Ethics of Posting

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

But if the homeo pathic 'medicine' does not have a negative effect and it produces a beneficial mindset for the person, then I see the benefit of the 'alternative medicine'.

The problem with this is that you either require the alt med practitioner to be a non-believer yet still prepared to go through all the rigmarole as if it really had intrinsic effects in order to elicit that deliberate placebo effect, or you have to have ignorant practitioners who don't see it for what it really is. I think the latter is largely true. The medical authorities might even cynically exploit that latter priniciple, though they'd never admit it. However I am sure plenty of individual medics are grateful for the respite when a heart-sink patient heads off to woo-woo land for a while.

One of the points that i am trying to make is that doctors do often perscribe medicine that are statisticaly effective, there might be a good effect, there might not. Fortunately most are generally effective. But what about perscribing a medicine and then not seeing if it actualy has an effect?

Say Lipitor? I have known people who are perscribed the medicine but there is no test done to see if it actualy does lower the levels in the individual. Or there isn't a deacrease in the level and the doctor doesn't seem to asses why the level didn't drop. I would think that it is like diabetes , where people eat what they are not supposed to after they recieve the medicine.This happens a lot of the time in conventional medicine. Given that it is all backed up by real evidence, if you see something occur on an anecdotal basis there's a pretty good chance that the effect was causal, but if there is not a dramatic effect in the individual you kinda have to take it on trust that the studies have been done and that life expectancy is better and longer on treatment.

To enlarge slightly on that first point, in DBPC trials of non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, placebo response rates can be 40%. The drug response rate can be 90%. So obviously the drug is good, but does that mean 4/10 are still kidding themselves and only in 5/10 does the drug really really work? I don't think that can be answered. My experience of the homeopats is that they want to claim credit for absolutely any changes that occur after remedy has been given: even deterioration is interpreted as homeopathic aggravation. This logic is bizarre, but just you try and make tem see that to a large extent in medicine ◊◊◊◊ happens all the time and half the time you can't tell whether you did it or if it was just chance. What they love is the illusion of control.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

And the quantum stuff is just hystericaly funny! I assume that soon they will use other phrases that are in concepts hard to understand like: 'dark energy','quantum fluctuation'

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.

The homeopaths in my experience making the claims have not the faintest grasp of physics even to high school standards so they don't ever understand the refutation of these ideas.

 

[Rolfe]

I have not seen Phil in the other forum, so I don't know how wacho they may be, but thier posts seemed to be carefully phrased and moderate.

Click on the "Whispersoft Blonde #10" link. This is what is called an "educated guess" (Phil has identified herself as female). If you skim around a bit, you'll see the usual level of manners demonstrated by the poster in question. (Note the "cognitive dissonance" reference - ironic or what?)

To be quite honest, even if this assumption is wrong, Phil has admitted she's in with the bricks in H'pathy, and there are very few people there who seem capable of even a basic level of civility to anyone who disagrees with them even in the politest terms. Have a look at this thread here, for example - especially "Divina" (also known as "ChaChaHeels"), for an example of the practising homoeopath's response to reasoned criticism.

I appreciate your fair-mindedness, but it's rather wasted on that lot. They spend most of their time accusing MRC_Hans and Prester John of being rude, while sucking up to Divina for all they're worth despite her quite unbelievable rudeness.

Edited to add: This new post here confirms the identity of "Phil" as "Barb" from H'pathy. I don't think there's been a meeting of minds here. Although Phil wasn't handled very gently, I don't think Barb really has any idea how much her attitude (including refusing even to name the disease she thought she'd been cured of) invited that handling, or how rude she is as a regular routine to anyone who doesn't share her point of view.

Oh, and discussing people's identities doesn't seem to be taboo over there, so I don't see why we shouldn't.

Rolfe.

 

[Phil63]

Not even giving the name of the disease is a bit short on detail, don't you think?

Alrighty Rofle - I was diagnosed with Crohns disease and Ulcerative COlitis, after several misdiagnosis - the MD's never did decide which of the two it was - different gastros gave different diagnosis fromt he same colonoscopy results. The details, Lots of running to bathroom, a two year period where I couldn't leave my house for the most part. Unable to go to school, unable to function in real society, anemia. arthritis symptoms from the diease. blah blah blah. Both are incurable (except UC which is technically curable with a colostomy). I had 0 relief from prednisone (several courses) sulfasalazine, asocal, lomotil, some drug that starts with an R (it's been years) a drug I had to administer nightly via an enema (that was my favorite) a drug approved for IBS that was then taken off the market (forget it's name too) and one more, I think.

Does UC and Crohns have remission states - yes, is it possible it's a coincidence - yes, which I have said from the beginning by the way. But it is convincing enough for me especially when I start to go out of remission and I take my remedy and fall back into it. Oh and my last colonoscopy was so good the gastro doc said he could no longer give a diagnosis of Crohns or UC - somehting that is not common with a remission.

You are very brave to say anything on this forum after the abuse I have read so far, if you make room for your clients to 'engage in conventional treatment' and in fact encourage them to do so, then I will support you 100%.

Thank you very much. Not only do I encourage my clients to continue their conventional treatment I make it very clear that it is in their best interest to do so. I also encourage them to discuss with their MD that they are thinking of starting homeopathy and to get their MD's approval. This is done more for their peace of mind about the safety of homeopathy than anything else. I have found that MD's certainly think homeopathy is bunk but will also tell their pt's that it is harmless. I have it written and tell them that if they are on any meds they they do not reduce or get off meds without the approval of their MD. In fact I recently had a case where a young lady had PCOS, no period for 8 months and was on several antidepressents. 5 days after the remedy her period began, she was feeling so good she abruptly stopped her meds. I made no bones that she could NOT do that and that she needed to speak with her MD immediately and I would no longer treat her if she did things irresponsably like that.

Please, you are fooling no one here with your "story". Fake, phony, fraud and liar pretty much sums you up.

Wanna bet????? Would you like a copy of my colonoscopies? pre-homeopathy and past???? by the way - what's with you anyway? Your name calling and bizzare anger says a lot more about you than it does about me.

 

[Phil63]

If we don't know the diagnosis you were given we don't know whether to be amazed and intrigued or not. My best guess remains MS, but if not that then something else that fluctuates with a long time course. But, heck, it could be malignant melanoma and we would[/] be amazed!

But I never asked you to be amazed or intrigued or anything. I shared the story because it is relevent to why "I" believe it works - it doesn't matter to me if you do or not. It of course is not the only reason either, I have experienced enough of these "coincidences" to belief there is a cause and effect relationship. It is why I believe - which is what I was asked. Again, it was what I was asked - so I answered.

And speaking of answering - I asked how any of you would have rewritten the story - Rolfe said he didn't have enough info to comment but in fact the story could be about any chronic illness that is not responding to allopathy - how do you rewite that kind of story - what would you have had me ( any random pt suffering from somehting not responding to modern science) do?

 

[BTox]

Wanna bet????? Would you like a copy of my colonoscopies? pre-homeopathy and past???? by the way - what's with you anyway? Your name calling and bizzare anger says a lot more about you than it does about me.

Bizarre anger? I don't have any anger at all. I just call a spade a spade. You're a homeopath, so you're a fraud.

 

[Phil63]

Yes - btox - bizarre anger - even my 8 yr old knows you don't call names, heck my 4 yr old know that. You guys say you want a homeopath to discuss things with and then when you have one you throw eggs at em - weird. You could've had soemone to have a discussion with but I only discuss civilly and have more respect for myself to be called names and treated poorly. You don't have to agree with what I do, or believe in it but as a human being you should at least be civil.

 

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Phil63

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?

But earlier you had said

I give "science" the same credence you guys do

which seems pretty straightforward. Also, as the system is self-correcting, while it might not be able to do much folks now in certain areas, it will in time find things. Therein lies hope based on trust, not hope based on faith.

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.

how best to know a situation than to see every aspect one can? And you never questioned the treatment for a diagnosis that no one could agree on?

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.

Yes so you have said. You're still not convincing anyone with that; your personal experience holds less evidence than the homeopathy molecules that are dropped in a vast ocean.

Well, I'm sure a child knows not to say bad things. But it can take a long time for even adults to stop lying to themselves.

Little link on Crohn's Disease: http://ibscrohns.about.com/cs/faqscd/a/crohnsfaq.htm
just for anyone's perusing and curiosity.

 

[Phil63]

Suezoled - aha - that was a typo - was supposed to read I don't give science the same credence...

I never said I was trying to convince you or anyone - you folks asked me why I believe it works and asked me to post my reason - that's all I did.

 

[BTox]

Yes - btox - bizarre anger - even my 8 yr old knows you don't call names, heck my 4 yr old know that. You guys say you want a homeopath to discuss things with and then when you have one you throw eggs at em - weird. You could've had soemone to have a discussion with but I only discuss civilly and have more respect for myself to be called names and treated poorly. You don't have to agree with what I do, or believe in it but as a human being you should at least be civil.

The only anger I see here is from you. And get real, calling a homeopath a fake, phony and fraud is not name calling, it's a statement of fact. If you can't deal with it, that's your problem.

 

[Rolfe]

Not only do I encourage my clients to continue their conventional treatment I make it very clear that it is in their best interest to do so. I also encourage them to discuss with their MD that they are thinking of starting homeopathy and to get their MD's approval. This is done more for their peace of mind about the safety of homeopathy than anything else. I have found that MD's certainly think homeopathy is bunk but will also tell their pt's that it is harmless. I have it written and tell them that if they are on any meds they they do not reduce or get off meds without the approval of their MD. In fact I recently had a case where a young lady had PCOS, no period for 8 months and was on several antidepressents. 5 days after the remedy her period began, she was feeling so good she abruptly stopped her meds. I made no bones that she could NOT do that and that she needed to speak with her MD immediately and I would no longer treat her if she did things irresponsably like that.

That sounds very responsible. Apart from taking money for something you believe has no scientific basis to support it, on the basis of a personal experience you admit may be coincidence - but then we're talking about a belief system here and not rational thought, so it's a difficult judgement.

However, what are we supposed to think when we see many homoeopaths consistently railing against "allopathy", declaring that "allopathy" has never done anything but harm to anyone (which must be one of the most ridiculous statements ever made), and positively insisting that homoeopathy will not work if allopathic medicine is taken at the same time - indeed, allopathic medicine taken long in the past is often blamed for the failures of homoeopathy. I've been reading HH and H'pathy for quite some time, and I see these statements made regularly, and I don't immediately recall you chipping in with a contrary point of view.

The closest I can remember is someone lamenting that unfortunately an untreated diabetic wouldn't live long enough to be cured by homoeopathy, therefore insulin was a necessary evil - but at the same time it was claimed that the necessary use of insulin was interfering with the homoeopathy and was the reason why a permanent cure couldn't be achieved. So if we didn't immediately assume you were practising on a more ethical basis, we did have some reason for this.

If you had come here at the beginning and put forward the case you've just made, you might have had a very different reception from many people here. Choosing to conceal your story and beliefs did rather tend to allow people to believe the worst. As a vet, I do know how extremely difficult diagnosis of chronic bowel problems can be, and how often the case simply seems to do its own thing regardless. I'll leave specific discussion of ulcerative colitis/Crohn's to those who may have more expertise in human medicine than I have, but I think there's little to say other than you won the jackpot of a spontaneous recovery, and homoeopathy just happened to be what got the credit. It's just a pity your experience isn't repeatable.

I've seen quite a number of "case reports" from homoeopathic vets crediting homoeopathy for curing everything from epilepsy to bad behaviour. The one thing every one of these miracle cures has in common is that there is never even a single follow-up report of another animal with the same condition showing a similar response. Given how common UC/Crohn's is, I'd be prepared to believe you're not entirely alone. However, we get back to the blind trial, or even the properly recorded series of case studies. All these years, and it's the same thing. A few inexplicable miracles (and no evidence that those not getting homoeopathy are any less likely to experience such a miracle), and the vast majority of patients unhelped.

Now you're going to tell us how you see your homoeopathy working time and time again in your "patients". We know. I have to listen to the same delusional nonsense from professional colleagues. The main achievement of homoeopathy is to train its practitioners to believe that they are helping the majority of their patients, and that every improvement, however slight, however predictable or even however long it takes, is proof of the method.

I can understand why, having succumbed to this delusion of being able to help patients in this way, it is very uncomfortable indeed to have to consider that you might not be doing anything at all (except providing psychological support). Most vets and doctors who've "turned to the dark side" can't do it (though I know of at least two who have, and they agree with this assessment), so how likely is it that a lay person who is enjoying playing doctor will really stop and consider?

I just wish you could see what I've seen, the suffering of animals "treated" with homeopathy for prolonged periods, with their owners repeatedly hailing every little upward fluctuation in the condition as "proof" that the magic water is working, when a simple standard prescription treatment would have cleared the whole thing up in a few days or weeks. I've seen a dog with the skin missing from half its face after three years of homoeopathy for what started as a pretty ordinary sore ear. I've seen cats like skeletons, with the homoeopathic vet declaring that everything was going just fine, when a few weeks on methimazole would have had a better than 90% chance of producing a normal cat. Frankly, it's sickening.

Even more sickening is the persistent harping of homoeopaths that it works on animals, so it can't be placebo. Oh, can't it? Depends on who you regard as responding to the placebo. At least an adult human can jump ship and go to a real doctor if they feel too bad. These poor pets of the delusional new-age owners don't have that choice, and the suffering I've seen is simply dreadful

So put that beside your one lucky coincidence and think about it.

Rolfe.

 

[Suezoled]

And my dearest Prester - Oh, come now - the greatest love stories involve stressfull beginnings. Look at Romeo and Juliet - two decent folks from VERY different upbringings and backgrounds - of course look how that ended (snipped)

Actually, they were from similar backgrounds from warring families. Romeo fell for Juliet because he could not seduce yet another Capulet; Juliet's cousin, if I recall correctly.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Phil/Barb

Just a quick note to say I withdraw the accusation of you being Divina and apologise that some of my reaction to your appearance on this board was informed by the inference that you were her. Barb is at the 'nice' end of the spectrum but I still totally disagree with you!

The question about why the homeopathy boards allow CCH and Divina to co-exist is still relevant. I think it is publicly acknowledged that they are the same person, isn't it?

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Bye Bye Jazz Bee

From hpathy.com

Jazz bee, you have shown no respect for our openness to people who question the basics of homeoathy. You are not a sceptic, you are a die-hard believer that homeopathy does not work. You have not only questioned the motives of genuine homeopaths here but you have even targeted the site adminsitrators. So you are asked to refrain from posting at these forums. Your a/c is being diabled.



I am giving an open warning to people who are in the same league. If you want to discuss the scietific validity of homeopathy, you are welcome here. If you have already made up your mind that it does not work, no point in discussing things. For a discussion to be fruitful, you need to give some space to the_other party too. The homeopaths are clinicians, not scientists. They can not answer every query about the limitations of scientific validity. And even those who sincerely try to discuss the matter are considered to be running away from discussions and are mocked upon and attacked with full whemence._This is not scepticism! With this attitude there might be more people seeing the door soon.

" The homeopaths are clinicians, not scientists."

So that's a complete excuse from having to answer anything or take responsibility for what they do. "Sorry guv' I'm only a clinician, can't manage big words and diccifult ideas"

So, be careful out there!

 

[geni]

I've been reading HH and H'pathy for quite some time, and I see these statements made regularly, and I don't immediately recall you chipping in with a contrary point of view.

Barb has stated her position on this befor over at hpathy.

Btox I think the would fraud is incorrect since it assumes that the person know what they are doing does not work. While there are some homeopaths for whom I suspect this is true Barb id not one of them

 

[MRC_Hans]

Anyhow, I think we should try to meet people with different viewpoints in a more nuanced manner than some do. After all, debate is our reason to be here (I suppose ), so we should be grateful that some people have the courage to enter the lair of lions.

That said, of course, those visitors need to realize that arguments count here, and any claim is likely to be challenged .

Hans

 

[geni]

Anyhow, I think we should try to meet people with different viewpoints in a more nuanced manner than some do. After all, debate is our reason to be here (I suppose ), so we should be grateful that some people have the courage to enter the lair of lions.

On the basis that Phil63's first posts were direct attacks on the posting style of JREF members I feel that some level of tenstion is to be expected

 

[MRC_Hans]

Yeh, I have mentioned that to Barb, elsewhere. Still...

Hans

 

[Suezoled]

Suezoled - aha - that was a typo - was supposed to read I don't give science the same credence...

I never said I was trying to convince you or anyone - you folks asked me why I believe it works and asked me to post my reason - that's all I did.

Phil, type a reason, no matter what, and it will be questioned. But as you have no interest in hearing other than your own view, there is nothing to discuss.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I still think it's a shame Divina/ChaChaHeels doesn't have the nerve to join this board.