Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. 30 Jul '08 04:09
    I'm happy about this (for those in the UK...). It's a good sign when they stop wasting tax dollars on nonsense stuff like homeopathy.

    Hospitals should only be involved in making a real difference in the health of their patients and not be passing off this crap as being legit health care.

    http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kol08/article/default.asp?article_id=45494
  2. 30 Jul '08 08:17
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    I'm happy about this (for those in the UK...). It's a good sign when they stop wasting tax dollars on nonsense stuff like homeopathy.

    Hospitals should only be involved in making a real difference in the health of their patients and not be passing off this crap as being legit health care.

    http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kol08/article/default.asp?article_id=45494
    Fantastic! However, it is a pity it only appears to apply to the Kent area.

    At the bottom of the article it asks two questions that I like to comment about:

    …Has homeopathy worked for you?…

    I think the following question should came before this question “Haven’t you heard of the placebo effect? -if you haven‘t, then look it up before answering the question “Has homeopathy worked for you?” “ if you have heard of the placebo effect but think you cannot be fooled by it, then you are delusional because we all can be fooled by it (including myself if I am not extremely careful).

    …Or is it right to end funding for it because of a "lack of evidence"? …

    Now what a stupid question that is! If the medicine is not evidence-based then it is not part of medical science and therefore it should be assumed to not work until if and when there is good evidence that it works. In the meantime, obviously no money should be wasted on any such unproven medicine.
  3. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    30 Jul '08 08:33
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    Fantastic! However, it is a pity it only appears to apply to the Kent area.

    At the bottom of the article it asks two questions that I like to comment about:

    [b]…Has homeopathy worked for you?…


    I think the following question should came before this question “Haven’t you heard of the placebo effect? -if you haven‘t, then look it up before ...[text shortened]... it works. In the meantime, obviously no money should be wasted on any such unproven medicine.[/b]
    Or 'Do placebo's work on you?' 'If a doctor says take a deep breath, ok do you feel better now?'
  4. 30 Jul '08 12:10
    Once I went to the pharmasists to buy some prescribed medicine. If found that the things was very expencive so I ask the clerc: "Don't you have these in placebo edition?" He became somewhat amused and said: "No, not this one, but some of the medicine I have in store are certainly placebos."

    If I buy placebo instead of the original medicine I can get well - if - I believe in it. That's the point with placebos.

    But in order to get cheaper medicine? No. Only if they are expencive enough I can believe the curing function. Who will belivie in cheap medicine? That's why homeopathic medicine are so expencive.

    But if people believes in hoeopathic drugs, and they think they will be better of it, then why not? If they are getting better (by thought or otherwise) it is well spent money.

    But, if they instead of going to a real doctor take this placebo pills and get worse or even die, then it's not good. So selling homeopathic medicine to cure cancer or other fatal conditions are always wrong.
  5. Standard member forkedknight
    Defend the Universe
    30 Jul '08 15:54 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by FabianFnas

    If I buy placebo instead of the original medicine I can get well - if - I believe in it. That's the point with placebos.
    ...
    But if people believes in hoeopathic drugs, and they think they will be better of it, then why not? If they are getting better (by thought or otherwise) it is well spent money.

    But, if they instead of going to a real doctor od. So selling homeopathic medicine to cure cancer or other fatal conditions are always wrong.
    "If they are getting better (by thought or otherwise) it is well spent money."

    I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with this statement in its entirety. If a doctor thinks a placebo will work for a particular patient, then he should charge for his time and not make the patient pay an exorbitant amount of money to a fake pharmaceutical company. It is NOT an excuse to allow fake medicine to become a multi-million dollar business.

    *fixed*
    selling homeopathic medicine to cure ANY conditions is always wrong.
  6. 30 Jul '08 16:11
    Originally posted by forkedknight
    [b]"If they are getting better (by thought or otherwise) it is well spent money."

    I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with this statement in its entirety. If a doctor thinks a placebo will work for a particular patient, then he should charge for his time and not make the patient pay an exorbitant amount of money to a fake pharmaceutical c ...[text shortened]... ness.

    *fixed*
    selling homeopathic medicine to cure ANY conditions is always wrong.[/b]
    If we don't talk about homeopathy drugs and I ask you: "Is placebo always a bad idea?", what will be your responce?

    And if we *do* talk about homeopathy drugs as placebo and I pose the same question, what will then be your resonce?
  7. Standard member forkedknight
    Defend the Universe
    31 Jul '08 13:29
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    If we don't talk about homeopathy drugs and I ask you: "Is placebo always a bad idea?", what will be your responce?

    And if we *do* talk about homeopathy drugs as placebo and I pose the same question, what will then be your resonce?
    No, I don't think a placebo is a bad idea at all. Like I said before, it should be up to the doctor, and not a fake drug company, to decide if it might be successful and how much the patient should be charged for such a therapy.

    Homeopathic medicine is a FRAUD, and not condoned by any doctors I know. Ones that do are either stupid or have something vested in it.
  8. 31 Jul '08 13:42
    Originally posted by forkedknight
    No, I don't think a placebo is a bad idea at all. Like I said before, it should be up to the doctor, and not a fake drug company, to decide if it might be successful and how much the patient should be charged for such a therapy.

    Homeopathic medicine is a FRAUD, and not condoned by any doctors I know. Ones that do are either stupid or have something vested in it.
    But if they believe in homeopathic drugs, and they feel better taking it, does it matter then if it is sugar pills, grandmothers witchcraft medicine, placebo, or even prayers by the pope? Isn't it the result that counts?

    And yes, the background of homeopathic philosophy is faulty. Using this philosophy to manufacture drugs is faulty. But some of the herbal medicines are not. Many true medicines in the drugstore is from the domain of plants, and has been used for thousand of years.

    But taking any medicine for any symtoms instead of going to the doctor is wrong, always wrong.
  9. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    07 Aug '08 23:09
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    But if they believe in homeopathic drugs, and they feel better taking it, does it matter then if it is sugar pills, grandmothers witchcraft medicine, placebo, or even prayers by the pope? Isn't it the result that counts?

    And yes, the background of homeopathic philosophy is faulty. Using this philosophy to manufacture drugs is faulty. But some of the he ...[text shortened]...
    But taking any medicine for any symtoms instead of going to the doctor is wrong, always wrong.
    Man, and here I was, all set to market my one elephant hair soaked in mineral oil as a homeopathic cure for baldness.
    I guess I'll have to come up with another scam now"
  10. 08 Aug '08 04:20
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Man, and here I was, all set to market my one elephant hair soaked in mineral oil as a homeopathic cure for baldness.
    I guess I'll have to come up with another scam now"
    "one elephant hair soaked in mineral oil" is not homeophatic, it's not within the homeopathic philosophy. Rudolph Steiner, the founder of homeopathics, never used elephant hairs in his medicines.

    If you use the word "Homeopathy" in your title, then it's Homeopathy we should discuss, isnt't it.
  11. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    08 Aug '08 05:08
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    "one elephant hair soaked in mineral oil" is not homeophatic, it's not within the homeopathic philosophy. Rudolph Steiner, the founder of homeopathics, never used elephant hairs in his medicines.

    If you use the word "Homeopathy" in your title, then it's Homeopathy we should discuss, isnt't it.
    Yeah, but then you take it out, dilute it down, dilute it down again, dilute it down again and again and again and you still have essence of elephant hair. That is my understanding of homeopathy.
  12. 08 Aug '08 05:26
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Yeah, but then you take it out, dilute it down, dilute it down again, dilute it down again and again and again and you still have essence of elephant hair. That is my understanding of homeopathy.
    The diluting method is homeopathy, right, but using elephant hair? No, that's chinese medicine, and they don't dilute anything in the spirit of homeopathy.

    Well, some believes in anything, and they mix whatever to have an effect, but when we're talking about homeopathy, no.

    But I happen to believe in the placebo effect, when used intelligently. If they believe in elephant hairs, or sacred water, or anything, they can be well of their medical problems. So let them. But if they try these things instead of going to the doctor and tkae thier prescribed medicine, then it's of course bad.
  13. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    08 Aug '08 05:48
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    The diluting method is homeopathy, right, but using elephant hair? No, that's chinese medicine, and they don't dilute anything in the spirit of homeopathy.

    Well, some believes in anything, and they mix whatever to have an effect, but when we're talking about homeopathy, no.

    But I happen to believe in the placebo effect, when used intelligently. If t ...[text shortened]... instead of going to the doctor and tkae thier prescribed medicine, then it's of course bad.
    It's funny about the placebo effect. That is exactly what makes Shaman's stay in business. Waving rattles, acting other-worldly, etc.,
    getting the patient to believe you are doing something to have an effect. So you get better, everyone is happy, you produced a good effect! I know of which I speak here, my wife is one. She has clients who come into the music/healing room, lie down on a massage table, she does the rattle thing, checking chakra's, "energy fields', etc., they go away happy, she gets 75 bucks an hour....
  14. 08 Aug '08 21:28
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    It's funny about the placebo effect. That is exactly what makes Shaman's stay in business. Waving rattles, acting other-worldly, etc.,
    getting the patient to believe you are doing something to have an effect. So you get better, everyone is happy, you produced a good effect! I know of which I speak here, my wife is one. She has clients who come into the mus ...[text shortened]... checking chakra's, "energy fields', etc., they go away happy, she gets 75 bucks an hour....
    The 75 bucks is a very important thing about rattling placebo. If your wife was charging 5 bucks only, then the effect would be less. So a high price boost the placebo. Because $75 worth of rattling must be much more efficient than 5$ of rattling, mustn't it?

    Who is to blame? They who charge or they who pay? Both are of free will, are they not?
  15. 08 Aug '08 23:01
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    The 75 bucks is a very important thing about rattling placebo. If your wife was charging 5 bucks only, then the effect would be less. So a high price boost the placebo. Because $75 worth of rattling must be much more efficient than 5$ of rattling, mustn't it?

    Who is to blame? They who charge or they who pay? Both are of free will, are they not?
    Who is to blame? They who charge or they who pay? Both are of free will, are they not?

    Isn't that a bit like asking who is to blame, the con man or the victim of the con?

    I say it's the con man. The person deceiving the other person to believe what they are doing is something it isn't is to blame.