Are vaccinations bad? And homeopathy.

403 posts / 0 new
Last post
Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Nov 28 2006 14:28
nosos wrote:
Jack wrote:
I mean Newton didn't just assert that gravity existed because it worked for him - it was argued with science. If homeopathy had any value and is to be excepted as scientific, then surely (if it worked) it'd be able to go through the same process?

But at the time it wasn’t regarded as scientific. It was seen as a return to primitive Aristotelianism – the notion that there just are innate forces & they don’t need explaining – in a sense he did argue because it worked for him.

Nonsense - it stuck because it was supported by evidence. His theories of gravity were testible, and shown to be true again and again (and only didn't work for subatomic particles discovered much later).

As I and others pointed out above, this is no conventional vs alternative medicine, it's about treatments supported by evidence that they work.

Grace
Offline
Joined: 19-07-05
Nov 28 2006 14:39
jef costello wrote:
Quote:
It's obvious when you step back that homeopathy could never make money in the way conventional medical practices can.

That's odd, because most homeopaths in Britain work for the middle and upper classes and pull in decent amounts of money.

Well yes but they are in the minority, whereas the majority of the population of the whole country depend on conventional medical practises, have to pay for prescriptions and non-prescribed drugs - and that's just on the NHS, never mind the extra charges people often pay by turning to private hospitals to avoid the deficiencies of the NHS - and (according to the UK's official graduate careers website) the starting salary of a doctor in training is at least £42,000; I think it would be folly to claim that the conventional medical system isn't more profitable than homeopathy as it stands.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Nov 28 2006 14:42

Gravity is still unproven in the strictest terms, but it's effects can be measured and calculated. You can carry out repeatable experiments with gravity and you can carry out predictable experiments too.
Can you do the same with homeopathy?
Limiting belief in phenomena to things that can be either logically explained, or demonstrated to be true is common sense.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Nov 28 2006 14:43
Grace wrote:
I think it would be folly to claim that the conventional medical system isn't more profitable than homeopathy as it stands.

of course, and it certainly doesn't look as ripe a market as pharmaceuticals (the most profitable industry in the world, iirc). but don't underestimate the power of recuperation, all that personalised subjective labour is a potential source of surplus-value too.

edit: and what revol said

Grace
Offline
Joined: 19-07-05
Nov 28 2006 14:47
Jack wrote:
Grace wrote:
and (according to the UK's official graduate careers website) the starting salary of a doctor in training is at least £42,000

I'm sure Refused or Pingtiao can confirm this, but I'm pretty sure the figure is about half this...

That's fair enough, I was just going by what I read. Doesn't stop it being a lot of money though.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Nov 28 2006 16:14
Quote:
diluted-potion treatment (i would say homoeopathy since this is what the word means

Again as I've written over and over again, homeopathy is the law of similars plus ultra-dilution. You can still use the law of similars without the dilution (e.g. Ritalin is such a drug).

Quote:
Can you do the same with homeopathy?

yes, see a few of my posts back, it has quite a few references to various studies on homeopathy.

Revol: there are studies showing that homeopathy works, and works very well. Interesting that you choose to ignore them.

Quote:
As any good business person will tell you, niche markets are not to be scoffed at.

Very true, but not in the case of homeopathy. The remedies can reproduced easily at home. The money lies in actual case-taking, and even in there homeopathy is cheaper than conventional medicine.

Here in Egypt consultations and remedies are free (though it lacks official status).

My homeopath is in Holland and the first consultation was 100 Euros, follow-up interviews 50 euros, e-mail and phone consultations for free, as were the remedies. This is a pittance compared to what I would have to pay in a conventional clinic.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Nov 28 2006 16:56
atlemk wrote:
Quote:
diluted-potion treatment (i would say homoeopathy since this is what the word means

Again as I've written over and over again, homeopathy is the law of similars plus ultra-dilution. You can still use the law of similars without the dilution (e.g. Ritalin is such a drug).

FFS as if that's a "law". And Ritalin is given in doses greater than zero, so it's not like homeopathy at all, and secondly the reason it works isn't because it is kind of "like" the symptoms, any more than giving someone with heart disease loads of salt and cholesterol will cure them of it.

Grace
Offline
Joined: 19-07-05
Nov 28 2006 17:28
revol68 wrote:
Well it might be a decent wage but let's remember that it's tough to get into, requires years of medical school, fee's etc, whilst any quack with a pair of sandals can rent a room above a health food shop and other homeopathic treatments.

I definitely think this is a problem with homeopathy as it stands, and why I've said before that I think it should be regulated. In some cases it's possible to find out what practitioners' qualifications and experience are - there are some homeopathic colleges, as far as I'm aware the standard course length is 4 years, and some homeopaths will have a normal medical degree as well - but I've no doubt that some unqualified people successfully masquerade as medical practitioners, and I consider this very dangerous. My family checked out our homeopath's qualifications before making any appointment and she has the relevant homeopathic degree as well as a BSc, and in fact has taught physiology to both senior nurses and undergraduates, has graduated from courses on counselling, kinesiology and nutrition and is pretty much constantly continuing her studies - however I am under no illusions of her being a typical practitioner, as I've said before I've been lucky to find an excellent example. I don't think that alternative therapies should become the norm but I do think that while they are used they should be regulated because unqualified practitioners could feasibly do more harm than good. If someone's going to present a method as an adequate alternative or supplement to conventional treatment then they ought to have equally rigorous training.

As to whether I think homeopathic remedies have an effect beyond a placebo, I'm kinda torn. Some experiences I've had make me think that they do - i.e. effects specific to the remedy in question having occured - but on the other hand I'm sceptical given the methods of preparation of the remedies. Some remedies I've been given I have no doubts about as they've been herbal remedies with an actual measurable quantity of the herb in them which has produced a marked effect, but while I have in the majority of cases got better following a course of the highly diluted substance, my common sense does question it a bit. I wouldn't say that they definitely don't have an effect beyond a placebo, but I also acknowledge the possibility of them just being placebos and as such await further research. I'd rather get better from a placebo (which you could say I've had experience of having benefited from homeopathic remedies) than not get better at all (which I definitely have experience of in some cases, having had no effects from some conventional treatment) though. Beyond that the issue is financial I think.

Grace
Offline
Joined: 19-07-05
Nov 28 2006 17:36
revol68 wrote:
Grace this discussion would be alot easier if you stopped lumping Homeopathy in with a holistic approach to medicine.
They are quite clearly different as it is perfectly sane to enquire about someones diet and lifestyle in seeking to apply a diagnosis or treatment, what is not sane however is diluting active agents until they are nelgiable and claiming the water retains the memory.

Easier for those who would seek to separate drugs from the overall treatment, yes. However, a holistic approach is an integral part of homeopathic practise and as such I wouldn't separate it, so sorry for not fitting in with your idea of the correct approach.

However, you should have no trouble with my post since I also addressed the issue of the remedies themselves, that being the only thing you wish to discuss, separately, as I assume you would have wished me to do.

arf
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Nov 28 2006 18:26
Quote:
Grace I'm afraid you can't just justify homeopathy on holistic grounds, I mean you wouldn't justify a doctor prescribing out of date drugs on the basis that she's got a fantastic bedside manner.

Well one major difference there is that out of date drugs are potentially harmful to the patient, whereas homepathic treatment is not.

Whats with all the really bad analogies here?

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Nov 28 2006 18:46
arf wrote:
Well one major difference there is that out of date drugs are potentially harmful to the patient, whereas homepathic treatment is not.

so it can only have positive effects?! you can see surely where the accusation of 'magic potions' comes from?

arf
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Nov 28 2006 18:50
Quote:
Well it might be a decent wage but let's remember that it's tough to get into, requires years of medical school, fee's etc, whilst any quack with a pair of sandals can rent a room above a health food shop and other homeopathic treatments.

http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/

Qualified homeopathists study for three years full time. Many qualified homeopathists also have conventional medical qualifications.

I wouldnt go and see an unqualified and unregistered homeopathist any more than I'd go see an unqualified and unregistered gp.

Quote:
That's odd, because most homeopaths in Britain work for the middle and upper classes and pull in decent amounts of money.

And you know this how? Did you find this out through some sort of scientific research? Care to point me towards that study and any resulting statistics?

In any case, what an individual homeopath may or may not earn is not comparable to what the medical industry can make. I think my post was quite clear, it's not about the difference between what a homeopath or what a gp might expect to take home. It's about the potential to make a lot of money for the entire industry - between the drugs and medical equipment and all of the various specialists and whatever needed in the medical industry, there is really no limit to the amount of money that can be made from conventional medicine, especially as it often causes illness itself, they may as well be printing their own money in some areas.

arf
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Nov 28 2006 18:55
Joseph K. wrote:
arf wrote:
Well one major difference there is that out of date drugs are potentially harmful to the patient, whereas homepathic treatment is not.

so it can only have positive effects?! you can see surely where the accusation of 'magic potions' comes from?

Or it can have no effect whatsoever. It is possible to have negative effects but they will be minor and short term.

Whereas out of date medicines have the potential to be seriously harmful.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Nov 28 2006 18:56

you really don't have to argue against administering out of date medicines wink

gurrier
Offline
Joined: 30-01-04
Nov 28 2006 19:13

Complimentary and alternative medicines are defined by the lack of any non-anecdotal evidence to support them. As soon as there is any evidence, it becomes conventional medicine.

One of the huge problems from an anarchist point of view with alternative practitioners is that they represent a return to the Victorian tradition of the doctor as repository of arcane knowledge. The really nice thing about science is that we believe it because there is evidence for it, not because some expert says it is so. Since homeopathy and all other CAM are defined by their lack of evidence, there is nothing else for it but to trust the expert healer. And we should know what a bad idea that is.

The idea of regulating and certifying practitioners of an evidence-free field is also pretty meaningless. How do you agree what is and what is not an acceptable homeopathic treatment if there is no evidence for any of them? To put it simply, evidence is what divides quackery from medicine and in an evidence-free field, there is no possibility of a meaningful division between genuine practitioners and rogue operators.

As a thought experiment, consider the situation where the most respected and senior homeopath in the world decides for a joke to arbitrarily make up a new treatment picked at random and given some wafer-thin justification in terms of the theory of treating like with like. It's pretty easy to do so - water with a 'memory' of coffee for sleeplessness, water with a memory of hot milk for over-sleeping, etc.

Now, you are a student of this professor. How can you identify which treatments he has made up for a joke and which treatments are genuine?

Incidentally, the BMJ published a meta-analysis of homeopathy trials a few years ago, which concluded that there was no evidence for the efficacy of any homeopathic treatments.

It is common for people who are putting forward evidence free arguments to cite the one-time predominance of flat-earth theories and the rise of gravity in support of 'thinking outside the box'. This is a misunderstanding of the nature of scientific enquiry. You see, flat earth theory always had a really big problem in explaining the observed phenomena and therefore there was a very good reason to investigate alternatives. In short, flat earth proponents were never able to answer the very simple question of "why is there a horizon". You see, there is absolutely no point whatsoever in seeking out new theories in fields where current theories explain the observed evidence adequately. If there was an observed phenomena that people who drank water which had been in contact with particular substances had significantly better health than those who did not, it would make sense to invent homeopathic theory, in the absence of such evidence, there is absolutely no reason for wasting time trying to theorise about it.

Historically speaking, homeopathy and the theory of humours and all the other archaic theories of medicine were genuine attempts to come up with scientific explanations of the body and health. The big problem that their theorists faced was that they did not have access to any of the evidence that we now have access to. We now understand that microscopy was a fundamental pre-requisite for any understanding of how the body works. Once means of seeing things that were really, really small, such as cells, became available, it became very clear very quickly that our bodies were almost infinitely more complex than anybody had imagined and that all previous theories had been based upon a complete lack of understanding of how the body works at the most basic level. Theories such as homeopathy which had been genuine attempts to come up with scientific theories, were almost instantly discarded by scientifically minded folk as it was obvious that they were based on a fundamental lack of data. To still believe them nowadays is exactly as nonsensical as believing in flat earth theory.

Which brings me on to the basic question of why they are growing in popularity again. This isn't tremendously difficult to work out. If you talk to any GP who works in a relatively affluent area, she will tell you that a significant proportion, even a majority, of her patients are suffering from anxiety. Contrary to what Grace said towards the start of this discussion, it is not the case that most people are good judges of their own state of health. People who are suffering from anxiety almost always think they are dying - panic attacks are unbelievably common and the symptoms are an inability to breath, an inability to swallow, an overwhelming sense that you are about to die and so on. Nobody ever believes the GP when they are told that they have no treatable medical condition - because their bodies are genuinely telling them that they are about to die when they suffer a panic attack. Furthermore, people who suffer from anxiety often exhibit 'wandering' symptoms - problems that change between "TATT" (tired all the time), panic attacks, non-specific pains and so on. They are absolutely dreaded by GPs who do not have the time or resources to deal with complex psycho-social causes and are really only good for diagnosing illnesses which can be medically treated.

In many ways, therefore, CAM practitioners are perfect for the vast numbers of people who suffer from anxiety and the various other 'lifestyle' ailments of the affluent. The placebo effect is exactly what these people need - a sense that somebody takes them seriously, that somebody cares and that somebody is doing something to help them - this is enough in itself to dissipate the anxiety, which is the underlying problem, causing the symptoms to disappear - hey presto it works! And it really does.

As Grace says, it is the 'holistic' part that is important, the sense that somebody is listening. The big problem, however, is that the effect is sort of spoiled if you realise that the treatment itself is nonsense - it could involve reiki, hand-waving, cleaning out your arse with water, or pretty much anything, as long as you come out of it less anxious, it's going to work.

Therefore, while CAM practitioners do undoubtedly serve some use, in that they provide genuine help to those suffering from anxiety and the various related 'lifestyle' ailments, the problem is that they only really work because the patient is ignorant of the fact that they don't work!

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Nov 28 2006 19:31
arf wrote:
Or it can have no effect whatsoever. It is possible to have negative effects but they will be minor and short term.

Whereas out of date medicines have the potential to be seriously harmful.

I don't know about you, but I'd definately call giving a severly ill person water and convincing them that it's medicine of some kind seriously harmful.

arf
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Nov 28 2006 19:48
Quote:
Which brings me on to the basic question of why they are growing in popularity again. This isn't tremendously difficult to work out. If you talk to any GP who works in a relatively affluent area, she will tell you that a significant proportion, even a majority, of her patients are suffering from anxiety. Contrary to what Grace said towards the start of this discussion, it is not the case that most people are good judges of their own state of health. People who are suffering from anxiety almost always think they are dying - panic attacks are unbelievably common and the symptoms are an inability to breath, an inability to swallow, an overwhelming sense that you are about to die and so on. Nobody ever believes the GP when they are told that they have no treatable medical condition - because their bodies are genuinely telling them that they are about to die when they suffer a panic attack. Furthermore, people who suffer from anxiety often exhibit 'wandering' symptoms - problems that change between "TATT" (tired all the time), panic attacks, non-specific pains and so on. They are absolutely dreaded by GPs who do not have the time or resources to deal with complex psycho-social causes and are really only good for diagnosing illnesses which can be medically treated.

In many ways, therefore, CAM practitioners are perfect for the vast numbers of people who suffer from anxiety and the various other 'lifestyle' ailments of the affluent. The placebo effect is exactly what these people need - a sense that somebody takes them seriously, that somebody cares and that somebody is doing something to help them - this is enough in itself to dissipate the anxiety, which is the underlying problem, causing the symptoms to disappear - hey presto it works! And it really does.

Thats kind of patronising. I'm not affluent, btw, but I do use homeopathy, and I find it effective for symptoms that I can actually see and feel, itchy and persistent excema for example.

arf
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Nov 28 2006 19:51
madashell wrote:
arf wrote:
Or it can have no effect whatsoever. It is possible to have negative effects but they will be minor and short term.

Whereas out of date medicines have the potential to be seriously harmful.

I don't know about you, but I'd definately call giving a severly ill person water and convincing them that it's medicine of some kind seriously harmful.

Compared to what? Prescribing them drugs that are actually going through their long term trials in the general population? Prescribing them untested cocktails? Not treating them at all?

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Nov 28 2006 20:04
gurrier wrote:
Complimentary and alternative medicines are defined by the lack of any non-anecdotal evidence to support them. As soon as there is any evidence, it becomes conventional medicine.

thats quite niave for an anarchist/communist, but i have to go out now ... (though i agree most 'alternative' stuff is mystical irrationalist shite wink)

Grace
Offline
Joined: 19-07-05
Nov 28 2006 20:24
Joseph K. wrote:
arf wrote:
Well one major difference there is that out of date drugs are potentially harmful to the patient, whereas homeopathic treatment is not.

so it can only have positive effects?! you can see surely where the accusation of 'magic potions' comes from?

I wouldn't say homeopathic treatments can only have positive effects, they can also have absolutely no effect or can on occasion have negative effects, just the same as conventional medicines. However what I would say, on an anecdotal basis and from history, news and so on as I haven't a clue where to look for studies on it or even if studies have been done, is that the negative effects of conventional medicine in the cases that it has occurred tend to be more extreme and dangerous - homeopathy, as far as I'm aware, hasn't had a parallel to thalydomide or the recent clinical trial disaster, and even known side effects of conventional drugs - nausea, diarrhoea, rashes and so on - are worse.

The worst thing that's happened to me from taking a homeopathic remedy (and even this could be explained as not being an effect of the substance) was severe mood swings for a couple of days after treatment. I'm sure other people have had similar or worse experiences, but I've never heard of anyone dying from homeopathic remedies (and I doubt it would pass unnoticed if someone did - can you imagine how much the conservative media would lap it up).

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Nov 28 2006 20:27
arf wrote:
Compared to what?

Compared to using actual, clinically effective drugs.

And don't even get me started on giving people with minor anxiety problems placebos, all you're doing is validating their belief that there's something physically wrong with them when the best thing would be regular exercise, a better sleeping pattern and a more active social life.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Nov 28 2006 20:29

Edit: actually, that was a bit unfair.

Choccy's picture
Choccy
Offline
Joined: 9-12-04
Nov 28 2006 21:45

the Guardian Bad Science dude is always doing stuff about vaccinations and mmr and that

Grace
Offline
Joined: 19-07-05
Nov 28 2006 22:09

double post, stupid internet

Grace
Offline
Joined: 19-07-05
Nov 28 2006 22:09
revol68 wrote:
Grace wrote:
revol68 wrote:
Grace this discussion would be alot easier if you stopped lumping Homeopathy in with a holistic approach to medicine.
They are quite clearly different as it is perfectly sane to enquire about someones diet and lifestyle in seeking to apply a diagnosis or treatment, what is not sane however is diluting active agents until they are nelgiable and claiming the water retains the memory.

Easier for those who would seek to separate drugs from the overall treatment, yes. However, a holistic approach is an integral part of homeopathic practise and as such I wouldn't separate it, so sorry for not fitting in with your idea of the correct approach.

However, you should have no trouble with my post since I also addressed the issue of the remedies themselves, that being the only thing you wish to discuss, separately, as I assume you would have wished me to do.

Grace i understand that we can't seperate drugs from wider factors, but that doesn't in anyway validate using secularised Pope piss in treatment! I mean ffs having the best side manner in the world does not justify pimping people a medicine that has no theorectical or empirical backing! If you want to go down that root you'd have been as well jumping on a plane to Lourdes and making a holiday out of it.

So for the last time is there any evidence that your getting better had anything to do with diluted drugs, and if you weren't given homeopathic water then it's not homeopathy!

Oddly enough I didn't rush straight to the testing lab straight after I got better to ask. Nor did I do so when antibiotics 'cured' me of cystitis (was it the pills or was it the cranberry juice). My only evidence for either treatment making me better is the fact that I got better, sorry I can't do any better than that.

I wasn't given 'homeopathic water', but I was given homeopathic pills made using said magic water, which is as far as I'm aware more common than liquid.

Grace
Offline
Joined: 19-07-05
Nov 28 2006 22:52
revol68 wrote:
Grace wrote:
revol68 wrote:
Grace wrote:
revol68 wrote:
Grace this discussion would be alot easier if you stopped lumping Homeopathy in with a holistic approach to medicine.
They are quite clearly different as it is perfectly sane to enquire about someones diet and lifestyle in seeking to apply a diagnosis or treatment, what is not sane however is diluting active agents until they are nelgiable and claiming the water retains the memory.

Easier for those who would seek to separate drugs from the overall treatment, yes. However, a holistic approach is an integral part of homeopathic practise and as such I wouldn't separate it, so sorry for not fitting in with your idea of the correct approach.

However, you should have no trouble with my post since I also addressed the issue of the remedies themselves, that being the only thing you wish to discuss, separately, as I assume you would have wished me to do.

Grace i understand that we can't seperate drugs from wider factors, but that doesn't in anyway validate using secularised Pope piss in treatment! I mean ffs having the best side manner in the world does not justify pimping people a medicine that has no theorectical or empirical backing! If you want to go down that root you'd have been as well jumping on a plane to Lourdes and making a holiday out of it.

So for the last time is there any evidence that your getting better had anything to do with diluted drugs, and if you weren't given homeopathic water then it's not homeopathy!

Oddly enough I didn't rush straight to the testing lab straight after I got better to ask. Nor did I do so when antibiotics 'cured' me of cystitis (was it the pills or was it the cranberry juice). My only evidence for either treatment making me better is the fact that I got better, sorry I can't do any better than that.

I wasn't given 'homeopathic water', but I was given homeopathic pills made using said magic water, which is as far as I'm aware more common than liquid.

Except you could have went onto wikipedia and found out how antibiotics actively work, whilst with the magic water capsules it's all a pile of pish backed up with not even a whiff of theoretical basis.

it's also worrying that you wouldn't have checked up such capsules, afterall if the doctor prescribed me with something surrounded in controversy and weren't exactly common I would have probably checked a few things out.

So just out of interest do you think the magic water actually does anything?

Maybe you should have buried them in the garden and you could have had a beanstalk by now.

You think I didn't find out about antibiotics before taking them? Christ. On a personal level I find that offensive, you're not a stranger and you know full well I'm not a fucking idiot.

I've said over and fucking over that I have got better having taken 'magic pills', I have said that I recognise the doubts over their efficacy but that I wouldn't rule out them having a real effect. Maybe you should read what I post rather than spouting whatever pre-coined one-liners you've decided you want to use in response. I have repeated myself so many times, I do not know what more you want me to say.

I'm really starting to lose time for you.

Lone Wolf's picture
Lone Wolf
Offline
Joined: 1-03-06
Nov 28 2006 22:55
Grace wrote:
I have to say that some of the attitudes being displayed here are some of the least scientific I've ever come across. Basing the possibility of truth or falsehood solely on current knowledge is about as far from scientific as you can get. If scientists worked solely on the basis of what is current, we'd still be learning that the world is flat and our bodies are made of humours. To say something is impossible or ridiculous because it challenges or even totally contradicts current knowledge isn't really productive; if current ideas were never challenged or contradicted we'd have no scientific discoveries at all. How many prominent scientists were laughed down by their peers? Look at a bit of history and you'll find a lot of them had such experiences. There's currently money and time being spent researching string theory (I read this in New Scientist, not Hippie Mysticism Weekly) - if proved this would turn virtually all current knowledge of physics on its head, paving the way for flying cars and other magical sounding things - is this 'scientific'? A huge amount of science was based on unproved theories until it was proved - Democritus coined the theory of atoms in the 5th century B.C. yet atoms were only proved to exist in the late 19th/early 20th centuries.

I'm not trying to assert that homeopathy must be scientifically true and to question it is unacceptable - I'd question it myself - nor am I trying to say that anecdotes must be believed because they might be proved true in the future, nor that current knowledge should be discounted; my point is that to laugh something down and dismiss it as totally unfeasible under any circumstances because it doesn't conform with current knowledge isn't a progressive approach, and if scientists took the approach that nothing is possible outside of what is currently deemed to be true, we might as well discontinue scientific research now.

A fab post. cool

And the use of terms like "voodoo" and "witch doctor" don't exactly give the impression that you guys are coming from a rational and scientific mindset either...roll eyes I mean, not to go off topic but some pretty wicked shit happens in the name of "voodoo" - principally in Africa of course, but sometimes in England too. This is not because "voodoo works" but because peeps use the fear and vulnerability of others to control them.. yer bog-standard homoepath/complementary practitioner is not so ill-motivated funnily enough..IMHO some homoepaths may be pretty useless - cos as in all walks of life some peeps are more competent than others - but the power/control/arrogance stuff is much more likely to emanate from a consultant/big pharma etc

Also arf is still on the money and atlemk obv. knows what he is talking about aussi..

Gurrier - no the definition of complementary medicine is not that it remains that way until adopted by allopathic medicine..

JK - You mentioned your veganism.. grin I was wondering when you would.. it had to happen sooner or later...!!

Re: your anecdote about your dad - thanks for sharing!! Great he got better!! I take yer point - it would have been difficult to prove how he got better had he taken a remedy ...but you should know i am not at all against the provision of allopathic medication and am a big fan of double-blind studies etc etc - it is the CORRUPTION of the provision of medication that concerns me..

.And also a lot of practitioners and clients aren't obsessed by "proof" - if it works that suits them just fine..I once gave a motivational speech to a business audience in which I used some meditative and visualisation techniques that were prob. alien to them... One guy came up after and said he didn't understand what I did for him but it worked anyway..tongue

Grace is soo right. The main psych. trait any scientist or person with a scientific mindset needs to have is that of intellectual curiosity NOT closed-mindedness which represents, to me, the death of all reason...

Love

LW X

raw
Offline
Joined: 8-10-03
Nov 28 2006 23:23
revol68 wrote:
Grace wrote:
I'm really starting to lose time for you.

Likewise.

I can't believe apparently cynical anarchists could actually buy into this mumbo bullshit, mind you it is "alternative" and "opposes" the instrumentalism of bourgeois medicine.

what do you know? You spend most of your life on bulletin boards!

looser :-0)

Raw

gurrier
Offline
Joined: 30-01-04
Nov 28 2006 23:24
Quote:
Thats kind of patronising. I'm not affluent, btw, but I do use homeopathy, and I find it effective for symptoms that I can actually see and feel, itchy and persistent excema for example.

It's not at all patronising actually. I don't think people choose to be chock a block full of stress - it's as real a problem as anything else. It's also a phenomenon that I have investigated at great length and I think it's a realistic conclusion. You will also find that while stress is certainly not confined to the affluent, there is a hugely significant correlation between CAM and affluence. The reasons for this are a bit beside the point and fairly lengthy.

Way more people find prayer to be effective for symptoms than find homeopathy effective, but neither treatment is supported by trials, so if we're counting personal anecdotes as evidence your homeopathy is even less convincing than the healing power of prayer as there are way more personal anecdotes testifying to it's efficacy.

Skraeling
Offline
Joined: 7-04-06
Nov 28 2006 23:26

A story about placebo effect. My sister's dog had eaten some poison. She (the dog) couldnt walk, was in horrid convulsions, and near death's door. My sister took her dog to her homeopath and almost immediately after taking a pill got better. It was very strange to see, almost miracalous. No other treatment was necessary. So how do you explain this in terms of placebo effect?

I like Grace's post. I've used homeopathy for years, and its mostly worked for me. Its been much better than conventional medicine, which has in fact has caused most of my health problems. In general, western medicine is great for bottom of the cliff stuff, and hopeless at addressing the real causes of disease. Homeopathy is generally better cos its trying to get at the causes of the problem, by bringing out the disease and letting the body heal itself. Western medicine just suppress the symptoms of your disease, doesnt allow your body to heal itself and instead gets your body hooked on shitty medicines that give you horrendous side effects. I should know, use of certain drugs for over thirty years has fucked my liver, kidneys, bowels and digestive system, immune system, and scarred my skin. Most doctors are drug pushers for rich pharmaceutical corporations. far more dangerous than any homeopath i've met!

and homeopathy is mostly a working class thing in my experience, alternative/counter-cultural, but still working class.