Medical Forum / General / Alternative / March 2008
HOMEOPATHY WORKED FOR ME
|
|
Thread rating:  |
JOHN - 22 Feb 2008 19:08 GMT DEFEND YOUR CHOICE IN MEDICINE To counter the vitriolic attacks in the media and the government decision to close the homeopathic hospitals, HMC21 (Homeopathy:Medicine for the 21st Century), has published a website www.hmc21.org and a declaration that states HOMEOPATHY WORKED FOR ME (just follow the links). Our aim is to get 250,000 signatures by next June and march them to number 10, Downing Street with the demand that the NHS honours its commitment to homeopathy as enshrined in its charter. If you have ever benefited by a homeopathic remedy, whether self-prescribed or otherwise, then you are eligible to sign. It will take you very little time and will be a great contribution to the success of this project. One form per family member please. Michelle Shine
rpautrey2 - 22 Feb 2008 22:28 GMT MS(JOHN): Thanks for the link. Paul
> DEFEND YOUR CHOICE IN MEDICINE > To counter the vitriolic attacks in the media and the government [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > It will take you very little time and will be a great contribution to the > success of this project. One form per family member please. Michelle Shine HCN - 23 Feb 2008 17:49 GMT > DEFEND YOUR CHOICE IN MEDICINE > To counter the vitriolic attacks in the media and the government > decision to close the homeopathic hospitals, HMC21 (Homeopathy:Medicine > for the 21st Century), has published a website www.hmc1800.org and a > declaration that states HOMEOPATHY WORKED FOR ME (just follow the links). Ooooh, goody... when they fail to show with science that homeopathy does anything, just try to flood with anecdotes!
Too bad actual science fails to show that homeopathy does any good. And there are plenty of anecdotes that homeopathy does NOT work: http://whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html
By the way, still wondering where the actual evidence that Andre Saine has that homeopathy works better for rabies than modern medicine. How willing are you to trust it when the disease is 100% fatal?
Our aim is to
> get 250,000 signatures by next June and march them to number 10, Downing > Street with the demand that the NHS honours its commitment to homeopathy [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to the success of this project. One form per family member please. > Michelle Shine drceephd@insightbb.com - 23 Feb 2008 22:02 GMT > Ooooh, goody... when they fail to show with science that homeopathy does > anything, just try to flood with anecdotes! > > Too bad actual science fails to show that homeopathy does any good. And > there are plenty of anecdotes that homeopathy does NOT work:http://whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html Let us consider the scientifically valid death toll:
Homeopathy: 0 , none , nada.
Allopathy: 250,000 per year just in the USA and counting more.
So, tell us again that we must trust our docs and go to our graves broke.
> By the way, still wondering where the actual evidence that Andre Saine has > that homeopathy works better for rabies than modern medicine. How willing > are you to trust it when the disease is 100% fatal? Rabies?? You still flogging that lie? The only way to stop and prevent rabies has been found to burn the Pasteur rabies clinics to the ground and run the blood poisoners out of town. Rabies is another non-disease probagated by the stupid allopathic liars.
> Our aim is to I think you aim is to lie to everyone and get the dumb sheeple back in line for more shots and poisonus drugs.
DrCee Not a member of the medical monopoly
Hawki63@sbcglobal.net - 23 Feb 2008 22:11 GMT On Feb 23, 12:49 pm, "HCN" <h...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Ooooh, goody... when they fail to show with science that homeopathy does > anything, just try to flood with anecdotes! > > Too bad actual science fails to show that homeopathy does any good. And > there are plenty of anecdotes that homeopathy does NOT > work:http://whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html Let us consider the scientifically valid death toll:
the fact that homeopathy does not "kill" is no positive marker....if it does no good...it is useless
the "death toll" from conventional is likely higher cuz of all the jerks who try useless stuff and when it fails..then show up and wonder why conventional has its risks...
Homeopathy: 0 , none , nada.
Allopathy: 250,000 per year just in the USA and counting more.
So, tell us again that we must trust our docs and go to our graves broke.
> By the way, still wondering where the actual evidence that Andre Saine has > that homeopathy works better for rabies than modern medicine. How willing > are you to trust it when the disease is 100% fatal? Rabies?? You still flogging that lie? The only way to stop and prevent rabies has been found to burn the Pasteur rabies clinics to the ground and run the blood poisoners out of town. Rabies is another non-disease probagated by the stupid allopathic liars.
> Our aim is to I think you aim is to lie to everyone and get the dumb sheeple back in line for more shots and poisonus drugs.
DrCee Not a member of the medical monopoly
rpautrey2 - 23 Feb 2008 22:32 GMT VULTURE: Caw! Caw! Caw! The sound of a predator. What is your contribution to this altmed group? Harrassment!
PA
On Feb 23, 4:11 pm, <Hawk...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> <drcee...@insightbb.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > DrCee > Not a member of the medical monopoly HCN - 23 Feb 2008 22:33 GMT > On Feb 23, 12:49 pm, "HCN" <h...@nospam.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > the ground and run the blood poisoners out of town. Rabies is another > non-disease probagated by the stupid allopathic liars. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dScdr8Dly4g
>> Our aim is to >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > DrCee > Not a member of the medical monopoly D. C. Sessions - 23 Feb 2008 23:23 GMT > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dScdr8Dly4g The nice thing about posting links as your only response is that by taking the argument out of the posts you at best make the other person try to abstract a rambling 20,000 word spew into a newspost-sized thesis for rebuttal, so they do all the work. For extra entertainment you can then dispute the abstract.
IMHO it's a crappy, rude pseudo-argumentative style that gives up on presenting any worthwhile content in favor of "winning" an argument by making an exchange of views impossible. It's telling that until recently Scudamore was the main MHA practitioner of the "art."
Now, if that's true of a fundamentally textual webpage, what can we say of a link to YouTube? There isn't even any text _to_ cut and paste, it can't be skimmed and reviewed, etc. It has all the intellectual content of an infomercial.
So, bottom line: you win. Whatever was there, it's the end of the discussion. You can tell yourself that you're much cleverer than all of us, that you UTTERLY ROCK at debate, that you have utterly mad skilz on Usenet.
Maybe you can make a record of yourself saying so into the camera and put it up on YouTube.
| The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" | | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" | +---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+
HCN - 24 Feb 2008 15:42 GMT >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dScdr8Dly4g > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > they do all the work. For extra entertainment you can > then dispute the abstract. My sincerest apologies for posting just the one link and not editing the reply. I do usually try to edit, but I was in a rush do to other obligations in the real world. Plus, I could not believe that the NOT-DrCeeP was calling rabies a made up disease. I shall consider your request to do better next week.
...
HCN - 23 Feb 2008 22:36 GMT > <drceephd@insightbb.com> wrote in message ....
Hawki, there is a reason why I have the NOT-drceepee in my killfile. Especially its claim that rabies is a fiction.
Mark Probert - 24 Feb 2008 02:16 GMT On Feb 23, 5:02 pm, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote:
> > Ooooh, goody... when they fail to show with science that homeopathy does > > anything, just try to flood with anecdotes! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Homeopathy: 0 , none , nada. Wrong, Chuckie.
http://whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html
No doubt there are more.
drceephd@insightbb.com - 24 Feb 2008 03:00 GMT > On Feb 23, 5:02 pm, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > No doubt there are more. The Marked Pervert responds in his usual incompetent style.
The homeopathic remedies cited killed no one. Please try again.
All you pharma shills contend that homeopathic remedies are nothing more than shaken water. How can a few mls of shaken water kill?
Please rev up your spin machines and come up with another reason.
DrCee Not a pharma shill
Mark Probert - 24 Feb 2008 15:55 GMT On Feb 23, 10:00 pm, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote:
> > On Feb 23, 5:02 pm, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > The homeopathic remedies cited killed no one. Please try again. a.shole, the reliance on homeopathy, a/k/a quackery, is what killed them. Homeopathy is USELESS. It does not "work" and using it instead of real treatment kills.
> All you pharma shills contend that homeopathic remedies are nothing > more than shaken water. How can a few mls of shaken water kill? See above, moron-murderer.
> Please rev up your spin machines and come up with another reason. The only thing that is spinning is the air in your vacuous head.
Citizen Jimserac - 24 Feb 2008 18:53 GMT Unfortunately Mark, in other threads I challenged the often repeated fallacies that Homeopathy does not work by listing numerous Homeopathic and standard medicine research journals which reported tests, even double blind placebo tests which gave POSITIVE results.
PLEASE, do NOT insult our intelligence by repeating these fallacies.
I understand that you hate Homeopathy and see it as some sort of deception and I sympathize with your position.
In addition, there is most certainly the possibility of damage from INEPT practice of Homeopathy just as there is from M.D. errors. I OBJECT to your apparent toleration and dismissal of the huge number of M.D. errors, sometimes resulting in death, and then your accusations regarding injury or death from Homeopathy as validation that it does not work. This circular reasoning, adaption of a double standard (heads you win, tails we lose) and other obvious logical fallacies regarding Homeopathy will NO LONGER be allowed to go by unnoticed and therefore - the IDENTIFICATION of these fallacies undermine and/or render you argumentation invalid.
Sorry!
Citizen Jimserac
Mark Probert - 25 Feb 2008 00:32 GMT > Unfortunately Mark, in other threads I challenged > the often repeated fallacies that Homeopathy > does not work by listing numerous Homeopathic > and standard medicine research journals which > reported tests, even double blind placebo tests > which gave POSITIVE results. I read them, and the rebuttals. I go by my statement. Being published in a homeopathic journal means nothing, since the reviewer accepts the fundamental precepts of homeopathy. Since I reject those, as being against the fundamental laws of science and nature, I discount all research showing that homeopathy "works" whatever that is supposed to mean.
> PLEASE, do NOT insult our intelligence > by repeating these fallacies. When an advocate for homeopathy shows some intelligence, trust me, I will not insult it. However, if an advocate for homeopathy develops intelligence, they will stop being an advocate for homeopathy.
> I understand that you hate Homeopathy > and see it as some sort of deception > and I sympathize with your position. I do not *hate* it. I call it what it is, i.e., charlatanism.
> In addition, there is most certainly the possibility > of damage from INEPT practice of Homeopathy > just as there is from M.D. errors. I OBJECT > to your apparent toleration and dismissal > of the huge number of M.D. errors, There ya go, playing that bullshit card again, raising red herrings. Do not put words in my mouth. When a REAL DOCTOR screws up, I expect them to be treated accordingly. In the course of my business, I have reported doctors to my clients who done something unethical, illegal or improper. When I suspect that there is a question of treatment problems, I also report it.
sometimes
> resulting in death, and then your accusations > regarding injury or death from Homeopathy > as validation that it does not work. Do learn to read for comprehension. I *PROVED* that homeopathy is dangerous since it lulls people into avoiding possibly more effective treatment by using utterly useless treatment. Homeopathy is so useless it is absolutely safe, since it does nothing.
This
> circular reasoning, adaption of a double standard > (heads you win, tails we lose) and other > obvious logical fallacies regarding Homeopathy Yes, logical fallacies used by YOU and other homeo-apologists who have no verifiable facts to use to prove that your charlatanism is effective.
> will NO LONGER be allowed to go by unnoticed > and therefore - the IDENTIFICATION of these > fallacies undermine and/or render you argumentation > invalid. Sorry, bub, but it is you and the other apologists who use fallacious arguments, as you have done here.
> Sorry! Yes, you should be sorry to advocate for such quackery.
> Citizen Jimserac Citizen Jimserac - 25 Feb 2008 13:37 GMT On Feb 24, 7:32 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com>
> I read them, and the rebuttals. I go by my statement. Being published > in a homeopathic journal means nothing, since the reviewer accepts the > fundamental precepts of homeopathy. Since I reject those, as being > against the fundamental laws of science and nature, I discount all > research showing that homeopathy "works" whatever that is supposed to > mean. Many thanks for admitting this fallacious assumption "up front".
By presupposing that ALL research in ALL Homeopathy Journals is automatically invalid (including even research done by NON-Homeopathists) you have entered yourself into a realm far darker than any quack or charlatan and have knocked yourself OUT of any additional discussion.
Thanks for making it easy to invalidate your position!
Citizen Jimserac
Mark Probert - 25 Feb 2008 16:55 GMT > On Feb 24, 7:32 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Many thanks for admitting this fallacious assumption "up front". I do not see it as a fallacy. I see it as an a priori fundamental truth.
> By presupposing that ALL research in ALL Homeopathy > Journals is automatically invalid (including [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Thanks for making it easy to invalidate your position! Only in your "homeopathic mind".
Citizen Jimserac - 25 Feb 2008 17:52 GMT in response to Citizen Jimserac's
> > By presupposing that ALL research in ALL Homeopathy > > Journals is automatically invalid (including [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > Thanks for making it easy to invalidate your position!
> I do not see it as a fallacy. I see it as an a priori fundamental > truth. My Conversation with this respondent has been terminated. The comment, "I do not see it as a fallacy, I see it as an a priori fundamental truth" removes his comments from the domain of rational discussion.
The illogical dismissal as invalid of ALL Homeopathic research reported in the Homeopathy Journals, even that done by M.D.'s and fully credentialed Phd's and other qualified researchers makes it impossible to communicate intelligently.
Any attempt to assert that A is NON-A violates the law of non-contradiction and short circuits all subsequent reasoning.
Mark is of course free to comment all he wants, but I simply have no time to waste entertaining his contradictory assertions.
Sorry!
Citizen Jimserac
Mark Probert - 25 Feb 2008 21:29 GMT > in response to Citizen Jimserac's > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > truth" removes his comments from the > domain of rational discussion. So you say. I maintain that my position is based on rationality and reality.
> The illogical dismissal as invalid of ALL Homeopathic > research reported in the Homeopathy [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > time to waste entertaining his contradictory > assertions. Do not worry, I will still find your homeopathic dancing to be entertaining.
Mark Probert - 11 Mar 2008 12:24 GMT > in response to Citizen Jimserac's > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > truth" removes his comments from the > domain of rational discussion. Diluted horseshit. Debating homeopathy is like debating sunrise. There is no point to it. Homeopathy is an utterly bogus concept where the "proof" has been coming for two centuries. What you have posted is hogwash, and proves nothing.
> The illogical dismissal as invalid of ALL Homeopathic > research reported in the Homeopathy Au contraire, logic-challenged one. The dismissal is purely logical. It is the same asi if someone tried to argue that the sun rises in the west and sets in the east. I would dismiss that argument outright, just like I dismiss claims of validity of homeopathy.
> Journals, even that done by M.D.'s and fully > credentialed Phd's and other qualified researchers > makes it impossible to communicate intelligently. Actually, what you are saying is that I am a big meanie who will not play your silly game. OK, I am a meanie.
> Any attempt to assert that A is NON-A > violates the law of non-contradiction > and short circuits all subsequent reasoning. However, when A is a NON-A, the assertion is valid. YOU mistake the fact that homeopathy is a NON-A, and are trying to claim it is an A. YOUR logic is faulty.
> Mark is of course free to comment > all he wants, but I simply have no > time to waste entertaining his contradictory > assertions. My assertions are far from contradictory to those who are not logic challenged. Homeopathy is _per se_ illogical.
> Sorry! You should be, for promoting quackery
> Citizen Jimserac t - 11 Mar 2008 14:49 GMT Went away for a short while. I notice that the same dipwads are still here, blathering on to attempt to mislead people about Alternative Health. I wonder what these agents of disinformation and in some cases death, think about Karma? You know, the ol reap what you sow thing. Nasty little buggers, but anyone reading these NGs for a short while will see that they lie as much as your average politician. A good test for them and politicians is the same one you use for your children. Would you trust people like Mark and the rest of that bunch alone with your daughter? I would NOT.
Mark Probert - 12 Mar 2008 02:19 GMT > Went away for a short while. I notice that the same dipwads are still here, Try a longer hiatus. Maybe things will change. Anyway, I do not know of any dipwads in the group.
> blathering on to attempt to mislead people about Alternative Health. Mislead? Never! Give them another side that they may be overlooking.
I
> wonder what these agents of disinformation DisInfor agents? Do they wear trench coats?
and in some cases death, think
> about Karma? You know, the ol reap what you sow thing. Yes, people who spread disinformation, like homeopathy, have to watch out for that.
Nasty little buggers,
> but anyone reading these NGs for a short while will see that they lie as > much as your average politician. A good test for them and politicians is the > same one you use for your children. Would you trust people like Mark and the > rest of that bunch alone with your daughter? I would NOT. You would be making a big mistake. Your daughter would be absolutely safe, and your wishes, as stupid as they are, would be honored.
Richard Shewmaker - 14 Mar 2008 17:19 GMT >> Went away for a short while. I notice that the same dipwads are still here, > > Try a longer hiatus. Maybe things will change. Anyway, I do not know > of any dipwads in the group. I've been away for an even longer hiatus! Though I don't even know what a "dipwad" is, I must agree with CJ to the extent that not only are the same participants here, they are still conducting the SAME debates!
Well, I'm back at MHA. I have no delusions of persuading anybody to my points of view; I'm just here to be entertained. Oh, and for the money too. Does anybody know how I can get the paychecks from Big Pharma started?
--Rich
D. C. Sessions - 14 Mar 2008 17:59 GMT > Though I don't even know what > a "dipwad" is, I must agree with CJ to the extent that not only are the > same participants here, they are still conducting the SAME debates! Names may change, but the behavior pattern is eternal.
However, I don't think it's correct to call these "debates." Reciprocal monologues, maybe -- but a debate implies that someone is listening.
| The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" | | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" | +---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+
Bee - 16 Mar 2008 19:15 GMT > However, I don't think it's correct to call these "debates." > Reciprocal monologues, maybe -- but a debate implies that > someone is listening. It is the same o same o---it is like eating spaghetti o's for 10 years, at every meal, --BORING. Sock puppets come and they go, my favorite was the one that reminded me of name of the oriental side dish recipe name or a generic drug---what was the name???? Suey Do Mein--or something like that. Anyone remember that sock puppet?
It is the same o same o same o---there is what the 100% conventional medicine fan club mislead those that read here by calling them "Alties." When in fact, those that are miscategorized "alties," practice both types, and then there are the rare people that all that they engage in are alternative therapies. It is the same o same o same o same o same o same o, same o, same o.
I cannot remember this Rich--are you the same one that reportedly hiked in the nude? You must like to be bored to tears---I'm thinking of taking a vacation from here myself...... people come and then go....
Peter Bowditch - 14 Mar 2008 22:41 GMT >>> Went away for a short while. I notice that the same dipwads are still here, >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >--Rich Welcome back. I'll send an email to the payroll officer at Illuminati HQ and they will contact you to get your banking, tax and social security details. As always, please burn this message after reading.
 Signature Peter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
D. C. Sessions - 14 Mar 2008 23:30 GMT > Welcome back. I'll send an email to the payroll officer at Illuminati > HQ and they will contact you to get your banking, tax and social > security details. As always, please burn this message after reading. That's "burn this message BEFORE reading," Bowditch. How many times do you have to be told?
| The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" | | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" | +---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+
Jan Drew - 15 Mar 2008 01:34 GMT Jan Drew - 15 Mar 2008 01:33 GMT [ ]
>>--Rich > > Welcome back > Surprise...surprise.
*I don't give a damn if Peter lied to you, this newsgroup, his mother, or the pope.* Rich Shewmaker
Jan Drew - 15 Mar 2008 01:28 GMT David Wright - 15 Mar 2008 04:13 GMT >>> Went away for a short while. I notice that the same dipwads are still here, >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >points of view; I'm just here to be entertained. Oh, and for the money >too. Does anybody know how I can get the paychecks from Big Pharma started? Hey, get in line, pal. Those of us who've slogged through the hard years have priority.
OK, admittedly, we're not getting our checks either, but if we ever do, we deserve to get them first.
(And welcome back, Rich.)
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "Without Bush, what will America's schoolchildren have to look down on?" -- Bill Maher
Bee - 16 Mar 2008 19:18 GMT > OK, admittedly, we're not getting our checks either, but if we ever > do, we deserve to get them first. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > "Without Bush, what will America's schoolchildren have to look down on?" > -- Bill Maher David, I keep meaning to ask, why does Timmie B call you Chris? I didn't realize until the otehr day that there were two Timmie's in two different places, and that we needed to call Bolen either Bolen or Timmie B.
David Wright - 16 Mar 2008 21:39 GMT >> OK, admittedly, we're not getting our checks either, but if we ever >> do, we deserve to get them first. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >places, and that we needed >to call Bolen either Bolen or Timmie B. I can think of three explanations:
1) He's totally insane. 2) He thinks he's discovered that my "real" name is something else and is trying to associate me with it. 3) He's discovered a very old joke from another newsgroup and thinks he's onto something.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "Without Bush, what will America's schoolchildren have to look down on?" -- Bill Maher
Bee - 18 Mar 2008 06:17 GMT > I can think of three explanations: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 3) He's discovered a very old joke from another newsgroup and thinks > he's onto something. 1. Totally insane? Hmm...just hanging onto the edge---I think he must be into mountain climbing. 2. Your real name is David Wright---so how did he make that discovery? That would be like asking my friend Susan H. if her last name begins with an "H?" 3. Onto something or on something!! LOL..... 4. Let's add to the pile; of his paranoia, shall we? Hey Timmie--- here's one for you there is a D. Wright at the UMDNJ -LOL
Mark Probert - 17 Mar 2008 12:15 GMT > > OK, admittedly, we're not getting our checks either, but if we ever > > do, we deserve to get them first. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > places, and that we needed > to call Bolen either Bolen or Timmie B. There is only one Timmie. edven Stephen King could not imagine that there would be two of them.
Richard Schultz - 17 Mar 2008 13:37 GMT In misc.health.alternative Mark Probert <mark.probert@gmail.com> wrote:
: There is only one Timmie. edven Stephen King could not imagine that : there would be two of them. That reminds me of the "Mr. Boffo" cartoon: Bad News -- Charles Manson. *Really* Bad News -- his evil twin.
----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"
Mark Probert - 18 Mar 2008 02:25 GMT > In misc.health.alternative Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That reminds me of the "Mr. Boffo" cartoon: Bad News -- Charles Manson. > *Really* Bad News -- his evil twin. I was driving through California in 1970 during the Manson killings, and the hunt for Angela Davis.
Real fun.
Bee - 20 Mar 2008 04:42 GMT > I was driving through California in 1970 during the Manson killings, > and the hunt for Angela Davis. > > Real fun. Why????? Did you look like her or something????
Mark Probert - 20 Mar 2008 12:21 GMT > > I was driving through California in 1970 during the Manson killings, > > and the hunt for Angela Davis. > > > Real fun. > > Why????? Did you look like her or something???? No, dingbat. Every few miles there was a roadblock or police checkpoint. The back-ups, especially up north, wsere horrendous. I missed my cousin's wedding because of them.
Bee - 17 Mar 2008 21:11 GMT > There is only one Timmie. edven Stephen King could not imagine that > there would be two of them. No, there are two Timmie's----I saw the information on a website the other day---when I was trying to dig something out about Bolen.
Orac---according to this website references a Dr. Timothy Gorski---as being a Timmie or Timothy too. I guess this Gorski dude is like an OB-GYN doctor in Arlington, TX I thought they were the same person myself but no, they ain't.
Happy Dog - 16 Mar 2008 11:18 GMT > Went away for a short while. I notice that the same dipwads are still > here, blathering on to attempt to mislead people about Alternative Health. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > people like Mark and the rest of that bunch alone with your daughter? I > would NOT. How about a Rolling Stone?
Lot?
Idiot.
M
t - 17 Mar 2008 00:59 GMT >> Went away for a short while. I notice that the same dipwads are still >> here, blathering on to attempt to mislead people about Alternative [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > M Sniffed any new butts lately?
David Wright - 17 Mar 2008 05:11 GMT >>> Went away for a short while. I notice that the same dipwads are still >>> here, blathering on to attempt to mislead people about Alternative [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> M >Sniffed any new butts lately? Your time away has not improved the quality of your postings at all. They still consist of unfunny one-liners. If that's all have to contribute (as it appears to be) why don't you save the effort?
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "Without Bush, what will America's schoolchildren have to look down on?" -- Bill Maher
t - 17 Mar 2008 23:15 GMT >>>> Went away for a short while. I notice that the same dipwads are still >>>> here, blathering on to attempt to mislead people about Alternative [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > They still consist of unfunny one-liners. If that's all have to > contribute (as it appears to be) why don't you save the effort? A few words are all some of you are worth. Well, in truth not that much, but is is entertaining to see your replies.
Citizen Jimserac - 12 Mar 2008 11:48 GMT Thank you for your comments comparing Homeopathy to assertions regarding sunrises!
None of us need read any of your additional explanatory comments regarding "deductions" made from this assertion.
Your comments are always welcome as illustrative of the insufficiency of the reasoning of the anti-Homeopathists.
Thanks!
Citizen Jimserac
Mark Probert - 12 Mar 2008 12:16 GMT > Thank you for your comments comparing > Homeopathy to assertions regarding sunrises! [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > as illustrative of the insufficiency > of the reasoning of the anti-Homeopathists. I thought you would not be responding to my posts. Admit it, you cannot resist.
And, debating the validity of homeopathy is like debating whether the earth is round.
t - 12 Mar 2008 15:16 GMT On Mar 12, 6:48 am, Citizen Jimserac <Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 11, 7:24 am, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > as illustrative of the insufficiency > of the reasoning of the anti-Homeopathists. I thought you would not be responding to my posts. Admit it, you cannot resist.
And, debating the validity of homeopathy is like debating whether the earth is round. True, the anti's still think the earth is flat. Notice that they never go away for vacation or any other reason. They are here all the time trying to get other people to "believe" like they do. And foaming at the mouth about it too. Ahhhh, flaters, what can be done to help them?
Citizen Jimserac - 12 Mar 2008 16:02 GMT > On Mar 12, 6:48 am, CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > And, debating the validity of homeopathy is like debating whether the > earth is round. I could not resist!
Additionally, you have made some pro acupuncture comments somewhere, I forgot what post I saw them, and this bodes well.
Citizen Jimserac
Citizen Jimserac - 24 Feb 2008 18:42 GMT > On Feb 23, 5:02 pm, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > No doubt there are more. Dr. Cee has made a rather good reply and I'm curious to see YOUR response.
If Homeopathic remedies have NO molecules of the original substance left in them, how on earth can they harm anyone?
Either the Homeopathic remedies have potency, or they don't - WHICH WILL IT BE?
Thanks Citizen Jimserac
The One True Zhen Jue - 24 Feb 2008 20:00 GMT > > On Feb 23, 5:02 pm, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Either the Homeopathic remedies have > potency, or they don't - WHICH WILL IT BE? One of the few, clear areas of consensus on MHA is that the homeopathic remedies are NOT harmful, in and of themselves. It is possible a person may pursue homeopathy over other therapies. In that case, they may be delaying or completely avoiding methods which could treat or cure their condition. Cancer is a good example of this. Waiting to see if a homeopathic remedy will lead to a spontaneous remission could allow a tumor to become inoperable.
> Thanks > Citizen Jimserac- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Skeptic - 24 Feb 2008 20:43 GMT True and recent story.
Very pleasant 62 year old man, John Doe, was seen in our clinic 14 or so months ago for hematuria (blood in his urine). Standard workup included a cystoscopy (look into the bladder) which revealed a very concerning appearing bladder mass. Resection/biopsy demonstrated muscle invasive bladder cancer, high grade. Otherwise completely healthy and a completely negative metastatic evaluation. He was counseled that the best current treatment is cystectomy (removal of the bladder). He turned this down and didn't want any other medical therapy including chemo or radiation. He wanted to pursue homeopathic type remedies. Example - for pateints with intestinal obstruction, he is an advocate of rubbing a tennis ball on your abdomen rather than a surgical consult. So I don't know exactly what types of "treatments" he had, but they included things like ointments, salves, herbs, meditation, etc. It wasn't at home, either. He travelled out of state to some "known" center for this type of stuff.
Shockingly enough, it didn't work. When he was urinating pure blood and developing clot urinary retention, he came back. This is now over a year. He begged for surgery. He wanted "every chance at a cure" and wanted his bladder out ASAP. Well, it came out. He had some positive nodes that almost suredly would have been negative last year. He had extensive disease locally invading the pelvic sidewall and encasing some major vessels.
The good that came out of this is that he now advocates against alternative therapies at least for life threatening conditions (he thinks they still have a place for other conditions). Sadly, however, he was recently moved to hospice and his days of advocacy will be tragically few.
Mark Probert - 25 Feb 2008 01:21 GMT > True and recent story. > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > have a place for other conditions). Sadly, however, he was recently moved > to hospice and his days of advocacy will be tragically few. That is the problem. We do not have victim-advocates because you doctors cannot perform miracles after these desperate people are misled by the charlatans.
You have got to start performing more miracles.
D. C. Sessions - 24 Feb 2008 20:51 GMT > One of the few, clear areas of consensus on MHA is that the > homeopathic remedies are NOT harmful, in and of themselves. It is > possible a person may pursue homeopathy over other therapies. In that > case, they may be delaying or completely avoiding methods which could > treat or cure their condition. Cancer is a good example of this. Cases on the books of children being treated with homeopathic "cures" for Type I diabetes (after all, it's harmless isn't it?) followed by the usual consequences of untreated Type I.
For what it's worth, most homeopathic practitioners have the good sense to insist on parents getting real treatment for such cases.
| The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" | | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" | +---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+
Citizen Jimserac - 24 Feb 2008 23:04 GMT On Feb 24, 3:00 pm, The One True Zhen Jue <Andrew_King...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 23, 5:02 pm, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > > - Show quoted text - Exactly. Well said!
Citizen Jimserac
Mark Probert - 25 Feb 2008 00:34 GMT > > On Feb 23, 5:02 pm, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Either the Homeopathic remedies have > potency, or they don't - WHICH WILL IT BE? Improperly framed question. If homeopathy "works" name one medical condition that it *cures*, so long as that medical condition is one that is not subject to spontaneous cure.
Citizen Jimserac - 25 Feb 2008 13:08 GMT > On Feb 24, 1:42 pm, CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > condition that it *cures*, so long as that medical condition is one > that is not subject to spontaneous cure. Attempt to avoid the question posed and distract attention with another question DENIED.
I repeat and AWAIT AN ANSWER:
EITHER THE HOMEOPATHIC REMEDIES HAVE POTENCIES OR THEY DON'T.
WHICH WILL IT BE?
Citizen Jimserac
Mark Probert - 25 Feb 2008 16:54 GMT > > On Feb 24, 1:42 pm, CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Attempt to avoid the question posed and distract > attention with another question DENIED. No, I pointed out that I see through your ruse, or illogic.
> I repeat and AWAIT AN ANSWER: My, my. Control problems. Have some water.
> EITHER THE HOMEOPATHIC REMEDIES HAVE > POTENCIES OR THEY DON'T. > > WHICH WILL IT BE? Hmmm...seems I touched a nerve or two. Well, no one ever claimed that my posts were homeopathic.
Simple (just for you). As I pointed out, they are worthless, useless, and do nothing. They have nothing in them except H2O.
However, the question you ask is bullshit, as you are trying to divert attention from the fact that homeopathy does nothing, and the evil of homeopathy is that it is "shilled" as being "safe" with "no side effects". What this sales pitch does is divert people who are in depserate need of effective treatment to this bullshit.
My turn.
Now, pretty please answer this one:
If homeopathy "works" name one medical condition that it *cures*, so long as that medical condition is one that is not subject to spontaneous cure or remission.
<Play Jeopardy Song>
Citizen Jimserac - 25 Feb 2008 17:42 GMT Respondent, having made fallacious statements which are indefensible, continues to resort to various accusations, ad hominems ... etc..
Conversation with this respondent is therefore TERMINATED.
Sorry!
Citizen Jimserac
Mark Probert - 25 Feb 2008 21:28 GMT > Respondent, having made fallacious > statements which are indefensible, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Conversation with this respondent > is therefore TERMINATED. Translation: My statements are not fallacious in any manner. He accepts the idea that homeopathy is a viable treatment. I do not.
CJ fails to understand that there can be no debate or discussion about homeopathy if I reject the basic non-science. However, he chooses to characterize my position as fallacious, when his is devoid of fundamental science.
As I expected he would.
> Sorry! Yes, you are sorry.
Peter Bowditch - 25 Feb 2008 19:22 GMT >> On Feb 24, 1:42 pm, CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > >WHICH WILL IT BE? The latter.
Next.
>Citizen Jimserac
 Signature Peter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
Citizen Jimserac - 25 Feb 2008 21:58 GMT > CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Feb 24, 1:42 pm, CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > Next. Thank you Bowditch.
Then TO RETURN TO THE MAIN POINT OF THE DISCUSSION, if the Homeopathic remedies have NO potency and/or NO molecules of the original substance then it follows IRREFUTABLY that they could NOT POSSIBLY have harmed anyone.
YOU have, quite properly, logically CONFIRMED Dr. Cees's observation.
I FINALLY got to make a point without distracting counter questions, innuendos, ad hominems and other wrigglings out of the argument. NOT an easy thing to do around here.
Happy Skepticising Bowditch!
Citizen Jimserac
Peter Bowditch - 25 Feb 2008 23:21 GMT >> CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Feb 24, 1:42 pm, CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] >then it follows IRREFUTABLY that they >could NOT POSSIBLY have harmed anyone. If someone has a disease, let's say cancer, and they use homeopathy instead of a real treatment until it is too late to do anything to save their life, then they have been killed by homeopathy.
I don't expect you to try to understand this.
>YOU have, quite properly, logically CONFIRMED >Dr. Cees's observation. I see that logic is another thing that you know little about.
>I FINALLY got to make a point without >distracting counter questions, innuendos, >ad hominems and other wrigglings out of the >argument. NOT an easy thing to do around >here. Congratulations for not doing them. There had to be a first time.
>Happy Skepticising Bowditch! > >Citizen Jimserac
 Signature Peter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
Citizen Jimserac - 26 Feb 2008 11:44 GMT > CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > > I don't expect you to try to understand this. CHANGE OF CONTEXT DISALLOWED, Bowditch.
My how SLIPPERY the anti-Homeopathists become when caught in an OBVIOUS LOGICAL CONTRADICTION.
Dr. Cees correctly observed that some Homeopathy critics try to claim that the highly dilute Homeopathy remedies have NO molecules of the supposed curative substance in them, leaving just water. If that is the case, then the Homeopathic remedies COULD NOT POSSIBLY HARM ANYONE.
Or, could it be that, somehow, they DO have some action - positive or negative. Then, if you assert this, as some Homeopathy critics claim, THEN you have admitted the possibility of some chemical action without the molecules of the original substance present -> EXACTLY what the Homeopathists claim to be so.
The previous respondent AVOIDED this paradox and instead asked some distracting counter questions.
YOU have AVOIDED this question by changing the context to the issue of MISAPPLICATION of Homeopathy, quite a different matter.
AS IS TYPICAL with the anti-Homeopathists, they will resort to ad hominems when backed into a corner, contemptuously disparaging the intelligence or making other condescending and insulting remarks such as :
> I don't expect you to try to understand this. Such obstructionism is NO LONGER TOLERATED in this newsgroup, which is a newsgroup about the EXCITING discoveries and life enhancing and life saving modalities which are emerging in the modern era DESPITE the hysteria and anti-research attitudes of those who feel THREATENED by the challenge to formerly accepted orhtodoxy.
Such is progress, Bowditch, GET USED TO IT.
Having exposed the attempted change of context, it is obvious that additional time wasted on responses in this thread to this poster are equally pointless and would only provide additional opportunity for more ad hominems, avoidance of the main point, change of context and other "heads I win, tails you lose" tricks.
Conversation terminated.
Citizen Jimserac
Peter Bowditch - 26 Feb 2008 20:17 GMT In response to my providing an example of how homeopathy can cause harm the following echo returned:
>Such obstructionism is NO LONGER TOLERATED >in this newsgroup, Wow! CJ has developed a case of HoleFlapper's Syndrome.
> which is a newsgroup about >the EXCITING discoveries and life enhancing and life saving modalities [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Such is progress, Bowditch, GET USED TO IT. So when can we expect to see the progress in homeopathy that takes it from the realm of magic into the universe of reality?
Please don't cite Ennis. We've been through that and you failed to understand the problem.
>Having exposed the attempted change of context, >it is obvious that additional time wasted [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Conversation terminated. Is that a promise?
 Signature Peter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
pedro-kun - 10 Mar 2008 01:34 GMT While I am not here to disprove homeopathy's potential, I do have to say that all the studies I've ever heard about conclude that it's potential equals that of a placebo. Be it with molecules or without them, "water memory" or not, currently we have a simpler and cheaper "drug" that does the same: the placebo. It works by relying on the patient's will and belief to get better, and, of course, on the ever-so-great human brain.
So, with an effectiveness as good as that, what would you chose? The placebo or the not.-so-cheap glass of water that supposedly memorized momentum from progressive dilution?
I'm not saying homeopathy doesn't work (apparently, it doesn't); I'm just saying that, as things are, it's a mere placebo. A pricey one, too. Further investigation will answer these questions ;)
> In response to my providing an example of howhomeopathycan cause > harm the following echo returned: [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > Australian Skepticshttp://www.skeptics.com.au > To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com D. C. Sessions - 10 Mar 2008 04:07 GMT > I'm not saying homeopathy doesn't work (apparently, it doesn't); I'm > just saying that, as things are, it's a mere placebo. A pricey one, > too. Keep in mind that the expense of a placebo is a key ingredient.: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/05/health/research/05placebo.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
| The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" | | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" | +---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+
D. C. Sessions - 26 Feb 2008 00:19 GMT > Then TO RETURN TO THE MAIN POINT > OF THE DISCUSSION, if the Homeopathic > remedies have NO potency and/or NO > molecules of the original substance > then it follows IRREFUTABLY that they > could NOT POSSIBLY have harmed anyone. A) A lot of stuff is used, and perceived successes credited to "homeopathy," despite some ingredients which are far from lacking in biological effect. They may be homeopathic <insert stuff from materia medica here> but are in a "carrier" which contains other things. Attribute the harm they do as you will. B) You didn't follow the link, did you? Persuading people from getting real help for a treatable condition may not be a "harm" done by "homeopathic materials" but it most certainly is a harm done by _homeopathy_, which is a practice supposedly to benefit people.
| The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" | | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" | +---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+
Citizen Jimserac - 26 Feb 2008 11:53 GMT > In message <9c3a840b-a1b1-4493-83f0-609848d09...@d62g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, CitizenJimseracwrote: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" | > +---------- D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> ----------+ Sessions, you have at least answered my query regarding Dr. Cees observation in A) for which I thank you. Your point is well stated and worthy of investigation.
Regarding your point B), as I have already complained to Bowditch, this was NOT the item under discussion. Yes OF COURSE, the utilization of the wrong modality may prove bad, even fatal for the patient. If I had a broken bone or a gunshot wound, I of course would seek a surgeon, not an Acupuncturist!
But Dr. Cees comment was not about that, it was about the apparent contradiction between Homeopathic remedies being claimed to have no molecules of the curative substance left in them followed by claims that that same substance could somehow be harmful too -> an UNACCEPTABLE AND OBVIOUS contradiction. YOU, have made some answer on the matter, the ONLY respondent to do so for which I offer many thanks!
In their typical anti-reasoning hysteria against Homeopathy, other respondents were apparently UNABLE or UNWILLING to discuss the issue rationally.
Citizen Jimserac
Mark Probert - 26 Feb 2008 12:05 GMT > > In message <9c3a840b-a1b1-4493-83f0-609848d09...@d62g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, CitizenJimseracwrote: > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > other respondents were apparently UNABLE or UNWILLING to discuss > the issue rationally. IOW, this homeo-apologist has his head so far up his a.s that he refuses to address the fundamental fallacy of homeopathy.
This is no surprise, as homeo-apologists will take a fact and dilute it to the point where there is no reality left in their minds.
Mark Probert - 24 Feb 2008 15:57 GMT On Feb 23, 5:02 pm, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote:
> I think you aim is to lie to everyone and get the dumb sheeple That describes your antics to a 't'.
HCN - 23 Feb 2008 22:35 GMT > DEFEND YOUR CHOICE IN MEDICINE > To counter the vitriolic attacks in the media and the government > decision to close the homeopathic hospitals, HMC21 (Homeopathy:Medicine > for the 21st Century), has published a website www.hmcdesparation.org Things are not going well for that petition: http://badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4134&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=75
and a declaration
> that states HOMEOPATHY WORKED FOR ME (just follow the links). Our aim is > to get 250,000 signatures by next June and march them to number 10, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > contribution to the success of this project. One form per family member > please. Michelle Shine JOHN - 24 Feb 2008 08:35 GMT FYI
The total number of iatrogenic deaths 783,936 (USA yearly)http://whale.to/a/null9.html
Plus 300,000 million animal deaths every year to get the quack med on the market http://whale.to/y/viv1.html
Plus million or so killed by AZT--HIV hoax http://whale.to/aids.html
Plus millions killed by chemo every year
Plus hidden vaccine deaths which is most SIDS http://whale.to/vaccines/sids.html
Plus African and other third world vaccine deaths http://whale.to/v/biowarfare.html
Homeopathy--NIL deaths
PS that anti-homeopathy site is an offshoot of Allopathy Inc
HCN - 24 Feb 2008 15:44 GMT > FYI ...>
> Homeopathy--NIL deaths So you consider the death of Gloria Thomas to be a NIL death, even though her homeopath father took her to India for treatment by another homeopath? http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/baby-gloria-the-hunt-for-truth/2007/11/05/11 94117959740.html
Oh, wait, she was only a baby. I forgot, you hate children and like seeing them suffer and die.
> PS that anti-homeopathy site is an offshoot of Allopathy Inc D. C. Sessions - 24 Feb 2008 18:08 GMT > So you consider the death of Gloria Thomas to be a NIL death, even though > her homeopath father took her to India for treatment by another homeopath? > http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/baby-gloria-the-hunt-for-truth/2007/11/05/11 94117959740.html There is a natural bias towards placing less (or no) blame on "doing nothing" than on "doing something that fails." It's even built into the legal system.
On top of that, of course, you have the MHA syndrome of denying that mainstream medicine can ever do anything positive in the first place, so even if "doing nothing" has a bad outcome, it's no worse than (in the cited case) having the child actually treated with (for instance) antibiotics, analgesia and feeding.
| The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" | | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" | +---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+
|
|
|