Ethics of Posting

[(S)]

More than the carcinogens, how about immunizations?

 

[geni]

More than the carcinogens, how about immunizations?

That's Isopathy not homeopathy (before phil63 tries to point that out). Also I think homeopaths wait until you are ill before doing anything.

 

[Phil63]

Rolfe - do you intentionally do that or are you so jaded against homeopaths that you must read into everything one says?

When I said "allopaths, they love it when we use that word" it was sarcasm. It also did not imply or infer that the reason we or I ever use that word is because we know it annoys you and that is our goal - got it? It was a sarcastic comment on how the skeptics feel about that word - is that difficult to grasp?

by the way, I am still waiting for all the examples where I was rude to "everyone that disagree with me???" Or an apology and retraction from that comment. Thanks.

 

[BTox]

Phil/Barb. Let me teach you a bit of skeptic arguing tactics:

1) Don't misspell names, it's BTox, not Botox. You lay yourself open to similar rudeness.

BoTox is close enough. I really don't care what people call me, I've seen it all.

2) Don't discuss ad hominem attacks, simply dismiss them. BTox started with an unfounded accusation. You demanded evidence. BTox responded with an ad hominem (attack on your person). That is not acceptable arguing (although most of us do it from time to time, since we are human), so simply dismiss it.

Very true. Which is why I try not to argue/debate with homeopaths.

 

[(S)]

Can you give your perspective on the term 'allopathy'? From our perspective, it doesn't really apply to conventional medicine. It /implies/ an underlying philosophy that unifies all 'conventional medicine', much like the underlying philosophy of treating like-with-[diluted]-like underlies homeopathy, when no such underlying philosophy exists. [If any, Why do you feel it an appropriate term, and 'allopath' an appropriate term for 'conventional medicine practitioner', other than it being the standard jargon of the homeopathic community?

 

[Suezoled]

Rolfe - do you intentionally do that or are you so jaded against homeopaths that you must read into everything one says?

When I said "allopaths, they love it when we use that word" it was sarcasm. It also did not imply or infer that the reason we or I ever use that word is because we know it annoys you and that is our goal - got it? It was a sarcastic comment on how the skeptics feel about that word - is that difficult to grasp?

by the way, I am still waiting for all the examples where I was rude to "everyone that disagree with me???" Or an apology and retraction from that comment. Thanks.

An apology from who?
So you're allowed to dish out insults but you have to have an apology when it's dished to you?
Why is this even an issue? The discussion is Homeopathy, not hurt feelings.

 

[Phil63]

suezoled - rolfe said I am rude to everyone that disagrees with me - this is totally untrue -I asked for him to back up that statement and if he can't then an apology would be nice.

S - I will reply later about allopathy. Have to get the kiddies off to school now.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Barb

You may not wish to answer this, just say so I'll not pursue it, however here are quotes from here and hpathy.com

Here;

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."

There;

my Ulcerative Colitis issues are far from cured

Given that the diagnosis was never clear, it may be that clinical problems continue even if physical signs are not overt on scope even with biopsy. That's fair enough. With functional bowel diseases there is every reason to suppose that pathological criteria for disease are too coarse and patients may genuinely be ill even though, with the current state of diagnostics, no physical signs can be found. So I can square both quotes by accepting that physical changes may now be absent even if symptoms continue.

But, and it's a big but, the first quote was presented here to support your anecdotal contention that homeopathy had wrought a cure in you. Now it would seem that there is still a clinical problem. A rather different picture.

Now it may be that there is less clinical problem than there used to be, but the continuation of variable signs is much more what one would expect with the natural history of the disease regardless of magic water treatment.

This further supports the likelihood that nothing marvellous was really done by homeopathy except to change your attitude to it!

Did you pick up on my pieces about spontaneous remission rates?

Anyway, that may not lead anywhere if it doesn't yield a reply, but it does bring up an interesting topic.

We've seen before that homeopathy secures its practitioners with a framework that can explain any outcome: better, worse or unchanged and that clearly homeopathy needs have no real effect for them to stay happy with it because they feel they can explain anything that happens.

Rolfe sent me this quote from George Vithoulkas

It is well known to all homeopaths that we usually need one month of treatment for every year of suffering , and that can happen only in very careful homeopathic prescribing, otherwise the time needed may be longer.

from here;

GV comments


I think this is really interesting. If you have a 10 year disease expect improvement in a minimum of 10 months etc.

Given that most of these diseases have fluctuating time courses as their natural history without intervention, doesn't this sound just like the right timescale to wait and hope for a spontaneous improvement to turn up?



It's things like this that make me realise why they never feel, in their bones, that validation is required. They can explain everything in terms of the system they work within.

 

[Suezoled]

suezoled - rolfe said I am rude to everyone that disagrees with me - this is totally untrue -I asked for him to back up that statement and if he can't then an apology would be nice.

S - I will reply later about allopathy. Have to get the kiddies off to school now.

Uh huh. And when you can answer the straightforward questions and explanations that are posed to you instead of ignoring them or weaseling, instead of acting the poor woeful wronged victim, you will treated with the respect you demand.

 

[Rolfe]

suezoled - rolfe said I am rude to everyone that disagrees with me - this is totally untrue -I asked for him to back up that statement and if he can't then an apology would be nice.

For the record, what I said was:

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.

Barb certainly isn't as rude as many people on the homoeopathic BBs, but she aligns herself with them, posts supportive comments, and makes snide remarks. It's all right for her to be "sarcastic" apparently, but the rest of us had better make sure we handle her feelings with kid gloves? I stand by my assertion that she really doesn't realise how she comes over with these posts.

Rolfe.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Uh huh. And when you can answer the straightforward questions and explanations that are posed to you instead of ignoring them or weaseling, instead of acting the poor woeful wronged victim, you will treated with the respect you demand.

Suezoled

Without wishing to be seen to break the ome side's defence and while enjoying a good slanging match with the best of them, I would like to say Barb is far from the worst homeopath and as far as I can judge, from the evidence of boards like this, is genuinely a nice person and argues politely by and large, so might I suggest that we all lay off the "Kill the Homeopath" tactic and see whether she has anything useful to say? This thread like others is becoming a meta-discussion about ad hominems and the style of debating, and yes I do accept that I am contributing to the tendency by writing this(!) but can we see whether we can get some useful debate going and reserve the abuse for when that fails?

Which rather leaves it to Barb to demonstrate a willingness to contribute proper arguments and evidence, or the JREF Rottweilers will be at her ankles again

 

[Rolfe]

can we see whether we can get some useful debate going ....

I agree.

If Barb/Phil is going to refuse to say anything more until I apologise, then I'm afraid it's going to be a long wait. However, I'm perfectly agreeable to moving on to discuss the matter in hand.

Rolfe.

 

[Suezoled]

BSM,

(snipped)
Rolfe is one of the kindest, most intelligent skeptics on this board. If there is offense taken, for the most part, there is an apology, and that does make for a very cool cat. But Phil uses Rolfe as yet another excuse to post without answering or addressing issues. Rolfe has been articulate, polite, and a true civilized human being, with a touch of sarcasm and more than a dose of truth.

If Phil is using as transparent an excuse as she seems to be, she can't expect the respect she demands.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Suez

Fair enough. Rolfe's points about snideness are also valid.

I'll give up being Nice Cop. It doesn't suit me anyway.

I'd still like a proper debate and we need someone to supply the other side. Perhaps Barb will surprise me and tackle the real issues.

Anyway I'm going out for dinner so I'll leave you to it for now.

 

[Phil63]

rolfe - no hurt feelings, but when someone says something about my character - that I am rude to anyone who disagrees with me - I expect them to back up that statement or retract.

Suezoled - goodness, talk about not answering questions. I think I have actually answered a lot of the questions asked of me, not one of you answered my question. It was a genuine question and I asked it twice.

Suezoled - what haven't I answered or addressed? Also, I am not demanding respect -as Prester once said you have to earn respect, however, I do expect civillity. What am I weasling out of by the way??

Btox - never meant any disrespect from the Botox typo - as you all can see I never check my posts and have horrible typing, it was a mistake not soemthing intentional.

Badly Shaved Monkey - Yes, my UC "issues" have not all resolved. SOme of these are functional (no longer structural) aspects of the disease but also by UC issues I am reffering to lingering effects of pred and also a few other things going on. The UC itself, structurally speaking is gone - according to my gastroenterologist - does that mean the colon is perfectly normal? No, in fact it isn't - but as I said it is no longer defined as UC or Crohns and for me that is pretty good news. There is a big difference between having a structural disease like IBD and a structural disease liek IBS - for one the risk of colon cancer is about 50% higher in IBD. Just to be clear too - the UC saga was the impetus to get me into homeopathy but it took a lot more than that one disease to keep me there. I would say it took about 2 years of using homeopathy as a lay person before I was able to say that the results were not just coincidence. There was a defining moment that involved my daughter - it may be the miracle cure for next issue of ezine I am not sure yet. ANyway - taht's what I meant about UC "issues".

Hey, I was wondering if I could ask a favor of you (or anyone else versed in clinical trials) I am looking for a critical view of www.migraineaid.com - there is a clinical study and I am looking to see if it is worth anything at all - it has nothing to do with homeopathy BTW. I am addmitedly not good at this stuff.

 

[Phil63]

Oh S - regarding the term allopathy. First of all it isn't meant to be a deragotory term. It also doesn't mean treating with opposites - that's antipathy. Allopathy just means treatments that are not similar to the symproms of the disease. Different from the disease. Isopathy is same as the disease, homeopathy is like the disease, antipathy is opposite of the disease and allopathy just means different.

I don't think it was meant to give homeopathy and allopathy equal status either - in fact back when homeopathy came about the last thing it would want to be likened to would be allopathy. Remember back then the treatments were based on reducing humours in the body - bloodletting, leeching, purging, poisonings. Even if you believe homeopathy is nothing - back then nothing was better than the allopathic treatments.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Oh S - regarding the term allopathy. First of all it isn't meant to be a deragotory term. It also doesn't mean treating with opposites - that's antipathy. Allopathy just means treatments that are not similar to the symproms of the disease. Different from the disease. Isopathy is same as the disease, homeopathy is like the disease, antipathy is opposite of the disease and allopathy just means different.

I don't think it was meant to give homeopathy and allopathy equal status either - in fact back when homeopathy came about the last thing it would want to be likened to would be allopathy. Remember back then the treatments were based on reducing humours in the body - bloodletting, leeching, purging, poisonings. Even if you believe homeopathy is nothing - back then nothing was better than the allopathic treatments.

Yeah, back then, when it had no basis in fact etc that it does now.

Now it is the homeopathy that remains to be outdated and based on belief rather than fact.

 

[Suezoled]

Well, Phil, are you just going to sit there and feel all persecuted, or are you going to telll us why you think homoeopathy is effective?

Hint. Post hoc ergo propter hoc doesn't cut it. A modicum of a semblance of evidence of cause and effect would be appreciated.

You admit available studies are lacking. You admit all you have is your experience to go on. Yet your entire career is on your perspective on how homeopathy worked on a chronic condition that has not even been properly diagnosed.

I wonder how you as a human being can so easily take someone's life and hope and offer them a bottle of expensive water or sugar pills in exchange for money.

 

[Rolfe]

You admit available studies are lacking. You admit all you have is your experience to go on. Yet your entire career is on your perspective on how homeopathy worked on a chronic condition that has not even been properly diagnosed.

I wonder how you as a human being can so easily take someone's life and hope and offer them a bottle of expensive water or sugar pills in exchange for money.

Bump. Nothing to add to this though, Suezoled had encapsulated the question perfectly.

Phil, I don't know how you can live with yourself.

Rolfe.

 

[Phil63]

Yet your entire career is on your perspective on how homeopathy worked on a chronic condition that has not even been properly diagnosed.

good grief suezoled, did youread a word of what I wrote? The belief is certainly not based only on the one chronic condition.

Rolfe - being an honest, good, decent human being who is dedicated to helping to end human and animal suffering using homeopathy as well as other modalities - I find I am quite easily able to live with myself.

Huh - still no one gonna bother to answer my questions? Sheesh - glad I bothered to answered yours.