 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 25/03/2010 1:33 AM, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 03/23/10 14:29, Stephen wrote:
>> Believing it works for others, especially your children, is criminal.
>
> And how, pray tell, will you enforce such a thing?
>
Shoot the Bar Stewards that get caught.
P.S. Bar Stewards is a British synonym for someone whose parents are not
married.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24/03/2010 12:08 PM, Mike Raiford wrote:
> On 3/24/2010 1:12 AM, Stephen wrote:
>
>>
>>> I find the notion that a medicine becomes stronger as it gets diluted a
>>> rather strange one.
>>>
>>
>> The same way a brain gets stronger the less you use it.
>>
>
> Um ... Atrophy much? ;)
>
Drat! I forgot the <irony> tags ;-)
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 25/03/2010 12:50 AM, Tim Attwood wrote:
>> But, unfortunately, its also true that one of the things people are
>> good at is taking a lie, telling it often enough, and getting enough
>> "apparent" positive results from doing so, that they provisionally,
>> then finally completely fall for it themselves.
>
> That reminds me of Obama-care.
From this side of the Pond it is hard to tell which side you’re on.
But welcome to the caring part of the World, America.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Same way as any other child neglect crimes. It either gets reported
> through family/friends/school to the authorities who investigate, or in
> the worst case the death of the child triggers the investigation. Then
> you search for evidence they didn't search for appropriate medical care
> (very easy if they admit to it!), then it's up to a judge/jury to decide a
> punishment.
While I don't hold with homeopathy and while I find this case very sad, do
you REALLY want to live in a world where you HAVE to let MD's decide your
fate or risk prosecution? I blame the parents for being stupid, but if they
REALLY believed they were doing the best for their child, I would not punish
them - the death of their child should be punishment enough.
From my personal experience, while being a child myself:
One MD #1 wanted to do surgery on me for hernia. My father said he had the
same condition at my age, but it healed later. MD #1: "That's nonsense,
cannot be - my father must have understood something wrong. It's almost
criminal to do nothing." Turned out MD #1 was wrong, a few years later I was
fine. Another MD #2 checking my medical records at this later date said:
"MD #1 must have really been a moron. No sign of hernia at all. MD #1 must
have misdiagnosed." When I told him it just healed by itself, MD #2 said the
same as MD #1: "Nonsense, hernia does not heal by itself."
Another MD wanted to do a tonsil-ectomy on me. Said this had to be or there
would be grave consequences in my later life. 45 years later I still have my
tonsils.
Once as a child I got accidentally showered by a pot of scalding water. Lost
all the skin in my face - raw flesh was all that remained. MD at the clinic
placed an antiseptic net on my face, which was to stay and be repaced
regularly because of the danger of infection. Luckily for me, our own MD at
this time came from a less developed (and thus less enlightened) country.
This MD told my parents to take the net off immediately, else I would bear
the pattern of it for life. Better just to bath the face a few times a day
in cold camomile tea, to >really< make sure I did not scratch my face or
play outside before new skin had formed and, if there should be infection,
IMMEDIATELY call him. Well, he was right, all healed fine, no scars left
except a very small white spot on my brow when I sweat.
MDs don't know everything. Sometimes they disagree. Sometimes it is like a
game of chance - go the >sure< way and suffer >some< consequences (for sure
and for life) or go the risky way and risk grave consequences but, if all
goes well, live your life completely healed. I think most treatments are
based on odds - and MDs just make an educated guess on what the odds may be.
Or think about ulcer-treatment. Preferred scientific method of treatment a
few years ago: cut off a large chunk of stomach. Bacteria cannot be the
cause of ulcers, well known fact no bacteria can live in the stomach because
of the hydrochloric acid there. Laughable to believe otherwise. Nowadays you
take a few pills, heliobacter pylori dies, you are cured.
I would prefer to have the option to say no to any treatment I do not want,
for me or my children. Or to try any treatment, even if it is laughed at by
others. It should be my decision - and I hope it will be right.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Some people argue that since homeopathic substances amount to placebos in
> > practice, the entire phenomenon of homeopathy is more or less innocuous
> Homeopathy is innocuous. Believing it works is the danger. :-)
The danger with homeopathy is that it's an ideology which rides on
people's tendency to mistrust authority and herd behavior. It's an ideology
which tells people that "scientists are closed-minded, hung on their limited
views of nature, and unwilling to accept alternatives" (which couldn't be
farther from the truth, but people just can't understand that).
In other words, homeopathy is in the same league as conspiracy theories
and religions.
The article I posted is a perfect example of what kind of thinking
homeopathy produces: The father was so religiously convinced about
homeopathy that he didn't change his mind even after it was clearly
shown to not to work. He refused to acknowledge being wrong even after
his son died.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> MDs don't know everything. Sometimes they disagree. Sometimes it is like a
> game of chance -
Sure, but I don't think any of those cases you mentioned are similar to the
original story.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 12:03:21 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> That was the point Randi was making - some of the dilutions that were
>> being advertised were less than one molecule per 6x10^23 atoms of water
>> - or, as he also described < one molecule of caffeine (or whatever) per
>> *more atoms of water than would fit in the space provided in the
>> packaging*. IOW, it wasn't a *diluted* solution, it was to the point
>> of placing odds on one molecule being even *in* the container, and
>> those odds weren't particularly good.
>
> Remember that the active ingredient is something that *causes* the
> symptoms, not something that *cures* them (for example in a homeopatic
> sleeping pill the active ingredient is usually caffeine). Hence taking
> this ingredient *away* from the water likewise takes the *symptoms* away
> from the person. The more of it you take away, the more effective the
> stuff is. It makes perfect sense.
It's a load of codswallop. If I titrate caffeine to the point there's
none left in solution in the water, the water is *no different* than
taking water that's never been near caffeine. It is chemically the
*same*.
And thus would have the same effect as drinking an ordinary glass of
water.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I should clarify that I understand that you're explaining the reasoning
those who believe that this stuff works apply, and that you don't
necessarily believe it either.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 12:19:40 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> But welcome to the caring part of the World, America.
Thank you. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 25/03/2010 8:41 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 12:19:40 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> But welcome to the caring part of the World, America.
>
> Thank you. :-)
>
> Jim
:-D
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
