Are vaccinations bad? And homeopathy.

403 posts / 0 new
Last post
AndrewF's picture
AndrewF
Offline
Joined: 28-02-05
Nov 29 2006 12:44
Thora wrote:
JoeBlack2 wrote:
How do the fans of homopathy explain these miracles?

Maybe there just isn't a rational explanation.

Ah you see that's what makes the problem clear and also incidentally is probably why 3 of the more virulent anti posters on this thread come from places that are or were until recently priest ridden.

Ya see were not talking you our neighboorhood hippie here, we are talking of the body that ran the inquisition. As long as people were willing to swallow the 'isn't a rational explanation' line they were able to run around burning people at the stake. Their decline pretty much follows the growth of an insistence that there should be rational explanations for things.

Thora
Offline
Joined: 17-06-04
Nov 29 2006 13:09
revol68 wrote:
Thora wrote:
JoeBlack2 wrote:
How do the fans of homopathy explain these miracles?

Maybe there just isn't a rational explanation.

Do you ever post anything half way intelligent?

Sometimes I try sad

revol68 wrote:
furthermore you mentioned some vague thing about homosexuality not being "right".

I can't believe I ever said that though???

Thora
Offline
Joined: 17-06-04
Nov 29 2006 13:16
revol68 wrote:
sorry but you did, it was on MSN quite while ago and I remember it cos you went all stroppy when I asked what you meant by it.

Fuck off revol, that's not true at all!

revolutionrugger
Offline
Joined: 23-03-06
Nov 29 2006 13:23

Can some one sum up this thread for me? I'm lazy. I think homeopathy is bullshit hippy crap for what its worth.

Thora
Offline
Joined: 17-06-04
Nov 29 2006 13:25
revol68 wrote:
Thora wrote:
revol68 wrote:
sorry but you did, it was on MSN quite while ago and I remember it cos you went all stroppy when I asked what you meant by it.

Fuck off revol, that's not true at all!

Really? So I imagined a whole MSN conversation where you talked about going to mass even though your dad didn't really believe, how you pretty much believed in a god of sorts and that you weren't sure whether or not lesbianism was totally "right".

p.s. if you actually can remember and are just being a liar then fuck you.

I don't remember the specific conversation, I certainly don't remember saying that I wasn't 'sure whether or not lesbianism was totally "right"', and I DON'T think that homosexuality is in any way wrong anyway.

Lone Wolf's picture
Lone Wolf
Offline
Joined: 1-03-06
Nov 29 2006 13:39
fruitloop wrote:
I thought the universe was expanding at an accelerating rate due to it mostly being made up of dark energy?

Fruitloop/Madashell

As an aside,you may wanna check out the "Nature of the Universe" thread in Thought where such topics are up for grabs...

Grace
Offline
Joined: 19-07-05
Nov 29 2006 13:44
JoeBlack2 wrote:
How do the fans of homeopathy explain these miracles?

It's surprising how strong some people's faith is. I do think the body can heal itself and just as the efficacy of any medical treatment can depend heavily on how positive the person is and so on, I wouldn't be surprised at an extremely strong belief that you're going to get better, whether that's religious or otherwise, greatly aiding the body's own ability. This is just a surprisingly extreme example, and good on the guy for not dying! I've already said on many occasions that I think the effect of a good practitioner on an ill person's mental and emotional outlook is beneficial; I wouldn't lump myself in with anyone who thinks that 'potions' are the only thing that makes homeopathy effective.

I don't think the Virgin Mary came down and cured him, and I wouldn't advocate the kind of activity you described as a replacement for conventional medical treatment, certainly not in the case of something like leukaemia - I'm assuming the guy would have had extensive medical attention before accepting his death and heading over to Ephesus - but I can imagine that the elation felt someone with a very strong Catholic faith (and having some terrifyingly devout Catholic friends I can well imagine - they think God and Mary can do literally anything) upon going to what they think is Mary's house would have a profound effect. No doubt it's an extremely fortunate occurrence for the guy but I do think it can be rationally explained.

AndrewF's picture
AndrewF
Offline
Joined: 28-02-05
Nov 29 2006 13:52
Grace wrote:
JoeBlack2 wrote:
How do the fans of homeopathy explain these miracles?

It's surprising how strong some people's faith is. I do think the body can heal itself and just as the efficacy of any medical treatment can depend heavily on how positive the person is and so on, I wouldn't be surprised at an extremely strong belief that you're going to get better, whether that's religious or otherwise, greatly aiding the body's own ability. This is just a surprisingly extreme example, and good on the guy for not dying! I've already said on many occasions that I think the effect of a good practitioner on an ill person's mental and emotional outlook is beneficial;

Thanks.

Basically this is the same explanation that people here have offered for homeopathy which I wrongly understood you were disagreeing with. I espected you to respond as Thora did.

What worries me about the anti-science thing in general across the four threads is that those willing to accept irrational explanations for things are capable of all sorts of shocking actions in the name of the irrational.

gurrier
Offline
Joined: 30-01-04
Nov 29 2006 14:02
Grace wrote:
It's surprising how strong some people's faith is. I do think the body can heal itself and just as the efficacy of any medical treatment can depend heavily on how positive the person is and so on, I wouldn't be surprised at an extremely strong belief that you're going to get better, whether that's religious or otherwise, greatly aiding the body's own ability. This is just a surprisingly extreme example, and good on the guy for not dying! I've already said on many occasions that I think the effect of a good practitioner on an ill person's mental and emotional outlook is beneficial; I wouldn't lump myself in with anyone who thinks that 'potions' are the only thing that makes homeopathy effective.

The BMJ did a study on the effect of prayer on health outcomes in terminally ill people. Somewhat surprisingly, it turned out that people who had groups of supporters praying for them had markedly worse outcomes. The researchers conclusions offered the speculative explanation that upon being told that people are praying for one, one realises that the illness is very serious and demoralisation sets in.

Grace wrote:
I don't think the Virgin Mary came down and cured him, and I wouldn't advocate the kind of activity you described as a replacement for conventional medical treatment, certainly not in the case of something like leukaemia - I'm assuming the guy would have had extensive medical attention before accepting his death and heading over to Ephesus - but I can imagine that the elation felt someone with a very strong Catholic faith (and having some terrifyingly devout Catholic friends I can well imagine - they think God and Mary can do literally anything) upon going to what they think is Mary's house would have a profound effect. No doubt it's an extremely fortunate occurrence for the guy but I do think it can be rationally explained.

My great uncle was diagnosed with bowel cancer and was scheduled for an operation but he postponed it to go to Lourdes to dip in the healing waters. By the time he got back it was inoperable and we watched him waste away in agony for months as the cancer ate his insides.

It's funny, the fuckers always seem to publicise the 'miracle cures' but cases like my great-uncle are far, far, far more common and they never seem to make the news.

Grace
Offline
Joined: 19-07-05
Nov 29 2006 14:09
JoeBlack2 wrote:
Grace wrote:
JoeBlack2 wrote:
How do the fans of homeopathy explain these miracles?

It's surprising how strong some people's faith is. I do think the body can heal itself and just as the efficacy of any medical treatment can depend heavily on how positive the person is and so on, I wouldn't be surprised at an extremely strong belief that you're going to get better, whether that's religious or otherwise, greatly aiding the body's own ability. This is just a surprisingly extreme example, and good on the guy for not dying! I've already said on many occasions that I think the effect of a good practitioner on an ill person's mental and emotional outlook is beneficial;

Thanks.

Basically this is the same explanation that people here have offered for homeopathy which I wrongly understood you were disagreeing with. I expected you to respond as Thora did.

What worries me about the anti-science thing in general across the four threads is that those willing to accept irrational explanations for things are capable of all sorts of shocking actions in the name of the irrational.

Certainly not, if you read my posts you'll notice that basically everything I've said has echoed this, I'm not a blind believer, and I'm not anti-science - I think that the outright rejection of science is unproductive and potentially very dangerous. What I do disagree with is the closed-mindedness of people saying that it's 'voodoo bullshit' and staunchly insisting that there is only one way to get well and that's through conventional treatment.

While I'm slightly sceptical of the so-called 'potions' I still take what remedies my homeopath prescribes me and I won't rule out the possibility of their being effective while there are still people overcoming illness through homeopathic treatment - the obsession with doing things the conventional way being the only acceptable and correct approach ignores the fact that the end result of a lot of homeopathic treatment is a marked improvement in health. If people want to go to faith healers or crystal healers or whatever as a supplement to conventional treatment or a last resort where medical treatment has been ineffective, that's fine by me if it helps them - my only problem therefore is the monetary aspect and the issue of manipulation.

I'd also draw a distinction between raping virgins to cure HIV, ritual sacrifices etc, and the kind of alternative therapies that most people tend to deal with - homeopathy, reiki, change of diet, whatever. Perhaps this is just my hippie side coming out but I'd tend to work on the principle of not causing harm. Raping someone causes harm; how is anyone harmed by a Catholic going to Lourdes in the hope of being cured? It might seem nutty or useless to those of us who don't think that a bit of holy water's going to somehow magically cure the tumour that the doctors haven't been able to get rid of, but it's ultimately harmless. If they 'miraculously' get better as a result, good on them as far as I'm concerned. Likewise how does my visiting a homeopath after doctors have been unable to help harm anybody at all? If someone can explain that I'd be interested to hear.

I guess what it comes down to is what the main objective is - is it to be 'correct' at all costs, or is it for ill people to get better?

Grace
Offline
Joined: 19-07-05
Nov 29 2006 14:15
gurrier wrote:
The BMJ did a study on the effect of prayer on health outcomes in terminally ill people. Somewhat surprisingly, it turned out that people who had groups of supporters praying for them had markedly worse outcomes. The researchers conclusions offered the speculative explanation that upon being told that people are praying for one, one realises that the illness is very serious and demoralisation sets in.

Exactly, I wouldn't disagree. Proof, arguably, of what I've been saying all along - that mental and emotional state can have an effect on health. I'm not sure how you think this refutes what I've said.

gurrier wrote:
My great uncle was diagnosed with bowel cancer and was scheduled for an operation but he postponed it to go to Lourdes to dip in the healing waters. By the time he got back it was inoperable and we watched him waste away in agony for months as the cancer ate his insides.

No disrespect to the dead, but that was a ridiculous way to go about things. Examples like this are precisely why I've been putting emphasis on non-medical methods being used alongside medical treatment, or after having exhausted all conventional treatment and having had no improvement. Cancelling trusted conventional treatment in favour of anything else is nothing but silly, and I'm saddened that you seem to be implying that I'd encourage such an approach.

Grace
Offline
Joined: 19-07-05
Nov 29 2006 14:18
Jack wrote:
Grace wrote:
how is anyone harmed by a Catholic going to Lourdes in the hope of being cured?

See gurriers example above...

If you actually read what I've been saying rather than having a prejudiced view of what I must think, you'd realise that his example is not something that I'd advocate under any circumstances.

Everyone seems far too eager to label me outright as an irrational idiot without a single shred of sense - I do question whether it's worth me saying anything at all.

Grace
Offline
Joined: 19-07-05
Nov 29 2006 14:18
Jack wrote:
Grace wrote:
how is anyone harmed by a Catholic going to Lourdes in the hope of being cured?

See gurriers example above...

If you actually read what I've been saying rather than having a prejudiced view of what I must think, you'd realise that his example is not something that I'd advocate under any circumstances.

Everyone seems far too eager to label me outright as an irrational idiot without a single shred of sense - I do question whether it's worth me saying anything at all.

AndrewF's picture
AndrewF
Offline
Joined: 28-02-05
Nov 29 2006 14:23
Grace wrote:
While I'm slightly sceptical of the so-called 'potions' ..

Hang on a second, you've just pullled one of those 'spot the lady' things.

When we were talking or miracles you could ascribe it to a placebo (belief). Now suddenly your back to only being 'slightly skeptical' of the healing powers of sugar pills.

If the placebo effect is a good enough explanation for the poor deluded catholics then surely the same is true for the hippies?

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Nov 29 2006 14:24
Grace wrote:
If you actually read what I've been saying rather than having a prejudiced view of what I must think, you'd realise that his example is not something that I'd advocate under any circumstances.

It's all part of the same whole though, irrationalist mysticism that only acts as a barrier to further medical progress.

Clearly it's not on the same scale, and you're obviously not an "irrational idiot", but as soon as you reject careful, clinical testing in favour of anecdotes and placebos, whatever the circumstance, there's no more reason to use conventional medicine for bowel cancer than holy water.

Grace
Offline
Joined: 19-07-05
Nov 29 2006 14:24
revol68 wrote:
Now i'm asking you why would you choose to suspend belief for some new age faddish nonsense whilst you remain skeptical about the main world religions?

Simple, I'm not religious. A religious healer or pilgrimage would no doubt be ineffective for me if I were ill.

However - what I wouldn't do is try and claim that it doesn't help those who are religious. If someone were horribly ill and doctors hadn't been able to help, and they were very religious, I wouldn't tell them that they shouldn't go to a healer or Lourdes or Mecca or whatever they thought would help, because chances are they could benefit from it.

Grace
Offline
Joined: 19-07-05
Nov 29 2006 14:33
madashell wrote:
Clearly it's not on the same scale, and you're obviously not an "irrational idiot", but as soon as you reject careful, clinical testing in favour of anecdotes and placebos, whatever the circumstance, there's no more reason to use conventional medicine for bowel cancer than holy water.

For the last time, I do not. NOWHERE have I rejected science. You might remember my causing a bit of a stir over a pro animal testing march a while back - this is because I think that careful, clinical testing is absolutely essential.

I would not tell somebody ill that they should refuse conventional medical treatment in favour of things that aren't as trusted - in fact most good homeopaths won't either, mine's advised me to go to the doctor on a couple of occasions and she's dealt with me alongside the treatments, for example to rebuild the immune system after a course of antibiotics. Just because someone recognises more than one possibility does NOT necessarily make them an idiot, or dangerous, or any of the other things that people have been labelling those of us supporting the other side of the argument.

Grace
Offline
Joined: 19-07-05
Nov 29 2006 14:34
Jack wrote:
and that aside, I think the financial issue is *the* important one - we're hardly being hysterical to take issue with people getting money out of the sick and desparate - I mean I'd assume you're annoyed when churches try and get money out of old and ailing parishoners - just because they choose to do this or it makes them feel better doesn't mean it's right!

Again, if you actually read what I've said you'll see that I totally agree with you on this point. Use your noggin a bit lad.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Nov 29 2006 14:39
Grace wrote:
For the last time, I do not. NOWHERE have I rejected science. You might remember my causing a bit of a stir over a pro animal testing march a while back - this is because I think that careful, clinical testing is absolutely essential.

I would not tell somebody ill that they should refuse conventional medical treatment in favour of things that aren't as trusted - in fact most good homeopaths won't either, mine's advised me to go to the doctor on a couple of occasions and she's dealt with me alongside the treatments, for example to rebuild the immune system after a course of antibiotics. Just because someone recognises more than one possibility does NOT necessarily make them an idiot, or dangerous, or any of the other things that people have been labelling those of us supporting the other side of the argument.

I'm not accusing you of being anti-science, but you can't say that homeopathic water just might be the real deal one second and then say that you shouldn't use it if you're seriously ill the next.

Don't get me wrong, if something works for you, then it's your perogative, but you have to admit that, going on the evidence, the hollistic approach of most homeopathic practioners is probably the really beneficial part (and not just because it helps the placebo effect, looking at lifestyle and environmental factors obviously plays a major role here), rather than the tablets or water or however they deliver it.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Nov 29 2006 14:44

out of curiosity, does anybody know of any examples of hollistic-type practitioners who don't also go for the homeopathic water/crystal bending/chakra fisting/whatever stuff?

Grace
Offline
Joined: 19-07-05
Nov 29 2006 14:44
revol68 wrote:
My question was why are you not religious? Is it just something you can't help? Some people have a natural tendency to religion whilst others don't? Is your atheism just a kind of spontaneous thing, no more rational, reasoned or thought out than your taste for flat caps? Does this mean that people who believe in a fundamentalist god, who hates fags, enslaves women, represses sexuality and preaches respect for the state and capitalism is just following their spontaneous belief?

I'm not sure why this is relevant but okay.

I was not brought up to be religious or otherwise. I associated religion with my staunch grandparents from a very early age. I went to church when I had to and felt wrong being there, and realised it wasn't something I believed or had any interest in at all. During my life I've questioned this many times, studied many different religions, hell, I virtually practised Buddhism for quite some time, but ultimately no religion has ever struck me as something I would want to live my life by as all of them would involve accepting beliefs that I think are wrong or untrue, and none of them make believeable sense to me. My belief or lack thereof is a reflection of my upbringing, my gut reaction to things and the subsequent intellectual investigation thereof. Perhaps if I'd been brought up in a very religious family or had atheism forced upon me I might have turned out differently. Perhaps if I hadn't been brought up to question things I wouldn't have rejected going to church, who knows? I'd imagine some religious people follow their spontaneous belief just as some are religious as a result of being immersed in it from an early age.

Grace
Offline
Joined: 19-07-05
Nov 29 2006 14:50
madashell wrote:
I'm not accusing you of being anti-science, but you can't say that homeopathic water just might be the real deal one second and then say that you shouldn't use it if you're seriously ill the next.

Whyever not? I do think there is a possibility of homeopathic remedies being effective. Does this mean I'm not allowed to recognise the utter irresponsibility of advising against proven medical treatment in the case of serious illness? I wouldn't go to a doctor for a cold or minor stomach bug, does this mean I'd be hypocritical to go to a doctor if I contracted TB? What I've said is that I don't think that alternative therapies, for which I accept there is as yet (and may never be) any clinical proof, should be the first port of call when one is seriously ill, but instead should be a supplement or last resort - is this really so unreasonable?

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Nov 29 2006 15:05
Grace wrote:
Whyever not? I do think there is a possibility of homeopathic remedies being effective. Does this mean I'm not allowed to recognise the utter irresponsibility of advising against proven medical treatment in the case of serious illness? I wouldn't go to a doctor for a cold or minor stomach bug, does this mean I'd be hypocritical to go to a doctor if I contracted TB? What I've said is that I don't think that alternative therapies, for which I accept there is as yet (and may never be) any clinical proof, should be the first port of call when one is seriously ill, but instead should be a supplement or last resort - is this really so unreasonable?

It's not unreasonable on the scale of drinking bat's piss to cure meningitis or something, but it's a bit inconsistant, IMO. Either homeopathy works or it doesn't.

By the way, this is all getting a bit heated considering it's not really that big a deal, isn't it?

Grace
Offline
Joined: 19-07-05
Nov 29 2006 15:06
revol68 wrote:
so if you just happened to have been brought up a racist, sexist wing nut with an obsession with guns it would have been just the way the cookie crumbles. Beliefs and arguments need no further justification.

... no, you asked me why I wasn't religious. I explained my reasoning - justified my belief if you will. I also speculated as to why people are religious. I never said that I don't think religion or any other belief shouldn't be challenged.

You seem to just have a set of ideas that you wish to impose upon me, words that you wish to force into my mouth and a set of snappy one-liners with which to throw me off course. You rely on your self-styled superiority to contort and belittle every point I make. Whatever I respond to you you're never going to accept that I'm not some ditzy little idiot.

Pepe
Offline
Joined: 26-11-04
Nov 29 2006 15:19

Revol, where do you think beliefs come from then?

Pepe
Offline
Joined: 26-11-04
Nov 29 2006 15:30
Jack wrote:

Altho I'd still think you were mental if you became a herb woman. ;)

What's wrong with herbalism? I mean there's no rationale for homeopathy working as anything other than a placebo, but whats wrong with herbs?

Grace
Offline
Joined: 19-07-05
Nov 29 2006 15:32
Jack wrote:
Altho I'd still think you were mental if you became a herb woman. ;)

I considered it when I was about 14, but don't worry, now I just have no career plans at all grin

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Nov 29 2006 15:34
Jess wrote:
What's wrong with herbalism? I mean there's no rationale for homeopathy working as anything other than a placebo, but whats wrong with herbs?

You mean besides the fact that they are exactly the same as bad old conventional medicine only not as good?

arf
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Nov 29 2006 16:43

And to further illustrate, recognise this?

Revol68: Homeopathy is shit and anyone who uses it is shit
q. Why?
Revol68: Because it is
q.why?
Revol68: Because I say so and there's no evidence in favour of it
q. Yes there is
Revol68: No there isnt
q. Yes there is, here is some, if you require more it's very easy to find, try google.
Revol68: None of that counts, and anyway all homeopathists are charlatans.
q. No they arent, heres some evidence of that too
Revol68: That doesnt count, and anyway you're stupid and probably homophobic and into religion.
q. As a matter of fact, I'm not stupid, I'm not homophobic, and I've never been into religion.
Revol68: I'm always right
q. But you don't know what you're talking about do you?
Revol68: Yes I do.
q. So.. your argument against homeopathy then?
Revol68: its shit.
q. Why?
Revol68: Because I say so

I don't know how any of you can bear it.
Goodbye.

arf
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Nov 29 2006 17:44

it made me chuckle. its not my fault you have no sense of humour.