shelves, and a lot of psudeo science that gets foisted on an unsuspecting public by "all natural" gurus(Hey kids, guess what! You shoud be drinking unpasturized milk!)

but surely there are things that can be learned from eastern philosophies that can benefit us here in the West. What about Yoga and Tai Chi? Don't they both constitute great excercise?

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

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

quote:

---

Before I believe in your homeopathy superstitious nonsense, I may as well go whole hog and believe in God, Heaven, the Afterlife, the Whole Holy Nine Yards. The Eternal Rewards are much greater that way.

---

What is truly miraculous and beyond the comprehension of any scientific inquiry is your ability to consistently pull such idiocy out of your ass.

MY homeopathy? How am I supposed to have a discussion with someone who can't even demonstrate basic reading comprehension.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:

but surely there are things that can be learned from eastern philosophies that can benefit us here in the West. What about Yoga and Tai Chi? Don't they both constitute great excercise?

---

I agree. But when medical claims are made, they must be verifiable by accepted international scientific norms, which are the same in all countries of the world. All the more so for hocus-pocus fields like homeopathy, which are not an "adjunct" to scientific medicine, but rather a pure "alternative", based on the underlying premise that scientific medicine is incorrect.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:

MY homeopathy? How am I supposed to have a discussion with someone who can't even demonstrate basic reading comprehension.

---

My apologies, I thought it was you who had posted this (among others in the same vein):

quote:

---

Even the presently maligned homeopathy does have some empirical support depending on whose claims you wish to privilege.

---

I guess it's just my problem of reading comprehension, but if someone said:

quote:

---

Even the presently maligned creationist thesis does have some empirical support depending on whose claims you wish to privilege,

---

I would consider it in order to ridicule their creationism.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bubbles:
It would seem unscientific to assume that something would disappear just by diluting it.

---

Well no, it is very scientific, because all the "somethings" in question are composed of molecules. Also, "dilution" doesn't just mean adding water indefinitely - it means adding water and then removing some of the solution, adding more water, removing more solution, etc.

Let's say you have a gallon of water containing just one molecule of iron in it. You pour this into a two-gallon container, and add another gallon of water to "dilute" it. You then re-fill the original one-gallon container from the 2-gallon one. The iron molecule will either remain, or it will have "disappeared".

The true calculation is much more complex and is based on probabilities. Here is an example of how it is done to debunk the homeopathic jokers.

quote:

---

Homeopathic products are made from minerals, botanical substances, and several other sources. If the original substance is soluble, one part is diluted with either nine or ninety-nine parts of distilled water and/or alcohol and shaken vigorously (succussed); if insoluble, it is finely ground and pulverized in similar proportions with powdered lactose (milk sugar). One part of the diluted medicine is then further diluted, and the process is repeated until the desired concentration is reached. Dilutions of 1 to 10 are designated by the Roman numeral X (1X = 1/10, 3X = 1/1,000, 6X = 1/1,000,000). Similarly, dilutions of 1 to 100 are designated by the Roman numeral C (1C = 1/100, 3C = 1/1,000,000, and so on). Most remedies today range from 6X to 30X, but products of 30C or more are marketed.

A 30X dilution means that the original substance has been diluted 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times. Assuming that a cubic centimeter of water contains 15 drops, this number is greater than the number of drops of water that would fill a container more than 50 times the size of the Earth. Imagine placing a drop of red dye into such a container so that it disperses evenly. Homeopathy's "law of infinitesimals" is the equivalent of saying that any drop of water subsequently removed from that container will possess an essence of redness. Robert L. Park, Ph.D., a prominent physicist who is executive director of The American Physical Society, has noted that since the least amount of a substance in a solution is one molecule, a 30C solution would have to have at least one molecule of the original substance dissolved in a minimum of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules of water. This would require a container more than 30,000,000,000 times the size of the Earth.

Oscillococcinum, a 200C product "for the relief of colds and flu-like symptoms," involves "dilutions" that are even more far-fetched. Its "active ingredient" is prepared by incubating small amounts of a freshly killed duck's liver and heart for 40 days. The resultant solution is then filtered, freeze-dried, rehydrated, repeatedly diluted, and impregnated into sugar granules. If a single molecule of the duck's heart or liver were to survive the dilution, its concentration would be 1 in 100200. This huge number, which has 400 zeroes, is vastly greater than the estimated number of molecules in the universe (about one googol, which is a 1 followed by 100 zeroes). In its February 17, 1997, issue, U.S. News & World Report noted that only one duck per year is needed to manufacture the product, which had total sales of $20 million in 1996. The magazine dubbed that unlucky bird "the $20-million duck."

---

The James Randi Educational Foundation has offered $1 million US to anyone who provides convincing evidence of the efficacy of homeopathy. The American Physical Society has agreed to monitor any submissions.

In 2002, the BBC's Science and Nature program Horizon greedily took up the challenge:

quote:

---

The programme gathered a team of scientists from among the most respected institutes in the country. The Vice-President of the Royal Society, Professor John Enderby oversaw the experiment, and James Randi flew in from the United States to watch.

As with Benveniste's original experiment, Randi insisted that strict precautions be taken to ensure that none of the experimenters knew whether they were dealing with homeopathic solutions, or with pure water Two independent scientists performed tests to see whether their samples produced a biological effect. Only when the experiment was over was it revealed which samples were real.

To Randi's relief, the experiment was a total failure. The scientists were no better at deciding which samples were homeopathic than pure chance would have been.

---

In short, the jackpot is still untouched. GO FOR THE GOLD!!!!!!!!!

[ 23 March 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Again, my sincere apologies if you didn't get my point, and even more humble apologies if you're still having difficulty with it.

---

You seem to have difficulty in making simple distinctions. I've never claimed homeopathy works by the mechanisms claimed. I did question the irrational hysteria around it's harmfulness. I did suggest that seeing a homeopath could actually actually be health promoting due to relationship factors and placebo. I also stated that there have been articles published making empirical claims in terms of it's efficacy. If you actually have evidence that refutes any of the above your welcome to provide it. None of the statements above actually are evidence of a belief in homeopathy. Your default postion is always you have to be fer or agin something. It is truly difficult to have a discussion with someone that reduces everything to such simplicity. It is also next to impossible to discuss questions of science with someone that doesn't have an even basic understanding of its methods mechanisms or related epistemological assumptions.

quote:

---

As for stress, yes, relief of stress can make people feel better. But stress doesn't cause physical or major psychiatric illness.

---

And yet homeopathy is the subject of this thread and you have made approximately a third of the posts in it. Most of those posts try to paint homeopathy as warm, fuzzy, and basically harmless.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
And yet homeopathy is the subject of this thread and you have made approximately a third of the posts in it. Most of those posts try to paint homeopathy as warm, fuzzy, and basically harmless.

---

Sure some people make money from homeopathy, but how does that compare to the pharma-cons? Conventional medication seems a disaster in the making.

Here is but a small sample. Homeopathy is harmless by comparison.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
It is also next to impossible to discuss questions of science with someone that doesn't have an even basic understanding of its methods mechanisms or related epistemological assumptions.

---

Who real ated and pissed on my logical assumptions!?

quote:

---

[Re stress not causing physical or major psychiatric illness:] That has to be one of the most absurd statements ever.

---

quote:

---

It appears you are claiming to be neither for nor against homeopathy.
And yet homeopathy is the subject of this thread and you have made approximately a third of the posts in it. Most of those posts try to paint homeopathy as warm, fuzzy, and basically harmless.

Why would it surprise you that those who oppose homeopathy would identify you as the prime defender of homeopathy in this thread?

---

Funny I didn't realize this was the dichotomous thinking thread, where one had to discuss homeopathy from a dichotomous thinkers perspective.

If there is one thing I am oppossed to is dichotomous thinking and other lapses of logic.

If by "warm and fuzzy" you mean discussing the psychophysiological impact of a therapeutic relationship or mechanisms of the placebo effect than you talking about two effects that have received wide spread empirical support. I'm curious why you find it necessary to hold interpersonal relationships or emotional processes in contempt.

I did contend that homeopathy was harmless but that is hardly a ringing endorsement. I might think disco music is harmless but that doesn't make me a fan(the same of course can not be said about new country, that is truly dangerous.)
I proposed homeopathy was harmless to counter hysterical claims coming from medical fetishists, that it is foretelling the end of the world. Such hysteria is hardly necessary for science or any other discipline.

quote:

---

Most of the others are along the lines of: You say homeopathy's bad and unscientific? Well, look at psychiatry; gee it's even worse and just as unscientific and more harmful!. Leaving aside the apparent ignorance of psychiatry, this is like defending a thief by saying "Look! Murderers and rapists!".

---

I thought the question I was asking was fairly simple. What are standards by which a discipline is accepted as scientifically valid? Psychiatry is generally accepted as being a valid part of medicine and scientifically valid. Yet a closer critical examination of psychiatry reveals a myriad of methodological errors and a lack of empirical support for their claims. Yet most people including those considered reputable scientist never bring critical awareness to the discipline of psychiatry so it's status as a credible science remains. I find that curious. I find it germane to this discussion because if you are to compare alleged "valid scientific medicine" to something else than certainly the same standards should be applied, otherwise it is reasonable to assume that a non-scientific bias is operating.

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

I think it is crucial in these discussion to be aware of a dominant discourse that fetishizes science or medicine and makes unverifiabe claims to truth or knowledge. If one operates from a position that science allows uncritical certainty or is privy to unchallengable truths then one is actually taking a position in opposition to scientific enquiry. This position is dogma and that leads to truly dangerous conclusions. If one also reaches a conclusion that anything that is presently unknown, unverified or undiscovered than it is non-existant than that is also dogma and a deeply absurd position that a brief glance at the history of science would dispel.

It seems what certain people have trouble with is genuine skeptism, which demands that one never develop to firm an attachment to conclusions, it also suggests becoming comfortable with uncertainty, ambiguity, indeterminancy and probabilities. To me that is the true nature of intellectual enquiry but hey maybe I'se wrong innit.

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

Unionist has made my point for me.

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

Let's see now. We've done homeopathy. Likewise psychotherapy. TCM was dispatched without a fight.

Next we could tackle:

quote:

---

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

---

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

Your general hypothesis appears to be

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

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

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:

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

---

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

EVIDENCE???

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Why don't we abandon the thread topic altogether and just talk about all the pseudoscientific nonsense in the world that passes for "alternative" medicine?

Let's see now. We've done homeopathy. Likewise psychotherapy. TCM was dispatched without a fight.

Next we could tackle:

Aromatherapy
Colonics
Ear-candling
Faith healing
Iridology
Magnet therapy
Orgone therapy
Reiki
Rolfing®
Therapeutic Touch
Urine therapy

---

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

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

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

[ 24 March 2007: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albireo:
Much about dilution in this extremely skeptical article about homeopathy...
Homeopathy: the ultimate fake.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ 24 March 2007: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]

quote:

---

Homeopathy won't kill you.

---

quote:

---

Neither will religion.

---

quote:

---

Nor will the Tooth Fairy.

---

Your right about that.

quote:

---

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

---

But couldn't a placebo affect be useful?

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

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

EVIDENCE???

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

Does Homeopathy do this? The short answer is no.

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

[ 24 March 2007: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]

quote:

---

But couldn't a placebo affect be useful?

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:

So how do you determine the truth what makes you choose one authority over another,

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

[ 24 March 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
But couldn't a placebo affect be useful?

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

One of the side effects.

quote:

---

The following side effects are common (occurring in greater than 30%) for patients taking Liquid Pred:

Increased appetite
Irritability
Difficulty sleeping (insomnia)
Swelling in your ankles and feet (fluid retention).
Nausea, take with food.
Heartburn.
Muscle weakness.
Impaired wound healing.
Increased blood sugar levels. (Persons with Diabetes may need to have blood sugar levels monitored more closely and possible adjustments to diabetes medications).
The following are less common side effects (occurring in 10 to 29%) for patients receiving Liquid Pred:

Headaches
Dizziness
Mood swings
Cataracts and bone thinning (with long-term use).
This list includes common and less common side effects for individuals taking prednisone. Side effects that are very rare, occurring in less than 10% of patients, are not listed here. However, you should always inform your health care provider if you experience any unusual symptoms.

---

Predisone side effects

A predisone tragedy

quote:

---

Side Effects of Prednisone
The most commonly encountered side effects are:

Sodium retention
Increased appetite
Increased fat deposits
Increased acid in your stomach
Increased sweating, especially at night
Increased hair growth
Acne on the face, back, and chest
Bone and muscle problems
Growth problems in children
Eye problems
Increased sugar in the blood
Increased sensitivity to the sun
Delayed wound healing
Decreased ability to fight infection
Thrush (Candida) growth in the mouth

---

Want to go on?

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:

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

---

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

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bubbles:

Predisone side effects

A predisone tragedy

And where do all these drugs end up? In your drinking and bath water.[/URL]

---

quote:

---

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

---

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

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

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:

You just categoricallly deny the existence of a link between stress and health, something that has been validated by countless studies in a variety of disciplines.

---

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

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

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

Your move, sir.

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

[ 24 March 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:

Would sugar pills be considered homeopathic?

---

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

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

[ 24 March 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

Though it was an error to take ulcer psychosomatics as an article of faith, care must be taken not to throw the baby out with the bath water by assuming that with the discovery of HP the case is closed. Only 20% of HP-infected individuals ever develop an ulcer,15 usually after several decades of infection, and many ulcers develop in the absence of HP.16 Helicobacter pylori must therefore be conceptualized not as the cause of peptic ulcer but as one risk factor among, potentially, many. Helicobacter pylori infection has been estimated to carry a risk ratio of approximately 4 for ulcer17 and to be responsible for 48% of the population attributable risk.18

Some of the best case-control studies do support an association of ulcer with life stress;29,30 a cross-sectional association of ulcers with shift work31 is particularly convincing because of a bias in the opposite direction (sick workers are commonly assigned to the day shift) and is complemented by reports linking ulcer with poor sleep.32 But it is prospective studies, most of them published since 1990, that have provided the most compelling evidence of a causal role for psychological stress in peptic ulcer. A variety of natural and man-made catastrophes in various populations have been followed by surges in the number of diagnosed ulcers.33–36 Among defined cohorts initially free of ulcer, psychological stress and distress at baseline have generally been found to predict excess ulcer development over the following years,32,37–41 though there have also been contrary reports.42,43 Follow-up studies of patients with endoscopically diagnosed peptic ulcer have uniformly found stress and distress to worsen clinical course over months to years.44–48 On the basis of the published evidence I have estimated that psychological factors contribute to 30–65% of cases of peptic ulcer.49

---

quote:

---

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

---

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

On his website, he links to Quackwatch, which has lots to say about homeopathy:

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

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

[ 24 March 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:

How can you claim to have even the slightest claims to understanding science.

---

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:

Would sugar pills be considered homeopathic?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sineed:

On his website, he links to Quackwatch, which has lots to say about homeopathy:

---

quote:

---

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

---

Unionist I am not sure what you were getting at.

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bubbles:

Unionist I am not sure what you were getting at.

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

Would sugar pills be considered homeopathic?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly Brandybuck:

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

---

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

[ 25 March 2007: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]

quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

THEREFORE,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albireo:
Here is an effective remedy:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Please do, if you can.

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

---

Sorry, have we had a thread about this guy already? I wasn't intending to derail the thread - I agree that homeopathy is a crock - but I do remember reading something about the Quackwatch doc being a quack and I thought it was interesting in relation to this thread.

Another thread: Feeling better from homeopathy no more than placebo effect, study suggests

[ 25 March 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Surferosad,
I hardly ever visit these kinds of threads. Wow! Are you a jerk. Let me explain why. You are a jerk because you completely missed the point that Skdadl made, when you were hazing those less skeptical than you about homeopathy. It was a really unpleasant, and rude close minded amd presumptuous arrogance, wherein you were so self-confident that you were absolutely right that homeopathy is bunk, that you assumed that anyone contesting your "scientific medical" view, must support what you oppose.

Let me explain: This is not an inquisition where you are the prime authority on what is good science and bad science. It is unlikely that this could be so, since you are such an obviously bad scientist. This I evidence with the fact that you completely missed Skdadl's point, and we all know that good rationalist scientist must be keen observers, and capable of comprehenending complex ideas, You failed on both counts.

Now, for the record I think homeopathy is bunk. Also, I agree that mainstream medicine has its uses. I am making this clear so that you don't get confused again.

The point that Skdadl was making was much broader in scope than you were evidentaly able to capture. Her case was that there is an argument to be made that average life expectancy has been extended, not so much because of the intervention of authorized medical practioners, but by enhanced quality of peoples lives, based on increased wealth, more and better food in the diet, and through the creation of a social safety net that makes care and rest available to even the most marginalized sectors of society.

In other words, modern medical science has made something of an industry out of taking the credit for the postive results that occurred relative to other social factors, not because someone discovered that if you irradiate cancer cells they die.

Your "visit a graveyard and see" anecdotal proof, which you used in rebutal to her point would make Archie Bunker appear an to be Einstein if he were to saying "if god had meant men to fly, he would have given them wings." Strike three on the "high" science register for you I am afraid: anecedotal commonsense mythologies like this are never good science, especially when defending a rationalist idea.

I suggest you go to some graveyards in some poorer countries and see what you find there. There you will find mortality rates quite similar to those of 19th century Europe, and this despite quite widespread vacination programs and much increased access to "modern medical" techniques.

The point, you see, is that disease kills the impovershed much more readily than the well fed.

Now you can go back to establishing your reputation, by repeatedly stating, over and over again that you don't have time to discuss these issues with "crackpots."

It might help if you bothered reading peoples posts for content rather than bludgeoning all an sundry by repetition of your discussion point. If you did that you might discover there is more to discourse than affirmation of your opposition to what you think is other peoples affirmation of their opposition to your view, which is probably more a reaction to your breathtakingly stultifying closemindedness, and the shocking arrogance that you have exhibited here.

---