| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Llamadance |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 03:42:52
Anybody use these to positive effect? I guess I'm talking about acupuncture, homeopathy and anything else that falls under the umbrella.
My cynicism has just been raised by an advert in a local free monthly magazine trying to promote Reiki Healing for animals. I guess if it works for humans(?) then it could work for animals, but it just smacks of opportunism to me (the advert that is).
There's also been rumblings recently in the UK about the NHS funding alternative therapies (we do - some say we shouldn't). Can you get alternative therapies through health insurance?
Pain is temporary, quitting is forever.
|
| 35 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Ziggy |
Posted - 05/27/2006 : 13:41:54
Yeah, the thing you have to be careful of is that if a flaw with conventional scientifically based medicine is discovered, this doesn't just mean that it can be used to to support homeopathy or suchlike. |
| starmekitten |
Posted - 05/27/2006 : 11:47:14
Lonely P, I can't really see that you're arguing anything to be honest...
Scientific methodologies, is it fair to say when it comes to therapeutics first hand research is usually done via academic agencies such as charities or universities and then the pharmaceutical companies pick up on these and develop them into commercial use? Right?
What has this got to do with homeopathy? there's a ton of stuff out there both medical and non medical where it works but the action isn't fully understood, this doesn't invalidate anything does it?
forum ebook: end of miles |
| lonely persuader |
Posted - 05/27/2006 : 09:22:08
quote:
Originally posted by dr.Evil
quote:
Originally posted by lonely persuader
I would like to know if your doctorate is medical or philosophical in nature Dr. Evil.
If you have any other methodology to measure causality, I would like to hear it. Evidence-based medicine may have flaws due to how its conducted (they're are people involved who make mistakes etc) but the concept is sound and the best available. Lets go back to the witch-doctor and voodo ages.
> the best evidence today suggests that most of the evidence in existence is plagued and flawed
What a contradictory sentence!! Lovily paradoxical argument.
I really don't see how or why my background should matter. I assume mine is better than yours. The arguments against evidence based medicine are many, but I will try to be brief (but I failed:).
First off, when one is discussing evidence based medicine one is not discussing a paradigm that wants to provide the best possible treatment (every treatment paradigm wants to provide the best possible treatment), but a paradigm that has a quite specific opinion about what evidence is and how it should measured. It has basically taken the "evidence" concept and methodology from the natural sciences and applied them to health-care. Thus, I am not againts providing good treatment - I am against excluding treatment paradigms/modalities just because they do not suit "the evidence based guys".
For instance; the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials involving a homogeneous patient population and medical condition (let's call it RCT) is the gold standard regarding methodology, and the results are the evidence. However, as anyone remotely familiar with health-care would be aware of, the patients that would be suited for such trials are rarely the same patients that exist in health care.
Thus, when testing antidepressants, one excludes patients with alcohol or drug abuse, maybe patients with psychotic symptoms, severe anxiety - and let's exlude the severe personality disorders as well. Do the remaining patients represent the patients that receive the treatment? Sometimes, but most often not.
What kind of evidence then do these studies provide? Again, look at the drug-trials - patients improve 1-2-3 or whatever points on a GAF-scale or maybe on Becks depression inventory. Is that clinically significant? Well, evidence based medicine does not seem to care. But the government, who pays for treatment, cares. That's why NIMH started a huge multicenter study (STAR*D) to investigate how SSRI's work for real patients, and if they achieve the wanted results (get well and back to work basically) - which they for 75% don't.
To summarize: the method is poorly suited for many kinds of medicine, and there is evidence to back that statement up.
Second: the way trials are published today provide no way of checking wether what's written actually reflects what is done. Trust the author - basically. Which sounds like a bad idea regarding
1) authors that subscribe to a paradigm almost never publish negative results regarding their own paradigm
2) pharmaceutical companies never publish negative results regarding their own products (how strange)
3) the effect of certain pharmaceutical products totally disapears when including only neutrally funded investigations
4) It is easier to get a study with a positive result published than a negative one.
5)2 thirds of all the pharmaceutical studies are never published. And you may only wonder what the results were.
6) pharmaceutical companies have the last years been caught lying, hiding vital information both from government agencies and the journals in which they published the articles. I give you no references - you should know where to look. This has been published as editorials in most (perhaps all) of the medical journals the last years.
This is the system that produce your "evidence". The system is flawed - again a well documented fact. Do a little search in the major journals and you'll find plenty of studies.
3) Evidence based medicine is at odds at the "consumer"/patient's rights movements which has, in most western countries, resulted in laws that now state that patients must be allowed to influence treatment - especially in psychiatry. There is little room for this in evidence based medicine.
There are many more points, but I believe these represent valid objections against this paradigm. Is it the best we got? I don't think so. This far it has been used to make governments spend money on drugs that did not have their so-called effect, on drugs that had effects we never asked for, on drugs that were no better than cheaper and older drugs, on drugs instead of human resources, on drugs instead of different treatment modalities (psychotherapies, chiropractors) and much, much more.
Firstly, my comment about your doctorate was a joke about being called Dr. Evil. Chill.
>I really don't see how or why my background should matter. I assume >mine is better than yours.
Your assumption may or may not be valid. You have no "evidence" to base your assumption on. This tells me something about your deductive skills. Enough.
Anyways, your responses (1-6) do not say anything about evidence based medicine.
eg.
1) authors that subscribe to a paradigm almost never publish negative results regarding their own paradigm.
Maybe this is true, this is a problem of ethics for the individual scientist to deal with. It does not invalidate evidence based medicine.
I believe our argument is at different levels. Mine being at a lower level, dealing with the scientific paradigm/methodologies, while your dealing with problems within the real world (manifestation of the paradigm) of what happens.
|
| dr.Evil |
Posted - 05/26/2006 : 13:08:46
quote:
Originally posted by Llamadance
Nicely written dr.Evil, and having worked for several major pharmaceutical companies, I too question their ethics.
A couple of questions though. How best to compare results if not with standardised, homogenised populations? You have to have a frame of reference. How should it be judged?
Many drugs that treat chronic, long term diseases aren't cures. All they can do is limit the symptoms/provide temporary relief. eg. as you mentioned, drugs for blood pressure and depression. Both of these would be better dealt with - if possible - in a non-chemical way. What unwanted effects have blood pressure drugs brought....and if they're positive, is that really a problem?
In the UK, while a patient is open to saying what treatment they might like, the final decision is with the GP. If the patient disagrees, the GP can refuse to treat them citing breakdown in the patient-doctor relationship - thus passing them onto another GP.
The internet gives patients a lot more information (much misleading) which means they can discuss treatment options with their doctor. It also puts a responsibility on the doctor to be more transparent in their reasons for prescribing. Often doctors fail to live up to this responsibility.
Pain is temporary, quitting is forever.
First of all - regarding your second question, I wrote a clumsy sentence describing a side-effect (blood pressure) - but it came out all wrong and looked like i was describing a blood pressure drug. Sorry about that, I have edited the response.
Regarding your first question, I believe decisions regaring treatment should be based upon studies conducted through a multitude of methods that are able to reflect clinical reality - funded and run by neutral institutions (universities for instance). It is a complex reality and it should be reflected in the multitude of methods. If our governments have the money to pay for these drugs, they should have the money to test them properly. They should also spend a little more time describing and defining the the concepts they whish to study - everything can't be "empirical" and meta-analysis.
Patient rights exist on paper - which is better than nothing. There is a long way to go, but the fact alone that they now exist as laws make it possible to refer to them in debates, to refer to them when quarreling with officials, to refer to them when other practices that deny people their rights are proposed etc. We should all get down and dig patient rights.
I would also say that if it is completely impossible to come to a satisfying agreement with your GP, maybe it is better to switch after all?
|
| mosleyk |
Posted - 05/26/2006 : 12:12:58
Here are some more fun facts
...in the US approximately 80% of all "new FDA approved drugs" are actually just reforumlated older drugs.
The FDA DOES NOT dictate the black box warning when a drug is approved. Black box warnings are strangely enough only present in about 10% of all package inserts.
Top three government lobbists (ones that spend the most) are pharmacueticals.
FDA is absolutely too understaffed to properly review all safety reports from clinic trials. Case in point...vioxx. When studies were still being conducted prior to approval I was working in the IRB. We immediately recognized the risks and had all investigators add this risk statement into the consent form and re-consent.
"Some researchers believe COX-2 inhibitor type drugs might increase the risk of heart attack, stroke, chest pain (angina), blood clots, and death. We are not sure this is true but we want to be careful. To help keep you safe in this study, we will closely watch you for these side effects by [describe monitoring plan here]."
Remember this was BEFORE FDA approval. All related adverse events were forwarded to the sponsor who is required to forward them to the FDA.
so....what happened to these risks after it was approved. How could Merck say they didn't know?
this is what scares me about research.... |
| Llamadance |
Posted - 05/26/2006 : 11:48:32
Nicely written dr.Evil, and having worked for several major pharmaceutical companies, I too question their ethics.
A couple of questions though. How best to compare results if not with standardised, homogenised populations? You have to have a frame of reference. How should it be judged?
Many drugs that treat chronic, long term diseases aren't cures. All they can do is limit the symptoms/provide temporary relief. eg. as you mentioned, drugs for blood pressure and depression. Both of these would be better dealt with - if possible - in a non-chemical way. What unwanted effects have blood pressure drugs brought....and if they're positive, is that really a problem?
In the UK, while a patient is open to saying what treatment they might like, the final decision is with the GP. If the patient disagrees, the GP can refuse to treat them citing breakdown in the patient-doctor relationship - thus passing them onto another GP.
The internet gives patients a lot more information (much misleading) which means they can discuss treatment options with their doctor. It also puts a responsibility on the doctor to be more transparent in their reasons for prescribing. Often doctors fail to live up to this responsibility.
Pain is temporary, quitting is forever.
|
| dr.Evil |
Posted - 05/26/2006 : 11:30:49
quote:
Originally posted by lonely persuader
I would like to know if your doctorate is medical or philosophical in nature Dr. Evil.
If you have any other methodology to measure causality, I would like to hear it. Evidence-based medicine may have flaws due to how its conducted (they're are people involved who make mistakes etc) but the concept is sound and the best available. Lets go back to the witch-doctor and voodo ages.
> the best evidence today suggests that most of the evidence in existence is plagued and flawed
What a contradictory sentence!! Lovily paradoxical argument.
I really don't see how or why my background should matter. I assume mine is better than yours. The arguments against evidence based medicine are many, but I will try to be brief (but I failed:).
First off, when one is discussing evidence based medicine one is not discussing a paradigm that wants to provide the best possible treatment (every treatment paradigm wants to provide the best possible treatment), but a paradigm that has a quite specific opinion about what evidence is and how it should measured. It has basically taken the "evidence" concept and methodology from the natural sciences and applied them to health-care. Thus, I am not againts providing good treatment - I am against excluding treatment paradigms/modalities just because they do not suit "the evidence based guys".
For instance; the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials involving a homogeneous patient population and medical condition (let's call it RCT) is the gold standard regarding methodology, and the results are the evidence. However, as anyone remotely familiar with health-care would be aware of, the patients that would be suited for such trials are rarely the same patients that exist in health care.
Thus, when testing antidepressants, one excludes patients with alcohol or drug abuse, maybe patients with psychotic symptoms, severe anxiety - and let's exlude the severe personality disorders as well. Do the remaining patients represent the patients that receive the treatment? Sometimes, but most often not.
What kind of evidence then do these studies provide? Again, look at the drug-trials - patients improve 1-2-3 or whatever points on a GAF-scale or maybe on Becks depression inventory. Is that clinically significant? Well, evidence based medicine does not seem to care. But the government, who pays for treatment, cares. That's why NIMH started a huge multicenter study (STAR*D) to investigate how SSRI's work for real patients, and if they achieve the wanted results (get well and back to work basically) - which they for 75% don't.
To summarize: the method is poorly suited for many kinds of medicine, and there is evidence to back that statement up.
Second: the way trials are published today provide no way of checking wether what's written actually reflects what is done. Trust the author - basically. Which sounds like a bad idea regarding
1) authors that subscribe to a paradigm almost never publish negative results regarding their own paradigm
2) pharmaceutical companies never publish negative results regarding their own products (how strange)
3) the effect of certain pharmaceutical products totally disapears when including only neutrally funded investigations
4) It is easier to get a study with a positive result published than a negative one.
5)2 thirds of all the pharmaceutical studies are never published. And you may only wonder what the results were.
6) pharmaceutical companies have the last years been caught lying, hiding vital information both from government agencies and the journals in which they published the articles. I give you no references - you should know where to look. This has been published as editorials in most (perhaps all) of the medical journals the last years.
This is the system that produce your "evidence". The system is flawed - again a well documented fact. Do a little search in the major journals and you'll find plenty of studies.
3) Evidence based medicine is at odds at the "consumer"/patient's rights movements which has, in most western countries, resulted in laws that now state that patients must be allowed to influence treatment - especially in psychiatry. There is little room for this in evidence based medicine.
There are many more points, but I believe these represent valid objections against this paradigm. Is it the best we got? I don't think so. This far it has been used to make governments spend money on drugs that did not have their so-called effect, on drugs that had effects we never asked for, on drugs that were no better than cheaper and older drugs, on drugs instead of human resources, on drugs instead of different treatment modalities (psychotherapies, chiropractors) and much, much more.
|
| Newo |
Posted - 05/26/2006 : 09:18:29
quote:
mosleyk Posted - 05/26/2006 : 07:53:41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Newo
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mosleyk
= Cult of Ray =
USA
506 Posts
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 10:37:34
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They used the scientific method to test the power of thought/prayer....I don't want to give away some of the results in the book, but they aren't exactly what you would expect.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Japanese physicist called Masaru Emoto experimented with exposing water to various words and emotions then froze it and photographed the crystals. When he said words with loving intention behind them, the water molecules rearranged themselves into beautiful symmetrical snowflake shapes and with words spoken with malevolent intent the molecules turned scattered and knotted and chaotic.
To go back offtopic, Oregon is a place I´ve always wanted to visit, I´ve had notions about it since reading lots of Ken Kesey and Raymond Carver when younger. A Californian friend here sez one town she´d like to live in at some stage is Eugene, and she told me about in Portland a cyclist got killed at an intersection so somebody painted a mandala over it to make cars slow down and drive around, which worked so well many intersections have them now.
Gravy boat! Stay in the now!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am familiar with that experiment. Ever hear of the movie "What the beap do we know" Um.....I might also add it was filmed in Oregon, and they also filmed scenes in the most awesome $2 movie house in Portland...the bagdad. http://www.mcmenamins.com/index.php?loc=9&id=177 ...anyway they cited the experiment in the movie
I haven´t seen though I do have it on disc, a friend of a friend is giving me his old laptop so I´ll be having a look soon.
Llama, here for you:
Thank You
You Make Me Sick I Will Kill You
http://www.masaru-emoto.net/english/eprofile.html
--
Gravy boat! Stay in the now! |
| lonely persuader |
Posted - 05/26/2006 : 09:04:05
quote:
Originally posted by starmekitten
LP -I don't really see what you're arguing if I'm honest. You seem to be saying all such things are bad because no one knows if they really work or how they really work... I think a lot can be said for many straight medical treatments too. You've lost me.
forum ebook: end of miles
Im just arguing that any new treatment (be it plausable or not) must be proven to have an effect to be considered a proper treatement. Alot of the aforementioned treatements (homeopathy included) are not proven and any effect could be due to sampling error. If it is not proven I would not have much time for it, to be honest.
If someone said that wearing blue socks lessened your chances of cancer and they ran a trial with a proper sample size etc and proved it empirically, it would be fine by me (even thought it sounds ridiculous).
|
| lonely persuader |
Posted - 05/26/2006 : 08:57:30
quote:
is based on personal and empirical experience.
Not empirical (im afraid) in a scientific sense. This is anecdotal evidence. |
| mosleyk |
Posted - 05/26/2006 : 07:53:41
quote:
Originally posted by Newo
quote:
mosleyk
= Cult of Ray =
USA
506 Posts
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 10:37:34
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They used the scientific method to test the power of thought/prayer....I don't want to give away some of the results in the book, but they aren't exactly what you would expect.
A Japanese physicist called Masaru Emoto experimented with exposing water to various words and emotions then froze it and photographed the crystals. When he said words with loving intention behind them, the water molecules rearranged themselves into beautiful symmetrical snowflake shapes and with words spoken with malevolent intent the molecules turned scattered and knotted and chaotic.
To go back offtopic, Oregon is a place I´ve always wanted to visit, I´ve had notions about it since reading lots of Ken Kesey and Raymond Carver when younger. A Californian friend here sez one town she´d like to live in at some stage is Eugene, and she told me about in Portland a cyclist got killed at an intersection so somebody painted a mandala over it to make cars slow down and drive around, which worked so well many intersections have them now.
Gravy boat! Stay in the now!
I am familiar with that experiment. Ever hear of the movie "What the beap do we know" Um.....I might also add it was filmed in Oregon, and they also filmed scenes in the most awesome $2 movie house in Portland...the bagdad. http://www.mcmenamins.com/index.php?loc=9&id=177 ...anyway they cited the experiment in the movie
I can tell you more about Eugene if you would like, but I think I better start a new thread to be respectful of the topic at hand |
| starmekitten |
Posted - 05/26/2006 : 07:45:45
LP -I don't really see what you're arguing if I'm honest. You seem to be saying all such things are bad because no one knows if they really work or how they really work... I think a lot can be said for many straight medical treatments too. You've lost me.
forum ebook: end of miles |
| Frog in the Sand |
Posted - 05/26/2006 : 07:42:37
quote:
Originally posted by lonely persuader
quote:
Originally posted by Frog in the Sand
quote:
Originally posted by lonely persuader
quote:
Originally posted by Frog in the Sand
My girlfriend uses homeopathy to treat our son and I must say it usually works very well, and even better as a preventive treatment. Obviously it stimulates the immune system, unlike antibiotics.
Obviously??
there is no proof? the reasons the homeopathy quacks give are ridiculous? dilution to near infinite proportions (arse), the more dilute the more potent the effect will be (arse). sounds like any scam.
Oh, dilute it more, and it will be stronger!! sound like a good way to get infinite amounts of a cure!!!
Funny, 4-5 years ago I would have said the same thing...
My son is a living proof to me. Especially when I see that most of his schoolfriends, who are usually treated by antibiotics, are (much) more vulnerable to common infections than him.
I'm not neccessarly saying it's hokum. Just that the reason's they make up are bunk and until it is shown to have an effect (which it has not as yet, and you don't even have to know why), it should not be taken seriously. Its common sense really. Anecdotal evidence does not persuade me.
I'm not trying to convince anyone, that's just my 2 cents. Please feel free to consider me a naive, stupid and/or irresponsible father, but note that my opinion, unlike yours probably, is based on personal and empirical experience.
-----
 blackolero le only Frank Black / Pixies site 100% in français |
| lonely persuader |
Posted - 05/26/2006 : 07:37:51
> Holistic medicine can be evidence based as well
Indeed. Evidence based just means that you have significant evidence to support the fact that it aids recovery. |
| starmekitten |
Posted - 05/26/2006 : 07:32:28
Holistic medicine can be evidence based as well. Energy reiki blah blah I don't know so much about but many natural remedies are.
forum ebook: end of miles |
| lonely persuader |
Posted - 05/26/2006 : 07:25:04
I would like to know if your doctorate is medical or philosophical in nature Dr. Evil.
If you have any other methodology to measure causality, I would like to hear it. Evidence-based medicine may have flaws due to how its conducted (they're are people involved who make mistakes etc) but the concept is sound and the best available. Lets go back to the witch-doctor and voodo ages.
> the best evidence today suggests that most of the evidence in existence is plagued and flawed
What a contradictory sentence!! Lovily paradoxical argument. |
| dr.Evil |
Posted - 05/26/2006 : 06:49:10
quote:
Originally posted by lonely persuader
There's a possibility that they could work but they have not been proven using evidence based medicine so, NO, these "alternative therapies" should not be available on national health services, until there is a statistically significant positive effect when using them.
And what, then, is evidence based? The concept is rotten to the core and allthough the intention might once have been a good one, the best evidence today suggests that most of the evidence in existence is plagued and flawed by uncool funding and methodology, sometimes even coupled with straight-out lying, cheating and disclosure of vital information. That's an evidence-based evaluation for you. |
| lonely persuader |
Posted - 05/26/2006 : 06:14:29
quote:
Originally posted by Frog in the Sand
quote:
Originally posted by lonely persuader
quote:
Originally posted by Frog in the Sand
My girlfriend uses homeopathy to treat our son and I must say it usually works very well, and even better as a preventive treatment. Obviously it stimulates the immune system, unlike antibiotics.
Obviously??
there is no proof? the reasons the homeopathy quacks give are ridiculous? dilution to near infinite proportions (arse), the more dilute the more potent the effect will be (arse). sounds like any scam.
Oh, dilute it more, and it will be stronger!! sound like a good way to get infinite amounts of a cure!!!
Funny, 4-5 years ago I would have said the same thing...
My son is a living proof to me. Especially when I see that most of his schoolfriends, who are usually treated by antibiotics, are (much) more vulnerable to common infections than him.
-----
blackolero le only Frank Black / Pixies site 100% in français
I'm not neccessarly saying it's hokum. Just that the reason's they make up are bunk and until it is shown to have an effect (which it has not as yet, and you don't even have to know why), it should not be taken seriously. Its common sense really. Anecdotal evidence does not persuade me. |
| Llamadance |
Posted - 05/26/2006 : 05:35:54
quote:
Originally posted by lonely persuader
quote:
Originally posted by Llamadance
It has been shown that water has a 'memory' of structures that it retains despite dilution. Whether that has anything to do with homeopathy, I don't know.
[edit] for info - http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3817
Pain is temporary, quitting is forever.
Similar to bienvinste stuff. That has now been discredited. A french scientist that got an article published in nature. Nature then had to print a retraction stating that the experiments were not repeatable basically. Can be career threating stuff?
Similar, yes, the same, no. Although this has been linked to homeopathy through Benveniste, it's independent of those claims - This is research done 15 years later, looking at hydrogen bonds within water and dilutions effects on them.
I'm merely trying to make the point that it's easy to be super-cynical, just as it's easy to have blind faith. The answer usually lies somewhere in between. (did I just type that??)
Mosleyk, I'd love to do something like that...maybe an fb.net relay;) The organisers also take entries from individuals and stick them with other individuals to make up teams. Strikes me as a great way of doing it.
Newo, do you have pictures of those crystals? Sounds fantastic.
Pain is temporary, quitting is forever.
|
| Newo |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 16:29:18
quote:
mosleyk
= Cult of Ray =
USA
506 Posts
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 10:37:34
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They used the scientific method to test the power of thought/prayer....I don't want to give away some of the results in the book, but they aren't exactly what you would expect.
A Japanese physicist called Masaru Emoto experimented with exposing water to various words and emotions then froze it and photographed the crystals. When he said words with loving intention behind them, the water molecules rearranged themselves into beautiful symmetrical snowflake shapes and with words spoken with malevolent intent the molecules turned scattered and knotted and chaotic.
To go back offtopic, Oregon is a place I´ve always wanted to visit, I´ve had notions about it since reading lots of Ken Kesey and Raymond Carver when younger. A Californian friend here sez one town she´d like to live in at some stage is Eugene, and she told me about in Portland a cyclist got killed at an intersection so somebody painted a mandala over it to make cars slow down and drive around, which worked so well many intersections have them now.
--
Gravy boat! Stay in the now! |
| Frog in the Sand |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 14:27:40
Back to the topic, I'd say that Oregon is an excellent alternative therapy to treat stress and black thoughts :)
(So is New Mexico, btw.)
-----
blackolero le only Frank Black / Pixies site 100% in français |
| mosleyk |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 14:20:15
Everyone I know who has done the "Hood to Coast" has had a blast! We have several groups here at work that do it every year. Maybe someday you can put together a UK team.
(sorry for going off topic in your thread) |
| Llamadance |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 14:03:38
Coincidentally, I was reading about the Mt. Hood-Oregon relay today, 196 miles....sounds great fun. A guy I know on another forum is running it (well, I guess at least three legs of it.)
Pain is temporary, quitting is forever.
|
| Frog in the Sand |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 12:38:16
Thanks. Something tells me you may well get an email from me before 2008 :)
Oh, and yes, Mt. Hood is a real wonder.
-----
blackolero le only Frank Black / Pixies site 100% in français |
| mosleyk |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 12:07:16
Sounds like you really explored the outdoors. If you ever make your way to Oregon again please feel free to drop me a line. I can tell you about all sorts of places off the beaten path, and some on the path for that matter. For instance, the Ape Caves around Mt. St. Helens and also Mt. Hood oh my gosh and just countless places to go.W e have a lovely view of Mt. Hood from our home. One of the many reasons we don't mind living so far out of Portland.
[URL=http://server3.pictiger.com/img/316625/picture-hosting/sunrise-010.php] [/URL] |
| Frog in the Sand |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 11:39:09
Well, to say the truth I fell in love with every place I visited - Portland, the Powells bookstore, the Coast, the Cascade Range, the Columbia Gorge, Crater Lake, Multnomah Falls, the Painted Hills, Malheur County...
-----
blackolero le only Frank Black / Pixies site 100% in français |
| mosleyk |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 11:24:12
quote:
Originally posted by Frog in the Sand
I just saw you live in Oregon - may I ask you where, exactly? I loove that State.
I must say I like Oregon too (actually I was born in Oregon ;-) I lived in Portland for 10 years and my husband and I moved almost two years ago to a 70 acre farm between Woodburn and Mollala. Do you have an area you were especially taken with? |
| Frog in the Sand |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 11:07:21
quote:
Originally posted by mosleyk
quote:
Originally posted by Frog in the Sand
What do you mean by "what kind"?
-----
blackolero le only Frank Black / Pixies site 100% in français
Sorry I was unclear. I mean what kind of remedy(s) did she use to treat your son.
Uh, I'll ask her :)
All I know is that she uses belladonna to treat high fever, and a mix of various substances, including drosera, to treat dry cough. Both are very effective in most cases.
I just saw you live in Oregon - may I ask you where, exactly? I loove that State.
-----
blackolero le only Frank Black / Pixies site 100% in français |
| Ziggy |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 11:06:33
There's an awful lot of bad science around, and just as many people willing to believe in it and fork out money to charlatans. |
| mosleyk |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 10:37:34
quote:
Originally posted by Newo
Many, not all, state doctors I are wonderful at treating trauma but not much else besides symptomatic treatments, which is what happens when you´re working with this primitive view of the human body as simple meat machine - and would be my bad if I went to one anyway, I feel a person is their own healer.
"Your own healer"...mortal mind...and "we are not material beings....you mean something along the lines of Christian Science? My husband was raised CS and most of his entire family still practices. I have read much of Science and Health (there companion book). Very interesting read really, but if you really want to be blown away with the power of prayer/yourself (if you don't want a god spin on the whole thing) read "Journey into Prayer" They used the scientific method to test the power of thought/prayer....I don't want to give away some of the results in the book, but they aren't exactly what you would expect.
|
| lonely persuader |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 10:33:59
quote:
Originally posted by Llamadance
It has been shown that water has a 'memory' of structures that it retains despite dilution. Whether that has anything to do with homeopathy, I don't know.
[edit] for info - http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3817
Pain is temporary, quitting is forever.
Similar to bienvinste stuff. That has now been discredited. A french scientist that got an article published in nature. Nature then had to print a retraction stating that the experiments were not repeatable basically. Can be career threating stuff? |
| Frog in the Sand |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 10:29:18
quote:
Originally posted by lonely persuader
quote:
Originally posted by Frog in the Sand
My girlfriend uses homeopathy to treat our son and I must say it usually works very well, and even better as a preventive treatment. Obviously it stimulates the immune system, unlike antibiotics.
Obviously??
there is no proof? the reasons the homeopathy quacks give are ridiculous? dilution to near infinite proportions (arse), the more dilute the more potent the effect will be (arse). sounds like any scam.
Oh, dilute it more, and it will be stronger!! sound like a good way to get infinite amounts of a cure!!!
Funny, 4-5 years ago I would have said the same thing...
My son is a living proof to me. Especially when I see that most of his schoolfriends, who are usually treated by antibiotics, are (much) more vulnerable to common infections than him.
-----
blackolero le only Frank Black / Pixies site 100% in français |
| Llamadance |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 10:16:38
It has been shown that water has a 'memory' of structures that it retains despite dilution. Whether that has anything to do with homeopathy, I don't know.
[edit] for info - http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3817
Pain is temporary, quitting is forever.
|
| lonely persuader |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 10:05:55
quote:
Originally posted by Frog in the Sand
My girlfriend uses homeopathy to treat our son and I must say it usually works very well, and even better as a preventive treatment. Obviously it stimulates the immune system, unlike antibiotics.
-----
blackolero le only Frank Black / Pixies site 100% in français
Obviously??
there is no proof? the reasons the homeopathy quacks give are ridiculous? dilution to near infinite proportions (arse), the more dilute the more potent the effect will be (arse). sounds like any scam.
Oh, dilute it more, and it will be stronger!! sound like a good way to get infinite amounts of a cure!!!
|
| mosleyk |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 09:54:22
quote:
Originally posted by Frog in the Sand
What do you mean by "what kind"?
-----
blackolero le only Frank Black / Pixies site 100% in français
Sorry I was unclear. I mean what kind of remedy(s) did she use to treat your son. |
|
|
