Should Homeopathy be illegal?

Originally posted by rem
R-S doesn't even know what we are talking about when we use the term Homeopathy. R-S has some book with the word "Homeopathy" on the cover and believes that every remedy inside the book is Homeopathic. The remedy that R-S described is clearly NOT a Homeopathic remedy - it is an herbal remedy.

I also believe that R-S thinks that the higher the X value, the HIGHER the concentration of the medication. This is the opposite of Homeopathy in which the higher numbers mean a more dilute substance. R-S clearly does not understand what he/she is arguing.

In the words of Abraham Lincoln: "Better to remain silent and to be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

rem
Better to be a fool, than be a cold hearted cynic http://www.smilies.nl/eviltongue.gif

Strange as a homeopath gave me it and its in many homeopathic books.
Herbalism and homeopathy cross over if you so in the know would know that too.
So a book on homeopathy is wrong now is it?

You dont know what I think so dont make assumptions until your qualifed to do so and your not. How is 200x weaker than 30x then not what I have read .

Originally posted by xouper
If it's a 30C dilution of codeine, then yes. A 200C dilution would be even more effective.

http://www.plauder-smilies.com/happy/roflmao.gif


How is adding more codine going to stop your addiction then?http://www.smilies.nl/eviltongue.gif this should be interesting

[Lothian]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
How is adding more codine going to stop your addiction then?http://www.smilies.nl/eviltongue.gif this should be interesting .(I could be pedantic here but won't) a 200C solution has less codine in it than a 30C solution.

RS much as you dislike maths you really need to understand what is going on here.

Homeopathy is a title that may originally have applied to a certain principals but this has obviously been expanded.

The people you are arguing with do not claim that no homeopathic solution works. Homeopathic medicines come in different strengths. Strangely a strong solution has less of the active ingredient than a week one. Where there is some of the active ingredient in the medicine there is a possibility that it could work.

Why people argue against homeopathy is that the homeopaths say that even when the solution has been diluted so much there is none of the active ingredient left it still works. Science says all that can be working is what is left ie water (or alcohol), and you would get a the same effect as a non homeopathic dose of water / alcohol.

The problem is that most homeopathic medicines are sold at strengths where none of the active ingredient is left, so people tend to write them all off. Personally I don't write off homeopathic medicines with active ingredients left. Like cures like is an appealing catchphrase however I can't understand why the people who sell these cures don't submit them for proper government testing. Any prescription drug has to be tested to show it works and is safe. I would not want to take anything that hadn't been through these procedures. There is certainly no lack of money in the alternative medicine industry so I can only conclude that these drugs are not put through formal testing because they either don't work or are not safe.

Originally posted by Lothian
[B Like cures like is an appealing catchphrase however I can't understand why the people who sell these cures don't submit them for proper government testing. Any prescription drug has to be tested to show it works and is safe. I would not want to take anything that hadn't been through these procedures. There is certainly no lack of money in the alternative medicine industry so I can only conclude that these drugs are not put through formal testing because they either don't work or are not safe. [/B]

Well, umm, perhaps the answer would go something like this:

"Since the Congressional "reforms" of the mid-90s, we can make any claim we like about the curative power of our solutions, AND we no longer have to prove our solutions work. So NOW we make millions off of them, but if we DID prove they worked, then we would be proving they were powerful, which would mean the FDA would have jurisdiction over them. THEREFORE, submitting our solutions to independent clinical trials would have a bad outcome either way -- we would either prove they were useless, in which case we could go on selling them, or we would prove they worked, and then they would be regulated."

The best of both worlds is the current situation: the Homeopaths cannot be forced to prove that their solutions are curative, but they cannot be restricted until the American people grow up and insist that their government again make and enforce pure food and drug laws.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by JRWoodward


Well, umm, perhaps the answer would go something like this:

"Since the Congressional "reforms" of the mid-90s, we can make any claim we like about the curative power of our solutions, AND we no longer have to prove our solutions work. So NOW we make millions off of them, but if we DID prove they worked, then we would be proving they were powerful, which would mean the FDA would have jurisdiction over them. THEREFORE, submitting our solutions to independent clinical trials would have a bad outcome either way -- we would either prove they were useless, in which case we could go on selling them, or we would prove they worked, and then they would be regulated."

The best of both worlds is the current situation: the Homeopaths cannot be forced to prove that their solutions are curative, but they cannot be restricted until the American people grow up and insist that their government again make and enforce pure food and drug laws.

Not so in the UK. Homeopathic medicines must make no claims that they work.legislation for homoeopathic medicines
In order to qualify for registration the products must:
· be for oral or external use. This includes all methods of administration with the exception of injections;
· be sufficiently dilute to guarantee their safety;
· make no therapeutic claims

Should Homeopathy be illegal, answered by radiating-sunflower? 'No, the only time that it should be, is when one of the individual remedies has been proven that it has no active ingredient in its makeup, or does not work at all.'

Radiating-sunflower ' I know what I know solely based on what I have come across, I am not a homeopath or a scientist I can only comment on what I have learnt in taking an interest in this subject, these are my own personal views and they are based on what I have read about it, people I have talked to, and what I have actually experienced'

Radiating-sunflower ' I'm open to other ideas that prove either way and on receiving these will make a uniform judgement to whether I change my personal views or not.'

Radiating-sunflower ' I have the experienced both the good and bad of most medical cures. And on that basis I call upon that as a back up for my own views. Paper trials when compared to actual experience pale into insignificance.'

Radiating-sunflower' Addiction to OTC drugs is rising as per links show. Once in the body like that of an alcoholic it remains'

Ma'at, Only a view that a recovering alcoholic or another OTC addict would know about.

Radiating-sunflower' Modern medicine can cause more illnesses than they cure by there side effects, not in all cases but is a rising tide.'

Ma'at, A debate that is raging currently about whether modern medicines should be allowed to continue to be used with some serious side effects/any side effects that are worse or additional to the original symptom. The cure should not mean another illness that is less than the original symptom is preferable. A medicinal cure should mean just that a cure; the end does not justify the means.

The answer has been answered, the arguments goal posts have now been moved, redefintion is needed to what is now required or has been asked.

xouper 'Yes, please stop. I'm bored too, of reading your incoherent blatherings and unsubstantiated assertions on the topic of homeopathy.Originally posted by dmarker
So more codine should help your body overcome your addiction?
If it's a 30C dilution of codeine, then yes. A 200C dilution would be even more effective.

Radiating-sunflower 'How is adding more codine going to stop addiction?

Lothian'.(I could be pedantic here but won't) a 200C solution has less codine in it than a 30C solution'

Ma'at, xouper ridiculous statement to make and narrow minded. Radiaitn -sunflower has made her own substaniated views ones she basd onwhat she read and what she personally experienced. If you have decided that she is was an expert and now have found she is not in this field you cannot justify your response by saying she isnt qualifed when she has stimpulated all along she is not qualifed in this area and all views are her own from gained experince. She has been consistent.

Ma'at, Lothian radiating-sunflower appears not to care about the x factor, she expressed a view that homeopathy should not be made illegal, she has agreed many times that the remedies are diluted. I see no reason to continue arguing over a part that she has already agreed with previously several times and does not dispute. Again the goal post have moved and what is unclear is what is actually required, are you solely here to trash her own personal views, or to debate about whether homeopathy should be made illegal?
As for 200c and 30 c of codine then perhaps you should redirect it back xouper as did radiating-sunflower for answering.



Going around in circles with her and yet she stills hold true to her own beliefs.

[xouper]

Originally posted by Ma'at
xouper ridiculous statement to make and narrow minded.You quoted two different comments of mine. To which were you referring with your remark, my dear Egyptian Goddess of Truth?

If it was my comment about the 200C codeine, then perhaps you didn't get the joke. The smiley face rolling on the floor laughing should have been a clue it was a joke.

If it was my comment about sunflower's incoherent blatherings on homeopathy, then I offer up as proof of my assertion her previous posts in this thread wherein she blathers on incoherently about homepathy and giving the impression she doesn't have a clue what anyone's talking about.

For example:

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
How is adding more codine going to stop your addiction then?It won't. And that's the point. It's a bit of sarcasm intended as a criticism of the homeopathic principle of "like cures like".

The other part of the joke is that homeopathic practitioners claim that a weaker dilution is actually a stronger remedy. So even though 200C is a weaker dilution than 30C, the claim is that 200C is somehow more effective as a remedy. Now that's what I would call ridiculous.

I am impresed you know my name meaning of truth and justice xouper.
Have you considered that she may not know what you are on about, therefore is confused by the moving goal posts of this debate?
Not everyone is a genius and not everyone understands the same thing.

Try explianing your needs wants desire proof clearly, rather than ripping her apart, you may gain a different response.

[xouper]

Originally posted by Ma'at
Try explianing your needs wants desire proof clearly, rather than ripping her apart, you may gain a different response. Perhaps you haven't noticed that several people (including myself) have already tried that without success. Maybe you could give it a try and let me know how it goes.

Lets go again from a different angle. This is from me looking outwards at what you say.

You lot say homeopathy doesnt work and to ignore it basically? Yes or No

There isnt any proof it works scientifically or any that satisfies your indivdual requirements. Yes or No

As I said I believe it does in certain cases, so in essence what you are saying is I cannot believe it does and be a sheep, as scientifc tests have not been preformed and any that had concluded the remedies selected proved they had nothing in them? Yes or No

So as I am taking a homeopathic healing agent that helps me get through the day relatively in peace hypothetically I am to stop using it because my beliefs mean diddly squat? Yes or No

So what you are really saying is that I have to suffer as with any other user of homeopathy when modern medicines is no longer any help to us and if I/we take it despite not believing it works I/we contradict myself/ourselves? Yes or No

Arent you playing god with my/others life/lives by saying that. Telling us what we can take because science knows best and not what we find helps us lead normal lives?

Originally posted by xouper
Perhaps you haven't noticed that several people (including myself) have already tried that without success. Maybe you could give it a try and let me know how it goes.




You have:confused: so far all I have seen is numbers confirming dilution which I already agreed on, ordering me to confirm my own personal view that I gathered by reading all available data at the time I looked into it, All I did was look up relevent infoyes alot of it is duplicated) on the net, read books(the docotr gave me) talk to homeopaths and some of the people it had helped thenI made up my mind I tried it it got me though at that time instead of me slicing my wrists which was a very viable option at that time. Now you expect me to produce scientific data to pander you with. All I have is availble on the internet and is what I have said all along, which you ignored because the fighting was what youwanted not the information.(to all as well)

Then you have the audacity to say i'm stupid and not qualifed to speak. I have the experience of it that speak volumes. Any of you tried it????
If no what makes you so right and to trivalise my experience of it and what I know about it.
I agreed witha lot of what you said you ignored it, its my opinon and several other users, it helps, who are you to say we have to suffer our own choices to belive in something?

[Lothian]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
Lets go again from a different angle. This is from me looking outwards at what you say.

You lot say homeopathy doesnt work and to ignore it basically? Yes or No
Basically we say it works as well as chemically identical substances.


There isnt any proof it works scientifically or any that satisfies your indivdual requirements. Yes or No
There is no proof it works better than any placebo. (placebos work very well for certain ailments)

As I said I believe it does in certain cases, so in essence what you are saying is I cannot believe it does and be a sheep, as scientifc tests have not been preformed and any that had concluded the remedies selected proved they had nothing in them? Yes or No You can believe what you want. But Homeopaths and scientists agree there is no ‘active’ substance in some homeopathic cures. The difference is that homeopaths claim the water remembers something being there and cures as if it still was there. No proper test has confirmed this.


So as I am taking a homeopathic healing agent that helps me get through the day relatively in peace hypothetically I am to stop using it because my beliefs mean diddly squat? Yes or No If it works for you take it. What we say is that (providing the agent has no active elements in it) you are benefiting from the placebo effect. The agent is not remembering what was there and giving you peace.



So what you are really saying is that I have to suffer as with any other user of homeopathy when modern medicines is no longer any help to us? Yes or NoYou can take what you want but that does not mean homeopathy works

Arent you playing god with my life by saying that?No

[xouper]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
Then you have the audacity to say i'm stupid and not qualifed to speak. I have the experience of it that speak volumes. Any of you tried it???? If no what makes you so right and to trivalise my experience of it and what I know about it.I don't agree with your opinions. Nonetheless, I apologize for being rude.

[bignickel]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
didnt say I didnt understand I said I dont do numbers or maths, I hate it.

I dont make the medicine up, so the numbers mean diddly squat to me. In other words I am not interested in number just the what it does or doesnt do.

Butthead: I, like, hate numbers.
Beavis: Yeah, there's, like, too many of 'em and stuff!

[Flatworm]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower

no to make 30x its 30 tubes and each tube is made twice not its made each tube 30 times that is wrong, not what I read in front of me. and put up.

I can't quite make out what you're talking about- but you seem to be suggesting that my representation of the homeopathic notation of dilutions is wrong.

I'd like to see your source for this. Every other homeopathic reference I can find uses the above system:

http://www.mrbean.net.au/~wlast/Homeopathy.html

http://www.pegasuskits.com/homeopathy.htm

http://caninefilmacademy.com/CFACDManual/Data/Extras/Homeopathy.html

http://www.normanallan.com/Med/hombro.html

http://www.greencanyon.com/products/r100080.htm

http://medicinegarden.com/Homeopathy/Potencies.html

Need I continue?

[Flatworm]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower

Why and to waht scrutiny wach of have a differnt level so what level is is assessed by? If there is no level then how can it be justified to demand such like?

I'm at a loss to parse this paragraph.

[Flatworm]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower


lost me now completely my source my back logged data on the hardrive several boks and internet oh and my brain.


Did you author all of those articles that appear everywhere on the web? If not, then using material verbatim without attribution is called plagiarism, pure and simple.


if that s what human I am not dishonest I put up what I found when I looked into it years back and added to it along the way.


The material was not added to. Please refer to the links where the entire text appears verbatim. If you want to "put up what you found", that's fine- but you should make it clear the material is not your own and name the source.


I am never dishonest and that statement is untrue how dare you say such a thing tome and suggest tht I am deeply offended by that imeensily.


I provided strong evidence to support my claim, unless you authored all those articles online. Haven't you ever heard of plagiarism? Have you ever submitted an essay at the high school level?


NoI dont data lofg every book or article I take waht I need to make my mind up on somthing and as my surgeon suggested it as wellas my docotr I investigated it, I found it didnt provide me particulary well in all ailments. I willnot justify to you my caring side. period.

I never criticized your 'caring side'- I criticized your belief without scientific evidence in a claim that both flies in the face of simple knowledge of chemistry and has been proven false on many occasions.

[Flatworm]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower

Better to be a fool, than be a cold hearted cynic http://www.smilies.nl/eviltongue.gif


Do you honestly think anyone here is cold-hearted? Why- because they don't buy into this fairy tale? I don't see how getting people to spend money on ineffective sugar pills is terribly caring or humanitarian.


You dont know what I think so dont make assumptions until your qualifed to do so and your not. How is 200x weaker than 30x then not what I have read .

Read further.

[Flatworm]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower

You lot say homeopathy doesnt work and to ignore it basically? Yes or No


The principles of homeopathy have been shown to be false, yes.


There isnt any proof it works scientifically or any that satisfies your indivdual requirements. Yes or No


Exactly.


As I said I believe it does in certain cases, so in essence what you are saying is I cannot believe it does and be a sheep, as scientifc tests have not been preformed and any that had concluded the remedies selected proved they had nothing in them? Yes or No


You can believe anything you want, but if you're interested in having true beliefs, you have to listen to what the evidence is telling you.


So as I am taking a homeopathic healing agent that helps me get through the day relatively in peace hypothetically I am to stop using it because my beliefs mean diddly squat? Yes or No

So what you are really saying is that I have to suffer as with any other user of homeopathy when modern medicines is no longer any help to us and if I/we take it despite not believing it works I/we contradict myself/ourselves? Yes or No


I'm not going to tell you to stop using it; I just want you to be informed about what it really is you're taking and whether there's any objective reason to believe the effect isn't all in your head.

Do you care what's true?


Arent you playing god with my/others life/lives by saying that. Telling us what we can take because science knows best and not what we find helps us lead normal lives?

No one here is trying to force anything on you. I think many here simply want to protect consumers from fraud- because that's what homeopathic preparations are above 12C/24X dilution. Below that level both homeopathy and herbalism are very much like pharmacology, except without the accountability.

[xouper]

Originally posted by Flatworm
I'm at a loss to parse this paragraph. I am too. But it would be rude to characterize it as incoherent, so I won't.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Ma'at
A debate that is raging currently about whether modern medicines should be allowed to continue to be used with some serious side effects/any side effects that are worse or additional to the original symptom. Which modern medicines have side effects that are worse than the original symptom?

[RichardR]

I would like to remind anyone reading this that I have only asked radiating-sunflower if she has any backup for two of her claims, namely:

[list=1]
”you treat same with same that cures the whole “

There is no evidence for this. RS has offered no evidence. In addition, there is not even any suggested method by which this is supposed to work. I have merely asked RS to consider the possibility that it is not true.

”Half of all illnesses around are caused by the side effects of modern medicines”

No evidence was offered for this, although some articles were posted describing some side-effects. RS later appeared to say that she didn’t really mean “half of all illnesses” (I was being “pendantic on words”), but then reversed again and said she did mean half of all illnesses. I regard this claim as being dishonest and dangerous, and (once again), modern medicine is being unjustly labeled the bad guy. And this from someone who calls others cynical.
[/list=1]

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Flatworm

Do you honestly think anyone here is cold-hearted?

Time to 'fess up: I am cold-hearted. I can supply witnesses who will testify to that effect.

[Foodbunny]

I consider it cold-hearted for people to sell "cures" to desperate people without testing it to make sure it works. That's a scam, a cold-hearted greed-driven scam.

[Elaborate]

You lot say homeopathy doesnt work and to ignore it basically? Yes or No
Correct

There isnt any proof it works scientifically or any that satisfies your indivdual requirements. Yes or No
It does not work beyond the placebo effect

As I said I believe it does in certain cases, so in essence what you are saying is I cannot believe it does and be a sheep, as scientifc tests have not been preformed and any that had concluded the remedies selected proved they had nothing in them? Yes or No
You can believe it if you want to, but you will be wrong. Scientific tests have been performed, and they have shown that homeopathy is useless.

So as I am taking a homeopathic healing agent that hypothetically I am to stop using it because my beliefs mean diddly squat? Yes or No
Well, the fact that it helps you "get through the day relatively in peace " is not due to the homeopathic "medicine", it is due to your belief that it will work. This is known as the placebo effect. Five cent sugar pills work just as well, if you believe they will.

So what you are really saying is that I have to suffer as with any other user of homeopathy when modern medicines is no longer any help to us...
If modern medicine cannot help you, homeopathy certainly can't. It has absolutely no medicinal value.

and if I/we take it despite not believing it works I/we contradict myself/ourselves? Yes or No
Yes and no. If you do not believe in it, it will not work (i.e. the placebo effect). If you know it won't work, why waste your money on it?

Arent you playing god with my/others life/lives by saying that. Telling us what we can take because science knows best and not what we find helps us lead normal lives?
I just want to rid the world of the scam artists and parasites that make money off of innocent people by selling fake medicine.

HEY ADMINISTRATORS:

Ed sez: Yeah, yeah. What? Oh, spam is it laddie? Well now can't be having that. Now, you can beat me to it and find and delete your own spam or I will do it for you. Consider yourself warned.

[Dub]

Originally posted by S&S
HEY ADMINISTRATORS:

Why don't you move this thread to the "PARANORMAL or SCIENCE forum"?

Or you just were afraid of "the Carlos Swett affair "?

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/show...3874#post253874

Thanks,
S&S

Hey why dont you stop posting the same stupid message on every thread in the forum.

[Doctor X]

Gang:

RichardR makes an important statement concerning Radiating-Sunflower's failure to support some rather interesting statements. I, too, would like to see the support.

Without evidence anyone can write anything, and this all devolves into another fallacy-laden waste of time.

With all due respect to Radiating-Sunflower I must recommend expending more time when constructing replies. I do not demean anyone's command of English; however, the multiple errors make undestanding the message very diffficult, if not impossible.

--J.D.

Originally posted by RichardR
Which modern medicines have side effects that are worse than the original symptom?

It was an article written in a local newspaper or a netnews item about some people debating about wether modern medicine should be sold with any side effects or not. As I have do not save any such information, I can't post it up for you to read unfortunetly.

I dont remember reading about any actual medication or brands that were named in it. It was just a short peice hardly any more than a few paragraphs.

I actually said.

Ma'at, A debate that is raging currently about whether modern medicines should be allowed to continue to be used with some serious side effects/any side effects that are worse or additional to the original symptom. The cure should not mean another illness that is less than the original symptom is preferable. A medicinal cure should mean just that a cure; the end does not justify the means.

[Corsair09]

Originally posted by Ma'at

It was just a short peice hardly any more than a few paragraphs.




Hardly sounds like a "raging" controversy then, does it?

Originally posted by Ma'at
Ma'at, A debate that is raging currently about whether modern medicines should be allowed to continue to be used with some serious side effects/any side effects that are worse or additional to the original symptom. The cure should not mean another illness that is less than the original symptom is preferable. A medicinal cure should mean just that a cure; the end does not justify the means.


Ma'at, where is this article, please? Full citation, please.

Any side effect is "additional to the original symptom." How can it not be? And how can you have a drug with no side effects when it has been repeatedly demonstrated that study subjects report side effects from placebos? Furthermore, given this, how can homeopathetic apologists claim no side effects from their concoctions?

Worse than the original symptom? That just doesn't happen in the general case. Evidence, please.

Cheers,

Originally posted by Corsair09


Hardly sounds like a "raging" controversy then, does it?

The article was a brief synopsis of the "DEBATE" I said not controversy which was raging I had no particular interest in reading it so did not click to see the whole piece.

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Ma'at, where is this article, please? Full citation, please.

Any side effect is "additional to the original symptom." How can it not be? And how can you have a drug with no side effects when it has been repeatedly demonstrated that study subjects report side effects from placebos? Furthermore, given this, how can homeopathetic apologists claim no side effects from their concoctions?

Worse than the original symptom? That just doesn't happen in the general case. Evidence, please.

Cheers,

Please re-read what I actually said above and not the few words you want to use, it answers your question quite fully.

It was a netnews item, I had read it while I was working, my colleague remembers me mentioning another article that was on the same page.

It was an article written in a local newspaper or a netnews item about some people debating about wether modern medicine should be sold with any side effects or not. As I do not save any such information, I can't post it up for you to read unfortunetly.

I dont remember reading about any actual medication or brands that were named in it. It was just a short peice hardly any more than a few paragraphs.

I actually said.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ma'at, A debate that is raging currently about whether modern medicines should be allowed to continue to be used with some serious side effects/any side effects that are worse or additional to the original symptom. The cure should not mean another illness that is less than the original symptom is preferable. A medicinal cure should mean just that a cure; the end does not justify the means

Originally posted by Ma'at
Please re-read what I actually said above and not the few words you want to use, it answers your question fully.

Are you now claiming you did not write this:
Originally posted by Ma'at
Ma'at, A debate that is raging currently about whether modern medicines should be allowed to continue to be used with some serious side effects/any side effects that are worse or additional to the original symptom. The cure should not mean another illness that is less than the original symptom is preferable. A medicinal cure should mean just that a cure; the end does not justify the means.

If that is not what you are claiming then where did my response go awry?

Also, where is that citation?

Cheers,

Any side effect is "additional to the original symptom." How can it not be?

I did not say that at all please read what is actually written.

The "debate" was about the side effects of modern medicines and should there be any, if they are worse than the original ailment or create another ailment, that was the synopsis of the article written commenting on what they were debating over.

Billy you have misread me totally, I am not saying I did'nt write that posting at all I would prefer if you didnt say such things either.

I posted a particular piece that I had remembered reading about and as I have already written I do not save netnews items and do not have that article to put up you also have taken that item out of context.

Do you understand now?

[Flatworm]

Originally posted by Ma'at

The "debate" was about the side effects of modern medicines and should there be any, if they are worse than the original ailment or create another ailment, that was the synopsis of the article written commenting on what they were debating over.


How can any thinking person spend time on this question? Imagine banning medication that prevents heart attacks because it causes dry mouth in 10% of patients! As to drugs that cause side effects worse than the condition they treat, I've never heard of a doctor insisting on the continued use of such a drug is such side effects develop. How many times do you see on the side of OTC drugs "if such-and-such occurs, discontinue use"?

It's a non-debate.

Originally posted by Flatworm


How can any thinking person spend time on this question? Imagine banning medication that prevents heart attacks because it causes dry mouth in 10% of patients! As to drugs that cause side effects worse than the condition they treat, I've never heard of a doctor insisting on the continued use of such a drug is such side effects develop. How many times do you see on the side of OTC drugs "if such-and-such occurs, discontinue use"?

It's a non-debate.

Exactly my thoughts Flatworm, which is why I wasnt interested in reading more than the brief synopsis that was there.

To ban any medicine because it causes a side effect would leave very little left, and alot of people worse off. If they were planning on banning any medication that casues severe side effects then I could see the point of the debate, but that wasnt it they were debating all medication/side effects which is why it was probably raging..

Originally posted by Ma'at


Billy you have misread me totally, I am not saying I did'nt write that posting at all I would prefer if you didnt say such things either.

I posted a particular piece that I had remembered reading about and as I have already written[b]I do not save netnews items and do not have that article to put upyou also have taken that item out of context. [ /B]

Here is your line, once again. I will parse it, step by step. You tell me where I misread you, OK?

"A debate that is raging currently about whether modern medicines should be allowed to continue to be used with some serious side effects/any side effects that are worse or additional to the original symptom."

Step 1: (remove some modifiers, etc.)
"A debate... about whether ... medicines should be allowed ... some serious side effects/any side effects that are worse or additional to the original symptom."

Step 2: (remove debate stuff, to reduce it to the claim about medicines)
"...medicines [have] ... some serious side effects/any side effects that are worse or additional to the original symptom."

Step 3: (parse and clarify the logic a bit)
"...medicines [have] ... some serious side effects OR (any side effects that are worse OR additional to the original symptom.)"

Step 4: (Separate into the various claims):
a. "medicines [have] ... some serious side effects" OR
b. "medicines [have] ... any side effects that are worse ...[than] the original symptom" OR
c. "medicines [have]... any side effects that are ... additional to the original symptom"

OK, there they are, all three of them.
4a. Yes , some have serious side effects.

4b. As I said, where is the evidence that this occurs in the general case?

4c. As I said, side effects are, by definiton, "additional." And, as I said, study subjects always claim side effects from placebos. Given this, how can you ever NOT have side effects?

Do you now understand what you said? And will you now please answer my questions about your assertions?

Cheers,

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Ma'at
It was an article written in a local newspaper or a netnews item about some people debating about wether modern medicine should be sold with any side effects or not. As I have do not save any such information, I can't post it up for you to read unfortunetly.

I dont remember reading about any actual medication or brands that were named in it. It was just a short peice hardly any more than a few paragraphs. So you don’t know what you were referring to when you said”

”A debate that is raging currently about whether modern medicines should be allowed to continue to be used with some serious side effects/any side effects that are worse or additional to the original symptom. The cure should not mean another illness that is less than the original symptom is preferable. A medicinal cure should mean just that a cure; the end does not justify the means.”

Can I now take it that you are withdrawing your above statement?

Originally posted by Doctor X
Gang:

RichardR makes an important statement concerning Radiating-Sunflower's failure to support some rather interesting statements. I, too, would like to see the support.

Without evidence anyone can write anything, and this all devolves into another fallacy-laden waste of time.

With all due respect to Radiating-Sunflower I must recommend expending more time when constructing replies. I do not demean anyone's command of English; however, the multiple errors make undestanding the message very diffficult, if not impossible.

--J.D.

I suffer from dyslexic fingers I cant help it my grammers rubbish sorry my command on english is terrible for a english girl sorry, I dont and havent written correctly for years I dont need it in my job, sorry.

I dont know what they ant they say one thing and then boom it means somthing else, I have only what I gathered for myslef whenI was told to try it by my then Doctor, I didnt keep names or lists of where I gathered parts I thought relevent to helpme understand homeopathy, I keep saying it and it just gets spun round again and I then get called a plague.

I dont understand what you/they want or need, you ask me for things I never said I had, I never said I wrote it myself but flatworm keeps saying I did.

I cant give you things if you just contradict and say I said something else can I, you cant expect me to and I wont.

Talk to me in idiots terms I cantry and workout what you mean then maybe.

I never wrote anything nor have I scientific data all I have is extracts I copied to read offline from varing sources some from the sites I posted up some books I once read that is it the rest is by experince. I cant verify, but experience as its mine unless anybody else has gone through it (my type of illness) you wont understand what it feels like to be dumped by modern medincine practisioners to get on with our wrecked lives and then find people like the skeptics trashing something that could help does help even if its placebo effect only, that playing god.

I wouldnt even do that to my enemies.

Does that make sense?

moi honest.

Originally posted by RichardR
So you don’t know what you were referring to when you said”

”A debate that is raging currently about whether modern medicines should be allowed to continue to be used with some serious side effects/any side effects that are worse or additional to the original symptom. The cure should not mean another illness that is less than the original symptom is preferable. A medicinal cure should mean just that a cure; the end does not justify the means.”

Can I now take it that you are withdrawing your above statement?

Ma'at said she partly read an article statement online news or soemthing like that about a debate about whether modern medicines should be allowed to be used with side eeffects or not, she didnt read all of it and just ignored it until something reminded her of it and she posted it up.

Why do you keep on going around in circles just winding up people when they say consistently dont have that information and wasnt interested to read it fully, Ma'at said that clearly enough many times and still you persist in asking for something she doesnt have?

Not hard to understand is it. Ma'at read it in passing and that was it not data stored logged or anything like that just a comment in passing.

moi being blamed for somebody elses posting.

billy I do not save netnews items and do not have that article to put up think thats what Ma'at pointing at you consistently.

moi quoting Ma'at.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
Why do you keep on going around in circles just winding up people when they say consistently dont have that information and wasnt interested to read it fully, Ma'at said that clearly enough many times and still you persist in asking for something she doesnt have?What i'm saying is if she doesn't have any backup for the statement, she should withdraw it.

Why make a claim about something so important, when you really have no idea if it is true? That's what puzzles me.

Originally posted by RichardR
What i'm saying is if she doesn't have any backup for the statement, she should withdraw it.

Why make a claim about something so important, when you really have no idea if it is true? That's what puzzles me. Why should Ma'at it was a passing comment if its in the news and it remeinded her of somethig we were harping on about whats the problem and why withdraw it she made it clear what is was etc.

If said the skys blue today I dont save the information why should I withdraw it if the skys green tomorrow.

Comments only comments in passing why cant you accpet that whythe ned for conrete proof over everything said?


Do you demand concrete proof over news items said on the TV or in the papers?

moi

As for like cures like its one of the principles that define homeopathy. Thats what I put up I had that part saved asI was curious about that principle. I posted what I had go read about homeopathy and its principles dont ask me to define what they follow I am not a homeopath.

psychopath maybe :D LMAO

moi

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
billy I do not save netnews items and do not have that article to put up think thats what Ma'at pointing at you consistently.

I read an article once that says Randi is a cabbage from duluth, on the planet rafflesdrof, who speaks venutian, and is therefore untrustworthy.

I can't remember where I read that, so I can't give you the source, and I'm just posting here not to defend it, but to be able to impugn Randi and get away with it.

Get it?

Cheers,

[Drooper]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


I read an article once that says Randi is a cabbage from duluth, on the planet rafflesdrof, who speaks venutian, and is therefore untrustworthy.


I know this was VERIFIED double blind experiments by SCIENTISTS. It appeared in ACADEMIC JOURNALS. It MUST be true.

Originally posted by BillHoyt


I read an article once that says Randi is a cabbage from duluth, on the planet rafflesdrof, who speaks venutian, and is therefore untrustworthy.

I can't remember where I read that, so I can't give you the source, and I'm just posting here not to defend it, but to be able to impugn Randi and get away with it.

Get it?

Cheers, I do so why do you keep asking for information about the article still then?

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
I do so why do you keep asking for information about the article still then?
I am not now asking for the article. I am pointing out to Ma'at that his paragraph makes little sense. I parsed the statement apart and showed that there were three claims, either made in the article or made by Ma'at, or both. They are:
Step 4: (Separate into the various claims):
a. "medicines [have] ... some serious side effects" OR
b. "medicines [have] ... any side effects that are worse ...[than] the original symptom" OR
c. "medicines [have]... any side effects that are ... additional to the original symptom"
I then responded to these three claims:
OK, there they are, all three of them.
4a. Yes , some have serious side effects.
4b. As I said, where is the evidence that this occurs in the general case?
4c. As I said, side effects are, by definiton, "additional." And, as I said, study subjects always claim side effects from placebos. Given this, how can you ever NOT have side effects?

And I still await answers.

Cheers,

Originally posted by BillHoyt

I am not now asking for the article. I am pointing out to Ma'at that his paragraph makes little sense. I parsed the statement apart and showed that there were three claims, either made in the article or made by Ma'at, or both. They are:

I then responded to these three claims:

And I still await answers.

Cheers, Ma'at is female billy

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
Ma'at is female billy
Thank you for the correction.

Cheers,

[RichardR]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
Why should Ma'at it was a passing comment if its in the news and it remeinded her of somethig we were harping on about whats the problem and why withdraw it she made it clear what is was etc.I don’t need proof that the sky was blue and not green. “The sky is blue” is not an extraordinary claim. (Well, maybe it is in England in the winter, but you know what I mean. ;) )

The difference is that Ma’at’s claim was an extraordinary claim. Such a claim requires proof. Otherwise we could all make claims. I’ll make one. Homeopathic medicines make the illnesses worse for 50% of people taking them. And 5% results in death. There – that’s worse than your claim for modern medicines, so I win.

Do you now see how ridiculous that line of debate is? Why we must provide proof for our extraordinary claims, if we are to be taken seriously?

[RichardR]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
As for like cures like its one of the principles that define homeopathy. Thats what I put up I had that part saved asI was curious about that principle. I posted what I had go read about homeopathy and its principles dont ask me to define what they follow I am not a homeopath.

psychopath maybe :D LMAO We know that is one of the principles of homeopathy. And it is wrong.

[xouper]

Originally posted by RichardR
Homeopathic medicines make the illnesses worse for 50% of people taking them. And 5% results in death. There – that’s worse than your claim for modern medicines, so I win. And you've won on more than one level.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Dub
Given the results of the Horizon tests, should it now be illegal to advertise the benefits of Homeopathic cures?

As Horizon didn't disprove homeopathy, then the point is moot.
Horizon actually provided more positive than negative evidence.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
As Horizon didn't disprove homeopathy, then the point is moot.
Horizon actually provided more positive than negative evidence.
Y'know, science can't disprove I have a pink unicorn in my garage, either. That must mean something!

Far more laughable, though, is your second sentence. What positive evidence did it provide?

Cheers,

[xouper]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Horizon actually provided more positive than negative evidence. And you call yourself a skeptic. Shame on you.

[synaesthesia]

Banning Homeopathy would only draw the conspiracy theorists out of the woodwork.

I think the best way to deal with it is to legislate that it must be tested. When it is tested (of course disproving it's claims), the lables of all legal homeopathic products must state "This substance is pure water. It is ineffective as a therapy for anything but a dry mouth."

[headscratcher4]

The best way to solve the problem is to make sure that those who use homeopathic remedies don't get to go to mainstream healthcare professionals. If they choose homeopathy they are stuck with it....I suspect that would take care of the problem pretty quickly....at least with respect to every illness above cold and flu...:cool:

Originally posted by RichardR
We know that is one of the principles of homeopathy. And it is wrong. Didnt say it was right you presumed toomuch about what I was saying.

Whatever I say you'll trash regardless of which side of the fence I sit on, your too closed minded to try and discuss anything with.

I'm too chaotic for you to keep up with or fathom out.

Originally posted by headscratcher4
The best way to solve the problem is to make sure that those who use homeopathic remedies don't get to go to mainstream healthcare professionals. If they choose homeopathy they are stuck with it....I suspect that would take care of the problem pretty quickly....at least with respect to every illness above cold and flu...:cool: Headscratcher arent you playing god?

What if a cancer patient wants to try and allivate chemo sickness by taking homeopathic remedys you going to kick them off chemo?

colds dont need medicines unelss they are flu and are in the at risk bracket or complications set in deal with it go to bed drink fluids and sweat it out. I do or eat chilies it works for me.

[Foodbunny]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower

I'm too chaotic for you to keep up with or fathom out.

The laughter never ends.

[Doctor X]

Radiating Sunflower:

I suffer from dyslexic fingers I cant help it my grammers rubbish sorry my command on english is terrible for a english girl sorry, I dont and havent written correctly for years I dont need it in my job, sorry.

Understood, however, I would recommend you take advantage of the Preview option. Thus:

I dont know what they ant they say one thing and then boom it means somthing else, I have only what I gathered for myslef. . . .

makes no sense to me.

I dont understand what you/they want or need, you ask me for things I never said I had, I never said I wrote it myself but flatworm keeps saying I did.

I think a single example of an experiment published in the peer-reviewed literature that demonstrates the efficacy of homeopathy. The one published in Nature was published to demonstrate its flaws. I do not agree with that--now proponents can cite "a Nature article" without referencing the rest.

I cant give you things if you just contradict and say I said something else can I, you cant expect me to and I wont.

Of course, if I cannot understand what you write I may very well reply to something other than what you intend. Also, I cannot contradict anyone effectively if they are correct.

I never wrote anything nor have I scientific data . . . you wont understand what it feels like to be dumped by modern medincine practisioners to get on with our wrecked lives and then find people like the skeptics trashing something that could help does help even if its placebo effect only, that playing god.

I will not subject you to dissecting the fallacies in that because I believe you are sincere. Nevertheless, as a basis of debate to establish a practice that others should follow, it fails miserably.

I would hope that before you do anything that impacts on your health, you would do some research. This applies to evidence based medicine as well as quackery.

--J.D.

Originally posted by Doctor X
Radiating Sunflower:



Understood, however, I would recommend you take advantage of the Preview option. Thus:



makes no sense to me.



I think a single example of an experiment published in the peer-reviewed literature that demonstrates the efficacy of homeopathy. The one published in Nature was published to demonstrate its flaws. I do not agree with that--now proponents can cite "a Nature article" without referencing the rest.



Of course, if I cannot understand what you write I may very well reply to something other than what you intend. Also, I cannot contradict anyone effectively if they are correct.



I will not subject you to dissecting the fallacies in that because I believe you are sincere. Nevertheless, as a basis of debate to establish a practice that others should follow, it fails miserably.

I would hope that before you do anything that impacts on your health, you would do some research. This applies to evidence based medicine as well as quackery.

--J.D.

Doctor X I did research before I took the homeopathic remedies for something I wont say publically, but what I found and I found there was alot on the subject contradictory and good back ups, pointed me to a remedy that appeared would help me out.

After reading all about it I took the plunge and it did indeed help when I needed it the most and that suited me just fine. I dont take it now I have evolved again above its help.

All the research I had I stored and re-read several times before I took a futher step and consulted my then caring doctor befor I went ahead.

What I didnt do was write who or where it came from, that didnt seem important to me at the time I wanted help and I couldnt take modern medicines any more without it killing me. Can you understand that?

I am not agreeing homeopathy is great what I am saying or trying to is you cant play god with peoples lives. If they think placebo effect or not it helps them how can anybody tell them sorry no you can go suffer its a nothing remedy? Does that make anything clearer?

It's ok doc go for it, you made more sense to me than others have.

I do preview thats when I make more mistakes.:rolleyes:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I dont know what they ant they say one thing and then boom it means somthing else, I have only what I gathered for myslef
.................................................. ...................................
I dont know what they actually want or need, they say one thing and then "boom" then they say they want something else.
All I have is only what I gathered personally for myself which I didnt make notes of who or where it came from, this I have said all along.

clearer?

[RichardR]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
Didnt say it was right you presumed toomuch about what I was saying.You quotes huge tracts of pro homeopathic verbiage saying that like cures like. You also said, and I quote verbatim:

”you treat same with same that cures the whole"

Exactly what was it that I was supposed to "presume"?

Your meaning was clear. But I'm glad you realize you could be wrong. Like doesn't cure like.

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
Whatever I say you'll trash regardless of which side of the fence I sit on, Please stop playing the victim.

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
your too closed minded to try and discuss anything with.You are the one who refused to even consider that "like cures like" might be wrong, and you accuse me of being closed minded? Do you know these two guys:

http://64.94.43.206/~spiderdan/black.jpg

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
I'm too chaotic for you to keep up with or fathom out.
To fathom, I agree.

Lucianarchy,

I repeat my earlier question:

What positive evidence did the Horizon tests provide?

Cheers,

[Andalyn]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
Headscratcher arent you playing god?

What if a cancer patient wants to try and allivate chemo sickness by taking homeopathic remedys you going to kick them off chemo?

colds dont need medicines unelss they are flu and are in the at risk bracket or complications set in deal with it go to bed drink fluids and sweat it out. I do or eat chilies it works for me.

Because it's water. Or snake oil. Whatever. That is why it should be illegal. It should be illegal for someone to make a claim about a product (that is completely untrue) and then sell this product to people - based on that claim.

You want to sell something, and make a claim that it will actually do something - fine. Show me that it does what you claim it does, or that is fraud. Homeophathic "medicines" are WATER. PERIOD.

You seem like a nice girl RS. Do you think it would be okay if I took advantage of someone when they were sick? When they were desperate? Took their money on false promises? Do you think that is okay?

The product makes a claim. It is unable to show any evidence that it actuall does what is advertised. RS, it's fraud and it's wrong.

Originally posted by RichardR
You quotes huge tracts of pro homeopathic verbiage saying that like cures like. You also said, and I quote verbatim:

”you treat same with same that cures the whole"

Exactly what was it that I was supposed to "presume"?

Your meaning was clear. But I'm glad you realize you could be wrong. Like doesn't cure like.

Please stop playing the victim.

You are the one who refused to even consider that "like cures like" might be wrong, and you accuse me of being closed minded? Do you know these two guys:

http://64.94.43.206/~spiderdan/black.jpg


To fathom, I agree. Told you:p

Once again off you go again telling me what I think, wrong train of thought, you have never asked me what I think you just tell me what I think or mean.

Yes I recognise the guys one is you and the other is?

I'm female not a guy :P

Originally posted by Andalyn


Because it's water. Or snake oil. Whatever. That is why it should be illegal. It should be illegal for someone to make a claim about a product (that is completely untrue) and then sell this product to people - based on that claim.

You want to sell something, and make a claim that it will actually do something - fine. Show me that it does what you claim it does, or that is fraud. Homeophathic "medicines" are WATER. PERIOD.

You seem like a nice girl RS. Do you think it would be okay if I took advantage of someone when they were sick? When they were desperate? Took their money on false promises? Do you think that is okay?

The product makes a claim. It is unable to show any evidence that it actuall does what is advertised. RS, it's fraud and it's wrong.
Do you think its ok to stop somebodies only form of medicational help, based on its water and not if it helps them?



moi nice girl note to oneself kick andalyns shins more.

[Andalyn]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower

Do you think its ok to stop somebodies only form of medicational help, based on its water and not if it helps them?

You answered my questions with a question.

The point is RS, it is not "medicational help". It is water. What I want to stop is someone selling water, but labeling it as something else. That is fraud.

Don't you understand that you probably get more of what you are looking for out of the tap? There is nothing magical here. It's water.

If water truly helps the patient, then I suggest he or she drink it out of the tap. Buying it for an incredible amount per ounce is only filling someone's pockets, and doing the patient no good. If it is truly placebo, then fill up a bottle with water and lie to yourself.

My main concern is those who prey on the ignorant, sick, and desperate. This is exactly what this is.

RS - if you "got better" from an ilness, I don't know what made you better. Some illnesses spontaneously end. Heck, I read somewhere that 10% to 15% of people with the Human Papaloma Virus get better, even though there is no cure or treatment that makes HPV "go away".

Miracle? Homeopathy? Nope. So, whatever you had - if you got better, my bet is it was something other than the expensive water you were drinking. Someone sold you snake oil. You believed in it then, and you want to believe in it now. But RS, that doesn't make it any more real or true. It simply is not. It's just water. I'm sorry. :(

[Drooper]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower

Do you think its ok to stop somebodies only form of medicational help, based on its water and not if it helps them?

There is an important issue about information here. Any product should be fit for the purpose for which it is sold.

If homeopathic solutions and tablets were correctly labelled and marketed, i.e. as sugar pills, distilled water, or extremely diluted solutions of a particular substance (as applicable), with no medicinal claims I would have no objection.

This would allow consumers to chose between the expensive (but identical) homeopathic solutions and cheaper plain old water or sugar pills.

Originally posted by Andalyn


You answered my questions with a question.

The point is RS, it is not "medicational help". It is water. What I want to stop is someone selling water, but labeling it as something else. That is fraud.

Don't you understand that you probably get more of what you are looking for out of the tap? There is nothing magical here. It's water.

If water truly helps the patient, then I suggest he or she drink it out of the tap. Buying it for an incredible amount per ounce is only filling someone's pockets, and doing the patient no good. If it is truly placebo, then fill up a bottle with water and lie to yourself.

My main concern is those who prey on the ignorant, sick, and desperate. This is exactly what this is.

RS - if you "got better" from an ilness, I don't know what made you better. Some illnesses spontaneously end. Heck, I read somewhere that 10% to 15% of people with the Human Papaloma Virus get better, even though there is no cure or treatment that makes HPV "go away".

Miracle? Homeopathy? Nope. So, whatever you had - if you got better, my bet is it was something other than the expensive water you were drinking. Someone sold you snake oil. You believed in it then, and you want to believe in it now. But RS, that doesn't make it any more real or true. It simply is not. It's just water. I'm sorry. :( yes I did answer with a question one that nobody seems to answer.

The point is water or not are you prepared to dictate hypothetically what people can take medicinally?

I dont dispute the labelling already agreed that part yonks back.

Back again to my question above and now added to what gives you the right to dictate what can be taken hypothetically, if people want to take it why cant they. People can look things up for themselves I did. Clearer labeling yes helps.

I can see your point whichi already agreed on, now look at it from where I sit and see how it feels to be told what you can have and that all comes back to modern medicines a monoply dont you think?
I understand fully do you? I didnt say it was magical, thats untrue nor did I sing its prasies as awonder drug, I sadi from apoint of experience it helps how why or what I cant say but it does, if its water then perhaps it works by giving the body a break from od on chemicals I dont know I am not a pharmacist, the point is it helps some people maybe the power of belief is strong so why teminate that persons ownbelief and throw it away like its meaningless?

By the sounds of that andalyn you agree to dictate what people can take to help them, so what is available to those left behind by modern medcines? Or should people in that desperate position just be left to suffer?

I am not heartless or cruel to prey on those in need, I amnot like that I care thats my problem I see it from that point of view, but the way I read you, it sounds no different to those who do you want to get rid of somebodies only hope just like that. Doesnt htat sound cruel?

I still have what I have I am incurable, it helped me get through a bad time briefly when I needed it, it didnt cure me it helped when all that was left was suicide, and I do that again anytime rather than selfkill.
Cant you see what you could do hypothetically by trashing or destroying everything and banning it all because it is not scientifically correct?

Unlike what you think of me as thick I am not so thick, I look up things first, even whenI was so despeparte I checked re checked everything. I gave it ago it helped, that was it. It gave the boost Ineeded to carry on and find the will to live, can you still deny that right to somebody else?

I agree it has to be looked into and labelled correctly i am not disputing that, The placebo effect needs more investigating into. Trashing things because they failed some tests (staged)should be banned along with closed minds. skeptism is one thing but you cant say science at the moment isnt unfallable(?),Tommorrow somethng could happen and it all changes.

I dont think this can be resolved, we just go round again, I stick to my beliefs on the caring side of humanity and you stick to you beliefs on ripoffs.




moi BRAIN

[richardm]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
The point is water or not are you prepared to dictate hypothetically what people can take medicinally?


Obviously you should be able to take what you like. But should people be able to sell you something under false pretences?

Real Life Example:

Marks and Spencer have just hurriedly changed the packaging on their "Lobster and Prawn Terrine Slices" after they were challenged: In fact, it contained just 2 percent lobster and 3 percent prawn - the rest was smoked salmon. The packaging was misleading.

Should Marks and Spencer have been allowed to keep selling it under the old name, even though there was next to no Lobster or Prawn in it?

What about if you didn't know what lobster was like, and were content with what you got? Is it still okay?

How about if there was no lobster and prawn in it at all?

To my mind, this is one of the big problems with homeopathy. It's not just that people are not buying what they think they are buying, but that they are being repeatedly misled into believing that they are getting something. And that is not nice.

It would not be tolerated in any other field of commerce, and I don't see why homeopathy should be any different.

Originally posted by richardm


Obviously you should be able to take what you like. But should people be able to sell you something under false pretences?

Real Life Example:

Marks and Spencer have just hurriedly changed the packaging on their "Lobster and Prawn Terrine Slices" after they were challenged: In fact, it contained just 2 percent lobster and 3 percent prawn - the rest was smoked salmon. The packaging was misleading.

Should Marks and Spencer have been allowed to keep selling it under the old name, even though there was next to no Lobster or Prawn in it?

What about if you didn't know what lobster was like, and were content with what you got? Is it still okay?

How about if there was no lobster and prawn in it at all?

To my mind, this is one of the big problems with homeopathy. It's not just that people are not buying what they think they are buying, but that they are being repeatedly misled into believing that they are getting something. And that is not nice.

It would not be tolerated in any other field of commerce, and I don't see why homeopathy should be any different.

what no hi:(

Yes I know that part richardm, and agree it has to be changed but not the whole lot banned that isnt fair is it on those for whatever reason find it helps for whatever reason?


moi personal view.

[richardm]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower


what no hi:(



Sorry - Hi!


Yes I know that part richardm, and agree it has to be changed but not the whole lot banned that isnt fair is it on those for whatever reason find it helps for whatever reason?


Okay - no outright ban. But let's say that the homeopathic remedy manufacturers can only label them according to their contents.

So instead of 30c Arnica, 20c Rhubarb and 100c Sulphur, for example, there would be an array of bottles simply labelled:

"Water", "Water", "Water".

I think I would be content with that. They can even include the word "Homeopathic" if they must.

How does that sound? ;)

Originally posted by richardm


Sorry - Hi!

[B]

Okay - no outright ban. But let's say that the homeopathic remedy manufacturers can only label them according to their contents.

So instead of 30c Arnica, 20c Rhubarb and 100c Sulphur, for example, there would be an array of bottles simply labelled:

"Water", "Water", "Water".

I think I would be content with that. They can even include the word "Homeopathic" if they must.

How does that sound? ;) lol so I should think so not saying hi :p how rude :D


sounds ok only and ONLY if it is proved its only water in it already agreed to that.


moi

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
lol so I should think so not saying hi :p how rude :D


sounds ok only and ONLY if it is proved its only water in it already agreed to that.
Balderdash,

This is the "right to choose" argument that we hear over and over again in alt med. The argument is topsy-turvy. There is no established right to defraud a consumer. If you want to waste you money trying to buy stock in a non-existent zeppelin company, you have the limited right to so waste your money. Your problem becomes clear as you find that nobody has the right to SELL you such worthless stock.

So the best that can be done at this point is to permit you to mix the xnake oil up yourself. That right you have. To a point. The next issue becomes what other people are being harmed. Do you have the right to refuse medical treatment for your kids and shove snake oil down their throats? That gets dicey. In many countries you could be charged with abuse. Or with practicing medicine without a license. So, no, that right is not clear.

Next comes the biggest issue of all: homeopathic nosodes. These are the homeopathetic "alternative" to vaccination. It is, of course, a death sentence, but never mind that. Nosodes afford no protection against disease. The gullible are fooled because of the herd immunity effect of the community around them -- the people getting the real vaccine protect the fools from ever encountering the disease and finding out they have squat for protection. It is thie flip-side of this herd effect, though, that is the issue with nosodes. By "exercizing your right" to be dullwitted, you also put at risk every infant around you, as well as everybody else with a compromised immune system. If enough people become so dullwitted, outbreaks of diseases will grow into epidemics. You have no right to be so stupid as to jjeopardize my infants in this way.

And no, the "no claim, no fraud" nonsense also doesn't hold. Here in the U.S. we foolishly enacted DSHEA, a stupid law that has permitted the enormous, unregulated growth of alternative medicines as "dietary supplements." The manufacturers are not allowed to make claims about these supplements. But I challenge anybody to not be able to find out the miraculous claimed effects of these products. Gee, somehow, even though manufacturers can't claim Noni Juice does anything, somehow the entire population knows the myth about what Noni Juice does. And St. John's Wort. And Colloidal Silver. And on and on.

It is transparent that no matter what the labelling requirement and advertising requirement, a kind of disinformational brinksmanship is being played. Hints and innuendos. Articles published by persons not directly connected to the manufacturers. All those perky salespeople in GNC stores, telling you how to bulk up, slim down, and "I don't know, but I have a firend whose cancer was cured by these tablets."

"Right to choose," "no claim, no fraud," and "its my body" all sound reasonable until you realize we're talking about our tents and camel's noses. You have the right to let the camel in under your tent so long as you bred the camel yourself, only you live inside the tent, and you have no neighboring tents, and you never go outside. If you meet those criteria, then go ahead, fool yourself and kill yourself. Oh, that''s right, suicide isn't a right in many countries, either, is it?

Cheers,

Billy when you have finished your rave let me know.

I'll re say what I already agreed with and then perhaps someobody will realise a big thing.

I can live in hope

moi note to oneself close door on closed minds.

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
Billy when you have finished your rave let me know.

I'll re say what I already agreed with and then perhaps someobody will realise a big thing.

I can live in hope

And just what "big thing" is that?

cheers

RichardR like cures like principle try this.

Feed the fever and starve the cold, familiar sentance, meaning if you keep warm despite a burning fever you sweat out the cold, that works doesnt it?

moi currently sueing granny from beyond the grave for saying wrong way round :P

Originally posted by BillHoyt


And just what "big thing" is that?

cheers Have you finished your rave then? I take it not seeing as your tone is so very sarcastic.

Having taken me out of context while I was posting back a reply to Richardm, I have always agreed that homeopathy should be regulated and any medicines that are found to be just pure water and or do not work should be removed, and the homeopathic remedies contents should be clearly labelled and always ask proper medical advice from qualified GPs first.

The point missed is you are basing your views solely on sheep fed material, science is not the be all end all it itself is subjected to improvements or false area claims, nobody can make a uniformed judgement on half staged facts, I havent until I see all relevant data the jury is still out, I do agree the industry needs improving and regualting and thats the whole medical industry.

The rest of your rave I respond to later, a few things you have written are below the belt and unwarrented.

R-S


moi note lock the door too

[richardm]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
RichardR like cures like principle try this.

Feed the fever and starve the cold, familiar sentance, meaning if you keep warm despite a burning fever you sweat out the cold, that works doesnt it?


Ooer! My Granny used to say "Feed a Cold and Starve a Fever". Between the two of us we're lucky we both made it ;)

Originally posted by richardm



Ooer! My Granny used to say "Feed a Cold and Starve a Fever". Between the two of us we're lucky we both made it ;) LMAO well its one of them , and I'm glad your here too, who else named richardm is available for me to argue with :D
R_s going back to finish her homework on radioactive gold infusions:eek:

note rem edit moi and homework as per addtional posting i oops on.

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
Have you finished your rave then? I take it not seeing as your tone is so very sarcastic.

Having taken me out of context while I was posting back a reply to Richardm, I have always agreed that homeopathy should be regulated and any medicines that are found to be just pure water and or do not work should be removed, and the homeopathic remedies contents should be clearly labelled and always ask proper medical advice from qualified GPs first.

The point missed is you are basing your views solely on sheep fed material, science is not the be all end all it itself is subjected to improvements or false area claims, nobody can make a uniformed judgement on half staged facts, I havent until I see all relevant data the jury is still out, I do agree the industry needs improving and regualting and thats the whole medical industry.

The rest of your rave I respond to later, a few things you have written are below the belt and unwarrented.

R-S

When you are done with the pity ploy, try to get to some substance.

Cheers,

[Flatworm]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower

I dont understand what you/they want or need, you ask me for things I never said I had, I never said I wrote it myself but flatworm keeps saying I did.


When you post something on a message board, it is of course implied that you wrote it yourself. It is the same as in any body of writing in a professional or academic setting: It is incumbent upon you to explicitly indicate which parts are not your own words and whose words they are.

Originally posted by Flatworm


When you post something on a message board, it is of course implied that you wrote it yourself. It is the same as in any body of writing in a professional or academic setting: It is incumbent upon you to explicitly indicate which parts are not your own words and whose words they are.
Flatworm!

Sheep-fed half-baked uniformed opinions! Have you finished your rave yet? Cleaned up after the party and all that? R-S says nothing she says. She says nothing she says she doesn't say. She says nothing she says she says. You quote her out of context? Don't you know she has too much chaos for you to find the context?

Cheers,

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by Andalyn


......RS - if you "got better" from an ilness, I don't know what made you better. Some illnesses spontaneously end. Heck, I read somewhere that 10% to 15% of people with the Human Papaloma Virus get better, even though there is no cure or treatment that makes HPV "go away".
....

RichardR is soooo gonna kick your behind if you don't come up with some kind of cite for that statistic :p

;)

Sou

[RichardR]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
Told you:p

Once again off you go again telling me what I think, wrong train of thought, you have never asked me what I think you just tell me what I think or mean.

Yes I recognise the guys one is you and the other is?

I'm female not a guy :P I was reminding you what you wrote.

But OK, please tell me, what do you think about the claim of homeopathy that "like cures like"?

[RichardR]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
yes I did answer with a question one that nobody seems to answer.

The point is water or not are you prepared to dictate hypothetically what people can take medicinally? OK, I'll answer that. No, I would not dictate what someone else does.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
RichardR like cures like principle try this.

Feed the fever and starve the cold, familiar sentance, meaning if you keep warm despite a burning fever you sweat out the cold, that works doesnt it? And from this you believe that anything that gives you the same symptoms of any illness you have will cure it?

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Soubrette


RichardR is soooo gonna kick your behind if you don't come up with some kind of cite for that statistic :p

;)

Sou Me? :confused:


:D

[Andalyn]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
yes I did answer with a question one that nobody seems to answer.

Okay, I'll try.

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower

The point is water or not are you prepared to dictate hypothetically what people can take medicinally?

I believe that there should be certain regulations when selling material that the sick and desperate are told will do things for them. I am not dictating anything. I think there should be regulations. I don't think it's a far stretch to suggest we have rules that say "what I sell you should actually do what I say it does."

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower

I dont dispute the labelling already agreed that part yonks back.

Fine.

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower

Back again to my question above and now added to what gives you the right to dictate what can be taken hypothetically, if people want to take it why cant they. People can look things up for themselves I did. Clearer labeling yes helps.

Governments generally do have the right to make laws and regulations designed to protect it's citizens. Ever hear of speed limits? Fraud is fraud. Water is water.

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower

I can see your point whichi already agreed on, now look at it from where I sit and see how it feels to be told what you can have and that all comes back to modern medicines a monoply dont you think?

"Monopoly medicines" aside, if I had some dirt which I told you cured your problem, and offerred to sell it to you for an amount - I'd hope you'd want some evidence or proof before you bought it and ate it.

I don't really see where you are going with the monopoly thing though. There are many labs which make generic versions of just about every drug on the market. They are chemically identical and are just as effective as the "name brand". Let me see if I can remember this correctly: Hydrocodone is "LorTab™"

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower

I understand fully do you? I didnt say it was magical, thats untrue nor did I sing its prasies as awonder drug, I sadi from apoint of experience it helps how why or what I cant say but it does, if its water then perhaps it works by giving the body a break from od on chemicals I dont know I am not a pharmacist, the point is it helps some people maybe the power of belief is strong so why teminate that persons ownbelief and throw it away like its meaningless?

My question is this: Do you think businesses should be able to prey on the sick and desperate by selling them a substance which does nothing it is advertised to do? You have a water faucet at home, do you not? Why purchase lie-water? You see, the first thing you have to do is
#1 - Understand it is water.
#2 - Then drink it from the tap.
#3 - Understanding it is water, perhaps your placebo will remain.

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower

By the sounds of that andalyn you agree to dictate what people can take to help them, so what is available to those left behind by modern medcines? Or should people in that desperate position just be left to suffer?

What I am saying RS, is that it should be illegal for someone to sell a substance that claims it does something, when in fact it does not. That is fraud. If I sold you a homeopathic computer, and it didn't work, you'd want your money back. If I refused - you'd very likely sue me. Fraud is fraud. Homeopathy is a fraud.

If it helped you, it's only because you believed in it. Understanding that is the first step!

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower

I am not heartless or cruel to prey on those in need, I amnot like that I care thats my problem I see it from that point of view, but the way I read you, it sounds no different to those who do you want to get rid of somebodies only hope just like that. Doesnt htat sound cruel?

If some cult leader approached you and told you that he could cure you of your illness and enlighten you, and all it would cost you is your life savings and entire bank account, would it be okay if I tried to stop you? Even if this cult is your "only hope".

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower

I still have what I have I am incurable, it helped me get through a bad time briefly when I needed it, it didnt cure me it helped when all that was left was suicide, and I do that again anytime rather than selfkill.

I am very happy you didn't kill yourself. Just know that it was your belief in the water that saved you - not the water itself. Once you realize that, you are on the path to enlightenment. :)

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower

Cant you see what you could do hypothetically by trashing or destroying everything and banning it all because it is not scientifically correct?

If you are saying that people will kill themselves if homeopathy were made illegal - well, that is sad. I'm sure some probably would. Many people would probably kill themselves if there was a sudden realization that god didn't exist also. People kill themselves for many reasons, many of which are not fathomable to those who are not suicidal. When you feel like offing yourself, talk to someone. Heck, talk to me.

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower

Unlike what you think of me as thick I am not so thick, I look up things first, even whenI was so despeparte I checked re checked everything. I gave it ago it helped, that was it. It gave the boost Ineeded to carry on and find the will to live, can you still deny that right to somebody else?

But you didn't understand it was just water. You didn't understand the dilution factors.

I don't deny you the right to believe in something. I wish to deny the ability of a business to market a product which preys on the sick and desperate people who will believe anything. AGAIN - If I sold you something which I said did something, you would expect it to do as advertised. WHY IS HOMEOPATHY DIFFERENT IN YOUR MIND???

I guess you believe Fraud laws should be suspended when it comes to your particular belief. What it everyone thought this way?

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower

I agree it has to be looked into and labelled correctly i am not disputing that, The placebo effect needs more investigating into. Trashing things because they failed some tests (staged)should be banned along with closed minds. skeptism is one thing but you cant say science at the moment isnt unfallable(?),Tommorrow somethng could happen and it all changes.

Not trashing anything. It is fraud. Magnets in shoes are fraud. Homeopathy is fraud.

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower

I dont think this can be resolved, we just go round again, I stick to my beliefs on the caring side of humanity and you stick to you beliefs on ripoffs.


I could say that I care more about humanity, because I wish to protect the weak, sick, desperate and gullible from the vultures of fringe "medicine".

Again, you should ask yourself this: Does believing in something ultimately make it okay, no matter what?

[Doctor X]

Radiating Sunflower:

One may do whatever one wishes until it impacts upons someone else. You can believe that water cures a certain ill, you can believe that "unipolar" magnets exist to "realign" your "meridians," you can even believe that Alanis Morrisette can sing.

However, to expect others to share in them you have to provide evidence.

That you believed the Oil of Serpant cured you of your ill does not really measure up against medications that do. Others cannot apply your belief to themselves.

Why care?

I would turn around that your insistence effectively causes you to "play god" with the health of others by promoting quackery. Unfortunately, in the real world, people die pursuing quackery that "feels good" or they want to "believe in."

I would also add that promotion of the unscientific breeds ignorance.

--J.D.

Okay, I'll try.



I believe that there should be certain regulations when selling material that the sick and desperate are told will do things for them. I am not dictating anything. I think there should be regulations. I don't think it's a far stretch to suggest we have rules that say, "What I sell you should actually do what I say it does."

Already agree with that.







Governments generally do have the right to make laws and regulations designed to protect its citizens. Ever hear of speed limits? Fraud is fraud. Water is water.


Again already agreed to that, if it has been proven to contain blanks then remove it if it has something in it then leave it to be sold.




"Monopoly medicines" aside, if I had some dirt which I told you cured your problem, and offered to sell it to you for an amount - I'd hope you'd want some evidence or proof before you bought it and ate it.

I don't really see where you are going with the monopoly thing though. There are many labs, which make generic versions of just about every drug on the market. They are chemically identical and are just as effective as the "name brand". Let me see if I can remember this correctly: Hydrocodone is "LorTab™"


Monopoly as in pharmaceutical firms not small natural businesses trying to provide a more natural remedy As for eating dirt no sorry I grew out of that.:D
No I research before I do anything to my body I always have, I am not so stupid that I fall for a scam, I look and assess it first. Now I don’t have the scientific expertise to test each medical potion to find out what is in it, clearer labelling helps for that and I always ask my GP's advice first before I put anything in my mouth, (exceptions of course)



My question is this do you think businesses should be able to prey on the sick and desperate by selling them a substance which does nothing it is advertised to do? You have a water faucet at home, do you not? Why purchase lie-water? You see, the first thing you have to do is
#1 - Understand it is water.
#2 - Then drink it from the tap.
#3 - Understanding it is water; perhaps your placebo will remain.
Already answered it no I don’t think they should if it is proven to be a falsely made claim.
Water taps yes, its vile stuff.
Placebo effect works yet science can’t say why or do you dispute that too?
I am not disputing it could be all water, but until I see evidence (have not seen any to totally disprove it so I could ask you prove it back couldn’t I?) proving beyond anything that every remedy is water I will hold true to my beliefs until evidence is given and then I shall act accordingly.



What I am saying RS, is that it should be illegal for someone to sell a substance that claims it does something, when in fact it does not. That is fraud. If I sold you a homeopathic computer, and it didn't work, you'd want your money back. If I refused - you'd very likely sue me. Fraud is fraud. Homeopathy is a fraud.


Is their evidence that all homeopathic remedies are water? Not yet is there, the ones found yes are committing fraud and should be re-labelled or removed from sale. I agree anyway on that all have all along.


If it helped you, it's only because you believed in it. Understanding that is the first step!

No it got me through a tougher period I didn’t think I did believe in it, but obviously some part of me did and kick started a peaceful moment for me to prop me back up so to speak.
Understanding yes a first step? Not quite sure what you mean by that part?





If some cult leader approached you and told you that he could cure you of your illness and enlighten you, and all it would cost you is your life savings and entire bank account, would it be okay if I tried to stop you? Even if this cult is your "only hope".

No cults don’t wash with me period, treat them as I treat religion, not interested, as for enlighten me, not human on earth that can do that as enlighten to me means spiritual and I am not that way inclined.





I am very happy you didn't kill yourself. Just know that it was your belief in the water that saved you - not the water itself. Once you realize that, you are on the path to enlightenment. :D
No the water didn’t save me, there was something else, the water just gave me a kick-start to gain a brief moment of peace. The thing that save me from topping myself was.... the belief in this crazy world that I would find something to make all I am suffering worth the while, if I didn’t then I would enjoy all the music, art, books, people, winter, and laughter while I was still in it and wake people up by being my natural warm, friendly and annoyingly crazy caringly self. :D




If you are saying that people will kill themselves if homeopathy were made illegal - well, that is sad. I'm sure some probably would. Many people would probably kill themselves if there was a sudden realization that god didn't exist also. People kill themselves for many reasons, many of which are not fathomable to those who are not suicidal. When you feel like offing yourself, talk to someone. Heck, talk to me.

No I didn’t say that at all, I am just saying your quashing some bodies beliefs, that’s cruel and cold, it's down to them in the end, it's not a perfect world and we are not perfect people, all have a right to believe in something, better protection yes, but only ban homeopathy if at the end of the day all of it is water, everybody agrees to banning it.





But you didn't understand it was just water. You didn't understand the dilution factors.

No your telling me I don’t understand things, I did understand I understood what I needed to know, I was not on a scientific mission if I was then I would have gone in far deeper than what I do anyway. I wouldn’t talk to you andalyn, I am too proud/stubborn/pigheaded to do that. I hate you to feel put upon if I did. If you guess I am low then that’s your call to make and I may respond, but I wont ever say. Thanks anyway.


I don't deny you the right to believe in something. I wish to deny the ability of a business to market a product, which preys on the sick and desperate people who will believe anything. AGAIN - If I sold you something, which I said did something, you would expect it to do as advertised. WHY IS HOMEOPATHY DIFFERENT IN YOUR MIND???

You wont understand andalyn because your not me, your not in my position, nor do you suffer what I do, you cant understand and I would not even try to explain it because I couldn’t convey in words the exact feelings etc of me. I am not saying homeopathy is great (I don’t) I am saying it helps people maybe for all the wrong reasons but it helps people get by, ok if the labelling said water and it was banned as everybody agreed to its ban then fine I don’t have a problem with it, I worry about people like me out there screaming inside who just want a small bit of peace/break once in a while.

I guess you believe Fraud laws should be suspended when it comes to your particular belief. What it everyone thought this way?

No you’re presuming you know what I think again.



Not trashing anything. It is fraud. Magnets in shoes are fraud. Homeopathy is fraud.

Anything proven to be 101% fraud I feel the same way.



I could say that I care more about humanity, because I wish to protect the weak, sick, desperate and gullible from the vultures of fringe "medicine".

Same here, but I care about people too. Fringe medicines you cant trash them all for the fraudulent acts of a few. If its fraud then its gone and all credibility will cease with that area, but equally as one vanishes another pops back up...why.... because there are people suffering out there in the big bad world that modern medicines have turned there back on.

Again, you should ask yourself this: Does believing in something ultimately make it okay, no matter what?

No it doesn’t and I don’t think that way either, you presume again. All my life people have told me what I think, and trashed nay thinking I did on my own because it dint fit the sterotypical views held by everybody else, not one has ever asked me or tried to see my views form my point in time. They're to quick to tell me what to do and that makes me sad for them.
My fault I care I worry and I am warm and compassionate its curse.

human moi.

Originally posted by Doctor X
Radiating Sunflower:


One may do whatever one wishes until it impacts upon someone else. You can believe that water cures a certain ill, you can believe that "univocal" magnets exist to "realign" your "meridians," you can even believe that Alanis Morrisette can sing.

If it's your own personal wish why does it have to impact on others, nobody is saying you have to take or do that because it helped or gave me a good vibe are they?

However, to expect others to share in them you have to provide evidence.

That Doctor X should swing both ways in a debate. Agree?
Where is all this evidence to say the whole of homeopathy is water and therefore is actively committing fraud?

That you believed the Oil of Serpent cured you of your ill does not really measure up against medications that do . Others cannot apply your belief to themselves.

Did I say they had to apply my belief at that time to themselves? Answer is no I would never ask such a thing of anybody. Everyone has their own mind and should use it, what suits me will not suit another.


Why care? Why not care?

I would turn around that your insistence effectively causes you to "play god" with the health of others by promoting quackery. Unfortunately, in the real world, people die pursuing quackery that "feels good" or they want to "believe in."

And you sir does not know me, as this statement shows. Presumption. I would not play god nor would I advocate playing god with anybody, sir I request a retraction or re-wording of this statement as I am deeply offended and upset by your remarks.

I would also add that promotion of the unscientific breeds ignorance.--J.D.

I would add intolerance of another’s personal belief also breed ignorance. Science has to give and take science in the manner I gathered by the tone of the latter paragraph just takes and is unwavering of staid stifled self preservation views it believes in. Science is only as right as time and advancements allows it to be it is not the be and end all of time, it should admit mistakes and not hide the truth, How can anybody believe science when by it s own admission is flawed.

moi own views from brain, currently n scietific data has been allowed out of the top secret lab looking into R-s memory store. The world could not cope is the issued statement.

Originally posted by RichardR
And from this you believe that anything that gives you the same symptoms of any illness you have will cure it? No dear richard I never said I belived it in the first place I gave you what homeopathists follow by way of principles, thats their belief and not mine.


moi.

Originally posted by RichardR
I was reminding you what you wrote.

But OK, please tell me, what do you think about the claim of homeopathy that "like cures like"? Hypothetically In theory sounds like it should work kill the orginal illness with what the illness symptons itself presents, in reality far more testing is needed on that theory.

moi

Originally posted by Flatworm


When you post something on a message board, it is of course implied that you wrote it yourself. It is the same as in any body of writing in a professional or academic setting: It is incumbent upon you to explicitly indicate which parts are not your own words and whose words they are. :confused: what write is mine (like this)unlessI have copied it from another source and that I say is so. and I did say that all along anyway so no i am not a plague.


moi aussi note, in the begining r_s said where the information she had came from ie hardrive brain search engine , but she never kept the full who where or whats it was for personal use and that wishes flatworm to stop calling her a plague.

Originally posted by BillHoyt


When you are done with the pity ploy, try to get to some substance.

Cheers,
When you can learn to show some respect and manners you may get a reply from but until that time appears then its silence to you.

I am not using any ploy at all, it’s my own personal experience and I thought it relevant to show homeopathies placebo effect does and can in some cases work.

You on the other hand are picking up minute things that hold nothing of interest or relevance like asking Ma’at for information on the debate she read about in the Netnews, one that she put she didn’t bother reading as it was a fallacy that anybody could think about banning any medicine if it contained side effects, and because of that it held no interest to her to read further than the small part she read in general and yet you still demand in depth information.

As you have to resort to the use of vitriol to cover your own stupidity, then I feel very sad for you.

moi aussi

[Flatworm]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
:confused: what write is mine (like this)unlessI have copied it from another source and that I say is so. and I did say that all along anyway so no i am not a plague.

In that case, what is this?


Flatworm he took the substence, from the experince he then found it was similar he then gave it to malaria suffers and it healed them, he didnt have the disease he tok it on himself to prove another docotrs recommendation was wrong and it was .

I am not that old, I wasnt around and if Iwas I havent found that memory

HOMEOPATHY
Homeopathy is a scientific method of therapy based on the principle of stimulating the body's own heating processes in order to accomplish cure. The basic system was devised and verified by Samuel Hahnemann, a German physician, nearly 200 years ago. Hahneman's research revealed that diluted substances had the ability to stimulate the body to cure diseases that would be caused by the same substance in large dosages. Homeopathy's astounding success rates in both chronic and acute diseases has resulted in not only standing the test of time, but rapidly achieving wide-spread acceptance in Europe, India and South America. In Homeopathy each of us is a total, complete individual, no aspect of which can be separated from any other. To be effective, any valid therapy must be based on a deep understanding of and respect for the uniqueness of each individual.

Ruta is a common homeopathic remedy that has been used for over 100 years for the treatment of eye strain. Symptoms such as aching over the eyebrows, eye fatigue after reading, blurred vision, burning, headaches, letters running together and tearing are all symptoms that ruta can benefit as reported by A. B. Norton, MD in the book Ophthalmic Disease and Therapeutics. Since the laws of homeopathy deal with dilute substances to stimulate the healing of the body, a large amount of Ruta is not needed. One pellet of the Ruta, taken every 2 hours during eye strain is all that is necessary. During severe periods of eye strain, one pellet should be dissolved in a glass of water and one teaspoon can be taken every 15 minutes. The water should be stirred gently between each dose


__________________



Everything from below "HOMEOPATHY" was plagiarized word for word.

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
When you can learn to show some respect and manners you may get a reply from but until that time appears then its silence to you.
That is your choice. However, I note for the record that you have changed your position before you even got started here. You see, you previously said:

The rest of your rave I respond to later, a few things you have written are below the belt and unwarrented.
So, you see, we are all forced now to make at least one assumption. We must assume you don't have good answers to the points I raised.

b]I am not using any ploy at all, it?s my own personal experience and I thought it relevant to show homeopathies placebo effect does and can in some cases work.[/b]
The "placebo effect" does not "work." The "placebo effect" is the ILLUSION that the placebo works. What happens is the person who receives a known inactive substance either gets better on their own or convinces themselves that they have gotten better.

As you have to resort to the use of vitriol to cover your own stupidity, then I feel very sad for you.
You are resorting to this ad hom attack as a deflection from the topics at hand and the points I raised. Please address those points, one by one.

Cheers,

Science is only as right as time and advancements allows it to be it is not the be and end all of time, it should admit mistakes and not hide the truth, How can anybody believe science when by it s own admission is flawed.
Please defend these assertions:
1) Science is hiding some truth.
2) Science by its own admission is flawed.

Cheers,

[RichardR]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
No dear richard I never said I belived it in the first place I gave you what homeopathists follow by way of principles, thats their belief and not mine. Good. So presumably we must be agreed that homeopathy doesn't work? Because if you don't believe "like cures like", you can't believe homeopathy works.

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower


Me

Are you again unable to answer yet more of my calls for you to support your assertions? Another possible hypothesis is you are babbling to yourself.

Cheers,

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower

moi:rolleyes:

Apparently, you have the IQ of a bag of roasted peanuts. To shell with you, then.

Jeers,

As I researched into homeopathy about 4 years ago and all the information I collected and stored all interested and relevant research on my computer for my own personal insight to whether or not should I take it up to gain some relief. I did not know where or who it all belonged to or to which books I had read care of the GP (it wasn't necessary for me to keep that ).

After a quick PM'ing with another member it was suggested and appeared to be the only root to I could take to appease them was that I delete it all(my stuff and prob means some of yours may disappear to) as I had no idea where it came from, rather than falsely post up it came from here links when it didnt, which still makes me a plague.

So if nobody has any objection I will delete everything of mine and take some of yours in the process, and leave this topic in a bit of a state.

If I do not see any objection on here or via pm to me its will all go, including my own opinions on the subject. So ensureing another is happy..

Dub advance apology when I start deleting it really going to mess it up.

I would also ask those who have quoted me remove it to if the mass deletion is to go ahead. Please respect my wishes to have it removed, I dont want to have any trouble following me around because you didnt that is unfair on me.

I still stand by my views on it, this is my own personal feelings and ideals, I cant give data to verify my feelings for your satisfactory requirements, it cant be done.

I had said I didnt know the orginal sources and seeing as there is amountain or it out there on the net and in books you also can look into it, as flatworm showed multiple sites show the same thing as with many books and not just on homeopathy.


R-s

[Lothian]

R-S. I disagree. You shouldn’t delete what you have written unless you want to. I am not going to.

You have claimed to study homeopathy for 4 years without understanding the most basic mathematical concepts (we are only talking about multiplication and division here:eek: ). You make “quotes” from material you can’t source. You have admitted both.

All you need to do is learn that if you make a claim here you need to either back it up or have it exposed as incredible. The latter has been achieved this time but I am sure you will bounce back.

You really should do something about the maths though. I highly recommend Innumeracy by John Allen Paulos which guides the reader through the pitfalls that numerical illiteracy can bring.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
As I researched homeopathy about 4 years and all the information I collected and stored all interested and relevant research on my computer for my own personal insight t whether or not I take it up togain some relief. I do not know where or who it all belongs to or which books I read care of the GP (it wasn't necessary for me to keep that ) after a quick PM'ing with another member it was suggested and appeared to be the only root to I could take to appease them was that I delete it all(my stuffand prob means some of yours may disappear to) as I had no idea where it came from, rather than falsely post up it came from here links when it didnt, which still makes me a plague.

So if nobody has any objection I will delete everything of mine and take some of yours in the process, and leave this topic in a bit of a state.

If I do not see any objection on here or via pm to me its will all go, including my own opinions on the subject. So ensureing another is happy.

Dub advance apology when I start deleting it really going to mess it up.

I would also ask those who have quoted me remove it to if the mass deletion is to go ahead.

R-s R-S

Have you now changed your mind on homeopathy? If so, just state what you do now believe and leave what you have already posted there. Deleting previously posted stuff is not necessary and is not favored.

If you have not changed your mind then what are you talking about?

Originally posted by RichardR
R-S

Have you now changed your mind on homeopathy? If so, just state what you do now believe and leave what you have already posted there. Deleting previously posted stuff is not necessary and is not favored.

If you have not changed your mind then what are you talking about? No richardR I havent changed my views at all on it and still stand by wht I think shouldhappen to homeopathy, but somebody else that commented on this board suggested it, and as I wish not to cause offence and keep being called a plague out of respect for their advice and seeing as no other solution can be found deleting of the entire lot is the only option left and so end any offence.

I cant say where I got my data from, and that is a big no no so its a delete or leave it.

Originally posted by Lothian
R-S. I disagree. You shouldn’t delete what you have written unless you want to. I am not going to.

You have claimed to study homeopathy for 4 years without understanding the most basic mathematical concepts (we are only talking about multiplication and division here:eek: ). You make “quotes” from material you can’t source. You have admitted both.

All you need to do is learn that if you make a claim here you need to either back it up or have it exposed as incredible. The latter has been achieved this time but I am sure you will bounce back.

You really should do something about the maths though. I highly recommend Innumeracy by John Allen Paulos which guides the reader through the pitfalls that numerical illiteracy can bring. No lothian I said I researched into it 4 years ago, when I was offered it via my GP to get me through. All I was intrested in is not a full scientific study but personal insight nothing ore nothing less,parts I didnt want I left like the mathmatics, maths wasnt going to help me the remedies were.

As for the data I put up I said all along I didnt know where I sourced it from 4 years ago I wasnt planning to add my personal view on it anywhere that is irrelevant, I was not doing anything bad,I was upfront about it and you all forget I only just joined and am still finding my feet.

Now I know slightly better, but I would still stand by it as this is my own personal belief I cant and wont ever be able to back up what my own thoughts.
My thoughts are my own my views are my own, I dont hold back up data for something I looked into 4 years ago.

get it?

I cant source id my feelings or old researched into's therefore to stop being called a plague I have to delete it all or bare face lie that it came from this or that link, which willput me back into square 1 again.

This is my view my personal belief and feelings on homeopathy. its like saying I like hazelnut whirls in quality street I cant give you back up for that.

I cant source id my feelings or old researched into's therefore to stop being called a plague I have to delete it all or bare face lie that it came from this or that link, which willput me back into square 1 again.

This is my view my personal belief and feelings on homeopathy. its like saying I like hazelnut whirls in quality street I cant give you back up for that. [/B]a

Liking hazelnut whirls is a matter of personal taste. Whether homeopathy works or not is a matter of fact. It is right or it is wrong. If you want to drop the discussion, fine. If you want to retreat from claiming you can back up the claim that it works, fine. If you want to find out the truth of the matter, even better. But to revise history by deleting your posts and asking others to delete theirs? No. You wrote what you wrote. Others wrote what they wrote. Still others saw the discussion. It can't be made to disappear.

Cheers,

So the consensus is not to delete which still leaves me in a quandry regarding one members pm to me about it.

Billyhoyt exactly homeopathy is my personal taste.

I am not retracting any of my personal views at all.

I still stand by homeopathy shouldnt be illegal,it however should have more labeling of its products and checked.

I want it to go only to appease the other person nothing more nothing less.

I dont like upsetting people and I am very upset that they are and wish to wish to correct it.


shoot me I'm too human:(

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower

I still stand by homeopathy shouldnt be illegal,it however should have more labeling of its products and checked.

Fraud is illegal, R-S. In the U.S., homeopathy was grandfathered into the law, by a homeopath, surprise surprise, as the U.S began clamping down on medical fraud. That is the only thing keeping it legal here.

Cheers,

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Fraud is illegal, R-S. In the U.S., homeopathy was grandfathered into the law, by a homeopath, surprise surprise, as the U.S began clamping down on medical fraud. That is the only thing keeping it legal here.

Cheers, frauds illegal over here too.(uk)

Still say it shouldnt be made illegal, but labelled more displayed information and more and products tested any that are found to be blatent water only removed if it ends up with them all being removed so be it.

[richardm]

Hi -

So, can I take it we're all agreed that if a homeopathic remedy contains nothing but water then selling it as a remedy should be illegal under current fraud laws?

Originally posted by richardm
Hi -

So, can I take it we're all agreed that if a homeopathic remedy contains nothing but water then selling it as a remedy should be illegal under current fraud laws?

Apparently so. The next step seems to be the major hurdle...

Cheers,

[Lothian]

Originally posted by richardm
Hi -

So, can I take it we're all agreed that if a homeopathic remedy contains nothing but water then selling it as a remedy should be illegal under current fraud laws?

I have posted this before but it is hidden in the 10 pages of this thread.

Legislation for homoeopathic medicines in the UK.
In order to qualify for registration the products must:
· be for oral or external use. This includes all methods of administration with the exception of injections;
· be sufficiently dilute to guarantee their safety;
· make no therapeutic claims

If by 'remedy' you mean they claim it cures then it is illegal. I suspect that the following claims would be:-

'Used as a cure for headaches' ok
'Cures Headaches' illegal.

'Taken for backache' ok
'Relives backache' illegal

I assume this as I saw a magnetic bracelet that had on the packaging. 'Many people believe magnetic bracelets relieve.........

[NoDeity]

I've read most of the thread, but not all of it, so I don't know whether or not anyone has posted a link to HomeoWatch: http://www.homeowatch.org/ -- from Stephen Barrett, M.D., of QuackWatch fame.

You'll find articles there about dilution, the "Law of Similars" and the history of homeopathy.

Here are a few brief excerpts: Proponents call homeopathy's defining principle the "Law of Similars." ("Like cures like.") This holds that substances that cause healthy people to get symptoms can cure diseases that have these symptoms. This idea is a form of "sympathetic magic" similar to the primitive idea that eating the heart of a lion will make a person brave.From http://www.homeowatch.org/basic/similars.html

Homeopathy's founder (Samuel Hahnemann, M.D.) himself realized there was virtually no chance that an original molecule would remain after extreme dilutions. But he declared that vigorous shaking ("succussion") or pulverizing between dilutions would leave behind a spirit-like essence that cures by reviving the body's "vital force."From http://www.homeowatch.org/basic/infinitesimals.html

The HomeoWatch site is not yet complete but there is a lot of good information there.

Bottom line: homeopathic remedies have not been shown to work, except perhaps to cure dehydration, and so it should not be legal to sell them as if they were medicine.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Lothian


I have posted this before but it is hidden in the 10 pages of this thread.



If by 'remedy' you mean they claim it cures then it is illegal. I suspect that the following claims would be:-

'Used as a cure for headaches' ok
'Cures Headaches' illegal.

'Taken for backache' ok
'Relives backache' illegal

I assume this as I saw a magnetic bracelet that had on the packaging. 'Many people believe magnetic bracelets relieve.........


Hi Lothian -

No, I read your comments about this. Nevertheless, the word "Remedy" is one that is widely used by the homeopathic industry. For example, this one from Boots the Chemist (http://www.wellbeing.com/shop/product_details.jsp?productid=1010293&classificationid=426&slmRefer=000) :Click on the 'Please read' button below for general information on homoeopathic remedies and important medical advice. . I suspect it is a handy weasel-word that doesn't mean anything in a legal sense.

It would be nice to be able to report them to Trading Standards, but I suspect you'd have to be fortunate enough to hit a like-minded inspector to get anywhere.


Edited to add: Mind you, I notice that the website is cagey about making specific claims for the packets.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by richardm



Hi Lothian -

No, I read your comments about this. Nevertheless, the word "Remedy" is one that is widely used by the homeopathic industry. For example, this one from Boots the Chemist (http://www.wellbeing.com/shop/product_details.jsp?productid=1010293&classificationid=426&slmRefer=000) : . I suspect it is a handy weasel-word that doesn't mean anything in a legal sense.

It would be nice to be able to report them to Trading Standards, but I suspect you'd have to be fortunate enough to hit a like-minded inspector to get anywhere.


Edited to add: Mind you, I notice that the website is cagey about making specific claims for the packets. I agree that 'Remedy' appears to be a general word that means little. Clicking on the 'please read' gives the 'remedies' for common ailments. Most start with "Use for...." "Take for...." "Use when..." giving no claims, however some do make claims. "Arnica. Helpful for all injuries that lead to brusing" "Coffea. will help relieve the short, dry couch of measles." "acid Phos" helps with heartburn.." I think I may write to Boots to question these claims in light of the legislation.

Arnica is used for bruisng, sure that is mainstream usage now will check it out later and edit accordingly.

Originally posted by richardm
Hi -

So, can I take it we're all agreed that if a homeopathic remedy contains nothing but water then selling it as a remedy should be illegal under current fraud laws? hi :D

Ish,, not all homepathic remedies have been checked throughly yet and the water arent the only part of the range.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Lothian
Clicking on the 'please read' gives the 'remedies' for common ailments.


So it does! Hmm. I wonder why the separation between the pictures of the packets and the description of their supposed effect. More weaseling? I wonder if Watchdog might be interested. Probably not ;)

[richardm]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
hi :D

Ish,, not all homepathic remedies have been checked throughly yet and the water arent the only part of the range.

Hi R-S -

I think that we've established several times on this thread that above a certain level of C (17C, was it?) there is no active ingredient in a homeopathic remedy.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
Arnica is used for bruisng, sure that is mainstream usage now will check it out later and edit accordingly. R-S. You are missing the very point RichardM and I are making. This is not about mainstream use but false advertising.
I know many people who advocate arnica for bruising. I know people that believe that crossing your fingers gives luck and people that think if you step on the cracks in the paving stones then bears will get you. Only the former is regulated however. To avoid fraudsters, if you are to sell something with a claim that it will have a medicinal effect then that product must be licensed. To do that it must go though proper medical testing to prove that it works.
An exception exists with homeopathic medicines. The are licensed without being subject to any testing on the condition that they don’t make any claims that they work.
In the boots advert there is a claim that arnica works. They can only make that claim if they are licensed, not as a homeopathic medicine but, as a real one. One that has been subject to proper testing. As far as I am aware arnica has not passed any such test.

[richardm]

- Indeed. And come to think of it, why should we have to check the stuff? We're not the ones selling it as a remedy and raking in huge swathes of cash.

Originally posted by richardm


Hi R-S -

I think that we've established several times on this thread that above a certain level of C (17C, was it?) there is no active ingredient in a homeopathic remedy.

The limit is reached around 12C (or 24X). By R-S' own rules, then, are we all agreed that all homeopathic nostrums at 12C or higher are pure water and therefore sold fraudulently?

Cheers,

[NoDeity]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


The limit is reached around 12C (or 24X). By R-S' own rules, then, are we all agreed that all homeopathic nostrums at 12C or higher are pure water and therefore sold fraudulently?


You forget: vigorous shaking ("succussion") or pulverizing between dilutions would leave behind a spirit-like essence that cures by reviving the body's "vital force." (Hahnemann) http://nodeity.com/pics/emoticons/laughter.gif

Originally posted by Lothian
R-S. You are missing the very point RichardM and I are making. This is not about mainstream use but false advertising.
No I am not Lothian, what is it with me today and people from north of the border :( They all have their porridge spiked ?

Just commenting that arnica is in mainstream medicine now.

Just had major spat with one kilt wearer, who decide my cardoor looked great modified to fit his., then blamed me for phaving the cheek to park where I had been for the last 10 hours :(

Today is one of those days that started great and is ending up with me wishing I was never born :(

Originally posted by BillHoyt


The limit is reached around 12C (or 24X). By R-S' own rules, then, are we all agreed that all homeopathic nostrums at 12C or higher are pure water and therefore sold fraudulently?

Cheers, Oi you can cut that my rules milarky right out for a goddam start, you know full well I quoted what the I had read 4 years approx ago, so dont you try to make me into a practising homeopath.

Godammit I am not.:(

Originally posted by richardm


Hi R-S -

I think that we've established several times on this thread that above a certain level of C (17C, was it?) there is no active ingredient in a homeopathic remedy. *does a half headtilted smirk* Hey rm

A homeopathic remedy I said all the complete range of homeopathic remedies, if they are all found to be the same then who cares just get rid of it and only then on that substianted proof.

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
Oi you can cut that my rules milarky right out for a goddam start, you know full well I quoted what the I had read 4 years approx ago, so dont you try to make me into a practising homeopath.

Godammit I am not.:(

Try reading what I wrote and then try again.

Cheers,

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Try reading what I wrote and then try again.

Cheers, you wote by my as in R-s own rules, that wasnt needed was it.

yes some are agreed its water. I retract godammits:(

[richardm]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
*does a half headtilted smirk* Hey rm

A homeopathic remedy I said all the complete range of homeopathic remedies, if they are all found to be the same then who cares just get rid of it and only then on that substianted proof.


Okay, let me just quickly rephrase that, then :)

I think that we've established several times on this thread that above a certain level of C (12C, was it?) there is no active ingredient in any homeopathic remedy.


Ah yes, that's better. Because, y'see, the method means the same amount of dilution occurs, no matter what the original substance was. Any 20C solution will have the same amount of active ingredient as any other 20C solution.

This is good progress, then - now we have full agreement that we should bin most homeopathic remedies without any further ado!

Originally posted by richardm
Okay, let me just quickly rephrase that, then :)
Ah yes, that's better. Because, y'see, the method means the same amount of dilution occurs, no matter what the original substance was. Any 20C solution will have the same amount of active ingredient as any other 20C solution.

This is good progress, then - now we have full agreement that we should bin most homeopathic remedies without any further ado!
If that is what you want, yea ok.

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower

If that is what you want, yea ok.

You said that anything that can be shown to be pure water should not be sold fraudulently. You also decried the lack of testing. You have been told (and we can demonstrate this if you will sit a bit through the equations) that dilutions at or above 12c (24x), by Avogadro's law, are statistically guaranteed to have zero molecules of the presumed active substance.

Are you now trying to back out of the agreement that water masquerading as "remedy" is fraudulent?

Cheers,

Originally posted by BillHoyt
You said that anything that can be shown to be pure water should not be sold fraudulently.yes agree always have.
You also decried the lack of testing.? if that means they should test the lot...yes they should if not huh?

You have been told (and we can demonstrate this if you will sit a bit through the equations) that dilutions at or above 12c (24x), by Avogadro's law, are statistically guaranteed to have zero molecules of the presumed active substance. yes mother:D

Are you now trying to back out of the agreement that water masquerading as "remedy" is fraudulent? BillyHoyt what are you harping on about now.

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower

BillyHoyt what are you harping on about now.

I don't know how much clearer the question can be. I'll try it as a syllogism:

Major Premise: Pure Water sold as "remedy" should be illegal.
Minor Premise: Homeopathic nostrums at or above 12C (24X) are pure water yet are sold as "remedies".
Conclusion: Sale of homeopathic nostrums at or above 12C (24X) should be illegal.

Do you agree?


Cheers,

BillyHoyt, thought I had answered that already?
1 removed and banned yes
2/3 same as above if proven all are the same.

Made illegal, if its removed no need to illegalise it would there be?

subject to change as I trying to cook my tea and read mail as well as be bamboozled by you at the same time.

[Flatworm]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
BillyHoyt, thought I had answered that already?
1 removed and banned yes
2/3 same as above if proven all are the same.


That's already been done, several times, on this very forum. I know you're no fan of maths but the proof is in the numbers. You can't just disregard the facts because you find them dry and boring.

Originally posted by Flatworm


That's already been done, several times, on this very forum. I know you're no fan of maths but the proof is in the numbers. You can't just disregard the facts because you find them dry and boring. flatworm :D hi

so are you saying EVERY homeopathic remedy has been tested throughly and the scientific studies and results verify ALL Homeopathic remedies are water.

[NoDeity]

The point should be that the basic principles of homeopathy are complete nonsense. The 'Law of Similarities" is nothing more than sympathetic magic. There is no logical or empirical reason for someone to think it's true. If that "law", which is the founding principle of homeopathy, is nonsense, then it follows that all of homeopathy is nonsense -- and it is. As if that weren't enough, there is no logical or empirical reason to think that a "cure" is going to be more effective the more it is diluted. It is plainly silly to claim that water has some kind of "memory", which is what Hahnemann claimed (see my previous message), as it is completely unsupported logically or empirically.

[Flatworm]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
flatworm :D hi

so are you saying EVERY homeopathic remedy has been tested throughly and the scientific studies and results verify ALL Homeopathic remedies are water.

We don't need to test every homeopathic remedy. The numbers show that all homeopathic remedies with dilutions above 12C are pure water by the definition of their dilution notation.

Changing the mother tincture doesn't change anything. Using alcohol instead of water just leads to pure alcohol rather than pure water. There just aren't enough molecules to go around.

We don't need to go test for the presence of active ingredients in, say, a 30C remedy because if there is even a single molecule left it isn't 30C.

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
BillyHoyt, thought I had answered that already?
1 removed and banned yes
2/3 same as above if proven all are the same.

Made illegal, if its removed no need to illegalise it would there be?

subject to change as I trying to cook my tea and read mail as well as be bamboozled by you at the same time.
R-S,

That was a syllogism, drawn from a combination of statements previously made by you and by facts already in evidence. That is not "bamboozling," that is logic. Something about it seems to be eluding you.

The fact of the matter is we all agree water is not medicine. The fact of the matter is homeopathic nostrums at or above 12C are pure water. No testing needed.

Which part of this don't you understand?

Cheers,

Right... Not all Homeopathic remedies are just the WATER based remedies , geddit.

There's a whole range of them , please say you realise now when I say when all the range is tested and found to be only water then ban and remove the entire lot, I mean the entire range.

Which the same entire homeopathic remedies is what you are trying to illegalise based on one water based part, without testing the rest of the range. Geddit now?

Theres ...:-

Homeopathic Remedies 30c(trying to say illegalise as there only water )
Homeopathic Remedies 6c (")
Homeopathic Children's Products
Homeopathic Combinations
Homeopathic Cough Syrups
Homeopathic Creams
Homeopathic Lotions,Balms, Sprays
Homeopathic Ointments
Homeopathic Tinctures/Drops
Homeopathic Toothpaste


http://www.greensfoods.co.uk/index.asp/page=group/groupid=5/homeopathy.htm

When I say if all has been tested and proven to be nothing but water then yes remove the entire lot, if only some are tested and found to be such, then remove those that are false and label more clearly the rest as with providing more information.

[Elaborate]

It doesn't matter what the ingredient is diluted with, if teh concentration is below 12C, there are no molecules of active ingredient left.

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
Right... Not all Homeopathic remedies are just the WATER based remedies , geddit.

There's a whole range of them , please say you realise now when I say when all the range is tested and found to be only water then ban and remove the entire lot, I mean the entire range.

Which the same entire homeopathic remedies is what you are trying to illegalise based on one water based part, without testing the rest of the range. Geddit now?

Theres ...:-

Homeopathic Remedies 30c(trying to say illegalise as there only water )
Homeopathic Remedies 6c (")
Homeopathic Children's Products
Homeopathic Combinations
Homeopathic Cough Syrups
Homeopathic Creams
Homeopathic Lotions,Balms, Sprays
Homeopathic Ointments
Homeopathic Tinctures/Drops
Homeopathic Toothpaste


http://www.greensfoods.co.uk/index.asp/page=group/groupid=5/homeopathy.htm

When I say if all has been tested and proven to be nothing but water then yes remove the entire lot, if only some are tested and found to be such, then remove those that are false and label more clearly the rest as with providing more information.
How does the purpose of the product change my point? How does the inactive substance into which the "active" substance was diluted change the fact that there is no "active" substance left?

I don't care if it is diluted with water or alcohol or milk sugar or honey. I don't care if the claim is it cleans your teeth or cures your warts or sterilizes your private parts. There is no "active" ingredient at 12C or below.

Now are we agreed that any homeopathic nostrum diluted (with whatever inert ingredient) to 12C or below contains no "active" substance and is therefore sold fraudulently?

Cheers,

[xouper]

OK, I have a question. I have seen several comments in this thread that anything more dilute than 12C (24X) contains no molecules of homeopathic agent.

However, if I have a four gallon jug of homeopathic arsenic at a dilution of 13C (26X), then it should theoretically contain five molecules of arsenic.

Yes? No?

A homeopathic dilution of 12C means one molecule of homeopathic agent per 10²⁴ molecules of water.

Yes? No?

Is merely specifying the dilution factor, 12C, sufficient to determine how many molecules of arsenic are in the water if you don't also specify how many molecules of water?

How many milligrams of homeopathic dilution are added to each homeopathic sugar pill? Recall that in 24X there is about one molecule per 30,000 milligrams of water. So one pill may not contain any molecules of homeopathic agent even at dilutions of 21X (assuming 30 mgs of water per pill)?

Have I missed the point here?

Originally posted by xouper
OK, I have a question. I have seen several comments in this thread that anything more dilute than 12C (24X) contains no molecules of homeopathic agent.

However, if I have a four gallon jug of homeopathic arsenic at a dilution of 13C (26X), then it should theoretically contain five molecules of arsenic.

Yes? No?

A homeopathic dilution of 12C means one molecule of homeopathic agent per 10²⁴ molecules of water.

Yes? No?

Is merely specifying the dilution factor, 12C, sufficient to determine how many molecules of arsenic are in the water if you don't also specify how many molecules of water?

How many milligrams of homeopathic dilution are added to each homeopathic sugar pill? Recall that in 24X there is about one molecule per 30,000 milligrams of water. So one pill may not contain any molecules of homeopathic agent even at dilutions of 21X (assuming 30 mgs of water per pill)?

Have I missed the point here?

Wow, you rational types really don't get the full power of homeopathetic magic, do you? The process goes like this. First, you don the loincloth and the beaded headdress. Unless you're a virgo, in which case there is no hope for you.

Then you put together the orginal potion. Shake it exactly 10 times. Take a 10th of that potion and put it into a skull bucket the size of the original skull bucket. Shake that. 10 times. Take a 10th of that potion and put it into a skull bucket , etc.

See the process? See how infinite dilution works, oh close-minded, scientistic babbler?

And don't talk to me about Avocado's number!

Cheers,

[Flatworm]

Originally posted by xouper
OK, I have a question. I have seen several comments in this thread that anything more dilute than 12C (24X) contains no molecules of homeopathic agent.

However, if I have a four gallon jug of homeopathic arsenic at a dilution of 13C (26X), then it should theoretically contain five molecules of arsenic.

Yes? No?


Yes, you're absolutely correct, as is the rest of your post.

Right now, though, I'm assuming the approximate volume of liquid used to prepare a typical end-consumer sized bottle.

We seem to be having trouble communicating to RS that a homeopathic remedy can be invalidated by its dilution alone, and I have no wish to add to her math anxiety.

[Flatworm]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
Right... Not all Homeopathic remedies are just the WATER based remedies , geddit.

Pure water, pure alcohol- the fact remains there is none of the active ingredient remaining.


Which the same entire homeopathic remedies is what you are trying to illegalise based on one water based part, without testing the rest of the range. Geddit now?

Theres ...:-

Homeopathic Remedies 30c(trying to say illegalise as there only water )
Homeopathic Remedies 6c (")
Homeopathic Children's Products
Homeopathic Combinations
Homeopathic Cough Syrups
Homeopathic Creams
Homeopathic Lotions,Balms, Sprays
Homeopathic Ointments
Homeopathic Tinctures/Drops
Homeopathic Toothpaste


The idea is simple- anything that displays a dilution which makes it mathematically unlikely that any of the active ingredient remains should be illegal to sell as a remedy. This is the same whether it's toothpaste, creams, ointments, or whatnot.

6C homeopathic remedies cannot be banned on this basis (we should certainly expect the presence of the active ingredient) but they should still be tested just like a drug before they're allowed to make medical claims.

http://www.greensfoods.co.uk/index.asp/page=group/groupid=5/homeopathy.htm

When I say if all has been tested and proven to be nothing but water then yes remove the entire lot, if only some are tested and found to be such, then remove those that are false and label more clearly the rest as with providing more information. [/B][/QUOTE]

[xouper]

Bump, to preserve this thread from pruning.

[Rolfe]

OK, I'll bite. The sad thing is, this was tried in the US, and it failed. The case was brought under advertising standards legislation, in which the burden of proof is on the complainant to show that the claim is false. As far as I can make it out, the judge ruled that it wasn't enough for the complainants to assert that something which it was agreed was nothing but water wasn't medicine, if they hadn't themselves done any actual tests of that particular brand of water.

And this document (http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeopetition/homeopetition.html) seems to be nearly ten years old, and doesn't appear to have got anyone anywhere.

Anyway, it's magic (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6WXX-45WYKJT-5T-1&_cdi=7170&_orig=browse&_coverDate=07%2F31%2F2000&_sk=999109996&view=c&wchp=dGLbVtz-lSzBk&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_userid=10&md5=16293d2963376eae5bf757362ecdecce&ie=f.pdf), didn't you know?

Rolfe.

[BTox]

This was an amusing thread. Homeopathy comes up here frequently, it appears, but usually with a different set of advocates. Whatever happened to radiating sunflower, finally wilted? ;)

[Skeptoid]

BTox asked:
Whatever happened to radiating sunflower, finally wilted?Good ol' radiating-sunflower. :rolleyes: She left the forums only to return as Passionate_Iniquity, claiming that a stalker had followed r-s here. This was the first of many lies and tales of woe perpetrated by her many identities (radiating-sunflower, Passionate_Iniquity, P_I, Pie, Radiating Sunflower again, Moon_Lilly, Biker Babe, and others). Her final incarnation was as the infamous Hellcat, who hoaxed a bunch of folks with a tale of terminal cancer and suicidal tendencies that got her banned from this forum.

A real kook. :rolleyes: