New Hampshire Underground

Found this article at Mercola.com:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/1/15/recreational-drugs-far-less-likely-to-kill-you-than-prescribed-drugs.aspx

Here is a brief excerpt:

Quote
"While approximately 10,000 per year die from the effects of illegal drugs, an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) reported that an estimated 106,000 hospitalized patients die each year from drugs which, by medical standards, are properly prescribed and properly administered. More than two million suffer serious side effects. [3]

An article in Newsweek [4] put this into perspective. Adverse drug reactions, from "properly" prescribed drugs, are the fourth leading cause of death in the United States. According to this article, only heart disease, cancer, and stroke kill more Americans than drugs prescribed by medical doctors. Reactions to prescription drugs kill more than twice as many Americans as HIV/AIDS or suicide. Fewer die from accidents or diabetes than adverse drug reactions. It is important to point out the limitations of this study. It did not include outpatients, cases of malpractice, or instances where the drugs were not taken as directed."

(http://pbfcomics.com/archive_b/PBF189-Keep_on_Truckin.jpg) (http://pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF189-Keep_on_Truckin.jpg)

Drugs are bad unless they come from Big Pharma.
I always loved the "don't do drugs" posters in school yet all kinds of kids were on Riddilin. (Spelling?)

I used to work for the pharmaceutical company that manufactures Ritalin. There was for a brief time on their internal website, a paper comparing Ritalin to cocaine. They were for all intents and purposes very similar chemically, had very similar effects, and very similar contraindications, yet people prescribe this stuff like it is water. While I was there it was voluntarily treated as a Schedule 5 controlled drug substance, not the sort of thing you would ordinarily give to kids. The worst part is that most of the kids on Ritalin have no business being on it. They don't actually have the symptoms that would indicate its usage.

I feel bad for the children. Its one thing to choose to take a drug on your own, but to have this sort of thing forced on them, especially by people with their own agendas, is just not right.

George

Quote from: NJLiberty on May 01, 2008, 07:05 AM NHFT
I used to work for the pharmaceutical company that manufactures Ritalin. There was for a brief time on their internal website, a paper comparing Ritalin to cocaine. They were for all intents and purposes very similar chemically, had very similar effects, and very similar contraindications, yet people prescribe this stuff like it is water. While I was there it was voluntarily treated as a Schedule 5 controlled drug substance, not the sort of thing you would ordinarily give to kids. The worst part is that most of the kids on Ritalin have no business being on it. They don't actually have the symptoms that would indicate its usage.

I feel bad for the children. Its one thing to choose to take a drug on your own, but to have this sort of thing forced on them, especially by people with their own agendas, is just not right.

George

George, you are absolutely correct. Ritalin is essentially cocaine which they give to kids in schools to chemically force them to shut up since so many teachers nowadays have absolutely zero teaching ability. I've even heard of incidents where social workers have said to parents "If you don't give you kid ritalin, I'll have you declared a 'bad parent'", or something disgusting like that. Any social worker who does anything like that should be fired.

In fact, most social workers should be immediately fired, since most of them are nothing but a burden on society at best, and a destructive scourge at worst.

Have you considered that you are given to sweeping generalizations and knee-jerk reactionism?

Quote from: Caleb on May 01, 2008, 07:27 AM NHFT
Have you considered that you are given to sweeping generalizations and knee-jerk reactionism?

I've noticed that.

...but I can't exactly disagree with his latest round of sweeping generalizations ^  ;)

...and I also can't help but noticing that Luke appears to heartily agree with everything George said in that post... including that there is a major distinction between choosing to take a drug on your own, and having it forced upon you ;D

8)

Quote from: Luke S on May 01, 2008, 07:17 AM NHFT
In fact, most social workers should be immediately fired, since most of them are nothing but a burden on society at best, and a destructive scourge at worst.

Better, eliminate the government DSS/DCYF bureaucracies completely. Or, government.

Quote from: Caleb on May 01, 2008, 07:27 AM NHFT
Have you considered that you are given to sweeping generalizations and knee-jerk reactionism?

Yeah, but he's right this time. ;D

In grade school, the principle told my mom not to bring me back unless I was not ritilin.  My mom was mad.   ;D  Needless to say, I was never on ritilin, or any other drug. 

Quote from: srqrebel on January 16, 2008, 11:00 AM NHFT
An article in Newsweek [4] put this into perspective. Adverse drug reactions, from "properly" prescribed drugs, are the fourth leading cause of death in the United States...It is important to point out the limitations of this study. It did not include outpatients, cases of malpractice, or instances where the drugs were not taken as directed."

Yeah, when you add those factors, you find medicine is the third leading cause of death in the U.S.

I am alive today because of modern medicine. I rely on pharmaceuticals to stay that way. I am not going to start making blanket statements about this or that drug, when most of these drugs do have therapeutic value in certain cases. I'm sure Ritalin has helped a lot of people. I'm sure it has hurt quite a few too. When it comes down to it, we are sacks of guts and water with calcium sticks keeping us upright, and fiddling with our chemistry can be helpful or deadly, depending on how it's done. It's the does that makes the poison. Most of the deaths associated with prescriptions could be avoided because proper precautions weren't taken by the health care providers, and patients rarely ask questions (through 3 heart surgeries, I learned to ask a lot of questions, just like when you take your car to the garage, it's not difficult to learn the medicine specific to your case, and you should know all about the various treatment options, and keep asking questions until you fully undertsand what is happening, what they're doing and why). Take responsibility for your own care, and don't let "the experts" push you around. I could have avoided one of my surgeries if I had done a bit more due diligence in researching the procedure in question, so I know form where I speak.

In the case of schools, they use their coercive position to foist that drug on a lot of kids to compensate for very bad teaching, and teachers are protected by unions, etc. All these issues with education, medicine, and child rearing could be fixed by kicking the state out and opening a free market. One of the most insidious yet unrecognized pillars of support for the state is that of INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. Companies use the guns of government to control the market for their products, excluding competition and socializing these costs through taxation. There's no patent on the colonel's 11 herbs and spices, nor Coke's original recipe, but they seem to be able to keep these trade secret relatively secure while retaining majority market shares in highly competitive sectors of the economy. If you could patent those recipes, a bucket of chicken would cost you $50 and Coke would be sending out cease and desist letters, backed by SWAT teams to every corner store that sold RC or Pepsi. These mega-corps would have to simply compete and offer good products at reasonable prices if they couldn't use our own money to pay for an expensive protectionist regime that acts as a price support mechanism and competition crusher. Places with looser IP laws and no drug schedules or prescription requirements have quality drugs available for far less, as well as natural alternatives and new and experimental drugs unavailable in the U.S.

Not sure where this rant is going (must be the drugs talking!), but let's not shit all over modern medicine, let's focus our ire on the bureaucrats who keep it expensive, oppressive, moribund, and protected from innovation and competition through nothing more than violence. IP screws the consumer twice, first by robbing him to pay for government, then again when he has to buy an artificially expensive product from a single producer.

Quote from: Dylboz on May 02, 2008, 03:37 PM NHFT
I am alive today because of modern medicine.

Lol.  How do you know that?  Lemme guess, your doctor told you?  Actually you don't know that you'd be dead without drugs&surgery.  The only way to know for sure would be to go back and live your life without the drugs&surgery and see if you die.  Since you can't do that, you really don't know what would have happened otherwise.

Quote from: Dylboz on May 02, 2008, 03:37 PM NHFT
I rely on pharmaceuticals to stay that way. I am not going to start making blanket statements about this or that drug, when most of these drugs do have therapeutic value in certain cases. I'm sure Ritalin has helped a lot of people.

I'm not.

Quote from: Dylboz on May 02, 2008, 03:37 PM NHFT
I'm sure it has hurt quite a few too. When it comes down to it, we are sacks of guts and water with calcium sticks keeping us upright, and fiddling with our chemistry can be helpful or deadly, depending on how it's done. It's the dose that makes the poison. Most of the deaths associated with prescriptions could be avoided because proper precautions weren't taken by the health care providers,

Apparently you haven't heard the news: drugs are the fourth-leading cause of death even when proper precautions are taken by the drug pushers (whom you euphamistically call "heath care providers").

Quote from: Dylboz on May 02, 2008, 03:37 PM NHFT
and patients rarely ask questions (through 3 heart surgeries, I learned to ask a lot of questions, just like when you take your car to the garage, it's not difficult to learn the medicine specific to your case, and you should know all about the various treatment options, and keep asking questions until you fully undertsand what is happening, what they're doing and why).

The problem isn't that patients don't ask enough questions, the problem is that when they do ask questions, they ask the person who is profiting off of selling them the drugs&surgery!  Doctors don't make money by telling you to go exercise and stop eating fast food.  They make money by telling you "If you don't take these drugs you'll die!  If you don't have this surgery you'll die."  Then afterwards they tell you "good thing you had that that surgery or you'd be dead now!"

Quote from: Dylboz on May 02, 2008, 03:37 PM NHFT
Take responsibility for your own care, and don't let "the experts" push you around.

...says the guy who believes he'll die without taking drugs? Who told you you'd die without being a drug-user?  Wasn't an "expert" was it?

Quote from: Dylboz on May 02, 2008, 03:37 PM NHFT
I could have avoided one of my surgeries if I had done a bit more due diligence in researching the procedure in question, so I know form where I speak.

Actually you could have avoided all your surgeries.  But the surgery salesmen aren't going to tell you that.

Quote from: Dylboz on May 02, 2008, 03:37 PM NHFT
Not sure where this rant is going (must be the drugs talking!), but let's not shit all over modern medicine, let's focus our ire on the bureaucrats who keep it expensive, oppressive, moribund, and protected from innovation and competition through nothing more than violence. IP screws the consumer twice, first by robbing him to pay for government, then again when he has to buy an artificially expensive product from a single producer.

Actually, without the IP laws you're railing against, there would be no one getting paid to tell you how important it is that if you don't keep taking your drugs "you'll die! you'll die! you'll die!"  To the extent you get a good feeling from taking your drugs you should thank "the bureaucrats who keep it expensive, oppressive, moribund, and protected from innovation and competition through nothing more than violence."  Otherwise you'd have to select from a much wider variety of actual cures and you wouldn't have your labcoat-wearing priest to assure you that you made the right decision by taking his advice.

As for shitting all over modern medicine, that's exactly what it deserves and I do so every chance I get.  It's the most corrupt, evil institution in history.  At least warmongers admit they're merchants of death. The Federal Reserve may steal your labor, but at least they don't put poisons into your body.  But MDs smile and tell you they're helping you as they profit off of poisoning and dissecting you, and their victims are so brainwashed they say "thank you" when it's over.

I was born with severe congenital heart defects, with deformities to the structure of my heart valves and my descending aorta that rendered them very inefficient. This is not about fast food and exercise, in fact vigorous exercise was dangerous and could have resulted in a brain aneurysm due to the increased BP in my head, a result of deformities to my aorta. I started having surgeries at 19, and fortunately, my heart's strength and my general health actually contributed to my quick recovery. But, by the time of my last surgery, I had an enlarged heart over 33% larger than it should have been, with an aorta that was wide open in either direction. I DO know that if I had not had the surgery, I would be dead. My heart was barely functioning, and it's efficiency was near zero. I could not walk up a flight of stairs without total exhaustion, heavy breathing and seeing stars. Sure, I could have avoided them, if dying at 30 seems like an appropriate result. You have NO FUCKING IDEA what I went through, yet you think you can diagnose me from over there? You're ridiculous! I can look at past case histories and see that without surgery, the average life-span for people with my conditions who never have surgery is 30 years. My heart has returned to normal size and function since the surgery, anyone can see it on a ultrasound monitor. I also know that before I started taking the blood pressure meds I'm on, my BP was dangerously high, and threatened the integrity of the repairs made to my heart valves and my descending aorta. It's objective fact, not some feeling that I get from the reassurance they offer me. I can look at the numbers on the monitor. After I started taking them, my BP was down, I felt better and my new heart valves functioned perfectly. Didn't take an expert to figure that out. Do you imagine that some mix of plants would serve me better? Do you realize that's what pharmaceuticals are? Chemicals is chemicals, no matter where they come from. Medicine and surgery saved my life, and I hope that you never wind up facing the kind of issues I had to, and I really, really hope that your kids, should you have any, don't either, since they'd wind up victimized by your ideology. If you get in a terrible car accident or develop a brain tumor, what are you going to do? Walk it off? Take an herbal pill? Shit all over modern medicine all you want, but when you need it to save your life, your tune will change, or you'll just die. Either way, you'll be proven wrong. You're absurd. And the first person on my ignore list on this forum.

Hey nobody knows as much as Rasputin...  ;D

Yeah, I don't know if Rasputin can be objective about health care. Didn't he get poisoned and stabbed and a bunch of other shit and wouldn't die?
;D

mercola???

that quack???

oh cmon people ..

wheres the tinfoil?

wheres the research???

JAMA? thats flawed!!

Show me another piece!!

oh wait..

is it innocent before proven guilty?

or guilty before proven innocent

and who decides what is "accepted"?

Gee I am confused...

clarification is needed and requested as I am trying to follow "The Jraxi Method"

Kola

I don't expect to change your opinion.  But I know what I know.  I know challenging others' religious beliefs will win me scorn and ridicule from the true believers, but if I can save one reader of this thread from becoming a victim of the disease merchants, it will be worth it to me.  I'm not here to win a popularity contest.  I'm here to save someone from what I went through and what you're still going through.

I had my own multi-decade experience with the drug&surgery peddlers.  They gave me the exact same line:

1) You're defective
2) There is no cure
3) But if you take our drugs for the rest of your life you can live with it.

It's the same story they give all their victims.  It's how they run their business.  This holy medicine can't even cure the common cold, yet they'll show you a machine with numbers on it to prove they can see into the future.

As soon as I stopped buying into their BS I started to get healthy, and now i live drug free, which according to every medical "experts" I ever saw was an impossibility.

Let me ask you this: what caused your supposed defective condition?  Defective genes would have been weeded out of your genepool years ago.   So what was the cause?

And to answer your question: if I got into a terrible car accident, yes I would want some doctors to sew me back together.  That's about the only instance where I would volunteer for surgery, and I would try to get it from an osteopath rather than an allopath.  In my experience they are less corrupt that MDs.

Other than that, you are correct.   Herbs, accupuncture, homeopathy, nutrition, meditation.  I would try whatever might work.  But letting some sicko cut my head open?  No thanks.

Those drugs you're taking will catch up with you.  They have side effects.  Your expert will deny any connection but you can only poison yourself for so long.

Quote from: Dylboz on May 03, 2008, 04:50 PM NHFT
I was born with severe congenital heart defects, with deformities to the structure of my heart valves and my descending aorta that rendered them very inefficient. This is not about fast food and exercise, in fact vigorous exercise was dangerous and could have resulted in a brain aneurysm due to the increased BP in my head, a result of deformities to my aorta. I started having surgeries at 19, and fortunately, my heart's strength and my general health actually contributed to my quick recovery. But, by the time of my last surgery, I had an enlarged heart over 33% larger than it should have been, with an aorta that was wide open in either direction. I DO know that if I had not had the surgery, I would be dead. My heart was barely functioning, and it's efficiency was near zero. I could not walk up a flight of stairs without total exhaustion, heavy breathing and seeing stars. Sure, I could have avoided them, if dying at 30 seems like an appropriate result. You have NO FUCKING IDEA what I went through, yet you think you can diagnose me from over there? You're ridiculous! I can look at past case histories and see that without surgery, the average life-span for people with my conditions who never have surgery is 30 years. My heart has returned to normal size and function since the surgery, anyone can see it on a ultrasound monitor. I also know that before I started taking the blood pressure meds I'm on, my BP was dangerously high, and threatened the integrity of the repairs made to my heart valves and my descending aorta. It's objective fact, not some feeling that I get from the reassurance they offer me. I can look at the numbers on the monitor. After I started taking them, my BP was down, I felt better and my new heart valves functioned perfectly. Didn't take an expert to figure that out. Do you imagine that some mix of plants would serve me better? Do you realize that's what pharmaceuticals are? Chemicals is chemicals, no matter where they come from. Medicine and surgery saved my life, and I hope that you never wind up facing the kind of issues I had to, and I really, really hope that your kids, should you have any, don't either, since they'd wind up victimized by your ideology. If you get in a terrible car accident or develop a brain tumor, what are you going to do? Walk it off? Take an herbal pill? Shit all over modern medicine all you want, but when you need it to save your life, your tune will change, or you'll just die. Either way, you'll be proven wrong. You're absurd. And the first person on my ignore list on this forum.

Dylboz your case is a different story as far as I can see and I am not going to speak to that.

I think what Mackler is trying to get at, and correct me if I am wrong Mackler, is that the pharmaceutical companies generally create drugs that deal with symptoms, and do not create drugs that cure the actual problem. The doctors receive all manner of compensation for prescribing a particular drug over another from the drug companies, and I suspect from the insurance companies as well. It is a very corrupt system that can only feed itself by keeping its patients coming back for more.

When I was working at the pharmaceutical company I used to talk to the research scientists from time to time because I was curious about what they were working on. Everything they described to me was a maintenance type drug. I asked several of them if they ever worked on things that cured the actual disease and their opinion was that most diseases could have no cure, all you could do was treat the symptoms. They were pretty honest folks so I have no reason to think that they didn't believe what they were saying.

My father for instance takes a long list of drugs every day that he supposedly has to take to stay on the green side of the grass. He takes pills to correct his cholesterol, his blood pressure, thin his blood, eliminate "excess" water from his system, etc. Yet every time I go with him to the doctors office his stats are normal. I have asked my father and his doctor why they don't try eliminating these drugs, even temporarily to see what his body is actually doing, but, no, no, no, we can't do that, he might die if we take him off these pills. And thus my father is scared into continuing these medications. And there are millions like my father.

I on the other hand have been to the doctor once in the last 20 years, and that was because I had developed a pneumonia in my right lung and it wasn't going away by other means. My daughter, who is six years old, spent the first month of her life in an ICU because she was born prematurely and couldn't breathe on her own. Aside from a single check up after she came home to make sure everything was now fine, she hasn't been to the doctors since. She hasn't been immunized, hasn't had anything more severe than a common cold, and hopefully will not in the future. My nieces and nephews, just as my sisters and I when we were kids, were immunized, have been to the doctor's office frequently, have ingested God knows how many drugs and antibiotics, and always seem to be sick every time I talk to them. I can't speak for everyone obviously, but I haven't been sick aside from colds since I stopped going to the doctor's office.

I am not willing to repudiate the entire medical profession. I think it serves a purpose in extreme cases, but I think the way it is used by most patients is absurd. I think if more people took care of themselves, and took care of the common everyday diseases themselves, there would be much less incentive for abuse in the system.

George

I have anecdotal experience that goes both way with doctors. I've had doctors that seemed to just want to treat me continuously and milk my insurance. I've had doctors that showed incredible incompetence followed by other doctors catching the mistake and addressing my problem in one visit. I remember going to my general physician because I had to pee every 15 mins and when the test came back that I didn't have a bladder infection, he prescribed me something to tre 8)at the symptoms that I would presumably have to take forever. I stopped ejaculating. I mean, I could have sex and have an orgasm, but then ... nothing. I went to a urologist a week or two later and his eyes got really big and he said "Stop taking that RIGHT NOW! That's for old men with chronically enlarged prostates." Then he did an examination that took less than five minutes, said my bladder wasn't infected but was inflamed. He prescribed pills to take for two weeks and said avoid caffeine and alcohol during that time. He also advised that taking an antihistamine orally every day might bring the problem back and suggested I switch to something topical with less body-wide side effects like a nasal spray. I was so used to peeing constantly and after his instructions cured (not treated) the problem, I felt like I had some kind of super bladder. I was going half the day without needing to pee. Was so wonderful. He never suggested a follow-up unless it didn't work.

Another thing I asked him about during the same visit turned out to not be a big deal but led to him testing my sperm count to be on the safe side. Turns out it's like four or five times the average healthy count, which probably means it's a good thing I've never have casual unprotected sex with a woman. He joked that I shouldn't even take my pants off in the same room with a woman unless I want to be a father.  :blush:

Yes, once again, T.M.I. are my middle initials.

Modern insurance systems have different economic models. HMOs pay doctors a monthly stipend by the number of patients under their care. So a doctor with hundreds of healthy patients they never see, can do better than a doctor with a few dozen that need continuous attention.
The problem comes in the patient-doctor relationship where a patient presumes that some form of medical treatment is necessary to achieve a solution.

I hate HMOs so wasn't under one at the time. I hated going to this particular doctor because he was so far away but specialized in something I wanted to addressed. Unfortunately, he obsessed over my asthma and kept wanting to treat that and see me regularly for it, and not very well either if you ask me. I ultimately just gave up on seeing him and quite taking the medicine he prescribed against the advisement of some friends who said I mustn't do that. I felt like it was making me worse.

To be fair... problem with the specific doctor.
Some doctor's perceive their patients as wards under their care, rather than customers of their service.
It takes a while for them to accept the newer formats.

Quote from: Puke on May 01, 2008, 05:21 AM NHFT
Drugs are bad unless they come from Big Pharma.
I always loved the "don't do drugs" posters in school yet all kinds of kids were on Riddilin. (Spelling?)

:clap:  If you ever go to a mental health center there are signs and pamphlets everywhere about how drugs are bad for you yet my sister sat in at a meeting with the psychiatrists there and they were discussing there case loads and 9 our of 10 involved people's kids being medicated with Ritalin, anti-psychosis drugs, anti depression drugs.  What irony, right before people's faces!

Quote from: NJLiberty on May 04, 2008, 08:31 AM NHFT
Dylboz your case is a different story as far as I can see and I am not going to speak to that.

I think what Mackler is trying to get at, and correct me if I am wrong Mackler, is that the pharmaceutical companies generally create drugs that deal with symptoms, and do not create drugs that cure the actual problem. The doctors receive all manner of compensation for prescribing a particular drug over another from the drug companies, and I suspect from the insurance companies as well. It is a very corrupt system that can only feed itself by keeping its patients coming back for more.

When I was working at the pharmaceutical company I used to talk to the research scientists from time to time because I was curious about what they were working on. Everything they described to me was a maintenance type drug. I asked several of them if they ever worked on things that cured the actual disease and their opinion was that most diseases could have no cure, all you could do was treat the symptoms. They were pretty honest folks so I have no reason to think that they didn't believe what they were saying.

My father for instance takes a long list of drugs every day that he supposedly has to take to stay on the green side of the grass. He takes pills to correct his cholesterol, his blood pressure, thin his blood, eliminate "excess" water from his system, etc. Yet every time I go with him to the doctors office his stats are normal. I have asked my father and his doctor why they don't try eliminating these drugs, even temporarily to see what his body is actually doing, but, no, no, no, we can't do that, he might die if we take him off these pills. And thus my father is scared into continuing these medications. And there are millions like my father.

I on the other hand have been to the doctor once in the last 20 years, and that was because I had developed a pneumonia in my right lung and it wasn't going away by other means. My daughter, who is six years old, spent the first month of her life in an ICU because she was born prematurely and couldn't breathe on her own. Aside from a single check up after she came home to make sure everything was now fine, she hasn't been to the doctors since. She hasn't been immunized, hasn't had anything more severe than a common cold, and hopefully will not in the future. My nieces and nephews, just as my sisters and I when we were kids, were immunized, have been to the doctor's office frequently, have ingested God knows how many drugs and antibiotics, and always seem to be sick every time I talk to them. I can't speak for everyone obviously, but I haven't been sick aside from colds since I stopped going to the doctor's office.

I am not willing to repudiate the entire medical profession. I think it serves a purpose in extreme cases, but I think the way it is used by most patients is absurd. I think if more people took care of themselves, and took care of the common everyday diseases themselves, there would be much less incentive for abuse in the system.

George

So far I've read about 4 or 5 of your posts and I feel like telling you that I think you are a very fair, respectful, open minded person! ;D

 The drug we should be concerned about is power, it's killed the most people. It's also the most addictive and abused.

   

Quote from: mackler on May 04, 2008, 12:35 AM NHFT
Let me ask you this: what caused your supposed defective condition?  Defective genes would have been weeded out of your genepool years ago.   So what was the cause?

There are quite a lot of congenital effects that haven't been weeded out like hemophilia. There are recessive traits that can survive and come together and such like that. Without being a geneticist, I know that these things exist. It's quite ridiculous to claim they don't. In time they might get weeded out or they may not due to effective treatments.

Quote from: mackler on May 04, 2008, 12:35 AM NHFT
Let me ask you this: what caused your supposed defective condition?  Defective genes would have been weeded out of your genepool years ago.   So what was the cause?

You are an idiot. That really pissed me off. Read something about genetics. You seem interested in real cures, well, education is the cure for ignorance. It's unbelievable that you have such a militant opinion about something you are utterly ignorant of. The cause is GENETIC. Even if it was because my mom smoked crack (which, I assure you, she did not) that induced a mutation, would it make the situation any less real, any less serious, would it negate the need for surgical intervention to correct? NO.

My "supposed" defective condition is something you could clearly see in ultrasound and MRI, malformed and incomplete aortic valve leaflets, two instead of the normal three, and my descending aorta looked like a tight hourglass, too much blood stayed in my head and arms, not enough got to my legs, hence I have skinny ostrich legs from 20 years of deficient blood flow below my torso, even though I'm 6'2" and 200 lbs. I had severe and debilitating migraines until my aorta was straightened and my leaky heart valve was replaced, now I almost NEVER get them, and when I do they are nowhere near the severity I used to experience. I was recently part of a study that helped define the relationship between circulatory abnormalities and migraine, leading to new treatments and diagnostic protocols that include cardiovascular examinations, and will likely lead to millions of new surgical CURES for the underlying physiological causes of migraine, not dependence on pain pills.

Recombinant DNA is a gamble every time, but it the way our species, and almost all life on earth, evolved to take advantage of mutation and selective pressure from the environment. It is not a perfect system of successive generational superiority, in fact, bad genes can enter the gene pool any time, via mutation. Recessive traits can be expressed even when they have not cropped up in a population for generations, due to the rarity of the recessive combination, sometime requiring multiple recessive couplings in order to garner the phenotypic expression of some unfortunate trait. Some recessive traits that are otherwise crippling actually confer advantage in certain situations, like sickle-cell anemia vis-a-vie malaria. When two recessive genes couple, this disease is life-threatening, but when only one is expressed, resistance to malaria is conferred without the negative health consequences. I would never have responded to you if Dalebert hadn't quoted you, but you are seriously in need of some Wiki time. Start with "genetics."

I'm an artist, but my brother in law is a pediatric oncologist who has worked with the human genome project at the highest levels, and he was educated at Duke and Ohio State Medical school. I can tell you all he is interested in is finding a cure for cancer in kids, he is currently working with the world leading expert in a specific but common type of childhood brain tumor, and has dedicated his life to figuring out a way to stop it, not treat it chronically with some expensive drug he can send my niece to Harvard on the profits from. His father was the head of pediatric cardiology at Ohio State, and also the doctor who gave me the life-saving diagnosis that changed my life, from across the table at dinner no less. My previous doctor was only half right, and had me on BP meds but hadn't recommended surgery yet. Do I think he was malicious, and under the sway of the pharmaceutical company that produced those pills? No. He was just out of his element, and that was because he was an adult cardiologist, experienced with cardiovascular disease, not congenital heart defects, and he was provided me by my stupid HMO, due to regulatory pressures resulting from legislation.

I was lucky to get the treatment I did, and I got it by being proactive and demanding care from my insurance company. My sister was an advocate for me too, and she is one of the leading OB/GYN's in Houston, she spent years fresh out of med school on fellowship treating low income, at risk young women in the city's worst neighborhoods, curing their common STD's and counseling them on preventative measures, birth control, condom use and how to identify obvious symptoms of infection in their partners, in hopes of avoiding the need for further treatment. Again, not pushing meds or trying to hook them on some kind of permanent treatment that costs a lot of money. They wouldn't even have it, since most of them didn't have insurance and the clinic was subsidized by charity and the government (yeah, I know, but at least it wasn't a half ton bomb being dropped on Iraqis or a police car out looking for pot smokers). Doctors, in my experience, are looking to either help people out, or they are seeking status and wealth. You have to look for the former and avoid the latter, and HMO's make it difficult by limiting your options and access, and that's because of state intervention at the behest of the insurance industry.

Lastly, I'll say that my heart surgeon, Dr. Teodori is fantastic. He is genuinely concerned about his patient's well being. In the past, surgeons I've dealt with have distanced themselves from their patients in order to handle the emotional trauma they risk in cutting someone up, so they left the patient interaction to their staff. Teodori was not the same, he actually called me and my family up several times before and after the surgery to check up on me and see how everyone was doing. He came to my bedside everyday of my ICU recovery, and once, he introduced me to this woman and her son from Africa, who his hospital (a private, charitable institution, known as Phoenix Children's, easily the coolest hospital I've ever seen, even for an adult, though aimed at little kids and their parents, it had a HUGE Lionel train setup!) had flown over because her son was suffering from congenital defects very similar tomine. I spoke to them through a translator and reassured them they were in excellent hands, and I thanked them for letting me speak to the boy. I felt good about that, and I would trust anyone, even my own children to that hospital, and Teodori in particular.

I am about to turn 32. I had my last operation, what is known as a Ross procedure, in 2004. Every day since 2006, when I turned 30, is bonus time for me, and I thank all the doctors, nurses and even the pharmaceutical researchers who discovered the various medicines that help maintain my continued good health for these years. This is the promise of capitalism, and the free market. This is what it can do for everyone, and it could be faster, cheaper, and include far more treatment options and natural remedies too (I'm not at all against that stuff, I have benefited greatly form chiropractic care and I am into herbal and nutritional therapies, I eat a lot of garlic and leafy greens for their cardiovascular benefits). The main hurdle is to get the current oppressive regulatory regime off the backs of the doctors who want to cure people, and to pry the reigns from the bureaucrats and corporate types who care only about the bottom line and not patient care. You can see little efforts and positive changes being made, with in-store LPN and Nurse Practitioner clinics in Walgreens and Wal-Mart, cash-for-service providers who keep costs down by rejecting the health insurance paradigm, and websites that offer extensive information on diagnosis and treatment of common ailments that can be treated at home with OTC medicine or lifestyle changes, and even online access to low cost pharmacies and natural remedies through electronic mail order. Now, more than ever, patients are empowered to take charge of and manage their own health, but they would be cutting off their nose to spite their face by rejecting all doctors. The idea is NOT to go to the doctor every time you feel ill, but to know when it is actually necessary, and do so only then. Using the ER as a primary care option is another factor in pushing up costs, and so is the way that generous health insurance encourages benefit abuse by hiding the costs from patients in the form of co-pays. Like any thing in the marketplace, price is a function of supply and demand, and intelligent usage will reduce demand helping keep prices down, while removing artificial limits on supply in the form of regulation can help meet demand, which will push prices down.

Quote from: Free libertarian on May 04, 2008, 02:32 PM NHFT
The drug we should be concerned about is power, it's killed the most people. It's also the most addictive and abused.

   

:clap: I owe you applause! I got all excited and accidentally smited you... oops!  :dontknow:

As for my post above...  :soapbox:

you can correct your smite within the hour. You just applaud him. Since you can only do one karma action per hour, it will remove the smite you gave him and apply it as positive karma

I may or may not owe my present existence to modern medicine.

It is a virtual certainty that I owe my existence to modern technology. I was born six weeks premature, weighing in at a mere 3 pounds. If it was not for that hospital incubator, I would almost certainly have gone the way of preemies of centuries past.

Quote from: kola on May 03, 2008, 09:02 PM NHFT
mercola???

that quack???

??

Not sure what you are trying to say :dontknow:

For the record, I regard both Dr. Joseph Mercola and Dr. David G. Williams as two of the most objective and forward thinking MDs out there. While a lot of good has come out of modern medicine, it seems that the AMA and big pharma have long ago joined forces with the AMOG, specifically the FDA, to squelch both safer alternatives and genuine cures.

Rather than outcompete themselves though innovation and marketing of better treatments and cures, the medical and pharmacy industries routinely take the path of least resistance and use the strong arm of the AMOG to hobble and destroy truly creative innovators that threaten their profits.

The important thing to note is that it is not the medical and pharmaceutical industries that are the bad guys: It is the AMOG. Take the AMOG out of the equation, leaving nothing but a 100% Free Market environment, and the path of least resistance suddenly becomes innovation. They would be motivated to create better solutions at breakneck speed, else get blown out of the water by the competition.

In short, big industry defaults to the lazy route simply because the AMOG enables it to do so.

Quote from: srqrebel on May 05, 2008, 11:18 AM NHFT

Quote from: kola on May 03, 2008, 09:02 PM NHFT
mercola???

that quack???

??

Not sure what you are trying to say :dontknow:

That entire post was just kola histrionics. I may have something to do with that. ::)

I can see discussing medicine with you is like discussing politics with a communist.  In fact it is the same thing.  You are a true believer in the system.  You believe the medical industry is working to make the world healthier, just like the socialist believes the political industry is working to make the world more prosperous.

You talk about the cures that are just around the corner, the way the socialist talks about the prosperity that the next government program will bring...any day now!

You actually believe that medicine is searching for a cure for cancer!  There have been many cures for cancer, and every time the AMA has suppressed them and driven their advocates out of business.  But your brother-in-law is not going to tell you that.  He probably doesn't know.  They don't teach that at Duke Medical any more than they teach von Mises in the Economics Department at Harvard.

Are there well meaning MDs?  Sure.  And there are well-meaning police officers also.  But that doesn't mean that calling 911 is a good idea.  They can be well meaning as long as they play by the rules, and the rules for doctors are that drugs, surgery, and radiation are the only permissible treatments.

Like I said, I know I'm not going to change your mind.  You're too heavily invested in the system.  I'm addressing my comments to the rest of you reading this thread.  Think about where this poster is coming from.  He fully admits his bias.  His sister and brother-in-law are both allopaths.  His sister worked for the government.  His father-in-law works for the government.  His brother-in-law was educated at a government university.  His evidence that MDs are working for the good of humanity is totally unrelated to any scientific theory of health.  He got a good feeling at the children's hospital because they had train sets for the kids!  As if that's a way to judge effectiveness.

Tell us something, Dylboz, since I'm sure I'm not the only one wondering: You mentioned one doctor, a cardiologist, who drugged you.  And your father-in-law, another cardiologist at a government University talked you into surgery.  Tell us, how many opinions have you gotten from doctors who were not allopaths?  Not members of the AMA?  You seem pretty confident in your knowledge that you would be dead now if you hadn't had that surgery.  Where, besides this one or two allopathic cardiologists did that knowledge of yours come from?

Quote from: Dylboz on May 04, 2008, 07:33 PM NHFT

Quote from: mackler on May 04, 2008, 12:35 AM NHFT
Let me ask you this: what caused your supposed defective condition?  Defective genes would have been weeded out of your genepool years ago.   So what was the cause?

You are an idiot. ... etc.

Yeah, you got that right, as far as you took it.

Quote from: NJLiberty on May 04, 2008, 08:31 AM NHFT
Dylboz your case is a different story as far as I can see and I am not going to speak to that.

I think what Mackler is trying to get at, and correct me if I am wrong Mackler, is that the pharmaceutical companies generally create drugs that deal with symptoms, and do not create drugs that cure the actual problem. The doctors receive all manner of compensation for prescribing a particular drug over another from the drug companies, and I suspect from the insurance companies as well. It is a very corrupt system that can only feed itself by keeping its patients coming back for more.

When I was working at the pharmaceutical company I used to talk to the research scientists from time to time because I was curious about what they were working on. Everything they described to me was a maintenance type drug. I asked several of them if they ever worked on things that cured the actual disease and their opinion was that most diseases could have no cure, all you could do was treat the symptoms. They were pretty honest folks so I have no reason to think that they didn't believe what they were saying.

My father for instance takes a long list of drugs every day that he supposedly has to take to stay on the green side of the grass. He takes pills to correct his cholesterol, his blood pressure, thin his blood, eliminate "excess" water from his system, etc. Yet every time I go with him to the doctors office his stats are normal. I have asked my father and his doctor why they don't try eliminating these drugs, even temporarily to see what his body is actually doing, but, no, no, no, we can't do that, he might die if we take him off these pills. And thus my father is scared into continuing these medications. And there are millions like my father.

I on the other hand have been to the doctor once in the last 20 years, and that was because I had developed a pneumonia in my right lung and it wasn't going away by other means. My daughter, who is six years old, spent the first month of her life in an ICU because she was born prematurely and couldn't breathe on her own. Aside from a single check up after she came home to make sure everything was now fine, she hasn't been to the doctors since. She hasn't been immunized, hasn't had anything more severe than a common cold, and hopefully will not in the future. My nieces and nephews, just as my sisters and I when we were kids, were immunized, have been to the doctor's office frequently, have ingested God knows how many drugs and antibiotics, and always seem to be sick every time I talk to them. I can't speak for everyone obviously, but I haven't been sick aside from colds since I stopped going to the doctor's office.

I am not willing to repudiate the entire medical profession. I think it serves a purpose in extreme cases, but I think the way it is used by most patients is absurd. I think if more people took care of themselves, and took care of the common everyday diseases themselves, there would be much less incentive for abuse in the system.

George

You don't understand genetics. You don't understand structural defects. You don't understand cardiology or circulatory physiology. You don't understand anything about my case. You dishonestly misconstrue what is in my post (I never said train sets correlated to efficacy, and only a moron or someone who wishes to twist what I said around would suggest I did). I have personal experience, my own extensive research, case histories that are available for your, or anyone's, purusal on the internet. I spoke with survivors and joined communities of families who have dealt with these issues before, and tried various options and different surgeries at different ages ranging from infants to 50+. I compared doctors, their histories, and patient outcomes. There was a time, not long ago, when there were no surgeries or treatments for this, but they did do post-mortems. They could see how these defects effected people, they could see burst aortas pretty easily. They could see huge, oversized and failed hearts, in fact, you can hear through a stethoscope the click, click, click of a leaky valve, and the swishing noise as blood drains back in where it shouldn't be. I learned that myself, with my own 'scope. I listen to my own heart all the time, just in case.

As for the alternatives, homeopathy is absurd, non-scientific and utterly useless. It has been discredited over and over and over again. But, since it's just essentially drinking water, it's not overtly harmful, unless substituted for real medicine. Imagining that 1 part per billion of some "opposite" chemical can stimulate resistance to disease is plain stupid. It is exactly as effective as the placebo in every study it's been used in. Naturopathy, as far as I understand it, is the same as pharmaceuticals, just using plants and natural sources for the chemicals. Chiropractic is fine, and useful, so long as it doesn't purport to do anything but relieve joint and musculoskeletal pain. I think all these are fine if you want to use them, and the really stupid thing is, I agree with you that the AMA and Big Pharma are evil and working together against patient welfare and access in order to protect their profits. I want them and their government enablers out of the picture. But not all doctors are in on that scheme, nor do they agree with their aims, in fact many are working very hard against them. You are guilty of collectivist thinking, lumping all doctors into the dreaded allopath label and assuming they're lying drug pushers, every one. That makes you doubly retarded, because not only are you ignoring where I completely agree with you, you are also ignoring a whole host of beneficial treatments and individual doctors who would be glad to break free of their government and union restraints to investigate the efficacy of alternative medicine or provide non-drug and non-surgical lifestyle based treatments. In fact, many already have, as there is huge movement of cardiologists working to get people healthy enough to avoid surgery through diet and lifestyle changes. They have shows on TV, they write books, they work with McDonald's to offer healthy salads and shit. I mean, where do you get off with this "all doctors are butchers" mentality? What's your beef?

As to your persistent efforts at playing armchair diagnostician, I know I would be dead, because I could plainly see on the screen after multiple tests where my aorta was severely constricted and about to aneurysm, I could also feel how exhausted and dizzy I was after even the slightest effort. I was always tired and I felt like I was dying, because I was. My aortic valve had completely failed. It was open in either direction. My heart was the size of a cow's heart. What, pray tell, could be done about that non-surgically? Magic? Potions? You think my recovery is all in my head? You think it was all smoke and mirrors and all I needed was a trip to the sweat lodge? When physical structures are broken, only physical intervention can fix them.

Lastly, where is this "cure for cancer?" Just what IS more effective than drugs, surgery and radiation? If you say plants, you are hosed, because that's just drugs in a more natural state. If you say diet and lifestyle, I think no one in the medical community would argue, they've been telling us to get off our asses and eat right for decades. So, what is it? Some OTHER drug that cures, not treats? Well, if it's not available because of the state, huzzah! I'm an anarchist, abolish the FDA! Let's have it! My "bias" is toward things that actually work, based on science and evidence, as well as my personal experience. I disagree with my MD family members about the state's roll in medicine. I am against socialism, having lived under it and experiencing socialized medicine first hand. So, you can't peg me with that, either.

A free market in all things, medicine included.

PS - Here is the wiki on Aortic Coarctation, Bicuspid Aortic Valve and Ross procedure:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aortic_coarctation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicuspid_aortic_valve
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_procedure

Cleveand Clinic's Congenital Heart Disease page:
http://www.clevelandclinic.org/heartcenter/pub/guide/disease/congenital/congenvalve.htm

How on earth this guy thinks any of this could have been helped without surgery is beyond me.

Finally!  I found someone here who shares similar ideas and views about "modern medicine!"

Thanks Mackler.

Kola

Quote from: kola on May 06, 2008, 01:17 PM NHFT
Finally!  I found someone here who shares similar ideas and views about "modern medicine!"

Thanks Mackler.

Kola

Really not surprising. It's funny, Kola. You say that some among us reject anything "not mainstream" (how anarchism and radical libertarian individualism is mainstream, I'll never know) yet I think you'll embrace anything that purports to be OUT of the mainstream. My hippy uncle, may he rest in peace, was of a similar mind. He treated himself with herbal remedies and refused to see a doctor until one day he was dropped off at the hospital by his camp mates. They lived on piece of land outside of Truth or Consequences, New Mexico. He had been coughing and hacking his way through about 3 packs of generic cigarettes a day for at least 50 years, and by the time he got there, there was nothing they could do for him but shepherd him out of this world on morphine. He lived long enough to say goodbye to his family and a few friends, but that was it. Maybe he would have been happier dying in the forest, smoking his weed and cigs. Who knows. I do know that he developed lung cancer and chronic pneumonia, and all his herbal remedies didn't do a damn thing to stop them.

Quote from: Dylboz on May 06, 2008, 01:38 PM NHFT
Really not surprising.

No, it really isn't. I was about to say Mackler was sounding more and more like Kola, making sweeping statements based on anecdotal evidence just as J'Raxis was describing. Don't get me wrong, I believe in exercising great caution with the medical industry and educating yourself so you can make good decisions and not relying on the doctors being right or even honest. That's good advice. I do what makes sense to me based on the best information I can get.

Quote from: dalebert on May 06, 2008, 01:48 PM NHFT

Quote from: Dylboz on May 06, 2008, 01:38 PM NHFT
Really not surprising.

No, it really isn't. I was about to say Mackler was sounding more and more like Kola, making sweeping statements based on anecdotal evidence just as J'Raxis was describing. Don't get me wrong, I believe in exercising great caution with the medical industry and educating yourself so you can make good decisions and not relying on the doctors being right or even honest. That's good advice. I do what makes sense to me based on the best information I can get.

Yeah, that's exactly what I did. Many nurses and doctors were surprised at how extensive my knowledge was, and how I knew exactly what I wanted. I had a list, because it was possible that after getting me open, they would find that I was not a good candidate for Ross, and I'd need some other valve replacement. I had it down to brand names even. You gotta be proactive and on top of your medical care, I learned that after being misdiagnosed for so long. I love watching "Mystery Diagnosis" and it just blows my mind how people don't ask questions, don't do research, don't get second opinions, don't look at their own imaging and test results, don't talk to other patients, don't even seek treatment and try and "tough it out," "deal with it" or self-medicate their symptoms.

QuoteMaybe he would have been happier dying in the forest, smoking his weed and cigs. Who knows. I do know that he developed lung cancer and chronic pneumonia, and all his herbal remedies didn't do a damn thing to stop them.

Smoking like a nut will kill you whether you undergo chemo rad and surgery... and you will still die if you do nothing. Often the chemo and rad will slowly kill you and you will suffer. And chemo and rad has a nice side effect called metatasis and they just love to cause secondary cancers. I could never understand how killing your immune system (by doing chemo) is somehow supposed to "cure" you. Common sense tells me to BOOST the immune system not kill it off. Yeah there plenty of "cures" today for cancer, but sadly it kills the patient. 

OTOH, I think people who value freedom should do whatever they please and also be free of ridicule just because their decisions don't follow the the "majority".

As far as me rejecting something "just becuz" I must say you are wrong in your assumption. I use MD's for crisis intervention and other emergencies. AND I had cancer (now in remission) and chose to opt out of chemo and radiation. I did decide to have 3 surgeries and then went to Mexico for alternative treatment. BTW almost all herbs and products in health food stores are worthless junk. I practice and use plants based on NA Indian traditions.

Kola

Personal choice.
Lots of plants not native to NA have medicinal value...

Quote from: kola on May 06, 2008, 01:17 PM NHFT
Finally!  I found someone here who shares similar ideas and views about "modern medicine!"

Thanks Mackler.

Kola

To be honest, I'm surprised my POV isn't more prevalent in libertarian communities.  As I've said and will repeat, the mindset and social processes than enable socialism to thrive are exactly the same as those that let "modern medicine" (a.k.a. drugs&surgery) thrive.  It starts with indoctrination from birth, continues with near-total dominance of mass-media outlets, and is strengthened by the common linguistic tricks that pass for reasoning ("When someone under our care dies, it's because he was too far gone but we did everything we could.  When someone under their care dies, it's because he refused to seek legitimate treatment.").

I'm glad that Dylboz is here to put forth his opinions.  It makes it easier for me to point out the manifold flaws in conventional reasoning than if I were simply talking to myself.  There are so many I'm sure I'll miss a few, but let's take a short sampling.

Most obvious is his quick necessity of relying on ad hominem attacks.  He must persuade other readers that I am mentally deficient, lest they believe what I'm sayng.  So far he's graced me with the characterizations of "idiot," "moron," and not just retarded but "doubly retarded."  It's a sure sign that that your interlocutor is operating on a base of little to no sound reasoning when his resort to personal attacks is so readily forthcoming.  But that's just a signpost on the way to the tangled mess of logical fallacies and self-contradictions that characterize his emotional outbursts.

You'll notice also that I've asked him how many second opinions he solicited from non-allopaths.  Notice he hasn't answered.  I'll venture the answer is zero.  He tries to portray himself as very-well informed, telling us that the (allopathic) doctors and nurses who treated him were impressed with his knowledge.  Notice he doesn't say that they told him any of his information was incorrect, which would be the case if he had acquired any non-allopathic information.  What this tells us, is that he is well-informed with allopathic orthodoxy.  This is the typical behavior of cultists.  They'll pat themselves on the back for knowledge, but only as long as that knowledge doesn't challenge their religious dogmas.

Notice his dismissal of herbs is the exact same argument used by drug warriorn to dismiss cannabis.  It's like Mitt Romney talking to the fellow in the wheelchair asking if Romney would put him in jail for smoking pot.  Romney said (as has been repeated by many) "you don't need to smoke pot.  You can take Marinol."  Here is a foundational belief of Dylboz's religion.  Like a priest blessing holy water, it's the industrial process of refining that imbues mere plants with the magical qualities that only commercial pharmaceuticals possess.  It's just a coincidence that such a belief system happens to support the very profitable pharmaceutical industry.  (Oh but Dylboz hates the FDA and big pharma he says.)

Dylboz has repeatedly contradicted himself.  He's admonished us against being pushed around by experts, yet he takes great pride in reciting the credentials of the experts from whom he received his diagnoses (government-trained-and-paid experts no less.)  He says he wants government out of the medical industry, yet is proud to announce his oracular diagnosis came from a State-employed cardiologist.  Hey Dylboz, you do realize that if government were out of the medical industry, your father-in-law would be out of a job?  He says he's opposed to big pharma, and doctors who are out to enrich themselves, yet he admits he was "proactive in demanding care" from his insurance company.  I don't think he demanded care from his insurance company, I think he demanded money from his insurance company, to pay his supposedly altruistic surgeon.  I wonder how much that doctor made off his belief that surgery was his only option.

As an amateur epistemologist I'm intrigued by sources of knowledge.  In this case Dylboz knows he'd be dead because he saw an image on a screen and had a bunch of symptoms.  He felt exhausted and dizzy.  The logic here is: if you feel dizzy and exhausted you need surgery.  Because, as he enumerates, there are only three possible treatments: "surgery," "magic," and "potions."  This clearly reveals where he's coming from.  If it's not surgery, it's superstition.  This is the effectiveness of "modern medicine."  Once they get you to believe that anything your MD doesn't accept is voodoo, they'll be able to sell you anything.

Dylboz: I believe you know you'd  be dead.  Just like I believe the evangelist did know I'm destined for hell if I don't accept Jesus into my life.  Just like I believe Dick Cheney did know there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  Just like I believe Issac Newton did know that light is not subject to the effects of gravity.  There are many kinds of knowledge.  Some are even true.

I'll point out that Dylboz relies on wikipedia as a reliable source of information.  I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he is sincere in his ignorance that the standards that wikipedia editors are to follow prevents presenting non-mainstream points of view except in the most dismissive manner.  In other words, relying on wikipedia to prove your mainstream opinion is true is tautological, because by definition the wikipedia point-of-view is mainstream.

Evidence of Dylboz's non-scientific approach to knowledge is found in his dismissal of homeopathy.  Forget the millions of people--from royal families of Europe to myself--who use homeopathy and find it very effective.  The basis for his belief that it's "utterly useless" is because belief that it could work is "plain stupid."  In other words, it doesn't work, because Dylboz cannot understand how it could work.

For myself, I'm more interested in whether it works, that how or why it works.  But people like Dylboz can be persuaded to ignore reality by being convinced that without an explanation that his authorities will accept, reality is to be discarded.  This is the exact opposite of the scientific view.  Science is a method of developing theories through a process of falsification.  When a theory does not predict observations, then the theory is to be discarded.

But Dylboz takes the exact opposite view.  He says, "because my theory doesn't predict that homeopathy can work, therefore it doesn't."  This is dogma, not science.

Hew Dylboz, I have a challenge for you:  You're so sure that homeopathy is ineffective, are you?  Let's try a scientific experiment.  Homeopathic theory says that the medicine that cures a symptom in a sick person will cause the symptom in a healthy person.  You deny this, correct?  You should also know that according to homeopathic theory, the more dilute the medicine, the more powerful it is.  You deny this as well, correct?  So let's get some very dilute homeopathic medicine.  Maybe something used to treat skin disorders.  You'll take one dose a day, and then after three months of this you'll come down to Murphy's Tap Room to show us how it's had no effect on you and I'll be publicly humiliated.  Wouldn't that be fun?  And as you claim, harmless.  What do you say?

Finally, let me respond to the legitimate observation that I am making sweeping generalizations.  The fact is that specifics must be summarized, as there's not enough room to unfold them all.  But that's an apt criticism, so here are just a few samplings of specific facts.

For one, the post that started this thread is highly relevant: allopathic MDs acting properly are the fourth-leading cause of death in the US!  Going to the doctor is one of the most dangerous thing you can do for your health.  That's from Newsweek, and the same fact has been published in the JAMA, July 26, 2000 page 483.

"Up to 85 percent of prescribed medical treatments lack scientific validation."  New York Times, April 19, 1998, page SM36.  This puts the lie to the claim that allopaths are practicing science.  Eighty-five percent!  Medical "science" is about a scientific as Christian Science.

Dylboz asks "where is this cure for cancer?"  The fact that he's even asking this just shows how limited his research has been.  As I said, there have been many, maybe a dozen, and I don't have time to describe them all, but here's one.  In the 1950s, the largest private chain of cancer-treatment hospitals were the Hoxsey clinics with tens of thousands of patients.  They claimed a success rate of up to 80%.  The AMA repeatedly denounced their treatment as quackery, and repeatedly the AMA was sued for libel and lost!  They couldn't find a single one of the clinic's patients to testify that the treatment was ineffective.  In fact the AMA had to fire the editor of its prestigious journal for all the lawsuits he was causing.  After the AMA failed to drive the clinics out of business they used their political influence to get the FDA to go after them.  On one day in the late 1950s the FDA raided and padlocked every one of the Hoxsey clinics and drove them out of business.  The irony is that for at least twenty years prior the clinic had been petitioning the FDA and the National Cancer Institute to conduct clinical studies of its treatment.  The FDA and NCI had refused to scientifically examine the efficacy of the treatment, yet they drove them out of business.

At one point, a committee the US Senate assigned a special counsel to investigate the suppression of cancer cures.  This is a direct quote from his report:

Quote
A running fight has been going on between officials, especially Dr. Morris Fishbein, of the American Medical Association through the journal of that organization, and the Hoxsey Cancer Clinic.  Dr. Fishbein contended that the medicines employed by the Hoxsey Cancer Clinic had no therapeutic value, that it was run by a quack and a charlatan. (This clinic is manned by a staff of over 30 employees, including nurses and physicians.)...In the trial court, before Judge Atwell, who had an opportunity to hear the witnesses in two different trials, it was held that the so-called Hoxsey method of treating cancer was in some respects superior to that of X-ray, radium, and surgery and did have therapeutic value....The [AMA's Fishbein] admitted that Hoxsey could cure external cancer but contended that his medicines for internal cancer had no therapeutic value.  The jury, after listening to leading pathologists, radiologists, physicians, surgeons, and scores of witnesses, a great number of whom had never been treated by any physician or surgeon except the treatment received at the Hoxsey Cancer Clinic, concluded that Dr. Fishbein was wrong, that his published statements were false, and that the Hoxsey method of treating cancer did have therapeutic value.

--Congressional Record, Vol. 99, part 12 page A5351 (emphasis added)

The report includes a list of names and addresses of dozens of witnesses who testified that--as confirmed by pathology in laboratories unconnected with the Hoxsey Clinic--they were suffering from different types of cancer, both internal and external, and following treatment they were cured--and without the horrible side effects caused by "modern medicine's" cancer treatments.

The report is pages long and I cannot type it all for you, but this sentence is telling:

QuoteWe should determine whether existing agencies, both public and private, are engaged and have pursued a policy of harassment, ridicule, slander, and libelous attacks on others sincerely engaged in stamping out this curse of mankind.  Have medical associations, through their officers, agents, servants and employees engaged in this practice?  My investigation to date should convince this committee that a conspiracy does exist to stop the free flow and use of drugs in interstate commerce which allegedly has solid therapeutic value.  Public and private funds have been thrown around like confetti at a country fair to close up and destroy clinics, hospitals, and scientific research laboratories which do not conform to the viewpoint of medical associations.

page A5352.

Was this treatment successful in 100% of the cases?  No.  But the existing evidence suggests it was much more safe and effective than the medieval treatments orthodox medicine endorses today. And this was just one of many cancer treatments that were outlawed after they began to show too much promise.  An excellent and well researched book When Healing Becomes A Crime (http://www.amazon.com/When-Healing-Becomes-Crime-Alternative/dp/0892819251) not only tells this story based on primary research from the AMA's own files, but gives much of the disgusting history of the AMA itself and its efforts to make sure no real cures for cancer have ever been accepted by "modern medicine."  There is also an award-winning documentary (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5528328984547372206) on the subject.

Hey Dylboz: is your brother-in-law a member of the AMA?  Is he paid up on his dues?  Ask him how he feels about the fact that the AMA will cause him to lose his medical license if he ever discovers a cancer cure and tries to share it with the world.

Quote from: macklerHew Dylboz, I have a challenge for you:  You're so sure that homeopathy is ineffective, are you?  Let's try a scientific experiment.  Homeopathic theory says that the medicine that cures a symptom in a sick person will cause the symptom in a healthy person.  You deny this, correct?  You should also know that according to homeopathic theory, the more dilute the medicine, the more powerful it is.  You deny this as well, correct?  So let's get some very dilute homeopathic medicine.  Maybe something used to treat skin disorders.  You'll take one dose a day, and then after three months of this you'll come down to Murphy's Tap Room to show us how it's had no effect on you and I'll be publicly humiliated.  Wouldn't that be fun?  And as you claim, harmless.  What do you say?

Deal! I'm not afraid of water. But I don't live in NH. I'll take pictures, report it here and post pics. If I don't get sick, will you drop your silly homeopathy? I absolutely would love to show you this, like in person. I'll do it everyday at the same time. Hopefully, that will be adequate to your standards, it's the best I can do (now I really wish I lived in NH!).

And as for second opinions, I spoke to nearly a dozen different cardiologists and cardiothoracic surgeons. Dr. Watson (my original cardiologist), Dr. Ewy, Dr. Copeland (famous for doing transplants and installing artificial hearts her at the U of A), Dr. Macias (my current cardiologist and a specialist in CHD in adults and kids) Dr. Hillel Lax, UCLA chief of cardiothoracic surgery, his main cardiologist (name escapes me) and of course the staff at Columbus Children's. In fact, my sister's father in law insisted I see a different cardiologist at Ohio State before proceding to surgery.

Oh wait, you wanted me to see a homeopath? What on earth would they have offered me? Water? I really, REALLY wanna know. What would they have done?

All the doctors in my family work in private practice now. The government is not, by any means, the sole employer of doctors. In a free market, you'd be free to drink your placebo water, and I'll see a physician. Everyone's happy.

PS - No contradiction in my chemical/medicine statements. I know that plant marijuana has many more active compounds than Marinol, and it is not the same, not to mention the problems with ingesting it in pill form. I want people to have access to whatever herbal form of medicine they want, but I know ultimately, it's the chemicals therein that have therapeutic effect. I am looking forward to Sativex, a vaporizing inhaler form of marijuana that is safer and easier to dose-control than smoked marijuana for chronic neurological pain I suffer, due to injuries I incurred from the surgeries, no less (see? I don't think they're perfect).

Mackler quote

QuoteTo be honest, I'm surprised my POV isn't more prevalent in libertarian communities.

Yeah, this has surprised me as well as Big Gov and "Big Medicine" are one in the same. It is quite hypocritical, to say the least, when a large number of folks here in this forum support this quackery called "modern medicine" aka allopathic medicine.

Kola     

I tell you what, I'll participate as well. I will take an anti-arthritic homeopathic concoction, dilute it to three times the recommended dosage (to make it more powerful  ;)) and see how it does for 30 days.

I am skeptical of doctors in the extreme. It took them five years to properly diagnose my arthritis. I have encountered more quacks with MD diplomas on the wall than I care to remember. But I don't have much respect for the alternative health community either, and frankly the ideas of homeopathy have always seemed so laughable that I never bothered to even attempt homeopathic remedies. This double study should establish homeopathy's efficacy or lack thereof.

Quote from: mackler on May 06, 2008, 08:26 PM NHFT
Hew Dylboz, I have a challenge for you:[/b]  You're so sure that homeopathy is ineffective, are you?  Let's try a scientific experiment.  Homeopathic theory says that the medicine that cures a symptom in a sick person will cause the symptom in a healthy person.  You deny this, correct?  You should also know that according to homeopathic theory, the more dilute the medicine, the more powerful it is.  You deny this as well, correct?  So let's get some very dilute homeopathic medicine.  Maybe something used to treat skin disorders.  You'll take one dose a day, and then after three months of this you'll come down to Murphy's Tap Room to show us how it's had no effect on you and I'll be publicly humiliated.  Wouldn't that be fun?  And as you claim, harmless.  What do you say?

If you all want another test subject I'm game, though I have to tell you I'm not interested in humiliating either one of you. Let me know.

George

I started a new blog just for the effort. No posts yet, but the address is:

http://homeopathy-is-quackery.blogspot.com/

Keep coming back for updates!

PS - Thanks for the karma dings, Mr. Homeopathy! I'll refrain from returning the favor(s).

When I think of alternative medicines, I think of things like using plants in their raw forms and things like that. It makes sense to be open-minded about it because that's how we derived a lot of modern medicines. Homeopathy, on the other hand, is so completely moronic and nonsensical that it ought to be dismissed out of hand. The degree of dilution that it calls for is so absurd that it actually becomes massively unlikely that even one molecule of the notorious substance remains. In other words- pure placebo effect.

I agree. I have trouble believing that any positive effect could come from diluting an active ingredient so much that it is virtually non-existent in the dose. From what I understand, the claim is that even if the last molecule of active ingredient were diluted out, that its essence still stays in the water. Doesn't sound feasible to me, but who knows.

George

QuoteI was driving down the Tri-State Highway outside of Chicago, Illinois in my brand new Corvette enjoying a beautiful sunny day.  Suddenly I felt an enormous ripping pain in my chest. I could barely breathe; the pain was excruciating.  I immediately pulled off to the side of the road.  My life virtually flashed before my eyes and I thought, "Oh my god I'm having a heart attack and I'm only twenty-one years Old!"

Just as quickly as the pain came, it vanished.  I was dizzy, disoriented, and in a state of shock and disbelief as to what had just happened.  I looked down and noticed my new car phone, and invention that had just come out in the Chicagoland area.  I picked up my phone, called my secretary, and said "I think I just had a heart attack."

Luckily for me, within a few moments I felt fine.  I concluded that if it was a heart attack, it certainly didn't cause any major damage.  But something was obviously wrong.

Over the next week I was examined by three of the top heart specialists in America.  Through use of the most advanced medical diagnostic devices, it was concluded after days of testing that I had been born with a deformed heart, a severe mitral valve prolapse which would cause me major medical problems the rest of my life.  The was no cure.

These top medical minds recommended experimental drugs or risky surgery, both of which I was told had little promise.  My life expectancy was to be very short.  I struggled with coming up with an effective plan of action that could solve my medical dilemma.  I was twenty-one years old and had my whole life in front of me.  I had to do something!

Months earlier I had attended a lecture where I heard about a Harvard medical doctor named Yiwen Y. Tang, founder of the Century Clinic in Reno, Nevada, who, during the Korean War, was a MASH surgeon. (Today the clinic is called Sierra Integrative Medical Center,)  This MD had decided that standard medical procedures, drugs, and surgery were not the best way to cure and prevent diseases.He instead was using a diagnostic device developed in Germany by a Dr. Reinhold Voll called the Dermatron machine.  Allegedly, in a matter of minutes, it could diagnose medical problems in the body.  When the diagnosis was complete, homeopathic remedies were given to correct the imbalances and reverse and cure the disease.

At the time it sounded like hocus-pocus.  The words homeostatis, holistic healing, homeopathic remedies, acupuncture meridians, energy frequencies, imbalances, and the like were used in the lecture, replacing what was, to me, the standard vernacular of germs, bacteria, viruses, drugs, surgery, and genetics.  Skeptical, yet open to new ideas, I flew to Reno, Nevada, to meet this great Dr. Tang.  What did I have to lose?

Upon my arrival, the doctor asked me why I was there.  I looked fit and healthy, and being so young, he was slightly puzzled by my desire for diagnosis.  Most of his patients were old and had severe medical problems.  Wanting to see if this Dermatron machine was legitimate, I simply said, "I feel great.  I just want a basic checkup."

Immediately he tested me with his magic machine.  Within two minutes he had touched my heart meridian with the probe and the machine registered very low energy.   The doctor looked at me, slightly concerned, and said, "Son you have a heart problem."  I was shocked at how quickly the diagnosis came.  Just as quickly he stated, "Let me find out where it is."

He began to touch other meridian points.   When he got to the mitral valve, the machine again registered very little energy.  He looked at me and said matter-of-factly, "You have a mitral valve prolapse."

Needless to say, I was quite impressed.  The expert medical doctors took days of diagnostic testing to determine that I had a severe mitral vave prolapse.  This "energy machine" diagnosed the problem within minutes.  I looked at the doctor and said, "Yes I know, and I understand it is incurable."  His response startled me.  "Yes, in American it's incurable, but there are natural treatments in other countries that can reverse this problem in a matter of weeks.  Unfortunately the FDA has not approved these treatments.  So, yes, in America it is incurable."  He then went on to explain a procedure of live cell injections--available in Switzerland or Mexico but not accessible via legal treatment in the United States--that would correct the problem by actually rebuilding the heart, ensuring that it would never return.

Quite frankly, I couldn't believe my ears.  Natural treatments that work that are not approved by the FDA? Impossible!

This event happened over twenty years ago.  The treatment I received was inexpensive, all-natural, painless, quick, and it worked!  And still to this day, that therapy is illegal in America.  The most amazing part of this story is, after I received the natural treatment that was forbidden in American, I went back to the medical doctors who originally diagnosed my heart problem and asked to be tested again.  My request was met with indignation. I was told that being tested again was a waste of time and money because it was impossible for the medical condition to change in two months.  Nevertheless, I demanded a readministering of all the tests anyway.  The doctors humored me and were stunned when they found I no longer had a mitral valve prolapse.

I was so excited to share with them information about the treatment I had received which had cured my problem.  Certainly these doctors would want to know about an all-natural medical treatment that could cure the incurable!  Imagine my shock when I was told that the treatment I received could not have cured my disease but, rather, I must have been misdiagnosed in the first place and never had the heart deformity to begin with.  I could not believe my ears!  These medical doctors would not accept the facts.  I had a sever mitral valve prolaspe--the pictures confirmed it; and now I do not have a mitral valve prolapse--the pictures confirm it.

I began to think of all the people that would come to these medical doctors and be told the bold-faced lie that their medical condition was incurable and could only be treated with drugs and surgery.  I sickened me to know that the truth about natural cures would be hidden from millions of patients.  The knowledge that the established medical community would deny the existence of natural cures, thus allowing millions of people to suffer and in many cases die, enraged me.

From Natural Cures "They" Don't Want You to Know About by Kevin Trudeau.

Quote from: Dylboz on May 06, 2008, 09:20 PM NHFT

Quote from: macklerHew Dylboz, I have a challenge for you:  You're so sure that homeopathy is ineffective, are you?  Let's try a scientific experiment.  Homeopathic theory says that the medicine that cures a symptom in a sick person will cause the symptom in a healthy person.  You deny this, correct?  You should also know that according to homeopathic theory, the more dilute the medicine, the more powerful it is.  You deny this as well, correct?  So let's get some very dilute homeopathic medicine.  Maybe something used to treat skin disorders.  You'll take one dose a day, and then after three months of this you'll come down to Murphy's Tap Room to show us how it's had no effect on you and I'll be publicly humiliated.  Wouldn't that be fun?  And as you claim, harmless.  What do you say?

Deal! I'm not afraid of water. But I don't live in NH. I'll take pictures, report it here and post pics. If I don't get sick, will you drop your silly homeopathy? I absolutely would love to show you this, like in person. I'll do it everyday at the same time. Hopefully, that will be adequate to your standards, it's the best I can do (now I really wish I lived in NH!).

While I appreciate your willingness to cooperate, I have to be honest that unless I see you taking the medicine I'll be dubious if you report no effects.

However, if taking your word for it is the best we can do, it's the best we can do.  It also sounds like we have a couple other volunteers, so we can have a little non-random sample.  Here's my proposal.

Sulphur 200C.  You can get it here at Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Boiron-Sulphur-200c-80-Pellets/dp/B00181J9T8/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=hpc&qid=1210169056&sr=1-2), or possibly at a local pharmacy or supplement store.  FYI, 200C means that it's been diluted at a ratio of 1:200, one hundred times.

If you're worried that might be too strong, you can go for the 1M strength (http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00181N9S0?smid=A1CQHAUGU9QGBS&tag=dealtime-hpc-20&linkCode=asn).  It's been diluted 1:1000, one hundred times.

The directions say 5 pellets three times a day, but I'll be satisfied with three pellets once per day.  Or if you're cheap, even one pellet a day.  My challenge is that you can get through three months of this.  If you're doing three pellets a day, that will be about three of these containers.  One a day would be about one container.

Take the dose at least half-an-hour away from any meal.  Keep in mind that some substances may antidote homeopathic remedies, so if you want to stay honest, you'll avoid these.  Primarily coffee, strong mints, camphor (eucalyptus like Vick's vapo-rub).  I understand that if you're a daily coffee drinker you're probably not going to give it up for three months just for this experiment.  If so, well, then that's the best we can do.  Different homeopaths have different opinions on the effect these substances have, but this page is generally representative (http://thevitalforce.net/pages/dos_donts.html) of common opinion.

I'm just telling you this, since you're taking the time to make a website about this experiment, presumably you're doing this for the benefit of people beyond this forum.  I can tell you that the first question that homeopathic supporters will ask if you report no effects will be whether you were exposing yourself to some antidoting substance.  If you explain that you were not, you will be that much more convincing.

Have fun, and keep me updated!


BTW Caleb, I appreciate your willingness to participate in this experiment, but sincerely, if you have arthritis, instead of trying to do something bad to yourself with the wrong remedy, why don't you see a qualified homeopath and take the correct remedy?  If you want to PM me and tell me where you live, I'll see if I can refer you to someone in your area.  That would be a more appropriate test of effectiveness, and less risky for you.


PS I haven't dinged your karma, Dylboz.  The only person whose karma I ding is Luke S, because he actually has harmed other people.  You don't lose karma in my book for disagreeing with me.

Wouldn't the 1M have a stronger effect than the 200C according to the dilution hypothesis?

Quote from: Dylboz on May 06, 2008, 01:03 PM NHFT
As for the alternatives, homeopathy is absurd, non-scientific and utterly useless. It has been discredited over and over and over again. But, since it's just essentially drinking water, it's not overtly harmful, unless substituted for real medicine. Imagining that 1 part per billion of some "opposite" chemical can stimulate resistance to disease is plain stupid. It is exactly as effective as the placebo in every study it's been used in.

I do not understand how someone who rejects modern Western medicines can possibly believe in homeopathy. It is modern Western medicine: It was invented (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy#18th-century_medicine) in the late eighteenth century by a scientist using scientific methods. And it has since been discredited, by other scientists using scientific methods. Accepting homeopathy means accepting the premises of modern Western medicine, but only applying them arbitrarily.

Quote from: kola on May 06, 2008, 09:49 PM NHFT
Mackler quote

QuoteTo be honest, I'm surprised my POV isn't more prevalent in libertarian communities.

Yeah, this has surprised me as well as Big Gov and "Big Medicine" are one in the same. It is quite hypocritical, to say the least, when a large number of folks here in this forum support this quackery called "modern medicine" aka allopathic medicine.

You continue to ignore the fact that the supporters of modern medicine on this forum agree with the position that "big government" and "big medicine" is a problem—the problem, in fact. What we don't do is conclude from that that the underlying science itself is illegitimate. This is only "hypocritical" in your mind because you're willfully refusing to understand the arguments we're making.

Quote from: John Edward Mercier on May 07, 2008, 10:53 AM NHFT
Wouldn't the 1M have a stronger effect than the 200C according to the dilution hypothesis?

shhhh!  let him take it.

Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on May 07, 2008, 11:47 AM NHFT

Quote from: Dylboz on May 06, 2008, 01:03 PM NHFT
As for the alternatives, homeopathy is absurd, non-scientific and utterly useless. It has been discredited over and over and over again. But, since it's just essentially drinking water, it's not overtly harmful, unless substituted for real medicine. Imagining that 1 part per billion of some "opposite" chemical can stimulate resistance to disease is plain stupid. It is exactly as effective as the placebo in every study it's been used in.

I do not understanding how someone who rejects modern Western medicines can possibly believe in homeopathy. It is modern Western medicine: It was invented (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy#18th-century_medicine) in the late eighteenth century by a scientist using scientific methods. And it has since been discredited, by other scientists using scientific methods. Accepting homeopathy means accepting the premises of modern Western medicine, but only applying them arbitrarily.

I don't know who you're directing that to.  I have never classified modalities by whether they're "western" or not.  Homeopathy is not allopathy, and allopathy is not homeopathy.  Accepting one does not necessitate accepting or rejecting the other.

And I don't know what you mean by "discredit."  Science doesn't discredit, it disproves, and homeopathy has never been disproven in a scientifically valid manner.

Quote from: mackler on May 07, 2008, 12:25 PM NHFT
... homeopathy has never been disproven in a scientifically valid manner.

It doesn't have to be. Those who assert homeopathy is true have the burden of proof placed upon them. And an awful lot of studies have been done; here's a nice summary:—

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy#Medical_and_scientific_analysis

Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on May 07, 2008, 12:52 PM NHFT

Quote from: mackler on May 07, 2008, 12:25 PM NHFT
... homeopathy has never been disproven in a scientifically valid manner.

It doesn't have to be. Those who assert homeopathy is true have the burden of proof placed upon them. And an awful lot of studies have been done; here's a nice summary:—

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy#Medical_and_scientific_analysis

The excerpt you link to says nothing except what others on this thread have said: "Homeopathy doesn't work because I cannot understand how it would be possible."  This is not science.  Science does not discount observations because the current theory doesn't predict them.  Science discards theories when they don't predict observations, and the theory that homeopathy doesn't work fails to explain the numerous studies where homeopathy has been shown to be effective (unsurprisingly not mentioned in the wikipedia article).  Detractors simply dismiss those studies, saying it's a placebo effect.  Okay, fine.  Anyone who thinks it's placebo can prove me wrong by taking my challenge: take sulphur 200C for 90 days and then come tell me it's a placebo.

And I'll repeat what I said before, wikipedia is anything but a reliable source of information on any controversial issue.  The articles say whatever the person with the most spare time wants them to say.

Mackler,

Why even bother with Jraxi? If he had it is way the pharm companies wouldnt have to even "attempt to "test" their products for safety and side effcts. They could just claim his ridiculous  assinine "theory of "innocent until proven guilty."
LOL!

Quote from: mackler on May 07, 2008, 01:13 PM NHFT

Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on May 07, 2008, 12:52 PM NHFT

Quote from: mackler on May 07, 2008, 12:25 PM NHFT
... homeopathy has never been disproven in a scientifically valid manner.

It doesn't have to be. Those who assert homeopathy is true have the burden of proof placed upon them. And an awful lot of studies have been done; here's a nice summary:—

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy#Medical_and_scientific_analysis

The excerpt you link to says nothing except what others on this thread have said: "Homeopathy doesn't work because I cannot understand how it would be possible."  This is not science.  Science does not discount observations because the current theory doesn't predict them.  Science discards theories when they don't predict observations, and the theory that homeopathy doesn't work fails to explain the numerous studies where homeopathy has been shown to be effective (unsurprisingly not mentioned in the wikipedia article).  Detractors simply dismiss those studies, saying it's a placebo effect.  Okay, fine. 

This is a mischaracterization of the placebo-effect rebuttal. People aren't dismissing a positive study after the fact by saying it was "actually just the placebo effect" or somesuch. Several studies have been done comparing the numbers of people being cured by homeopathic medicine to the number of people "being cured" by taking a placebo, and shown them to be the same. There are some studies that show homeopathy to be possibly effective, but they've had other problems that call them into question (see below).

Quote from: mackler on May 07, 2008, 01:13 PM NHFT
Anyone who thinks it's placebo can prove me wrong by taking my challenge: take sulphur 200C for 90 days and then come tell me it's a placebo.

That's called an anecdote, not scientific data. If one does do this, and is cured from whatever this sulphur 200C claims to cure, there is no way to tell if it was homeopathy in action, or the placebo effect.

Quote from: mackler on May 07, 2008, 01:13 PM NHFT
And I'll repeat what I said before, wikipedia is anything but a reliable source of information on any controversial issue.  The articles say whatever the person with the most spare time wants them to say.

You don't know how to use Wikipedia. For example:—

QuoteThe medical effectiveness of homeopathy has been a point of contention since its inception, and researchers have subjected the system to close scrutiny. One of the earliest studies concerning homeopathic medicine was sponsored by the British government during World War II in which volunteers tested the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies against diluted mustard gas burns.[126] More recent controlled clinical trials on homeopathy have shown poor results, showing slight-to-no differences between homeopathic remedies and placebo.[127]

"126" and "127" are references to other resources. #127 links to this (http://nccam.nih.gov/health/homeopathy/) which is excerpted from a National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine research report, which includes this section (http://nccam.nih.gov/health/homeopathy/#q8):—

Quote8. What has scientific research found out about whether homeopathy works?

This section summarizes results from (1) individual clinical trials (research studies in people) and (2) broad analyses of groups of clinical trials.

The results of individual, controlled clinical trials of homeopathy have been contradictory. In some trials, homeopathy appeared to be no more helpful than a placebo; in other studies, some benefits were seen that the researchers believed were greater than one would expect from a placebo.f Appendix I details findings from clinical trials.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses take a broader look at collections of a set of results from clinical trials.g Recent examples of these types of analyses are detailed in Appendix II. In sum, systematic reviews have not found homeopathy to be a definitively proven treatment for any medical condition. Two groups of authors listed in Appendix II found some positive evidence in the groups of studies they examined, and they did not find this evidence to be explainable completely as placebo effects (a third group found 1 out of 16 trials to have some added effect relative to placebo). Each author or group of authors criticized the quality of evidence in the studies. Examples of problems they noted include weaknesses in design and/or reporting, choice of measuring techniques, small numbers of participants, and difficulties in replicating results. A common theme in the reviews of homeopathy trials is that because of these problems and others, it is difficult or impossible to draw firm conclusions about whether homeopathy is effective for any single clinical condition.

f. A placebo is designed to resemble as much as possible the treatment being studied in a clinical trial, except that the placebo is inactive. An example of a placebo is a pill containing sugar instead of the drug or other substance being studied. By giving one group of participants a placebo and the other group the active treatment, the researchers can compare how the two groups respond and get a truer picture of the active treatment's effects. In recent years, the definition of placebo has been expanded to include other things that could have an effect on the results of health care, such as how a patient and a health care provider interact, how a patient feels about receiving the care, and what he or she expects to happen from the care.

g. In a systematic review, data from a set of studies on a particular question or topic are collected, analyzed, and critically reviewed. A meta-analysis uses statistical techniques to analyze results from individual studies.

Quote from: kola on May 07, 2008, 01:49 PM NHFT
Mackler,

Why even bother with Jraxi? If he had it is way the pharm companies wouldnt have to even "attempt to "test" their products for safety and side effcts. They could just claim his ridiculous  assinine "theory of "innocent until proven guilty."
LOL!

That's right—but that's because I don't believe the State has any business forcing the pharmaceutical manufacturers, or anyone else for that matter, to test their products. You do?

Quote from: kola on May 06, 2008, 09:49 PM NHFT

Quote from: MacklerTo be honest, I'm surprised my POV isn't more prevalent in libertarian communities.

Yeah, this has surprised me as well as Big Gov and "Big Medicine" are one in the same. It is quite hypocritical, to say the least, when a large number of folks here in this forum support this quackery called "modern medicine" aka allopathic medicine.

Sounds to me like you don't like Big Medicine, but you like Big Government just fine.

Quote from: John Edward Mercier on May 07, 2008, 10:53 AM NHFT
Wouldn't the 1M have a stronger effect than the 200C according to the dilution hypothesis?

Yes, the so-called "law of infinitesimals" means the less I take, the more effective it should be. If the "effective ingredient" in a relatively strong homeopathic remedy, say 30C, were 12 drops of liquid, like a pipette or the average eyedropper, there is not enough water in the known universe to get to that level of dilution. If we shrink that down to one atom, there is not enough water on earth to get there. This is a pre-atomic idea, and once atomic chemistry was understood, homeopaths invented "water memory" to get around it. See below:

Quote from: Ben Goldacre in "What's Wrong with Homeopathy
Many people confuse homeopathy with herbalism and do not realise just how far homeopathic remedies are diluted. The typical dilution is called "30C": this means that the original substance has been diluted by 1 drop in 100, 30 times. On the Society of Homeopaths site, in their "What is homeopathy?" section, they say that "30C contains less than 1 part per million of the original substance."

This is an understatement: a 30C homeopathic preparation is a dilution of 1 in 10030, or rather 1 in 1060, which means a 1 followed by 60 zeroes, or - let's be absolutely clear - a dilution of 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000.

To phrase that in the Society of Homeopaths' terms, we should say: "30C contains less than one part per million million million million million million million million million million of the original substance."

At a homeopathic dilution of 100C, which they sell routinely, and which homeopaths claim is even more powerful than 30C, the treating substance is diluted by more than the total number of atoms in the universe. Homeopathy was invented before we knew what atoms were, or how many there are, or how big they are. It has not changed its belief system in light of this information.

How can an almost infinitely dilute solution cure anything? Most homeopaths claim that water has "a memory". They are unclear what this would look like, and homeopaths' experiments claiming to demonstrate it are frequently bizarre. As a brief illustration, American magician and debunker James Randi has for many years had a $1m prize on offer for anyone who can demonstrate paranormal abilities. He has made it clear that this cheque would go to someone who can reliably distinguish a homeopathic dilution from water. His money remains unclaimed.

Many homeopaths also claim they can transmit homeopathic remedies over the internet, in CDs, down the telephone, through a computer, or in a piece of music. Peter Chappell, whose work will feature at a conference organised by the Society of Homeopaths next month, makes dramatic claims about his ability to solve the Aids epidemic using his own homeopathic pills called "PC Aids", and his specially encoded music. "Right now," he says, "Aids in Africa could be significantly ameliorated by a simple tune played on the radio."

(Emphasis added)

I repeat, homeopathy is absurd. Sulfur 200C has no sulfur in it. People don't understand how homeopathy works because it doesn't work. There is nothing to understand. When nothing happens to me, are you gonna cal me a liar, or blame coffee or Altoids? I mean, my blood pressure pills aren't invalidated by my diet, why is homeopathy? Could it be because you need an out to blame when water has no effect whatever?

jraxi, sound like you are clueless ...as usual. LOL

dlyan, I know very little about homeopathy and have never used it therefor i have no opinion on homeopathy at this time.

Quote from: kola on May 07, 2008, 01:59 PM NHFT
sound like you are clueless ...as usual. LOL

Clueless about what, exactly? What should I have a clue about? Do you not understand that dilution to homeopathic levels means that there is actually nothing in there? No detectable amount of the substance claimed? It's water, Kola. Just. Plain. Water.

Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on May 07, 2008, 01:51 PM NHFT

Quote from: mackler on May 07, 2008, 01:13 PM NHFT

Anyone who thinks it's placebo can prove me wrong by taking my challenge: take sulphur 200C for 90 days and then come tell me it's a placebo.

That's called an anecdote, not scientific data. If one does do this, and is cured from whatever this sulphur 200C claims to cure, there is no way to tell if it was homeopathy in action, or the placebo effect.

No no! What he claims is, if we DON'T have whatever Sulfur 200C claims to cure, WE WILL GET IT!!!! No easier way has ever existed to disprove that. I think it's supposed to cure baldness and skin rashes, so my hair should fall out and I should be covered in boils at the end of 3 months. When this DOESN'T HAPPEN, homeopathy is disproved. YAY! Join me, J'raxis!

Homeopathy Challenge (http://homeopathy-is-quackery.blogspot.com/)

Quote from: Dylboz on May 07, 2008, 01:58 PM NHFT
Yes, the so-called "law of infinitesimals" means the less I take, the more effective it should be. If the "effective ingredient" in a relatively strong homeopathic remedy, say 30C, were 12 drops of liquid, like a pipette or the average eyedropper, there is not enough water in the known universe to get to that level of dilution. If we shrink that down to one atom, there is not enough water on earth to get there. This is a pre-atomic idea, and once atomic chemistry was understood, homeopaths invented "water memory" to get around it. See below:

Indeed. This isn't a scientific argument against homeopathy (the subatomic memory theory could be true), but it calls into question the honesty of the proponents of an idea when they keep changing the theory behind it, simply in order to keep the idea alive.

Quote from: Dylboz on May 07, 2008, 02:08 PM NHFT

Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on May 07, 2008, 01:51 PM NHFT

Quote from: mackler on May 07, 2008, 01:13 PM NHFT

Anyone who thinks it's placebo can prove me wrong by taking my challenge: take sulphur 200C for 90 days and then come tell me it's a placebo.

That's called an anecdote, not scientific data. If one does do this, and is cured from whatever this sulphur 200C claims to cure, there is no way to tell if it was homeopathy in action, or the placebo effect.

No no! What he claims is, if we DON'T have whatever Sulfur 200C claims to cure, WE WILL GET IT!!!! No easier way has ever existed to disprove that. I think it's supposed to cure baldness and skin rashes, so my hair should fall out and I should be covered in boils at the end of 3 months. When this DOESN'T HAPPEN, homeopathy is disproved. YAY! Join me, J'raxis!

Homeopathy Challenge (http://homeopathy-is-quackery.blogspot.com/)

Looks like this stuff (http://www.elixirs.com/products.cfm?productcode=S69A) will cure damn near everything. It claims it'll even make your shit not stink.

Quote from: Dylboz on May 07, 2008, 02:03 PM NHFT

Quote from: kola on May 07, 2008, 01:59 PM NHFT
sound like you are clueless ...as usual. LOL

Clueless about what, exactly? What should I have a clue about? Do you not understand that dilution to homeopathic levels means that there is actually nothing in there? No detectable amount of the substance claimed? It's water, Kola. Just. Plain. Water.

I was speaking to J RAX. I know very little about homeopathy and at this point in my life I have no interest in it. The door is still open though. So Dylan, that goes against your past assumption you made about me where you think I blindly accept anything that is alternative, "just becuz". (i forget your exact wording).

Kola

Wow, if I take it and get all that shit, I'll be dead in 3 months! This is quite a test!

Quote from: mackler on May 07, 2008, 12:25 PM NHFT

Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on May 07, 2008, 11:47 AM NHFT

Quote from: Dylboz on May 06, 2008, 01:03 PM NHFT
As for the alternatives, homeopathy is absurd, non-scientific and utterly useless. It has been discredited over and over and over again. But, since it's just essentially drinking water, it's not overtly harmful, unless substituted for real medicine. Imagining that 1 part per billion of some "opposite" chemical can stimulate resistance to disease is plain stupid. It is exactly as effective as the placebo in every study it's been used in.

I do not understanding how someone who rejects modern Western medicines can possibly believe in homeopathy. It is modern Western medicine: It was invented (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy#18th-century_medicine) in the late eighteenth century by a scientist using scientific methods. And it has since been discredited, by other scientists using scientific methods. Accepting homeopathy means accepting the premises of modern Western medicine, but only applying them arbitrarily.

I don't know who you're directing that to.  I have never classified modalities by whether they're "western" or not.  Homeopathy is not allopathy, and allopathy is not homeopathy.  Accepting one does not necessitate accepting or rejecting the other.

Western medicine, modern medicine, and allopathic medicine are generally regarded as synonyms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allopathic_medicine), which, interestingly, would place homeopathy under the ægis of allopathy, since it was, when originally invented, a theory of modern medicine. Of course, since allopathy was a term invented by the founder of homeopathy to basically mean all of modern medicine except his invention, this makes Western medicine and modern medicine synonymous with what you mean by allopathy.

Quote from: Dylboz on May 07, 2008, 01:58 PM NHFT
When nothing happens to me, are you gonna cal me a liar, or blame coffee or Altoids?

I don't know.  Depends on how much coffee you drink.  Also depends on how many other people are participating in this experiment and what happens to them.  Like I said, if I don't actually see you taking it, then I don't really know if you took or not.

But listen, I understand that there's a very long list of extreme symptoms associated with this particular medicine.  If you want to back out of this experiment, I won't hold it against you.

Quote from: mackler on May 07, 2008, 05:04 PM NHFT

Quote from: Dylboz on May 07, 2008, 01:58 PM NHFT
When nothing happens to me, are you gonna cal me a liar, or blame coffee or Altoids?

I don't know.  Depends on how much coffee you drink.  Also depends on how many other people are participating in this experiment and what happens to them.  Like I said, if I don't actually see you taking it, then I don't really know if you took or not.

But listen, I understand that there's a very long list of extreme symptoms associated with this particular medicine.  If you want to back out of this experiment, I won't hold it against you.

Absolutely not. No way I'm backing out, I told you, it's just water. Even Homeopaths agree it's just water, but they say it has "memory." Water never hurt anyone. The pills are just lactose, milk sugar pills. I'm not lactose intolerant, so I'll be fine. There is no detectable amount of sulfur in these things (not that sulfur is toxic, it's in eggs and garlic, both of which I eat a lot of), either the water solution or the pills. I only hope that once this is over, you understand that these are placebos, and get your ass to a real doctor next time you're sick.

I'm in. I don't see anything harmful in taking a little sulphur, it occurs naturally in any number of foods and is something the body needs anyway. I'll let you all know when my supply arrives.

George

Dylan

Quote.......and get your ass to a real doctor next time you're sick.

ROFL!
Kola

Quote from: NJLiberty on May 07, 2008, 05:35 PM NHFT
I'm in. I don't see anything harmful in taking a little sulphur, it occurs naturally in any number of foods and is something the body needs anyway. I'll let you all know when my supply arrives.

George

But even the homeopaths agree, there is NO sulfur in there. Apparently only the "memory" of sulfur is enough to trigger the curative immune response, or, in our case, the opposite. We're really playing with fire here! :roll:

PM me and we can talk about how to include you in the blog if you want.

Dylboz,

Don't your scientists and REAL doctors acknowledge and accept the theory of "memory cells" in the human body?

Kola

I'm willing to take my chances with either trace amounts of sulphur, or the memory of trace amounts of sulphur. Either way I don't see how it could be harmful to a person.

George

Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on May 07, 2008, 01:57 PM NHFT

Quote from: kola on May 07, 2008, 01:49 PM NHFT
Mackler,

Why even bother with Jraxi? If he had it is way the pharm companies wouldnt have to even "attempt to "test" their products for safety and side effcts. They could just claim his ridiculous  assinine "theory of "innocent until proven guilty."
LOL!

That's right—but that's because I don't believe the State has any business forcing the pharmaceutical manufacturers, or anyone else for that matter, to test their products. You do?

Have to agree with J'rax

Quote from: kola on May 07, 2008, 05:48 PM NHFT
Don't your scientists and REAL doctors acknowledge and accept the theory of "memory cells" in the human body?

Are you saying that the "memory" function of water that homeopaths theorize exists is also the underlying mechanism by which human memory works? That's actually an interesting, and realistic, theory—but as of now there's still no evidence it's true. Scientists have been trying to figure out how human memory works for a long time now, and still don't know. Maybe this is a possibility.

Quote from: kola on May 07, 2008, 05:48 PM NHFT
Dylboz,

Don't your scientists and REAL doctors acknowledge and accept the theory of "memory cells" in the human body?

Kola

Is there a biological function that retains information? Why yes, but it can be seen. States change. Immunology is one phenomenon of that nature, wherein DNA is coded into antibodies, so the next time a virus with the same DNA comes along, the white blood cells will promptly dispatch it. This is the principal behind inoculation (common, effective practice used even by NA peoples, like sending your kids to play with the neighborhood Chicken Pox victim), and later vaccination. HIV continues to vex because it randomly reassembles it's DNA so often that those "memory cells" can't stay on top of it.

Homeopathy attributes a "memory" phenomenon to water, which is a 3 atom molecule that cannot change it's shape at the molecular level, but due to polarity will form crystals, but these crystals are never the same, hence the old snowflake story. Symmetrical, but never duplicated. In the end, even if it were possible, the fact is that the dilution renders the chances that any molecule in the solution actually came into contact with the so-called active ingredient absolutely nil. 1 with 60 zeros behind it is a whole lot of water molecules to bump into, let alone give your number to. There haven't been that many seconds in the life of the universe yet.

PS - Kola, why do you keep dinging my Karma when I never touch yours? Makes me wanna start smiting...

I will say it again. I know nothing about homeopathy nor do I have much of an interest, Jraxi.

Dylboz, I do not play karma games. (burp!)

otoh, the whole antibody theory is mysterious. Its quite a guessing game and when they "think" they figure something out it later changes and then they are "on to a new discovery".

There are some people who are exposed to a disease/bateria/virus and have symptoms, recover and never show a presence of the antibody. So titre tests are not reliable. Whether it is "proven" or not, memory cells are pretty much accepted by the mainstream medicine experts.(gag)

Kola

 

Quote from: mackler on May 07, 2008, 09:28 AM NHFT
BTW Caleb, I appreciate your willingness to participate in this experiment, but sincerely, if you have arthritis, instead of trying to do something bad to yourself with the wrong remedy, why don't you see a qualified homeopath and take the correct remedy?  If you want to PM me and tell me where you live, I'll see if I can refer you to someone in your area.  That would be a more appropriate test of effectiveness, and less risky for you.

Well, here's the thing, no offense or anything, but I'm putting odds on this helping me at about 1 in 150 billion. Not that I'm not open minded  ;) 

Trust me, I don't like "allopathic" doctors, and usually they don't like me. I have had a) stupid doctors (a rheumatologist who diagnosed me with fibromyalgia....I looked at him with a credulous stare, and said, "so ... how does that explain these joints swelling up), b) dishonest doctors (lying to me about the side effects of drugs,) c) arrogant doctors ("I'll put you on this" my response, "excuse me, you'll `put' me on it? Don't you mean you'll explain to me the pros and cons of taking the medication, and explain the reasons behind your recommendation?" - this from the same doctor who got mad at me because I had the nerve to switch myself from his god-awful prescription NSAID to a prescription dose over the counter NSAID that actually worked and didn't hurt my stomach)  d) a complete moron, "hey, good news, the lab tests came back and you're fine!" "Uh, if I was fine, I wouldn't have come to see your retarded ass, would I?" ok, I didn't actually say that one, but I thought it.  e) and a doctor who thought I needed to be a guinea pig for cancer medication, cause, "it'll knock out your immune system", I said, "great, but how about I just go out and get AIDS? That'll do the same thing, and it'll be more fun.")

I've also taken just about every "natural remedy" possible, not really seriously expecting them to work either, but just out of desperation.

The only thing that I have found that makes a difference is changing my diet. It doesn't "cure" it, but it makes the symptoms less.

I am not overly optimistic about any physician. If I had diabetes or something, I would take the insulin, or something like that where the difference between doing it and not doing it is death. But, for these chronic type stuff, I tend to think that the solution is usually worse than the problem.

Quote from: Kat Kanning on May 07, 2008, 06:49 PM NHFT

Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on May 07, 2008, 01:57 PM NHFT

Quote from: kola on May 07, 2008, 01:49 PM NHFT
Mackler,

Why even bother with Jraxi? If he had it is way the pharm companies wouldnt have to even "attempt to "test" their products for safety and side effcts. They could just claim his ridiculous  assinine "theory of "innocent until proven guilty."
LOL!

That's right—but that's because I don't believe the State has any business forcing the pharmaceutical manufacturers, or anyone else for that matter, to test their products. You do?

Have to agree with J'rax

I agree with J'raxis on this one too. If there's a market demand for studies, they'll be done.  The government requirements just drive up costs, prevent low-profit competition, and encourage dishonest reporting.

(http://img390.imageshack.us/img390/3698/003ly3.png)

i never said the gov should be involved.

Quote from: kola on May 07, 2008, 08:48 PM NHFT
i never said the gov should be involved.

Quote from: kola on May 07, 2008, 01:49 PM NHFT
Mackler,

Why even bother with Jraxi? If he had it is way the pharm companies wouldnt have to even "attempt to "test" their products for safety and side effcts. They could just claim his ridiculous  assinine "theory of "innocent until proven guilty."
LOL!

You're going to try to tell me you have a way to make them have to do testing without force?

Some Homeopaths use the same B.S. machine for diagnosis as $cientologists. The $cientologists call theirs the e-meter. It is exactly the same, though, as the skin galvanometers that Homeopaths use under various names. I did not know this, but I have many times gone after those cultists for their evil exploitation of innocents. Now I understand where L. Ron came up with that shit. He stole it (like he stole everything, somewhere), from the Homeopathic "doctors." See here:

Homeopathy: The Ultimate Fake (http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.html)

As to the title of this thread, well, of course real drugs are FAR more likely to kill, they actually HAVE active ingredients, as opposed to water or lactose.

On the experiment... are you going to use distilled water? I know my water already contains traces of several minerals.

Stephen Barrett??????

LMAO!!!!!!!

great source ::)

Kola

I'll take whatever homeopathy crap anyone wants me to take for however long they want me to take it if they pay for the medicine. I'm not going to pay however much some quack wants to charge for some placebo pills. I take daily medication so it'll be easy to just throw in one or two or three or 10 more pills to my daily routine. I'm not the slightest bit worried about water, or milk pills or whatever having any harmful effects on me. In fact, I'd prefer not to even know what the particular homeopathic medicine is supposed to treat. Don't even tell me. Take them out of the box so I can't read what it's supposed to "cure". That will give a more objective result.

If you want, I'll even take like a fourth of a tablet a day! (a 75% cost savings) OMG, that would be insanely dangerous! It's an even smaller amount of the ingredient. So like, if there's a pill to cure boils and I take a fourth of the recommended dose, then I should be exploding with boils by the end of the treatment!

I didn't realize there would be such interest in this.  I'll be in NH in time for PorcFest.  Maybe we can get together enough volunteers to do an actual double-blind study with a statistically valid sample size.

Quote from: kola on May 08, 2008, 08:21 AM NHFT
Stephen Barrett??????

LMAO!!!!!!!

great source ::)

Kola

Why, exactly? Has he gone after your herbal and NA practices too? He seems to be very well qualified, respected by his peers and the scientific community, as well as active in private activities to educate against fraudulent and unscientific health claims made by doctors and nutritional supplement manufacturers. He is exactly the sort of person that we would need in a future stateless society to evaluate the claims made by providers of remedies and treatment, especially if they do not do their own independent trials and research (remember? we're not forcing that on them anymore) to evaluate the efficacy of their products. Like Underwriters Laboratories for medicine. While it's clear that he has worked with the government as well, that is not his exclusive role, and he does private, chartable (donation supported) work almost exclusively, so I'm not about to discredit him as a FDA or Big Pharma stooge. Regardless, you are free to hold whatever opinion you like of him, but note that he also backs up all his assertions with original source material, so you can consult that and draw your own conclusions.

QuoteHe seems to be very well qualified, respected by his peers and the scientific community, as well as active in private activities to educate against fraudulent and unscientific health claims made by doctors and nutritional supplement manufacturers. He is exactly the sort of person that we would need in a future stateless society to evaluate the claims made by providers of remedies and treatment, especially if they do not do their own independent trials and research (remember? we're not forcing that on them anymore) to evaluate the efficacy of their products.

This really shows how much you  REALLY know. You seem like a bright guy. Why not find out who Barrett really is before you worship his "work". (gag). He has a very interesting track record.

Its pretty tough but I will try and stop laughing.

Kola

 

Quotebut note that he also backs up all his assertions with original source material, so you can consult that and draw your own conclusions.

Yes. He is famous for listing HIMSELF as the source. LOL!

This is too funny.

You probally should quit now. It's making you look ridiculous. Honestly.

Kola 

OK... And where would I start? There is a campaign by woo woo practitioners to libel the guy online, that much is clear. I'll look at whatever you recommend, but that wont say anything at all about all the sources he links to, which are also extensive, respectable and scientific. Chuckle away, bro. But if you think there's something I should see about the guy, link it. Otherwise... :roll:

Quote from: kola on May 08, 2008, 12:23 PM NHFT

Quotebut note that he also backs up all his assertions with original source material, so you can consult that and draw your own conclusions.

Yes. He is famous for listing HIMSELF as the source. LOL!

This is too funny.

You probally should quit now. It's making you look ridiculous. Honestly.

Kola 

Show me where, I have not seen it on his site. But look, even if I reject the guy outright, there are at least 3 articles with the exact same information and a whole host of sources I can list right now. In fact, here you go:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/nov/16/sciencenews.g2
http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/the-pseudoscience-behind-homeopathy.ars/
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000225.html

And this relates to our little "experiment":
http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-05/belgium.html

I will leave it up to YOU to find out the TRUTH about "NON doctor" Stevie-boy Barrett.

I am done jumping thorugh hoops.

Better yet, just keep using him as a reference. Its funny.

and btw... don't address your homeopathy comments to me. I told you several times I am not interested.

Kola

Quote from: kola on May 08, 2008, 12:37 PM NHFT
I will leave it up to YOU to find out the TRUTH about "NON doctor" Stevie-boy Barrett.

I am done jumping thorugh hoops.

Better yet, just keep using him as a reference. Its funny.

Kola

Show me the hoop. I haven't seen you jump, not once. It's cool, though. I'm used to that line. Every "Truther" does that same dance. They make a claim, you ask for evidence, they wont provide it. You make a claim, providing evidence, and they shoot the ad hominems at you AND your source.

World keeps on spinning, 'round and 'round.


Oh, wait.

Quote from: Kolaand btw... don't address your homeopathy comments to me. I told you several times I am not interested.

Dude, I was asking about the guy and showing you his information stacks up against anyone's as well as his sources. I was asking for evidence the guy was a charlatan, nothing to do with Homeopathy. He's dead on about Homeopathy, though, so why should I suspect he's a liar?

Well then keep using Quackwatch.com as your source of information.

Isn't that what all the top scientists and peer review reseachers use?

ROFL!

Quote from: kola on May 08, 2008, 12:50 PM NHFT
Well then keep using Quackwatch.com as your source of information.

Isn't that what all the top scientists and peer review reseachers use?

ROFL!

Just one of many. Many, many, many.

Quote from: Ben GoldacreIt's routine marketing practice for homeopaths to denigrate mainstream medicine. There's a simple commercial reason for this: survey data show that a disappointing experience with mainstream medicine is almost the only factor that regularly correlates with choosing alternative therapies.

OK, mackler, maybe you're not dumb, just manipulated by these cynical snake-oil salesmen who take advantage of your disappointment with real doctors (who, like any profession, vary widely in their skill, manner and personality). I'm sure there's a story about what happened, that sent you running into the arms of alternative "medicine." I'm curious.

So who is this kola guy, and why is he such an asshole?

Who are you?

I live in NY, and I'm thinking of moving, but I want to see what the people are like first.

Thanks, its....interesting so far

See, here's a fine example of what I worry about. If the neophyte or moderate libertarian looks into the FSP and finds a hotbed of New Age woo woo conspiracy theorist paranoid pseudoscientific religious nonsense, it's gonna turn them off. That's why I say that "Truthers," CT's of all stripes, alternative medicine advocates, religious fundamentalists, bomb throwing anarchists and the like hurt the liberty movement, at least in terms of our appeal to potential fellow travelers and well-wishing mainstreamers, let alone new recruits, for lack of a better term. I understand that those well outside of the mainstream, especially those who may have found their lifestyle persecuted or even violently opposed by the police state, are attracted to a movement that puts the use of force against hem firmly off the table. Obviously, freedom for all means freedom for them to do the things they're not now free to do, provided they're voluntary and the don't hurt anyone.

Nonetheless, when we put that face on it, we wind up in the world of caricature and identity politics that so thoroughly defines the ruling class party duopoly. Democrats are not known for their stand on principle, rather they are known as seeking to forcibly redistribute wealth and subsidize environmentalism, dubious though the science may be, as well as forcing the total acceptance (not the same as tolerance) of gay marriage and radical feminist "equality" and affirmative action for minorities. Republicans are dead set against personal freedom, all for jails, police, the military and empire, and they wish to subsidize religion and force gays back in the closet. Political parties are known coalitions of special interests, vying for power to force their values on others and punish all resistance. Sometimes, they break into factions, as can be seen now in the Democratic primaries.

The Libertarian Party used to be "the party of principle." It's going through it's own meltdown, mainly because it has abandoned that principle to pursue agendas and specific policy goals, and worst of all, to court politicos from D.C. despite their obvious statist bent. I think we would all do well to focus on the principle of freedom as an end in itself, something to be valued and fought for because it is right, and true and good. Not as a means to and end, like unfettered access to marijuana or prostitutes or machine guns or multiple wives or gay marriage. These things are great for those who value them, but they need to placed in the context of freedom for all, and true tolerance doesn't mean encouragement, acceptance or endorsement, it means allowing others to do even what you find abhorrent, so long as it is peaceful and voluntary, in order that you may do as you see fit yourself. You are free to condemn it in your speech and to argue against it on your own property or that of others who allow you to, to refuse to associate with or allow onto your property those who practice it, we know ostracism is a powerful tool, but you must not gather you neighbors with pitchforks to act violently against those who do something you don't like, tolerance need only mean refraining from the initiation of violence against others.

In fact, that is really the only principle one needs. The Zero Aggression Principle. I will confess, sometimes it's hard to follow through, as it leads to conclusions that seems pretty scary sometimes. But it's what we got, and we ought to use it. I think we'll be happier with who we find in our movement, since we can see that identity politics and special interests and single issue crusaders make for some pretty fractious coalitions, and very little loyalty when push actually comes to shove. Do you think many working class union Democrats would come out to an End the Drug War rally organized by radical students and medical marijuana patients? How many SUV Republicans with yellow ribbons are really behind the Bush bailout for house flippers? Even Rush had a hard time taking the party line on the bloated Farm Bill, knowing as he does how hard Americans are being hit by inflation and the high cost of ethanol subsidies, while "conservatives' are supposed to be against taxes and big government. These people are not united by principle, but expediency, hoping that if they hold their nose and go along with a little corporate welfare and U.N. adventurism, they'll get to keep their guns, or if they don't push too hard on the marijuana thing, they'll get free healthcare for life. Of course, playing both sides against the middle, the big corporations, as much government institutions as the FBI or NASA, always win.

When we stick to the principle, without compromise, the question "what are the people like" answers itself. We are for freedom. Always. We oppose the initiation of force. Always. And welcome to our movement.

Quote from: Dylboz on May 08, 2008, 04:46 PM NHFT
See, here's a fine example of what I worry about. If the neophyte or moderate libertarian looks into the FSP and finds a hotbed of New Age woo woo conspiracy theorist paranoid pseudoscientific religious nonsense, it's gonna turn them off. That's why I say that "Truthers," CT's of all stripes, alternative medicine advocates, religious fundamentalists, bomb throwing anarchists and the like hurt the liberty movement, at least in terms of our appeal to potential fellow travelers and well-wishing mainstreamers, let alone new recruits, for lack of a better term.

If that's the way you feel, maybe you shouldn't hang out with us.

Why? Didn't you read the rest of that? I think it far more important that we share the common goal of liberty than we agree on any of that crap. I have said before that I'd like to fancy myself the calm voice of reason, though I am given to outbursts and errors as much as anyone. The point is, if we are united by the principles of freedom and non-aggression, then we share more than an interest in controlled demolitions or dilution solutions. I think it's very important we put that FIRST instead of the other agendas, at least when talking to people who are new to the movement or interested in the FSP.

Very well said, Dylboz. Instead of each of us pushing our own divisive pet agendas, it would behoove all of us to stay focused on what brought us together in the first place: Our mutual goal of freedom for all.

We may disagree on methodology, but the central focus should always be freedom. Petty bickering over how people ought to behave and what people ought to believe, when it does not relate to the central issue of individual liberty, is divisive and runs counter to our goal.

Yeah, I mean, I love to argue and debate and whatnot (obviously!), but I want us to remember what we value most, even in spite of our differences. I think where it is most important is in dealing with those who seek to understand what we're about, why we're doing this whole "move to New Hampshire" thing at all. The first thing out of our mouth shouldn't be "I wanna be free to smoke weed all day," or "I want the man to get off my case about my machine guns," but rather "freedom, first, last and always." Ya' know?

Absolutely.

Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on May 07, 2008, 01:51 PM NHFT
"126" and "127" are references to other resources. #127 links to this (http://nccam.nih.gov/health/homeopathy/) which is excerpted from a National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine research report, which includes this section (http://nccam.nih.gov/health/homeopathy/#q8):—

Quote8. What has scientific research found out about whether homeopathy works?

This section summarizes results from (1) individual clinical trials (research studies in people) and (2) broad analyses of groups of clinical trials.

The results of individual, controlled clinical trials of homeopathy have been contradictory. In some trials, homeopathy appeared to be no more helpful than a placebo; in other studies, some benefits were seen that the researchers believed were greater than one would expect from a placebo.f Appendix I details findings from clinical trials.

I don't think you took a very close look at Appendix I.  These so-called "contradictory" results were overwhelmingly supportive of of homeopathy.  Of the nine clinical trials presented as representative, eight showed either the effectiveness of a homeopathic remedy or a difference from a placebo, or both.  The reproduced findings include:

• A homeopathic remedy appears safe and effective in reducing the duration of influenza.
• "differences between the homeopathic immunotherapy and placebo for which we have no explanation" were noted (Randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled)
• a homeopathic skin cream, may significantly reduce the severity and length of pain and inflammation of the tissues lining the inside of the mouth (Randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled)
• a "significant objective improvement in nasal airflow" compared with the placebo group found in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis (Randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled)
• "homeopathic treatments improved digestive problems in children with acute childhood diarrhea." (Randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled)
• For the treatment of hay fever, a homeopathic nasal spray is as efficient and well tolerated as a conventional therapy (Randomized, double-blinded)
• A group of patients with HIV receiving homeopathic treatment had increased levels of CD4 cells; the placebo subgroup did not (Randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled)
• A homeopathic treatment and the standard treatment are equally effective in reducing the frequency, duration, and intensity of vertigo attacks (Randomized, double-blinded)

I'll caution that comes from a publication of the Federal Mafia, so I'm not saying I believe it, but if your point was to show that homeopathy has been disproven, that document does nothing of the sort.

I'll repeat myself.  The so-called "scientific" argument against homeopathy boils down to nothing more than "I cannot understand it, therefore it's not possible."  This is the same logic used by "scientists" who claimed until just a couple years ago that bees cannot fly (http://www.livescience.com/animals/060110_bee_fight.html).

The idea that there has been some scientific research conclusively showing homeopathy to be ineffective is simply not true, and it doesn't matter how many times detractors repeat "it's absurd! It's absurd! It's absurd!"  That's not scientific evidence.  Sorry.

There is NO scientific evidence that supports Homeopathy. It is not scientific. There is no mechanism, no means, no model, no way it can work. It doesn't work, except, like all sugar pills, as a placebo. Homeopaths agree, they are selling sugar pills and water. I REPEAT, THEY ADMIT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE CONTENT OF THEIR REMEDIES AND SUGAR PILL OR WATER PLACEBOS. They argue that it's the way they rap them on the table, or the sound waves they expose them to that make them "remember" the "active ingredient" or the number of dilutions that make them more effective. Why don't all water molecules retain the memory of urine, or rain, or Kool-Aid or raw sewage, or beer, or any number of other things they're likely to have been in solution with? If dilution makes thing MORE powerful, and medicine need not contain ANY ingredients besides water, and water retains memory, why doesn't tap water contain every therapeutic factor ever in its memory? If dilution to a degree that equals every water molecule in the known universe is sufficient to communicate some value to the consumer, than every glass of water should have some Homeopathic effect!

No matter how many times you say "it works! it works! it works!" it does not make it work. It remains absurd. What you have is a belief. There is no evidence whatever to support that belief. It angers me, yes, angers me, that in spite of that fact, you continue to assert that there is some validity to it. Frankly, if you just came out and said, "it only works if you believe in it," or "it is a religious belief I have," I'd drop the whole thing. But your insistence that it is something more than a lucky rabbit's foot or 4 leaf clover in pill or liquid form demands refutation. I'm ordering the very item you recommended, but how it differs in any way from the other item listed on my blog, when both have ZERO sulfur in them, and the suppliers would agree, is a mystery. Why, I ask, doesn't every water molecule retain the memory of every other atom or molecule it's ever come in contact with, or since Homeopaths deny they even need to come in actual contact, and the entire earth is essentially a hydrostatic (a closed circuit, no new water gets in, and none gets out) system, why isn't plain water the most therapeutically effective substance known to man? It should have the memory of everything that ever existed going back to the beginning of the universe, right? It should be thoroughly diluted, making EXTRA effective, right? Or banging it on the table fixes that? Shaking it, maybe? Come on, man! Get over it!

I challenge you to read and refute this article without abandoning the scientific method entirely.

Diluting the Scientific Method (http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/the-pseudoscience-behind-homeopathy.ars)

You are claiming the world is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, and that the stork delivers babies by magic, all rolled into one. This is a pre-molecular chemistry, pre-DNA, pre-germ theory, pre-atom, pre-clinical trial belief system, and it could be understood, and perhaps even forgiven, in a pre-industrial peasant, scratching a living out of a dirt patch and entertaining all manner of superstitions, but the fact is, living in the modern age and tapping away at the internet, you ought to know better. You really have no excuse in entertaining these delusions. But again, read the article. Challenge the science. Find a study of Homeopathy that undermines the conclusions.

Honestly, I feel sorry for you. You're being snowed. Taken. Hosed. Ripped off. Your desire to believe, and the fact that you're willing to reject facts in evidence are both being exploited at your considerable expense. It wont really matter until such time as you have a serious illness that requires professional intervention. I really hope it never comes to that, or at least, if it does, that you don't kill yourself by insisting on sugar pills and water instead of legitimate treatment. Whatever you may think of me, I really don't want your ignorance to bring you harm or an early end. Superstition is everyone's enemy, especially those who cling to it. Well, unless they're burning witches, then it's the "witches" who suffer... You may think I'm some evil Torquemada, but I am merely an enemy of the pseudo-science you promote, not you personally.

Quote from: mackler on May 08, 2008, 09:33 PM NHFT
The so-called "scientific" argument against homeopathy boils down to nothing more than "I cannot understand it, therefore it's not possible." 

Yours is, "it cannot be explained, and it doesn't work any more often than chance or placebo, therefore, it is not only possible, it works."

What is happening? When there is a difference from placebo, is it statistically significant? Is it persistent? Reproducible? Is there a mechanism? Well... No... N. O. No.

You might as well posit Tinkerbelle can cure the common cold.

WAIT!!!

You know how your challenge tells me that I'll get all the terrible things that the 200C Sulfur stuff you recommended will cure if I don't already have them? Well, what about someone who has only one or two of the symptoms? Do they have to trade off the cure for those and expect the curse of all the others? Or does the "cure" KNOW how to target the symptoms that the patients want to cure, but not CAUSE all the rest? What is the mechanism if that is the case? Magic? Positive thinking? Voodoo?

Quote from: Kat Kanning on May 08, 2008, 04:49 PM NHFT

Quote from: Dylboz on May 08, 2008, 04:46 PM NHFT
See, here's a fine example of what I worry about. If the neophyte or moderate libertarian looks into the FSP and finds a hotbed of New Age woo woo conspiracy theorist paranoid pseudoscientific religious nonsense, it's gonna turn them off. That's why I say that "Truthers," CT's of all stripes, alternative medicine advocates, religious fundamentalists, bomb throwing anarchists and the like hurt the liberty movement, at least in terms of our appeal to potential fellow travelers and well-wishing mainstreamers, let alone new recruits, for lack of a better term.

If that's the way you feel, maybe you shouldn't hang out with us.

Quote from: Dylboz on May 08, 2008, 04:53 PM NHFT
Why? Didn't you read the rest of that?

I have to say, the rest of Dylboz's post (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=12741.msg240614#msg240614) is definitely a must-read, especially if you think the first paragraph sums up his position. It most definitely doesn't.

Thanks! I'm glad someone actually read the whole thing!

It was an excellent rant. Very well stated.

Quote from: Dylboz on May 08, 2008, 11:19 PM NHFT
There is NO scientific evidence that supports Homeopathy. It is not scientific. There is no mechanism, no means, no model, no way it can work.

LOL.  Yeah, no scientific evidence, Dylboz, except the eight studies referred in the report posted by J'raxis.  And other studies not mentioned there.  I'd take the time to post them if I thought you were capable of comprehending scientific literature.  It's easy for you to say there's no evidence when you selectively ignore anything that doesn't support your religious dogma.

Poor Dylboz, he doesn't believe bees can fly, either.

Keep popping those pills, champ, and telling me how I'm the one getting ripped-off.  How much do those cost you anyway?

Quote from: mackler on May 09, 2008, 12:40 PM NHFT

Quote from: Dylboz on May 08, 2008, 11:19 PM NHFT
There is NO scientific evidence that supports Homeopathy. It is not scientific. There is no mechanism, no means, no model, no way it can work.

LOL.  Yeah, no scientific evidence, Dylboz, except the eight studies referred in the report posted by J'raxis.  And other studies not mentioned there.  I'd take the time to post them if I thought you were capable of comprehending scientific literature.  It's easy for you to say there's no evidence when you selectively ignore anything that doesn't support your religious dogma.

Poor Dylboz, he doesn't believe bees can fly, either.

Keep popping those pills, champ, and telling me how I'm the one getting ripped-off.  How much do those cost you anyway?

NO, sir. I have read the scientific literature, and what it says is, when the studies are properly designed and randomized, the effectiveness of Homeopathy falls to the same level as placebo. And, besides, there is no mechanism by which they could work, since they contain nothing but water and/or sugar, a fact which Homeopaths freely admit. So, what you are trying to say, is that there is something about tapping a bottle, or shaking it or playing a tune that imparts the specific "memory" you want while erasing all the other memories you don't want.

THAT is religious dogma. It's a ritual, like voodoo or human sacrifice, or Holy Water. Chanting, rapping, shaking. Rituals, not medicine. The pills I pay for actually have active ingredients that have therapeutic value. I can see their effects, feel them, they can be measured by physical changes in my body. There is no difference between the water coming out of the tap and the water in a Homeopathic remedy. If I did not tell you which was which, you could not differentiate them.

So, I ask you to read the Ars Technica article. Or don't.

Two questions:

1. Since Homeopathic remedies treat a tremendously wide range of symptoms, and you insist that if you don't have a symptom, and you take the remedy for that symptom, the remedy will CREATE that symptom (the aforementioned challenge), by what mechanism does Homeopathy select only those symptoms the patient wishes to treat while not creating the rest? Or, does a patient simply have the side effect of creating all the other symptoms? I mean, either it causes them or it doesn't, right?

2. Since water retains a memory of substances it has come in contact with, even at dilutions equivalent to one atom to 1, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000 (yes folks, one with 60 zeros, requiring a container 30 times larger than the planet earth) water molecules, than why does ALL water not have Homeopathic effect? If it does not, then how do Homeopaths impart that memory to the water, or rather, how do they erase the memory so they can impart only what they wish to. This is the table rapping bit, right?

...

And, as to the bee thing, you've got it precisely backwards. You are the one who thinks that bees can't fly. Clearly, they can, and those scientists could see them do it, just like anyone else. What they couldn't do was explain exactly how, based on their knowledge. They did not say "preposterous! They cannot fly, that is an illusion! A hallucination!" They said, "let's figure out how they do it, and why we don't understand it yet." They kept going until they did that. You, on the other hand, start with the conclusion "Homeopathy works," and when you can't explain why, or how, you stop, because if you tried to figure out how it works and why you don't understand it, you know damn well you'd find out that it DOES NOT work, and there is NO mechanism, water cannot retain a memory of anything, neither can sugar, it is just what it is, so you say "preposterous! You're a liar! They do work, and I don't care that no one can offer a rational explanation, or that Homeopaths admit there is nothing in their remedies but water and sugar!" You're assuming a conclusion and stopping there, despite the obvious facts that contradict the conclusion.

You say you're more concerned THAT it works than WHY, but without a WHY, it CANN NOT work, there is no THAT! See? You are paying for, and advocating a psychological phenomenon, well known as the placebo effect. The studies you pointed to were designed in such a way as to select for the positives, and to allow the placebo effect to creep into them. They have been rightly criticized for poor design. When they have been re-run, their results could not be duplicated. When new double blind, fully randomized, large scale trials have been done with the same Homeopathic remedies, the results are the same for both the placebo and the Homeopathic remedy, which shouldn't surprise anyone, because they have the exact same ingredients!

Homeopaths acknowledge that they are selling water and sugar pills. They admit their remedies do not include ANY of the "active ingredient" from the so-called "mother tincture." Shaking a bottle or rapping it on the table does not make water into medicine. Dropping that water onto some sugar pills does not transform them into effective treatments. That is what Homeopaths do, though. They do not hide these facts. So, either you say "it works!" and stop there with the understanding that it is a leap of faith, a religious superstition, or you look into how and why, posit a mechanism and test it, and when you come up empty, admit it.

I'm already putting my body where my mouth is, by testing your claim that I should cause myself illness with Homeopathic pills. At least have the guts to investigate how what you believe in actually works. Don't just say "IT WORKS!" Tell me how. How does water remember things? How about sugar? How does that memory effect me when I take those pills? How is it imparted to my cells or the water in my body? How does it know which symptoms I want to treat? Why does diluting something make it stronger? By what physical law? How does rapping on a table, vigorous shaking or playing music change the fundamental properties of water? These are the questions that need answering, and these are the questions Homeopaths can not answer, will not answer, and just like the $cientoligists, they start calling people bigots, or close-minded, or dogmatic, or whatever, as a cover for the fact that there is NO good answer.

It's a scam.

Quote from: mackler
I'll repeat myself.  The so-called "scientific" argument against homeopathy boils down to nothing more than "I cannot understand it, therefore it's not possible."  This is the same logic used by "scientists" who claimed until just a couple years ago that bees cannot fly (http://www.livescience.com/animals/060110_bee_fight.html).

The so-called evidence for Homeopathy is, "here are some flimsy and poorly controlled studies that show a slight improvement over placebo, but we cannot explain why, and if there really is an effect, what it is or by what mechanism it operates, but it must be doing something." Yet, even those flimsy studies turn out to be inconclusive, and the meta-analysis, taken together, shows that even the tentatively positive initial results were ultimatley wrong:

Quote from: Wikipedia - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy)Meta-analyses, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis) which analyse large groups of studies and draw conclusions based on the results as a whole, have been used to evaluate the effectiveness of homeopathy. Early meta-analyses investigating homeopathic remedies showed slightly positive results among the studies examined, but such studies have warned that it was impossible to draw firm conclusions due to low methodological quality and difficulty in controlling for publication bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias) in the studies reviewed.[128][12][13] One of the positive meta-analyses, by Linde, et al,[13] was later corrected by the authors, who wrote:

QuoteThe evidence of bias [in homeopathic trials] weakens the findings of our original meta-analysis. Since we completed our literature search in 1995, a considerable number of new homeopathy trials have been published. The fact that a number of the new high-quality trials... have negative results, and a recent update of our review for the most "original" subtype of homeopathy (classical or individualized homeopathy), seem to confirm the finding that more rigorous trials have less-promising results. It seems, therefore, likely that our meta-analysis at least overestimated the effects of homeopathic treatments.[129][15]

A recent meta-analysis of clinical trials on the effectiveness of homeopathy has shown that earlier clinical trials showed signs of major weakness in methodology and reporting, and that homeopathy trials were less randomized and reported less on dropouts than other types of trials.[12]

(emphasis added)

Quote from: macklerThe idea that there has been some scientific research conclusively showing homeopathy to be ineffective is simply not true, and it doesn't matter how many times detractors repeat "it's absurd! It's absurd! It's absurd!"  That's not scientific evidence.  Sorry.

It doesn't matter how many times you insist that it works, if you can't duplicate the effects, and you can't show how it works or by what mechanism, that's not science, and it's not evidence. "Life force" and "miasmas" and "energy patterns" are the stuff of fairy-tales, not medicine. You might as well promote bloodletting or exorcism as alternative medicine. How are your humors lately? What's your sign?

Its quite possible that it has to do with the actual consumption of water and avoidance of certain substances, rather than any mineral content or other component.

Several cultures induce sweating to help purify the body...

This water is dosed in mere drops. Not enough to make you sweat.

Quote from: Dylboz on May 09, 2008, 02:01 PM NHFT
And, besides, there is no mechanism by which they could work, since they contain nothing but water and/or sugar, a fact which Homeopaths freely admit.

Regardless of all the other pseudoscience flying around in this thread, mackler is right that this isn't the right approach. The so-called "memory" could be a currently undiscovered mechanism. And that's usually how science works: An observation is made that doesn't fit with the current theories, and so the theories have to be updated. We don't yet have a thorough understanding of how things work on the molecular or atomic level, and when you get down to the quantum level, we've barely scratched the surface. The theory that water and substances dissolved therein interact in some manner on the quantum level that allows water to "remember" their presence is certainly possible.

The open question is whether or not this purported feature of water has even been observed in the first place.

Homeopaths exploit the ignorance of quantum mechanics to attribute validity to their "memory" theory. But there are no observable effects to attribute a mechanism to! And besides, there is no way of understanding quantum physics that includes persistent information retention, for even fractions of a second. In fact, even a passing familiarity with quantum mechanics and the incredibly short times that particles exist at that level invalidates any kind of "memory" lasting long enough to impart effectiveness to Homeopathic remedies.

Please, J'raxis, read the Ars Technica article, especially the section on Homeopathy's attempts to co-opt quantum physics.

Quote from: Dylboz on May 09, 2008, 02:01 PM NHFT
NO, sir. I have read the scientific literature, and what it says is, etc.

(http://smileydatabase.com/s/520.gif)

ROTFL!  Yes, you've cited a lot of scientific literature, Dylboz.  We've got a webpage on a Federal Gubmit website, Quackwatch, some pop-journalistic hit-pieces, and--oh yeah--that pillar of scientific rigor, Cecil Adam's "Straight Dope" column, no doubt peer-reviewed by the finest tabloid-columnists in the country.(http://smileydatabase.com/s/528.gif)Please stop..you're killing me!  I don't think you would know scientific literature if your State-employed father-in-law dropped a stack of it onto your lap with an attached note of explanation.

Here, for the benefit of the open-minded readers of this thread, is what's known in the industry as "debunking of pseudo-scientific myths."

Dylboz myth: homeopathic remedies are chemically indistinguishable from placebo
Status: FALSE
Evidence:
A study was performed by a team of five researchers from the University of Arizona led by Iris Bell, MD, from the Departments of Medicine and Surgery, and including Dr. Audrey Brooks of the Center for Frontier Medicine in Biofield Science, and Dr. Gary Schwartz of the Departments of Medicine, Surgery, and Neurology.  The researchers compared 30C potencies of four different homeopathic remedies and two control substances (not homeopathic remedies) by using a computerized biophysical method, gas discharge visualization (GDV), to compare the six samples.  Not only did the the procedure differentiate between the remedies and the control substances, but also between the different remedies.  The study design was blinded and randomized.
Source: Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, vol 9 (2000), #1, pp 25-38, 

Dylboz myth: experimental homeopathic effects are not reproducable
Status: FALSE
Evidence:
A team of four researchers from the University of Glasgow set about to see if effects reported in not one but two previous studies of homeopathic treatment of asthma as compared with placebo would reappear if tested again.  Trial design was random and double-blinded. Results of the previous two studies were reproduced, with immunotherapeutic differences appearing between the homeopathic and placebo groups within one week of beginning treatment and lasting up to eight weeks.
Futher, a meta-analysis of this and the previous two studies showed a 99.96% likelihood that the differences between the homeopathic and placebo groups was not due to chance.
Source: Lancet, vol. 344 (1994) pp 1601-1606.

Dylboz myth: meta-analyses do not convincingly show the effectiveness of homeopathy
Status: FALSE
Evidence:
Three researchers from the Department of Epidemiology and Health Care Research, University of Limburg, Maastricht, assessed 107 controlled trials of homeopathy in humans from 96 published reports with distinction made for methodological quality.  The results showed a positive trend regardless of the quality of the trial.  Of the 105 trials with interpretable results 77% indicated positive effects of homoeopathy.
Source: British Medical Jounal vol 302 (1991) pp. 316–323
Four researchers considered 89 published double-blind and/or randomised placebo-controlled trials of homeopathic remedies.  The combined odds ratio for the main meta-analysis was 95% in favor of homeopathy.
Source: Lancet, vol 350 (1997) pp. 834-43.

And I could go on, and on, and on.  I would be here all night if I typed in all the scientific evidence that Dylboz's talking points are no more scientifically valid than voodoo.  In fact I think I could create a whole snopes.com-style website just to debunk all the myths he's perpetuating here.

Now I'm not saying homeopathy is right for every person in every situation.  But when you say there's absolutely nothing to it you reveal a stunning degree of ignorance...assuming you're sincere.  For your sake, Dylboz, I hope you're a troll, because it would seriously suck to be as ignorant as you would have to be to believe what you're saying.

All those articles have links, dude. To the studies. The scientific literature. So does the wiki. I can click through more than one link, OK? It's not that hard. And if there is nothing to the "pop-journalism hit pieces," read 'em, you got nothing to fear, especially the Ars Technica one. As to your post, if they discovered something in the 30C remedies (at the UA, my alma mater no less), OK, but that's supposed to be the WEAKEST by your standard, and even Homeopaths admit that the 100C and 200C, supposedly the STRONGEST remedies (because they are the most dilute), are not likely, and in fact do not, contain anything distinguishable from water or sugar. I'm going to look at the actual difference in these studies, too, because I'll bet it's minute, and not statistically significant. The meta analysis you posted suffers from selection bias, because it's just 2 studies. The one I referred to was the largest sample, and I think it's conclusions are therefore more reliable.

Look, answer the 2 questions (I'll re-post them below). You can scream all day, "IT WORKS!" But you have nothing but faith to go on. Even the scant positive evidence you have is very weak and shows only a tiny difference over placebo, if any. You don't know HOW it works, and NO ONE has a convincing model that can explain it. Without that, Homeopathy is just Woo Woo magical thinking, bro. I am not ignorant, or a troll. You are promoting a 19th century pseudoscience as if it were a legitimate alternative to modern medicine. I feel genuinely sorry for you, because you are wasting your time and money on a superstition instead of actual medical care.

Quote from: DylbozTwo questions:

1. Since Homeopathic remedies treat a tremendously wide range of symptoms, and you insist that if you don't have a symptom, and you take the remedy for that symptom, the remedy will CREATE that symptom (the aforementioned challenge), by what mechanism does Homeopathy select only those symptoms the patient wishes to treat while not creating the rest? Or, does a patient simply have the side effect of creating all the other symptoms? I mean, either it causes them or it doesn't, right?

2. Since water retains a memory of substances it has come in contact with, even at dilutions equivalent to one atom to 1, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000 (yes folks, one with 60 zeros, requiring a container 30 times larger than the planet earth) water molecules, than why does ALL water not have Homeopathic effect? If it does not, then how do Homeopaths impart that memory to the water, or rather, how do they erase the memory so they can impart only what they wish to. This is the table rapping bit, right?

Let me just add, if these things actually did work, the government and Big Business would be all over them, and you guys know it. They leave it alone because they regard it as harmless. Salvia is a fine example. Ephedra another. Anything that actually does anything, they regulate. They want a piece of the action. There is no action here, it's a fringe group of true believers, and that's all. Homeopaths have had nearly 200 years to prove to anyone's satisfaction that they're superior to "allopathic" doctors, and when they were tested in the marketplace, they failed. They couldn't compete with the demonstrable success of germ theory, pharmacology and surgery. It's convenient to blame the pharmaceuticals industry and the AMA now, but these were not around 200 years ago, and in their infancy in a totally unregulated market environment 100 years ago, precisely the time when most Homeopathic schools were closing for lack of students and consumer demand. It was brought back from the brink by a generation of ex-hippies looking for alternatives and natural remedies, despite it's lack of efficacy and evidentiary support. I only hope that in the free market, should we ever get one, it remains on the fringe, though the history of charlatans, snake oil salesmen and patent medicines doesn't bode well. Caveat emptor.

Quote from: Dylboz on May 10, 2008, 10:04 AM NHFT
Let me just add, if these things actually did work, the mafia and Big Business would be all over them, and you guys know it. They leave it alone because they regard it as harmless. Salvia is a fine example. Ephedra another. Anything that actually does anything, they regulate. They want a piece of the action. There is no action here, it's a fringe group of true believers, and that's all. Homeopaths have had nearly 200 years to prove to anyone's satisfaction that they're superior to "allopathic" doctors, and when they were tested in the marketplace, they failed. They couldn't compete with the demonstrable success of germ theory, pharmacology and surgery. It's convenient to blame the pharmaceuticals industry and the AMA now, but these were not around 200 years ago, and in their infancy in a totally unregulated market environment 100 years ago, precisely the time when most Homeopathic schools were closing for lack of students and consumer demand. It was brought back from the brink by a generation of ex-hippies looking for alternatives and natural remedies, despite it's lack of efficacy and evidentiary support. I only hope that in the free market, should we ever get one, it remains on the fringe, though the history of charlatans, snake oil salesmen and patent medicines doesn't bode well. Caveat emptor.

Not necessarily. They might just ban it outright. The most effective pain reliever I have ever tried is pot. The government isn't jumping head over heels to regulate it, they just say I can't have it.

So far in my anecdotal study, the homeopathic arthritis remedy seems to be most effective when combined with 500mg of naproxen.  :)  Taken alone, it seems so far to be mostly ineffective. I might be taking it too frequently, and should reduce the number of doses to increase potency?

I want to add a little bit to the discussion here, because dylboz said this:

QuoteYou don't know HOW it works, and NO ONE has a convincing model that can explain it. Without that, Homeopathy is just Woo Woo magical thinking, bro

There needs to be an understanding of the philosophical differences between an argument and an explanation. An argument is a statement that something is. Whereas an explanation states how it is.  It is perfectly valid to have an argument without an explanation. In other words, the explanation would be "I do not know".  Invalidating an explanation does not philosophically do any harm to the argument.  To say that every argument must be accompanied by a valid explanation is a philosophical blunder.

Banning is regulation. The black market is profitable for the state. Very profitable.

Quote from: Dylboz on May 09, 2008, 08:22 PM NHFT
This water is dosed in mere drops. Not enough to make you sweat.

My understanding was the sulfur was to be taken will a glass or more of water.
We rid ourselves of water in other ways also ;D.

If you remove the impossible and improbable... all that left is the probable.
Or in this case... the water.

You know how Homeopaths say the LESS of the "active" ingredient there is in the remedy, the MORE powerful it is? Well...

Did you hear about the Homeopathy patient who forgot to take his pills?

He died of an overdose.


;D ::) ;D ::) ;D ::) ;D ::) ;D ::) ;D ::) ;D ::) ;D ::) ;D ::)

Fun quotes...


"I drank a homeopathic remedy. I urinated and flushed. Soon the remedy will spread throughout the world, becoming ever more powerful as it becomes more diluted." - Timothy Gorski, MD

"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.

Quote from: Dylboz on May 10, 2008, 07:01 PM NHFT
Fun quotes...


"I drank a homeopathic remedy. I urinated and flushed. Soon the remedy will spread throughout the world, becoming ever more powerful as it becomes more diluted." - Timothy Gorski, MD

"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.

When you have no scientific evidence to support your position, snappy quotes will just have to do.

Answer the questions, Mr. Science.

Quote from: mackler on May 10, 2008, 07:15 PM NHFT

When you have no scientific evidence to support your position, snappy quotes will just have to do.

I think it's pretty obvious who has science on their side and who doesn't, chuckles. You're hilarious! ;D

QuoteWhen you have no scientific evidence to support your position, snappy quotes will just have to do.

Yeah Mack, this is how the kids "play". It is really a waste. Notice how they completely ignore your 3 peer reveiwed studies which btw are quite impressive. But If you do not post research, they criticize you for not doing so. When you do post them they usually say they are unacceptable (by their opinion only) or just ignore them and continue to throw more questions at you. OR their classic line that you are "regurgitating" copy and paste articles. Good luck babysitting them.  :)

Kola

Notice how Kola ignored the many, many more studies liked to the articles I posted, because he's either too lazy or too dishonest to actually click past the first link. Those "studies" of mackler's are only impressive to those who don't read them. The "snappy" quotes are funny, because they reflect the truth of Homeopathy.

MACKLER, ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!!!

Consumer Reports has an article on homeopathic remedies...

You mean the 1975 review that showed it's bunk, the 1987 review that showed it's bunk, the 1994 review that showed it's bunk, the 1995 review that showed it's bunk, or the 2008 review that showed it's bunk?

The newest one. But the article was more focused on the shelving positioning of retailers.

Quote from: Dylboz on May 09, 2008, 11:06 PM NHFT
But there are no observable effects to attribute a mechanism to!

This is what I was getting at with this:—

QuoteThe open question is whether or not this purported feature of water has even been observed in the first place.

Quote from: Dylboz on May 09, 2008, 11:06 PM NHFT
Homeopaths exploit the ignorance of quantum mechanics to attribute validity to their "memory" theory.  ... And besides, there is no way of understanding quantum physics that includes persistent information retention, for even fractions of a second. In fact, even a passing familiarity with quantum mechanics and the incredibly short times that particles exist at that level invalidates any kind of "memory" lasting long enough to impart effectiveness to Homeopathic remedies.

Maybe. Provided that something actually be observed, I'm not going to conclude that it's impossible based on the fact that it doesn't fit with the current theories and models.

But in the case of homeopathy, I tend to find the whole thing non-credible on account of the human element—that is, the fact that the theory keeps changing as if someone's just trying to come up with increasingly harder-to-defeat theories for that specific reason. It makes me think of the arguments I used to get into with religious people, how their definition of God will keep changing to stay one step ahead of whatever rebuttals you come up with.

Yes, the language is very similar, and when finally pinned down, those who use and those who "practice" Homeopathy ultimately admit that it is faith based. They don't know how it works, and they really don't care. They believe it does, and that is enough, even when its effectiveness is only measured by coincidence with symptoms abating, and no faster than if one had done nothing at all. It satisfies their desire to "do something" while allowing the body's immune system to take it's natural course. That's all well and good for a cold, but very dangerous for cancer, birth defects or progressive infections or neurological illnesses, to name a few treatable but potentially deadly diseases that Homeopathy purports to "cure."

I wish someone would split off the homeopathy debate  ::)

Quote from: Kat Kanning on May 13, 2008, 08:52 PM NHFT
I wish someone would split off the homeopathy debate  ::)

This thread IS the Homeopathy debate.