Homeopathy prospers even as controversy rages

Mar 11, 2011 By Julie Deardorff

A popular homeopathic flu remedy boasts that it comes with no side effects, no drug interactions and won't make you drowsy. But the product also lacks something most people expect to find in their medicine: active ingredients.

Oscillococcinum (O-sill-o-cox-see-num), a tongue-twisting concoction used to treat flulike symptoms, is a staple in many European homes. Sales are steadily growing in the U.S., where it can be found everywhere from storefronts to major retailers.

critics, however, derisively call the product "oh-silly-no-see-um," a reference to the absence of active ingredients. It's products such as Oscillococcinum that have placed homeopathy in an awkward position: popular among holistic-minded consumers but scorned by scientists and most Western-trained doctors.

The British Medical Association vehemently objects to national funding for homeopathy treatment, considering any effect to be placebo. Around the world, activists have staged mass public "overdose" events outside pharmacies to demonstrate there's literally nothing inside the small white pills. One U.S. group, meanwhile, has offered $1 million to anyone who can prove homeopathy works and has challenged major drug retailers such as CVS, Rite-Aid and Walgreens to stop selling the products.

"Nobody, not even homeopaths have an idea how the remedies work," said Dr. Edzard Ernst, a longtime critic of homeopathy and professor of Complementary Medicine at Peninsula Medical School at the University of Exeter in the U.K.

Few things rile scientific skeptics more than homeopathy, a baffling form of alternative medicine in which patients are given highly diluted and vigorously shaken preparations to trigger the body's natural healing ability. Though it has been used for centuries and some studies have reported positive findings, the practice has no known scientific basis. Most analyses have concluded there's no evidence it works any better than a sugar pill.

Yet homeopathy hasn't just survived the years of scathing criticism; it's prospering. In the U.S., consumer sales of homeopathic treatments reached $870 million in 2009, growing 10 percent over the previous year, according to Nutrition Business Journal estimates.

For Oscillococcinum, sold in 60 countries, estimated annual retail sales in the U.S. are more than $20 million, according to the manufacturer, Boiron. It ranks 49th out of 318 cold and flu brand products that do more than $1 million in sales. Other popular homeopathic products include arnica gel for bruises and strains and diluted zinc remedies for colds.

"Some people feel these products shouldn't work due to the dilution level," said pharmacist Christophe Merville, director of education and pharmacy development for Boiron, the world's leading manufacturer of homeopathic medicines. But he said basic science studies have shown "that highly diluted solutions have biological properties that are different than water."

Ernst, who calls homeopathy the "worst example of faith-based medicine," said that even if the solution is structurally different, it doesn't matter. "After doing my washing up, the water in my sink is very different from pure water," he said. "Yet it would be silly to claim it had therapeutic effects."

Homeopathy is one of the most polarizing forms of complementary and alternative medicine in part because it's based on principles that defy the laws of chemistry and physics. One pillar is the assumption that "like cures like." Chopping a red onion, for example, can make your eyes tear and nose run. Seasonal rhinitis can trigger the same symptoms, so a homeopathic treatment derived from a red onion - Allium cepa - may be a possible remedy.

The second assumption proposes that diluting and violently shaking (or "succussing") the remedies makes them more effective, even if - and this is the part most scientists find hard to swallow - the final preparation no longer contains a single molecule of the original ingredient. The final product usually is a tiny ball of sugar the patient swallows, though homeopathic products also are sold as gels.

The mechanism behind the diluting and shaking remains a mystery. Some say homeopathic medicine may stimulate the body's natural defenses; others suggest homeopathic medicine retains a "memory" of the original substance in the water and the effect is due to nanoparticles.

Regardless, proponents say it shouldn't be discounted simply because it can't be explained. For years, no one knew how aspirin worked. And scientists still don't fully understand the mechanism behind a conventional drug such as Ritalin, argued Dr. Tim Fior, director of the Center for Integral Health in Lombard.

"Homeopathy challenges the belief in the molecular paradigm of medicines," said Fior, who on Wednesday will deliver an introductory lecture on homeopathy to medical students at the University of Illinois at Chicago. "Conventional pharmacology is based on - and profits immensely from - the idea that you can synthesize a molecule, patent it and produce it in bulk and then have a monopoly selling it. Homeopathic medicines are so dilute that they work more according to a biophysical or energetic paradigm."

People often use homeopathy to treat chronic pain, digestive issues, colds, influenza and allergies when they're not getting relief from conventional medicine. Homeopathic practitioners tend to spend more time with patients than regular doctors. The products also appeal to those looking for a "natural" or holistic product or who can't tolerate the side effects of conventional drugs.

Mona Grayson, 35, of Warrenville, Ill., turned to homeopathy for chronic digestive issues after her insurance expired and she could no longer cover the cost of her conventional treatment: $4,000 every eight weeks. Though she was tolerating her pricey medication, she had concerns about the long-term effects.

After an initial two-hour consultation with Fior, Grayson was given a remedy of phosphorus; she said she hasn't had problems since. "What matters to me is that I feel good," said Grayson, a raw food chef and happiness coach.

But does homeopathy provide anything beyond a placebo effect? Overall, many of the studies are small, of poor quality and funded by homeopathic manufacturers.

Dr. Iris Bell of the University of Arizona, one of the few homeopathy researchers to get federal funding, said the highest quality trials - double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies - have had both negative and positive results. Her own work on fibromyalgia has shown individualized homeopathy did work better than the placebo.

Researchers also have shown that arthritis patients significantly benefited when they received homeopathy in conjunction with conventional treatment over six months. But the study, published in the journal Rheumatology, found the improvement was due to homeopathy's consultation process rather than its remedies.

"It has been a big problem bringing science to homeopathy," said Dr. Josephine Briggs, director of the National Center for Complementary and . With only a few exceptions, the center, a federal agency, hasn't funded any studies on homeopathy in the past five years. "On the other hand, the historical tradition has some real insights to treating humans in an individualized way," said Briggs, who said it might be appropriate to study the doctor-patient interaction.

At Merz Apothecary in Chicago, one of the largest homeopathic pharmacies in the country, president and co-owner Anthony Qaiyum summed up the thoughts of many homeopathic supporters. "Ultimately, who gives a damn whether it's scientifically proven if it works?" he said. "There are very valid questions about how it works, but whether it's my mind or the product, it's working and it's working without side effects."

Others see homeopathy as a safe way to complement treatment choices. "We don't always know why things work, but sometimes they do," said Freeport podiatrist Roland Tolliver, who uses it with his children and occasionally recommends arnica for patients with musculoskeletal issues.

"Regular medicine doesn't always work either," he said. "The most important thing is to leave all options open."

Critics say there's a risk in perpetuating the notion that homeopathy is equivalent to modern medicine, in part because people may forgo or delay conventional treatment. Moreover, it's unethical for pharmacists to prescribe placebos, said W. Steven Pray, a professor of pharmacy at Southwestern Oklahoma State University.

"You don't need placebos to generate placebo effects," Ernst has written. "Furthermore, if we allow the homoeopathic industry to sell placebos, we must do the same for Big Pharma. Imagine a world in which pharmaceutical companies could sell us placebos for all sorts of conditions just because some patients experience benefits through a placebo response."

Explore further: FDA approves Eli Lilly's injectable diabetes drug

4.2 /5 (6 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Britain warns of homeopathic risks

Dec 08, 2007

A top British health official says people who use homeopathic medicines could be causing themselves more harm than good.

The memory of water is a reality

Aug 01, 2007

A special issue of the journal Homeopathy, journal of the Faculty of Homeopathy and published by Elsevier, on the “Memory of Water” brings together scientists from around the world for the first time to publish new da ...

Recommended for you

Experts want restrictions on testosterone drug use (Update)

Sep 17, 2014

Federal health experts said Wednesday there is little evidence that testosterone-boosting drugs are effective for treating common signs of aging in men and that their use should be narrowed to exclude millions of Americans ...

User comments : 127

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Doug_Huffman
1 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2011
In America, homeopathy is precisely synonymous with "alternative", be it homeopathic or not. A base lie expressed as opinion is protected by the First Amendment.

Medicine is a fine field for falsification leading to truth better than verification-isms 'validation' by anecdote.
JRDarby
4.4 / 5 (14) Mar 11, 2011
Controversy? What controversy is there? Homeopathy is, at best, an expensive placebo treatment.
cak
2.1 / 5 (15) Mar 11, 2011
"Overall, many of the studies are small, of poor quality and funded by homeopathic manufacturers."

That's precisely because "It has been a big problem bringing science to homeopathy." "Real scientists" tend to dismiss the concept of homeopathy without giving it a real chance because the think they know better - hardly an open-minded scientific approach to the questions at hand. Instead, it's a sign of narrow minded fundamentalism - fundamental *belief* that current scientific knowledge and understanding is sufficient to justify such dismissal.

"Critics say there's a risk in perpetuating the notion that homeopathy is equivalent to modern medicine, in part because people may forgo or delay conventional treatment."

This perennial complaint ignores the fact that a high percentage of people turning to homeopathy do so only after giving up on conventional, "scientifically based" medical help - or after the conventional doctors have "given up" because they can't come up with a cure.
tkn
1 / 5 (14) Mar 11, 2011
homeopathic Medicines are a bit ahead of their time. Like string theory. There was a time back in 80's when you coouldn't get a job in Harvard or cambridge if you believed in String theory. Now you cant even get admission in those same institutes if you have any doubt in about the same theory. That's your so called mainstream science. most of these critics never studied what homeopathy is and they only rely on a lab report. There is a lot more in this universe than what meets the eye. It works like charm. You cant deny evidence. If you want a proof of your own choice go find it. But the proof in terms of results is there. and there a whole lot of scientific and theoratical basis for that. You only need to open up your sorry brains...
RobertKarlStonjek
2 / 5 (8) Mar 12, 2011
If less is more, as Homeopathy claims, then a drop in the water supply should cure the whole community...

String theory is a load of crap too ~ yes, it is the Homeopathy of science :)
Ethelred
4 / 5 (21) Mar 12, 2011
"Real scientists" tend to dismiss the concept of homeopathy without giving it a real chance because the think they know better
False. They do know better. A single drop of pure water that once looked at an ingredient put into some sugar and the water EVAPORATES leaving nothing the sugar CANNOT do anything that sugar couldn't because the sugar is all that is there.

hardly an open-minded scientific approach to the questions at hand
It is open minded. People looked at it and found NOTHING to support it except bullshit.

Homeopathy is exactly equal to Quackery.

after the conventional doctors have "given up" because they can't come up with a cure
And how does that make quackery effective at anything except a Total Wallet Extraction.

Keep an open mind but not so far open your brains fall out.

Pick up your brains and start using them. Run the same exact test multiple times and you will vary between positive and negative when there is no actual medical value.

Ethelred
sstritt
3.5 / 5 (13) Mar 12, 2011
from wikipedia- this humorous illustration of how ridiculous homeopathy is:
A popular homeopathic treatment for the flu is a 200C dilution of duck liver, marketed under the name Oscillococcinum. As there are only about 10*80 atoms in the entire observable universe, a dilution of one molecule in the observable universe would be about 40C. Oscillococcinum would thus require 10*320 more universes to simply have one molecule in the final substance.[
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (19) Mar 12, 2011
""It has been a big problem bringing science to homeopathy,""
That's because human medical science is still quite primitive. Of course the medical 'professionals' don't like to acknowledge how much they do NOT understand.
cak
1.6 / 5 (13) Mar 12, 2011
False. They do know better.


Thanks, Ethelred, for so clearly illustrating my point. You exhibit exactly the attitude that stands in the way of attaining a real scientific understanding of homeopathy and many other things that "science" has so far failed to be able to study in a relevant and meaningful manner. Who are you to believe you can limit the possibilities of Nature to the little bit you think you already know?

The ideals of the scientific method are too frequently hijacked by those who are too full of themselves to accommodate anything that doesn't fit neatly into the little rows of boxes they've already become thoroughly attached to.
thewhitebear
1.2 / 5 (15) Mar 13, 2011
Ethelred your indictment of homeopathy is riddled with unproven assumptions and articles of blind faith. you assume that since there is no molecule of the diluted substance measurable in the final product that there is no method by which information can be stored in the homeopathic solution. it's totally possible that it's all the placebo effect (which is an excellent example of something we know works but don't understand how) BUT we cannot dismiss it without first doing our due diligence as scientifically minded people. who knows what another 50 years of scientific research might discover. to base claims on assumptions without proof is the exact opposite of how we'd like to believe science functions. and since science has yet to offer a convincing explanation of how anything "works" (i.e. the deeper we go into the atom the more mysterious our universe gets) let's just say that right now we have insufficient data to either validate or invalidate the efficacy of homeopathic medicine.
soulman
4.7 / 5 (12) Mar 13, 2011
""It has been a big problem bringing science to homeopathy,""
That's because human medical science is still quite primitive. Of course the medical 'professionals' don't like to acknowledge how much they do NOT understand.

Congratulations Marjon, you've added another feather to your cap - belief in homeopathy!

Who are you to believe you can limit the possibilities of Nature to the little bit you think you already know?

He is someone who has a much better grasp on reality than you do, if you but into this nonsense in any way.

But you gotta love the concept of selling something which doesn't work but is harmless, guaranteed not to have side-effects or negatively interact with other medicines and may be taken for years (until you croak, because you've stopped taking real medicine).

And WTF's up with the mods? They must have woken up gone into ridiculously intrusive mode. I bet this comment gets deleted too!
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (14) Mar 13, 2011
You exhibit exactly the attitude that stands in the way of attaining a real scientific understanding of homeopathy
No. There isn't anything to understand that isn't already understood. It HAS been tested. It failed to do anything more than a placebo. Which means we understand it. Its a placebo.

relevant and meaningful manner.
Translation from Crank to reality. 'The scientists didn't get the results I want thus the scientists refused to test it properly as only a positive result could possibly be the right result'. Which puts you in the same class as Astrology fans.

Who are you to believe you can limit the possibilities of Nature to the little bit you think you already know?
Who are you to deny all the tests? Do you sell this stuff? This is the first thing you posted on. Clearly this sole item brought you here.

More
Ethelred
4.1 / 5 (14) Mar 13, 2011
The ideals of the scientific method are too frequently hijacked by those who are too full of themselves
To accept it when their pet ideas fail to fit reality. GIVE EVIDENCE to support this stuff. Evidence that it works better than a placebo. There is none. It has been tested.

Nonexistent medicine simply has no way to function. We are chemical beings. There is no magic. Sorry to have to tell the truth but clearly you are living a dream world. Magic is a fantasy. Without an active ingredient there is no way to have an actual effect that human mind and body didn't do on its own.

What you are doing is similar to the quacks that put Christmas tree bulbs in a box and claimed it would cure something. It can't.

Evidence. You have none. The tests have been done. Its fraud or foolishness. If your selling this stuff you are engaged in reprehensible behavior even if only from ignorance.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (15) Mar 13, 2011
Ethelred your indictment of homeopathy is riddled with unproven assumptions and articles of blind faith.
It has been tested. It failed. I am NOT going on faith. Just evidence and reason.

you assume that since there is no molecule of the diluted substance measurable in the final product that there is no method by which information can be stored in the homeopathic solution.
No. I am assuming that chemistry involves chemicals and when there aren't any chemicals there is no chemistry. The entire physical world around us supports me on this.

it's totally possible that it's all the placebo effect
Not only possible, its proven.

(which is an excellent example of something we know works but don't understand how)
We understand that is the mind and not the sugar that does the job.

BUT we cannot dismiss it without first doing our due diligence as scientifically minded people.
Been done. The nonsense proved to be nonsense in double blind studies.

More
Calenur
4.7 / 5 (13) Mar 13, 2011
From the Article:

"Homeopathic medicines are so dilute that they work more according to a biophysical or energetic paradigm."


What? Homeopathy advocates decry medical professionals and scientists because of their views, however structure their defense to sound as 'sciencey' as possible. I'll pass on the snake oil this time, thank you.
Ethelred
4.1 / 5 (13) Mar 13, 2011
who knows what another 50 years of scientific research might discover.
It won't discover Magic ChemistryTM except as another fraud. I am fully aware that we don't know everything. I am also aware that it does not mean that we don't know anything.

to base claims on assumptions without proof is the exact
Is the exact thing the quacks are doing. You are being gulled.

and since science has yet to offer a convincing explanation of how anything "works"
That is rubbish. The sort crap Creationists post. How is not a problem. You mean WHY. And the why is because there are rules to the Universe.

let's just say that right now we have insufficient data to either validate or invalidate the efficacy of homeopathic medicine.
Sorry but I am not going to lie to support your wishful thinking. We know its crap. Just as we know that looking at an ant-lion and saying BIG KITTY in Latin while making a series of hand waves won't change the ant-lion into Leo Panthera.

More
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (11) Mar 13, 2011
So basically you think magic is real and I think chemistry is real and I have studied both. Magic is only taking advantage of the way people think but actually chemistry works whether we think it will on not.

Reality is what still exists even if you don't believe in it. Chemistry is real. Homeopathy is a placebo.

Ethelred
Calenur
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 13, 2011
Evidence of clinical efficacy of homeopathy. A meta-analysis of clinical trials. HMRAG. Homeopathic Medicines Research Advisory Group.
Cucherat M, Haugh MC, Gooch M, Boissel JP.

Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Hospitals of Lyon and University Claude Bernard, France.

CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence that homeopathic treatments are more effective than placebo; however, the strength of this evidence is low because of the low methodological quality of the trials. Studies of high methodological quality were more likely to be negative than the lower quality studies. Further high quality studies are needed to confirm these results.


So essentially, when one doesn't follow proper methodology, homeopathy is a credible treatment. Sounds about right. The above is a selected reference from the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine.
epsi00
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 13, 2011
Homeopathy is about money not treatments, not cures and certainly not science or patients with health problems. In cases like this, we should use the principle " follow the money " to find out why it hasn't been banned by the Feds and understand why it is growing.

Bank robbers are really stupid. They should all turn into homeopathy practitioners. You get the money, lots of it, with no risk at all.

Now the science is clear. I volunteer to drink any deadly poisoned solution that was, for all practical purposes, infinitely diluted.

Any chemist, worth anything at all, can prove that if you can't find an element in a solution by means of the high tech equipments used in labs, then that element is not present. And if the element is not present, then it cannot be responsible for any action chemical or medical.

But as usual, the corporations have the right to milk the cow. And people have the right to be stupid and play the cow.
thewhitebear
1.3 / 5 (13) Mar 13, 2011
Ethelred, I'm not arguing FOR homeopathy, I'm arguing FOR restoring a sense of humility to our culture that admits the unknown and unknowable into how we interact with and see the world. Scientific minded people from every era believe that the knowledge they have is totally correct, only to find cherished theories to be disproven as time and curiosity marches on. This is well documented, Thomas Kuhn, Bruno Latour, etc. Given this tendency, it's impossible at any given moment to claim absolute truth, as new data is being synthesized all the time that often contradicts existing data. The universe is too full of random events to put too much faith into any scientific trial. A good example of this is Crabbe's work with mice (http://www.stress..._al.pdf)
thewhitebear
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 13, 2011
and you say that effects require chemicals, but quantum research clearly demonstrates that information cannot be erased from system interactions, suggesting that there are in fact other methods of information sharing than chemical (http://www.physor...ly.html)
you also say that homeopathy has been subjected to sufficiently rigorous & numerous double blind trials to rule out any potential benefit, when the article states that those sort of trials are in short supply when it comes to homeopathy and the ones that do exist show mixed results. Double blind trials are not without their flaws. For example, in clinical trial anti-psychotics show a marked decreasing trend in efficacy over time, i.e. they work the first year, but five years late they are somehow no longer effective.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (14) Mar 13, 2011
white bear:
If you haven't read this before, I thought you may appreciate.
"Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve."
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
"We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up until now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future."
Max Planck
thewhitebear
1.3 / 5 (13) Mar 13, 2011
For a great summary of some of the issues with how we produce knowledge in a scientific context and why ultimately it still comes down to faith, the New Yorker article "The Truth Wears Off" is a great read (http://itwascover...rs-off/)
Science has clearly made a lot of great advances, but it has also yielded a harvest of deadly chemicals, radiation, high-tech weapons. Science might give us a cure for cancer but it also gives us cancer. Maybe homeopathy is bunk, it seems pretty farfetched to me, but it does no harm, so even if it only helps one person feel better once it's worth it. Why do you care if it's "real"? Unlike the chemicals pharmaceutical companies say "work" homeopathy has no side effects, doesn't kill people with accidental overdoses, doesn't pollute our water supply and end up in breastmilk. I think you're confusing "truth" with "right".
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (15) Mar 13, 2011
Thanks for the link. This last bit is great:

"Just because an idea is true doesnt mean it can be proved. And just because an idea can be proved doesnt mean its true. When the experiments are done, we still have to choose what to believe. "

frajo
5 / 5 (9) Mar 13, 2011
Scientific minded people from every era believe that the knowledge they have is totally correct
That's bearing false witness.
Whoever believes that his knowledge is _totally_ correct cannot be regarded as scientific minded.

The foundation of scientific evidence is falsifiability. This principle ensures a higher certainty level as any non-scientific "truth" and expresses via its shere existence all humility human beings ought to have.

There is no verification in science, only confirmation. All our scientific knowledge has a built-in apoptosis: falsifiability.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (15) Mar 13, 2011
"Ston, she is yours. You may find that having is not so pleasing a thing as wanting. This is not logical, but it is often true." -- Spock (Amok Time)

Whoever believes that his knowledge is _totally_ correct cannot be regarded as scientific minded.

Except, of course, those who believe they have a higher cause such as wealth redistribution, atheism and global warming. The 'science' used to support those causes is totally correct.
soulman
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 13, 2011
I'm arguing FOR restoring a sense of humility to our culture that admits the unknown and unknowable into how we interact with and see the world.

I don't know what that means. What does humility have to do with knowledge?

Scientific minded people from every era believe that the knowledge they have is totally correct

And that's totally wrong. If they were truly scientifically minded, they would know that all scientific knowledge is provisional. False premise.

it's impossible at any given moment to claim absolute truth,

And no one is claiming absolute truth. Straw man.

The universe is too full of random events to put too much faith into any scientific trial.

Yet we seem to have done pretty well out of it so far.

more...
soulman
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 13, 2011
you say that effects require chemicals, but quantum research clearly demonstrates that information cannot be erased from system interactions

You know you've lost an argument when you start throwing around pop buzz words like quantum. Information may not be created nor destroyed, but is sure as heck can get messed around a lot, to the point of being undecipherable (say HR).

suggesting that there are in fact other methods of information sharing than chemical

Why does this suggest anything? What are these methods and mechanisms which you claim to be at play?

For a great summary of some of the issues with how we produce knowledge in a scientific context and why ultimately it still comes down to faith

Science is not about faith. If you don't understand that, you don't understand science.

Science has clearly made a lot of great advances, but it has also yielded a harvest of deadly chemicals, radiation, high-tech weapons

Yeah, so what's your point?

more...
soulman
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 13, 2011
Maybe homeopathy is bunk

No maybe's about it.

it seems pretty farfetched to me

It doesn't sound like it to me.

but it does no harm

You are joking, right? It's not harmful to fraudulently take money from people by selling them snake-oil (which might be more effective!) and false hope? For people to give up on real, evidence based medicines and therapies to the detriment of their health? For medical practitioners to deceive their patients by prescribing placebos?

This nonsense has to stop and I applaud the UK govt for finally waking up and doing something about these pseudoscientific shysters.

Why do you care if it's "real"?

See above. You could also throw in ethics into the mix.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (14) Mar 13, 2011
For people to give up on real, evidence based medicines and therapies to the detriment of their health?


Such as it is.
Based upon this (http://itwascover...rs-off/), it appears scientists may have to reconsider their process.

Science is not about faith. If you don't understand that, you don't understand science.

That not what the father of quantum mechanics stated:
"Anybody who has been seriously engaged is scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: 'Ye must have faith.'
Max Planck "
Which implies Soulman has never been seriously engaged in scientific work.

cak
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 13, 2011
Do you sell this stuff? This is the first thing you posted on. Clearly this sole item brought you here.

No, I don't sell homeopathic remedies nor anything related to health care. No, this is not the first thing I've posted on - you haven't been paying attention. No, this is not the sole item that brought me here, I read phys.org frequently. Don't let your erroneous assumptions lead you astray.

We are chemical beings. There is no magic.

"Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter." -Yoda. I'm not talking about magic, but about the unseen forces and workings of Nature that you refuse to even allow for the possibility of simply because you are currently blind to them. Much of what "science" has established was once thought to be magical. Modern "science" understands almost nothing of Energy, and "science" as it currently operates, will never reach a complete understanding of Energy. In order to increase such understanding, "science" needs to evolve significantly.
cak
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 13, 2011
I am assuming that chemistry involves chemicals and when there aren't any chemicals there is no chemistry. The entire physical world around us supports me on this.

Careful. Assumptions are risky, even dangerous. And you shouldn't make claims that you know about and understand "the entire physical world" because no one does.

I am fully aware that we don't know everything.

Oh, how refreshingly humble of you.
I am also aware that it does not mean that we don't know anything.

The real question here, however, is: Do you realize how very little you, and we collectively, know. Obviously not.

P.S. I graduated with a chem minor and a geology major - several decades ago. Curious, are you still in high school?
cak
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 13, 2011
And the why is because there are rules to the Universe.

Again you seem to be implying a claim to knowing all the rules of the Universe, even though you have willfully and selectively blinded yourself through being a self-proclaimed true believer in your version of what "science" is, and is not.

Magic is only taking advantage of the way people think but actually chemistry works whether we think it will on not.

I agree about the magic, and I notice that you seem to believe there is absolutely nothing in and of the Universe that cannot be explained by our current understanding of chemistry - which happens to be a great disadvantage of the way you think. How, for example, does your chemistry explain what Einstein termed "spooky action at a distance"? - which, although he did not believe to be possible, has been demonstrated. At least you're in good company in your beliefs of what is and is not possible.
soulman
4.3 / 5 (12) Mar 13, 2011
Such as it is.
Based upon this (http://itwascover...rs-off/), it appears scientists may have to reconsider their process.

I can't tell what your crank link points to as the site won't load.

That not what the father of quantum mechanics stated:
"Anybody who has been seriously engaged is scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: 'Ye must have faith.'
Max Planck "

I'm surprised you didn't yank out an out of context Einstein quote to 'prove' that he believed in god.

Which implies Soulman has never been seriously engaged in scientific work.

Implicate what you will, but what your comments history does show is that you've never seriously engaged in critical thinking.
soulman
4.3 / 5 (12) Mar 13, 2011
No, this is not the first thing I've posted on - you haven't been paying attention.

You're either lying or you're a sockpuppet.

Don't let your erroneous assumptions lead you astray.

Not that one was made here, but how can an erroneous assumption not lead someone astray?

"Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter." -Yoda.

Urrrm, ignorant this one is, urmm.

I'm not talking about magic, but about the unseen forces and workings of Nature

So, magic then.

that you refuse to even allow for the possibility of simply because you are currently blind to them.

If they're unseen and their workings don't manifest physically, then blindness is simply a lack of registrable stimuli, the default position. Come back to us when you have something detectable.

Much of what "science" has established was once thought to be magical.

I wonder why you place the word science in quotes? Clearly, you don't believe in it.

more...
soulman
4.4 / 5 (13) Mar 13, 2011
Modern "science" understands almost nothing of Energy, and "science" as it currently operates, will never reach a complete understanding of Energy

Oh, oh, we're rapidly descending into major crankdom - fasten your seat belts folks!

In order to increase such understanding, "science" needs to evolve significantly

You mean evolve into magic and mysticism?

you shouldn't make claims that you know about and understand "the entire physical world" because no one does

That's why it's helpful to know basic laws of physics, chemistry and thermodynamics which serve as invaluable guides to filtering out pure nonsense from something which might be possible.

more...
soulman
4.3 / 5 (12) Mar 13, 2011
The real question here, however, is: Do you realize how very little you, and we collectively, know. Obviously not

I realize how little YOU know. We, as a species, know a hell of a lot and are learning more each day. You should try that, it's really fun.

I graduated with a chem minor and a geology major - several decades ago. Curious, are you still in high school?

Pow! Take that!
cak
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 14, 2011
I wonder why you place the word science in quotes? Clearly, you don't believe in it.

Many believers here seem to speak of Science as some sort of all knowing entity. In reality, there is only a paradigm known as the scientific method which scientists ideally strive to diligently employ to investigate the physical realities of Nature. Far too often, though, the supposed scientists fall far short of the ideals of the scientific methodologies, either unknowingly or with some agenda in mind. And that agenda is too often based on funding - money supplied by some industry with a vested interest in the outcome of any investigations - such as the big pharmaceutical companies for one example that is especially relevant in the context of this exchange. Sometimes the agenda is political. Other times it is a result of the blinders worn by true believers - in other words, based on their own narrow beliefs and assumptions. Often it's a combination of all of these.
Calenur
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 14, 2011
So, because there are potentially outside interests, we should judge science and strewn bones in the same arena? Stop using the word believer, as any serious scientist is not claiming to know everything. But as soulman said, there are things we do know. Here's one of my issues with homeopathy:

They create these potions which are shown to benefit people as much as a placebo or less, where the potion's interaction with the body can't be monitored, and where we can't recreate the treatment in two separate people. There are so many issues outside of the realm of science which make homeopathy an impossible treatment for everyone but the fringes. Do you think people would be ok with a pharma-corp coming out with a new pill which works less than 50% of the time, is made of an unknown substance and has a different result in every patient?

soulman
4.3 / 5 (12) Mar 14, 2011
Many believers here seem to speak of Science as some sort of all knowing entity

What believers? You're mixing up your religion with science. I thought I already explained that to you.

there is only a paradigm known as the scientific method which scientists ideally strive to diligently employ to investigate the physical realities of Nature.

That's the first thing you've said that actually makes sense. Can you keep it up?

Far too often, though, the supposed scientists...

Ah, shoot - no! Why are they 'supposed' scientists?

...fall far short of the ideals of the scientific methodologies, either unknowingly or with some agenda in mind.

No single person is perfect, big news. That's why as a discipline, scientists practicing the scientific method can and do winnow out flawed research, be it by honest mistake, by fraud or by political interference. Science is self-correcting. That is one of its major strengths.

more...
soulman
4.3 / 5 (12) Mar 14, 2011
And that agenda is too often based on funding - money supplied by some industry with a vested interest in the outcome of any investigations

The word 'agenda' is way too loaded to be used in this context. It is true that science funding is selective, whether it is funded by private industry or by the public purse. But that is unavoidable. There simply isn't an infinite amount of money available to fund research of every kind imaginable. So you have to make choices and take risks at times. This is not an agenda, it's risk/benefit economics.

This is why crank science isn't funded, unless an investor can be conned.

more...
soulman
4.3 / 5 (12) Mar 14, 2011
such as the big pharmaceutical companies for one example that is especially relevant in the context of this exchange.

So big pharma is keeping us sick by selling medicines which don't work and are stopping homeonuts from research and selling the 'real' cure?

LOL, wouldn't pharma love to be able to stop funding multi-billion dollar drug discovery programs and trials, get past FDA regulation and just sell tap water for huge profits? Somehow I think they would.

Sometimes the agenda is political.

Which has nothing to do with actual science - perfect example being the political interference with the science of climate change.
frajo
4.6 / 5 (11) Mar 14, 2011
That not what the father of quantum mechanics
"The" father of QM? Since when are you entitled to judge on paternity cases?
stated:
"Anybody who has been seriously engaged is scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: 'Ye must have faith.'
Max Planck
Max Planck was a great person. He was not only a most important physicist. He was a philosopher and he was religious. His son participated in the failed plot against Hitler and was killed by the Nazis. Thus his quotes cannot be understood without their context.

Your permanent method of misusing quotes by stripping all relevant context is despicable.
Calenur
5 / 5 (9) Mar 14, 2011
I see it's easier to rate people 1 star than put forth a reasonable argument. The basis is 'like cures like', right? Well, bullsh*t makes me nauseous; could somebody grab a cow patty, water it down and send it my way? I feel like I'm going to throw up.

Bottom line, this is a science site. People here are looking for facts, not mysticism, and the latter is all homeopathy seems to have to offer. The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine cites works stating better studies are needed before making grand conclusions of the efficacy of homeopathic treatments. It seems we're not the only ones who remain to be convinced.
thewhitebear
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 14, 2011
Soulman don't quote me unless you both to read my links. Again, http://itwascover...ars-off/
I don't care what science as a concept offers, I only can observe how science manifests in my world through people, such as yourself. And everything you've posted thus far indicates that you think you know everything about the universe and that your current body of knowledge is sufficient to draw unwavering absolute conclusions from. Again, I don't CARE if homeopathy is real or not, I simply can admit that there is the POSSIBILITY that it is real, relying on heretofore unknown principles and interactions. Maybe it's very subtle, difficult to replicate, prone to tiny nuances in gravitational and magnetic fields. WHO KNOWS? Not me! Not you. And until you can admit that there are things you do not, maybe even cannot know you will be blind, unable to see past your own mistaken belief that the universe holds a finite amount of knowledge
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Mar 14, 2011
People here are looking for facts,

Facts are slippery little things when they involve the study of 7 billion human beings and how they respond to the world.
Especially when those facts are based upon very limited studies of a VERY limited population of those 7 billion plus people.
Evey month or so 'science' proclaims chicken eggs are good for you or they are bad for you. The 'facts' keep changing. Billions of people have been eating eggs for thousands of years. Why is the nutritious benefits of eggs so difficult for science to quantify?
Calenur
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 14, 2011
Evey month or so 'science' proclaims chicken eggs are good for you or they are bad for you. The 'facts' keep changing. Billions of people have been eating eggs for thousands of years. Why is the nutritious benefits of eggs so difficult for science to quantify?


That's pretty easy to answer. For one, 'science' as you say, isn't an omnipotent force, so if you're looking for a single output to feed you information, you're looking to the wrong field. There are constantly studies done on eggs, because the nutritional facts of eggs change on a constant basis with how we enact change on ecosystems (yes, another form of science). We also learn new things about the human body on a regular basis. I'd say your biggest problem is you don't actually read the studies, you read CNN/Fox and get editorialized information, but never bother to follow up. Were these studies peer reviewed? What was the control? How large was the study?
Calenur
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 14, 2011
Scientists (and those interested in science) know we don't know everything, and we're perfectly ok with our knowledge changing on a regular basis. What we're not ok with is mystical claims with no basis in fact. Simply saying "You can't prove me wrong" isn't a defense, it's simply a way to avoid providing any sort of evidence.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Mar 14, 2011
Scientists (and those interested in science) know we don't know everything, and we're perfectly ok with our knowledge changing on a regular basis. What we're not ok with is mystical claims with no basis in fact. Simply saying "You can't prove me wrong" isn't a defense, it's simply a way to avoid providing any sort of evidence.


Proving wrong the decisions of millions of satisfied customers seems to be the point of this science. The people who use homeopathy are satisfied it works for them or they would not keep the industry in business.
The apparent fact that science can't explain why these people are satisfied seems to be the real issue.
Calenur
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 14, 2011
Science can explain it; These people are satisified because they believe it will work. It is no more effective than a placebo, that has already been shown. Give these people sugar water, call it homeopathy, and it'll have the same effect. The only time they show to have a better effect is when the researcher fails to conduct an unbiased test with proper methodology.
thewhitebear
1 / 5 (10) Mar 14, 2011
with no basis in fact.


But facts are contextual, always changing with the observer, the environment, time, and space. What we currently think of as "fact" is a product of a few hundred years of a discrete human enterprise called science. It's not the only way of producing knowledge, but it's the dominant one right now. Knowledge is always shifting, science makes discoveries, spiritual teachers advance new ideas, culture changes. The explanations for the universe that science offers are only one of many possible explanations. You might not agree with alternative ways of explaining our environment, but it does not mean that they have any less validity than your scientific world-view. Everybody might be wrong, everybody might be right. We live in a completely relativistic universe and I for one am not self-centered enough to believe that the human animal is somehow privy to the one totally objective vantage point.
Modernmystic
3.9 / 5 (14) Mar 14, 2011
I think I'm beginning to have an inkling of how agnostics/atheists feel when we religious types make our faith based claims.

This thread is enough to drive me nuts.

And yes homeopathy is unmitigated BUNK.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (15) Mar 14, 2011
"Homeopathy is difficult to study using current scientific methods because highly diluted substances (known as ultra-high dilutions or UHDs) cannot be readily measured, making it difficult to design or replicate studies. In addition, homeopathic treatments are highly individualized and there is no uniform prescribing standard for homeopaths. There are hundreds of different homeopathic remedies, which can be prescribed in a variety of different dilutions to treat thousands of symptoms. On the other hand, many aspects of the interactions between the homeopathic practitioner and his or her patients may be quite beneficial, and can be studied more easily."
http://nccam.nih....eopathy/

For this to be 'bunk' there seems to be quite a bit of work in the field.

By similar definition, string theory is bunk, too, but research is on going. Imagine, 7 or 8 dimensions interacting without our knowledge or ability to observe.
Modernmystic
3.8 / 5 (16) Mar 14, 2011
For this to be 'bunk' there seems to be quite a bit of work in the field.


There are volumes of books on astrology too...

You got a valid point hiding somewhere?
Calenur
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 14, 2011
There is a lot of work in the field of healing crystals, telepathy and psychic surgery as well. Quality is more important than quantity.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Mar 14, 2011
"Homeopathy deserves an open-minded opportunity to demonstrate its value by using evidence-based principles, but it should not be substituted for proven therapies."
http://www.ncbi.n...term=138[volume]%20AND%205[issue]%20AND%20393[page]%20AND%202003[pdat]
Skeptic_Heretic
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 14, 2011
If you think homeopathy works and is a valid medical treatment, take an entire bottle of homeopathic sleeping pills. Then when nothing happens, go see a real doctor.

Otherwise known as the James Randi homeopathic challenge.
soulman
5 / 5 (9) Mar 14, 2011
Soulman don't quote me unless you both to read my links. Again, http://itwascover...ars-off/

Me both to read your links??? Okay, myself and I have read your link.

I don't care what science as a concept offers,

That's right, because you don't care about the scientific method. That is evident.

I only can observe how science manifests in my world through people, such as yourself.

Such as myself? That comment illustrates that you're quick to jump to conclusions and make unwarranted generalizations. If you focus on the odd tree, you will entirely miss the forest.

And everything you've posted thus far indicates that you think you know everything about the universe and that your current body of knowledge is sufficient to draw unwavering absolute conclusions from.

You mean despite the fact that I have repeatedly said that no one that is scientifically minded would ever make such a claim? Wow, just wow!

more...
soulman
5 / 5 (9) Mar 14, 2011
Again, I don't CARE if homeopathy is real or not

Yes, you do, because you're the kind of person who would give Creationists equal time because there could be a POSSIBILITY that they might be right 'relying on heretofore unknown principles and interactions'. That's crank logic.

Maybe it's very subtle, difficult to replicate

Many things of that nature have been previously investigated - look at the search for the Higgs or determining neutrino mass. The difference is that these were investigated because there was a sound theoretical framework behind it, which made testable predictions. Whether the experimental results were positive or negative didn't matter, what mattered was that there was good reason to go looking.

more...
soulman
5 / 5 (9) Mar 14, 2011
Homeopathy doesn't have any theoretical or physical underpinnings which beckon investigation.

But even despite this, scientists HAVE looked into it, just on the off-chance, as you say. Not once, or twice, but over some thirty years, off and on, and nothing has come of it (other than the placebo effect). Case closed.

This and all other unregulated 'alternative' medicine trade should be outlawed, IMO.

WHO KNOWS? Not me!

Clearly, you're not a scientific thinker.

Not you

No, I do know it's crap, for the same reason that you do not.

And until you can admit that there are things you do not, maybe even cannot know you will be blind

HOW MANY TIMES MUST I SAY IT - OF COURSE THERE ARE THINGS WE DON'T KNOW AND MAY NEVER KNOW!! Perhaps writing it in caps will make it sink in this time.
Ethelred
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 15, 2011
I'm not arguing FOR homeopathy
Sure looked like you did.

I'm arguing FOR restoring a sense of humility to our culture that admits the unknown and unknowable into how we interact with and see the world.
So why do that with KNOWN nonsense. And that is pretty silly anyway. Science is about exploring the unknown to make it knowable. Quantum mechanics says there are things that are unknowable.

Scientific minded people from every era believe that the knowledge they have is totally correct,
That is your fantasy. Few scientist actually think that way. Most of the time.

only to find cherished theories to be disproven as time and curiosity marches on
Rare. Mostly it is a case of cherished theories being replaced by more accurate theories as opposed to actually disproving a theory. Remember REAL theories have to match the evidence that is available. Homeopathy DENIES the evidence.

More
Ethelred
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 15, 2011
Kuhn has made several notable claims concerning the progress of knowledge: that science undergoes periodic "paradigm shifts"
Which is NOT what you claimed.
Bruno Latour
Most troubling, Latour notes that critical ideas have been appropriated by those he describes as conspiracy theorists, including global warming skeptics and the 9/11 Truth movement:
Seems he thinks more like me these days.

Earlier
. In the book, the authors undertake an ethnographic study of a neuroendocrinology research laboratory at the Salk Institute.[4] This early work argued that naïve descriptions of the scientific method, in which theories stand or fall on the outcome of a single experiment, are inconsistent with actual laboratory practice.
Which is crap. Science does NOT go on one experiment. Corroboration is a key part of science.

More
Ethelred
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 15, 2011
Given this tendency, it's impossible at any given moment to claim absolute truth
Who claimed absolute truth? However there is a vast divide between absolute truth and claiming we don't know jack. Which is what you are doing. There are things that we know well enough to be reasonably sure on.

The universe is too full of random events to put too much faith into any scientific trial.
Again this just demanding that we keep our minds so far open our brains fall out. Chemistry is far more solid than psychology.

and you say that effects require chemicals
Biochemical effects and we ARE biochemistry.

but quantum research clearly demonstrates that information cannot be erased from system interactions,
This is at a subatomic level. Even at that level it can be scrambled to the point that the information cannot be recovered. Water is really lousy at information storage. It has very high entropy. Even before being shaken which scramble information.

More
Ethelred
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 15, 2011
suggesting that there are in fact other methods of information sharing than chemical
Sure. But information is NOT what is going on when you cure someone of a disease. That requires an actual chemical interaction of some sort.

when the article states that those sort of trials are in short supply when it comes to homeopathy and the ones that do exist show mixed results.
Not that short if there are enough to get mixed results. And the results weren't really mixed. The studies that showed a SLIGHTLY greater than placebo effect where countered by those that showed a placebo effect and I already said that is what can be expected with a placebo. Only VERY large tests could reach a high sigma. However if Homeopathy really worked the balance should have been in favor of it. It isn't. It is exactly the muddle you should expect when you test a placebo vs. a placebo.

More
Ethelred
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 15, 2011
For example, in clinical trial anti-psychotics show a marked decreasing trend in efficacy over time, i.e. they work the first year, but five years late they are somehow no longer effective.
And that has relevance to a test for a cold remedy how? It doesn't.

"The Truth Wears Off" is a great read (http://itwascover.
Why are all your links broken? Found it though and its the same thing. Antipsychotics. Not relevant to the stuff we were discussing. The rest of it is stuff I apparently understand better than the author does. Bad trial are a problem, often due to the people involved not really understanding statistics. Small trial often show effects that aren't real. When the larger tests are done to confirm they show nothing. They don't show MORE they show LESS. Which is what is going on with the Homeopathy tests. Small trials SOMETIMES get the effect the hopeful researcher wants. Then when a larger trial is done it goes away. This again is exactly what one can expect.

More
Ethelred
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 15, 2011
Science has clearly made a lot of great advances, but it has also yielded a harvest of deadly chemicals, radiation, high-tech weapons.
Yes. So how does that fit in this discussion. Its an attempt to send it off on a tangent.

Maybe homeopathy is bunk, it seems pretty farfetched to me,
No maybe about it. Quit supporting crap. It is thinking like this that leads to this sort of nonsense. Your brain fell out.

but it does no harm
False. VERY MUCH SO.

People have money stolen by fraud.
People DIE from using crap instead of actual medicine.

People damage their thinking like you are doing because you won't accept that somethings are pure crap. I bring that up since people dying seems not to bother you as it was already pointed out to you. So I will repeat it.

PEOPLE DIE TAKING THIS SHIT.

Please get that through your head. Medical fraud kills people.

More
ryggesogn2
1.1 / 5 (15) Mar 15, 2011
Medical fraud kills people.

So do FDA approved drugs.
Ethelred
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 15, 2011
so even if it only helps one person feel better once it's worth it.
Worth killing thousands? Worth giving money to thieves?

Why do you care if it's "real"?
People DIE.

Unlike the chemicals pharmaceutical companies say "work" homeopathy has no side effects,
Death from not taking a REAL medicine IS a side effect.

I think you're confusing "truth" with "right".
I think you don't know the difference. Truth IS right. Lying about medicine KILLS.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 15, 2011
No, this is not the first thing I've posted on - you haven't been paying attention.
Did you know we can check? This is the first thread you posted on. If you posted before under another name that is your problem. Under this one its the first.

Form YOUR profile
Recently commented on »

Homeopathy prospers even as controversy rages, Mar 11, 2011
And this is STILL the only thread.

Don't let your erroneous assumptions lead you astray.
Didn't. Its your only thread. And you posted crap.

"Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter." -Yoda.
I can hardly believe that anyone would post anything so idiotic. However I have to go on reality. Thats FICTION.

I'm not talking about magic, but about the unseen forces and workings of Nature that
Have never been detected. And I read a LOT of that crap. Several books by J. B. Rhine for instance and The Teachings of Don Juan a Yaqui Source of Bullshit. Want to cure insomnia? Read the appendix of Castaneda's book.

More
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 15, 2011
Much of what "science" has established was once thought to be magical.
Very little.

Much of what "science" has established was once thought to be magical.
Sure it does. You are the that knows nothing.

will never reach a complete understanding of Energy.
Possibly. More likely we will.

In order to increase such understanding, "science" needs to evolve significantly.
Perhaps. Perhaps we know almost all there is now. Not likely but possible.

Careful. Assumptions are risky, even dangerous.
You can't get through the day without assumptions. You assumed we couldn't check your posts. You were wrong.

And you shouldn't make claims that you know about and understand "the entire physical world" because no one does.
I made no such claim. So don't put words in my mouth. I notice when people try shit like that.

Oh, how refreshingly humble of you.
If only you were as humble.

More
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 15, 2011
Do you realize how very little you, and we collectively, know. Obviously not.
I do. YOU don't.

P.S. I graduated with a chem minor and a geology major - several decades ago.
And we can check that how? I don't care what you studied. You don't seem to have learned much.

Curious, are you still in high school?
No. Guess what my major was starting 1969. Chemistry. Got semester 90 units before I gave up college. And no you can't check. But you can see my posts going back to 2000 on the web in various places.

Again you seem to be implying a claim to knowing all the rules of the Universe,
What bullshit. I did no such thing. I just said that there ARE rules. Learn how to read.

even though you have willfully and selectively blinded yourself
Funny how you have yet to anything but make false claims about me and nothing about the substance of what I said.

More
Ethelred
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 15, 2011
through being a self-proclaimed true believer in your version of what "science" is, and is not
Lie. I do recommend that you stop making false claims like that. People tend to notice.

I agree about the magic, and I notice that you seem to believe there is absolutely nothing
in and of the Universe that cannot be explained by our current understanding of chemistry
I notice that you lie a lot. I never said anything that implied that. Just that homeopathy is well covered by what we know.

How, for example, does your chemistry explain what Einstein termed "spooky action at a distance"
Did you know that isn't chemistry? Do you know that entanglement ends when someone looks? Did you know that many of us have discussed entanglement many times? Clearly the answer to all that is NO.

At least you're in good company in your beliefs of what is and is not possible
So thats it? A series of lies about me and nothing that supports your position. What a waste of time.

Ethelred
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (11) Mar 15, 2011
BUT we cannot dismiss it without first doing our due diligence as scientifically minded people. who knows what another 50 years of scientific research might discover.
Yes indeed... For instance I think that science has not considered the dark matter component. Dark matter is attracted to vibration, and the vigorous shaking would tend to compel it to remain with the elixir. Shaking would also effect the release of dark energy thereby giving it a characteristic 'sparkle' and thus reinvigorating the life-force. This may be detected using kirlian photography.
PaulieMac
5 / 5 (5) Mar 15, 2011
Ahh, Ethelred, you are the most patient and thorough of debunkers :)
yyz
5 / 5 (8) Mar 15, 2011
"Ahh, Ethelred, you are the most patient and thorough of debunkers :)"

Agreed, but I have to give a shout out to soulman for his contributions on this thread, too.
thewhitebear
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 15, 2011
32000 people a year minimum die from adverse reactions to prescription drugs, 99000 more from antibiotic resistant hospital acquired infections. Since you have no statistics or numbers to back up your death by homeopathy claims, I'm assuming it's your opinion, not a fact. You dismiss homeopathy as being a placebo effect as though that settles it, yet the placebo effect remains very poorly understood. From Johns Hopkins
"But it would be wrong to think that the placebo effect is imagined, since observable healing is rather common among placebo takers. It may be that psychological factors initiate true healing in ways that we cant fully explain."
I believe it's possible that there is more to our health than simple biochemistry. And considering the paradigm shifts in human medicine currently underway (metagenomics and epigenetics being excellent examples) I have no doubt that in 50 years our current medicine will seem as archaic as medieval practices seem to us.
thewhitebear
1 / 5 (9) Mar 15, 2011
This is my final comment. A list of common side effects from prescription drugs, the safe alternative to that dangerous homeopathy.
Serious allergic reactions, Swelling of the face, lips, tongue, and/or throat, Difficulty breathing, Difficulty swallowing, Anemia, Decreased levels of potassium, Decreased levels of sodium, Dizziness, Excessive bleeding(sometimes fatal, Facial flushing, Fainting (syncope),Fast heartbeat (tachycardia), Heart attack, High blood pressure (hypertension),Increased levels of potassium, Low blood pressure (hypotension), Low blood cell counts, Palpitations, Perpetual erection (priapism), Postural hypotension, Slow heartbeat (bradycardia), Thrombosis (clotting),Abdominal pain, Colitis, Constipation, Diarrhea, Dry mouth, Dyspepsia, Intestinal bleeding, Nausea, Rectal bleeding, Stomach bleeding, Stomach pain, Upset Stomach (indigestion),Vomiting, Acute kidney failure, Chronic kidney failure, Hepatitus, Jaundice, Liver damage
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (8) Mar 15, 2011
"Many of the initial symptoms of a VOODOO SPELL appear to be stress-related and therefore can be overlooked or misdiagnosed. Initial symptoms are depression, sleeplessness, fatigue and irritability. After time, people find themselves uninterested in life, ignore spiritual obligations, possess a shaken faith, have difficulty praying or meditating, and experience unholy attractions to vices such as sex and drugs

"...A darkening complexion that continues to darken is an obvious giveaway. Obesity, extreme hunger, and a pressing weight on the shoulders, chest and back area are severe physical symptoms of a VOODOO SPELL. There are also specific symptoms that a woman may suffer from if she is a victim. Women experience rape dreams with real orgasms, irregular and painful menstrual cycles, and even the inability to conceive or carry a child to full term." Etc
http
://www.ehow.com/about_5242113_signs-voodoo-spell.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Mar 15, 2011

Serious allergic reactions, Swelling of the face, lips, tongue, and/or throat, Difficulty breathing, Difficulty swallowing, Anemia, Decreased levels of potassium, Decreased levels of sodium, Dizziness, Excessive bleeding(sometimes fatal, Facial flushing, Fainting (syncope),Fast heartbeat (tachycardia), Heart attack, High blood pressure (hypertension),Increased levels of potassium, Low blood pressure (hypotension), Low blood cell counts, Palpitations, Perpetual erection (priapism), Postural hypotension, Slow heartbeat (bradycardia), Thrombosis (clotting),Abdominal pain, Colitis, Constipation, Diarrhea, Dry mouth, Dyspepsia, Intestinal bleeding, Nausea, Rectal bleeding, Stomach bleeding, Stomach pain, Upset Stomach (indigestion),Vomiting, Acute kidney failure, Chronic kidney failure, Hepatitus, Jaundice, Liver damage

Sounds like a line from 'Joe Somebody'.
You forgot 'coma' and 'death'.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (6) Mar 15, 2011
This is my final comment. A list of common side effects from prescription drugs, the safe alternative to that dangerous homeopathy.
Well there's one outcome when you take homeopathic medicines for a life threatening illness....Death.

I would never defend big pharma because I think in part, you're right. When are the medicines worse than the disease?

But to sell snakeoil is a massive step backwards.
Calenur
5 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2011
This is my final comment. A list of common side effects from prescription drugs, the safe alternative to that dangerous homeopathy.


That's great, but it's not the issue. We're discussing whether Homeopathy is an effective treatment or not. All studies point to no, it's not any more effective than a placebo. Listing problems with current drugs does not lend credibility to homeopathy, you're simply diverting.

I doubt you'll find many who agree with pharma-corp practices, the side effects, or any number of things done in the name of health. We can't, however, fall victim to con-men selling snake oil with the promise of good health and no side effects.
holdenweb
5 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2011
""" It's products such as Oscillococcinum that have placed homeopathy in an awkward position"""

No it isn't. It's the total lack of any scientific evidence for, not to mention the lack of a coherent scientific theory describing, the basis of homeopathy's operation. Sure, the shit may make you feel better. But there's no more evidence that homeopathy is effective that there is that the placebo effect is in operation when homeopathy "works".
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2011
32000 people a year minimum die from adverse reactions to prescription drugs


Tobacco 435,000
Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity 365,000
Alcohol 85,000
Microbial Agents 75,000
Toxic Agents 55,00
Adverse Reactions to Prescription Drugs 32,000

Lets see, microbial=bacteria more than twice as many as all prescription drug deaths and that is ALL not just those being used for treatment of actual disease. Many of the deaths come from abuse, Anna Nicole Smith for instance, many others from patients not telling the doctors what they are taking. St. John's Wort and Warfarin make a great way to bleed to death. Some are from intentionally using dangerous drugs in an effort to stop cancer. Others are simply because people are different and some drugs and some people just don't get along.

More
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2011
The main thing is that they are, barring the idiotic use abuse of uppers and downers, being used to cure people with diseases ranging from minor to life threatening to last ditch efforts. People no longer drop dead from bacterial infections at any where near the rate it occurred before penicillin.

Show me ONE person cured of syphilis with homeopathic medicine. They don't cure people. They CAN
T cure people. Any alleged cure was by the person's own immune system.

Of course there are problems with drugs. Do you really think we don't know that?

99000 more from antibiotic resistant hospital acquired infections.
Stay out of hospitals. Which does NOT make homeopathic NONSENSE stop being nonsense.

Since you have no statistics or numbers to back up your death by homeopathy claims, I'm assuming it's your opinion, not a fact.
Do people use homeopathy in place of real medicine. YES. Do people die from not taking real medicine. YES.

More
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2011
Obviously the statistics of death from NOT going to a real doctor are a bit skint as there aren't many records. Quacks dump their dying patients BEFORE they die so they wind up on another places records. That is standard procedure for the Laetrille quacks. It is possible that those using homeopathy don't do this.

ttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/45/45.pdf

Both critics and supporters of homeopathy have questioned the scientific plausibility of
any direct physiological mode of action. For example, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of
Great Britain (RPSGB), which is firmly in the critic camp, argues that no plausible scientific reason has yet been proposed as to why it should work.48 The Princes Foundation for Integrated Health, which is more supportive of homeopathy, also notes:any specific mechanism of action based on extreme dilution is implausible and regarded as unsupportable by the majority of scientists working in this field.


More
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2011
54. We conclude that the principle of like-cures-like is theoretically weak. It fails to
provide a credible physiological mode of action for homeopathic products. We note
that this is the settled view of medical science.


9. There are enormous difficulties presented by the notion that water can remember
substances that have previously been dissolved in it. When substances are dissolved in water, the water molecules will form structures around the solute molecules; but the
hydrogen bonds between water molecules are far too weak and short-lived to hold that
structure once the solute has been removed


60. Even if water could retain a memory of previously dissolved substances we know of no explanation for why the sugar-based homeopathic pills routinely dispensed would retain
such a memory.


69. The review which we consider the most comprehensive to date is that by Shang et al.


More
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2011
The review compared 110 placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy matched according to
disorder and type of outcome to trials of conventional medicine. The study only included
trials that were controlled, included randomised assignment to treatment or placebo
groups and were accompanied by sufficient data for odds ratio calculations. The authors concluded that when analyses were restricted to large trials of higher quality there was no convincing evidence that homeopathy was superior to placebo.


There have now been around 200 trials of homeopathy against placebo sugar pills
and, taken collectively, they show that there is no evidence that homeopathy pills are any better than a placebo. [] it is not worth doing any more placebo controlled trials because you would be throwing good money after bad and you would have to have a huge number of very strongly positive trials to outweigh all of the negative
ones.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2011
Symptoms of Radiation poisoning:
"Nausea and vomiting generally occur within 2448 hours after exposure to mild (12 Sv) doses of radiation. Radiation damage to the intestinal tract lining will cause nausea, bloody vomiting and diarrhea. This occurs when the victim's exposure is 200 rems (1 Sv = 100 rems) or more. The radiation will begin to destroy the cells in the body that divide rapidly, including blood, GI tract, reproductive and hair cells, and harm the DNA and RNA of surviving cells. A direct quantitative relationship exists between the degree of the neutropenia that develops after exposure to radiation and the increased risk of developing systemic infection (sepsis). Headache, fatigue, and weakness are also seen with mild exposure. Moderate (23.5 Sv of radiation) exposure is associated with nausea and vomiting beginning within 1224 hours after exposure. In addition to the symptoms of mild exposure, fever, hair loss, infections, bloody vomit and stools..." Etc
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2011
97. When doctors prescribe placebos, they risk damaging the trust that exists between them and their patients.


108. These are not merely hypothetical concerns. Professor John McLachlan, Professor of
Medical Education at the University of Durham, highlighted in his written submission
several cases where children had died as a result of their parents rejecting conventional
treatments, including for treatable conditions like diabetes. He alerted us to a case in Australia, where a homeopath and his wife were charged with manslaughter by gross criminal negligence when their baby daughter died after they continually treated her with homeopathic remedies instead of conventional medicine. The baby died from eczema which, when left insufficiently treated, depleted her immune system. In the UK, the General Medical Council found a doctor guilty of professional misconduct after he advised a patient to use only homeopathic remedies. The patient subsequently died.


More
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2011
It doesn't work. Calling medicine is at best unethical. Some people HAVE died from using it instead of REAL medicine despite most homeopathic medicine being used for non-fatal diseases.

Your posts have been without a speck of evidence to support and only worst sort whining the we don't know everything and besides people die using the real thing. 'Perhaps the Giant Invisible Orbiting Aardvark will cure those that use non-functioning fake medicine'. Well I know the man that created the Giant Invisible Orbiting Aardvark and I can assure that the GIOAA helps those that help themselves and not idiot that expect magic cures. The GIOAA says the upstart Flying Spaghetti Monster agrees with it.

And I have exactly as much evidence, well no, I have more, as I saw the creation of the GIOAA, as there is for homeopathy.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Mar 16, 2011
All studies point to no

That's not true as pointed out by NIH comments.
Calenur
5 / 5 (9) Mar 16, 2011
That's not true as pointed out by NIH comments.


It's on the VERY FIRST PAGE for the NIH's page on Complementary and Alternative Medicine; and I quote:

"Most analyses have concluded that there is little evidence to support homeopathy as an effective treatment for any specific condition; although, some studies have reported positive findings.

There are challenges in studying homeopathy and controversies regarding the field. This is largely because a number of its key concepts are not consistent with the current understanding of science, particularly chemistry and physics."

You're being willfully obtuse, or tragically naive, I'm not sure which. My post on the 13th (read above) was a source provided directly by the NIH on their page. Studies have been done, and it's fairly conclusive that homeopathy is no more effective than a placebo. If you want to know more about homeopathic research, simply look into the current research on placebos....they're the same thing.
Calenur
5 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2011
You're operating on pure speculation and belief. You're willfully casting a blind eye to the fact that homeopathy is no more effective than the placebo effect, the treatments can't be replicated, and properly conducted studies have shown it to be bunk. It's absolutely insane.
Mayor__Dooley
5 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2011
Spread from crank to fool, homeopathy is like the cruder folk medicines that it evolved from. Taking sheep-nanny tea for measles, peacock dung for epilepsy, rubbing mouse droppings into the scalp to cure baldness, or taking pellets of your own faeces to remedy snakebite. This sanitated form of quackery, free from anything but water and hot air, seems to require even greater levels of ignorance. At least the likes Album Graecum had some substance and invokes an amusing cringe, rather than a despairing shake of the head.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Mar 16, 2011
some studies have reported positive findings.

The same can be said for FDA drug tests.
Some support the wild notion that even if a drug only works for a few people is should be approved to help them.
Calenur
5 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2011
CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence that homeopathic treatments are more effective than placebo; however, the strength of this evidence is low because of the low methodological quality of the trials. Studies of high methodological quality were more likely to be negative than the lower quality studies.


Shitty studies have reported positive findings. It would also be appreciated if you would provide sources for statements such as:

The same can be said for FDA drug tests.
Some support the wild notion that even if a drug only works for a few people is should be approved to help them.


Please?
hush1
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2011
http:://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-rock-paper-scissors-tournaments-ecological-diversity.html

I like reading all comments, regardless which thread.
Now, after reading the above posted link, the longer the thread comments are, the more I feel to need to associate the 'dynamics' described in the above posted link with the 'dynamics' of fact and opinion exchanged on longer thread comments.
I don't regret finding and reading the above posted link. Nor ever reading any comment posted. Well, o.k., almost any comment posted.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2011
It would also be appreciated if you would provide sources for statements such as:


The source is Marjon. He thinks people should find out the hard way that some drugs just kill people. He hates the whole concept of the government testing drugs to see if they do what they say and thinks you should just die to find out.

Remember with Marjon his AnnRandFantasyLandTM Idiotology trumps reason every time.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (12) Mar 17, 2011
What is most disturbing about govt testing is there are no consequences to the govt for failure. If FDA screws up and people die, who gets fired? Who gets sued for wrongful death?
That's an indictment against ALL govt regulatory agencies. How many at the SEC were fired for ignoring Madoff?
Who in the FBI was fired for authorizing the assassination at Ruby Ridge? Was Janet Reno fired for murdering children at Waco?
Freddie, Fanny, GM are bankrupt but the govt keeps propping them up.
What so wrong about demanding accountability for the govt? All you 'liberals' demand such accountability for private industry, but not the govt. Why?
Modernmystic
1.4 / 5 (8) Mar 17, 2011
The source is Marjon. He thinks people should find out the hard way that some drugs just kill people.


Either that or hates the idea of keeping drugs off the market that save people...like when the FDA killed 100,000 people by keeping beta blockers off the market for ten years.
Calenur
5 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2011
What is most disturbing about govt testing is there are no consequences to the govt for failure. If FDA screws up and people die, who gets fired? Who gets sued for wrongful death?


The company gets sued. They manufactured the drug, and often run their own trials. Believe me, they'd like to see the FDA go away (which is on the table, ironically).

That's an indictment against ALL govt regulatory agencies. How many at the SEC were fired for ignoring Madoff?
Who in the FBI was fired for authorizing the assassination at Ruby Ridge? Was Janet Reno fired for murdering children at Waco


Strawman. Not related to homeopathy in the least.

What so wrong about demanding accountability for the govt? All you 'liberals' demand such accountability for private industry, but not the govt. Why?


Ahh yes, and here it is. The liberal-intellectual elite always picking on you. This isn't a political issue; homeopathy is bunk, provide evidence to the contrary.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Mar 17, 2011
FDA has FAILED and people died. How many people at FDA have been fired?
When a govt agency fails the usually complain they don't have enough money so they beg for more. Failure is REWARDED in govt agencies!
"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has failed to adequately safeguard the nations drug supply, according to various studies and watchdog groups. The agencys most glaring failure: its lack of action against the popular arthritis and pain medication Vioxx despite clear and convincing evidence that the drug posed a threat to thousands of heart patients. Instead, the FDA which is responsible for guaranteeing the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, as well as Americas food supply waited for the drugs manufacturer to act on its own. "
http://www.public...try/994/
The company was motivated to act because they would be held accountable.
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2011
that's an indictment against ALL govt regulatory agencies.
Of course. You live in AnnRandFantasyLandTM where all things anarchic are perfect and no ever lies.

Who in the FBI was fired for authorizing the assassination at Ruby Ridge?
Since there was no such thing no was fired. Funny how people making this claim forget about the murdered FBI agents.

Was Janet Reno fired for murdering children at Waco?
Another Marjon lie. The wackjobs started the shooting at the very beginning and THEY started the fire killed the children THEY refused to let leave.

Freddie, Fanny, GM are bankrupt but the govt keeps propping them up
Thats your opinion and thus is a worthless opinion.

What so wrong about demanding accountability for the govt?
Nothing. But that isn't what you are doing.

All you 'liberals' demand such accountability for private industry, but not the govt. Why?
You might as well stop telling that lie. You aren't fooling anyone.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2011
Either that or hates the idea of keeping drugs off the market that save people.
This is Marjon we are talking about. He doesn't care about people. He cares about Ann Rand and his insane idea that ALL government is inherently evil.

like when the FDA killed 100,000 people by keeping beta blockers off the market for ten years.
Beta blockers have serious side effects and that number is pulled out someones ass. For one thing a lot of people quit them because they fuzz up their thinking. And yes the FDA may overdo it at times. Sometimes they under do it and people die of liver failure. Drugs are often dangerous and no one is ever going to be perfect on this. Expecting zero mistakes is totally unreasonable and any company or government that tries to force it will fail. When we build something it can be done with a degree of robustness by over engineering and using backups. Drugs don't work that way. Testing is all we have and it isn't enough sometimes.

Ethelred
Modernmystic
2.2 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2011
This is Marjon we are talking about. He doesn't care about people. He cares about Ann Rand and his insane idea that ALL government is inherently evil.


Point taken...

Beta blockers have serious side effects and that number is pulled out someones ass.


No, that's the actual statistic.

http://www.desere...ses.html

http://healthblog...n-kills/

http://www.cato.o...1-10.pdf

For one thing a lot of people quit them because they fuzz up their thinking.


Coming off a medication that will keep you alive is fuzzy thinking...

Expecting zero mistakes is totally unreasonable and any company or government that tries to force it will fail.


I agree, but let's not forget the horrendous mistakes they've made when we argue for them.
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2011
No, that's the actual statistic.
Oh I figured that. However

deseretnews.com

Those are people so gullible they actually believe John Smith.

If the FDA approves a drug that turns out to have unanticipated, dangerous side effects, people will suffer. Similarly, if the FDA denies or delays the marketing of a perfectly safe and beneficial drug, people will also suffer. Both errors cause medical harm.
Which is the problem.

Finally, in 1981, FDA approved the first such drug, boasting that it might save up to 17,000 lives per year. That meant as many as 100,000 people might have died from secondary heart attacks waiting for FDA approval.
Yes that is a number pulled out of an ass. It is a very dubious calculation and ignores the fact the in Europe a lot more people die of inadequately tested drugs.

More
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2011
The FDA imposed a moratorium on beta-blocker approvals in the U.S. because of the drug's carcinogenicity in animals.
Notice what isn't mentioned above. Did the approved beta-blocker have the problem the FDA did not like?

Dr. Goodmans health policy blog is the premier right-of-center health care blog on the Internet.
I suspect that Right of Center is a bit of an underestimate as to how far right it is.

The Wall Street Journal and the National Journal, among other media, have called him the Father of Health Savings Accounts.
Does that mean the he is against national health care and maybe even Medicare? Still he didn't use those statistics. Those came from a comment.

Cato institute. I almost prefer Marjon. They exist to push the gold standard. Here they started out complaining about the requirement that drugs actually work. Disguised as a complaint about increased time for approval and that less drugs approved. Of course less drugs were approved.

More
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2011
Yes that is a number pulled out of an ass.


From the Cato study:

However, one important class of drugs that clearly suffered from
post1962 FDA regulation was the beta blockers, an innovative treatment
for a variety of cardiovascular conditions. The FDA approved
the first U.S. beta blocker, propranalol, in 1968three years after it
had been approved in Great Britain. In subsequent years, the FDA
was criticized for delaying the introduction of other, newer beta
blockers and for restricting approval of propranalol to only limited
indications, against the advice of expert cardiologists.44 Finally, in
November 1981, the FDA announced its approval of a new beta
blocker, timolol, for an innovative indication, the prevention of second
heart attacks. The FDAs action was based on a study published
seven months earlier, showing that timolol could reduce mortality
from second heart attacks by enough to save an estimated 6,500 to
10,000 lives per year in the United States.45 (cont)
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Mar 17, 2011
Funny how people making this claim forget about the murdered FBI agents.

What murdered agents?
Were these the 'agents' spying in woods that were discovered by teens hunting? The agents that shot at the teens, without identifying themselves? The teens were better shots and didn't miss?
Modernmystic
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 17, 2011
(cont)

At this rate, it can be
estimated that some 4,000 to 5,800 preventable deaths occurredduring
the seven months required by the FDA for its purportedly expedited
approval. However, as noted by Wardell, there had been clinical
evidence fii,r the efficacy of beta blockers in preventing second
heart attacks as early as 1974.46 The total cost of this seven-year delay
could then be put at some 45,000 to 70,000 livesseveral times
greater than all the casualties resulting from thalidomide and other
major new drug disasters.47
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (7) Mar 17, 2011
Well I'll be sure to discount any sources you give in the future from the Federal Government Eth...

No point in further discussion on the matter.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Mar 17, 2011
"What is certain is that the dog was shot in the rear end (suggesting that he was running away) and then killed by a second shot. Sammy Weaver, who was running toward the cabin, wheeled around, yelled something like "you shot my dog, you son of a bitch," fired a couple of rounds, and started running again. He was shot twicefirst wounded in the elbow and then killed by a bullet in the back. Kevin fired his .30-06 at the marshals and believed he had hit Degan, though he insists the marshals started shooting first and he was firing in self-defense after Sammy was hit."

http://reason.com...-ridge/1
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2011
It was easy to approve stuff that did nothing as can be seen in this discussion.

These concerns were born out in 1982 by the highly publicized case of Orafiex, an innovative arthritis drug that received fast track approval from the FDApartially on the basis of foreign data, which had hitherto been disallowed by FDA policy. Orafiex subsequently
had to be withdrawn from the market when it proved toxic to 61 British and 11 American victims, prompting critics to call for stricter regulation.


That occurred during the Reagan Admin.

The FDA approved the first U.S. beta blocker, propranalol, in 1968
This means that was a drug on the market already and new drugs would have to be better or safer.

And even they don't agree with the numbers you posted. Which is not to say the numbers are insignificant.

More
and rats that is an inconvenient place to have to break.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2011
Well I'll be sure to discount any sources you give in the future from the Federal Government Eth...
How about you read the numbers right HERE from the Cato Asylum that DISAGREE with what you posted originally.

My, that break was awkward.

The total cost of this seven-year delay could then be put at some 45,000 to 70,000 livesseveral times greater than all the casualties resulting from thalidomide and other
major new drug disasters.
Looks like the usual inflation occurred. People don't bother to be accurate and change the numbers to be a better fit to their needs.

This a matter of balance. Beta blockers for instance are really a poor substitute for diet and exercise and those aren't perfect either. Like it or not some people are going to die of heart attacks. I have this personal suspicion that one reason there are less deaths these days besides the decrease in smoking is malaria. Lots of WWII vets, my father included, had malaria and that makes a mess of the circulatory
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Mar 17, 2011
Oh so you're accepting the 45,00 to 70,000 number now simply because it conflicted with my earlier statement? Or are you blowing smoke...

I'm confused...

Also the FDA itself stated Beta blockers save 14,000 a year in the press conference they had when they announced they'd approved a "new wonder drug". Do you believe the FDA?
ryggesogn2
Mar 17, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2011
Accidentally hit the submit. Complete last sentence here.

Lots of WWII vets, my father included, had malaria and that makes a mess of the circulatorysystems.

Now if you had mentioned the Cato Asylum had disagreed with your original numbers...Impatience.

No, I don't know the answer for where the balance should be. But is sure as hell isn't in throwing out the FDA. And informed consent is dependent on people understanding things that take years of study by people that don't even understand the Monty Hall Effect. Which included me until this week.

Coming off a medication that will keep you alive is fuzzy thinking...
Yess. And what caused the fuzzy thinking? Not losing weight or doing enough exercise perhaps.

I agree, but let's not forget the horrendous mistakes they've made when we argue for them.
The mistakes are being overstated for political purposes and I haven't forgotten the mistakes happen. Hindsight is a hideous thing. Too many fat asses involved.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Mar 17, 2011
"After Vioxx and other safety controversies, "the American people no longer trust the FDA to protect their health," said Cleveland Clinic cardiologist Steve Nissen. Nissen added that Congress needed to act in order for the FDA to rebuild public trust. FDA spokeswoman Kristen Neese said, "The FDA has done considerable work over the past two years to improve our approach to drug safety, and we are committed to taking additional steps."
"FDA-approved prescription drugs have killed over half a million Americans since 9/11, and now this Congress wants to give it even more money and power.

Learn more: http://www.natura...GsYOivc1

That's the nature of power, to seek more.

BTW, there would less of a need for many drugs if people ate less sugar and starch controlling their insulin. But that buts up against govt subsidies of the wheat, corn and beet farmers and sugar producers.
But what do you expect with a massive, powerful state?
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2011
I'm confused...
You fault. You were the one that couldn't wait for the rest.

Oh so you're accepting the 45,00 to 70,000 number now simply because it conflicted with my earlier statement?
Paranoia is not a nice thing.

I said the number was pulled out of someones ass. You now have numbers that show I was right in that statment. You posted the numbers. Don't blame me for your actions.

Ethelred
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2011
It was the FDA itself that said 14000 a year would be saved. Again, are you accusing them of lying?
mrlewish
5 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2011
If there is a lot more homeopathy does it mean it becomes less effective?
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2011
It was the FDA itself that said 14000 a year would be saved. Again, are you accusing them of lying?
Have you been taking reading lessons from Marjon? What the hell are you yammering abuot now?

I accused NO ONE in our discussion of lying. Marjon isn't a anyone so that conversation doesn't count.

OK I said Joseph Smith lied. I have said that before. Where the hell did you see me accuse you of lying?

Ethelred
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2011
It was the FDA itself that said 14000 a year would be saved. Again, are you accusing them of lying?
Have you been taking reading lessons from Marjon? What the hell are you yammering abuot now?

I accused NO ONE in our discussion of lying. Marjon isn't a anyone so that conversation doesn't count.

OK I said Joseph Smith lied. I have said that before. Where the hell did you see me accuse you of lying?

Ethelred


I apologize, I assumed since you were calling into question the 100,000 deaths you were implying someone was spinning falsehoods. I never thought you accused ME of lying, only the sources I used. I pointed to the FDA as a source assuming that since they're the governmental agency in question you'd hold their word with more veracity than a newspaper in a state with mostly Mormons or the Cato Institute.

I sincerely apologize if I've mistaken any of your comments.
Zephyr311
1 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2011
Pity about the discussion here. Is there a discussion board anywhere on the internet where people are not sniping at each other? Anyway, the supposed placebo effect with homeopathy is the same as the placebo effect with allopathic meds: The "placebo effect" is the ONLY effect, it seems.
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (9) Mar 18, 2011
Pity about the discussion here. Is there a discussion board anywhere on the internet where people are not sniping at each other?


A boring one where everyone already agrees with each other and the "conversation" consists of endless back patting?

Funny thing is that's what a lot of people would like to turn this board into.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (12) Mar 18, 2011
Pity about the discussion here. Is there a discussion board anywhere on the internet where people are not sniping at each other?

That's what happens among real scientists.
Except among the incestuous global warming scientists.
Zephyr311
1 / 5 (8) Mar 18, 2011
"That's what happens among real scientists." You really have hit it, haven't you: Many "real scientists" think arrogance is part of science. Certainly "real scientists" are not civil because they're so far above the dullard masses that civility is tantamount to acknowledging the idiocy of the masses as even being worth considering. Modernmystic, I'm not sure what is boring about robust dialog about interesting topics, but whatever...if sniping is what you're into, this place is rife.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2011
Pity about the discussion here. Is there a discussion board anywhere on the internet where people are not sniping at each other?

That's what happens among real scientists.
Except among the incestuous global warming scientists.

So you're saying that your denier heros aren't real scientists? I may think Lindzen is missing the picture due to a lack of information, but I've never said he isn't a scientist. Then again, you don't seem to trust anything that science has put into your hands if we're to judge you by the posts you defecate onto these forums.