• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ethics of Posting

Prester my sweet - I think you best change that tone honey or our love affair will be over - know who I am now????
Believe me Prester I think the homeopaths know better than most just how "real" the people we see are.

I don't ever tell people I can "cure" them - it's illegal for one to use any terms that refer to cure or prescriprion or diagnosis.


Rolfe - I actually didn't come here to debate - I came becaus your Geni in the bottle made some comments that weren't factual and I know you guys appreciate sticking to the facts. I'm afraid if you want to drag me into a heated debate where I get smacked around by you all then you'll be disappointed. If you'd liek to hear my story however - I'd be glad to share, but I simply ain't interested in having eggs thrown at me. I know, I am a big party pooper.

I know you guys get infuriated when homeopaths bring up the topic of "allopathic" (yeah I know you hate that word) healthcare and it's problems. The thing is for the vast majority of us the ineffectiveness and dangerous aspect of allopathic medicine is what brought us to homeopathy. One beget the other. That's why it is relevent to the discussion. Because we are "real" people who were treated allopathically and were suffering.

YOu know what though. If you guys were interested in being effective in your desire to rid the world of evil homeopathy there is a way to do it and really pestering the boards with a handful of homeopaths isn't the way. See if allopathic care had a better cure rate and a better safety rate then people wouldn't turn to the alternatives. It is that simple. they come for alternatives because they HAD to because they needed an alternative - because allopathy failed. So devote the time and energy into better, safer, allopathic meds and procedures and your little problem is solved.
 
Phil63: See if allopathic care had a better cure rate and a better safety rate then people wouldn't turn to the alternatives.
Click to expand...
Except homeopathy has not properly demonstrated that it has any cure rate at all. Penicillin, for example, has a cure rate far better than any homeopathic remedy. Because homeopathy is a fraud.
 
Phil63 said:
I don't ever tell people I can "cure" them - it's illegal for one to use any terms that refer to cure or prescriprion or diagnosis.

We know but you are impressivly good at susgesting these words with out atcherly using them.

Rolfe - I actually didn't come here to debate - I came becaus your Geni in the bottle made some comments that weren't factual and I know you guys appreciate sticking to the facts. I'm afraid if you want to drag me into a heated debate where I get smacked around by you all then you'll be disappointed. If you'd liek to hear my story however - I'd be glad to share, but I simply ain't interested in having eggs thrown at me. I know, I am a big party pooper.

Your first statment is this thread was a complaint about a statment by Rolfe which was a fair summing up with some insulting spinn attached. Your first post on this board was in the wanna vote thread where you complained about the language being used about homeopaths. Which of these posts are you refuring to because in neither case does someone appear to have made a factural error

I know you guys get infuriated when homeopaths bring up the topic of "allopathic" (yeah I know you hate that word)

This might be because we know what it means and how bad a description it is.

healthcare and it's problems. The thing is for the vast majority of us the ineffectiveness and dangerous aspect of allopathic medicine is what brought us to homeopathy. One beget the other. That's why it is relevent to the discussion. Because we are "real" people who were treated allopathically and were suffering.

If you ever get apendecities you have a choice. Conventional medcine or a pretty good chance of dieing. Chose. As for your assment of conventional medcine looking over at hpathy there are a few of you who have tried to claim the HIV does not cause AIDS I feel that this shows that your ability to judge anything to do with homeopathic medcine (and before you try to claim that this is not the view of all homeopaths perhaps you would care to explane why not one homeopath has spoken in favor of the link)

YOu know what though. If you guys were interested in being effective in your desire to rid the world of evil homeopathy there is a way to do it and really pestering the boards with a handful of homeopaths isn't the way.

I suspect that many of us would be lying if we said that we restict our activities to the internet.

See if allopathic care had a better cure rate and a better safety rate then people wouldn't turn to the alternatives. It is that simple. they come for alternatives because they HAD to because they needed an alternative - because allopathy failed. So devote the time and energy into better, safer, allopathic meds and procedures and your little problem is solved.

Real medcine can show that it can have real effects beyond the placebo effect homeopathy can't do this. Therefore real medcine has already shown that it is better thatn homeopathy. Real medcine has destoryed on enitre desease. yes thanks to real medcine small pox is a thing of the past. If you lot don't suceed in stoping it real medecine will destory another (polio) when if that is failer then you guys are off the wrong end of the scale.
Click to expand...
 
xouper dear - did you miss my point?? Is penicillian effective against certain bacteria - YUP it shure is - is it without risk - nope it ain't. Would I take it if I had a serious/life-threatening bacterial infection - YUP, would I also take a remedy - YUP.

However - not all diseases can be treated with a simple antibiotic - when I refer to those of us who turned to homeopathy I am not talking about someone who had a strep infection and couldn't get a prescription for an antibiotic. I am talking about those of us with chronic, incurable illness. We are the ones that need an alternative because allopathy has little to nothing to offer. I hope you never experience a MD telling you that you have a chronic illness and then takes you on a decade long rollar coaster ride of side effects and no results - those of us who have experienced that needed an alternative.
 
Geni - I am not all of the people at hpathy - if you talk with me you need not bring up what other homeopaths do because I am not them. I believe HIV leads to AIDS and you too seem to miss my point. In fact - can you digest my messege without disecting it first?? And what on earth do you know about me being "impressively good" at inferring I will cure my patients?? Are you psychic too?

Appendictis - yes, surgery is good fairly safe bet. As I said to xouper, what about the chronic diseases??? By the way - I was just reading off of a traditional medical site and they refer to themselves as allopaths.
 
Phil63 said:
xouper dear - did you miss my point?? Is penicillian effective against certain bacteria - YUP it shure is - is it without risk - nope it ain't. Would I take it if I had a serious/life-threatening bacterial infection - YUP, would I also take a remedy - YUP.

However - not all diseases can be treated with a simple antibiotic - when I refer to those of us who turned to homeopathy I am not talking about someone who had a strep infection and couldn't get a prescription for an antibiotic. I am talking about those of us with chronic, incurable illness. We are the ones that need an alternative because allopathy has little to nothing to offer. I hope you never experience a MD telling you that you have a chronic illness and then takes you on a decade long rollar coaster ride of side effects and no results - those of us who have experienced that needed an alternative.
Click to expand...

Typical Homeopathic Weasel comment: don't defend homeopathy on its own grounds, but attack mainstream medicine in an attempt to deflect the discussion.

If something is incurable, it is incurable. One would think with the longer history homeopathy enjoys, it would have established a better foothold in the progress of human history. Instead, it falls back on the same things it has fallen back on for centuries: "it says it works and I've seen it." It has never been shown to cure the incurable. Mainstream medicine will do its best, but it will recognize its limits and offer facts, not false hope. Homeopathy is so subjective practioners can't even offer hard facts about it. The body does have a self-healing mechanism, but neither mainstream med nor homeopathy can take credit for any success it has. Mainstream med can recognize that. Homeopathy I am not so sure.
 
Phil63 said:

YOu know what though. If you guys were interested in being effective in your desire to rid the world of evil homeopathy there is a way to do it and really pestering the boards with a handful of homeopaths isn't the way. See if allopathic care had a better cure rate and a better safety rate then people wouldn't turn to the alternatives. It is that simple. they come for alternatives because they HAD to because they needed an alternative - because allopathy failed. So devote the time and energy into better, safer, allopathic meds and procedures and your little problem is solved.
Click to expand...

You're right about one thing, people tend to turn to alternatives due to desperation and/or ignorance. The fact is, alternatives - especially homeopathy, have nothing to offer but false hope. For some people, sadly, that is enough. We have no problem "getting rid of homeopaths". The simple truth is, if it actually worked, it would have been mainstream medicine decades if not a century ago.
 
Typical Homeopathic Weasel comment: don't defend homeopathy on its own grounds, but attack mainstream medicine in an attempt to deflect the discussion.
Click to expand...

weasel comment? Are you guys cabpable of not resorting to that? By the way, why is bringing up a point that I think is relevent to a point I was making, um and I was most certainly NOT attacking allopathy at all, sheesh, considered deflecting? I said I don't know why homeopathy works and I said I believe it does - I think no one will give a rats behind why I think it does work because my reasons are not considered valid and I agreed that the studies are lacking in quality and quantity. I was unaware that I was only allowed to post if it was scientific in nature to defend homeopathy. And again - who are you to say I have to defend homeopathy on any grounds?? Just to make it very clear - I do not think allopathy is EVIL or BAD - I think it has major limitations and major side effects and aside from the bacterial infections and some cancers it has a poor cure rate in diseases. Do I think it has it's place? Yes. Do I think we need better - yes . Are these unreasonable comments?
 
Phil63 said:


weasel comment? Are you guys cabpable of not resorting to that? By the way, why is bringing up a point that I think is relevent to a point I was making, um and I was most certainly NOT attacking allopathy at all, sheesh, considered deflecting? I said I don't know why homeopathy works and I said I believe it does - I think no one will give a rats behind why I think it does work because my reasons are not considered valid and I agreed that the studies are lacking in quality and quantity. I was unaware that I was only allowed to post if it was scientific in nature to defend homeopathy. And again - who are you to say I have to defend homeopathy on any grounds?? Just to make it very clear - I do not think allopathy is EVIL or BAD - I think it has major limitations and major side effects and aside from the bacterial infections and some cancers it has a poor cure rate in diseases. Do I think it has it's place? Yes. Do I think we need better - yes . Are these unreasonable comments?
Click to expand...

Claims require proof. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You make claims, and you agree there is no proof. You keep stating it works somehow. Who am I to say you are required to defend homeopathy? I am a person who does not believe in homeopathy or its claims. You are someone who said it works. As you made the claim, it is your duty to back it up. Your defensive tone does not dismiss you from the requirements that everyone here is held to.

So, you think mainstream medicine is limited. I agree. It also knows its limitations, it is constantly learning its harms and limitations. It assesses and learns. Homeopathy does not do that; whether by choice or lack of evidence.

Better is needed, and better is being worked on in mainstream meds. Hope, or false hope is no better, but it seems homeopathy requires it.
 
So I can't have a belief based on my own experience and my interpretation of that experience without having to defend it to someone I have never met and someone who thinks I am a weasel? Please. I have every right to believe in the effectiveness of homeopathy based on my experience. I give "science" the same credence you guys do. I have been on the recieving end of drugs that had been approved for my condition based on the scientific studies - until people started dying and whoops we need to take it off the market. Science in my opinion is no better than experience - you can disagree - you can say I am a loon, heck you guys have already said worse.

In fact let me ask a genuine question. I am a patient with a chronic incurable disease. Itis debilitating. I was diagnosed a decade ago and spent about 7 years seeing MD's, specialists, etc and being put on one drug after the other with NO amelioration of my symptoms. Some of the drugs caused severe side effects, others had mild side effects but none helped the condition AT ALL. I lost a baby from one of the medicines because it had been considered safe during pregnancy - until that study changed and they decided that the drug was lethal to an unborn fetus. I never questioned my doctors (several) and I was a very dutiful patient - always doing what I was told. This went on for so so long. If you haven't suffered a debilitating illness you just can't sympathize with the frusteration adn utter hopelessness of the situation. Finally - after 7 years I gave up, sick and tired of it all. I began searching for alternatives and found chiropractic. I went to the chiropractor for a year with no results, although I did develop a back pain that only subsided after I stopped treatment. I saw an accupunturist twice with no results and I hated that. I tried herbal medicines, stuff from the health food store and the internet - still no results. One day, while searching for information on an herbal product I came across a homeopathy site and was intrigued. I started looking into what it was and it took awhile but I finally decided to go for treatment. I was so amazed at the results I scrapped my previous professional plans and decided to become a homeopath. After a recent evaluation by my specialist he said my results were so good he can't really say if I still qualify as havign the diseas anymore. He told me "whatever it is you are doing - keep doing it."

SO here is my question - I consider the turning point of the story when I stopped allopathic treatment - what would you have had me do? How would you guys have rewritten this story? Would I still be at the doctors, a guinea pig for different meds? continuing to suffer from side effects (some of which were pretty serious?)
Seriously, how do you, the scientists, the skeptics, change this story???? You guys think I am an idiot for believing in homeopathy - I look back at those 7 wasted years and think I am an idiot for believing in allopathy for my condition for so long.

Further - how can I not believe in homeopathy? If you lived my story - how could you not? Because the studies disagree - well, I say screw the studies. I have my life back and it was the studies that had me sick from meds that did nothing. It was the studies that took the life of my first child. Yeah - screw the damn studies, to me they mean nothing. Defensive about homeopathy, wouldn't you be???

So skeptic friends That is why I believe in homeopathy. Is my "cure" a coincidence???? I am willing to say it is possible though a pretty darn good one if it is. Have I seen a bunch of these coincidences?? Yes.

Instead of focusing on studies that are difficult to do concerning homeopathic treatment due to the nature of homeopathy and that there are 3000 remedies and the right one must be chosen on an individual basis and this can take a long time depending ont he pratcitioner - I would find it interesting to examone the records of homeopaths who have "cured" incurable diseases and see if the cures can be verified by diagnostic tests and see if the homeopathic cures are greater than spontaneous cures for the same diseases.

The End
 
Originally posted by Phil63 So I can't have a belief based on my own experience and my interpretation of that experience without having to defend it to someone I have never met and someone who thinks I am a weasel? Please. I have every right to believe in the effectiveness of homeopathy based on my experience. I give "science" the same credence you guys do. I have been on the recieving end of drugs that had been approved for my condition based on the scientific studies - until people started dying and whoops we need to take it off the market. Science in my opinion is no better than experience - you can disagree - you can say I am a loon, heck you guys have already said worse.
Click to expand...
Yes, I believe you are weaseling. And now you're playing the "persecution" card. First you say you give science the same credence as a skeptic, and then you proceed to trash that very system you claimed to give credence to. You totally ignore the fact that science is the first to admit it's not perfect, and the fact the system is self correcting given time.

In fact let me ask a genuine question. (snipped). I never questioned my doctors (several) and I was a very dutiful patient - always doing what I was told. (snipped) After a recent evaluation by my specialist he said my results were so good he can't really say if I still qualify as havign the diseas anymore. He told me "whatever it is you are doing - keep doing it."
Click to expand...

Chronic disease, no improvement, and you never asked questions? You never asked questions? Never? And you suffered for years, never asking questions? And what specialist are you talking about, now that you've quit MD practices?

SO here is my question - I consider the turning point of the story when I stopped allopathic treatment - what would you have had me do? How would you guys have rewritten this story? Would I still be at the doctors, a guinea pig for different meds? continuing to suffer from side effects (some of which were pretty serious?)
Seriously, how do you, the scientists, the skeptics, change this story???? You guys think I am an idiot for believing in homeopathy - I look back at those 7 wasted years and think I am an idiot for believing in allopathy for my condition for so long.
Click to expand...
You're not an idiot. You're an adult; you make your own choices. And it was your own choice to trust your own eyes and experiences. But then, you're asking skeptics to trust your own eyes and experiences, as well. That will not happen.

Further - how can I not believe in homeopathy? If you lived my story - how could you not? Because the studies disagree - well, I say screw the studies. I have my life back and it was the studies that had me sick from meds that did nothing. It was the studies that took the life of my first child. Yeah - screw the damn studies, to me they mean nothing. Defensive about homeopathy, wouldn't you be???
Click to expand...
Well, I will admit, your story is sad. However, you think you're the only one who suffers from or suffered from a chronic disease? You think you're convincing anyone with your sad story of illness and being in pain and losing children? You are once again using personal experience to back up a belief you can't verify scientifcally. That is, once again, your choice, but it does not help your assertions when trying to talk about the benefits of homeopathy.

(snipped)

Instead of focusing on studies that are difficult to do concerning homeopathic treatment due to the nature of homeopathy and that there are 3000 remedies and the right one must be chosen on an individual basis and this can take a long time depending ont he pratcitioner - I would find it interesting to examone the records of homeopaths who have "cured" incurable diseases and see if the cures can be verified by diagnostic tests and see if the homeopathic cures are greater than spontaneous cures for the same diseases.

The End
Click to expand...
Right then. Go to it. Go show how it helps in the way you say it does.
 
Phil63 said:

So skeptic friends That is why I believe in homeopathy. Is my "cure" a coincidence???? I am willing to say it is possible though a pretty darn good one if it is. Have I seen a bunch of these coincidences?? Yes.

Click to expand...

Two possibilities: either it was a coincidence, or, more likely, you are simply a liar and a fake, phony and a fraud... just like gold. Or are you one and the same? These cock-and-bull stories are tiresome.
 
Phil63 said:
Geni - I am not all of the people at hpathy - if you talk with me you need not bring up what other homeopaths do because I am not them. I believe HIV leads to AIDS and you too seem to miss my point. In fact - can you digest my messege without disecting it first?? And what on earth do you know about me being "impressively good" at inferring I will cure my patients?? Are you psychic too?
Click to expand...

And yet you claimed to know what was going on in the ezine thread. Try getting your story straingt.
 
Phil63 said:

In fact let me ask a genuine question. I am a patient with a chronic incurable disease. Itis debilitating. I was diagnosed a decade ago
Click to expand...

You gave us a lot of detail but not the diagnosis so it's very hard to know what to think about your story. For some reason you chose to give us a load of personal detail but not the most important single fact to put the rest in any context. As an example. Let's guess the disease was MS, then we could all understand that it is a disease where remissions do occur, conclude that coincidental remission was quite likely and wish you luck with it in the future. The point is that you must ask yourself why you are here giving this testimony, the reason is that you improved while on treatment. What we don't hear from are the potentially vast majority caryingthe same diagnosis who did not improve. It's the implicit existence of that majority which makes coinsidence more likely. This is to make the same error as a lotter winner who asks "Why did I win?" instead of just being happy that they did.

The other interesting issue you raise is your non-response to several other alternative medical modalities, yet each makes claims to be a complete cure. Did you ever ask whether you would now be an acupuncturist if your improvement had occurred coincidental with your acupuncture treatment? This human tendency to latch onto the miracle cure that you feel you can place your faith in is understanable but not necessarily correct.
 
Badly Shaved Monkey has made some good points, that i can not improve on.

In a vain attempt to draw the thread back to its original intent, a futher ethical problem is how do you approach people who evidently believe in a system (such as but not limited to homeopathy), and appear genuiine in that belief. I would suggest that Phil has strong personal reasons for this belief, even if more objectivly these reasons may be flawed scientifically. People do not operate by reason alone (some at all :) )

Maybe there are two sides, firstly if Phil believes that homeopathy has improved a condition that modern medicine has been unable to touch, then as a user of the system perhaps they deserve respect for that belief, much like i would respect someones religous belief, even tho' i think it misguided.

However the sellers of homeopathy, those who claim that it can cure people are a different matter. They should be held accountable and be required to provide proof, evidence of their claims. This is not unreasonable. Indeed i would suggest that for themselves they should look into this and not just decry scientific method as non applicable.

Hoping my poor prose makes some sense

PJ

PS We were doomed from the start Phil!
 
Prester John said:
Maybe there are two sides, firstly if Phil believes that homeopathy has improved a condition that modern medicine has been unable to touch, then as a user of the system perhaps they deserve respect for that belief, much like i would respect someones religous belief, even tho' i think it misguided.

However the sellers of homeopathy, those who claim that it can cure people are a different matter. They should be held accountable and be required to provide proof, evidence of their claims. This is not unreasonable. Indeed i would suggest that for themselves they should look into this and not just decry scientific method as non applicable.
Click to expand...
Phil seems to be a she. Maybe a "Whispersoft Blonde #10" sort of she? :D

Didn't somebody describe this group of homoeopathy proponents as the "Lottery Winners Club"? Anyone listening just to their stories would get a totally unrealistic impression of the probability of a sudden and unexpected cure following homoeopathioc treatment.

Unexpected, even dramatically unexpected recoveries happen from time to time. There is a tendency to attribute the recovery to whatever the patient was taking at the time. In isolation, these stories sound absolutely compelling, and if you have a big enough pool of patients to select from, you'll always be able to find a fair number. But it's only when you put them beside the mass of run-of-the-mill stories of no benefit that you begin to get the perspective.

It's no good coming up with one or even a dozen selected testimonials. What any therapeutic claim needs is evidence that people treated that way are more likely to do well than people who didn't get the remedy. This is where homoeopathy falls flat on its face time and time again.

But Phil isn't just a lucky lottery winner and homoeopathy groupie. She says that she has "scrapped (her) previous professional plans and decided to become a homeopath." She's not just flying the flag as the provider of testimonials, she's practising. So it would seem that she's covered by Prester John's remark:
However the sellers of homeopathy, those who claim that it can cure people are a different matter. They should be held accountable and be required to provide proof, evidence of their claims.
Click to expand...
I can sympathise with the "cured" and grateful patient, but like Prester John, I think practitioners have to be held to a higher standard.

Am I the only one who finds the sig line attached to the post I linked to above to be deeply ironic? One of the most classic examples of cognitive dissonance known to science actually defines the term for our edification!

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
Unexpected, even dramatically unexpected recoveries happen from time to time. There is a tendency to attribute the recovery to whatever the patient was taking at the time. In isolation, these stories sound absolutely compelling, and if you have a big enough pool of patients to select from, you'll always be able to find a fair number. But it's only when you put them beside the mass of run-of-the-mill stories of no benefit that you begin to get the perspective.
Click to expand...

So why is this mounths mirical cure in the ezine a headache cure?
 
I've seen deader. On that one the last post wasonly 11 days ago.

No mods though. Perhaps we could advterise it a forum wfor people who think MUNU is too highly moded.
 
Yes, I believe you are weaseling. And now you're playing the "persecution" card. First you say you give science the same credence as a skeptic, and then you proceed to trash that very system you claimed to give credence to. You totally ignore the fact that science is the first to admit it's not perfect, and the fact the system is self correcting given time.
Click to expand...

pretty sure I never said I give science the same credence as a skeptic - when did I say that???? I don't think the fact that science admit's it's not perfect has any bearing on anything, I am not totally "ignoring" that fact but if you would feel better if I acknowledged it, fine, science is the first to admit it isn't perfect - hmmm. doesn't change much of anything does it?

Chronic disease, no improvement, and you never asked questions? You never asked questions? Never? And you suffered for years, never asking questions? And what specialist are you talking about, now that you've quit MD practices?
Click to expand...

I never questioned the doctors treatment. I always told "this should help, this is a new drug we are seeing greatthings with, blah blah blah. Of course I asked questions about my disease and about side effects, etc. I think you knew what I meant - but to be clear I DIDN"T QUESTION THE TREATMENT.

Still dissecting rather than digesting I see.

However, you think you're the only one who suffers from or suffered from a chronic disease? You think you're convincing anyone with your sad story of illness and being in pain and losing children? You are once again using personal experience to back up a belief you can't verify scientifcally.
Click to expand...

Yes, Geni, that's right I think I am the only one who suffers from a chronic disease. Isn't that weird, a world with billions of people and I am the only on to have a chronic disease. What bad luck, huh? You certainly enjoy making up your own interpretations don't you? Where did I say, imply or infer that I am the only one with a chronic disease? The mere fact that I have brought up the issue of people suffering from chronic diseases who need alternatives to allopathy doesn't seem to contradict this to you?? And yes, I was using personal experience to back up my belief system - which is what I said fromt the beginning - That my belief is based on experience - not scientific evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom