Homeopathy, Why people want to Believe

Do you have the medical credentials to understand where he may be right or may be wrong? My guess is no.
Since you've read the book I'd like you to read the books review.


*Alternative therapies that work don't remain on the fringe become medicine.
Same thing as before: bunk. For those following the thread, read the book and don't trust someone connected with Sloan-Kettering, for Christ's sake. The book is explosive.

*Alternative therapies that work often remain on the fringe because they don't make enough money and jeoprodize a very high dollar industry with all sorts of investments already made in the present mode of treatment.
 
Do you have the medical credentials to understand where he may be right or may be wrong? My guess is no.
Since you've read the book I'd like you to read the books review.


*Alternative therapies that work don't remain on the fringe become medicine.
Here's a small taste:

https://www.lef.org/magazine/mag201...blishment-Hides-Radiation-Side-Effects_01.htm

EDIT: What's left out of this article is the increasing investment (in radiation treatment in this case) by the industry that grows more and more bloated and reveals how much they have at stake and shows how little they - the industry on the whole - would be apt to admit the whole thing is not what it's cracked up to be.
 
Last edited:
You see that's where a great difference exists in how our thought processes work. In this case, you know personal interpretive experience trumps all. A skeptic such as myself would say even though I feel much better how can I and why should I be convinced acupuncture worked.

The most interesting question you raise with your answers is the psychology underlying belief?

Would a skeptic such as yourself ask why you should believe that a prescription drug made you feel better? Or do you reserve your doubts for things yor prejudice tells you should not work?

Someone mentioned acne treatment. I used a product when I was a teen in the 60's and I see it is still heavily marketed as a cure to this day. It didn't work then and my teenage son confirms it doesn't work now. Despite claims of "scientific" formulations, it is pharmaceutical snake oil.
 
Would a skeptic such as yourself ask why you should believe that a prescription drug made you feel better? Or do you reserve your doubts for things yor prejudice tells you should not work?
I would ask what is the science behind the efficacy of the drug. I reserve prejudiced for things that have dubious and no science to back them up.

Someone mentioned acne treatment. I used a product when I was a teen in the 60's and I see it is still heavily marketed as a cure to this day. It didn't work then and my teenage son confirms it doesn't work now. Despite claims of "scientific" formulations, it is pharmaceutical snake oil.
Makes me wonder why it's still on the market if what you state is true? What is the name of the product?
 
Makes me wonder why it's still on the market if what you state is true? What is the name of the product?

You're totally out of your league on this. Read "Our Daily Meds," for starters. The industry will take hit upon hit upon hit of lawsuits and whatever else. Where's the FDA during this? I don't know. But they'll leave things on the market long after they're clearly shown to be harmful. It's a for-profit industry that staffs the FDA. 95% of doctors (last I checked the number was right there around 95) has taken some form of payment or the other from pharma groups. They own the whole system, top to bottom.
 
Last edited:
You're totally out of your league on this. Read "Our Daily Meds," for starters. The industry will take hit upon hit upon hit of lawsuits and whatever else. Where's the FDA during this? I don't know. But they'll leave things on the market long after they're clearly shown to be harmful. It's a for-profit industry that staffs the FDA. 95% of doctors (last I checked the number was right there around 95) has taken some form of payment or the other from pharma groups. The own the whole system, top to bottom.
I'd rather you reply to post #43.

Moving on now.

I see the real motive for your distrust of western medicine has revealed itself. It's all about big pharma and profit, not at all about the efficacy of treatments for all varieties of medical problems. That's such a poor reason to prefer unproven alternative treatments to conventional ones.
 
Here's a small taste:

https://www.lef.org/magazine/mag201...blishment-Hides-Radiation-Side-Effects_01.htm

EDIT: What's left out of this article is the increasing investment (in radiation treatment in this case) by the industry that grows more and more bloated and reveals how much they have at stake and shows how little they - the industry on the whole - would be apt to admit the whole thing is not what it's cracked up to be.

Huh? The references for the article point to an emedicine article on Medscape outlining the side effects of radiation therapy. The emedicine articles are a mainstream source of medical information (and a good quality source, by-the-way). Rather than hiding or covering up anything, this is the information which is freely available and discussed prior to making the decision to proceed with radiation therapy.

Linda
 
Someone mentioned acne treatment. I used a product when I was a teen in the 60's and I see it is still heavily marketed as a cure to this day. It didn't work then and my teenage son confirms it doesn't work now. Despite claims of "scientific" formulations, it is pharmaceutical snake oil.

So, because it doesn't work for two people, you know it doesn't work for anyone?
 
I don't understand what any of this has to do with homeopathy.

And if you are worried about financial self-interest, then look at what physicians do in developed countries other than the US, or at salaried physicians, etc.

Linda
 
Your approach is to throw away medical treatment that works because of inappropriate useage. Did you read the summary?
Yes, of course I did. Did you read what was above it? (Once again, the book is what I've suggest, and this was a quick article I found).

For one, I've never said and wouldn't be so foolish as to say that mainstream methods could never work. In fact, in another thread just a day or two ago, I said that I thought mainstream methods were good with certain types of cancer (from what I understood, anyway). But the thing still somewhat reads like a weak disclaimer . . . which have to be inserted anywhere someone makes a statement with a whisp of something that runs counter to mainstrem medicine . . .
 
So, because it doesn't work for two people, you know it doesn't work for anyone?

Here's the question, to return to traditional ways of eating (2 million years worth) and Weston Price.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...a=X&ei=0sykUojFD4TC2QWrmIC4BQ&ved=0CDIQ9QEwAQ

Did these people have acne?

No. They didn't. What did they do? Take accutane? No, they ate differently. So how do we justify this bloated industry and what I understand to be some pretty major side-effects?
 
And if you are worried about financial self-interest, then look at what physicians do in developed countries other than the US, or at salaried physicians, etc.
Heck, look at homeopathy. After all, how much plutonium or Berlin Wall do I need to procure to create as much homeopathic substance as I can possibly sell? And some stuff is completely free, such as Venus Stella Errans.

~~ Paul
 
So, because it doesn't work for two people, you know it doesn't work for anyone?

I'm trying to make the point that you can use scientifically researched medications which have no beneficial effect (or even adverse effect) but they are accepted on faith by virtue of the vaneer of scientific respectability. Yet when an alternative treatment has been shown to work, then the people making the claim are told they are deluded or that there was nothing wrong with them in the first place. Perhaps we need some open minded scientists who will ask -" why does this work when our present day science says it shouldn't?" instead of dismissing it with an arrogant wave of the hand.

It is the same argument with Psi and many of the other subjects discussed here.
 
Huh? The references for the article point to an emedicine article on Medscape outlining the side effects of radiation therapy. The emedicine articles are a mainstream source of medical information (and a good quality source, by-the-way). Rather than hiding or covering up anything, this is the information which is freely available and discussed prior to making the decision to proceed with radiation therapy.

Linda
He gravely misconstrued what he was reading. He should have read the summery too along with some of the other artcles.
 
I'm trying to make the point that you can use scientifically researched medications which have no beneficial effect (or even adverse effect) but they are accepted on faith by virtue of the vaneer of scientific respectability. Yet when an alternative treatment has been shown to work, then the people making the claim are told they are deluded or that there was nothing wrong with them in the first place. Perhaps we need some open minded scientists who will ask -" why does this work when our present day science says it shouldn't?" instead of dismissing it with an arrogant wave of the hand.

It is the same argument with Psi and many of the other subjects discussed here.
If they work they are recognized as affective treatments and are no longer alternative.
Homeopathic treatments do not work because they are not medicines for one reason. Consider for a moment a drug dealer making homeopathic pot by mixing it according to homopathic procedure with oregano. At some point in the procedure a point will be reached where no pot will be found in the mix, just oregano. Do you think anyone would get high from smoking it?
 
If they work they are recognized as affective treatments and are no longer alternative.

I know next to nothing about homeopathy - the point was a general one which is that what you say above is clearly not the case. Some alternative treatments do work even though the science is not there to explain how. I don't say they work all of the time or for all people. Perhaps belief in their efficacy has something to do with it. Perhaps just a will to get better creates the conditions for the body to heal itself. But you seem detemined to go down the path of identiying a scientifically acceptable (in an orthodox sense) mechanism and dismiss anything that doesn't qute fit that model.

As I said, the same argument can be applied to many of the discussions here.
 
Here's the question, to return to traditional ways of eating (2 million years worth) and Weston Price.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...a=X&ei=0sykUojFD4TC2QWrmIC4BQ&ved=0CDIQ9QEwAQ

Did these people have acne?

No. They didn't. What did they do? Take accutane? No, they ate differently. So how do we justify this bloated industry and what I understand to be some pretty major side-effects?

Well, it's only 4 pictures, somewhat fuzzy and in black and white, and it looks to me like the one in the upper right hand corner might have acne. But either way, there are a lot of confounding factors in there (time spent in the sun? the effects of ethnicity and skin melanin on acne prevalence? prevalent pathogens? etc.)

That said, I'd be surprised if eating, say, a diet more rich in retinoids didn't decrease the prevalence of acne.
 
But you seem detemined to go down the path of identiying a scientifically acceptable (in an orthodox sense) mechanism and dismiss anything that doesn't qute fit that model.

I don't know about Steve001, but I certainly don't think that way.

You'd be surprised how many "standard, mainstream" medical treatments have an unknown mechanism of action.
 
I would also note that, for the record, I take a cocktail of prescribed medications every day and do so because my specialist heart doctor says I should. I trust her and do as I'm told. Heart doctors saved my life and I appreciate that and, on a personal level, I've always been a little skeptical of alternative treatments myself. However, my sister-in-law was diagnosed with cancer and refused conventional medications, believing instead that following what she called a "natural" therapy would bring her back to health. It did, the cancer has not re-appeared in the five or so years since and she is healthy and happy.
 
Back
Top