Homeopathy is everywhere!

SteveGrenard said:

Define "real scientist." Is it like "a real man?" or?

Click to expand...


Scientists that work for credible insititutions and who publish their work in peer-reviewed journals.
 
BTox: Nope, the properly conducted studies have been done. Doesn't work any better than placebo.


Okay. Can you cite the studies done to replicate the work of Jacobs et al in using these drugs to combat childhood diarrhea on two continents and otitis media that have corrected Jacobs et al's design flaws and came to a result that showed the products did NOT work? or did not work any better than placebo. The argument that diarrhea is self resolving made by someone above, (*)I dont recall who, is supposition but if it was a design flaw, show how it was corrected.


(*I dropped out of this conversation after reading this level of rhetoric only because you and I both know that in epidemics of childhood diarrhea in the third world the principal resolution is usually death of the child. )

Also are you saying the journals which published the papers favorable to homepathy are not peer reviewed? I just want to make sure I read this correctly from your inference describing definition of "real scientist." Thanks.
 
SteveGrenard said:
Okay. Can you cite the studies done to replicate the work of Jacobs et al in using these drugs to combat childhood diarrhea on two continents and otitis media that have corrected Jacobs et al's design flaws and came to a result that showed the products did NOT work? or did not work any better than placebo. The argument that diarrhea is self resolving made by someone above, (*)I dont recall who, is supposition but if it was a design flaw, show how it was corrected.


(*I dropped out of this conversation after reading this level of rhetoric only because you and I both know that in epidemics of childhood diarrhea in the third world the principal resolution is usually death of the child. )
Click to expand...

No, those exact studies have not been duplicated. Look, there are thousands of homeopathic "remedies" and homeopaths claim they can cure ALL diseases, not just alleviate symptoms, but complete cures. Why can't they show in a single well-controlled study any cures at all? Why can't they show clinically relevant reductions in symptoms in such studies? There is no point in testing every remedy and every condition.

Have you read these studies? These were tested on mild diarrhea, with the results showing with placebo the symptoms (as reported by the mothers) lasted ~ 5 days for placebo and ~4.5 days with the homeopathy treatment. And yet a dose or two of common OTC anti-diarrhea drugs would stop the diarrhea in a day or less. So why bother?



SteveGrenard said:
Also are you saying the journals which published the papers favorable to homepathy are not peer reviewed? I just want to make sure I read this correctly from your inference describing definition of "real scientist." Thanks.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I forgot to answer your question. That was someone else's definition. Mine is simple, being a real scientist and a quack are mutually exclusive. Since homeopaths are by definition quacks, well, you get the picture...
 
Okay, I was just wondering if you considered journals like the BMJ or The Lancet non-peer reviewed. I guess you are blaming this on someone else and just being flippant in your follow-up reply.
 
thaiboxerken said:

LOL. Now you are changing your definition of homeopathy to include low doses of real medicine. What's next, are you going to include surgery as part of therapeutic touch?
Click to expand...


I never changed any definition. I am examining what others call homeopathy. Take it up with them.


What you are doing is dishonest, you should stop.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your opinion.
 
BTox said:

I claimed to be an MD? Where did I say that?
Click to expand...


I said:

"But I'm not at all familiar with the fancy details of those big medical terms. I'm not a MD you see. You claimed to have familiarity with them, yet we don't see any of your analyses.. "

I didn't say or imply that you were an MD. All I was saying is that you claim to have done analyses before, so I thought you were familiar with the medical terms.


I was only pointing out that the vast majority of real scientists know there is nothing to homeopathy and ignore it.
Click to expand...


Could you tell us all what distinguishes your 'real science' from 'homepathy'? What is this "real science" that you are talking about?


Oops, sorry, can't change the target mid-stream. Classical homeopathy has always been the topic, your ignorance of it is no excuse. Only 6X and greater dilution (higher potency) are considered homeopathic. Nice try, though!
Click to expand...

If I was talking about "classical" homeopathy, I would have stated it.
 
Dub said:

Scientists that work for credible insititutions and who publish their work in peer-reviewed journals. [/B]
Click to expand...

You are merely defining "real" by the word "credible". :rolleyes:

And they are published in peer reviewed journals...unless you've also defined "peer" away..
 
I've still not got a response from any advocate of homeopathy giving their reasons why an unquantified drug should be available on the market.

Here again is my argument - either:

a) homeopathy does not work and is being sold under the pretence that it does, contrary to evidence and foundational scientific theories.

OR

b) homeopathy does work and the evidence by way of statistics supports this, however absence of data on the effect of homeopathic drugs, contraindicative effects (when a drug negates the effects of another drug), effects of age/medication/illness etc., make it a dangerous drug to take blindly.

Researching homeopathy is not necessarily a bad thing. If somebody wants to raise funds and explore this, good - that's what science is about. However I will still stand up and rant when people sell unquantified drugs to an uninformed public.

Athon
 
Damn, Eos, I knew I loved you for more than your avatar.

I'm not shallow, though. I'd love you if you look like your avatar even if you weren't skeptical, intelligent, and brainy.

---

On the serious side, though, I'll join in and say it. They're frauds. I'm getting more curmudgeonly in my old age.
 
Eos of the Eons said:
The lancet should be burned or used as toilet paper. :p

The Young whacko says his stuff can cure you. Hulda clark says her 2-3 month herbal regime will cure you of all cancers.

Homeopaths are con artists.

http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/young.html

http://www.lightparty.com/Health/PARASITE.html

I wouldn't mind a public hanging for these liars. Yes, I am so fed up that I outright will say these things and not feel bad about it.
Click to expand...

Are you claiming that Young and Clark are homeopaths?
 
Damn, Eos, I knew I loved you for more than your avatar.

I'm not shallow, though. I'd love you if you look like your avatar even if you weren't skeptical, intelligent, and brainy.
Click to expand...


***blushes*** Welcome, now I've noticed you :D

If you can find my web site you'll see how I really look in various stages. Then you can judge from there. If I could do my hair like my avtar's, then I'm sure I wouldn't be that far from it...maybe :D


Okay,,,,off topic...but here's a pic out of my wishful thinking files - I put my dream hair on.

Hair48.jpg



And here I am unaltered just a few months ago. You can visit my site and judge if my kids resemble me much (more shameless plugs for my site...yes) You want to see sarcasm...:cool: :D


just2003.jpg



I just couldn't resist...haven't seen such flattery in a while :wink: My avtar will love you back just as shallowly...and hey...girl 6 stole my blue body
avatar.php


:D
:roll: Okay, that was fun...will get back on topic now.


[
 
T'ai Chi said:


Are you claiming that Young and Clark are homeopaths?
Click to expand...

I've noticed your posts...go ahead and educate me, you'll make me blush too if I'm shown to be completely ignorant :p
 
Eos of the Eons said:


I've noticed your posts...go ahead and educate me, you'll make me blush too if I'm shown to be completely ignorant :p
Click to expand...

So what is your answer to my question, "Yes" or "No" ?
 
Oops, sorry, can't change the target mid-stream. Classical homeopathy has always been the topic, your ignorance of it is no excuse. Only 6X and greater dilution (higher potency) are considered homeopathic. Nice try, though!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



If I was talking about "classical" homeopathy, I would have stated it.


__________________

As BTox stated, anything less thant 6X is not homeopathy.. classical or otherwise. Now you are trying to widen your net. What will you claim as being homeopathy next, vaccinations? It's completely dishonest to start using real medical practices as "evidence" for homeopathic effectiveness. It's like giving a person an aspirin, calling yourself a homeopath, and then say that you've effectively treated headaches with your homeopathic remedies.

Why do you insist on being so dishonest?
 
As BTox stated, anything less thant 6X is not homeopathy.. classical or otherwise.
Click to expand...


Who made that rule? I am stimply reporting on what others call homeopathy. Many sites have medicine with ingredients in 1X, 2X, ... 6X and beyond amounts, and call it homeopathy. I am reporting on those.


What will you claim as being homeopathy next, vaccinations?
Click to expand...


Well, you'll know if I actually do make that claim. I didn't make the claim of anything being homeopathy.. I am reporting on the studies of others.


It's completely dishonest to start using real medical practices as "evidence" for homeopathic effectiveness.
Click to expand...


Hey, someone got a neat study conducted, written, peer reviewed, with the word 'homeopathy' in there. I am simply reporting on their work, which I found interesting, which I found in a search for homeopathy: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entr...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11896746&dopt=Abstract
 

Who made that rule? I am stimply reporting on what others call homeopathy. Many sites have medicine with ingredients in 1X, 2X, ... 6X and beyond amounts, and call it homeopathy. I am reporting on those.



Homeopathy is dealing with dilutions greater than or equal to 6X. Dr. Samuel Hahnemann might be the one that made that rule up. I am sure BTox can answer this question more than me. It looks like you do not draw a line where homeopathy ends and therapeutic doses begin.




Hey, someone got a neat study conducted, written, peer reviewed, with the word 'homeopathy' in there. I am simply reporting on their work, which I found interesting: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entr...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11896746&dopt=Abstract


And BTox has shown you that their study isn't homeopathy. You just can't handle the fact that homeopathy doesn't work, can you? You'll post any freaking "study" that says it does, even without reading it or knowing anything about it. BTox obviously has researched homeopathy and is clearly the expert compared to you.

Altern Med Review is also not a credible peer-reviewed medical journal. It is a quack fest.
 
thaiboxerken said:

Homeopathy is dealing with dilutions greater than or equal to 6X.
Click to expand...


Well, that is what you are trying to assert anyway. Please show us where this law is since you are asserting it. All I know is that homeopathy refers to medicine in lower doses than normal.


Dr. Samuel Hahnemann might be the one that made that rule up.
Click to expand...


Might be. Might not be.


It looks like you do not draw a line where homeopathy ends and therapeutic doses begin.
Click to expand...


I was reporting studies of what others call homeopathy, not my own views on it. That should be clear since I was posting links to abstracts.


And BTox has shown you that their study isn't homeopathy.
Click to expand...


I fail to see exactly how BTox did that.


You just can't handle the fact that homeopathy doesn't work, can you? You'll post any freaking "study" that says it does, even without reading it or knowing anything about it. BTox obviously has researched homeopathy and is clearly the expert compared to you.
Click to expand...


Focus on homeopathy, not me.


Altern Med Review is also not a credible peer-reviewed medical journal. It is a quack fest.
Click to expand...

That is an interesting opinion. Many people have different views.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom