Prince Charles wants the UK to use alternative medicine to save money

[Modem Butterfly]

Why not just have people skip medicine altogether? That would be even cheaper than snake oil!

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=12688

Prince Charles, who is a long-time advocate of complementary medicines, apparently asked a former chief economics adviser to Barclays Bank to examine whether savings could be made by avoiding traditional drug treatments for certain conditions.

SNIP

Apparently up to 480 million pounds could be saved if 1 in 10 family doctors offered homeopathy as an alternative to standard drugs, and savings of up to 3.5 billion pounds could be achieved by offering spinal manipulation rather than drugs to people with back pain.

Charles has a historical reputation as an environmental crusader, but he has often been mocked in the media since he once admitted talking to plants in his garden.

[antonialee839]

1. Howabout they stop paying the Royals to be royal

That should save some money.

[whatever4]

2. Absolutely, and we should be glad for the snake oil nm

[hobbit709]

3. Let's use him as a test subject

then if it works and he survives, apply it to others.

[Maple]

11. He's used it all his life

as has the Queen and the Queen mum...and goodness knows, she was healthy enough to live to 101

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

18. Links? (nt)

[Maple]

32. Common knowledge in the UK and Canada

http://www.homeopathyhome.com/reference/articles/ukhomhistory.shtml

http://www.homeoint.org/morrell/british/royalty.htm

and the Queen Mum was Royal Patron of the British Homeopathic Association.

Edited to add:

The current Queen is the patron of the The Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital.

http://www.uclh.org/about/history/rlhh.shtml

[MsTryska]

4. he makes a good point....

I see nothing wrong with adding in complementary holistic medicine to allopathic modalities.

it certainly could save money.

[NV Whino]

5. I agree.

This is not "in place of," it is "in addition to."

[K-W]

6. No, it is not in addition to. It is an alternative to.

Its pretty clearly stated in the article.

[MsTryska]

14. well......

"avoiding traditional drug treatments for certain conditions."



if that means using an alternative treatment for things like skin rashes, yeast infections, and colds - i'm cool with it.



it's what i do on my own to save on medical costs as it is. and it does.

[SidDithers]

9. If it is "in addition to", how can it save money?...nt

Sid

[MsTryska]

15. how much do pharmaceuticals cost?

let's take something like a yeast infection - or UTI.


You can pay whatever the price is for anti-biotics or anti-fungal - tincture of myrrh and cranberry extract can be used in their place for much cheaper.


or in the case of constant neck pain - chiropractic adjustments can be done on a regular basis, and the need for invasive and expensive surgery is unnecessary.

people underestimate the value of the oldways, i think.

[K-W]

16. Yah, quackery is quite old. EOM

[MsTryska]

20. *lmao*

oh yeah - you're the one who knows everything.

i forgot.

[K-W]

22. No I dont know everything. I just respect science. EOM

[Terran]

Perhaps you should research it before you label it "quackery"

Not a very progressive attitude you have. Or an intelligent one.

[K-W]

60. I actually have researched it.

But thanks for making wild assumptions and questioning my ideological credentials and intelligence. Clearly you are interested in having a civil discussion.

[Terran]

61. Well clearly you have not researched it well enough

I've used homepathics for years and they are effective and safe. I know, objectively, that homeopathy is not "quackery", so I must question the quality of your "research".

[K-W]

64. Either that or you arent correct. EOM

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[K-W]

73. The fact that you think your anectdotal evidence is proof

pretty much confirms for me that you havent done any actual research at all.

It turns out that people often think treatments that dont work are effective. It actually happens all the time.

[Terran]

83. Well, I must have that mind over matter thing down pat then.

If "anecdotal" means not tested clinically, so be it. But I assert that my experience with it is of far too great a depth and breadth for a some simplistic placebo effect to be taking place. Placebos don't generally stop an extremely bad burn from hurting, for instance.

[Terran]

89. By the way, there is considerably more than "anecdotal" evidence

http://www.homeopathic.org/meta.htm

Unless of course you think these institutions are just making this shit up. :eyes:

[K-W]

95. Let me know when you find some.

because that link doesnt contain any

[Terran]

113. Never heard of "The Lancet", have you, eh? n/t

[K-W]

148. I actually have, not that it is relevant. EOM

[MsTryska]

152. you don't find the Lancet relevant to issues of medical

treatment?

[K-W]

155. That isnt what I said. EOM

[MsTryska]

97. peer-reviewed studies?

hogwash!


i believe you're wrong and well that's that. :sarcasm:

[Dora]

91. It also turns out

that people often think treatments that are effective actually do work.

Why bash homeopathy? I don't get it.

[K-W]

98. Right, which is meaningless.

My point was that thinking something works isnt proof.

What dont you get? Homeopathy is bunk.

[Dora]

105. Not to me.

I've used homeopathic tablets to prevent airsickness, something to which I am quite prone.

I've used homeopathic tablets to treat eyestrain, something which I experience after eight hours of DU.

Both my husband and I have used homeopathic tablets to treat muscle strain. He used arnica in homeopathic tablets after throwing out his back and it helped him more than the prescription anti-inflammatories did.

And my point is that saying something doesn't work isn't proof either.

What don't you get? You have an opinion, not a verdict.

[Terran]

109. The British medical establishment doesn't think it's bunk.

http://www.homeopathic.org/meta.htm

[MsTryska]

112. hmm....who to trust.....the Lancet

or "i know everything and you're an idiot" guy who can't tell paranormal from holistic?

[Modem Butterfly]

117. Don't be so quick to trust the meta-analysis

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9884176&dopt=Abstract

The meta-analysis of homeopathy trials that appeared in the Lancet in 1997 seemed to endorse the experience of practitioners and patients that homeopathic medicines have specific clinically relevant effects. However, results from later unsuccessful trials, and negative inferences from a review of trials for a condition excluded from the meta-analysis--delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS)--have since been presented to suggest that the meta-analysis may well have overestimated the positive effects of homeopathy, and that the "placebo question is still not resolved." This article reviews the evidence underlying this challenge to the meta-analysis and homeopathy, and demonstrates that it would be valid if it were based on: a comprehensive literature search; appropriate classification of primary studies; clear discrimination between clinical effectiveness and placebo questions; sound and transparent review methods; and a reliable and unconfounded clinical treatment model for testing the ultramolecular hypothesis. It is suggested that different models are needed to answer different questions.

[MsTryska]

125. Oh my....DOMS, eh?

the mystery pains.



I could get into convos on DOMS that would make your hair curl - but i don't want to revisit the trauma myself.



anyways - that's neither here nor there.


either way - i tend to trust the Lancet - i can't say i'm fully sold on homeopathy for all things but i know the couple of times i've used it on my cats it's resolved precisely what i needed it to resolve. (with my vet's corroboration - and he's an allopath - an open-minded allopath, but an allopath nonetheless.)

[beam me up scottie]

126. You mean they haven't read the reports from their source?

I'm shocked!
:rofl:

#31. Whenever you read something on the Internet, re-post it as fact.
Never bother to do even basic research into the matter.

[Name removed]

139. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

157. Your source even states that it's selective:

Research

Research

Abstracts from selected journal articles,
controlled and laboratory studies,
cost effectiveness research.
And, for a more thorough review,
see Books

Meta-analyses
Peer Reviewed
Journals
Other Clinical Studies
Basic Research
Econometric
Books

[MsTryska]

159. ermm....

selective is not the same as selected.


reading is fundamental.

[beam me up scottie]

165. Read it again. Then read their sources. Reading IS fundamental and

gullibility is highly profitable.

[MsTryska]

180. right - i see the part where you said

that they are being "selective"

and then highlighted the part where it said "selected".



i'm not sure what youa re getting at.


as far as the abstracts go, I see:

the Lancet
The BMJ
The Journal of Alternative and Complementary medicine
The American Journal of Pain Management
Pediatrics


all very valid sources - what's even more interesting is they have a section of studies with "negative" outcomes that has 3 abstracts in it too - another one from the Lancet included.


so i'm really not following what you are getting at?

[K-W]

153. Thanks for mischarecterizing my statements. EOM

[K-W]

158. Care to prove that?

Not everything published in medcial journals is by definition the opinion of the British medical community.

[Modem Butterfly]

99. That's a strong argument for placebos...

...but I don't think sugar pills qualify as medical treatment either.

[K-W]

67. btw, if you can prove it works

go win a million dollars

http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html

[Terran]

71. "The page can not be displayed" n/t

[K-W]

75. It works fine for me.

www.randi.org

You can find the link for the million dollar challenge on the front page.

[MsTryska]

76. what the hell does Paranormal activity have to do with

anything?

[K-W]

78. Homeopathy is a paranormal claim.

It defies known science.

Whether you agree with that label or not, homeopathy is considered valid for this challenge.

[MsTryska]

81. really? did the aliens give it to us or something? nt

nt

[K-W]

85. Not to the best of my knowledge.

Paranormal does not mean alien related.

But no point in squabbling over labels. Theres a million dollars to be won.

[Terran]

90. Try this

http://www.homeopathic.org/meta.htm

[Eloriel]

93. Not even a very scientific one n/t

[KittyWampus]

63. You Respect Dogmatism & Are Totally Biased.

[BiggJawn]

28. "Old ways"

Sorry, don't know of any Barber-Surgeons practicing Bloodletting around here.....

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BiggJawn]

74. So much superstition

Just because something is "old" and non-PHARMA does not automatically make it wonderful.

And I require more proof than the AudioPHOOL's "I believe I can hear a DIFFERENCE" styled anecdotes you usually get offered as "proof" that water that daisies have soaked in are a wonder cure or whatever.

Of course, any person of good sense KNOWS that stumpwater collected in the full moon from a graveyard where a hanged murderer is buried takes off warts like NOTHING else!
:sarcasm:

[jonnyblitz]

80. LMFAO!

:crazy:

[MsTryska]

87. No one is saying.....

what I am saying - is that there was a time before Big Pharma - when people used what was available to heal themselves and each other - Millenia worth of history...


and even tho all this new-fangled technology has come about and we've made leaps and bounds - it doesn't automatically discount everything that has worked for those millenia.

And science is just now getting around to figuring otu how all those old things that worked do their "magic"


aspirin - is nothing but white willow bark

garlic - antibiotic, antibacterial, antifungal, and anticholesterol

aloe vera - heals 1st and second degree burns

cranberry - helps prevent and treat UTIs

ginger and peppermint - great for nausea

i could go on and on - and this stuff has the evidence and research to back it up.

in many cases these things are as effective as labrotory made "cures" and are far more gentle on the body.

[MsTryska]

88. incidentally - you need proof?

go visit the NIHs alternative medicine area - they've got clinical trials, peer-reviewed studies and whatever other info you may need:

http://nccam.nih.gov/


if you need more "proof" i can furnish you with countless peer-reviewd studies about all sorts of other things.

[SidDithers]

29. You want to treat an UTI without antibiotics?...

And if the infection moves to the kidneys, then what? What if the kidneys fail? I hear a lifetime of dialysis can get pretty expensive.

Sid

[Modem Butterfly]

35. Well you can use accupuncture for that

[MsTryska]

65. obviously not all infections follow the path you suggest....

and a medical professional should be able to tell the difference, and be able to adjust treatment accordingly.


fyi:

http://nccam.nih.gov/research/concepts/consider/cranberry.htm

[K-W]

66. Right, which is why you got to your doctor,

and follow sound medical advice, rather than relying on unproven treatments because they are a cheaper alternative.

[MsTryska]

70. Yes.

which is what Prince Charles appears to be suggesting.


Not that people seek alternative treatment in order to solve their health Problems - but that the Health System itself - evaluate the usage of alternative, holistics and complementary therapies to reduce costs.

[Glenda]

34. You're right...

I had a UTI once, and was on months of antibiotics. Finally, I tried the pure cranberry (no sugar). Relief within days. I also had been having labs that whole time, and with the pure cranberry, I saw that the urine pH changed substantially, which is what the cranberry is supposed to do. That won me over.

[Modem Butterfly]

36. Or it could be that you had a particularly bad infection...

...that the medicine held at bay and eventually destroyed.

[Glenda]

37. If that's what you want to believe...

Like I said, the cranberry changed the pH of the urine, which is what it is supposed to do. The antibiotics wouldn't do that.

[Modem Butterfly]

38. As someone who nearly died from homeopathy

I think you got lucky.

[Dogmudgeon]

43. Do you know what Homeopathy is?

You don't seem to. You've made the mistake before, that everything which isn't approved by Steve Barrett is "homeopathy". Homeopathy is the school of medical thought that hyper-dilute drugs can be used to treat illness effectively.

The cranberry juice treatment for UTIs is well-known and well-documented. And, it's not homeopathy. Before you try to start a citation war, you may want to talk to a physician or two.

"Alternative" does not mean "Quack", no matter how much pleasure the BWA-HA method of investigation may give Skeptics. At this point, I'm beginning to worry that more people will be dying from "skeptical" involvement in medicine than in "alternative" treatment proposals. For ANY treatment, scientific investigation is required, whether the skep community approves of it or not.

I agree with the Skeptics that the evidence for homeopathy is looking mighty scanty; but unlike the Skeptics, I realize I could turn out to be wrong.

And I save my sarcasm for people who deserve it -- bullies, for instance.

--p!

[Modem Butterfly]

44. Here's the contact info of the Homeopath I went to

Why don't you ask her if she knows what homeopathy is?

Edited to remove individual contact information, per Skinner.

[K-W]

45. So you think water might cure disease?

How open minded of you.

Cranberry Juice isnt alternative. It is a conventional treatment supported by science.

There is no alternative to science.

[Dogmudgeon]

51. So you think I said that?

Did you read what I wrote?

Skeptical Inquiry™ usually requires reading the relevant literature.

How scientific of you.

Cranberry Juice has been ridiculed -- right in this thread, remember? -- as a quack treatment that would kill people. Then, somebody pointed out that it is a conventional treatment supported by science (me) and you proceeded to direct some haughty skepping in my direction.

And that was just silly.

There is no alternative to Lord Jesus Christ and/or Prophet Muhammad, either. Just ask a Christian and/or Muslim fundamentalist.

--p!

[K-W]

57. No, its what you actually wrote.

You said that you didnt think homeopathy works, but you could be wrong. Meaning you are open to the possibility that water cures diseases.

Cranberry Juice has been ridiculed -- right in this thread, remember? -- as a quack treatment that would kill people.

Yes, which has no bearing on what I wrote.

Then, somebody pointed out that it is a conventional treatment supported by science (me) and you proceeded to direct some haughty skepping in my direction.

I agreed with you that it was supported by science, and added that because of this fact, it isnt an alternative medicine. What are you talking about?

There is no alternative to Lord Jesus Christ and/or Prophet Muhammad, either. Just ask a Christian and/or Muslim fundamentalist
I see relevance isnt your strong suit.

If you dont support science that is your perogative, but I doubt you will find many people who want to reject science when it comes to thier health.

[Dogmudgeon]

120. Skeptics shouldn't try to practice mind reading

Telepathy probably doesn't exist anyway; and if it does, it's certainly not strong enough to allow the kind of mind reading Skeptics like to do.

So you say I don't support science now?

Because I take issue with the unwarranted Skeptical superiority complex? Or is it because I admitted I might be wrong with respect to Homeopathy? (It's almost as if I'd said the same thing about Communism <shudder!>.)

Re-read what you wrote and how you "cited" me in pseudo-academic fashion. It's purely rhetorical, and it's designed to salvage your pride. I've made my points very clear, but I will re-state them in simple form if it will help.

1. Science is Good.


2. Nobody has all the answers, so we keep looking.


3. Especially me.


4. Skepticism is not equivalent to Science.


5. Ridicule and bullying are not equivalent to Science.

I'm sorry I've bruised your pride, but you should think twice before you go around insulting people in the name of Science. If I recall correctly from my own days as a Skeptic -- back around 1980 or so -- we thought that Skepticism could be a major educational tool to help people think clearly.

Walking around like we were Big Shots and Tough Guys wasn't part of it, and when the Bully Method became popular, I got my zetetic ass out of there. I think it was the "s'Tarbaby" scandal that did it. It didn't turn me into a believer of astrology, although most Skeptics would say otherwise, since I dared to NOT go along with CSICOP's Official Version.

And, yeah, homeopathy just might turn out to be valid after all. I don't think it will, but if that day comes, it will not be a blow to my arrogance, my smugness, and my pride.

See, I was trained how to "do Science" in a couple of fields. Not a day goes by that I don't find out another way in which I'm wrong about one stupid-assed thing or another. And nobody's dogmatic, self-stroking bullshit gets a pass.

--p!

[K-W]

163. Luckily you wrote it in your post, so I dont have to.

So you say I don't support science now?

I actually never wrote that. Were you trying to read my mind?

Or is it because I admitted I might be wrong with respect to Homeopathy? (It's almost as if I'd said the same thing about Communism <shudder!>.)

What the heck does communism have to do with this? And yes, it was because you went out of your way to state that you might be wrong about water not curing diseases.


Re-read what you wrote and how you "cited" me in pseudo-academic fashion. It's purely rhetorical, and it's designed to salvage your pride. I've made my points very clear, but I will re-state them in simple form if it will help.

I see youve been reading my mind again.

I'm sorry I've bruised your pride,

Dont worry, you didnt.

Walking around like we were Big Shots and Tough Guys wasn't part of it, and when the Bully Method became popular

Im sorry you and your friends were bullies. But if you are trying to imply that I must be a bully too, id suggest you keep your projections to yourself.

And, yeah, homeopathy just might turn out to be valid after all. I don't think it will, but if that day comes, it will not be a blow to my arrogance, my smugness, and my pride.

Yep, water just might turn out to cure diseases. What a reasonable position.


See, I was trained how to "do Science" in a couple of fields. Not a day goes by that I don't find out another way in which I'm wrong about one stupid-assed thing or another. And nobody's dogmatic, self-stroking bullshit gets a pass.

Except your own apparently.

[Johonny]

39. Yeah

chiropractic adjustments can be done... and done.. and done.. and done.. and done... Pretty soon that starts adding up.

[Eloriel]

84. It saves money because

(a) the stuff is cheaper to start with

(b) You can start with these alternative treatments and they will, indeed, cure many, many things -- but for those it doesn't, you can go for the types of heoric interventions offered by conventional allopathic medicine.

(c) You get people thinking holistically, looking at how effective and easy and inexpensive and harmonizing these things are, they'll use more of them (much to the pharmaceutical companies' chagrin), and stay healthier to start with.

[China_cat]

10. By making sure there are fewer people needing treatment.

[Tyranny_R_US]

42. I agree, sick people should die faster

Thats the problem with our medical system they try to keep the really ill people alive and its eating our heathcare system alive folks!... I'm Rush Lintballs and I'll be back after these injections.







:sarcasm:

[Lorien]

77. I agree. I've had better luck with cheap "alternative" treatments

for things like depression, insomnia, and gallstones than I have with those provided by Big Pharma; if it works, it's just plain "medicine", imho. Unfortunately, Big Pharma has a stranglehold on our health care system, so adequate studies of many alternative treatments aren't being done (because they can't be patented).

[MsTryska]

101. re: gallstones.....

did you do an olive-oil flush?

[Prism]

7. I thought the NHS *was* alternative medicine.

I'm so glad I don't live there anymore.

Great country, great people.

Just, uh, don't ever get sick there.

[K-W]

8. I imagine replacing medicine with tap water would save money.

So would shooting sick people.

[terrya]

12. He's right. Really, why can't we use leeches once again?

:sarcasm:

[myrna minx]

17. Well...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4454831


I prefer bloodletting myself. ;-)

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

19. Isn't that what he and his inbred family ARE? (nt)

[Desertrose]

23. Actually...we are using leeches again...and have been for awhile now...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4454831

Medical comeback of maggots, leeches has feds eyeing regulation
By Gardiner Harris
NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE
August 25, 2005
WASHINGTON – Flesh-eating maggots and bloodsucking leeches were once the tools of quack doctors and shamans. But they have experienced a quiet renaissance among high-tech surgeons, and for two days beginning today, a federal advisory board will discuss how to regulate them.
Leeches, it turns out, are particularly good at draining excess blood from surgically reattached or transplanted appendages. As microsurgeons tackle feats such as reattaching hands, scalps and even faces, leeches have become indispensable.
Maggots clean festering wounds that fail to heal – as happens among diabetics – better than almost anything in use, though the use of maggots in the United States has been slight, in part because of squeamishness.

[Modem Butterfly]

33. Whatever it takes to balance the humours, I say!

:evilgrin:

[Dogmudgeon]

48. I've told you about this before, Desertrose ...

... you are NOT allowed to question the wisdom of the Skeptics™. You know that they are just looking out for us people who are too stupid and opposed to Science to be able to take responsibility for our own health. Why, if it wasn't for Steve Barrett, I might have died years ago, overdosed on a concoction of pig urine, magical beeswax, and Cuervo that I thought would cure my Quimsy.

And James Randi, Penn Jillette, and John Stössel once kept my mother from making the fatal mistake of consulting a furniture expert who proposed to re-do the family salon according to the questionable and dangerous practices of Chinee Interior Decorating. My mother agreed to let them observe the Orientalist's foul and silly Hoo-Doo in exchange for brand-new plastic slipcovers (and promising to humiliate her in public if she didn't go along with the plan).

When shameless purveyoress of Chinee Pseudo-Science blew in, making Extraordinary Claims™, Randi offered her a zillion dollars if she could prove that her inscrutable Oriental ways were Peer-Reviewed and Statistically Valid at a "p" level of 0.00008003¾. But she could not, so Mr. Jillette employed his travelling ridicule technicians to publically smite her on our local TV show with Philadelphia cutie Lauren Hart and that other guy who's just there to make Lauren look good. Stössel gave my mother a stern lecture on her duty to obey the Free Market of Interior Decorating and to avoid foreign fashion entanglements. And Robert Sheaffer tagged along to prove, with SCIENCE, that women were so stupid that they were inclined to believe in such things.

Now, let's just kick back and watch the flame war get going. Soon, the thread will be locked as flame-bait, and the Skeptics will have successfully stopped yet another impertinent exercise of disobedient thinking with their always-insightful and gentle sense of humor.

--p!

[Modem Butterfly]

50. So very bitter

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Such a shame.

[Dogmudgeon]

You forgot "I'll pray for you"

--p!

[Modem Butterfly]

54. I'll leave the praying to the faith healers, thanks

Besides, whatever problems you have will need to be worked out on your own.

[MsTryska]

104. *lmao* you are hilarious!

thanks for being here.


btw - i hope your Quimsy is clearing up okay...

[Glenda]

108. What or Who is Quimsy?

:hi:

[beam me up scottie]

121. Right. Put your trust in Kevin Trudeau.

He loves stupid people.

[Dogmudgeon]

142. That was Maggie Trudeau

But only because she was mad for the boys.

--p!

[TlalocW]

13. Great idea (sarcasm)

Think of the savings on medicine alone - people will go off their regular meds and start taking homeopathic sugar pills with a dilution of actual medicine to water that's comparable to a single drop put into a container of water the size of 20 swimming pools.

Then once people start dying from not taking actual medicine that has an effect on you, that will bring down costs from hospital stays!

The man's a damn genius!

TlalocW

[Glenda]

21. I agree with him

FOr chronic conditions especially, alternative medicine has more to offer than drug-based medicine.

[K-W]

25. link?

What is your source for that?

[Glenda]

26. Me, I'm the source for that

[K-W]

27. Alright... EOM

[WoodrowFan]

24. oh goodie

here come the "water cure" types...

:popcorn:

[Johonny]

30. ITS WATER!!!!!

Yes think of the money saved if your doctor treated you with homeopathic medicine instead of REAL medicine. Homeopathic medicine is not an alternative to anything. Its water. That's it. That's all it is. He's advocating no treatment for illness in lue of treatment! That's really crappy advice.

[K-W]

31. The funny thing is that now the word Homeopathic

is increasingly used generically as a buzzword.

So you can find 'homeopathic' products that actually contain active ingredients. The fact that they have some small effect proves that they arent actually homeopathic.

[salvorhardin]

40. Do you suppose we could sell

"homeopathic" marijuana under that guise? Have to come up with a catchier name though -- how about Natural Healing Cannabix? Think of the money we could make from stoners alone!

We could even offer Old World Formula Natural Healing Cannabix, a truly homeopathic tincture containing only .05ppb MJ for gentle, natural healing.

[Modem Butterfly]

41. The dangers of alternative medicine

Rosemary Jacobs took colloidal silver. She developed a condition called argyria. That is now her skin's natural color, has been since she was 14, and will be until the day she dies.



Rosemary Jacobs says, "Colloidal silver (CSP) is not a new alternative remedy. It is an old, discarded traditional one that homeopaths and other people calling themselves "alternative health-care practitioners" have pulled out of the garbage pail of useless and dangerous drugs and therapies, things mainstream medicine threw away decades ago."

At the time Rosemary developed argyria, colloidal silver was sold as medicine. Today you can find it everywhere. It's marketed as an alternative treatment.

http://homepages.together.net/~rjstan/rose1.html

[Cleita]

52. Alternative medicine is okay for minor ailments and sometimes

it even works better, however, all should be done with a doctor's guidance. I take some herbal remedies, which my doctor knows I take. I never try anything new without running it by her first.

[Modem Butterfly]

53. She took it for allergies

And colloidal silver is sold OTC now.

[Cleita]

55. Well, that wasn't very smart of her, was it?

I know I wouldn't take it for allergies because there are more benign herbal remedies out there for allergies. Believe it or not plain old coffee helps. Right now I use Claritin on the recommendation of my doctor.

Many synthetic medicines are derived from plant remedies. For instance aspirin was developed from willow bark. The same natural ingredient in willow bark that relieves pain is synthesized for aspirin.

[Modem Butterfly]

56. That's the thing about people...

...if something is marketed as safe, effective medicine, they tend to take it...

[Cleita]

59. So that says something about FDA laws needed to cover

alternative medicines, which they don't. I don't buy over the counter myself but grow what I can. I often can't afford pharma drugs and look for an alternative. Now that Bush has gotten his prescription drug bill through, we oldsters aren't getting any more discounts than we ever did and the drug prices have escalated because they lifted caps on drug prices. So a drug that I got eighteen months ago without a discount, is more expensive now with a discount because of this. The whole drug benefit was a big windfall for big pharma. It did nothing for the average old fart.

[Cleita]

46. Poor sheltered Prince Charles. He really has

a tenuous grasp on reality.

[Maple]

47. As compared to say....Bush?

[Cleita]

49. Oh Bush is definitely there. He doesn't want us to have

ANY medicine unless we can afford to pay for it ourselves.

[Terran]

58. Homeopathy isn't "snake oil".

It works, for many things. Does it cure cancer? No? Substitute for a heart bypass? No. But it does work. In my own experience, it's a substitute for many over-the-counter remedies one might buy, so I'm not sure how much money would be saved on more serious conditions, but I'm not an expert on it.

[beam me up scottie]

68. No. It's "snake -water".

It's water.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Terran]

128. My "ignorance" of the subject?

You're the one saying it's just "water". That is an objectively false statement. So what does that make you?

As for clinical trials:

http://www.homeopathic.org/meta.htm

[beam me up scottie]

136. Did you ever try reading something that wasn't woo woo propagana?

From NCCAM, National Institutes of Health:

5. What are homeopathic remedies?

Most homeopathic remedies are derived from natural substances that come from plants, minerals, or animals. A remedy is prepared by diluting the substance in a series of steps (as discussed in Question 2). Homeopathy asserts that this process can maintain a substance's healing properties regardless of how many times it has been diluted. Many homeopathic remedies are so highly diluted that not one molecule of the original natural substance remains.12,21 Remedies are sold in liquid, pellet, and tablet forms.

http://nccam.nih.gov/health/homeopathy/index.htm#q1

[crispini]

79. I don't know much about homeopathy,

but some "alternative" treatments certainly DO work on some things. Acupuncture, for one, is very good with repetitive stress injuries, pain management, etc. And it's better for you than drugs!

[K-W]

82. Yes, we all know that it is disruptions in Chi that cause pain

I remember it from high school biology class.

[crispini]

86. The body has an electrical system, that's for sure.

There is a lot of interesting reading to be done re: pain relief and acupuncture:

The fact that acupuncture works as an analgesic is quite clear; surgical analgesia in animals and in man follows the needling of specific acupuncture points, and sham needling of non-specific points does not produce analgesia.4 Furthermore, using the human model of dental pain, acupuncture can also be shown to be a specific and relatively powerful analgesic.5 However, there has been a distinct lack of good clinical trials on the effect of acupuncture as a therapy for chronic pain problems; the author has reviewed the studies that are available and suggested models that can be used for the clinical evaluation of acupuncture.6 Such clinical trials are essential if acupuncture is to progress as a therapeutic technique within the context of Western medicine.
http://www.healthy.net/scr/article.asp?ID=1708

[crispini]

149. Found a better source re: acupuncture and pain relief

From "Medline" a service of the NIH:

For many people acupuncture is an effective means of relieving pain. This may be particularly true for back pain and headache pain. Other types of pain that may be helped by acupuncture include arthritis (both osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis), musculoskeletal injuries (like to the neck, shoulder, knee, or elbow), fibromyalgia, carpal tunnel syndrome, labor pain, and cancer-related pain. How acupuncture relieves pain is not entirely clear-cut, but there are many theories based on scientific principles.

Update Date: 1/9/2004

Updated by: Jacqueline A. Hart, M.D., Department of Internal Medicine, Newton-Wellesley Hospital, Boston, Ma., and Senior Medical Editor, A.D.A.M., Inc.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002064.htm

Would you still like to rag on the merits of acupunture for some conditions? I can keep going with Google if you like. I seem to be doing pretty well finding sources.

[Glenda]

156. I had no idea how good acupuncture was until I tried it...

It's very stress-relieving for me. And it almost seems to kick in the endorphins or kick up the serotonin. Have you read anything along those lines?

[crispini]

166. I haven't read that, but I certainly haven't read everything

out there on acupuncture. Isn't it wonderful? It's like a massage on steroids or something.

Here's an interesting article. Two useful (possible) conclusions are that acupuncture seems to be most effective on pain caused by an injury or disease outside the nervous system, and that it seems to be most effective on women. Hm!

http://www.acupuncturetoday.com/archives2002/mar/03lowbackpain.html

My personal theory is that somehow it interrupts the pain receptors in your nervous system and that gives your body a break and a chance to heal. I tend to think of pain as something that can be "learned" by the body, and acupuncture is something that can help you unlearn. But that's just me talkin' outta my ass. :P

[Glenda]

170. I like your "interrupts pain receptors" theory

Thank you for the link!

I do experience acupunture as interrupting my stress reactions, and sort of re-setting my body in ways that nothing else does

:pals:

[Terran]

92. This site is a good resource

http://www.homeopathic.org

As to the efficacy of homepathic medicines, there are clinical truals:

http://www.homeopathic.org/meta.htm

[beam me up scottie]

111. A good resource for Barnum's children, maybe.

About NCH
Welcome to the web home of the
National Center for Homeopathy

Our mission at the National Center for Homeopathy is to promote health through homeopathy. By providing general education to the public about homeopathy, and specific education to homeopaths, we help to make homeopathy available throughout the United States.

Now why would they lie to you?
Oh, that'f right, because they want your MONEY.

[crispini]

118. Hm, anyone got a subscription to Lancet or British Medical Journal?

I'd be intererested in reading the original of these studies, from link #2:

K. Linde, N. Clausius, G. Ramirez, et al.,
Are the Clinical Effects of Homeopathy Placebo Effects? A Meta-analysis of Placebo-Controlled Trials
Lancet, September 20, 1997, 350:834-843.
This state of the art meta analysis reviewed 186 studies, 89 of which fit pre-defined criteria. Rather than count and compare the number of trials which show efficacy of treatment, the researchers pooled the data from the various studies to assess data. The results showed that patients taking homeopathic medicines were 2.45 times more likely to experience a positive therapeutic effect than placebo.

J. Kleijnen, P. Knipschild, G. ter Riet,
Clinical Trials of Homeopathy
British Medical Journal, February 9, 1991, 302:316-323.
This is the most widely cited meta-analysis of clinical research prior to 1991. This meta-analysis reviewed 107 studies of homeopathic medicines, 81 of which (or 77%) showed positive effect. Of the best 22 studies, 15 showed efficacy. The researchers concluded: "The evidence presented in this review would probably be sufficient for establishing homeopathy as a regular treatment for certain indications." Further, "The amount of positive evidence even among the best studies came as a surprise to us."

[Modem Butterfly]

123. Note: A meta-analysis is not a study

In fact, they are several different studies over a period of years. But here's a neat critique of that meta-analysis.

Out of step with the Lancet homeopathy meta-analysis: more objections than objectivity?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9884176&dopt=Abstract

The meta-analysis of homeopathy trials that appeared in the Lancet in 1997 seemed to endorse the experience of practitioners and patients that homeopathic medicines have specific clinically relevant effects. However, results from later unsuccessful trials, and negative inferences from a review of trials for a condition excluded from the meta-analysis--delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS)--have since been presented to suggest that the meta-analysis may well have overestimated the positive effects of homeopathy, and that the "placebo question is still not resolved." This article reviews the evidence underlying this challenge to the meta-analysis and homeopathy, and demonstrates that it would be valid if it were based on: a comprehensive literature search; appropriate classification of primary studies; clear discrimination between clinical effectiveness and placebo questions; sound and transparent review methods; and a reliable and unconfounded clinical treatment model for testing the ultramolecular hypothesis. It is suggested that different models are needed to answer different questions.

PMID: 9884176

[crispini]

134. Interesting. Thanks, good to know.

[MsTryska]

141. you could go through medline

and see if you can find the full studies there - however msot of the time - if you want the info for free - you're gonna have to settle for abstracts.

[Modem Butterfly]

122. They keep flogging the Lancet Meta-Analysis...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9884176&dopt=Abstract

Out of step with the Lancet homeopathy meta-analysis: more objections than objectivity?

Dean M.

Department of Health Sciences and Clinical Evaluation, Alcuin College, University of York, United Kingdom. [e-mail]

The meta-analysis of homeopathy trials that appeared in the Lancet in 1997 seemed to endorse the experience of practitioners and patients that homeopathic medicines have specific clinically relevant effects. However, results from later unsuccessful trials, and negative inferences from a review of trials for a condition excluded from the meta-analysis--delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS)--have since been presented to suggest that the meta-analysis may well have overestimated the positive effects of homeopathy, and that the "placebo question is still not resolved." This article reviews the evidence underlying this challenge to the meta-analysis and homeopathy, and demonstrates that it would be valid if it were based on: a comprehensive literature search; appropriate classification of primary studies; clear discrimination between clinical effectiveness and placebo questions; sound and transparent review methods; and a reliable and unconfounded clinical treatment model for testing the ultramolecular hypothesis. It is suggested that different models are needed to answer different questions.

PMID: 9884176

[beam me up scottie]

131. They never read the damn thing.

They see one woo woo cite it and the next thing you know, they're flashing it around like it's a testimonial from one of Kevin Trudeau's customers!

It's too sad to be funny.

Especially when you think of the millions of dollars that are being made from gullible people.

[MsTryska]

150. speaking of flogging the "Lancet Meta-Analyses"

did you happen to clicky on the link for the peer-reviewed journal abstracts?


there's a bunch of them from all over you know.

[Terran]

127. OK, now you're just being obtuse.

Why don't you try reading the site instead of putting some dumb spin on their mission statement. Look at the meta-analysis section.

[Modem Butterfly]

132. The meta-analysis is flawed.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9884176&dopt=Abstract

Department of Health Sciences and Clinical Evaluation, Alcuin College, University of York, United Kingdom. [e-mail]

The meta-analysis of homeopathy trials that appeared in the Lancet in 1997 seemed to endorse the experience of practitioners and patients that homeopathic medicines have specific clinically relevant effects. However, results from later unsuccessful trials, and negative inferences from a review of trials for a condition excluded from the meta-analysis--delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS)--have since been presented to suggest that the meta-analysis may well have overestimated the positive effects of homeopathy, and that the "placebo question is still not resolved." This article reviews the evidence underlying this challenge to the meta-analysis and homeopathy, and demonstrates that it would be valid if it were based on: a comprehensive literature search; appropriate classification of primary studies; clear discrimination between clinical effectiveness and placebo questions; sound and transparent review methods; and a reliable and unconfounded clinical treatment model for testing the ultramolecular hypothesis. It is suggested that different models are needed to answer different questions.

[beam me up scottie]

138. Maybe because it's a site that PROMOTES HOMEOPATHY.

Do you really not see any reason why they might not be a credible source?
:eyes:

[Modem Butterfly]

96. Here's a great resource on homeopathy

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.html

[crispini]

107. So, I'm curious...

you've obviously had a negative experience with homeopathy, but what are your thoughts on other alternative medicines?

[Modem Butterfly]

114. They don't work for me

I've got lupus, and when you have a chronic illness, someone is always trying to sell you something. I've tried a number of alternative medicines, most with no results and a few with harmful results (note: Horse Chestnut can really fuck your kidneys up). I don't bother with them anymore. My health doesn't have the same margin of error that others seem to have.

[crispini]

130. Well, I don't know much about lupus, at all.

So, in your personal experience, nothing you tried worked for you. Bummer. :( :hug:

Taking a more abstract viewpoint, I'm interested in distinguishing between, say, homeopathy, herbal medicine, acupuncture, nutrition therapy, etc. These all tend to get lumped together under "alternative medicine," but I think that some of these things probably DO work for SOME conditions whereas some of them probably do not work at all. For example, everyone I have ever taken to my acupuncturist for muscle injuries and chronic pain has experienced *some* relief, so I tend to think it works for this, but maybe not for other things.

It'd be interesting to study some of this.

[Terran]

133. That site's assertions are provably false

http://www.homeopathic.org/meta.htm (re clinical trials)

Who do you trust, the British medical establishment, or that highly questionable web site?

[Modem Butterfly]

135. The Lancet meta-analysis is flawed

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9884176&dopt=Abstract

Department of Health Sciences and Clinical Evaluation, Alcuin College, University of York, United Kingdom. [e-mail]

The meta-analysis of homeopathy trials that appeared in the Lancet in 1997 seemed to endorse the experience of practitioners and patients that homeopathic medicines have specific clinically relevant effects. However, results from later unsuccessful trials, and negative inferences from a review of trials for a condition excluded from the meta-analysis--delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS)--have since been presented to suggest that the meta-analysis may well have overestimated the positive effects of homeopathy, and that the "placebo question is still not resolved." This article reviews the evidence underlying this challenge to the meta-analysis and homeopathy, and demonstrates that it would be valid if it were based on: a comprehensive literature search; appropriate classification of primary studies; clear discrimination between clinical effectiveness and placebo questions; sound and transparent review methods; and a reliable and unconfounded clinical treatment model for testing the ultramolecular hypothesis. It is suggested that different models are needed to answer different questions.

[Terran]

143. MAY be flawed.

Your information proves nothing and does little to contradict my assertions. All it says is that homeopathy may be less effective than previously shown (especially in one single medical condition), not that's not effective at all. Its conclusion is that more study is needed--always a good idea in my opinion.

[beam me up scottie]

140. Your source is a highly questionable web site.

I can cite anecdotal evidence all day too, but I don't like it when people think I'm clueless.

[Terran]

If you think The Lancet is dealing with anecdotal evidence

well then, you are...

[beam me up scottie]

162. Stop using the Lancet as proof! You have no proof!

There is none.
Period.

Show me exactly where it says in any reputable medical journal that homeopathy works.

[MsTryska]

184. are you saying the lancet isn't reputable?

what the hell?


you think one study in reference to DOMS is proof that all homeopathy doesn't work?

Do you know what DOMS is? it's the soreness your muscles get 24-48 hours after lifting weights.


here's the interesting thing - no one knows why this pain occurs.

some say lactic acid buildup, some say macrophages but there is no scientific reason for why this pain exists.



using your logic - since there is no scientific reason for the pain to exist - the pain must not exist. but i digress.

here's a bunch of other studies all from reputable journals, all peer-reviewed and double-blind....

M. Weiser, W. Strosser, P. Klein,
Homeopathic vs. Conventional Treatment of Vertigo: A Randomized Double-Blind Controlled Clinical Study
Archives of Otolaryngology--Head and Neck Surgery, August, 1998, 124:879-885.
This was a study with 119 subjects with various types of vertigo, half of whom were given a homeopathic medicine (a combination of four homeopathic medicines) and half were given a leading conventional drug in Europe for vertigo, betahistine hydrochloride. The homeopathic medicines were found to be similarly effective and significantly safer than the conventional control.


there's this:

J. Jacobs, L. Jimenez, S. Gloyd,
Treatment of Acute Childhood Diarrhea with Homeopathic Medicine: A Randomized Clinical Trial in Nicaragua,
Pediatrics, May 1994, 93,5:719-25.
This study was the first on homeopathy to be published in an American medical journal. The study compared individualized high potency homeopathic preparations against a placebo in 81 children, between ages 6 mo. and 5 yrs., suffering with acute diarrhea. The treatment group benefited from a statistically significant 15% decrease in duration. The authors noted that the clinical significance would extend to decreasing dehydration and postdiarrheal malnutrition and a significant reduction in morbidity.

there's this:

Reilly, M. Taylor, C. McSherry,
Is Homeopathy a Placebo Response? Controlled Trial of Homeopathic Potency with Pollen in Hayfever as Model,
Lancet, October 18, 1986, 881-86.
The double-blind study compared a high dilution homeopathic preparation of grass pollens against a placebo in 144 patients with active hay fever. The study method considered pollen counts, aggravation in symptoms and use of antihistamines and concluded that patients using homeopathy showed greater improvement in symptoms than those on placebo, and that this difference was reflected in a significantly reduced need for antihistamines among the homeopathically treated group. The results confirmed those of the pilot study and demonstrate that homeopathic potencies show effects distinct from those of the placebo

[beam me up scottie]

146. Right. This from a person who believes in homeopathic remedies.

Prove it.

[Dora]

94. Why do so many of you people bash homeopathy?

Seriously, why do you waste your breath?

You're not going to convince me that something doesn't work when my experience has shown me that it does.

Does senseless arguing turn you on? Is your need to be right so great that you just have to wade into it?

Oh, and don't use science as an excuse. Remember, learned people used to believe that the earth was flat.

[Modem Butterfly]

102. "you people"?

Who is "you people"? As opposed to what?

[Terran]

115. I'm not saying you're one, MB, but

in this case, "you people" would be that small group of DUers who insist that everything they don't understand and cannot be readily explained by known science is not real.

[beam me up scottie]

116. You people: Not children of Barnum.

:evilgrin:

[K-W]

103. How dare someone disagree with you!!!!! EOM

[Dora]

119. Reply to both K-W and Modem, and any others

"You people" is a reference to other homeopathy bashers I've seen around DU. Y'all are here, and you have no qualms about stating your biases against homeopathy. In this context, "you people" is not racist, it's not sexist, it's not anti-atheist or anti-christian, so don't go flaming me for grouping you. You are a group, we are a group.

Like I said in my post, what I don't get is why skeptics feel a need to convince those who find homeopathy effective that it's not effective.

It's not about the disagreement. It's about your need to convince us that it's bunk.

It's not bunk to us, it's our health and you're ridiculing our choices. Your opinions may be one thing, but your expressions of them are disrespectful and divisive.

Many of us choose to combine allopathic medicine with alternative treatments. Am I going to stop my antibiotics right now because alternative medicine practitioners tell me that antibiotics are bad and will just make me sicker in the long run? No, because I'm capable of thinking critically and making well-thought-out choices regarding my health. I know that 10 days of augmentin will give my sinuses the ass-kicking they deserve. I also know that homeopathic arnica does more for my husband's sore wrists after a night of playing brushes than ibuprofen does.

Telling somebody that their experience isn't real is ignorant.

I have to go into a meeting now so I won't be here to see your efforts at trying to convert the heathens.

[Modem Butterfly]

129. You people... don't go blaming me for grouping you

In this context, "you people" is not racist, it's not sexist, it's not anti-atheist or anti-christian, so don't go flaming me for grouping you. You are a group, we are a group.

"You people" is definitely a loaded and rather offensive way to refer to a group of people. You don't often see "You people" followed up with anything positive, or even particularly neutral.

Like I said in my post, what I don't get is why skeptics feel a need to convince those who find homeopathy effective that it's not effective.

Gosh, I just thought we were having a discussion. I had no idea that stating an opinion, even one that goes against an opinion someone else had, qualifies as trying to convince someone. By that logic, everytime someone posts an "I heart kitties" thread in the lounge, they are trying to convince dog people that cats are better...


NOTE TO BMUS: Dogs rule, cats drool.

NOTE TO DORA: The above asseratation is merely the statement of bald, irrefutable facts. I will never convince BMUS that cats aren't the top of the evoluationary ladder, nor will she convince me that the canine is beneath the paws of the feline. I like dogs, I like BMUS, and I like talking trash about cats even so.

[MsTryska]

145. discussions involve give and take.....

what i see here is jsut a bunch of snarky bashing of people who believe soemthing different from you.

[Modem Butterfly]

151. How dare you try to convince me of something I will not believe!

Ooooh! That was fun! It kind of... tingles when you do that!

If you think this is "snarky bashing" I suggest you try to talk about outdoor cats in the lounge...

[MsTryska]

154. i don't go to the lounge....

nobody's trying to convince you of jackshit.


you don't want to believe that's your business - but when you start trying to convince others who clearly have done and are able to do their own research that they should ascribe to your viewpoint, you become the fundamantal evangelical - not them.

[Modem Butterfly]

160. Jackshit

No one is trying to convince you of jackshit either.

You know, this is DU. There are literally thousands of people with hundreds of thousands of different opinions about any topic you care to mention. We should be a place where it's okay for people to state their differing opinions without going "launch enable" over a perceived conversion attempt. Apparently you disagree with that. Fine, I'm not going to attempt to change your mind. But I'm not going to stop stating my opinion to make you feel more comfortable.

[MsTryska]

161. I wholeheartedly agree that we are supposed to be the

place that people can hold varying opinions....


but take a look at this thread - the people who hold the minority opinion who are the ones getting jumped on.

it's the one thing that disappoints me the most abotu DU - the way that the Fascists who expect everyone to toe their specific party line are the loudest and rudest.

[Modem Butterfly]

164. Then what's with all the hostile snarking?

but take a look at this thread - the people who hold the minority opinion who are the ones getting jumped on.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that we're wrong, and it doesn't mean you'll change our minds. It doesn't even mean we're trying to change YOUR minds.

it's the one thing that disappoints me the most abotu DU - the way that the Fascists who expect everyone to toe their specific party line are the loudest and rudest.

I couldn't have said it better myself. I think the best thing to do is the next time you see a thread that you feel is going to make you act loud and rude, just don't click on it. If you don't think you can hold your temper, just let it go for a few minutes. Or hide it, or put the provoking poster on ignore.

[MsTryska]

178. are you telling me i'm snarking?

but take a look at this thread - the people who hold the minority opinion who are the ones getting jumped on.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that we're wrong, and it doesn't mean you'll change our minds. It doesn't even mean we're trying to change YOUR minds.

and vice-versa - but standing from where i'm standing it sure does sound like y'all are trying to use shaming, scoffing, and outright insults to change our minds.

it's the one thing that disappoints me the most abotu DU - the way that the Fascists who expect everyone to toe their specific party line are the loudest and rudest.

I couldn't have said it better myself. I think the best thing to do is the next time you see a thread that you feel is going to make you act loud and rude, just don't click on it. If you don't think you can hold your temper, just let it go for a few minutes. Or hide it, or put the provoking poster on ignore.


that's good advice for everyone here. i will say this - I will always state my opinion ont he subject - if that makes any other compelled to insult me or get loud and rude - i do suggest they follow your advice. i typically try not to be confrontational until someone attacks me - but that seems to happen an awful lot around here.


i think everyone needs to dial it down a notch and treat others with respect - no matter how differing the views may be.

[salvorhardin]

193. "Dogs rule, cats drool."

You obviosuly never met the Saint Bernard I had as a kid. Not only did that dog drool, but he would frequently drool all over the cat. You should have seen the poor kitty trying to get that off her meticulously self-groomed fur!

[Dogmudgeon]

137. "You People"

Compare to: Woo-Woos

--p!

[beam me up scottie]

144. We just get tired of people passing this off as medicine and science.

Call it what it is and don't insult our intelligence by making claims that you cannot back up.

"It worked for me" is useless as evidence.

[K-W]

147. Calling opinions you dont agree with 'biases" is just misdirection.

You dont get why people might want to convince other people not to use ineffective medical treatements.

Gee, I dunno, basic compassion.

At least we are honestly expressing our opinions openly and not pretending that those who disagree with us are biased and trying to make the discussion about thier strange motives instead of the topic at hand.

[Dogmudgeon]

168. This applies to the Skeps, too

You call ridicule "basic compassion"? Now that's an Extraordinary Claim if I ever heard one!

Tell me, how exactly does ridiculing people keep them from making unwise decisions?

Your last paragraph is similarly mysterious. Sure, you don't pretend that those who disagree with you are biased; you insult them outright and make trite in-jokes about them. These discussions quickly turn into sessions of scientific machismo, and any scientist who depends on Skeptic methodology to enhance critical thinking is going to be waiting for that Nobel for a long, long time.

The topic at hand was the wisdom of Prince Charles expressing the opinion that many alternative health treatments may have enough utility to help keep medical costs down. It quickly became an exercise in armchair riposte and use of the "BWA-HA" and "ROFL" macros -- right at the time that Team Skep arrived.

"Skepticism" is not Science. It's a martial art. (My apologies to the martial artists reading this.)

--p!

[Modem Butterfly]

172. You're just upset that this thread hasn't been locked

:)

[beam me up scottie]

176. Give Piggy time, he's trying.

[K-W]

175. It applies to everyone.

You call ridicule "basic compassion"? Now that's an Extraordinary Claim if I ever heard one!

Indeed, and if I had actually made that claim you might have a point. But I didnt.

Tell me, how exactly does ridiculing people keep them from making unwise decisions?

I havent the foggiest idea.

Your last paragraph is similarly mysterious. Sure, you don't pretend that those who disagree with you are biased; you insult them outright and make trite in-jokes about them. These discussions quickly turn into sessions of scientific machismo, and any scientist who depends on Skeptic methodology to enhance critical thinking is going to be waiting for that Nobel for a long, long time.

What is mysterious exactly? And Im sorry you have some weird cartoon playing in your head of what you think a skeptic is and youve decided to project that on me. I dont know what skeptic methodology is and I havent used anything of the sort.

The topic at hand was the wisdom of Prince Charles expressing the opinion that many alternative health treatments may have enough utility to help keep medical costs down. It quickly became an exercise in armchair riposte and use of the "BWA-HA" and "ROFL" macros -- right at the time that Team Skep arrived.


Well, when you are ready to actually rationally discuss issues rather than this childish name calling because somebody had the audicity to disagree with you and think they were right, let me know.

[Glenda]

110. I'm pro-choice on natural healing!

:)

This thread seems like an abortion thread, so I'd just like to make it clear than I am pro-choice!

:hi:

[Neshanic]

106. Uh, Charles...time to go horsey riding, and meet your tart for lunch

[Dogmudgeon]

124. The Amazing Pigwidegon Predicts!

Time now: 2:40 PM EDT

Time at thread lock: 3:05 PM EDT

--p!
Time will tell! (Criswell)

[Technowitch]

174. As with Criswell's dubious accuracy, time indeed told.

My magic 8-ball says, "No."

[EnfantTerrible]

179. It's 3:39p EST

:popcorn:

[Dogmudgeon]

186. Damn!

I guess I'd better revise my prediction that Roger Lodge will win the Nobel Prize in Sex, too.

--p!
I HATE when that happens!

[Terran]

167. I should have known better

than to spend my afternoon arguing with people who assert that articles published in respected British medical journals are "anecdotal evidence". None of you are going to convince me that what I know myself to be true, objectively, over years of experience, is incorrect.

Why don't you all go join a monestary or something? Your tolerance for intellectual uncertainty would suit you well in such a place.

[Modem Butterfly]

171. Oh, be nice

The Lancet's meta-analysis is flawed, and in any event, you haven't even produced an actual article, but merely some abstracts published on a pro-homeopathy site.

Why don't you all go join a monestary or something? Your tolerance for intellectual uncertainty would suit you well in such a place.

There is no need to lapse into religious bigotry. Really, this is just over the top.

[Terran]

188. No, sorry, it's not over the top.

I've never seen so many deliberately dumb statements on a thread before. Well, maybe I have, but this one is in the top five.

And don't pull the "bigotry" card out, because what I said isn't bigoted, it just reflects reality and you know damn well it's true.

[Dogmudgeon]

181. You can't argue with them

Skeptics will never admit to being wrong, even when you show them iron-clad evidence and bring James Randi along to say "this is Real Science".

When you present evidence, they claim it's flawed, and set another criterion for you to meet. Meet that criterion, and they set another. Ad infinitum. The practice is called "Moving the Goalposts". The phrase comes not from "woo-woos" but from forensics (the non-criminology kind). Skeptics are very adept at debating techniques, but never point out fallacies that they themselves fall prey to.

Skeptics have also been caught cheating, involved in academic fraud, character defamation, and in at least a couple of cases, bragging how they'd never accept any evidence for a phenomenon they didn't like. Even Carl Sagan used intellectually questionable methods in his crusade against Immanuel Velikovsky, when his case should have been a simple slam-dunk. And when Charles Honorton presented well-controlled evidence of "psi" in his Ganzfeld experiments, he was falsely and maliciously accused of fraud.

If you've read even one or two of my other posts in this thread, you'll see that I, myself, have doubts about a lot of these medical practices, as well as other issues Skeptics take umbrage to. And universally, the Defenders of Science assume I'm what they call a "woo-woo".

I point it out; they don't read it; they make the same assumption a few lines later. Is this the mark of a rationalist? Maybe it is, but it sure isn't the mark of a rational man or woman!

This isn't Science; what they're doing is machismo, ego, and swagger pretending to be Science. The movement is now loaded with bullies, loons, woman-haters, and pseudoscientists of their own liking. The ones who have any ideals at all are getting out -- for instance, Susan Blackmore.

Of course, Blackmore is a real scientist, and she confines herself to her area of expertise. Most of the "professional" Skeptics are not scientists, not trained in science, or are scientists making authoritative remarks in fields that they have no training in.

I left about a decade ago. Since then, the scene has only gone downhill. But I suppose we can all sleep a little easier knowing that somebody is keeping the pressure on the International Astrologers' And Homeopaths' Conspiracy To Enslave The Whole World.

--p!

[K-W]

182. Who needs real arguments when a skeptic straw man will do. EOM

[Dogmudgeon]

189. Certainly not the Skeptics. LS/MFT

--p!

[K-W]

190. Huh? EOM

[MsTryska]

192. No it wouldn't......

not a buddhist monastery anyway.



perhaps an Islamic madressa would be better suited.

or the local fundagelical school *lol*

[beam me up scottie]

169. A few good quotes:

A few good quotes from the Quack Files:

"Homeopathy is God's way of thinning the flock". - dpr

"Homeopathy is bullshit. Only very, very diluted. It's completely safe to drink." - Peter Dorn

"Homeopathy, where a little of nothing is better than something at all." - Jeanne E Hand-Boniakowski, R.N.

[crispini]

173. Anyone want to discuss something OTHER than homeopathy?

I personally don't think that all "alternative medicines" should be lumped together the way they are in the OP as well as in this thread. For example, herbal medicines often DO contain "active" ingredients" which are essentially the same as drugs, but milder. Also, acupuncture is wonderful for pain relief and I know several folks who have good experiences with chiropractic. Furthermore, I know a woman who went on an all-organic diet therapy -- the Gerson therapy -- and was cured of her cancer. (This was in addition to conventional medicine, but I believe she did not have chemo.)

Of course you should evaluate your treatments carefully. However, IMO, Western science based medicine has a lot to learn from the more holistic natural approach.

[Glenda]

177. Do you want to start a new thread?

I'm still worried that this one will be locked :)

[crispini]

183. Well...

not much point, probably, I get the feeling that people would rather argue about homeopathy. But I'm glad you had such good results with acupuncture. What did you do it for? I had a horrible repetitive stress injury in my arms and hands, shooting pains, went on worker's comp, the whole 9 yards. The doctor, the neurologist, and the osteopath all had nothing to contribute (other than heavy drugs) but the acupuncturist I tried (out of sheer desperation) fixed me right up! Such a wonderful relief of pain!

[Glenda]

191. That's great that you got such positive reaction from acupuncture!

I did it for my adrenal glands, that were weakened due to thyroid disorder. I did use other alternative medicine techniques before the acupunture (supplements from my Naturopath, meditation, affirmations)... anything to help buffer me from stress and heal the adrenals.

THe acupunture seems to stop the stress reactions, and is the only thing that really stops stress in its tracks!

:pals:

[MsTryska]

187. I'd love to.....

i think it's interesting that a thread on alternative therapies and chiropractic turned into a homeopathy-bashing thread anyway - i've never seen a group get so worked up about homeopathy of all things.

chiropractic sure, herbs - soemtimes especially if we're talking about ephedra - but homeopathy rarely.


and i've been in a lot of alternative med discussions over the years.

herbalism is my preference.

[Glenda]

194. I also am into herbs

They tend to work for me where certain pharmaceuticals don't (due to pharmas being harsh)

I also take a lot of vitamins for various issues

[DemExpat]

185. I think that he realizes that certain other treatments can offer

much relief for conditions that modern orthodox medicine doesn't have answers for....and to try to curb the spiralling health costs for increasingly expensive treatments and drugs by offering alternatives that cost much less.

Increasing numbers of people are seeking out these popular treatments with less side-effects and not involving invasive procedures, so this is also just mechanisms of growing consumer demand working in the health care market.

Growing regulation of complementary and alternative medicines will hopefully protect the public from the frauds and incompetents.

I use regulated and integrated into health insurance provision Homeopathic treatment by a medical doctor (my GP) here for 15 years with very positive results for some, not all, of my and my family's health problems.

DemEx

[Moderator]

195. Locking....

This thread has run its course
and has become inflammatory.