Should Homeopathy be illegal?

[Corsair09]

It was just a short peice hardly any more than a few paragraphs.

Hardly sounds like a "raging" controversy then, does it?

 

[Guest]

Ma'at, A debate that is raging currently about whether modern medicines should be allowed to continue to be used with some serious side effects/any side effects that are worse or additional to the original symptom. The cure should not mean another illness that is less than the original symptom is preferable. A medicinal cure should mean just that a cure; the end does not justify the means.

Ma'at, where is this article, please? Full citation, please.

Any side effect is "additional to the original symptom." How can it not be? And how can you have a drug with no side effects when it has been repeatedly demonstrated that study subjects report side effects from placebos? Furthermore, given this, how can homeopathetic apologists claim no side effects from their concoctions?

Worse than the original symptom? That just doesn't happen in the general case. Evidence, please.

Cheers,

 

[Guest]

Hardly sounds like a "raging" controversy then, does it?

The article was a brief synopsis of the "DEBATE" I said not controversy which was raging I had no particular interest in reading it so did not click to see the whole piece.

 

[Guest]

Ma'at, where is this article, please? Full citation, please.

Any side effect is "additional to the original symptom." How can it not be? And how can you have a drug with no side effects when it has been repeatedly demonstrated that study subjects report side effects from placebos? Furthermore, given this, how can homeopathetic apologists claim no side effects from their concoctions?

Worse than the original symptom? That just doesn't happen in the general case. Evidence, please.

Cheers,

Please re-read what I actually said above and not the few words you want to use, it answers your question quite fully.

It was a netnews item, I had read it while I was working, my colleague remembers me mentioning another article that was on the same page.

It was an article written in a local newspaper or a netnews item about some people debating about wether modern medicine should be sold with any side effects or not. As I do not save any such information, I can't post it up for you to read unfortunetly.

I dont remember reading about any actual medication or brands that were named in it. It was just a short peice hardly any more than a few paragraphs.

I actually said.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ma'at, A debate that is raging currently about whether modern medicines should be allowed to continue to be used with some serious side effects/any side effects that are worse or additional to the original symptom. The cure should not mean another illness that is less than the original symptom is preferable. A medicinal cure should mean just that a cure; the end does not justify the means

 

[Guest]

Please re-read what I actually said above and not the few words you want to use, it answers your question fully.

Are you now claiming you did not write this:

Originally posted by Ma'at
Ma'at, A debate that is raging currently about whether modern medicines should be allowed to continue to be used with some serious side effects/any side effects that are worse or additional to the original symptom. The cure should not mean another illness that is less than the original symptom is preferable. A medicinal cure should mean just that a cure; the end does not justify the means.

If that is not what you are claiming then where did my response go awry?

Also, where is that citation?

Cheers,

 

[Guest]

Any side effect is "additional to the original symptom." How can it not be?

I did not say that at all please read what is actually written.

The "debate" was about the side effects of modern medicines and should there be any, if they are worse than the original ailment or create another ailment, that was the synopsis of the article written commenting on what they were debating over.

Billy you have misread me totally, I am not saying I did'nt write that posting at all I would prefer if you didnt say such things either.

I posted a particular piece that I had remembered reading about and as I have already written I do not save netnews items and do not have that article to put up you also have taken that item out of context.

Do you understand now?

 

[Flatworm]

The "debate" was about the side effects of modern medicines and should there be any, if they are worse than the original ailment or create another ailment, that was the synopsis of the article written commenting on what they were debating over.

How can any thinking person spend time on this question? Imagine banning medication that prevents heart attacks because it causes dry mouth in 10% of patients! As to drugs that cause side effects worse than the condition they treat, I've never heard of a doctor insisting on the continued use of such a drug is such side effects develop. How many times do you see on the side of OTC drugs "if such-and-such occurs, discontinue use"?

It's a non-debate.

 

[Guest]

How can any thinking person spend time on this question? Imagine banning medication that prevents heart attacks because it causes dry mouth in 10% of patients! As to drugs that cause side effects worse than the condition they treat, I've never heard of a doctor insisting on the continued use of such a drug is such side effects develop. How many times do you see on the side of OTC drugs "if such-and-such occurs, discontinue use"?

It's a non-debate.

Exactly my thoughts Flatworm, which is why I wasnt interested in reading more than the brief synopsis that was there.

To ban any medicine because it causes a side effect would leave very little left, and alot of people worse off. If they were planning on banning any medication that casues severe side effects then I could see the point of the debate, but that wasnt it they were debating all medication/side effects which is why it was probably raging..

 

[Guest]

Billy you have misread me totally, I am not saying I did'nt write that posting at all I would prefer if you didnt say such things either.

I posted a particular piece that I had remembered reading about and as I have already writtenI do not save netnews items and do not have that article to put upyou also have taken that item out of context. [ /B]

Here is your line, once again. I will parse it, step by step. You tell me where I misread you, OK?

"A debate that is raging currently about whether modern medicines should be allowed to continue to be used with some serious side effects/any side effects that are worse or additional to the original symptom."

Step 1: (remove some modifiers, etc.)
"A debate... about whether ... medicines should be allowed ... some serious side effects/any side effects that are worse or additional to the original symptom."

Step 2: (remove debate stuff, to reduce it to the claim about medicines)
"...medicines [have] ... some serious side effects/any side effects that are worse or additional to the original symptom."

Step 3: (parse and clarify the logic a bit)
"...medicines [have] ... some serious side effects OR (any side effects that are worse OR additional to the original symptom.)"

Step 4: (Separate into the various claims):
a. "medicines [have] ... some serious side effects" OR
b. "medicines [have] ... any side effects that are worse ...[than] the original symptom" OR
c. "medicines [have]... any side effects that are ... additional to the original symptom"

OK, there they are, all three of them.
4a. Yes , some have serious side effects.

4b. As I said, where is the evidence that this occurs in the general case?

4c. As I said, side effects are, by definiton, "additional." And, as I said, study subjects always claim side effects from placebos. Given this, how can you ever NOT have side effects?

Do you now understand what you said? And will you now please answer my questions about your assertions?

Cheers,

 

[RichardR]

It was an article written in a local newspaper or a netnews item about some people debating about wether modern medicine should be sold with any side effects or not. As I have do not save any such information, I can't post it up for you to read unfortunetly.

I dont remember reading about any actual medication or brands that were named in it. It was just a short peice hardly any more than a few paragraphs.

So you don’t know what you were referring to when you said”

”A debate that is raging currently about whether modern medicines should be allowed to continue to be used with some serious side effects/any side effects that are worse or additional to the original symptom. The cure should not mean another illness that is less than the original symptom is preferable. A medicinal cure should mean just that a cure; the end does not justify the means.”

Can I now take it that you are withdrawing your above statement?

 

[Guest]

Gang:

RichardR makes an important statement concerning Radiating-Sunflower's failure to support some rather interesting statements. I, too, would like to see the support.

Without evidence anyone can write anything, and this all devolves into another fallacy-laden waste of time.

With all due respect to Radiating-Sunflower I must recommend expending more time when constructing replies. I do not demean anyone's command of English; however, the multiple errors make undestanding the message very diffficult, if not impossible.

--J.D.

I suffer from dyslexic fingers I cant help it my grammers rubbish sorry my command on english is terrible for a english girl sorry, I dont and havent written correctly for years I dont need it in my job, sorry.

I dont know what they ant they say one thing and then boom it means somthing else, I have only what I gathered for myslef whenI was told to try it by my then Doctor, I didnt keep names or lists of where I gathered parts I thought relevent to helpme understand homeopathy, I keep saying it and it just gets spun round again and I then get called a plague.

I dont understand what you/they want or need, you ask me for things I never said I had, I never said I wrote it myself but flatworm keeps saying I did.

I cant give you things if you just contradict and say I said something else can I, you cant expect me to and I wont.

Talk to me in idiots terms I cantry and workout what you mean then maybe.

I never wrote anything nor have I scientific data all I have is extracts I copied to read offline from varing sources some from the sites I posted up some books I once read that is it the rest is by experince. I cant verify, but experience as its mine unless anybody else has gone through it (my type of illness) you wont understand what it feels like to be dumped by modern medincine practisioners to get on with our wrecked lives and then find people like the skeptics trashing something that could help does help even if its placebo effect only, that playing god.

I wouldnt even do that to my enemies.

Does that make sense?

moi honest.

 

[Guest]

So you don’t know what you were referring to when you said”

”A debate that is raging currently about whether modern medicines should be allowed to continue to be used with some serious side effects/any side effects that are worse or additional to the original symptom. The cure should not mean another illness that is less than the original symptom is preferable. A medicinal cure should mean just that a cure; the end does not justify the means.”

Can I now take it that you are withdrawing your above statement?

Ma'at said she partly read an article statement online news or soemthing like that about a debate about whether modern medicines should be allowed to be used with side eeffects or not, she didnt read all of it and just ignored it until something reminded her of it and she posted it up.

Why do you keep on going around in circles just winding up people when they say consistently dont have that information and wasnt interested to read it fully, Ma'at said that clearly enough many times and still you persist in asking for something she doesnt have?

Not hard to understand is it. Ma'at read it in passing and that was it not data stored logged or anything like that just a comment in passing.

moi being blamed for somebody elses posting.

 

[Guest]

billy I do not save netnews items and do not have that article to put up think thats what Ma'at pointing at you consistently.

moi quoting Ma'at.

 

[RichardR]

Why do you keep on going around in circles just winding up people when they say consistently dont have that information and wasnt interested to read it fully, Ma'at said that clearly enough many times and still you persist in asking for something she doesnt have?

What i'm saying is if she doesn't have any backup for the statement, she should withdraw it.

Why make a claim about something so important, when you really have no idea if it is true? That's what puzzles me.

 

[Guest]

What i'm saying is if she doesn't have any backup for the statement, she should withdraw it.

Why make a claim about something so important, when you really have no idea if it is true? That's what puzzles me.

Why should Ma'at it was a passing comment if its in the news and it remeinded her of somethig we were harping on about whats the problem and why withdraw it she made it clear what is was etc.

If said the skys blue today I dont save the information why should I withdraw it if the skys green tomorrow.

Comments only comments in passing why cant you accpet that whythe ned for conrete proof over everything said?


Do you demand concrete proof over news items said on the TV or in the papers?

moi

 

[Guest]

As for like cures like its one of the principles that define homeopathy. Thats what I put up I had that part saved asI was curious about that principle. I posted what I had go read about homeopathy and its principles dont ask me to define what they follow I am not a homeopath.

psychopath maybe LMAO

moi

 

[Guest]

billy I do not save netnews items and do not have that article to put up think thats what Ma'at pointing at you consistently.

I read an article once that says Randi is a cabbage from duluth, on the planet rafflesdrof, who speaks venutian, and is therefore untrustworthy.

I can't remember where I read that, so I can't give you the source, and I'm just posting here not to defend it, but to be able to impugn Randi and get away with it.

Get it?

Cheers,

 

[Drooper]

I read an article once that says Randi is a cabbage from duluth, on the planet rafflesdrof, who speaks venutian, and is therefore untrustworthy.

I know this was VERIFIED double blind experiments by SCIENTISTS. It appeared in ACADEMIC JOURNALS. It MUST be true.

 

[Guest]

I read an article once that says Randi is a cabbage from duluth, on the planet rafflesdrof, who speaks venutian, and is therefore untrustworthy.

I can't remember where I read that, so I can't give you the source, and I'm just posting here not to defend it, but to be able to impugn Randi and get away with it.

Get it?

Cheers,

I do so why do you keep asking for information about the article still then?

 

[Guest]

I do so why do you keep asking for information about the article still then?

I am not now asking for the article. I am pointing out to Ma'at that his paragraph makes little sense. I parsed the statement apart and showed that there were three claims, either made in the article or made by Ma'at, or both. They are:

Step 4: (Separate into the various claims):
a. "medicines [have] ... some serious side effects" OR
b. "medicines [have] ... any side effects that are worse ...[than] the original symptom" OR
c. "medicines [have]... any side effects that are ... additional to the original symptom"

I then responded to these three claims:

OK, there they are, all three of them.
4a. Yes , some have serious side effects.
4b. As I said, where is the evidence that this occurs in the general case?
4c. As I said, side effects are, by definiton, "additional." And, as I said, study subjects always claim side effects from placebos. Given this, how can you ever NOT have side effects?

And I still await answers.

Cheers,