but there's an e there...
but there's an e there...
You seem to be addressing statements I never made. I never said this stuff couldn't ever bring about a desired result; I merely said they are not effective in the ways they are advertised. I would also argue that it's bad for a unproven, ineffective form of treatment to get government funding... or really to be used at all, just on the off-chance that you might have a placebo reaction.Originally Posted by Miriel
Wait, what? So it's wrong to be dismissive of claims which have been proven wrong? You are mischaracterizing my statements as an "initial response," when in fact they are made with the weight of overwhelming evidence. Homeopathy and acupuncture have about as much change of being legitimate as evolution being a conspiracy of scientists, or of water curing AIDS. The efficacy of these treatments (or lack thereof) is demonstrably false.I think it would be great if different forms of healing and treatment were studied and regulated, but for the longest time (at least in the US) it was illegal to even practice any of this stuff. I mean, it's still illegal today in some states to practice midwifery. Some states let you get a license, but others don't even allow that option. There were huuuge efforts to block the licensing of chiropractors since chiropractics was seen as unscientific and harmful to the public. But nowadays, you can even have a visit to the chiropractor covered in your insurance plan. The initial response to anything outside the mainstream seems to be complete dismissal, which isn't really the right attitude. It's the kind of attitude I think you're sporting.
Did I ever say you should? Again, you're mischaracterizing my argument to be "go prescription drugs go! bad everything else!" My argument has been limited to those treatments which have been proven to be based on nothing but pseudo-science.I have health insurance with Kaiser Permanente, I take antibiotics for infections, I go to pharmacies to get prescriptions filled, I don't have any problem with mainstream medicine. But I'm not going to close myself off to other possibilities.
The FDA is a pain in the ass, but there are exceptions for terminal patients to receive non-approved treatment still in the clinical trials phase. But these "non-mainstream" (really, just "new") treatments are still based on actual science.I think more research done on this stuff is a GOOD thing. I think the best doctor to have would be the kind who has knowledge of more than the very strict set of treatments available in the mainstream. Cancer treatment is a good example of the current battle to introduce more alternative methods to treating cancer and the incredible reluctance of the medical community to entertain any thoughts outside of chemotherapy.
rubah pointed out just one possible way these things are bad -- it's analogous a Christian "scientist" telling you to pray over a sick child. Anyway, what's the "harm" in calling a bogus treatment "bogus?" And what about government funding hemeopathic treatments, like in the UK?I get what you're saying, I really do. It's just I personally really don't care if other people think they're being cured by water. I really don't. As long as people aren't being harmed by it, I don't see the point in being all condescending and OH NOES HUMANITY! about it.
This reminds me of this skit: Most geniusly written poem. [VIDEO]
Haha, great link. Tim Minchin is awesome. I'm also reminded of his song "if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out."
EDIT: Oops, forgot to link it.
Last edited by Raistlin; 02-02-2010 at 05:43 AM.
How would the stupid have your money?
I'm going to say what I've always said, the answer to stupidity is quite simple; just take the warning labels off everything and let the problem sort itself out.
You get 0 points for quoting an 8-year-old bash quote as an original idea.
Seeing as how my dad is a homeopath, I strongly disagree with this.
I know for a fact that it is much more than placebo. Try giving placebo to someone, it does not work in the long run. My dad has had medicine practioners of all types come to his practice, some with pretty severe physical conditions.
There is proper science behind it, the best thing I can do is to get you to read Wilhem Reich, basicly the brainchild of it all. I'm not going to defend it, as you've already made up your mind.
What is actually happening is that most homeopaths don't know SH*T about their own subject, especially in the UK. It is a feeding ground for exploitation, that does not mean it doesn't work when done right.
A fraud does not mean the subject is a hoax.
So I looked up Reich. I didn't find anything remotely talking about water memory and dilution, but I did find this:
... yeah.[Reich] argu[ed] that he had discovered a primordial cosmic energy. He called it "orgone," and the study of it "orgonomy."
Orgone is blue in color, he wrote, omnipresent, can be seen with the naked eye, and is responsible for such things as weather, the color of the sky, gravity, the formation of galaxies, and the biological expressions of emotion and sexuality. He argued that St. Elmo's Fire is a manifestation of it, as is the blue color of sexually excited frogs.
What "science" is behind homeopathy? What studies have shown any effect? Why did all those UK protesters who "overdosed" suffer NO effects? How is a 20 or 30C homeopathic solution distinguishable at all from plain water (which according to everything we know about chemistry it can't be)?
But the subject being a hoax does mean all the practitioners are frauds.
If they advertised that the treatment was a placebo then that would defeat the purpose.You seem to be addressing statements I never made. I never said this stuff couldn't ever bring about a desired result; I merely said they are not effective in the ways they are advertised.
But then again Im a nutjob who believes water and fresh air is a good way to cure many illnesses
Last edited by blackmage_nuke; 02-03-2010 at 07:01 AM.
Kefka's coming, look intimidating!
Have a nice day!!
That principle allows literally anything to be marketed to cure anything, on the chance there could be a placebo effect. And while we (correctly) allow pretty much everything to be marketed, scientists and governments are in the business of regulating the claims they make (whether that's a good thing or not). Additionally, the government (at least the UK's) should not be using taxpayer money to pay exorbitantly for what amounts to glorified placebos.
I am a taxpayer and voter of the UK; you are not. I hereby demand that my government spends my taxes in an exorbitant manner on what amounts to glorified placebos.
Owned.
That would be more persuasive if you were actually stupid enough to believe that.
Wait, nevermind.
Stupid enough to believe that they are glorified placebos? Does this mean that they are not, in fact, glorified placebos and that they actually work? Raistlin I think you should stop and think before you make a post in these debate threads because you're just contradicting yourself here.
Just a helpful posting tip from an internet debate master.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
