Homeopathy

[Mika]

Well the very first link i pulled when googling homeopathic clinical studies, in a medical journal, observed that out of something like 84 studies, indications were “apparent bias” and undeterminable methodolgy made it difficult or inclusive to ascertain the quality of the findings - and it is refering both to the Alopathic studies, as well as the Homeopathic practioners ones. But it concludeds despite the biases, etc, it seems the majority of the studies demonstrate (or indicate) a “positive” resultant of Homeopathic useage.

side note random comment that vilolates once again debating do's and dont's, It's interesting that by what is considered necessary for scientific verification, is absolutely no room for Faith, Prayer, or anything Spiritual, so that 'god' will fail. But the same criteria can allow Sugar companies to publish ads based on their studies, that sugar is good for you, doesn't contribute to tooth decay, obesity or diabetes, because 'technically' its been proven 'true' but really thats the point any research can be skewed.




I'VE never seen an 'atom' and probably never will, but i'm supposed to take the word of it taught to me in school as 'truth' because others have their evidence, 'not to mention big scary bomb', yet homeopathy who distills medicine down to the atomic level, is considered debunked, and again i'm just suppossed to take someone elses word as 'truth'?

"You really think that's air you're breathing?

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by Mika

ok Clarke, as to the ettiqutes, of debating, i will concede, as this is probably the actual first 'debate' as in formality sense, i've engaged upon. Simplified response, i have no knowledle of debate rules. :/

That wasn't what you said in response to my post.

Advocating something to those who are interested is very different form defending it against someone well-informed who has taken the time to do the actual research.

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

Not sure about how I feel about homeopathy, but at the same time I don't feel western medicine has all the answers, either. There's probably something to some eastern medicines, or natural medicines. Western medicine could probably learn from the East new ways to make their medicine more natural and more in line with our biology, and Eastern medicine can learn to make their medicine more effective. We need to find a balance of the best of both worlds.

That sounds to me like an admission eastern ones don't work.

Nobody said any approach has all answers, but basing what IS known on evidence, on detailed understandings of processes that had not even been discovered when other methods were invented, is a far more reliable method than throwing in whatever because it might help.

And yes, no matter what side your on I think we can all agree that the medical-industrial establishment has strayed from healing and become more a money-making scheme than anything. Modern medicine can be just as capable of peddling snake-oil as some alternative medicines, and we need to do something about it.

Vitamin supplements and such things?
Those have nothing to do with actual medicines, and if you look, they can't actually make any specific claims, only say it is a 'dietary supplement', and they can not make any claim about medical effects without testing (e.g. FDA in the US).

Before you go set up a tent outside a clinic and start persecuting people for trying to make a difference, remember that companies invest BILLIONS into research, and that it's poorly-funded healthcare systems which may not be able to afford developments.

Originally Posted by Mika

As to the debate, i would note, it is a documented fact, that when people are afraid of death and dying, they pretty much can and will be convinced to 'believe' right or wrongly, but definetly blindly in 'anything' that 'claims' will or might save them.

Yes, and that's a bad thing.

And given the detail that I'm the one that has to pay for my health choices and care, I will decide for myself, what i'm willing to pay for.

Everyone has that choice, certainly.

Honesty to you that dont want to even be open minded to alternatives, i don't give a rat's ass what you think. You do it your way I'll do it my way, lets see whose more ****ed in the end. I'll live life more fully, synthetic free, even if its a shorter life, idk, but at least i own my body and my mind, and my choices, not some pharmecutical company.

It's not about open-mindedness. I approached such things with an open mind when looking for useful data on efficacy, looked for evidence, found none, and found a large body of contradicting evidence. Remaining 'open minded' after something is proven false is closed-minded in itself - remember the burden of proof is always on the claimant, not on those disproving it. False unless proven true, like innocent until proven guilty. If someone was to say "I used magic yesterday but it was a one time thing and never can again", that's going to be most likely that they are lying, as they can not prove it. If they said "I used it to make this perpetual motion device, but never can again", then it would be worthy of actual consideration/investigation in absence of another explanation.

Originally Posted by Mika

Well the very first link i pulled when googling homeopathic clinical studies, in a medical journal, observed that out of something like 84 studies, indications *were “apparent bias” and undeterminable methodolgy made it difficult or inclusive to ascertain the quality of the findings - and it is refering both to the Alopathic studies, as well as the Homeopathic practioners ones. *But it concludeds despite the biases, etc, it seems the majority of the studies demonstrate (or indicate) a “positive” resultant of Homeopathic useage.

Placebos also demonstrate a positive effect compared to doing nothing. Even doing nothing yet telling the patient something is being done invokes the placebo effect, and can cause improvements in condition. Equally, side effects are possible from placebos - if you give someone what they think may have side effects of tiredness, but is actually a placebo, they become more likely to report tiredness.
The entire point of a double-blind trial is to avoid bias. It can be summarised as such:

There are multiple patient groups, with the same representative composition.
Researchers are given one group, and one treatment to administer. The researchers do not know if they are administering a placebo or real treatment, in order to avoid either giving it away via subconscious clues, or letting their own thoughts affect observation. They observe results over time, still not knowing if they administered placebo or real treatment, so as not to affect their recording of the data. the people who control the experiment and know which group is which do not interact with the patients at all.
By this method, any systemic bias, either in administration, or in recording of data, is removed.

Originally Posted by Mika

side note random comment that vilolates once again debating do's and dont's, It's interesting that by what is considered necessary for scientific verification, is absolutely no room for Faith, Prayer, or anything Spiritual, so that 'god' will fail. But the same criteria can allow Sugar companies to publish ads based on their studies, that sugar is good for you, doesn't contribute to tooth decay, obesity or diabetes, because 'technically' its been proven 'true' but really thats the point any research can be skewed.

Not at all true. There have even been studies testing the efficacy of 'prayer' compared to medical treatment. If any 'sugar company' published such an ad, I know at least here it could be rapidly dealing with the ASA for misleading advertising, I'm going to assume it's the same in the US - even if it is at least a little looser there based on the prevalence of character assassination political attack ads which are almost unheard of here, I seriously doubt advertising is unregulated.

I'VE never seen an 'atom' and probably never will, but i'm supposed to take the word of it taught to me in school as 'truth' because others have their evidence, 'not to mention big scary bomb', yet homeopathy who distills medicine down to the atomic level, is considered debunked, and again i'm just suppossed to take someone elses word as 'truth'?

Well, you may not have seen one per se, but you interact with them every millisecond. Homeopathy dilutes substances to such a degree that it does not actually contain any of the supposed ingredient (the ratio is around the size of a single pixel on a monitor the size of the solar system).

Homeopathy predates just about every modern understanding of the world - it was developed at a time when people thought disease was caused by bad smells, and that the body was comprised of "Four Humours" (yes, seriously). At the time, so-called medical treatment was primitive and often made things worse (e.g. bloodletting), and doing nothing often actually gave a better chance of recovery - THAT is why is was not consigned to the bin of history along with bloodletting. Se yes, it did work in a fashion as an alternative, but that alternative was still de facto doing nothing.

[Clarke]

Originally Posted by Mika

Well the very first link i pulled when googling homeopathic clinical studies, in a medical journal, observed that out of something like 84 studies, indications were “apparent bias” and undeterminable methodolgy made it difficult or inclusive to ascertain the quality of the findings - and it is refering both to the Alopathic studies, as well as the Homeopathic practioners ones. But it concludeds despite the biases, etc, it seems the majority of the studies demonstrate (or indicate) a “positive” resultant of Homeopathic useage.

I have this study, (The Lancet being, in the BBC's words, "one of the world's most prestigious medical journals") which says, and I quote:
When account was taken for these biases in the analysis, there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions. This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects.

side note random comment that vilolates once again debating do's and dont's, It's interesting that by what is considered necessary for scientific verification, is absolutely no room for Faith, Prayer, or anything Spiritual, so that 'god' will fail.

There has been no/little suggestion that any of those are actually effective beyond what the body does naturally. That's why they are excluded, not because scientists have some bias against god.

...But the same criteria can allow Sugar companies to publish ads based on their studies, that sugar is good for you, doesn't contribute to tooth decay, obesity or diabetes, because 'technically' its been proven 'true' but really thats the point any research can be skewed.

Unfortunately, misleading language and pedantic wording are not banned. However, lying is, so you might want to talk to whoever manages advertising standards in your area.

I'VE never seen an 'atom' and probably never will, but i'm supposed to take the word of it taught to me in school as 'truth' because others have their evidence, 'not to mention big scary bomb'

Feel free to come up with your own theory of fundamental objects, but keep in mind you have to explain images like this. (Context)

..yet homeopathy who distills medicine down to the atomic level, is considered debunked, and again i'm just suppossed to take someone elses word as 'truth'?

Well, according to the physics that brought you nanotechnology, and the chemistry that brought you artificial genetic engineering, distilling it to that level reduces its effectiveness. You've either got to "take their word for it" (i.e. believe evidence corroborated by basically any chemistry experiment) or show that the foundation of all modern technology is wrong.