Homeopathy.... At last
Discussion
Derek Smith said:
Dr Jekyll said:
A) They work, homeopathy doesn't.
B) The modern medicine actually contains the active ingredient. The whole point of homeopathy is that it doesn't.
Therefore homeopathy is the complete opposite of finding something that works and prescribing it.
I think you should read Goldacre's Bad Pharma.B) The modern medicine actually contains the active ingredient. The whole point of homeopathy is that it doesn't.
Therefore homeopathy is the complete opposite of finding something that works and prescribing it.
Derek Smith said:
Dr Jekyll said:
A) They work, homeopathy doesn't.
B) The modern medicine actually contains the active ingredient. The whole point of homeopathy is that it doesn't.
Therefore homeopathy is the complete opposite of finding something that works and prescribing it.
I think you should read Goldacre's Bad Pharma.B) The modern medicine actually contains the active ingredient. The whole point of homeopathy is that it doesn't.
Therefore homeopathy is the complete opposite of finding something that works and prescribing it.
Yes they highlight the flaws and corruption involved in big pharma, medical trials, etc. It does not mean those medications discussed don't work at all or contain no active ingredient though.
And nor does dodgy drug trials justify the use of something which simply cannot work.
My mother believes in homeopathy and won't hear anything against it, as such I went to a homeopathic doctor for the first 15 years or so of my life.
It stems from her father having cancer and being basically ready to die. The doctor gave him something (and presumably ongoing) and he lived a further five years. I was about 3 at the time so can't verify or vouch for anything but she certainly believes that doctor kept a dead man alive for years. She was most upset when he retired and the new doc wasn't 'qualified' in it.
It stems from her father having cancer and being basically ready to die. The doctor gave him something (and presumably ongoing) and he lived a further five years. I was about 3 at the time so can't verify or vouch for anything but she certainly believes that doctor kept a dead man alive for years. She was most upset when he retired and the new doc wasn't 'qualified' in it.
VolvoT5 said:
I have Bad Pharma and Bad Science... good books.
Yes they highlight the flaws and corruption involved in big pharma, medical trials, etc. It does not mean those medications discussed don't work at all or contain no active ingredient though.
And nor does dodgy drug trials justify the use of something which simply cannot work.
My reply was to that of: Yes they highlight the flaws and corruption involved in big pharma, medical trials, etc. It does not mean those medications discussed don't work at all or contain no active ingredient though.
And nor does dodgy drug trials justify the use of something which simply cannot work.
Dr Jekyll said:
A) They work, homeopathy doesn't.
B) The modern medicine actually contains the active ingredient. The whole point of homeopathy is that it doesn't.
Therefore homeopathy is the complete opposite of finding something that works and prescribing it.
Blind trust in products of corporations, when there is evidence that a number have falsified results of trials, is as illogical as belief in homeopathy.B) The modern medicine actually contains the active ingredient. The whole point of homeopathy is that it doesn't.
Therefore homeopathy is the complete opposite of finding something that works and prescribing it.
Your 'finding something that works' is the crux of the matter. We just don't know if it does.
There was no justification of homeopathy in my reply. However, as someone asked for justification for homeopathy, I'll give it a go:
Homeopathy is water. You can drown in it, but if you drink it the only effect is to make you want to pee.
Medicines whose efficacy is suspect because of false clinical trials can harm you as well as stand little chance of curing you. I was on pills for a total of two and a half years. They had a considerable number of side effects, one of which was to push my weight up from a bit under 14 stone to 19. This was 'expected'. The pills are now not 'supported', whatever that means, but you have to go private to get them prescribed as, the theory goes, they don't do what they are supposed to. They certainly didn't help with me to any degree that I could notice. The withdrawal symptoms were unpleasant.
Back in the late 70s the lack of performance of clinical drugs was well known. My father was prescribed a drug that, the doctor assured him, has a side effect which may be of use. When my father asked what the drug was for, the doctor told him not to worry as they didn't work. That said, they didn't cure his problem either.
I thought I was a bit clued up but the book, Bad Pharma, was a revelation. My wife told me that 'only half of it is true in all probability'. Only half jokingly, I told her that I'd hoped that less than 25% was true as 50% meant we had no hope. A shocking book.
[i]Bad Science[i] has been read by all my kids and their partners. It is still the subject of conversation.
Derek Smith said:
VolvoT5 said:
I have Bad Pharma and Bad Science... good books.
Yes they highlight the flaws and corruption involved in big pharma, medical trials, etc. It does not mean those medications discussed don't work at all or contain no active ingredient though.
And nor does dodgy drug trials justify the use of something which simply cannot work.
My reply was to that of: Yes they highlight the flaws and corruption involved in big pharma, medical trials, etc. It does not mean those medications discussed don't work at all or contain no active ingredient though.
And nor does dodgy drug trials justify the use of something which simply cannot work.
Dr Jekyll said:
A) They work, homeopathy doesn't.
B) The modern medicine actually contains the active ingredient. The whole point of homeopathy is that it doesn't.
Therefore homeopathy is the complete opposite of finding something that works and prescribing it.
Blind trust in products of corporations, when there is evidence that a number have falsified results of trials, is as illogical as belief in homeopathy.B) The modern medicine actually contains the active ingredient. The whole point of homeopathy is that it doesn't.
Therefore homeopathy is the complete opposite of finding something that works and prescribing it.
Your 'finding something that works' is the crux of the matter. We just don't know if it does.
There was no justification of homeopathy in my reply. However, as someone asked for justification for homeopathy, I'll give it a go:
Homeopathy is water. You can drown in it, but if you drink it the only effect is to make you want to pee.
Medicines whose efficacy is suspect because of false clinical trials can harm you as well as stand little chance of curing you. I was on pills for a total of two and a half years. They had a considerable number of side effects, one of which was to push my weight up from a bit under 14 stone to 19. This was 'expected'. The pills are now not 'supported', whatever that means, but you have to go private to get them prescribed as, the theory goes, they don't do what they are supposed to. They certainly didn't help with me to any degree that I could notice. The withdrawal symptoms were unpleasant.
Back in the late 70s the lack of performance of clinical drugs was well known. My father was prescribed a drug that, the doctor assured him, has a side effect which may be of use. When my father asked what the drug was for, the doctor told him not to worry as they didn't work. That said, they didn't cure his problem either.
I thought I was a bit clued up but the book, Bad Pharma, was a revelation. My wife told me that 'only half of it is true in all probability'. Only half jokingly, I told her that I'd hoped that less than 25% was true as 50% meant we had no hope. A shocking book.
[i]Bad Science[i] has been read by all my kids and their partners. It is still the subject of conversation.
That's how good water is for you. Better than a lot of big pharma meds.
Also, re peeing. Go regularly. Once had a Cuban doc ask me how often I did it (pee, that is!). When I need to I responded. No, no, no she replied (and don't laugh at Cuban docs, some of the very best in the world). Did I need to go at that point in time? She said go and pee now. I don't need to I replied. But I went to the loo and I did - pee ...and quite a bit! Here in the UK you will get the response, a usual one, the reason for enlarged prostate in men usually over 50 'is unknown'. The Cuban doc said a full bladder thanks to not emptying it, and the usual man thing of 'holding on', a full bladder sitting for years on top of your prostate is not good. Perhaps it is no wonder it enlarges? I have no idea. But I go (pee) not when it's bursting, but even when I think I won't go. She even told me better to sit and go, not stand, and to massage the bladder to ensure it's empty. Bugger me, that works too!
I've had my prostate felt just the once by a doc. I don't intend for it to happen again!!
HarryW said:
Whilst I agree modern homeopathy is probably no more important than prescribing placebos I think it important to remember a lot of modern medicines are synthesises off naturally occurring drugs that were investigated because they appeared to work. All opiates and quinine based drugs to start with.
Yes thats correct. And all these "alternative medicines" that actually worked, guess what? They became Medicines.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
The homeopathy society booked The Cure to play at their Xmas party, but Placebo turned up instead. No one noticed.
I have shamelessly stolen this and will reuse it in a feeble attempt to make me look witty.Sheepshanks said:
98elise said:
I heard on the news that the NHS currently spends 4m on this crap.
In terms of NHS spending, £4M is about the same dilution as a typical homeopathic remedy.
They piss more than that up the wall on post-it notes.dandarez said:
Good post Derek. But re the water, it does a little more than make you pee ...try surviving without it. I'll give you a week ...tops.
That's how good water is for you. Better than a lot of big pharma meds.
Also, re peeing. Go regularly. Once had a Cuban doc ask me how often I did it (pee, that is!). When I need to I responded. No, no, no she replied (and don't laugh at Cuban docs, some of the very best in the world). Did I need to go at that point in time? She said go and pee now. I don't need to I replied. But I went to the loo and I did - pee ...and quite a bit! Here in the UK you will get the response, a usual one, the reason for enlarged prostate in men usually over 50 'is unknown'. The Cuban doc said a full bladder thanks to not emptying it, and the usual man thing of 'holding on', a full bladder sitting for years on top of your prostate is not good. Perhaps it is no wonder it enlarges? I have no idea. But I go (pee) not when it's bursting, but even when I think I won't go. She even told me better to sit and go, not stand, and to massage the bladder to ensure it's empty. Bugger me, that works too!
I've had my prostate felt just the once by a doc. I don't intend for it to happen again!!
And what did the nice policeman say, the one who found you sitting on the toilet massaging bits of your body, when you explained what you were doing?That's how good water is for you. Better than a lot of big pharma meds.
Also, re peeing. Go regularly. Once had a Cuban doc ask me how often I did it (pee, that is!). When I need to I responded. No, no, no she replied (and don't laugh at Cuban docs, some of the very best in the world). Did I need to go at that point in time? She said go and pee now. I don't need to I replied. But I went to the loo and I did - pee ...and quite a bit! Here in the UK you will get the response, a usual one, the reason for enlarged prostate in men usually over 50 'is unknown'. The Cuban doc said a full bladder thanks to not emptying it, and the usual man thing of 'holding on', a full bladder sitting for years on top of your prostate is not good. Perhaps it is no wonder it enlarges? I have no idea. But I go (pee) not when it's bursting, but even when I think I won't go. She even told me better to sit and go, not stand, and to massage the bladder to ensure it's empty. Bugger me, that works too!
I've had my prostate felt just the once by a doc. I don't intend for it to happen again!!
I remember reading something about where our bodies have fallen behind our changing lifestyles. There was a bit on urinating and defecating, the suggestion being that we go less frequently now we spend time in houses and defecating in the street is frowned upon. There was a bit about being lactose intolerant, although I can't remember the conclusion.
Having your faeces sitting in your intestines for hours with nothing to do was suggested as a cause for bowl cancer.
wsurfa said:
AndyDubbya said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
The homeopathy society booked The Cure to play at their Xmas party, but Placebo turned up instead. No one noticed.
I called my band "Prevention" cos we were better than either.
Derek Smith said:
Blind trust in products of corporations, when there is evidence that a number have falsified results of trials, is as illogical as belief in homeopathy.
Your 'finding something that works' is the crux of the matter. We just don't know if it does.
There was no justification of homeopathy in my reply. However, as someone asked for justification for homeopathy, I'll give it a go:
Homeopathy is water. You can drown in it, but if you drink it the only effect is to make you want to pee.
Medicines whose efficacy is suspect because of false clinical trials can harm you as well as stand little chance of curing you. I was on pills for a total of two and a half years. They had a considerable number of side effects, one of which was to push my weight up from a bit under 14 stone to 19. This was 'expected'. The pills are now not 'supported', whatever that means, but you have to go private to get them prescribed as, the theory goes, they don't do what they are supposed to. They certainly didn't help with me to any degree that I could notice. The withdrawal symptoms were unpleasant.
Back in the late 70s the lack of performance of clinical drugs was well known. My father was prescribed a drug that, the doctor assured him, has a side effect which may be of use. When my father asked what the drug was for, the doctor told him not to worry as they didn't work. That said, they didn't cure his problem either.
I thought I was a bit clued up but the book, Bad Pharma, was a revelation. My wife told me that 'only half of it is true in all probability'. Only half jokingly, I told her that I'd hoped that less than 25% was true as 50% meant we had no hope. A shocking book.
[i]Bad Science[i] has been read by all my kids and their partners. It is still the subject of conversation.
Gosh another anecdote from your past to support your position. Yay!Your 'finding something that works' is the crux of the matter. We just don't know if it does.
There was no justification of homeopathy in my reply. However, as someone asked for justification for homeopathy, I'll give it a go:
Homeopathy is water. You can drown in it, but if you drink it the only effect is to make you want to pee.
Medicines whose efficacy is suspect because of false clinical trials can harm you as well as stand little chance of curing you. I was on pills for a total of two and a half years. They had a considerable number of side effects, one of which was to push my weight up from a bit under 14 stone to 19. This was 'expected'. The pills are now not 'supported', whatever that means, but you have to go private to get them prescribed as, the theory goes, they don't do what they are supposed to. They certainly didn't help with me to any degree that I could notice. The withdrawal symptoms were unpleasant.
Back in the late 70s the lack of performance of clinical drugs was well known. My father was prescribed a drug that, the doctor assured him, has a side effect which may be of use. When my father asked what the drug was for, the doctor told him not to worry as they didn't work. That said, they didn't cure his problem either.
I thought I was a bit clued up but the book, Bad Pharma, was a revelation. My wife told me that 'only half of it is true in all probability'. Only half jokingly, I told her that I'd hoped that less than 25% was true as 50% meant we had no hope. A shocking book.
[i]Bad Science[i] has been read by all my kids and their partners. It is still the subject of conversation.
dandarez said:
She even told me better to sit and go, not stand, and to massage the bladder to ensure it's empty.
At the risk of learning something I may want to unlearn, how? It's inside the insides and short of perusing Gray's Anatomy and donning rubber gloves seems relatively unreachable.Purely in the interests of perspective, from today's 'i': ...the current homeopathic best seller, Oscillococcinum which is 'potensised' from duck liver and recommended for colds and 'flu, is sold in the C200 potency meaning that one part of organ extract is diluted in 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 parts of diluent: considerably less than one duck molecule per Universe. Hardly pate is it? And that's about half the zero's in the article. Couldn't stop laughing.
Where does homoeopathic water come from?
Is it the same water that has passed through the oceans and rivers, then it is 'potensised' of which it retains a memory, does it then forget about all the land and sea creatures that have already defecated and urinated in the same water over the years
Is it the same water that has passed through the oceans and rivers, then it is 'potensised' of which it retains a memory, does it then forget about all the land and sea creatures that have already defecated and urinated in the same water over the years
voyds9 said:
Where does homoeopathic water come from?
Is it the same water that has passed through the oceans and rivers, then it is 'potensised' of which it retains a memory, does it then forget about all the land and sea creatures that have already defecated and urinated in the same water over the years
It needs to have passed through Michaelangelo's and Mother Theresa's urinary system to be pukka, though. Is it the same water that has passed through the oceans and rivers, then it is 'potensised' of which it retains a memory, does it then forget about all the land and sea creatures that have already defecated and urinated in the same water over the years
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff