View Full Version : Homeopathy no better than sugar pill
Peter Rehse
08-26-2005, 01:27
Homeopathy no better than sugar pill: metastudy
article (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050825.whomeo0825/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/)
Mandeigh Wells
08-26-2005, 03:09
Interesting, my vet practises homeopathy....results on my animals have been dramatic......does a horse know of the placebo effect?
Peter Rehse
08-26-2005, 03:12
No idea but I bet they know what a sugar pill is.
Mandeigh Wells
08-26-2005, 03:24
:laugh: in their dreams maybe....... the horse dentist costs a fortune and I have a helluva job getting them to gargle with lysterine at night!
Peter Rehse
08-26-2005, 03:56
:laugh: in their dreams maybe....... the horse dentist costs a fortune and I have a helluva job getting them to gargle with lysterine at night!
:D
You can lead the horse to the bathroom sink but you can't make him .....
Darkmidas
08-26-2005, 04:41
There is strong evidence that homepathy does work, it is quite tough to beleieve that th chemicals utilised in ppm or ppb would do anything, but there are documented cases of people recovering from life-threatening diseases due to it...if the shoe fits..
Cliff Hargrave
08-26-2005, 05:09
but there are documented cases of people recovering from life-threatening diseases due to it...
Please feel free to point us to those documented cases.
For some actual documentation on how homeopathic practices are useless and dangerous please view: http://www.homeowatch.org/
Homeopathy is in the same league as fortune tellers, crystals, and psychic surgery.
Cliff, are you a homeophob? ;)
Jeff Cook
Rasputin
08-26-2005, 13:29
Homeopathy is in the same league as fortune tellers, crystals, and psychic surgery.
Ditto. Angers me to no end to see Homeopathic products in the drug stores, claiming to "relieve" all sorts of illnesses and ailments.
If you are a devotee of science, the idea that diluting something until it is statistically unlikely that a single molecule of the original substance is present in the final product makes it stronger than the original; that molecules have a "memory" and retain some "energy" left over from their association with the original substance, is pure folly. It makes my brain bleed just thinking about it.
Even worse when you Google Homeopathy and see sites instructing people on how to treat children with homeopathy for real illnesses.
It simply does not bear up under scientific, double-blind scrutiny.
A good review article was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine which looked at the avalible research on Homeopathic Treatments. I will attach the article to this post!
Eye4NEye
08-26-2005, 14:26
Thanks for the article, Jason. That was interesting.
Doctors are pharmacological shills. Nearly all surgery is unnessassary.
Cliff Hargrave
08-26-2005, 15:10
......Nearly all surgery is unnessassary.
Care to explain that one? Your medical degree is from where?
I guess I really didn't need that hernia repaired, my tonsils removed, or my ruptured appendix removed. My dad probably didn't need those stints in his heart, after all how important is blood flow? My friend really didn't need that tumor removed. Dennis really didn't need his hand operated on, I mean moving fingers and wrists are so over rated. I cant believe I have had students that were dumb enough to actually have their knees repaired, shoulders repaired, necks repaired, etc. I guess we all could have taken some homeopathic stuff and been good as new.
Eye4NEye
08-26-2005, 15:33
Don't pull any punches, Cliff. Tell us how you really feel. :laugh:
Cliff Hargrave
08-26-2005, 15:39
Don't pull any punches, Cliff. Tell us how you really feel. :laugh:
I know, sometimes I hold back and have a hard time expressing myself. I am working on it though :)
Rasputin
08-26-2005, 15:57
Doctors are pharmacological shills. Nearly all surgery is unnessassary.
Surgery and medicine are two separate fields of health; two different approaches to curing ills: cut out the problem and sew things back together, or use chemicals to cure it.
In your statement above, to approach logical consistancy (apart from the question of its relationship with the facts) both sentences should be separate topics.
I know that my experiences with physicians have been to my betterment.
Now Im not arguing for homeopathy. Doctors, like police, work after the fact. Simply, doctors cannot cure anything, nothing is cureable, so they focus on money making skills like surgery or dealing legal drugs.
I'll ask this, would surgery be necessary if you knew that following a proper diet would keep arteries unclogged?
Would Doctors advising proper lifting procedure and bodily alignment all but wipe out hernia?
Do you think for one moment that doctors care about you? Do you think doctors went through 8 years of medical school and probably ended up in serious debt just because they wanted to help you?
They will perform surgery or prescribe their pills - usually whichever costs the most.
Eating a sugar pill won't kill ya, so it can't be that bad.
Cliff Hargrave
08-27-2005, 10:21
Now Im not arguing for homeopathy. Doctors, like police, work after the fact. Simply, doctors cannot cure anything, nothing is cureable, so they focus on money making skills like surgery or dealing legal drugs.
I'll ask this, would surgery be necessary if you knew that following a proper diet would keep arteries unclogged?
Would Doctors advising proper lifting procedure and bodily alignment all but wipe out hernia?
Do you think for one moment that doctors care about you? Do you think doctors went through 8 years of medical school and probably ended up in serious debt just because they wanted to help you?
They will perform surgery or prescribe their pills - usually whichever costs the most.
Newsflash - You are 100% wrong. Where the heck did you develop such an idiotic idea. That sounds just like paranoid conspiracy theorists worried about the illuminati. Sure there are bad doctors, just as there are bad everything, but to make such a blanket statement borders on lunacy.
Do you know what percentage of clogged arteries are caused from diet and what percentage are caused from other factors, such as heredity or trauma? Do you know how many hernia's are caused from lifting as opposed to other factors? I was born with mine. Do you know anything about medicine? Do you know how many fatal diseases that have been all but eliminated in our society because of drugs? Do you have idea how long our average life expectancy has been raised over the last hundred years?
So are you never going to take drugs or have an operation? If you get an infection are you just going to die rather than take an evil drug from a money hungry doctor?
Do you really believe doctors go through that hell of medical school and internship just for the money? Do you have any idea how many doctors are "rich" compared to how many are just making a living? Not every doctor is a doing boob jobs in Beverly Hills and spending the weekend on their yatch. Why the hell would they go through all that BS with such a small percentage chance of ever making it rich? They have a much better chance of being rich by getting a law degree, financial degree, or business degree, and they dont have to cut on dead bodies to get it.
...and no I don't work after the fact. I run a proactive squad.
Now Im not arguing for homeopathy. Doctors, like police, work after the fact. Simply, doctors cannot cure anything, nothing is cureable, so they focus on money making skills like surgery or dealing legal drugs.
I'll ask this, would surgery be necessary if you knew that following a proper diet would keep arteries unclogged?
Would Doctors advising proper lifting procedure and bodily alignment all but wipe out hernia?
Do you think for one moment that doctors care about you? Do you think doctors went through 8 years of medical school and probably ended up in serious debt just because they wanted to help you?
They will perform surgery or prescribe their pills - usually whichever costs the most.
If you are going to make statements like "nothing is curable", you would do well to have some data. Your statements are fanatical in your lack of concern for actual truth and and bordering on the ridiculous in their theatrics.
The last time I checked physicians and researchers with their evil medicine have cured several diseaeses. Do we have along way to go? Yes of course we do and we always will. Are their some doctors that are quacks and try to take you for money you don't have? Yes but the vast majority are good hard working people who try hard to help the people they can under very, very difficult circumstances.
I totally agree with Jason.
And thanks to medicine we've come a long way from the stone age.
Of course some people can still claim that no surgery is needed, that they can cure AIDS by the power of the mind or even with some good will get rid of a tumor...
Having such idea that medicine is useless can be very dangerous, and I sincerly hope these persons will never have to be in charge of the life of anyone else than themselves (thinking about kids or wife).
W.Kent Bergstrom
08-29-2005, 00:11
For some actual documentation on how homeopathic practices are useless and dangerous please view: http://www.homeowatch.org/
I don't wan't to say I am for or against homeopathy because i don't know enough about it.
I do know about homeowatch and quackwatch. The site owner claims to be a retired MD (psychiatrist) but the following site will give a bit more insight to the baloney this guy has been trying to pull.
Link to some of the truth about the guy that runs those reference pages (http://www.quackpotwatch.org/quackpots/quackpots/barrett.htm)
Link to one of the court cases against this guy (http://www.quackpotwatch.org/quackpots/california_superior_court_judge_.htm)
The 2003 National Council Against Health Fraud that is run by quackbusters total loss in court which established their lack of credibility (http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/for_quackbuster.htm)
So I don't think quoting quackwatch is a very good idea. The guy is getting brutalized in the court systems and has last all credibility as a reference source. He used to make his "journalistic techniques" available to the public to help him in this stuff and it is backfiring on him across the country from what I understand.
Peter Rehse
08-29-2005, 00:47
One of those links made an interesting point.
And worse, the "double-blind study" is considered to be heinous, and was banned by world government during the Helsinki Accord in 1964.
A pretty disingeneous statement in itself, an explanation of what's going on can be found here (http://www.mult-sclerosis.org/news/Sep2001/MoreOnPlaceboUseInTrials.html)
It was a recommendation and basically revolves around withholding treatment from a number of patients when an effective treatment exists. The debate actually is at what point does the withhold of treatment become unethical even with informed consent.
The irony of course is that by not using a placebo the bar for homeopathic medicine is set much higher. It has to show its more effective than existing treatment. From an ethical point of view you have an added difficulty that you can not just give the patient the supposed homeopathic rememdy without strong evidence that it would work. You can't have it both ways.
Cliff Hargrave
08-29-2005, 07:21
I don't wan't to say I am for or against homeopathy because i don't know enough about it.
I do know about homeowatch and quackwatch. The site owner claims to be a retired MD (psychiatrist) but the following site will give a bit more insight to the baloney this guy has been trying to pull.
Link to some of the truth about the guy that runs those reference pages (http://www.quackpotwatch.org/quackpots/quackpots/barrett.htm)
Link to one of the court cases against this guy (http://www.quackpotwatch.org/quackpots/california_superior_court_judge_.htm)
The 2003 National Council Against Health Fraud that is run by quackbusters total loss in court which established their lack of credibility (http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/for_quackbuster.htm)
So I don't think quoting quackwatch is a very good idea. The guy is getting brutalized in the court systems and has last all credibility as a reference source. He used to make his "journalistic techniques" available to the public to help him in this stuff and it is backfiring on him across the country from what I understand.
That site is nothing but a personal attack on Barrett. I am sure he has pissed off a few folks over the years. The information on Quackwatch.org is not soley from Barrett, but a collection of hundreds of people and hundreds of studies. If you don't like his site there are tons of others out there that say the same thing. Homeopathy is bunk and so is all the other New Age, feel-good BS.
W.Kent Bergstrom
08-29-2005, 10:52
That site is nothing but a personal attack on Barrett. I am sure he has pissed off a few folks over the years. The information on Quackwatch.org is not soley from Barrett, but a collection of hundreds of people and hundreds of studies. If you don't like his site there are tons of others out there that say the same thing. Homeopathy is bunk and so is all the other New Age, feel-good BS.
Sorry Cliff - I don't want to get into a pissing match over these two guys (Barrett and Bolen) as they are duking it out in court back and forth all over the place. Yes it is an attack on Barrett, just as Barrett is attacking just about everything out there that doesn't fit the western medicine mold. I would question your comment on hundreds of people and hundreds of studies. To keep life simple and avoid loading up this thread with that particular site, I would suggest that folks go through the links to see which ones are actually written by other people than Barrett, and why he posts "warning labels by the FDA" to companies that obviously complied with FDA regulations. And no reference to their compliance and working within the law.
The petition against Hoeopathy is written by him, the letter of acceptance of Hemeopathic products by the rep from the FDA has his attacking comments through the whole thing....(has a whopping 42)
So yes - Barrett has pissed off some people through the years. Probably a lot more than he'll ever get to help in his crusade because as far as I've seen so far he is not doing well at all in the courts based on his track record.
I posted Bolens site only in rebuttal to Barrett. Barrett attacks, Bolen attacks.
again for the record, I am neither for nor against Homeopathy.
But I am definitely against the journalistic techniques in Quackwatch.
Folks go through the mire of links and READ the stuff. And try to figure out where the info is coming from besides Barrett or if the material presented is complete, or jaded to make a point.
Isn't scientific more than one sided? So shouldn't folks pushing scientific process be presenting the whole story too?
Bottom line on this particular site is that it proves the FDA approves these products. The companies he attacks in 2002 & 2003 still have their products on the shelves.
Cliff Hargrave
08-29-2005, 12:12
Like I said, he isn't the only one out there, he just found something to do with his time. His site is just convienent because he has compiled so much information in one place.
The fact remains that almost none of the alternative things out there work. No studies, no tests, no information, just faith. Snake oil has been around for a long time and never goes away, just changes names.
Gene Williams
08-29-2005, 12:35
I knew a guy who was a homeopath once, but he was a really good person and I do not think it should be held against him :)
No studies, no tests, no information,
That doesnt mean it doesnt work, just that there are no studies, no tests, no information to prove it to your closed mind.
(Im not trying to be rude, I just cant think of any other way to describe a mindset that wont accept something unless other people say "its ok to accept it")
Cliff Hargrave
08-29-2005, 17:13
I am closed minded on many issues, this is just one of them.
Homeopathy = bunk
next topic?
Peter Rehse
08-29-2005, 19:45
I just cant think of any other way to describe a mindset that wont accept something unless other people say "its ok to accept it")
Ironically there are people that say its ok to accept it. The ones who expect us to take their word on faith.
That doesnt mean it doesnt work, just that there are no studies, no tests, no information to prove it to your closed mind.
(Im not trying to be rude, I just cant think of any other way to describe a mindset that wont accept something unless other people say "its ok to accept it")
There are several studies, tests, and information. Do a search on pubmed and limit your results to those that are peer-reviewed journals and you will find a great deal of information. I posted a review article on this topic on this thread already which cites several such studies.
There is no consistant data, when studies are performed in a controlled enviornment which suggest that it works. Not because the research hasn't been done, but because the data did not support it.
Yeah yeah yeah peer reviewed peer reviewed peer reviewed
Heaven forbid anyone make up their OWN MIND through their OWN EXPERIENCE.
Peter Rehse
08-30-2005, 18:58
Arsenic helps acne because they both start with the letter A.
Please try it for yourself before you dismiss it.
Gene Williams
08-30-2005, 21:44
I have heard that cyanide helps sciatica. I had a wart once, and I ate a lot of seafood one week and it went away.
Arsenic helps acne because they both start with the letter A.
Please try it for yourself before you dismiss it.
Im pretty sure it was already brought up, possibily even by you, that homeopathic remidies are so diluted so as not to have even the most minute amount of toxin in them?
If it has no toxin in it, then it wont cause any positive change, nor will it cause a negative change.... right?
If no change is present or possible... then whats the issue?
Oh, yeah, thats right, you all have taken it upon yourselves to educate the world. To decide what people can or should do or beleive, or practice - whether it is helpful, harmful, or otherwise.
I dont beleive in homeopathy, nor have I ever tried a homeopathic remedy.... but dumb ol me happens to think that if it doesnt hurt to try it (and as has been covered theres no actual poison in homeopathy) and some idiot wants to spend their hard earned money on it.... let em. who cares? its none of my concern, nor do I think it should be of concern to anyone else.
Peter Rehse
08-30-2005, 23:16
Actually the dilution is homeopathy varies from the ridiculously small to enough that symptoms are detected - low doses over time of some things accumulate for time and can have real effects. Alternative medicine is not as benign as you would like to believe. I don't know of instances where homeopathy has hurt anyone by itself (maybe someone else knows) but there are people out there claiming it can do things its been shown that it can't. You might not stop your chemotherapy because of those claims but others have and paid the price.
What's with the decide for other people comment? Where I have I said that you should do as I say and believe as I believe. Thing is I have as much right to counter claims as people have to make them. And their are some huge claims out there.
Science is the best mechanism society has for determining safe and effective treatments. It beats hearsay hands down.
Peter, this is a useless conversation.
You and many others are proudly close-minded, and talking to the closed minded about that which they have shut out is a futile effort.
Peter Rehse
08-31-2005, 00:11
Jo - not so close minded that we don't take a closer look at the claims. If we were we wouldn't even bother.
The fact that the claims don't hold up under scructiny has nothing do with how open or closed minded I am.
One of my best pieces of work derived from looking at traditional treatment methods and asking simple questions like does it work and how does it work. The result is still the most powerful anti-coagulant out there - ok so terribly toxic but that's besides the point.
A critical mind is not a closed mind - in fact I would say the opposite.
not so close minded that we don't take a closer look at the claims. If we were we wouldn't even bother.
I might beleive you if I didnt know many of the sources that have been cited. Biased second hand research on biased sources doesnt count.
lightninrod
08-31-2005, 15:28
There is no consistant data, when studies are performed in a controlled enviornment which suggest that it works. Not because the research hasn't been done, but because the data did not support it.
"No consistant data....which suggests that it works." Then doesn't that also mean that there is no consistant data to suggest that it doesn't work? Yeah, yeah. I know we've all had this discussion before, and everyone thinks that's it's everyone else's responsibility to prove to them that something works, as opposed to finding out for themselves; and lack of proof means that something doesn't work despite the fact that everyone will admit that lack of proof isn't proof of lack. Really logical.
Also, what's the deal with using the word "suggests" as opposed to "proves". Oh yeah! I remember! You said once that these studies don't prove or disprove anything, after which you provided an excellent explanation of statistical probabilities. (This was all in the threads concerning reiki.) Basically, in my opinion, studies which don't provide definitive results one way or another should be labeled "inconclusive", because they fail to tip the scales of proof in either direction. Simply "suggesting" shouldn't be good enough. Yet here everyone is, still looking for "proof" positive or negative, and using such studies for it. Saying "there is no consistant data" basically means that there was both positive and negative data and that the reasearchers still don't know.
I still say that lack of proof doesn't equal proof of lack. Just because you only see one side of a coin doesn't mean that it doesn't have another side - it just means that you don't see it; and, concerning many people here in this thread, you won't see it until a definitive study has been completed in a double blind format "suggesting" that a coin really does have another side, not counting a middle portion which has to be viewed from yet another direction, from which you won't see because there still won't be any studies concerning it. Go figure.
Justin Mears
"No consistant data....which suggests that it works." Then doesn't that also mean that there is no consistant data to suggest that it doesn't work?
No Justin that is not what it means. In this situation, there have been multiple studies done by respected journals where the overwhelming evidence suggests that it does not work. This is not a case where there is no evidence either way, it is a case where the data is consistantly showing the homeopathic methods are not what they are cracked up to be.
If you had read the rest of the thread you would see that articles have already been posted which address this.
lightninrod
09-01-2005, 22:17
No Justin that is not what it means. In this situation, there have been multiple studies done by respected journals where the overwhelming evidence suggests that it does not work. This is not a case where there is no evidence either way, it is a case where the data is consistantly showing the homeopathic methods are not what they are cracked up to be.
If you had read the rest of the thread you would see that articles have already been posted which address this.
You are so full of it that it's ridiculous. I'm really getting sick of your snide B.S. replies which include the statement "if you had read....". I've read this thread from top to bottom and the only articles posted are the one that initiated this thread, which I can't read without having to subscribe to someone's crap, Cliff's post which is VERY biased if one bothers to read beyond the name on the homepage (Homeowatch - Your Skeptical Guide to Homeopathic History, Theories, and Current Practices
), another post by Mr. Bergstrom which provides links to evidence that Homeowatch is biased and untrustworthy, and the article which you posted in .pdf format which doesn't state anything anywhere near to what you are implying here. Since you posted it, let's have a closer look at it, if you please.
In the opening summary, we have one sentence which states that "THREE trials reported that its effects seem to be more than placebo, and ONE review found its effects consistant with placebo." So here we have a three to one ratio in favor of homeopathy. The next two sentences state that there is evidence that homeopathy is effective for some things and not so effective for others. Next is the clincher... "There is a lack of conclusive evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for most conditions. Homeopathy deserves an open-minded opportunity to demonstrate its
value by using evidence-based principles, but it should not be
substituted for proven therapies."
Where, according to you, is the "overwhelming evidence" which "suggests that it does not work"? Sounds like you asserting your own biased opinion where it doesn't belong.
So, let's go further into your article. Next, after the opening statement is a history of homeopathy, who founded it, the principles upon which it was founded, a profile of the people who commonly seek such treatment, and a breif description of the various approaches to treatment that one may encounter. Then there is a table which lists six clinical trials where four find that homeopathy has a greater effect than a placebo, and two which state that there is no effect greater than placebo. That's a two to one ratio IN FAVOR OF homeopathy.
Next is the topic "Adverse Events and Drug Labeling", where it is stated that "Because of the small doses, almost all authorities assume that homeopathy is safe and will not interact with conventional drugs as long as patients also receive good conventional care. However, the benign nature of high dilutions should not be assumed without systematic investigation. Adverse effects have been reported with homeopathy in both the clinic and the laboratory." So, ok. There can be adverse effects. Not unlike any other medicine currently in use, especially considering those that are currently involved in the numerous class-action lawsuits going on around the country - all of which were approved using your preferred standard of double-blind studies. Once again, go figure.
Next is the topic "Do Ultra-High Dilutions Produce Effects in the
Laboratory?" where it is explained that clinical trials aren't so good "for determining whether ultra-high dilutions have specific effects" and that laboratory research is more useful in this area. Concerning such research, the article states that "The publication of laboratory investigations
of ultra-high dilutions has produced considerable controversy and mixed results on attempted replication." Hmmm... Controversy and mixed results.... Sounds inconclusive to me.
Further, "Multiple independent replications of this research have not yet been done because there are few investigators in the field. Future research should focus on simple clinical or laboratory models that can be easily attempted
by multiple investigators. In addition, better data are needed to examine the use and effects of homeopathy by the public and in actual practice."
This directly refutes your statement where you say "Not because the research hasn't been done, but because the data did not support it." According to this article there is more data which supports homeopathy than that which refutes it, and there has been a lack of independent research concerning the effects of such dilutions. Maybe you don't read your own s**t, Mr. Researcher.
Next is the closing paragraph, which states "Despite skepticism about the plausibility of homeopathy, some randomized, placebo-controlled trials and laboratory research report unexpected effects of homeopathic medicines." In other words, according to the previous statements and referenced studies, one could conclude that it unexpectedly WORKED. "However, the evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for specific clinical conditions is scant, is of uneven quality, and is generally poorer quality than research done in allopathic
medicine."
Maybe this is because most researchers are probably as close-minded as you are and feel that they shouldn't have to bother with such "bunk". (As our so articulate resident LEO, Cliff, describes things which he can't explain away.)
"More and better research is needed, unobstructed by belief or disbelief in the system. Until homeopathy is better understood, it is important that physicians be open-minded about homeopathy’s possible value
and maintain communication with patients who use it." WHAT?!?! Physicians should be open-minded about homeopathy's possible value????? No way!!!! I thought the evidence, according to you, "suggests" that this s**t doesn't work! Homeopathy has "possible value"???? WOW!!!
So, in conclusion, and in consideration of all the above, you obviously don't have an objective bone in your body. Maybe our benevolent dictator should change the name of this particular forum to "Healing Arts Which Have Recieved A Thumbs Up From Our Not-So-Moderate Moderator Who Is Blind To Any Evidence Which Doesn't Support His Own Opinion Even When It Is Evidence Which He Himself Posted In His Effort To Prove They Don't Work". Sounds good to me. Nobody can post a d**n thing here without you wanting to see some kind of proves-nothing (according to your own words) study on it. Maybe you should start reading your own s**t, huh?
Justin Mears
Cliff Hargrave
09-01-2005, 23:04
Hey internet tough guy, discuss your points without the *** cuss words, insults, and without your little snide comments about me.
You got something to me then say it directly, or are you trying to just continue your garbage from the other threads?
Like I said before, say your piece, we say ours, and let it be. It's the internet for God's sake. You can believe in all the homeopathy, chi, reiki, ghosts, fairies, vampires and whatever else you want but you will NOT convince most people here or anywhere that they are true.
Why can't you present your point of view without getting mad? There are plenty of folks here that disagree with me and others without acting like little snots throwing a tantrum. Don't like it? Go away. You are not going to hide behind a keyboard and act like that here.
Gene Williams
09-02-2005, 05:13
Cliff, get the net! :D
Justin I'm getting plenty tired of your crap also. I think maybe you should take a break from this forum for a while. If you can behave you can come back in a day or so. If not, I will ban you for good and you can take up your case to the webmaster...
I find it interesting that the response was NOT to answer any of his questions or refute his points, but to threaten to ban him... not even an "agree to disagree". Just a ban threat and even a "go away"... from BOTH of you.
I dont think his attitude was appropriate, but he raised very valid points.
No one has responded to them.
I beleive you guys have thuroughly covered the subject (more so than it deserves).
BUT
Homeopathy is bunk and so is all the other New Age, feel-good BS.
Could you explain what you mean by 'New AGE, feel-good BS'?
From my understanding it's not BS, you don't see many unhappy 100 yr-olds, so a positive mental attitude must be healthy, to an extent.
Cliff Hargrave
09-02-2005, 16:00
Could you explain what you mean by 'New AGE, feel-good BS'?
From my understanding it's not BS, you don't see many unhappy 100 yr-olds, so a positive mental attitude must be healthy, to an extent.
What are you saying? That you only live to 100 with new age stuff? Positive mental attitudes have nothing to do with New Age.
By "New-Age" stuff I am talking about all the alternative things out there like crystals, astrology, reiki, holistic, etc.
Mandeigh Wells
09-02-2005, 16:19
New age = crystals, astrology, reiki, holistic etc
hmmmm interesting thought Cliff, cos most of that is 'old age' and all holistic means is treating the object a whole...
ie holistic medicine, considers more that simply the seen symptoms. Eg you have a head ache......if you simple treat the symptoms you take a headache tablet. A holistic approach would be to consider if there is something else going on in the body that is causing the head ache......like a pulled muscle in the neck.
here's a wee article abou Astrology for you...there is nothing New Age about it....its more Old Age
Astrology
A Brief History of the Oldest Science Known to Humankind
Sometimes they're uncanny in their accuracy; other times they hit a bit off the mark. Nearly always, horoscopes are good entertainment. But Astrology is far more complex than a daily horoscope-and it's not just for fun. Contrary to its popular but erroneous reputation as a New Age subject, Astrology is actually an ancient science that predates both astronomy and psychology. Studied and used throughout the world for thousands of years, Astrology is the study of the interactions among the Stars and the Planets, based on intricate mathematical cycles.
The earliest known astrological records date back to Babylon, 1645 BC, and the earliest horoscope to 410 BC. Astrology's origins can also be traced to several other locations and cultures, including Egypt, which developed sophisticated timekeeping and calendar science; Greece, where Ptolemy authored influential astrological and astronomical texts; and Rome, where many of the most learned men-including two emperors-were astrologers who wrote laws and counseled citizens based on the Stars.
During the Renaissance, when literacy became more widespread, almanacs began publishing astrological information for public consumption. Several notable figures of the era, including Galileo and Copernicus, were both practicing astrologers and founders of the modern scientific movement. Despite the seemingly easy relationship between Astrology and science, however, Astrology began to lose popular credibility when myriad predictions about the great conjunction of 1524 failed to "come true."
As the Scientific Revolution surged and astronomy gained respect, Astrology and various other arts fell by the wayside. Many individuals still practiced the art, however, and Astrology enjoyed small revivals in England in the 17- and 1800s. But it wasn't until the birth of Princess Margaret in 1930 that Astrology once again found widespread popularity. That year, the London Sunday Express ran an astrological profile of the princess to celebrate her birth-and so began the modern newspaper horoscope column.
In the 1950s, French astrologers Michel and Françoise Gauquelin used sophisticated statistical studies to link the positions of the Planets to human nature. Others, such as Dane Rudhyar, have expanded the study of Humanistic Astrology.
or a bit about Crystals
A Brief History of Crystals
The use of crystals for healing on many levels began long before what is called the New Age. When you hold a crystal or meditate with them, place them in special areas of your home, or wear crystal jewelry, you continue practices which are as old as humankind.
The history below is by no means complete; it is intended to suggest that the human connection to crystals is one which transcends time and cultures.
Prehistoric Use of Crystals
Archaeologists have discovered in graves and barrows excavated in Europe, the Middle East, Russia, and Africa beads, carvings, and jewelry of amber, jet, turquoise, lapis, garnet, carnelian, quartz, and other stones. It is believed that the carvings were probably amulets and talismans, used for protection and as reminders of religious rites.
Some of the discovered stones were carved in the shape of various animals, and were probably symbols of particular totems. Others were necklaces and other items of adornment.
The value given to crystals in these various cultures is indicated by their presence in the graves; they were intended to go with the departed soul to help them in the next life.
A striking example of prehistoric reverence for crystals is the solar temple, Newgrange. This ancient passage grave in the Boyne Valley of Ireland, which is older than the pyramids, was built so that the sun would stream through the 70-foot-long entrance tunnel on the Winter Solstice. Its roof was originally covered with white quartz, to symbolize the White Goddess.
Crystal Skulls
One of the most remarkable archaeological discoveries has been that of anatomically perfect crystal skulls. According to the many sources I've consulted on them they defy modern dating techniques; estimates are that they are at least 20,000 years old.
One of the best-known of these is the Mitchell-Hedges skull. Its origins are disputed. Some believe that it was discovered by Anna Mitchell-Hedges, the daughter of archaeologist F.A. Mitchell-Hedges, in Guatemala; others claim that the archaeologist bought it in London.
Although the specific purpose for the carving and use of the crystal is unknown, those who have spent time with it have reported a variety of mystical experiences.
I had the privilege of spending some time with this skull in 1988. Simply to view its perfection (it is so lovingly carved that its surface is perfectly smooth) and the rainbows which flash from its interiors would have been gift enough; being able to touch it was an experience so powerful that I am sorry to say I can't describe it, except to say that there is enormous spiritual energy in this skull.
Ancient Egypt
Crystal was widely used in this civilization. A hieroglyphic papyrus from the year 2000 B.C. documents a medical cure using a crystal, and several from the year 1500 B.C. have additional prescriptions.
Lapis was considered to be a royal stone. It was often pulverized and made into a poultice to be rubbed into the crown of the head. It was believed that as it dried it drew out all spiritual impurities.
The pharaohs often had their headdresses lined with malachite in the belief that it helped them to rule wisely. In powder form this stone was used for poor eyesight and inner vision.
Many other stones were found in the tombs, including carnelian, turquoise, and tiger's eye. These were often shaped into amulets, shields, and into the shapes of hearts, the Eye of Horus, and scarabs.
Native American
The original settlers of North, Central, and South America used crystals widely for spiritual, ceremonial, and healing purposes, and served practical purposes, as well. The ancient Mexicans, for example, made mirrors out of pyrite.
Obsidian served both practical and ritual purposes. The Mayans used it for ceremonial knives, and and other tribes believed that it served to sharpen both outer and inner vision.
Turquoise was believed to be a stone which bridged heaven and earth (a belief also held in Tibet). In one legend it is stated that if one went to the end of the rainbow and dug in the earth he would find a turquoise.
Mayan Indians used quartz crystals for both the diagnosis and treatment of disease. Some Mexican Indian tribes believed that the souls of those who led good lives would go into crystals.
China and Japan
Quartz was traditionally revered in the Far East, especially in carved form. Quartz crystal balls were considered to represent the heart or essence of the dragon. Dragons were thought to have great power, and a deeper meaning for "dragon" is that of a very wise and evolved individual.
The stone most associated with China is jade. It was termed the concentrated essence of love. Many kinds of amulets are carved from this stone, including those for friendship and for romantic love. A jade butterfly was a symbol of successful love.
India
The culture of ancient India is a rich source of information about crystals. The system of chakras (energy centers), which helps us to place crystals on the body for healing and meditation originated there. Astrological documents written as early as 400 B.C. contain detailed observations about the power of various stones to counteract the negative effects of planetary positions.
Stones were regarded as having great spiritual and emotional powers. Moonstone, for instance, was a sacred stone, and believed to arouse love. Onyx, in contrast, was believed to help release the ties of old loves. The ruby was a highly valued gemstone, and was known as the "king of precious stones."
The connection between humans and crystals is especially vivid in the following verses from the Vedas (Hindu sacred texts):
There is an endless net of threads
Throughout the universe.
The horizontal threads are in space.
The vertical threads are in time.
At every crossing of the threads,
There is an individual,
And every individual
Is a crystal bead.
The great light of absolute being
Illuminates and penetrates
Every crystal bead, and also,
Every crystal bead reflects
Not only the light
From every other crystal in the net,
But also every reflection
Of every reflection
Throughout the universe.
just some food for thought
beadbreaker
09-02-2005, 17:05
First of all, I must say openly that I violated a rule and made a false account here just so I can apologize for the extremely sarcastic nature of my last post. I know two wrongs don't make a right, so if anyone wishes to ban me permanently due to this, then you may, of course, do so.
Rather than offer excuses (excuses aren't good for squat, IMO), I'll just say that I do recognise my error and that it won't happen again. I sincerely apologize to all whom I offended - particularly Cliff and Jason for the very insulting nature of my remarks and comments. Also to Robert Carver for putting such invective on his website. While I did have valid points to make, I was completely wrong in the manner that I chose to make them, and I take full responsibility for my actions.
Lastly, I just want to say that this will be the only post that I make here using a pseudonym. I actually came online today to apologize before I found my account suspended, and I could find no other way to accomplish this. If anyone deems fit to re-open my account, I would like to continue in this discussion - albeit in a more level-headed manner. Again... my apologies.
Sincerely,
Justin Mears
aka Lightninrod
By "New-Age" stuff I am talking about all the alternative things out there like crystals, astrology, reiki, holistic, etc.
Thanks, I just wasn't sure what you meant.
When you say 'new age' I initially think of (relatively) RECENT revelations such as exercise, nutrition, and to an extent; stress reduction, all studied in relation to human health. I think you'll agee those play a big role in one's health.
I have no knowledge of ANY past civilisation that would exercise for health's sake, so I took the liberty of that assumption.
As Mandeigh neatly outlined it, I did not consider those very old approaches to medicine, which (apperantly) are in the medical spotlight nowadays.
The holistic approach, in theory, is perfectly logical, it just seems to have been associated with the wrong kind of people.
Cliff Hargrave
09-02-2005, 19:41
First of all, I must say openly that I violated a rule and made a false account here just so I can apologize for the extremely sarcastic nature of my last post. I know two wrongs don't make a right, so if anyone wishes to ban me permanently due to this, then you may, of course, do so.
Rather than offer excuses (excuses aren't good for squat, IMO), I'll just say that I do recognise my error and that it won't happen again. I sincerely apologize to all whom I offended - particularly Cliff and Jason for the very insulting nature of my remarks and comments. Also to Robert Carver for putting such invective on his website. While I did have valid points to make, I was completely wrong in the manner that I chose to make them, and I take full responsibility for my actions.
Lastly, I just want to say that this will be the only post that I make here using a pseudonym. I actually came online today to apologize before I found my account suspended, and I could find no other way to accomplish this. If anyone deems fit to re-open my account, I would like to continue in this discussion - albeit in a more level-headed manner. Again... my apologies.
Sincerely,
Justin Mears
aka Lightninrod
No problem here. I apologize for anything I said that could be taken in an inflamatory way. Everyone has valid points, sometimes it's hard to express them in writing correctly.
Mandeigh Wells
09-03-2005, 03:59
You also have to consider that many of these practises are culturally based. I think it becomes more of a problem for people like Cliff and others (and no offence intended there) when people dip in and out of cultures to kind of mix and match stuff. Don't forget a Shaman was just that...full time all of his life. He didn't have an office job in the day and then become a Shaman for an hour in the evening.
Some practises are developed from superstition, others from 'natural' medicine ie an understanding of plants, herbs, eating the right insect etc. Some from things we will never understand...maybe the pyramids really are a mothership landing site......who knows. :wink2:
But I get a bit fed up hearing someone is a wiccan/shamanic/ reiki master who did a weekend course in crystal healing.......and yet looks like death warmed up :rolleyes:
Peter Rehse
09-03-2005, 04:00
Actually I am a strong supported of the holistic approach and would love to see more of it integrated into modern health care. Too often you only start getting that once hospitalized but really this is where personal responsibility comes in.
I would like to see many alternative medicines put under the same scrutiny as modern pharmacology for the simple reason that the active ingredient (for the ones that work) is still a chemical. How many people died from that diet drug in Japan that slipped past the regulators because it was herbal.
There are moves to license alternative treatments and educate their practitioners. Had some interesting discussions with some going through the process. A BIG problem appears to be exagerated claims with vigorous attempts to dissuade people from more effective treatments. Not so serious for the odd headache but I have had personal experience of one guy claiming accupuncture could heal a raging ear infection. When I told the story to a hospital accupuncturist he was seriously pissed and went on a major rant.
This is the problem with working on pure belief - there are no checks.
lightninrod
09-03-2005, 13:58
No problem here. I apologize for anything I said that could be taken in an inflamatory way. Everyone has valid points, sometimes it's hard to express them in writing correctly.
Thanks for accepting my apology Cliff. I accept yours too, although it's really not necessary. Your response to my tirade was completely justifiable. I should have addressed your post directly rather than making indirect references to it, and I certainly shouldn't have insulted you in the process, whether directly or indirectly. I think from now on I will refrain from making posts here after my wife and I have feasted on shiskebobs and vodka. (Old Ukrainian tradition.) :D
I find it interesting that the response was NOT to answer any of his questions or refute his points, but to threaten to ban him... not even an "agree to disagree". Just a ban threat and even a "go away"... from BOTH of you.
I dont think his attitude was appropriate, but he raised very valid points.
No one has responded to them.
His attitude toward his posting and other members of this forum has been addressed by more than one moderator. It has happened on more than one forum in the past. If you noticed, I only sent him away for a quick 24 hour ban just to serve as a quick heads up.
No problem here. I apologize for anything I said that could be taken in an inflamatory way. Everyone has valid points, sometimes it's hard to express them in writing correctly.
Same here, thanks for the apology...
Take care,
(To Mandeigh: ) Cliff was justified calling in New Age, thats what it's called these days. New Age is pretty much all those old age stuff come again, new. New age astrology as opposed to old age astrology. The seperation comes into play because most of the time it was an interrupted line (though practitioners seem to like claiming otherwise), with the new practitioners picking up without even necessarily clear instruction on them, not to mention a real teacher. And there's so much BS thereof that the terminology dilutes onto the people who really HAVE been practicing since olden-times. It's also generally synonymous with "alternative to western scientific practices"
Not that the ones of actually traditions practices probably actually work, but who am I to judge? They can do what they want.
As it is though, I think you can safely call homeopathy New Age. I wouldn't ban it or anything, let people beleive what they want, but having it mainstream supported is just silly with only inconclusive tests. Especially as it was based on theorem that have been proven obsolete. (The four humours. Hahnemann didn't change the theory at all, just the methodology of treatment. Thus homeopathy I'd say is definately questionable at best.)
I dunno. Maybe I'm way off, but as far as I've seen...
seidogirl
12-12-2005, 08:09
I haven't used Homeopathy so I can't give an opinion on it's effectiveness, but I did go for acupuncture about 6 months ago and spent a ton of money on it (about $1400 for 2 months!) for a stomach problem I was having. It got to the point where I realized there was no way I could afford to keep going and stopped "cold turkey" (it was not covered by insurance). I figured out the problem was probably caused by stress so I changed my diet a little, got a new job, started MA, became closer to God, and guess what...stomach problem vanished! My own experience makes me think that a lot of what ails us is in our own minds or is caused by stress. Of course, I'm not saying people who have serious illnesses can magically heal themselves with positive thoughts, but for the minor things, I do believe it works. Acupuncture is relaxing, but there are ways you can relax on your own without spending thousands of dollars on something that has not been proven to do anything. I'm just basing this opinion on my own experience. I know people who swear by this stuff so who knows.
It would be nice if someone would do some real studies on these New Age treatments, but I think the drug companies are afraid that if these treatments are proven to work, it will put them out of business.
I also believe that modern medicine should incorporate preventive and holistic methods of dealing with disease. If people were taught how to care for themselves at an early age, we wouldn't get to the point where we have catastrophic illnesses as we get older, and then have to rely on doctors to "cure" us. Medicine today only deals with problems and then tries to solve the problem, but often after it's too late.
These are just my opinions...
Of course, I'm not saying people who have serious illnesses can magically heal themselves with positive thoughts
No, but it does help. There was one medical study in Glasgow Royal Infirmary where they randomised post-surgery patients to private rooms on either the west side (facing the motorway) or the east side (facing a graveyard and wood) of the hospital. The east side did better postop, presumably because they had a nice pretty graveyard to look at rather than a crappy motorway in the rain.
I also believe that modern medicine should incorporate preventive and holistic methods of dealing with disease. If people were taught how to care for themselves at an early age, we wouldn't get to the point where we have catastrophic illnesses as we get older, and then have to rely on doctors to "cure" us. Medicine today only deals with problems and then tries to solve the problem, but often after it's too late.
Actually I am a strong supported of the holistic approach and would love to see more of it integrated into modern health care. Too often you only start getting that once hospitalized but really this is where personal responsibility comes in.
Oh, come on, we try our best! Have you ever tried to get someone who's been smoking for 30 years to quit just because they've got a chronic bronchitis? They've learned to live with it, they don't give a sh*t! So then you mention dying premature, and they come back with "My dad smoked all his live and died aged 200 with eighteen children etc. etc."
So then you point out that his heart's starting to go, or that he's at increased risk of osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, any cancer you care to mention, his lungs are about to pack in and he's about two inches away from a Diabetes diagnosis. "Okay, doc, I'll cut down."
Next outpatient clinic appointment: "So, Mr X, how are you doing with the smoking?"
"Oh, I've switched now, Doc. I'm smoking the same, but they're Marlboro Lights." And here I was thinking it was the alpha-radiation and 60 known cancer-causing agents that gave you disease: turns out it's very very very very very small amounts of tar.
More serious reply to the above statements: Medicine is becoming more holistic, particularly in the UK. Med students have communication skills rammed down their throats, the emphasis is off "diagnose and treat" and more on "Find out, treat, help them sort out their life and help them cope." People mention Holistic Healthcare like it's some new thing that alternative medicine practitioners do so much better than doctors. But the best doctors I've ever worked with have been in their sixties (ie Old Boy Consultants) who did all this 'communicate with the patient, form a bond, etc.' stuff naturally. Formed a bond, communicated with the patient, and tackled their disease. All for free on the Good Ole' NHS. MAybe you do feel better coming out of a 50-minute Homeopathy consultation compared to your average 10-minute GP appointment, but if someone listened to me complain about my problems for an hour I'd feel better having it off my chest too.
seidogirl
12-12-2005, 14:43
No, but it does help. There was one medical study in Glasgow Royal Infirmary where they randomised post-surgery patients to private rooms on either the west side (facing the motorway) or the east side (facing a graveyard and wood) of the hospital. The east side did better postop, presumably because they had a nice pretty graveyard to look at rather than a crappy motorway in the rain.
That's interesting because I wouldn't think looking at a graveyard would be too inspiring!
Oh, come on, we try our best! Have you ever tried to get someone who's been smoking for 30 years to quit just because they've got a chronic bronchitis? They've learned to live with it, they don't give a sh*t! So then you mention dying premature, and they come back with "My dad smoked all his live and died aged 200 with eighteen children etc. etc."
Of course you will always have people who are like that and won't listen to reason. There's nothing you can do about that...you can lead a horse to water....
More serious reply to the above statements: Medicine is becoming more holistic, particularly in the UK. Med students have communication skills rammed down their throats, the emphasis is off "diagnose and treat" and more on "Find out, treat, help them sort out their life and help them cope." People mention Holistic Healthcare like it's some new thing that alternative medicine practitioners do so much better than doctors. But the best doctors I've ever worked with have been in their sixties (ie Old Boy Consultants) who did all this 'communicate with the patient, form a bond, etc.' stuff naturally. Formed a bond, communicated with the patient, and tackled their disease. All for free on the Good Ole' NHS. MAybe you do feel better coming out of a 50-minute Homeopathy consultation compared to your average 10-minute GP appointment, but if someone listened to me complain about my problems for an hour I'd feel better having it off my chest too.
You're probably right about that. I really think a lot of what ails us is in our own heads, but here in the US, I haven't had too many positive experiences with doctors. They spend a few minutes with you and are quick to get out the prescription pad when maybe the person doesn't need drugs to help their problem.
Jay Bell
12-12-2005, 15:58
Has anyone taken a moment to understand that Barrett was a psychologist...and not a medical doctor?
He's also been brought in on cases as an "expert" witness for claims against chiropractors...and lost miserably despite the fact.
The guy has an axe to grind, period. The guy is about as scummy as Kevin Trudeau...almost.
That said...I agree with Cliff a lot about his take on holistic medicine. Reiki, crystals, energy-long-distance healing. C'mon.. There's kooks in any profession. Unfortunately those kooks are dealing with your health and well-being.
I've used Homeopathic medicine in my life. Some worked pretty darn well, some not at all. *shrug* Wudduya do..
lightninrod
12-12-2005, 23:14
I've used Homeopathic medicine in my life. Some worked pretty darn well, some not at all. *shrug* Wudduya do..
What worked? What didn't? And will you choose to continue using those which did in spite of many people's assertions that it just can't be?
Justin Mears
Jay Bell
12-13-2005, 03:27
What worked? What didn't? And will you choose to continue using those which did in spite of many people's assertions that it just can't be?
Justin Mears
The biggest "good" was with acid reflux...back when it was a real problem. I used homepathic acid control tabs...worked like a charm. Another one that worked was arnica for painful bruising.
As far as the biggie that didn't work was allergy control. Didn't do a lick of good at all for me.
To answer your question...absolutely. My diet's changed, I'm not training actively...so there isn't much a need for either. But if something came up, I have no problems trying homeos again.
seidogirl
12-13-2005, 07:57
That's interesting. I had acid reflux over the summer and it was driving me nuts. That's when I started acupuncture because all the doctor wanted to do was give me drugs that I didn't want to take. The acupuncturist gave me herbs as well, so I did the acupuncture and herbs for 2 months and then had to stop because I could no longer afford it. I also changed my diet and started relaxing more and the reflux went away a few weeks later and hasn't come back. So the question is: did the acupuncture/herb combo get rid of it, or was it just me leading a healthier lifestyle? I guess I'll never know.
That's interesting because I wouldn't think looking at a graveyard would be too inspiring!
No, the researchers were a bit confused, too, but then they asked the patients and they said it was nice to look at. It's called the Necropolis, it has loads of trees and lots of rich people got buried there in the 1800s, so there's lots of ornate gothic gravestones. Contrast with the M8. No contest.
You're probably right about that. I really think a lot of what ails us is in our own heads, but here in the US, I haven't had too many positive experiences with doctors. They spend a few minutes with you and are quick to get out the prescription pad when maybe the person doesn't need drugs to help their problem.
You should come to the UK: Over here the NHS hasn't got any money, so any doctor worth their salt will put you on pills as a last resort. The way I see it, if you have a medical condition (like, ooh, I don't know, Stomach Acid Reflux) and you can cure it by lifestyle methods (e.g. diet change), then they'll try that first.
The healthcare system in the US is more 'Interventional' overall, which is good because it drives forward developments in healthcare technology, but which is bad because sometimes that's not what's best for the patient. Sometimes a patient just needs a bit of help to cope with it, or even just to ***** and moan about it to you. That's the bit of medicine I like at the moment, and probably the part I'll miss when I graduate and become a (overworked, underpaid but still pretty) Junior Doctor.
JAY: who's this Barrett fellow?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.