|
|
| Author |
Message |
JohnDoe
science forum beginner
Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 2
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 8:50 am Post subject:
Re: Homeopathy - was The Lancet lying to us ?
|
|
|
Peter Bowditch wrote:
| Quote: | "HonestMED" <philtaylor98052@gmail.com> wrote:
we support homeopathy as well as alternative medicines that
work
I love it. Read it again, homeopathy believers.
|
I see what you mean. Brilliant. But I doubt they understand what they
actually wrote. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Matti Narkia
science forum beginner
Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 2:07 pm Post subject:
Re: Homeopathy - was The Lancet lying to us ?
|
|
|
On 5 Jul 2006 12:43:15 -0700, "ship" <shiphen@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Hi
Please excuse the cross-posting. But I recall a rather long and
VITRIOLIC discussion about homeopathy that I started in these
newsgroups back in 2003.
I presented the case that there is hard scientific evidence that
Homeopathy can and sometimes unambiguously does work. The universe is a
mysterious place, and we need to have humility about our theories and
accept good quality counter evidence if and when it occurs.
And several hard-core orthodox medics/scientists flamed me SERERELY.
Their killer argument essentially being we know of known mechanisms as
to how Homeopathy could possibly work (because there is 'nothing' in it
according to our chemistry friends) THEREFORE it doesn't work.
Therefore any study you put before me MUST be of poor quality. Even if
it isn't.
Recently The Lancet had a go at Homeopathy too. With a headline of "The
End of Homeopathy".
That's an editorial article, here its reference and link: |
The end of homoeopathy.
Lancet. 2005 Aug 27-Sep 2;366(9487):690.
PMID: 16125567 [PubMed - in process]
<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673605671498/fulltext>
In the same issue of Lancet there is a comparative study of
placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and conventional medicine:
Shang A, Huwiler-Muntener K, Nartey L, Juni P, Dorig S, Sterne JA,
Pewsner D, Egger M.
Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative
study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy.
Lancet. 2005 Aug 27-Sep 2;366(9487):726-32.
PMID: 16125589 [PubMed - in process]
<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673605671772/abstract>
See also
Ernst E.
Is homeopathy a clinically valuable approach?
Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2005 Sep 12; [Epub ahead of print]
PMID: 16165225 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16165225>
"Homeopathy is a popular but implausible form of medicine.
Contrary to many claims by homeopaths, there is no conclusive
evidence that highly dilute homeopathic remedies are different
from placebos. The benefits that many patients experience after
homeopathic treatment are therefore most probably due to
nonspecific treatment effects. Contrary to widespread belief,
homeopathy is not entirely devoid of risk. Thus, the proven
benefits of highly dilute homeopathic remedies, beyond the
beneficial effects of placebos, do not outweigh the potential for
harm that this approach can cause."
--
Matti Narkia |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
2
science forum beginner
Joined: 15 Mar 2006
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 3:04 pm Post subject:
Everything is Homeopathic? (was Re: Homeopathy - was The Lancet lying to us ?)
|
|
|
Help me understand something, possibly two things.
First, does homeopathy involve just a molecule of the original substance?
Second, there is a statistical wonder in this: "If you empty a bottle of
wine to the middle of an ocean, then at any time later fill a second clean
container of the same amount of sea water, then the likelihood of the second
containing at least one molecule of the wine is near 100%"
If both questions answer with Yes, then everything is homeopathic! In fact,
we are breathing the same molecules of air that our ancient preconscious
ancestors and everyone since have breathed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JohnDoe
science forum beginner
Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 7:19 am Post subject:
Re: Everything is Homeopathic? (was Re: Homeopathy - was The Lancet lying to us ?)
|
|
|
2 wrote:
| Quote: | Help me understand something, possibly two things.
First, does homeopathy involve just a molecule of the original substance?
Second, there is a statistical wonder in this: "If you empty a bottle of
wine to the middle of an ocean, then at any time later fill a second clean
container of the same amount of sea water, then the likelihood of the second
containing at least one molecule of the wine is near 100%"
If both questions answer with Yes, then everything is homeopathic! In fact,
we are breathing the same molecules of air that our ancient preconscious
ancestors and everyone since have breathed.
|
One the objections against homeopathy is that granting that dilution
followed by succusions works like homeopathy says, there is no
conceivable mechanism by which the proces of succussion (the magical
shake) is the only way to transfer the 'energy signature' or whatever
from a substance into the 'memory of water'. Any sufficiently turbulent
natural process should do the same. Which means that water should
contain the 'signature' of just about every substance it has ever been
in contact with. Since most water molecules have been around for a
mighty long time, that's a lot of substances. So it seems that for
homeopathy to work, water not only needs a memory but some form of
consciousness as well, because apparently the water can tell the
difference between just any random substance and the substance the
homeopath wants it to remember. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tadchem
science forum Guru
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 1348
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:51 am Post subject:
Re: Homeopathy - was The Lancet lying to us ?
|
|
|
ship wrote:
| Quote: | Hi
Please excuse the cross-posting. But I recall a rather long and
VITRIOLIC discussion about homeopathy that I started in these
newsgroups back in 2003.
|
And you want to ressurrect it? You will deserve everything that comes
your ay, then.
| Quote: | I presented the case that there is hard scientific evidence that
Homeopathy can and sometimes unambiguously does work.
|
Badlr, IIRC. You presented rhetoical arguments, but no "hard
scientific evidence" - only the unsupported claim that such exists.
| Quote: | The universe is a
mysterious place, and we need to have humility about our theories and
accept good quality counter evidence if and when it occurs.
|
Pedagogy duly noted.
| Quote: | And several hard-core orthodox medics/scientists flamed me SERERELY.
|
And rightly so. In phsycial science, the scientific method rules. You
do not follow the method.
| Quote: | Their killer argument essentially being we know of known mechanisms as
to how Homeopathy could possibly work (because there is 'nothing' in it
according to our chemistry friends) THEREFORE it doesn't work.
|
Not exactly. Their "killer' argument is that the alleged results
supporting homeopathy cannot be reproduced by independent
investigators. We would look for a mechanism as soon as we can be
assured there is a reproducible effect present. So far, homopepathy
has only be 'validated' by believers, not by skeptics. Lie Pons &
Fleischmann's 'cold fusion.'
| Quote: | But sometimes The Establishment is simply lies to us.
|
That sounds a little paranoid.
| Quote: | There is so much intellectual capital built up and so many professional
reputations at stake, not to mention the multi-trillion dollar pharma
industry itself... that, surprise, surprise, the truth is crucified.
|
That sounds even more paranoid. People with no 'intellectual capital'
invested other than an understanding of the scientific method (i.e.
students) are also unable to reproduce the alleged results.
| Quote: | Yes it seems that the medics sometimes have been lying again. Or maybe
not.
|
Who is lying? Who is in denial about the truth? Only reproiducible
results can decide.
<snip harangue>
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr. Natural-Health
science forum beginner
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 8
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 3:59 pm Post subject:
Florence Nightingale on Homeopathy
|
|
|
"Homeopathy has introduced one essential amelioration in the practice
of physic by amateur females; for its rules are excellent, its
physicking comparatively harmless--the "globule" is the one grain of
folly which appears to be necessary to make any good thing acceptable.
Let then women, if they will give medicine, give homeopathic medicine.
It won't do any harm."
_Notes on Nursing_ 1859 by Florence Nightingale
I think that Florence Nightingale will be my next subject for a
wellness web page. Her prescriptive on nursing is everything that it
is NOT today. She will be the first female covered by me. Nightingale
ended up selling out her beliefs on holistic nursing in her pursuit of
professionalizing nursing;
http://naturalhealthperspective.com/tutorials/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tadchem
science forum Guru
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 1348
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 8:59 pm Post subject:
Re: Florence Nightingale on Homeopathy
|
|
|
Mr. Natural-Health wrote:
| Quote: | "Homeopathy has introduced one essential amelioration in the practice
of physic by amateur females; for its rules are excellent, its
physicking comparatively harmless-
|
If a "comparatively harmless" but ineffectual treatment (such as the
'psychic surgery' that was so recently practiced in the Philippines)
delays or replaces a treatment which has demonstrable effectiveness
(such as real surgery), is it truly harmless?
I ask because I have had several traumatic injuries (i.e. deep cuts,
bone fractures) in my life which would not have been responsive to
homeopathic treatments, but which would have been far worse had I not
obtained surgical treatment.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
±
science forum beginner
Joined: 26 Oct 2005
Posts: 22
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 10:38 pm Post subject:
Re: Homeopathy - was The Lancet lying to us ?
|
|
|
I think that you should have a homepathic martini and rip roaring snockered.
lol
[misc. ravings snipped] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr. Natural-Health
science forum beginner
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 8
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 11:39 pm Post subject:
Re: Florence Nightingale on Homeopathy
|
|
|
tadchem wrote:
| Quote: | Mr. Natural-Health wrote:
"Homeopathy has introduced one essential amelioration in the practice
of physic by amateur females; for its rules are excellent, its
physicking comparatively harmless-
If a "comparatively harmless" but ineffectual treatment (such as the
'psychic surgery' that was so recently practiced in the Philippines)
delays or replaces a treatment which has demonstrable effectiveness
(such as real surgery), is it truly harmless?
I ask because I have had several traumatic injuries (i.e. deep cuts,
bone fractures) in my life which would not have been responsive to
homeopathic treatments, but which would have been far worse had I not
obtained surgical treatment.
|
A true tragedy, I am sure. But, I truly believe that Florence
Nightingale died a long time ago.
Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
| Quote: | Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
|
My condolences for you living in such a hick town.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr. Natural-Health
science forum beginner
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 8
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 5:34 am Post subject:
Re: Homeopathy - was The Lancet lying to us ?
|
|
|
ship wrote:
| Quote: | Just because homeopathy doesnt work for certain illnesses doesnt mean
it doesnt work for any. Likewise for many illnesses it may be true to
say that by far the best results are obtained by using some treatment
other than homeopathy. But that still doesnt prove that homeopathy
doesn't work at all. In fact I would argue that it is, philosophically
at least, entirely irrelevant.
|
The problem with these ngs is that if you post a witty grin-and-bear-it
commit written about homeopathy back in 1859, some truly dumb-f***-wit
is going to bring up psychic surgery and whine how homeopathy is
dangerous for people with broken bones.
What is truly dangerous is how these Dumb-f***-Wits manage to even
breath. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tadchem
science forum Guru
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 1348
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 1:37 pm Post subject:
Re: Florence Nightingale on Homeopathy
|
|
|
Doc John wrote:
| Quote: | A true tragedy, I am sure. But, I truly believe that Florence
Nightingale died a long time ago.
|
?????
| Quote: |
Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
My condolences for you living in such a hick town.
|
An ad hominem attack (albeit a gently facetious one)...
A diversion - a rhetorical device to cover for the lack of a revelant
counterargument.
Your concession has been noted.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr. Natural-Health
science forum beginner
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 8
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 2:51 pm Post subject:
Re: Florence Nightingale on Homeopathy
|
|
|
tadchem wrote:
| Quote: | Doc John wrote:
A true tragedy, I am sure. But, I truly believe that Florence
Nightingale died a long time ago.
?????
Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
My condolences for you living in such a hick town. :(
An ad hominem attack (albeit a gently facetious one)...
A diversion - a rhetorical device to cover for the lack of a revelant
counterargument.
Your concession has been noted.
|
Only a dumb f*** would go to a homeopath to have his bones set. And,
dumb fucks have a very bad habit of dying young. I wonder why?
Ha, ... Hah, Ha! It is hard for me to take fundamentally stupid
comments seriously.
Here is another bit of departing wisdom. If you don't want to get
mugged, don't watch the 4th of July Fireworks display at night.
Ha, ... Hah, Ha! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
2
science forum beginner
Joined: 15 Mar 2006
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 3:21 pm Post subject:
Re: Homeopathy - was The Lancet lying to us ?
|
|
|
"Mr. Natural-Health" <johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote:
| Quote: | [...]
What is truly dangerous is how these Dumb-f***-Wits manage to even
breath.
|
They manage by downloading the Breathing MP3 to their iPod: "Breath in...
Breath out..." in a loop. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HCN
science forum beginner
Joined: 05 Jul 2006
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 5:11 pm Post subject:
Re: Homeopathy - was The Lancet lying to us ?
|
|
|
"2" <nhoj@droffats.ten> wrote in message
news:12avjb5h60nif13@news.supernews.com...
| Quote: | "Mr. Natural-Health" <johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote:
[...]
What is truly dangerous is how these Dumb-f***-Wits manage to even
breath.
They manage by downloading the Breathing MP3 to their iPod: "Breath in...
Breath out..." in a loop.
|
Somehow most of us have managed better than that Gohde in keeping all of our
teeth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vakker
science forum beginner
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 4
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 8:25 am Post subject:
Re: Homeopathy - was The Lancet lying to us ?
|
|
|
Jim Chinnis <jchinnis@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:5p3pa2l00teqr6atb9vq7dulcd79q8k14f@4ax.com...
| Quote: | "ship" <shiphen@gmail.com> wrote in part:
Please excuse the cross-posting.
Screw you.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu
|
screw yourself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
The time now is Sun Nov 23, 2008 4:33 pm | All times are GMT
|
|
Cell Phones | Loans | Free Ringtones | Credit Card | Credit Cards
|
|
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
|
|
Other DeniX Solutions sites:
Electronics forum |
Medicine forum |
Unix/Linux blog |
Unix/Linux documentation |
Unix/Linux forums
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
Science and Technology
»
Physics
