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 ow