 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / August 2005Study Casts Doubt on Homeopathy
In short, don't bother cause it don't work: http://health.dailynewscentral.com/content/view/1558/ > In short, don't bother cause it don't work: > > http://health.dailynewscentral.com/content/view/1558/ All I had to do was read the first paragraph, and that was enough: "The clinical benefits of homeopathy are little more than a form of the placebo effect, a new study contends." I use classical homeopathy on my dogs and it works. I do not believe placebo effect is a concern when animals are involved. But then, if it is a placebo effect, so be it. Whatever works. Homeopathy is very inexpensive and causes no harm. Better than getting the placebo effect while taking a powerful drug with many side effects. René "I use classical homeopathy on my dogs and it works. I do not believe placebo effect is a concern when animals are involved." One of the things that seems to make it work, as mentioned in the article, is that most disorders they are used for are self limiting. Take a cure for a cold and it will go away, or for a headache, or stomach upset and so forth. "But then, if it is a placebo effect, so be it. Whatever works. Homeopathy is very inexpensive and causes no harm. Better than getting the placebo effect while taking a powerful drug with many side effects." Then buy some sugar pills, the traditional placebo pill and save eeven more. The danger in using this is that in serious diseases trajic outcomes sometimes result when people put faith in not using conventional medicine. >"I use classical homeopathy on my dogs and it works. I do not believe >placebo effect is a concern when animals are involved." [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >for a cold and it will go away, or for a headache, or stomach upset >and so forth. So the majority of pills and potions pushed by physicians as prescriptions or found over-the-counter are mostly potentially toxic and generally overpriced and mostly not worth the money because the condition will go away on its own? "So the majority of pills and potions pushed by physicians as prescriptions or found over-the-counter are mostly potentially toxic and generally overpriced and mostly not worth the money because the condition will go away on its own?" My reply was to why it might seem using them might appear to be effective in pets. As to humans, sometimes yes. The classic case of using antibiotics as a "feel good" response to a virus such as colds. But otherwise no. While most homopathetic "drugs" are harmless as well as useless except as placebos, some "alternative" drugs are quite as you describe while others fall into the expensive but harmless and useless category also. One difference in fda drugs is they must demonstrate being effective and to have a minimal acceptable level of side effects, which assurance is a pig in a poke with the alternative drugs. >"So the majority of pills and potions pushed by physicians as >prescriptions or found over-the-counter are mostly potentially toxic [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >side effects, which assurance is a pig in a poke with the alternative >drugs. On what basis do you make this claim? Have you actually reviewed the literature? There are numerous examples of "alternative" or "complementary" interventions for which substantial evidence of efficacy in managing a range of disorders exist. I agree, however, that often claims are made with little or no data. Noni is an example of something that is probably perfectly delightful to consumer, may be healthful, but the prices, due to multi-level marketing schemes, were outrageous and the claims idiotic. But that no more obviates the value of many such interventions than citing examples such as misuse of antibiotics or drugs like Vioxx would render all pharmaceutical interventions invalid. George M. Carter > >"So the majority of pills and potions pushed by physicians as > >prescriptions or found over-the-counter are mostly potentially toxic [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > "complementary" interventions for which substantial evidence of > efficacy in managing a range of disorders exist. BS. If there is substantial, solid scientific evidence that a therapy is effective and safe, it is no longer alternative.  SignatureDr. Dickie Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438 Poking kooks with a pointy stick. "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' ('I found it!'), but rather 'hmm....that's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov >> >"So the majority of pills and potions pushed by physicians as >> >prescriptions or found over-the-counter are mostly potentially toxic [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >BS. If there is substantial, solid scientific evidence that a therapy is >effective and safe, it is no longer alternative. Depends on what you mean by alternative. In many cases, it simply means therapies not approved by the FDA or developed by pharmaceutical companies. I'd suggest that approval by Government bureaucrats is no test of scientific credibility. > >> >"So the majority of pills and potions pushed by physicians as > >> >prescriptions or found over-the-counter are mostly potentially toxic [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > companies. I'd suggest that approval by Government bureaucrats is no > test of scientific credibility. Yeah, but bureaucrats do not approve drugs, scientists at the FDA do. You can argue until you are blue in the face about what a pile of shite the FDA is, but like the United States of America, you cannot find a better alternative. Could it be improved, damn right; but so what, what cannot be improved? Problem is, they must exist in the real world. That means compromises are made. Considering how butt-damn stupid (about science) the general public is, I damn sure would not want the job of protecting them from themselves. Signature------ Dr. Dickie "Let be be finale of seem. The only emperor is the emperor of ice-cream." -- Wallace Stevens >> >> >"So the majority of pills and potions pushed by physicians as >> >> >prescriptions or found over-the-counter are mostly potentially toxic [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > >Yeah, but bureaucrats do not approve drugs, scientists at the FDA do. Scientists at the FDA are Government bureaucrats. They conduct no tests of their own regarding the drugs they approve. All the testing is done by the pharmaceutical companies. >You can argue until you are blue in the face about what a pile of shite the >FDA is, but like the United States of America, you cannot find a better >alternative. Yes, I can, my own judgment. Any individual that trust the Government deserves a Vioxx-like death. >Considering how butt-damn stupid (about science) the general public is, I >damn sure would not want the job of protecting them from themselves. I don't think that job should exist. In any case, my point about alternative medicine still holds: I don't need Government bureaucrats telling me what good science is. > >Yeah, but bureaucrats do not approve drugs, scientists at the FDA do. > > Scientists at the FDA are Government bureaucrats. They conduct no > tests of their own regarding the drugs they approve. All the testing > is done by the pharmaceutical companies. Okay, you know nothing about the FDA. > >You can argue until you are blue in the face about what a pile of shite the > >FDA is, but like the United States of America, you cannot find a better > >alternative. > > Yes, I can, my own judgment. Any individual that trust the Government > deserves a Vioxx-like death. If you knew anything about sciece, you would know that ANY drug has side-effects. The actual problems with Vioxx, while serious, has been blown way out of shape by the lawyers and media. You nuts really rub me the wrong way. You are the same kooks that complain when a drug that has some harmfull side effects makes it through the FDA approval process. You are also the kooks that complain about the cost of drugs (much of which is the cost of getting the trials done to test for safety). You also complain when testing drags out the approval of a drug (back during the early AIDS crisis). You also complain the "your" herbal drugs need to be tested. You want 100% effective, safe, and cheap drugs. The rest of us live in the real world. In the end I finally figured out something, ALL YOU DO IS COMPLAIN. You can offer nothing but a continous noise in the background. I choose to turn the noise down. > >Considering how butt-damn stupid (about science) the general public is, I > >damn sure would not want the job of protecting them from themselves. > > I don't think that job should exist. In any case, my point about > alternative medicine still holds: I don't need Government bureaucrats > telling me what good science is. Right, ignorance is bliss. Have a blissful life. Signature------ Dr. Dickie "Let be be finale of seem. The only emperor is the emperor of ice-cream." -- Wallace Stevens >> >Yeah, but bureaucrats do not approve drugs, scientists at the FDA do. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Okay, you know nothing about the FDA. Fortunately, I have you here to elucidate me. >> >You can argue until you are blue in the face about what a pile of shite >the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >side-effects. The actual problems with Vioxx, while serious, has been blown >way out of shape by the lawyers and media. I don't need a multi-billion dollar Government agency to tell me that. What is your point? >You are the same kooks that complain when a drug that has some harmfull side >effects makes it through the FDA approval process. The FDA should not exist. >You are also the kooks that complain about the cost of drugs (much of which >is the cost of getting the trials done to test for safety). The FDA should not exist. >You also complain when testing drags out the approval of a drug (back during >the early AIDS crisis). The FDA should not exist. >You also complain the "your" herbal drugs need to be tested. The FDA should not exist. >You want 100% effective, safe, and cheap drugs. The rest of us live in the >real world. I want the FAD to not exist. >In the end I finally figured out something, ALL YOU DO IS COMPLAIN. >You can offer nothing but a continous noise in the background. I choose to >turn the noise down. I think you are having a seizure. >> I don't think that job should exist. In any case, my point about >> alternative medicine still holds: I don't need Government bureaucrats >> telling me what good science is. > >Right, ignorance is bliss. >Have a blissful life. Ignorance about what, exactly, genius? > >BS. If there is substantial, solid scientific evidence that a therapy is > >effective and safe, it is no longer alternative. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > companies. I'd suggest that approval by Government bureaucrats is no > test of scientific credibility. COMMENT: But nobody ever suggested otherwise. For example, based on the ISIS and other studies, the American Heart Association recommdends that everybody with coronary disease eat either coldwater fish 3x a week, or take fish oil pills. None of this is "FDA approved" or government approved treatment for heart disease (yet--- I'm sure they'll figure out some way to make you and/or the insurance companies pay more, probably by isolating DHA as a "drug"). But even though not FDA approved, because it's an official AHA recommendation, fishoil for hearts is NOT alternative medicine. The AHA is as orthodox as medicine gets. I could say similar things about exercise as a treatment for coronary event rehab, or for diabetes or obesity. That's not FDA approved, because it's not a drug or a device. But it's not alternative medicine. It's as orthodox as there is. SBH >> >BS. If there is substantial, solid scientific evidence that a therapy is >> >effective and safe, it is no longer alternative. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > because it's not a drug or a device. But it's not alternative medicine. > It's as orthodox as there is. The FDA can and has cleared non-drug devices. They cleared a biofeedback device for lowering blood pressure. The device is in your PDA. The name of the device is RESPeRATE. http://www.resperate.com/ GWC snip... >The FDA can and has cleared non-drug devices. >They cleared a biofeedback device for lowering >blood pressure. The device is in your PDA. The >name of the device is RESPeRATE. FDA has specifically refused to set up a system to evaluate medical claims for the class of dietary supplements. In part due to the fact that they are often industry-paid shills and subscribe to the notion that these non-patentable interventions may represent a threat to pharma profits. In some cases, this may well be true, especially given how completely out-of-control the pharmaceutical industry has become in its pursuit of profits to the point of outright rape of the citizens of the US--and any other country they can get there hands on. Even when it's not a market, they're happy to let millions die of AIDS on the idea that somehow intellectual property rights (for which the company generally absconded the individual human researcher's discovery) trump human life. While many pharma products ARE extremely useful, with all due caveats for toxicities, they are NOT necessarily better than some natural agents. What gets lost in this debate is the voice of consumers, utilizers of these interventions, who get screweed out of the debate between the regulators at FDA and the profit-makers, whether they be in the dietary supplement industry or working with pharma. As a result, life and health are sacrificed. As a result, science and deeper understanding of the value of these interventions--limitation, efficacy, interactions--all is lost in the haze of greed and stupidity that seems to characterize much of humanity in any case. George M. Carter snip... >BS. If there is substantial, solid scientific evidence that a therapy is >effective and safe, it is no longer alternative. That's bullshit. Glucosamine sulfate has shown a lot of efficacy for joint pain. I know NIH scientists that use it. St. John's wort, as long as one is careful in re other CYP3A4-metabolized drugs, works as well as any antidepressant for mild-to-moderate depression. LOTS of agents have substantial data to support their use. Yet physicians do not prescribe them. They are not covered by almost any insurance plan I know (in the US; in Germany, they may be). They remain, for all intents and purposes "alternative" in the sense they are an out-of-pocket expense, and in the sense that allopathic medicine has not wrapped its pointy little head around the use of botanical medicines in routine practice. Partly because of the dinosaur-like bigotry of people like you. George M. Carter "On what basis do you make this claim? Have you actually reviewed the literature? There are numerous examples of "alternative" or "complementary" interventions for which substantial evidence of efficacy in managing a range of disorders exist." I could have made a clearer statement but the intention was to say that homopathetic drugs are harmless and useless as are some alternative "drugs". This doesn't exclude all alternative drugs. Yes I have read quite alot about those that come under a very large umbrella as "alternative". Some even have credible research supporting their use but generally not in the amount required to receive general acceptance in medical and science circles. Few are ever passed through the fda filter which would achieve this recognition while others come to it's attention because of side effect concerns. In the main what research that has been done is not sufficient in amount for long enough to be accepted even without the fda process and remains suggestive only. A fda process drug would have been through multiple levels of numerous trials at multiple research centers and published in peer reviewed journals to be so recognized. They're to powerful to be placebos. I ried one for sleep. Those herbs work. I can vouch for it.You can't take what I know from me!!! "They're to powerful to be placebos. I ried one for sleep. Those herbs work. I can vouch for it.You can't take what I know from me!!!" This is the perfect situation where the placebo effect works, believing something will happen. When testing such a thing some are given sugar pills and others the "real" thing and both don't know which it is. If both have the same result in sleeping aid then we know the "real" thing has no effect over the sugar pill and the prior suggestion that it will work, and it does. While I accept what your experience is, we still don't know if it does work differently then as above. Even if we put 100 such reports together we cann't confirm that it is not as above withouting doing the test. Baloney. I set out with no expectations. As I do with everything. I never "believed" they would do anything. So a placebo effect keeps from waking up 5 times a night? I don't think so. "Baloney. I set out with no expectations. As I do with everything. I never "believed" they would do anything. So a placebo effect keeps from waking up 5 times a night? I don't think so." Everything you describe falls into the classic explanation of the placebo effect. The only way to resolve the question is to test the substance in question as were all those substances mentioned in the article. If all of them failed to be better then placebo then why should we think this individual one is an exception? The key in the failure of all of them was the people didn't know which they were using, prior knowledge is the key here and the reason utmost effort is made in scientific research using humans to remove prior knowledge from those involved, including the researchers themselves. It is too well demonstrated that not doing so pollutes results majing them worthless. When homopathic "drugs" use the same approach they fail, as the article demonstrated. Baloney. You have to expect a result from a placebo for it to work. I didn't. The homeopathic I use exceeds the statistical results that you might expect from a placebo! I don't care what you say. Herbs work. "The homeopathic I use exceeds the statistical results that you might expect from a placebo! I don't care what you say. Herbs work." "Herbs" is not homopathetic persey, don't confuse the two. I would be happy to review the web based information on which you base the above claim. You don't know that homeopathy uses herbs? So you have the nerve to tell me what works for me is only in my head? I dont think so You can go fly a kite in a thunderstorm. > You don't know that homeopathy uses herbs? > > So you have the nerve to tell me what works > for me is only in my head? No, no, there's a "mind-body connection"! Same idea, less insulting. Boloney. You have to believe something will work first for the mind connection to take place. This what I am saying. I had no expectations for these herbs to work. Therefore their effects are not psychosomatic. Show me where I am if you can. Behind the keyboard of your computer, very close to Denver. > Boloney. You have to believe something > will work first for the mind connection to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Show me where I am if you can. >Show me where I am if you can. In Oregon, in or close to the city of Eugene. Why do you ask? >You don't know that homeopathy uses herbs? That's not the problem with homeopathy. "So you have the nerve to tell me what works for me is only in my head?" This is where research let's us leave opinion and guesses behind and start to exclude what does work or not. I refer you to the article that started the thread, when people didn't know if they were taking a homopathetic "drug" or a sugar pill the results were the same. Being "only in the head" is so common that all scientific research goes to great effert to make sure people involved in the research don't know what is being studied because it became clear long ago that not doing so produced corrupted results existing "in the head" alone. I would be intrested to know why you think you are an exception to this accepted human condition? >Baloney. You have to expect a result from a >placebo for it to work. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >I don't care what you say. Herbs work. Herbs and homeopathic are two different things. You know that, don't you? >Hmeopathy is very inexpensive and causes no harm. Of course it causes no harm. It's just water, after all! > I use classical homeopathy on my dogs and it works. I do not believe > placebo effect is a concern when animals are involved. COMMENT: If the affect is assessed by a non-blinded owner, then it certainly is. The placebo "effect" doesn't just "affect" the subject. It affects everybody involved who *thinks* some effective remedy has been employed. If YOU feel better about the medical care (or even about something else entirely), you will rate your dog as feeling better. Even if the dog doesn't (and an independent rater would say the dog doesn't). Ask any vet how many basically healthy animals he or she has seen, brought in by depressed or anxious or stressed-out owners. Ask the same question of any pediatricion. LOL. Come on--- do you want me to quote you those studies in which they randomly picked out kids and labeled them as being gifted or mildly developmentally delayed, and put them in classes where only the teacher was aware of the IQ test "score"? Guess what? The kids' scores amazingly rose or fell according to what they were supposed to be capable of, even though the kids were totally unaware of their "labels." That's a variety of placebo effect. The general form of is: we see what we expect to see. Yes, it happens with what we see in our pets too. SBH Thank God for placebos because they are free of adverse side effects. I will continue to purchase my "placebo" homeopathic and other natural remedies, and continue in optimal health. I purchase some supplements from the Life Extension Foundation. Not all of these supplements have been approved in peer reviewed journals, but some studies indicate the efficaciousness of these items. > > I use classical homeopathy on my dogs and it works. I do not believe > > placebo effect is a concern when animals are involved. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > SBH > Thank God for placebos because they are free of adverse side effects. I will > continue to purchase my "placebo" homeopathic and other natural remedies, > and continue in optimal health. I purchase some supplements from the Life > Extension Foundation. Not all of these supplements have been approved in > peer reviewed journals, but some studies indicate the efficaciousness of > these items. COMMENT: Good for you, but remember you get the placebo effect just as powerfully from the supplements as from the water, and maybe some real chemical effect from the supplements, too. So quit wasting your money on water! Spend it on stuff you get a 2-fer effect from. SBH >>Thank God for placebos because they are free of adverse side effects. I will >>continue to purchase my "placebo" homeopathic and other natural remedies, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > chemical effect from the supplements, too. So quit wasting your money > on water! Spend it on stuff you get a 2-fer effect from. Unfortunately, I am afraid that for placebo effect to work, you have to believe in real effect. Which is quite hard in case of sugar pills... Mirek >Thank God for placebos because they are free of adverse side effects. I will >continue to purchase my "placebo" homeopathic and other natural remedies, >and continue in optimal health. I purchase some supplements from the Life >Extension Foundation. Not all of these supplements have been approved in >peer reviewed journals, but some studies indicate the efficaciousness of >these items. The supplements that LEF sells, unlike homeopathic stuff, aren't just made of water. That is a big difference, I'd suggest, unless your problem is thirst. I don't use liquid based homeopathic remedies. You have to research the ingredients put in the tablets so that you don't make an unfortunate ignorant comment. I'm not saying you're stupid. You just need to know what you're talking about. > >Thank God for placebos because they are free of adverse side effects. I will > >continue to purchase my "placebo" homeopathic and other natural remedies, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > made of water. That is a big difference, I'd suggest, unless your > problem is thirst. > I don't use liquid based homeopathic remedies. You have to research the > ingredients put in the tablets so that you don't make an unfortunate > ignorant comment. I'm not saying you're stupid. You just need to know what > you're talking about. COMMENT: You don't use "liquid-based" homeopathic remedies?? Succussion is a "principal principle" of homeopathic theory. As for the ingredients in the tablets, in standard chemical theory it hardly matters what they are if they're too dilute to have any effect. And in homeopathic theory, somwhere along the way you need water. SBH >> >Thank God for placebos because they are free of adverse side effects. I >will [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >ignorant comment. I'm not saying you're stupid. You just need to know what >you're talking about. Would you be kind enough to show me (URL) an example of a homeopathic remedy? Here is a typical remedy for colds and flues that has worked for many people, but you have to take it at the first sign of symptoms: http://www.vitacost.com/BoerickeTafelAlphaCFColdFlu > >> >Thank God for placebos because they are free of adverse side effects. I > >will [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Would you be kind enough to show me (URL) an example of a homeopathic > remedy? >> >> >Thank God for placebos because they are free of adverse side effects. >I [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >people, but you have to take it at the first sign of symptoms: >http://www.vitacost.com/BoerickeTafelAlphaCFColdFlu One of the ingredients is Aconitum Napellus 4X...25mg, that is, 0.0025mg of Aconitum Napellus. As such, why not sell the stuff as an herbal remedy with (among other things) 0.0025mg of Aconitum Napellus? Why sell it as homeopathic remedy with 4x 25mg? What is the difference? From: http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/h/ho/homeopathy.htm The theory of infinitesimals: The most characteristic-and controversial-principle of homeopathy is that the potency of a remedy can be enhanced (and side effects diminished) by dilution in a particular procedure known as dynamization or potentization. Liquids are successively diluted (with water or occasionally alcohol) and shaken by 10 hard strikes against an elastic body, a process called succussion. Insoluble solids are diluted by grinding them with (A sugar comprising one glucose molecule linked to a galactose molecule; occurs only in milk) lactose, a process known as (Click link for more info and facts about trituration) trituration. Homeopathic practitioners believe the vigorous agitation following each dilution transfers some of the "essential property" of the substance to the water, which fits in with the concept of disease as a disturbance in the "vital force" of the patient. The dilution factor at each stage is traditionally 1:10 (D or X potencies) or 1:100 (C potencies). Hahnemann advocated the use of 30C dilutions for most purposes, i.e. dilution by a factor of 10030 = 1060. Some later homeopaths, in particular Kent, have advocated the use of much higher potencies, which can no longer be practically achieved by the traditional method, but require succussion without dilution (Jenichen), much higher dilution factors (LM potencies dilute by 1:50,000 at each stage), or machines which in some way integrate dilution and succussion into a continuous process (Kent). Higher dilutions are generally considered stronger. This is in contrast to conventional medicine and (The organic chemistry of compounds and processes occuring in organisms; the effort to understand biology within the context of chemistry) biochemistry, which hold that the effects of a substance are always due to its physical and biochemical activity in the patient's body, and therefore that generally the more of an active ingredient is present in a drug, the more effect (whether positive, negative, or both) it will have. The choice of potency will depend on a number of factors depending on the homeopath. These can range from how deep seated the disease seems to be to how the patient has reacted to previous remedies. As a general (although not exclusive) rule, European homeopaths will use lower potencies than their (A native or inhabitant of the United States) American counterparts. Some homeopaths believe that, while lower dilutions may have more of a (Click link for more info and facts about physiological) physiological effect, higher dilutions may have a greater effect on the mental or emotional plane. > >> >> >Thank God for placebos because they are free of adverse side effects. > >I [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Why sell it as homeopathic remedy with 4x 25mg? What is the > difference? >> >> >> >Thank God for placebos because they are free of adverse side >effects. [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > >The theory of infinitesimals: I know, that's when homeopathy becomes total and completely ridiculous and unphysical. If you believe in any of it, you might just as well believe in astrology. Homeopathics are toxic and would kill you or seriously make you ill if you took a large dosage of it. > >> >> >Thank God for placebos because they are free of adverse side effects. > >I [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Why sell it as homeopathic remedy with 4x 25mg? What is the > difference? > Here is a typical remedy for colds and flues that has worked for many > people, but you have to take it at the first sign of symptoms: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Would you be kind enough to show me (URL) an example of a homeopathic > > remedy? COMMENT: Okay, what happens if you take half as much? "Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote in part: >Okay, what happens if you take half as much? The highest potency is achieved by bypassing the homeopathy aisle at the store. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu > "Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote in part: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > -- > Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu COMMENT: No! That way lies overdose! I know people who try to stretch their homeopathic dollars by grinding up their pills with lactose, and then taking just a bit each day, like a starter bit of yeast for sour-dough. But the effect grows stonger and stronger, and soon they're half-poisoned and forced to go back to the store for more pills. It's an addiction, is what it is. These homeopaths are no more than pushers. If you can't cut your own medicine with your own lactose, where has freedom gone? Huh? SBH "Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote in part: >> "Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote in part: >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >SBH I want to know what they are going to do with all the homeopathic remedies now. If they just dump them, they will end up in the oceans. That will make them far more dilute and even more potent. We are doomed. We were far safer when they were on the store shelves. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu Please don't stop. That's the best humor I've heard in a long time. Steve and Jim should start a comedy show. LOL > "Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote in part: > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > -- > Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu "Thank God for placebos because they are free of adverse side effects. I will continue to purchase my "placebo" homeopathic and other natural remedies, and continue in optimal health. I purchase some supplements from the Life Extension Foundation. Not all of these supplements have been approved in peer reviewed journals, but some studies indicate the efficaciousness of these items." Your local pharmacy has the least expensive placebos of all, sugar pills. You start with homopathetic and proceed to lump other things into the mix as though the latter is salvation for the former. Every virtue your supplements are said to demonstrate as to testing is lacking in the former. Drugs are not approved in journals, only research said to show some attribute of them is presented. When the same criteria was applied to homopathetic "drugs", as in the article starting this thread, they could not be shown to have any effect at all. Would you enjoy "optimum" health if you consumed none of the above? At present your answer must be by definition based in faith that it is so. I understand your point, but before using alternative supplementation I had an incurable autoimmune disease, by the doctors description. After many months of research, and careful supplementation, I was able to get off of all pharmaceuticals, and have stayed in "remission" for 17 years. I have been symptom free from a critical case of ulcerative colitis, where I almost bled to death. It doesn't matter that much if I am believed or not because I enjoy optimal health after facing death. I receive the benefits and others have as well. We're happy enough with that. So, you can take your drugs, and I will avoid them luckily. > "Thank God for placebos because they are free of adverse side effects. > I will continue to purchase my "placebo" homeopathic and other natural [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > above? At present your answer must be by definition based in faith that > it is so. "I understand your point, but before using alternative supplementation I had an incurable autoimmune disease, by the doctors description. After many months of research, and careful supplementation, I was able to get off of all pharmaceuticals, and have stayed in "remission" for 17 years. I have been symptom free from a critical case of ulcerative colitis, where I almost bled to death. It doesn't matter that much if I am believed or not because I enjoy optimal health after facing death. I receive the benefits and others have as well. We're happy enough with that. So, you can take your drugs, and I will avoid them luckily." Nothing above refutes anything previously said about homopathetic "drugs". It says you are in remission from a disease and we don't know why. The type of disorder you mention is known to do that without intervention of any kind. This is why wen we do research the report of an individual or several individual is intresting and maybe even suggestive as to something but we need to do controled testing in larger numbers of people with and without the disorder to identify in greater isolation what might be a cause, drug or not, in the status of a disorder. I'm glad you are now in good health. Thank you for your kind words. > "I understand your point, but before using alternative supplementation I > had an incurable autoimmune disease, by the doctors description. After [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > cause, drug or not, in the status of a disorder. I'm glad you are now in > good health. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.