Should Homeopathy be illegal?

[Dub]

Given the results of the Horizon tests, should it now be illegal to advertise the benefits of Homeopathic cures? Would this not constitue false advertising? How can u call pure water a 'medicine.?

A quick look on a high street pharamacy shows they are still selling homeopathic 'medicines' by the bucket load.



How about some 30c Sulphur tablets! Although all the water in the world is still not enough to achieve this level of dilution, its bound to work cause someone said it once made them feel better! :)

http://www.wellbeing.com/images/product/1010302/ehero.jpg

From the Boots website:

Homoeopathy views the patient as a whole and treats the individual rather than just the disease. Homoeopathic remedies are ditutions of a concentrated solution and are used in the smallest quantities. They are available for a wide range of conditions from cuts and bruises to stomach upsets and colds

Yes, so small that there's not even a single molecule of the original solution left.

No for some people it works so let it stay available. Not all water just diluted to start the bodides healing process, you treat same with same that cures the whole with little side effects unlike modern medicines.

Me.

[Ian Osborne]

To declare homeopathy illegal would be to set a dangerous precedent that might impede legitimate research into disputed phenomena, though practitioners should certainly be expected to provide evidence for their claims, just like everyone else.

I wonder if it's worth complaining to Trading Standards about sales of homeopathic overpriced H2O?

[Dub]

No for some people it works so let it stay available. Not all water just diluted to start the bodides healing process, you treat same with same that cures the whole with little side effects unlike modern medicines.

Might I ask, did u see the Horizon programme? If not let me point one thing out. A dilution of 6c is the equivelnt of one drop of the original solution in about 26 swimming pools. By 10c its like 1 drop in the Atlantic. By 15c its less than one drop in all the water in the world. Anything higher than this almost certainly contains not even a single molecule of the original solution. Therefore, it's pure water. Placebos also 'work' for some people. Would you buy a lump of pure sugar off me if I make up something that it can cure for you? :D

[Dub]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
To declare homeopathy illegal would be to set a dangerous precedent that might impede legitimate research into disputed phenomena, though practitioners should certainly be expected to provide evidence for their claims, just like everyone else.

I wonder if it's worth complaining to Trading Standards about sales of homeopathic overpriced H2O?

I agreee. When I said 'illegal' I meant to advertise Homeoptahy as a medicine that cures what it claims to. As there is no eveidence, infact evidence to the contrary, I dont think ppl shoud be allowed to make such claims.

[Trollbane]

I agree with Dub here. I think that they should be liable for false advertising... Unless they add disclaimers in the product clearly stating something like: "Warning the product you are buying at 100$/dose does not contain any medicinal properties" or something similar..

[Ian Osborne]

And if water can 'remember' elements it once contained and pass this memory onto water molecules next to it, during its natural evaporation-and-rainfall cycle, all the water in the world must have come into contact with every chemical and mineral on the Earth. Why not just get a beaker of tap water and call it homeopathy?

[Dub]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
And if water can 'remember' elements it once contained and pass this memory onto water molecules next to it, during its natural evaporation-and-rainfall cycle, all the water in the world must have come into contact with every chemical and mineral on the Earth. Why not just get a beaker of tap water and call it homeopathy?

Good point. Infact rainfall may be a more concerntrated Homeopath than a 30c solution. :)

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Trollbane
I agree with Dub here. I think that they should be liable for false advertising... Unless they add disclaimers in the product clearly stating something like: "Warning the product you are buying at 100$/dose does not contain any medicinal properties" or something similar..

How about some addtional warnings:

- May cause increased urination
- May reduce the size of your bank account
- May cause elmination of brain cells (oops, that probably would have to have happened before using the stuff.)

[Ed]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
No for some people it works so let it stay available. Not all water just diluted to start the bodides healing process, you treat same with same that cures the whole with little side effects unlike modern medicines.

A medieval concept with no support. The problem is that people spend money on expensive placebos and might not see a real doc if they have a real problem. Accurate labeling should happen at least.

[3-toed-sloth]

I don't think homeopathic drugs should be illegal. That would only feed the drug company consipiacy, but making false claims about homeopathic drugs should be illegal.

I think that homeopathic remedies should undergo clinical testing if they are going to claim that they are beneficial.

I would like to see some kind of statement about their effectiveness on every bottle of the stuff.

In three inch tall black letters, something like

"This is a placebo"

"This is pure water"

"It has been demonstrated that these remedies are no more benefical than placebos"

[Jon_in_london]

I agree with the false advertising thing, you shouldnt be able to make claims that are unfounded.

Originally posted by Dub


Might I ask, did u see the Horizon programme? If not let me point one thing out. A dilution of 6c is the equivelnt of one drop of the original solution in about 26 swimming pools. By 10c its like 1 drop in the Atlantic. By 15c its less than one drop in all the water in the world. Anything higher than this almost certainly contains not even a single molecule of the original solution. Therefore, it's pure water. Placebos also 'work' for some people. Would you buy a lump of pure sugar off me if I make up something that it can cure for you? :D


No I didnt, I know about homeopathy and how it does things to the body to provoke healing.
Not disputing it is diluted, the orginal ingrediant is there still even if microscopic proportions.
Yes placebos work in certain cases, that should say something at least.
when you have exhausted al modern medicines and sufferig from them, homeopathy or herbalsim fills that void, porbably find using them gives the body a chance to recover from an onslaught from modern medicines, why knock it if it helps somebody?
You cant agree that the side effects of modern medicines are the best way forward can you?
Half of all illnesses around are caused by the side effects of modern medicines, Celebrex for one should be banned for what it does to you, I am sure it is in the States?

Would I buy a sugarcube off you, for one no I hate sugar its horrid.
Would I buy an altenative medicine to help relive myself of something that I would have to look into first, I will always stick with the natural way, seeing as I know a bit about such things, I would be skeptical of any new claim without researching it first, the end of the day it is upto me to make that choice surely?


Me

I vote to ban all homeopathic remedies and anything else in the alt med line that has not proven it efficacy with controlled double blind tests supervised by the FDA or an equivalent agency in Europe or Japan.

[Dub]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
[B]
No I didnt, I know about homeopathy and how it does things to the body to provoke healing.
Not disputing it is diluted, the orginal ingrediant is there still even if microscopic proportions.

Sorry but you are wrong. In a 30c, and probably in anything over about 20c, there is not even a single molecule of the original solution left. Scientific FACT.



when you have exhausted al modern medicines and sufferig from them, homeopathy or herbalsim fills that void, porbably find using them gives the body a chance to recover from an onslaught from modern medicines, why knock it if it helps somebody?

Modern medicine has far from been exhausted. If u think taking pure water gives the body chance to recover, why not just drink tap water?


You cant agree that the side effects of modern medicines are the best way forward can you?


If ever i get seriously ill ill go to a proper doctor for some of the most modern medicine he has.


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

And your source of this data is where?



I will always stick with the natural way, seeing as I know a bit about such things, I would be skeptical of any new claim without researching it first, the end of the day it is uptp me to make that choice surely?

It would appear you know less than you think.

Ive now changed my offer to you, will you buy some pure water off me if I tell you it can cure anything you want it to?

PS Most Homepathic remedies are pure water dissolved on those sugar cubes you hate so much. :)

Originally posted by JRWoodward
I vote to ban all homeopathic remedies and anything else in the alt med line that has not proven it efficacy with controlled double blind tests supervised by the FDA or an equivalent agency in Europe or Japan.
You going to including herbalism, colour therapy, reiki, crystal healing, aromatherapy, etc too?


me

[Foodbunny]

Anything being sold with claims to healing/curing people should have to undergo the same testing as any modern medicine. I don't see any compelling reason why homeopathy or herbs shouldn't be held to the same standards.

[orwell huxley]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
No I didnt, I know about homeopathy and how it does things to the body to provoke healing.Well, please explain to those of us who are ignorant.
Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
Half of all illnesses around are caused by the side effects of modern medicinesDid you make this up?

Dub I didnt say I took them, please dont take me out of context, I know a bit about homeopathy, I know far more on killer plants which is my pet hobby.

me

[Dub]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
Dub I didnt say I took them, pleasse dont take me out of context, I know a bit about homeopathy, I know far more on killer plants which is my pet hobby.

You claimed that even in the most diltuted homeopathic remedies there is still some molecules of the original solution left, which there is not. Thats pretty fundamental to knowledge of homeopathy.

[chessmanskeptic]

The only reason why the Horizon experiment did not go well was that there was major dilution. Could homeopathy work without dilution, it is possible. All the Horizon program proved was that dilution and homeopathy do not mix. If you dilute so much that you can not even see the original substance, then the substance is ineffective no matter what!

Originally posted by orwell huxley
Well, please explain to those of us who are ignorant.
Did you make this up?
first half can do if your prepared to learn.

second half I wish I had unfortantly its true, many illness treated and the then sideffects left are caused by modern medinicines not all illnesses.
take for example a depressive on valium, the side effects kick cant sleep, get sleeping pills, then get headaches, take more and so on and so forth. The orignal complaint has now become a multitude of them.

me

Nurofem otc headache pill, take it more than 3 days and your an addict. Coming off that is far worse than going cold turkey on heroin.


Media article on Uk's growing OTC addictions

No way am i an expert it this field, I know coz I have been down this road. I am a classified addict and addict to perscriptions drugs ie pain killers, I off them now, but it mean I can never take any form of pain killers again. Just like alcholism your cant drink I cant take pills. I am left with chronic pain from op and subsequent damage from prescriptive drugs. Hey any relief is welcome mine is I learn about dangerous plants it helps me ge through the day.
As I have no help fom modern medicines , whats left but the natural way?

ME

[Dub]

Originally posted by chessmanskeptic
The only reason why the Horizon experiment did not go well was that there was major dilution. Could homeopathy work without dilution, it is possible. All the Horizon program proved was that dilution and homeopathy do not mix. If you dilute so much that you can not even see the original substance, then the substance is ineffective no matter what!

The fundamental basis of homeopathy is the dilution process. Infact, it is claimed the more diltue the better it works. 'Modern medicine' often uses the idea of small amounts of the 'cause' of an illness as a cure. For example,a very small dose of some diseases allows the body to become immune to a full blown attack. Also similar bacteria to that of the disease can create immunity. You've probably heard of the smallpox/cowpox story.

[Dub]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower

Asi have no help fom modern medicnes , whats left but the natural way?

You claim you've had no help, but what would your life be like if you had taken no modern medicine at all?

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by chessmanskeptic
The only reason why the Horizon experiment did not go well was that there was major dilution. Could homeopathy work without dilution, it is possible. All the Horizon program proved was that dilution and homeopathy do not mix. If you dilute so much that you can not even see the original substance, then the substance is ineffective no matter what!

If there isn't dilution, it isn't homeopathy. I think you need to research what homeopathy is before you decide to support it...

[chessmanskeptic]

Originally posted by Dub


The fundamental basis of homeopathy is the dilution process. Infact, it is claimed the more diltue the better it works. 'Modern medicine' often uses the idea of small amounts of the 'cause' of an illness as a cure. For example,a very small dose of some diseases allows the body to become immune to a full blown attack. Also similar bacteria to that of the disease can create immunity. You've probably heard of the smallpox/cowpox story.

That is true, yet, the less you dilute a substance, the purer it is. The entire theory behind homeopathy is that the electronegativity of the substance is able to cancel out with the diseases electronegativity which in turn kills the diseased tissue and the pathogen causing the disease.

[Dub]

Im sorry but I have no idea about electronegativity and its relevance to homeopathy. Please explain.

Dub the principles of homeopathy is minimum dose, Hahnemans greatest effort to reduce poisionous effects of large doses of medicines in use at the time, such as mecury(his day) in the treatment of syphillis, he investigated diluting them. During this time he found that if medicines were mixed vigorously by striking the bottle against a firm surface in sucession, they became stronger in the effects, even though there was less of the original substance because of dilution. this then led to homeopathys minimum dose principle.
homeopathy is made up by using several tried principle
Like cures Like based on the Totality
Minimum does
Single remedy
Direction of cure.


Can you argue that modern medicine is not diluted as well, because it is.

Me and the hardrives stored previous researched homeopathic material sources gleemed unknown

[chessmanskeptic]

Originally posted by Dub


You claim you've had no help, but what would your life be like if you had taken no modern medicine at all?

I completely agree with you Dub. W/O modern medicine we probably would not even be here today. Homeopathy is just another one of those "alternative health" ideas that has some interesting ideas.

[Dub]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
Dub the principles of homeopathy is minimum dose, Hahnemans grest effort to reduce poisionous effects of large doses of medicines in use at the time, such as mecury(his day) in the treatment of syphillis, he investigated diluting them. During tjis time he found that if medicines were mixed vigorously by striking the bottle against a firm surface in sucession, they became stronger in the effects, even though ther was less of the original substance because of dilution. /this then led to homeopathys minimum dose principle.
homeopathy i made up using several tried principles.

Let me make myself clearer:

Homeopathy = 100% pure water

[3-toed-sloth]

Originally posted by chessmanskeptic


That is true, yet, the less you dilute a substance, the purer it is. The entire theory behind homeopathy is that the electronegativity of the substance is able to cancel out with the diseases electronegativity which in turn kills the diseased tissue and the pathogen causing the disease.

What?

Electronegativity refers to the relative tendancy of an atom to aquire an electon, it has nothing to do with curing diseases.

Oxygen is more electronegative than hydrogen, that is what makes water polar.

[chessmanskeptic]

Originally posted by Dub


Im sorry but I have no idea what electronegativity is. Please explain.

In lamens terms the whole idea behind homeopathy is that everything has a bioelectrical or resonating field. This field can be canceled out by other substances that have the same bioelectric field which in turn kills both substances. Translation: The disease is killed and the substance is neutralized.

Originally posted by Dub


Let me make myself clearer:

Homeopathy = 100% pure water

No wrong where is the proof

Me

[Skeptoid]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower


No wrong.
Granted. It's between 99.9999999999% and 100%.

[Dub]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower


No wrong.

Sorry but, it is correct. Do you understand the mathematics behind the labeling "6c" "30c" etc? If not let me quickly explain. 1c = 1 in 100 dilution. 2c = 1 in 10,000, 3c = 1 in 1000000 and so forth.. using 100 as the multiplier. Like I stated at 15c there's not even enough water on Earth to disolve one drop in. The chance of a 30c solution even containing a single molecule of the original solution are astronomical. It has been shown through careful analysis that such solutions do not contain even a single molecule of the original solution.

Originally posted by chessmanskeptic


In lamens terms the whole idea behind homeopathy is that everything has a bioelectrical or resonating field. This field can be canceled out by other substances that have the same bioelectric field which in turn kills both substances. Translation: The disease is killed and the substance is neutralized.
Produce a fever to kill a fever.
example pervuvian bark aka cinchona bark(quinine) produces same efect as malaria, if yu have malaria and take this(AND FOR GODS SAKE DONT DO IT WITHOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ADVICE FIRST) it will like the malaria "similars"

orthodox medicine kill the sympton not cure it, by blocking nerve signals."opposite"

Me as in plant knowledge plus hardrives stored data on homeopathy, source unknown.

[Soapy Sam]

I have a quibble regarding all this business about 100% pure water.
I don't think there's any such thing.

At the very least there must be some air dissolved in it, not to mention vapour pressure ablation of the container surface.

I demand a recount.

Originally posted by Dub


Sorry but, it is correct. Do you understand the mathematics behind the labeling "6c" "30c" etc? If not let me quickly explain. 1c = 1 in 100 dilution. 2c = 1 in 10,000, 3c = 1 in 1000000 and so forth.. using 100 as the multiplier. Like I stated at 15c there's not even enough water on Earth to disolve one drop in. The chance of a 30c solution even containing a single molecule of the original solution are astronomical. It has been shown through careful analysis that such solutions do not contain even a single molecule of the original solution.
so one bottle horison tested and that means all are the same? NO pure and simple, ever heard of staged tests?
I hate maths.


Me

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
I have a quibble regarding all this business about 100% pure water.
I don't think there's any such thing.

At the very least there must be some air dissolved in it, not to mention vapour pressure ablation of the container surface.

I demand a recount. LMAO:D not pure water its been through things and been peed on by some form of life or chemically added too.

Me

[Dub]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
I have a quibble regarding all this business about 100% pure water.
I don't think there's any such thing.

At the very least there must be some air dissolved in it, not to mention vapour pressure ablation of the container surface.

I demand a recount.

:) Obivoulsy no water is 100% pure. That just a way of sayin normal everyday tape water grade.

so one bottle horison tested and that means all are the same? NO pure and simple, ever heard of staged tests?

The horizon test was not based on one bottle. Infact ot was probably about the most rigorus scientific test that can be done. Also, its results repeated the findings of an eariler test that debunked a false experiment.

Dont hate maths, its done an awful lot for you. :)

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower

Produce a fever to kill a fever.
example pervuvian bark aka cinchona bark(quinine) produces same efect as malaria, if yu have malaria and take this(AND FOR GODS SAKE DONT DO IT WITHOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ADVICE FIRST) it will like the malaria "similars"

orthodox medicine kill the sympton not cure it, by blocking nerve signals."opposite"

Actually, this is not correct... While some medicine cures symptoms, other medicine cures the disease itself. For example, antibiotics usually work directly against the bacteria. Antivirals interfeer with with viral replication.

If the homeopathic idea of 'like curing like' worked, can I cure a fractured skull by being hit in the head with a brick?

Originally posted by Dub


You claim you've had no help, but what would your life be like if you had taken no modern medicine at all?

No please read. I said I now have no help I cant take any modern pain killer because my body hads beecome addicted to it.

If no modern medicine where would I be, not in so much pain for one.:D

Me

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
orthodox medicine kill the sympton not cure it, by blocking nerve signals."opposite"

You are making a very broad generalisation.

To which orthodox medicine are you referring? Vaccines and anti-biotics are not just symptomatic relief. In other cases, suppressing the symptoms can be of great help in limiting damage while the body's immune system takes care of the root cause (fever reduction, cough suppression).

The only requirement for a medicine to be considered orthodox is that it be shown effective in well-controlled experiments.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
you treat same with same that cures the whole Can you please cite your reference that backs this up?

Originally posted by Segnosaur


Actually, this is not correct... While some medicine cures symptoms, other medicine cures the disease itself. For example, antibiotics usually work directly against the bacteria. Antivirals interfeer with with viral replication.

If the homeopathic idea of 'like curing like' worked, can I cure a fractured skull by being hit in the head with a brick?
fractures are not an illness:mad: thats ludricous and trivial to include it.

work directly against the bacteria..." opposite"
Interfere cause it it to mutate "penicillin and resistance spring to mind"

Me

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower


No please read. I said I now have no help I cant take any modern pain killer because my body hads beecome addicted to it.

If no modern medicine where would I be not in so much pain for one.:D

I'm curious... are you addicted to EVERY type of pain killer? I know many are addictive, and many are related; however, does that include things like Aspirin (ASA), or Tylenol (Acetominophin sp?)

Originally posted by RichardR
Can you please cite your reference that backs this up?

works by Dr Hahenmann and homeopathy principles.
(plants that I know and understand)

Me and look and a source named.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
Half of all illnesses around are caused by the side effects of modern medicinesDo you have some backup for this claim please?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower

fractures are not an illness:mad: thats ludricous and drivel to include it.

work directly against the bacteria..." opposite"
Interfere cause it it to mutate "penicillin and resistance spring to mind"

Sorry, the skull thing was a joke. I should have included a :D for good measure.

As for 'bacteria'... A bacterial infection can cause feaver, discomfort, perhaps a sore throat (depending on where the problem is). Penicillin (or most other antibiotics) do not try to replicate this effect at all.

And I can't quite make out your grammar, but if you are referring to penicillian resistance in bacteria, it is more of a selection thing than a mutation thing.

Originally posted by Segnosaur


I'm curious... are you addicted to EVERY type of pain killer? I know many are addictive, and many are related; however, does that include things like Aspirin (ASA), or Tylenol (Acetominophin sp?) Yes had prescibed all of them. Growing addiction culture , co dines, paracetamols, anadin, you name it they pumped me full of it.

So yes I am an addicted to them all, I cant take them anymore if I do right back to square 1, which is hell and I have no wish to go there again.

Please excuse me I shall retire to my bed, as it approaches midnight and I turn into a grumpy pumpkin,:D if you want me to continue debating my corner please type away quesions etc pm me or not goodnight.

Me

[RichardR]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower


works by Dr Hahenmann and homeopathy principles.
(plants that I know and understand) What trials have been performed that show this is true. I know that Hahenmann claims this, but I am not interested in claims without some backup.

Please tell me where I can read a clinical trial that shows "you treat same with same that cures the whole".

Thanks.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by RichardR
Do you have some backup for this claim please?

You know, I haven't read that book that she's talking about... but, I strongly suspect that the 50% claim probably has something to do with considering side effects as a new disease.

For example, if you have a headache, you take an aspirin. Aspirin causes slight bleeding in the stomach. Thus, there are 2 diseases (headache and bleeding), one of which was caused by medicine.

Hey, and who said math was hard?

Originally posted by RichardR
Do you have some backup for this claim please? like what be specfic.
Steg its ok, i;m bushed, i type a better responce up tomoz. :D

me

[RichardR]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
like what be specfic.
Steg its ok, i;m bushed, i type a better responce up tomoz. :D Your claim was “Half of all illnesses around are caused by the side effects of modern medicines”. Can you please tell me where you got this information? I’m assuming you didn’t make it up. So how do you know?

Please cite your source for information like this. Ideally one we can look at on-line. Thanks.

[Jim_MDP]

Hey there Flower, ;)

You said:

"Celebrex for one should be banned for what it does to you, I am sure it is in the States?"


Having taken all I could get recently, I'm very interested in your explanation for this.

[3-toed-sloth]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower


work directly against the bacteria..." opposite"
Interfere cause it it to mutate "penicillin and resistance spring to mind"


Penicillin does not cause mutations in bacteria. Penicillin kills bacteria that do not have resistance genes.

Take a population of bacteria that is composed of 99% bacteria that are susceptible to penicillin and 1% bacteria that are resistant to it. If you introduce penicillin it will kill off the 99% of the bacteria that are susceptible to penicillin, the 1% that are resistant won't die. Over time, the bacteria will multiple and you will have a population where 100% of the bacteria are resistant to penicillin.

The penicillin didn't cause any mutations; it just killed off the bacteria that were susceptible to it.

This is why we need to constantly come up with more antibiotics, by using antibiotics were are favoring bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics, this does not mean that we should not use them. Literally (and I mean literally) millions of people have had their lives saved by antibiotics. I'll take antibiotics over homeopathy any day

Penicillin and other anitbiotics work, homeopathy does not

[Dub]

The only real problem with antibiotics is that alot of people do not finish the course they are given.

Antibiotics work, its people that are less reliable.

[3-toed-sloth]

Originally posted by Dub
The only real problem with antibiotics is that alot of people do not finish the course they are given.

Antibiotics work, its people that are less reliable.

That is true, and people use antibiotics incorrectly. I've heard of people taking antibiotics to treat a cold.

[chessmanskeptic]

Originally posted by 3-toed-sloth


That is true, and people use antibiotics incorrectly. I've heard of people taking antibiotics to treat a cold.

I have heard of some idiots that have done this myself. The bad thing is they could create antibiotic resistant bacteria in their body and well, meningitis kicks in and you will most likely die.

[Dragon]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
Nurofem otc headache pill, take it more than 3 days and your an addict. Coming off that is far worse than going cold turkey on heroin.

I'm sorry, r-s, but you are talking total nonsense here.
My personal experience -
About three years ago I was in severe pain from prolapsed discs. I had sciatica down my leg which was the worst pain I have ever experienced, much worse than breaking a collar bone, for instance.
Before it was properly diagnosed I was taking ibuprofen (I assume that you mean Nurofen above) for over a week and then my GP put me on diclofenac, solpadol and temazepam (Valium). The first two are very strong pain killers and the third a muscle relaxant as well as a sedative. I took the full dose of all 3 for a week and reduced over the next month as I improved.
I am not addicted in any way to any of these drugs.
They helped me through a very difficult time and I would not hesitate to take them again if necessary.

I have seen heroin addicts in the first stages of cold turkey many times in police cells (co-incidentally the most they get is temazepam). These people are really suffering.

When you compare Nurofen/ibuprofen to Heroin you obviously haven't the first clue about these drugs and their effects on the human body.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Anyone want to invest in my new company to produce a homeopathic cure for dehydration? [stolen from someone on this forum]

Did you hear about the homeopathic patient who died of an overdose? ... He forgot to take the medicine.

~~ Paul

[Dragon]

Back on topic -

Should homeopathy be made illegal?
No.

Should homepathic remedies be subject to the same rules* as conventional medicines?
Of course - and so should all other alternative medicines and treatments.

*In particular the bit about "efficacy".

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Dragon
Back on topic -

Should homeopathy be made illegal?
No.

Should homepathic remedies be subject to the same rules* as conventional medicines?
Of course - and so should all other alternative medicines and treatments.

*In particular the bit about "efficacy". Sure. If it works so well, why wouldn’t its proponents be willing to have it teated?

[Ralph]

Dragon......drugs like diclofenac & ibuprofen belong to a class of drugs known as NSAIDS (non-steroidal-anti-inflammatories).
These & other common pain killers such asa & acetaminophen
will only relieve pain to a certain degree. You reach a threshhold level at which point taking higher doses does not produce any more pain relief. They are useful for relief of mild to moderate pain but are not generally usefull for severe pain. They are NOT addicting and it's generally safe for recovering addicts to use them without triggering a relapse.

If pain levels are severe you generally need to use opiate-derived narcotics.....Demerol,codeine,hydrocodone, or morphine are the usual choices. They are addicting though--you'll get a buzz from them and in an addict it can trigger a relapse.

Temazapam is a benzodiazepam. It's considered habit forming (though not to the degree narcotics are) and should be avoided by recovering addicts.........................Ralph

[Dragon]

Ralph,
Yes, I knew most of that (I think Solpadol contains some codeine).
The temezepam the addicts get is just to get them through the night - they might get methadone if they already have some prescribed by their own doctor.
Most of the addicts I see are not recovering but still committing crime to fund the habit.

[Jim_MDP]

Hey Dragon, isn't Sciatica AMAZING?

I have a ruptured L5 and the L3 and L4 right above are "bulged". I know the cause is in my Lumbar but, almost all the horrendous, firey pain is in the calf and foot.

And btw, I prefer Vicodin. I also have codeine but I don't like the fuzzy "no pain" experience. I prefer to just knock the pain down a notch or two, otherwise I might move the wrong way and re-injure myself.

Also, I'm lucky to not be an addictive personality. I use much less than prescribed and have never desired a buzz from my legal meds. But I know many among my family and friends who could never say the same. Very sad. :(

I guess we'll have to wait till tomorrow for Flower's return. I'm curious about her Celebrex statement.

[Dragon]

James,
"Amazing" isn't the first thing that comes to mind - "****** agony" and "career threatening" were more prominent at the time I was struck down.
I'm with you, though, on several points. I lost a cousin to drugs.
I too had L5,L4 and L3 go, with most of the pain down my left thigh.
Physio and exercise helped me to an (almost) full recovery and I've hardly touched the drugs for over 2 years.

Originally posted by Dragon


I'm sorry, r-s, but you are talking total nonsense here.
My personal experience -
About three years ago I was in severe pain from prolapsed discs. I had sciatica down my leg which was the worst pain I have ever experienced, much worse than breaking a collar bone, for instance.
Before it was properly diagnosed I was taking ibuprofen (I assume that you mean Nurofen above) for over a week and then my GP put me on diclofenac, solpadol and temazepam (Valium). The first two are very strong pain killers and the third a muscle relaxant as well as a sedative. I took the full dose of all 3 for a week and reduced over the next month as I improved.
I am not addicted in any way to any of these drugs.
They helped me through a very difficult time and I would not hesitate to take them again if necessary.

I have seen heroin addicts in the first stages of cold turkey many times in police cells (co-incidentally the most they get is temazepam). These people are really suffering.

When you compare Nurofen/ibuprofen to Heroin you obviously haven't the first clue about these drugs and their effects on the human body.

Sorry dragon but you appear to know even less than I do.

To rid yourself of say nurofen (example) it takes longer to get out of your system thtn heroin( might be another drug I am checking my hardrives data for the support)
Sciatica I know that hurts like hell, but and a big but on a score of 1 -10 1 being high pain I am at level 3 permanently no respite 24/7 I live with this, having hit level 1 and 2 frequently which is debilitaing you cant imagine how I have to cope with that, and I do, pain controls my life that I accept and work around, ok I might have a higher pain thresh hold than most and I have got a high pain thresh hold believe me, i know what I am talking about, from experience. Have you ever been to the pain clinic lectures and the speil they churn out, I have thats when I got cynical and started learning about other alternatives. Ok first to admit no i am not a scientist nor doI have any medical training, what i do have is invaluable experiencing the effects modern medicines do.

Addictive personality has nothing to do with dependence on OTC drugs that is ludricous( not to dragon)



so watch this space I' ll be back.

Me and hardrive plus data of article on OTC addiction

[richardm]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower

Can you argue that modern medicne is not diluted as well, beacuse it is.


But it's a question of degree, r-s. If I wander to my medicine cabinet, I find a packet of tablets. Each of those contains 10mg of the active ingredient. That is a measurable amount of medicine. Like homeopathic remedies, it is probably mixed with a chalk or sugar base to make it a large enough to easily handle.

In my tablet, I have 0.01 grams of active ingredient. In a 30c homeopathic tablet I would have 0.00 grams of active ingredient.

The homeopathic dilutions are taken to such an excessive extent that they become ridiculous. You saw Horizon on Tuesday? Remember the single drop in a swimming pool? The single drop in the ocean? They weren't joking - you might not be able to follow the mathematics, but the numbers are more or less correct.

Before you even start testing, that ought to indicate to you that it is very unlikely that the stuff can work. The testing (when done with proper controls) only confirms that it does not work.

[Lothian]

I would just like to make a couple of points.

As I understand it Homeopathic medicine does not currently exist and it therefore cannot be advertised.

A medicine is something that cures. To be called a medicine a drug has to undergo years of proper scientific testing.
Homeopathic 'remedies' do not undergo this process. They are not medicines and anyone can sell them.

They should not be banned, the palcebo effect is powerful. Anyway if you ban homeopathic remedies what is next Evian, Perrier ?

Richardm try it from another angle how would you clinically trial the feel good factor and how it works? Let alone explain it?

Then how would you clinicaly trial the patients who found themselves taking homeopathic remedies and found it "helped" them? how would that be explained?

Could you tell a person who has exhausted all modern medicines tough you cant have homeopathy deal with it, as that is what you are advocating.

A peice of paper does not help a person in need, soemthing they belive in does, and you cant clincally trial that.

You could also ask yourself why are modern pharmicuticals so insistent on rubbishing any other form of healing?

Then again ask why is talc powder used in some pills?


The end of the day yes homeopathy is diluted, nobody disputes that. At the end is a person who needs relief and if homeopathy provides it how can you advocate hey that right its free choice to do so, and I also believe it removes the poisioning from modern chemical additions to presribed medicines, or at least allows the body to remove it, and so improves that persons health.

I didnt see the Horizon program, but have seem similiar staged trials before. One test does not advocate faliure or does it infer all subsequent products are the same, if that was the case modern medicines like Taxol which are plant based(yew and that in itself is diluted as Yew is toxic :D gotta love those toxic plants) would never have been developed or any plant based medicine.

Hippocrates first inferred that there are 2 ways to heal the body, 1st is by opposites and the 2nd by similars, homeopathy heals by similiars, modern by opposites.

Me showing knowledge of history..scary

[xouper]

Originally posted by Lothian
As I understand it Homeopathic medicine does not currently exist and it therefore cannot be advertised. A medicine is something that cures. To be called a medicine a drug has to undergo years of proper scientific testing. Homeopathic 'remedies' do not undergo this process. They are not medicines and anyone can sell them.If by "homeopathic medicine" you mean "homeopathic drug" as defined by the U.S Federal Drug Administration, then homeopathic drugs do indeed exist.

FDA Compliance Policy Guide (CPG 7132.15) Conditions Under Which Homeopathic Drugs May be Marketed (http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeopetition/cpg.html)

Nonetheless, homeopathic drugs are still bunk.

Imagine the scene if you would. A patient describes what is bothering them, the doctor listens after examining the area diagnosis’s gallstone, sorry he explains there is along waiting list in the meantime take these to help with the pain, he hands over a prescription for pethidine. Off the patient goes relieved at gaining some help from the pain, little realising that their life is about to change dramatically. This patient is about to become a drug addict with a dependency for legal drugs just another growing statistic Pethidine a class A drug, highly addictive and one of the many opiate legally prescribed drugs.

The Patient continues to take the drugs for 18 months at the prescribed limit, suddenly people are commenting on how their personality has changed, how suddenly they have become insecure withdrawn moody even, back they go to the doctor he continues to give the Pethidine and now they gets an antidepressant "to get them throug".
Still none the wiser that they are a drug addict and it is the pills and there side effects that are making them feel that way. 6 months later they collapse their body has gone into shock as the drugs have taken their toll, they have now reached the bodies “tolerance level ”of the opiate, it had stopped working, and to counteract this upped the dosage to get the same relief, the body couldn’t take it anymore and started to react against it.

The doctor now has stopped prescribing it to them, but this was the start of an 8 year battle to try and beat their addiction, during that time Vallium, Tamazpam were all prescribed "to get them through", adding their own toll now drug addicted body, now visits from psychiatric nurses and psychiatrists are included, as the toll of each prescribed pill "to get them through" sent finally sent them over the edge and into suicidal feelings and depression so now a black life held no meaning anymore and now sucide is the only way out to stop the pain.

What happens in the end, like an alcoholic you cant take any medication without slipping back down into drug dependency, your already hooked the moment it re enters your system.


Question anyone take the following? Solpadine, syndol, feminax, co-codamol, nurofen plus, Sudafed, do do chesteze, nytol, codeine linctus, J collis brownes mixture? These are the top 10 most abused otc drugs, your already addicted the within 3 days of continuous use.
Any of you take the following, Diazepam,(Vallium) belonging to the group called benzodiazpines aka benzos which act like tranquillisers or sedatives, Tamazpam a benzoiazepine and sleeping pill, ,Rohypnol aka date rate drug, lorazepam aka Ativan a benzodiazpines, Dihydrocodeine A high strength codeine based painkiller, Alprazolam aka xanex a benzodiazepine, Co-proximal An opioid painkiller, Dalmane aka fluazepam sleeping pill, Nitrazepam aka mogadon a benzodiazepine, Seconal aka red or downer, a barbiturate?



Do you have a problem?
1~Have you been taking your OTC (over the counter) in excess of 7 days continuously without seeing a doctor?
2~Does your medication seem to be less effective? If so are you taking more that what is prescribed to be taken and more frequently than that of the 4 hour intervals?
3~If your original complaint has cleared up are you continuing to take the drug because it makes you feel calm and “normal”
4~ have you suffered or are you currently suffering from anxiety, depression, or stress, So you have a family history of drug and or alcohol abuse?
If you have answered truthfully yes to at least 2-3 of these questions you may have developed a dependency on prescribed or otc drugs.

Did you know when an addict takes heroin about half of it gets converted in the brain to morphine, and taking a codeine tablet 10% of it converts to morphine, if you pop 8 tablets of codeine a day your taking in as much a someone shooting heroin in the arm a day.
To detox a heroin addict it takes around 5 days, It takes 2 to 4 weeks for the same or longer for codeine and Vallium takers.
Solpadeine after taking 15 pills you are already craving the next hit, that soon can amount to a 40 a day habit on OTC legal drugs. Not all addicts are of the illegal kind now are they, and the next time you call somebody a junkie think that you may just be like them already, it is not down to an addictive personality often attributed with illegal substances, these new addicts runof the mill taking drugs their trusted doctors perscribe, or their local chemist.

Ask yourself this have you seen a warning on the side of Solphadine saying warning you that it is addicive? Answer is NO but it is.

Modern medicines cause more illnesses, or you could say that the side effects do.
Think this article hi lights it very well.

Me using article gleemed from previous research I was looking up for me as in my personal interest.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by xouper
If by "homeopathic medicine" you mean "homeopathic drug" as defined by the U.S Federal Drug Administration, then homeopathic drugs do indeed exist.

FDA Compliance Policy Guide (CPG 7132.15) Conditions Under Which Homeopathic Drugs May be Marketed (http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeopetition/cpg.html)

Nonetheless, homeopathic drugs are still bunk.


Xouper,

Damn, don’t you just hate it when your bluff is called.

OK. I am wrong.
In the UK medicines are licenced by this lot (http://www.mca.gov.uk)

There are ‘homeopathic medicines’ which are registered under European Directive 92/73.

However
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

I will repeat that
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

Celebrex New York times did an article on it, and the Lancet Iam still digging my data for it.

celebrex is a nasty drug not a wonder drug, I know it causes internal bleeding, burst bowels, heart failure, jaunicine, will edit when i find the full piece i have on it.

->"FDA agreed with its Advisory Committee recommendations of February 7, 2001 that CLASS did not show a safety advantage in upper gastrointestinal (GI) events for Celebrex compared to either ibuprofen or diclofenac. Inclusion of patients on low-dose aspirin in the study was valuable for safety assessment of Celebrex in this important population of arthritis sufferers. However, the use of aspirin (a drug known to cause stomach ulcers and bleeding) may have obscured the ability to accurately compare the GI safety of Celebrex to other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The agency concluded that the drug labeling for Celebrex should continue to include the standard warning for doctors and their patients about risks associated with all NSAIDS, including risks of GI ulceration, bleeding and perforation. The labeling advises physicians prescribing and patients taking these drugs to be alert for ulceration and bleeding that can occur with or without warning.",-

Note (") as in quoted from first line Newyork times, and me

To detox a heroin addict it takes around 5 days, It takes 2 to 4 weeks for the same or longer for codeine and Vallium [ takers.

Ok dragon I made an error apologise for it i knew it was one of the drugs, and its codine not nurofen got the rest right at least.

Me

[richardm]

Hi r-s

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
Richardm try it from another angle how would you clinically trial the feel good factor and how it works? Let alone explain it?


Well, just because something makes you feel good doesn't mean you're not being ripped off. Suppose for a moment that you had no sense of smell. I sell you a large bottle of Chanel #5 for £100. You can't smell the perfume, but you know that it's an expensive and well-respected brand, and you're happy going out wearing it. You feel good! Except you don't know that all I sold you was cold tea in a Chanel bottle.

You don't know that. You feel great about it! Would you say that just because you don't know what I've done, it is an acceptable thing for me to do?


Then how would you clinicaly trial the patients who found themselves taking homeopathic remedies and found it "helped" them? how would that be explained?


"Placebo". Seriously.


Could you tell a person who has exhausted all modern medicines tough you cant have homeopathy deal with it, as that is what you are advocating.


It's a difficult one. However, at the bottom line this is like saying "If people are sufficiently desperate, they'll try anything, no matter what. Should we allow them to do this?".

Well, yes, I suppose we should. But at the same time, I think we should advise them that what they are trying is very likely to be an expensive waste of time.

Not only that, but I don't think that manufacturers should be able to convince these desperate people that they have something to offer that will help, when they are saying so on the flimsiest of evidence. I think that if you say "If you take x number of our pills it will cure what ails you", then you should have to prove it before you say so. Like drug manufacturers have to.


A peice of paper does not help a person in need, soemthing they belive in does, and you cant clincally trial that.


Actually, you can, and it has been done. You'll find lots of references to experiments where prayer, for example, has been trialled.


You could also ask yourself why are modern pharmicuticals so insistent on rubbishing any other form of healing?


If the modern pharmacutical industry thought that it could make money out of homeopathic remedies, don't you think it would? (Some of them possibly do!). In fact, I can't remember such a company ever rubbishing other forms of healing.


Then again ask why is talc powder used in some pills?


As I said above, the active ingredient in many pills isn't always very large - 10 mg for my example, although I also have some 500mg (half a gram!) paracetamol. So the talc is there to bulk up the pill to make it a manageable size.


The end of the day yes homeopathy is diluted, nobody disputes that. At the end is a person who needs relief and if homeopathy provides it how can you advocate dey that right its free choice to do so,


Don't people also have a right to be protected from frauds and rip-offs? Don't you have the right to expect that things you are sold should work as advertised?



Hippocrates first inferred that ther are 2 ways to heal the body, 1st is by opposites and the 2nd by similars, homeopathy heals by similiars, modern by opposites.

Hippocrates also believed that a woman’s flesh was warmer and softer than that of a man, and that its spongy character allowed it to absorb excess blood to the point of pain. Menstruation permitted the surplus to dissipate.

Hippocrates was writing 2380 years ago. He couldn't be right about everything.



(Edited (Twice!) to fix formatting)

[Dragon]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower


Sorry dragon but you apear to know even less than I do.

To rid yourslef of say nurofen (example) it takes longer to get out of your system thtn heroin( might be another drug I am checking my hardrives data for the support)

Take your time, but I would like to see the evidence.

Sciatica I know that hurts like hell, but and a big but on a score of 1 -10 1 being high pain I am at level 3 permanently no respite 24/7 I live with this, having hit level 1 and 2 frequently which is debilitaing you cant imagine how I have to cope with that, and I do, pain controls my life that I accept and work around, ok I might have a higher pain thresh hold than most and I have got a high pain thresh hold believe me, i know what I am talking about, from experience. Have you ever been to the pain clinic lectures and the speil they churn out, I have thats when I got cynical and started learning about other alternatives. Ok first to admit no i am not a scientist nor doI have any medical training, what i do have is invaluable experiencing the effects modern medicines do.

I would be silly to get into a "who has had the worst pain" argument. I accept that your experience of pain is worse than mine.

Addictive personality has nothing to do with dependence on OTC drugs that is ludricous( not to dragon)
so watch this space I' ll be back.

You made the comparison between an OTC (Nurofen) and heroin.
You also said - Nurofem otc headache pill, take it more than 3 days and your an addict.
I say that you are talking rubbish and I drew on my personal experience to back up what I was saying. In particular - I have taken ibuprofen for over a week, and stronger NSAIDS for an extended period- I am not addicted to any of them.
Heroin is stronger even than morphine and highly addictive. This is so well documented that there must be thousands of links on the net.
Here's what MedTerms.com says - Heroin: Semisynthetic drug derived from morphine. Discovered in 1874, it was introduced commercially in 1898 by the Bayer company in Germany. The name heroin was coined from the German heroisch meaning heroic, strong. Heroin is stronger (more potent) than morphine.

Morphine: A venerable drug that is a naturally occurring member of a large chemical class of compounds called alkaloids. The name "morphine" was coined in 1805 by a German apothecary Adolf Serturner (1783-1841) to designate the main alkaloid in opium. Opium, of course, comes from the poppy plant.

Morphine is a powerful narcotic agent with strong analgesic (pain relief) action and other significant effects on the central nervous system. It is dangerously addicting. The name "morphine" refers to Morpheus, the mythologic god of dreams.



I await your post on the addictive nature of ibuprofen.

Originally posted by richardm
Hi r-s
Don't people also have a right to be protected from frauds and rip-offs? Don't you have the right to expect that things you are sold should work as advertised?



Hey u back :D

If that was the case i would be a wealthy woman, I would have sued codine etc manufacturers.

Come on not really in the same context, we live in rip off britain for one, nothing works(ahem MR gates) as such it either muddles through, disgusies it.

What should be protected is that should more information be available and more medical help and more qualifed people to give support .

Yes there are schemers out there they should be smacked and sent to bed with no tea but, homeopathy works for a lot of people regulate the industry, learn about it and study it to find out why it helps people would be a far better road to take than no its water ban it that only serves to cause detrimental effect those in need. This is one thing you cant dismiss it is one of those feel good things how can you measure or assess that?

Me

Dragon I said I made a mistake its codine/heroin and not nurofen above already.


NO I wont go into a mine worse than yours either, for 1 its pointless 2 thresholds to pain vary in people, 3 I' ll kick your shins in:D

You cannot dismiss my experience and then use your own to back up with. sorry dragon my experience i will use as i have been there, same as anybody elses.

YOU cant stand there and say rubbish to mine but in your experience , no sorry, I am going to be pendantic on that front.

I will get back to the rest. my data is huge and vast, and still trawling through it all.

OTC drugs are addictive and is the latest growing one to.


Me

[richardm]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower


Hey u back :D



Oh yes ;)


If that was the case i would be a wealthy woman, I would have sued codine etc manufacturers.


Well, codeine does work as a painkiller. It might not have been sufficiently potent for your requirements, and it might have left you hooked. But it has nevertheless undergone plenty of trials - proper, double-blind ones - and has been shown to work.



Come on not treallyi n the same context, we live in rip off britain for one, nothing works(ahem MR gates) as such it either muddles through, disgusies it.


Well, perhaps. But there's a difference, I think, between selling something that you know has flaws, and selling something that just plain doesn't work. If you brought a Windows CD home and found that it was actually an empty box, you'd hightail it back to the shop and demand your money back, and quite rightly. The "Rip-off Britain" we read about is more to do with us paying twice as much for our empty boxes as people do elsewhere :D


What should be protected is there should be more information available and more medical help and more qualifed people to give support .


Absolutely...


Yes there are schemers out there they should be smacked and sent to bed with no tea but, homeopathy works for a lot of people regulate the industry, learn about it and study it to find out why it helps people would be a far better road to take than no its water ban it that only serves to casue detrimental effect those in need. This is one thing you cant dismiss it is one of those feel good things how can yu measure or assess that?

The problems are that 1) There have already been plenty of studies on homeopathy that show it has no clinical value (which is why it is no longer mainstream). 2) Just because it might make people feel good doesn't mean you should pretend that it is making them better. Pretending that it is is not nice, I think.

[davidhorman]

One test does not advocate faliure or does it infer all subsequent products are the same

I can't help being a litera-nazi - you meant "nor does it imply" (either that or you meant "nor should the experimenter infer"). I won't even try and guess what you meant by "advocate".

How many tests should we do before we dismiss completely a purported therapy that is, according to current science, impossible?

David

[The Don]

In my opinion, these days to prove anything to the great unwashed you need a prominent soap star, film star or athlete to say it.

The great majority of people are insufficiently educated to understand the scientific basis of the research and have relied so long on gut feel (after all they are functionally illiterate and innumerate) that they will not respond to reason.

Another way would be to engineer a "Homeopathy scandal" which would be reported in the news

[Dragon]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
Dragon I said I made a mistake its codine/heroin and not nurfoen above already.


NO I wont go into a mine worse than yours either, for 1 its pointless 2 thresholds to pain vary in people, 3 I' ll kick your shins in:D

You cannot dismiss my experience and then use your own to back up with. sorry dragon my experience i will use as i have been there, same as anybody elses.

YOU cant stand there and say rubbish to mine but in your experience , no sorry, I am going to be pendantic on that front.

I will get back to the rest. my data is huge and vast, and still trawling through it all.

OTC drugs are addictive and is the latest growing one to.





Where did I say "rubbish" to your experience? You have obviously been through a lot and I don't seek to diminish that in any way.
I called your claim that Nurofen was more addictive than heroin "rubbish". You now say that you made a mistake and were thinking of codeine.
Well, OK, up to a point - codeine is an opiate, derived from the opium poppy (as are heroin and morphine, of course). I'd always understood that it was the least addictive of the opiates - but let's see what you've got on the subject.

On a more general point, the opiates are very good pain killers which have been in use for many years and whose benefits, side effects and risks are well understood and documented.
All the scientific and medical evidence tells us that homeopathic dilutions are nothing but water.
They might not, of themselves, do you any harm but they cannot, in principle, do you any good either beyond the placebo effect.
(If, of course, you stop taking a coventional drug which might save your life, and take a homeopathic remedy instead, well...)

Originally posted by davidhorman


I can't help being a litera-nazi - you meant "nor does it imply" (either that or you meant "nor should the experimenter infer"). I won't even try and guess what you meant by "advocate".

How many tests should we do before we dismiss completely a purported therapy that is, according to current science, impossible?

David

David dont even try to get in my head you wont suceed you will however lose all your hair and teeth :D

Infer.. to conclude from evidence deduce :P =as in I am in science term time
Imply... suggest.
Advocate... To speak in favour of, recommend= again science term time

One test does not advocate(recommend, speak of) faliure or does it infer(conclude from evidence or deduce) all subsequent products are the same

works still for me.

Ok dismiss it, pure and simple it doesnt work all the people who it has well explain that. THE FEEL GOOD FACTOR, take a break from traditional medicines and stops the overload of the body/resistence built up happening.

If I was to say to you sorry David I am stopping your pain relief pills, and your not having anything else how do you feel?

Same again but adding take this for a while its ahomeopathic remedy that does this and that, blah blah, lessens this and does that.

You going to go with nothing?

me

[richardm]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower

THE FEEL GOOD FACTOR, take a break from traditional medicines and stops the overload of the body/resistence built up happening.

If I was to say to you sorry David I am stopping your pain relief pills, and your not having anything else how do youfeel?

Same again but adding take this for a while its ahomeopathic remedy that does this and that, blah blah, lessens this and does that.

You going to go with nothing?

... so, you'd sell these homeopathic pain relief pills to David in the full knowledge that there is no evidence they will work and plenty evidence that they won't, but it would still be ethical just so long as David believes that they will work? :confused:

If they don't work, is that David's fault for not believing in them?

Originally posted by Dragon


Where did I say "rubbish" to your experience? You have obviously been through a lot and I don't seek to diminish that in any way.
I called your claim that Nurofen was more addictive than heroin "rubbish". You now say that you made a mistake and were thinking of codeine.
Well, OK, up to a point - codeine is an opiate, derived from the opium poppy (as are heroin and morphine, of course). I'd always understood that it was the least addictive of the opiates - but let's see what you've got on the subject.

On a more general point, the opiates are very good pain killers which have been in use for many years and whose benefits, side effects and risks are well understood and documented.
All the scientific and medical evidence tells us that homeopathic dilutions are nothing but water.
They might not, of themselves, do you any harm but they cannot, in principle, do you any good either beyond the placebo effect.
(If, of course, you stop taking a coventional drug which might save your life, and take a homeopathic remedy instead, well...)

No dragon I said, nurofen takes longer to get out the system than heroin I meant codine does take longer not nurofen, I knew it ws one I called wrong, I admittied it. ITS CODINE that takes olnge ot go cold turkey on than heroin.

Rubbish bit you misread me, I didnt say you did, I really loathe having things taken out of context.
I said if you rubbish my experience as part of my own view on homeopathy from my indivdual experience of both sides of the medicine world, then you cant include your own either. Well I knew what I meant.:D

You not listening placing to much on small parts, not focusing on the whole, now you say your on ibropfen(if thats wrong pill I change it later) your not an addict, canyou be so sure bearing in mind alladdicts dont say they are until they wake up to it and admit it?(not saying your a liar either so dont go down that road, its a valid point raising issue)

As for the opiate did you read the article above I put up? My point is yes they are addictive ok not everyone will succumb but it is happening, Taking anything over a long peiod of time the body becomes dependent on it, you increase the amount to gain same relief Addiction has alrady taken hold,and bingo the body shuts down.

Nobody said Vallium/Prozac was and now look at the zombies it left in its wake?

Homeopathy yes its diluted, the feel good factor plays a big part in its not cure but healing, why?
Rough guess because you stop poisioning your body with normal medication taken after along period of time. No even I dont agree stop normal medication of its for a particular dangerous illness that is lunacy.
I aslo suggest talking to your own GPS. My own GP suggested I try it I did, did it work, made me sleep better, made me feel calmer than I had in along time, so yes it did for somethings. Then my body was filled with poisions for overdosing on pain killers and that includes morphine which doesnt even take the edge off my pain anymore.

You have the right to your view I respect each one, but when your backs against the wall and this is an alterative to at least try where is the harm if it is with a GP's knowledge granted to try?

Me

Originally posted by richardm


... so, you'd sell these homeopathic pain relief pills to David in the full knowledge that there is no evidence they will work and plenty evidence that they won't, but it would still be ethical just so long as David believes that they will work? :confused:

If they don't work, is that David's fault for not believing in them?

Richard I wouldnt sell them in the first place and dont say it like that either.

NO if they didnt work they didnt regardless of Davids belief, out of context.

Define feel good factor?

Me

Richard ethics ok... try this. how is it ethical to mass produce modern medine knowing full well the side effects can be detrimental to health and cause more problems?

Where is the ethics in producing modern medicines with talc or other unecessary fillers?

If I was to say to you eat this its talc then I will give you the active ingrediant you would refuse, wheres the ethics then?

Herbalism you views?

Me

[RichardR]

radiating-sunflower:

Do you have anything to back up these two claims of yours:

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

”Half of all illnesses around are caused by the side effects of modern medicines”[/list=1]

Thanks

[richardm]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower


Richard I wouldnt sell them in the first place and dont say it like that either.

NO if they didnt work they didnt regardless of Davids belief, out of context.

Define feel good factor?


Well, sorry if that came out sounding a bit blunt, but I'm not really sure how else I could put it! I do feel strongly that people should not be misled into buying products that don't work. Simple as that.

You ask me to define the "feel good factor" - I'm guessing because you feel that if it makes someone feel better to be doing something rather than nothing, then it's okay.

I don't happen to agree with this. I really don't. It doesn't matter whether it's homeopathy, or magnetic shoe pads, or laundry balls, or fuel additives, or any one of the zillions of scams that get flogged around - I'm sure you know a few.

I think that if you buy something that a claim is made for, then that claim should be borne out. Perhaps I'm just naive ;)

Originally posted by RichardR
radiating-sunflower:

Do you have anything to back up these two claims of yours:

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

”Half of all illnesses around are caused by the side effects of modern medicines”[/list=1]

Thanks
I can but so far nobodies listening.

Is there any sodding point, so far my grammers and terminologies inadequate, my experience in this side of things isnt acdemic enough, you all pick on one point ignoring the rest, oh and I apperetenly talk gibberish.

If your not going to listen and think is there any point in trying?

:( :( :(

difference between me and you lot it appears I look at the whole not just at some points and am willing to see it from another view point, not so dismissive as you all are.

me and i didnt claim anyway.

[richardm]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
Richard ethics ok... try this. how is it ethical to mass produce modern medine knowing full well the side effects can be detrimental to health and cause more problems?


Well, obviously you have to weigh the alternatives up. If you have a chemotherapy drug that might stop cancer, you would put up with side-effects like nausea, hair loss, and worse. But you wouldn't release a toothache pill with those side effects.

It's ethical to produce drugs that are dangerous so long as they work and are administered carefully. The alternative is to produce drugs that are not in any way dangerous, which for the most part means that they don't work at all.


Where is the ethics in prodicing modern medicines with talc or other unecessary fillers?



The fillers are just that - they are inert substances there to fill the tablet up to a manageable size. Homeopathic remedies do the same thing.


If I was to say to you eat this its talc then I will give you the active ingrediant you would refuse, wheres the ethics then?


That would be a bizarre thing to ask ;) Why would you do that? I don't think it would be unethical, but I would certainly think it odd.


Herbalism you views?

Herbalism? The root of modern Pharmacology. If you'll pardon the pun ;)

[Dragon]

r-s,

I'm happy to to move on and "focus on the whole" as you put it.
Reserving the right to point out any particular errors of yours. :D

I think we can probably agree on this -
Medicines vary in their efficacy and potential for harm. The medical profession does not have a monopoly on wisdom nor do doctors always understand exactly what they are doing.

From your posts on this thread your general position seems to be "Modern Medicines Bad, Natural Medicines Good"
Please correct me if I have misread you.

My position is that all medicines need to come up to scratch and that means proper testing whatever the original source.

Proper testing is, ideally -
Double blind
Peer reviewed
Replicated (e.g. by other labs/teams)


I have yet to see these criteria fully applied to homeopathic remedies. Therefore no-one should be allowed to make false claims as to their efficacy. They should not be marketed as medicines.

Originally posted by richardm



Well, sorry if that came out sounding a bit blunt, but I'm not really sure how else I could put it! I do feel strongly that people should not be misled into buying products that don't work. Simple as that.

You ask me to define the "feel good factor" - I'm guessing because you feel that if it makes someone feel better to be doing something rather than nothing, then it's okay.

I don't happen to agree with this. I really don't. It doesn't matter whether it's homeopathy, or magnetic shoe pads, or laundry balls, or fuel additives, or any one of the zillions of scams that get flogged around - I'm sure you know a few.

I think that if you buy something that a claim is made for, then that claim should be borne out. Perhaps I'm just naive ;)



Not naive:)I wouldnt say that. You want written assurances thats how you interact with things and feel comfortable with them in that form, but not all of life is like that.

Yes there are scams(religion for one)I do know of some, but if it helps somebody gain one minutes releif and happiness can you so eaily deny them that?

I'm off as said before pm me carry on whatever email me if you wish me to continue right now I am about to explode.

me

[richardm]

Originally posted by richardm
The alternative is to produce drugs that are not in any way dangerous, which for the most part means that they don't work at all.


Just to clarify that: Most drugs, I think, operate by changing the way your body is working in some way or another. Inevitably that means that if you take enough of them at one time, most of them are going to be able to change the way you're working so much they start breaking things.

Somebody please correct me if I'm gibbering.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
I can but so far nobodies listening. Well, I’m listening but you don’t appear to have answered either of those questions.

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
Is there any sodding point, so far my grammers and terminologies inadequate, my experience in this side of things isnt acdemic enough, you all pick on one point ignoring the rest, oh and I apperetenly talk gibberish. Excuse me but I don’t think that I have commented on your grammar or anything else.

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
If your not going to listen and think is there any point in trying?

:( :( :(

difference between me and you lot it appears I look at the whole not just at some points and am willing to see it from another view point, not so dismissive as you all are. I would just like to know if you have anything to back up your claims, which were:

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

”Half of all illnesses around are caused by the side effects of modern medicines”[/list=1]

Can you answer these or not? Thanks.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
Richard ethics ok... try this. how is it ethical to mass produce modern medine knowing full well the side effects can be detrimental to health and cause more problems?



Whenever I get a prescription filled, I get a sheet from the pharmacy which describes what the medicine is, instructions from taking it, and what the side effects are .

The side effects are always less severe than the disease itself.

[davidhorman]

One test does not advocate(recommend, speak of) faliure or does it infer(conclude from evidence or deduce) all subsequent products are the same

Tests cannot speak or recommend, nor can they conclude or deduce anything. People do that. Tests simply provide the evidence, the implications of which others will infer. The word "failure" isn't really appropriate either, when you're talking about the vailidity of homeopathy as a whole.

"One test does not imply the overall falsehood of homeopathy, nor does it imply that all subsequent products are the same."

But, we digress.

If I was to say to you sorry David I am stopping your pain relief pills, and your not having anything else how do youfeel?

Same again but adding take this for a while its ahomeopathic remedy that does this and that, blah blah, lessens this and does that.

You going to go with nothing?

If what you're saying is would I rather take homeopathic medicine or nothing if I was in pain, I'd take the homeopathic medicine (assuming it was at no cost to me) - because I know the worst it could do is nothing. However, since I doubt I'll ever be in a situation where homeopathic medicine is the only option, I'd chuck the pills in the bin and go out and buy some real painkillers.

David

[Soubrette]

Just out of interest and knowing nothing about homeopathy...

How are these compounds diluted? Is there a set procedure or does someone buy the dilute stuff and just dilute it further? or what?

Sou

[Dub]

Originally posted by Soubrette
Just out of interest and knowing nothing about homeopathy...

How are these compounds diluted? Is there a set procedure or does someone buy the dilute stuff and just dilute it further? or what?

Sou

As far as I know, one drop of the original solution is added to an amount of water so that the mixture is 1:100. This mixture is then violently shaken, apparently the violent shaking is the 'special' bit. Then a drop of this mixed solution is added to 99 drops of pur water, making a dilution of 1:10,000. This is then repeated, with the dilution ratio being increased by a factor of 100 each time. Each dilution stage is known as 1c. So 6c is the said process carried out through 6 stages. :)

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by Dub


As far as I know, one drop of the original solution is added to an amount of water so that the mixture is 1:100. This mixture is then violently shaken, apparently the violent shaking is the 'special' bit. Then a drop of this mixed solution is added to 99 drops of pur water, making a dilution of 1:10,000. This is then repeated, with the dilution ratio being increased by a factor of 100 each time. Each dilution stage is known as 1c. So 6c is the said process carried out through 6 stages. :)

Do they throw the rest of the solution away? After using one drop per 99 drops of water?

Thanks Dub:)

Sou

[Dub]

I dont know, but i'd assume so. Sounds very waseful to me if they do. Although, they do sell different dilution levels, i.e. from about 6c upto 30c. So perhaps they just sell the lower 'c' solutions. Bizzarley it is claimed the more dilute soultions are the most effective. :)

[Soubrette]

Actually thinking on it some more they'd probably use it to make more dilute solutions:)

So some solutions must have an amount of the original solution in albeit miniscule - after all it can't disappear - or homeopathics could apply for the James Randi prize, just not for the healing properties;)

So a tiny proportion might have a molecule or two in compared to the rest with none in?

Is my thinking logical on this?

Sou

[Dub]

Originally posted by Soubrette
Actually thinking on it some more they'd probably use it to make more dilute solutions:)

So some solutions must have an amount of the original solution in albeit miniscule - after all it can't disappear - or homeopathics could apply for the James Randi prize, just not for the healing properties;)

So a tiny proportion might have a molecule or two in compared to the rest with none in?

Is my thinking logical on this?

Sou

Homeopathy was put to the JREF challenge and failed. Most homeopathic 'remedies' do not infact contain any of the original solution. As confirmed by big machines operated by men in white coats with beards. :D There's not even enough water in the world for one drop of a solution to achieve the dilution of most homeopathic remedies. Infact, they even come alot more diluted than that. I think anything above 16c is more dilute than one drop in all the worlds water and you can buy 30c products!!!! :)

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by Dub


Homeopathy was put to the JREF challenge and failed. Most homeopathic 'remedies' do not infact contain any of the original solution. As confirmed by big machines operated by men in white coats with beards. :D There's not even enough water in the world for one drop of a solution to achieve the dilution of most homeopathic remedies. Infact, they even come alot more diluted than that. I think anything above 16c is more dilute than one drop in all the worlds water and you can buy 30c products!!!! :)

So where does it go? I mean what happens to the original solution - it can't disappear can it? Assuming that they don't throw any of it away?

I'm not interested in the efficacy of it - just where the original solution actually goes :)

And I'll have you know that women with beards can operate machinery too ;)

Sou

[Dub]

I assume that as it becomes more diluted each stage, 'c' contains less and less of the original solution until finally there is none of the original solution left. The molecules of the original solution will be left in the earllier stages of the process.

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by Dub
I assume that as it becomes more diluted each stage, 'c' contains less and less of the original solution until finally there is none of the original solution left. The molecules of the original solution will be left in the earllier stages of the process.

Um...are you saying it spontaneously disappears? Hang on, hang on, or are you saying that at some point there isn't enough water in the world to dilute these solutions so they have to start throwing out these mixtures. Thus the actual original molecules disappear down the drain somewhere?

If it's the latter - I think I get it now:)

Sou

[Dub]

Originally posted by Soubrette


Um...are you saying it spontaneously disappears? Hang on, hang on, or are you saying that at some point there isn't enough water in the world to dilute these solutions so they have to start throwing out these mixtures. Thus the actual original molecules disappear down the drain somewhere?

If it's the latter - I think I get it now:)

Sou

Yeh the latter. :) Either down the drain or they sell the weaker soultions, a very few of which, probably anything below about 10c, will contain a extremely minute amount of the original solution.

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by Dub


Yeh the latter. :) Either down the drain or they sell the weaker soultions, a very few of which, probably anything below about 10c, will contain a extremely minute amount of the original solution.

Thankfully even I get there in the end ;)

Thank you for your patience:)

Sou

[3-toed-sloth]

Originally posted by Soubrette


Thankfully even I get there in the end ;)

Thank you for your patience:)

Sou

Instead of making fancy dilutions and using special shaking protocals, I'd just run down to the store and buy a gallon of distilled water, put water into small fancy bottles, and label it homeopathic cure-all. That is much cheaper and the end product is the same (pure water).

[dmarker]

What does "provoke healing" mean?




Originally posted by radiating-sunflower

No I didnt, I know about homeopathy and how it does things to the body to provoke healing.

[Corsair09]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower

You going to including herbalism, colour therapy, reiki, crystal healing, aromatherapy, etc too?

Absolutley. Utter bollocks, the lot of it.

[Andalyn]

Originally posted by Soubrette


Um...are you saying it spontaneously disappears? Hang on, hang on, or are you saying that at some point there isn't enough water in the world to dilute these solutions so they have to start throwing out these mixtures. Thus the actual original molecules disappear down the drain somewhere?

If it's the latter - I think I get it now:)

Sou

I like to look at it like this. On the USA side of the Atlantic, I drop one drop of a special emultion of sulfur in the water. On your side of the Atlantic, you test the water.

Surprise! You don't detect the special sulphur.

We know it's in there. We know that drop of sulphur is in that body of water. However, it is so diluted - it is not detectable.

Originally posted by RichardR
Well, I’m listening but you don’t appear to have answered either of those questions.

Excuse me but I don’t think that I have commented on your grammar or anything else.

I would just like to know if you have anything to back up your claims, which were:

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

”Half of all illnesses around are caused by the side effects of modern medicines”[/list=1]

Can you answer these or not? Thanks.

No I didnt mean you it was a general arghhhhhhhhhh :mad:



Treat like with like. Similars is the term. I can only back it up with what I know hard concrete scientific evidence as in clinical trial, probably not, alI can back it up with is what I know on how it works and what i know about homeopathy, if that is not good enough then it ends.

Angalgesics (example)kill pain by blocking that particular nerve function. It doesnt cure it.
Homeopathy does by treating the sympton with itself(basically) making the body heal, it doesnt mask or hide symptons. Like with like.(see above for treating malaria with Cinchona Bark)

Half of all illnesses around are caused side effects of modern medicines. YES that has been well documented on already, Vallium, Prozac, Celebrex/Voix etc There side effects cause more illnesess in that person to develop not all patients will but there are some that do.(again see above for the piece I put, it is a real person that went through it and not me)

http://www.nida.nih.gov/ResearchReports/Prescription/Prescription.html
http://www.benzodiazepine.org/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/1024617.stm
http://www.benzo.org.uk/abpord.htm
http://www.solpadeinehelp.org.uk/
http://www.grieved.fsnet.co.uk/

Analgesics

Analgesics are substances that provides relief from pain. Mild analgesics, such as the many brand-named preparations of aspirin or paracetemol, are relatively harmless. Analgesic drugs of abuse are far stronger than this and are all powerful pain killers. Some are refined from an extract obtained from opium poppies (Papaver somniferum) and are classed as "opiates" and some are produced by chemical synthesis.
Opiates include Opium itself, which is the resin obtained from the seed pod of the opium poppy, along with Morphine, Heroin and Codeine. These can all be produced from raw opium by fairly simple chemical processing.

Synthetic analgesics are manufactured as powders, tablets or liquids. They include Methadone (usually as a syrup), Physeptone (a methadone tablet), Pethidine, Diconal and Palfium.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which analgesics are abused?
Analgesics - particularly opiates - have a high potential for abuse. Heroin is the most widely abused opiate analgesic but morphine, paregoric (which contains opium) and cough syrups that contain codeine are also abused.
Many synthetic opiates are abused, usually by heroin users as an alternative to that drug. Methadone - prescribed as an alternative to heroin - has been much abused in recent years and is responsible for many deaths in the UK.
Diconal, Physeptone, Pethidine and palfium tablets are usually crushed up and injected by drug abusers. These tablets contain solids such as chalk, which can block veins when injected and lead to gangrene or a stroke.

What do they look like?
Opium is a dark brown slightly sticky resin with the consistency of stiff putty and is usually smoked or eaten. Heroin is a white or brownish powder which is usually dissolved in water and then injected, although it can be smoked. Most street preparations of heroin are diluted, or 'cut' with other substances such as lactose or quinine.
Other analgesics, including all synthetics, come in a variety of forms including capsules, tablets, syrups, solutions and suppositories.

What are the effects of analgesics?
Opiate and synthetic analgesics tend to relax the user. When they are injected, the user feels an immediate 'rush' - that is a strong wave of pleasurable relaxation and relief from anxiety. Unpleasant effects may include restlessness, nausea, and vomiting. The user may go 'on the nod' - going back and forth from feeling alert to drowsy. With large doses, the user cannot be awakened and the skin becomes cold, moist and bluish in color. Breathing slows down and death may occur.
Where analgesics are taken as a syrup, tablets or capsules etc. the effects are similar to that after injection but are milder and without any immediate 'rush'.

I can get this rush from just one pain killer tablet I immediatly get and crave more and I cant stop, so means I cant take any pain killers or similar drugs again. this is the side effect for OTC abuse and addicts.

Does that explain it better?

me a search engine, hardrive of unknown personal research for own personal interest

Originally posted by Dragon
r-s,

I'm happy to to move on and "focus on the whole" as you put it.
Reserving the right to point out any particular errors of yours. :D

I think we can probably agree on this -
Medicines vary in their efficacy and potential for harm. The medical profession does not have a monopoly on wisdom nor do doctors always understand exactly what they are doing.

From your posts on this thread your general position seems to be "Modern Medicines Bad, Natural Medicines Good"
Please correct me if I have misread you.

My position is that all medicines need to come up to scratch and that means proper testing whatever the original source.

Proper testing is, ideally -
Double blind
Peer reviewed
Replicated (e.g. by other labs/teams)


I have yet to see these criteria fully applied to homeopathic remedies. Therefore no-one should be allowed to make false claims as to their efficacy. They should not be marketed as medicines. LMAO shinsguards:D

Yes I agree.

No dragon modern medincines are not god I mean ;), medicine in general is both good and bad in all forms. I am not saying modern is bad there are some aspects of it that are ok.

Yes and no, lab testing clinical documented trials to validify saftey yes, but............. open to abuse from pharmesutical(sp?) giants not wishing to have alternative natural drug on offer losing them revenue.


It wont work doctors paid to prescibe the Big named brands will do so regardless if the alternative is safer more reliable.

False claims yes if a drug regardless of whose it is has nothing in it I mean nothing and it has a vast majority of trialers doesnt work then yes remove it, if it works then leave it alone.

Me

Addiction
Prescription drugs are just as dangerous as street drugs if taken in the wrong way. Certain medications or drugs taken in certain ways can be even more dangerous. Alcohol in combination with prescription drugs is extremely dangerous and often fatal. Some people begin abusing prescription drugs on purpose for the relaxed or euphoric feelings they provide. However, it is more common for people to become addicted after a period of legitimate use.

Barbiturates and benzodiazepines are separated into long-acting and short acting groups. Short-acting means the drug produces effects sooner and that the effects wear off sooner. The shorter-acting drugs are more quickly addictive than the longer-acting drugs. Withdrawal from short-acting tranquilizers can be more severe than withdrawal from the longer-acting ones.
After a short period (sometimes as short as a week or two) of using the drug exactly as directed, tolerance can develop. The brain will become adjusted to a certain level of the drug in it and will adjust its functioning to that level. More of the drug will need to be taken to achieve the same effects.
Some of the effects of tranquilizer abuse include slurred speech, constricted pupils, slowed breathing rate and possibly death

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Painkiller drug addiction snares 20,000 Britons
Special report: drugs in Britain
Amelia Hill
Sunday September 17, 2000
The Observer
More than 20,000 people in Britain are addicted to drugs available without prescription, such as painkillers and cough mixtures, according to the first national survey into the problem.
Young women aged 25 to 35 are most likely to suffer over-the-counter (OTC) addiction: 52 per cent of those who admitted addiction were housewives, 27 per cent were one-parent mothers and a further 21 per cent were professionals who often took up to 75 tablets a day over a four- to five-year period.
One-third of the men who admitted dependency were young professionals aged 28 to 35, while 30 per cent were manual workers and 19 per cent were retail staff in the same age range.
Mel Smith, the actor and producer, admitted recently that he nearly died after a seven-year addiction to Nurofen Plus, which left him exhausted, depressed and with two leaking stomach ulcers. At the height of his dependency to the painkiller, taken originally to ease gout, Smith was taking nearly 10 times the maximum dose advised.
'It's frightening how easily I became hooked on a drug freely sold over the counter,' he said. 'I swallowed the pills like Smarties. Swallowing 50 tablets in one day was tantamount to committing suicide: I'm very lucky to be alive.'
The research, to be published in a book next year, was carried out by Over-Count, a self-help group with more than 9,000 people on its books. It was set up by David Grieve, a former policeman who was given 12 months to live in 1992 when his 17-year addiction to the cough mixture Phensydyl landed him in intensive care.
'I had reached the point where I was drinking 25 to 30 bottles of the stuff every day,' he said. 'I had run up £18,000 in debt, had lost my job and spent my weeks travelling around the country trying to find chemists who would still serve me. I sold my son's Christmas presents so I could buy two bottles.'
Grieve began his research in 1997 and was amazed at the extent of the problem. 'Male addicts regularly travel up to 135 miles to buy enough medicine to fuel their addiction,' he said. 'It's an addiction that can hit those who wouldn't consider taking anything harder, which means it affects a wide and as yet completely undefined spectrum of society.'
More than 70 per cent of Over-Count's members are women, most addicted to codeine-based painkillers in tablet form. The men are mainly addicted to codeine-based cough and cold mixtures.
Long misuse of codeine, a highly addictive opiate in the same family as heroin and morphine, will have a depressant effect on the central nervous system and can cause pancreatitis, dependency and respiratory depression.
Grieve questioned 25 pharmacists who listed 21 products, most codeine-based, which they were allowed to sell without prescription, but suspected were frequently abused by customers.
A psychiatrist at an NHS Substance Misuse Clinic in Scotland said the numbers of referrals for over-the-counter drug addictions to his clinic had increased by more than 50 per cent in five years.
'We need to address this problem before events overtake us,' he said. 'More and more prescription drugs are being down rated to OTC availability, and I fear the numbers of patients with an OTC addiction will increase correspondingly unless something is done and unless that happens soon.'
Observer. 17th October 2000

note the Observer added source identified

Originally posted by Corsair09


Absolutley. Utter bollocks, the lot of it.

Herbalism how you so eloquently put it b*******( no need to use that language) really?

Are you so sure seeing as without it modern medicine wouldnt have half its well known brands in exsistence. Or are you trashing modern medicine too? If not then you are talking rubbish.

me

http://www.numarkpharmacists.com/pages/invoker.plx?shortcut=homeopathy&shortcut=homeopathy&art_ho=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.numarkpharmacists.com%2Fhn %2FHomeo%2FWhat_Is_Homeopathy_hm.htm&shortcut=homeopathy&shortcut=homeopathy&art_ho=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.numarkpharmacists.com%2Fhn %2FHomeo%2FWhat_Is_Homeopathy_hm.htm

Soubrette try that for inormation.
me using serach engine

Originally posted by dmarker
What does "provoke healing" mean?





Force or kick start the healing process etc, make the bodies immune system kick in and deal with the sympton.

me

Originally posted by Segnosaur


Whenever I get a prescription filled, I get a sheet from the pharmacy which describes what the medicine is, instructions from taking it, and what the side effects are .

The side effects are always less severe than the disease itself.

We dont over here,until you have the medication in your hand,
I was given celebrex despite it saying I am asthmatic and its one of the big no no's with celebrex not to be prescribed to, and I got the raw end of its side effects( I got that instruction leaflet when I went and got the rest of the perscription having taken just 3 tablets by them I was screwed up) and often the our docs limit you to a 10 minute consultation only so you dont get a chance to say and the side effects are? Your out and the next conveyor belt patients is in.

Clelebrex isnt, how is arthritis worse than a burst bowel or heart failure or renal shutdown?

me

[richardm]

I'd just like to digress for a moment, R-S. We've touched a little on herbalism. Herbalism is the art of figuring out what plants do what for your benefit. We'll discount for the moment the "Doctrine of Signatures", that told us that God made plants in a particular shape in order to indicate what part of the body they'd heal. Let's look at the classic case of Aspirin.

We all know that the basis of aspirin can be found in willow bark. So you have a toothache: you peel off a bit of bark and chew away, and your toothache feels better. At this point, herbalism stops, happy with the result.

But some people aren't happy with it. Sometimes it doesn't work very well; sometimes it gives you bad stomach pains; often you end up with some sort of poorly tummy anyway if you use it often. And some of those people tried to work out why.

The general poorly tummy problem is, perhaps, because of the cellulose in the bark. Sometimes it doesn't work very well, perhaps because the dose of whatever-it-is in the bark is naturally lower - a bad summer? Sometimes it gives you very bad stomach pains because the dose of whatever-it-is is too high, and that causes problems.

What would be ideal would be to find out what is in the bark that helps the toothache, and isolate it so we can control the dose easily. Then we can work out what the right dose is for most people, and make it easy for them to get that right dose.

Doesn't that sound better than chewing a bit of bark?

For a large part, modern pharmaceuticals follow this model. Right now there are people in the rainforests analysing new plants, and people here analysing old plants.

Herbalism is just an amateur version of that, wouldn't you say?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower


We dont over here,until you have the medication in your hand,
I was given celebrex despite it saying I am asthmatic and its one of the big no no's with celebrex not to be prescribed to, and I got the raw end of its side effects( I got that instruction leaflet when I went and got the rest of the perscription having taken just 3 tablets by them I was screwed up) and often the our docs limit you to a 10 minute consultation only so you dont get a chance to say and the side effects are?


Well, from the sounds of things, it looks like your pharmacist screwed up. Or your doctor. Unfortunately it happens. 99.9% of people will be perscribed the correct medicine... the 0.1% may get misdiganosed, or get medicine that they aren't supposed to take... much of medicine is about risk management.

And its unfortunate that you only got 10 minutes with your doc. However, I would rather spend 10 minutes with a doc that I knew could probably help me, than someone who is going to suggest a remedy which I know hasn't been proven. This is one of the big problems that modern medicine has. Far too many people want to spend time with their doctor... and when the doctor doesn't have enough time, they go to someone who will (like a Homeopath, or chiropractor), who may not have any real ability to help cure them, but because they spend time with the patient, the patient thinks they are doing a good job. (For example, see this thread: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10526 )

[xouper]

Originally posted by Soubrette
So where does it go? I mean what happens to the original solution - it can't disappear can it? Assuming that they don't throw any of it away?Perhaps it might be interesting to look at some actual numerical examples. The following is my understanding of it, and I assume that if I got any part of it wrong, someone will correct me.

According to Avogadro, in a jar containing 18 grams of pure water, there are about <nobr>6x10²³</nobr> molecules of <nobr>H₂O.</nobr> Thus, in 30 grams of water, which is about one fluid ounce, there are about <nobr>10²⁴</nobr> molecules.

If you add just one molecule of a homeopathic agent to 1 ounce of water, then the dilution will be about 24X (or 12C).

If you add this one ounce dilution to 99 ounces of pure water (bringing the total to 100 ounces) and then divide it among a 100 jars each containing one ounce of dilution, then each of the hundred jars will contain a homeopathic dilution of 13C (or 26X).

Quiz question: How many of these jars contain a molecule of the original homeopathic agent?

Answer: Only one. The other 99 jars contain no molucules of the original homeopathic agent whatsoever.

If you repeat the previous step, (taking each jar and adding it to 99 ounces of pure water, and splitting that into a hundred more jars of one ounce each), you will have 10,000 jars, each with a dilution of 14C (or 28X).

And if you do this 16 more times, you will have a grand total of <nobr>10³⁶</nobr> jars, each containing one ounce of 30C dilution (or 60X).

Quiz question: How many of these jars contain a molecule of the original homeopathic agent?

Answer: Only one. The other bazillion jars contain no molecules of the original homeopathic agent whatsoever.

Does this answer your question of where does the "original solution go?"

[Corsair09]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower


Are you so sure seeing as without it modern medicine wouldnt have half its well known brands in exsistence. Or are you trashing modern medicine too? If not then you are talking rubbish.

Oh sure, modern pharmacology has its "root" in herbalism, I suppose, just as modern astronomy could be said to have roots in astrology. Both are just about as relevant today as well. What the heck.. Keep chanting over your crystals, and drinking your distilled water, if that makes you happy. As for the language, sorry about that, but my tolerance for foolish ideas is wearing thin

[xouper]

Originally posted by xouper
If you add just one molecule of a homeopathic agent to 1 ounce of water, then the dilution will be about 24X (or 12C).By way of comparison, the water at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas was tested in January 2002 (http://www.leavenworth.army.mil/dis/environmental/water/ccr.htm) to contain .001 ppb of arsenic^*, which means that they found one molecule of arsenic for every 10¹² molecules of water. In other words, in each ounce of their water, there are about <nobr>1,000,000,000,000</nobr> molecules of arsenic.

Using the homeopathic notation for dilutions, the water at Fort Leavenworth has an arsenic dilution of 12X (or 6C). I wonder what a homeopathic drug using arsenic as its agent is supposed to cure you of.


^*Federal EPA standards for safe drinking water (http://www.epa.gov/safewater/arsenic.html) allow 10,000 times more arsenic than this.

Originally posted by Corsair09


Oh sure, modern pharmacology has its "root" in herbalism, I suppose, just as modern astronomy could be said to have roots in astrology. Both are just about as relevant today as well. What the heck.. Keep chanting over your crystals, and drinking your distilled water, if that makes you happy. As for the language, sorry about that, but my tolerance for foolish ideas is wearing thin


Ok oh so jump straight into the fire presumptious one please point to where I said I USED it or crystal healing?????? I SAID OH HARD OF READING ONE I KNOW OF THOSE PRACTISES WHAT I DO, DO IS COLLECT TOXIC PLANTS and LEARN ABOUT THEM, Deadlier the better spiky ouchy oh yes, evil smelling heaven.

So dont ever tell me to go do something when for one you dont know me and for 2 you are the fool here for jumping to conclusions wrong on what I do and dont do.

NEXT TIME ASK:mad: :mad: :mad:

:mad:

Language apology accepted thanks.

No suppose about it without the herbalist records on use of Yew , Taxol would never have got off the ground which is a new drug, along with this little lot Digatalis, Aniseed, chamomile, Garlic, Peppermint, Fennel, Lavender, Castor Oil, Glonoine, Hypericum, Echinacea, Coffea, for the men Cantharis Vesicatoria;)

me showing my plant knowledge

Originally posted by xouper
By way of comparison, the water at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas was tested in January 2002 (http://www.leavenworth.army.mil/dis/environmental/water/ccr.htm) to contain .001 ppb of arsenic^*, which means that they found one molecule of arsenic for every 10¹² molecules of water. In other words, in each ounce of their water, there are about <nobr>1,000,000,000,000</nobr> molecules of arsenic.

Using the homeopathic notation for dilutions, the water at Fort Leavenworth has an arsenic dilution of 12X (or 6C). I wonder what a homeopathic drug using arsenic as its agent is supposed to cure you of.


^*Federal EPA standards for safe drinking water (http://www.epa.gov/safewater/arsenic.html) allow 10,000 times more arsenic than this.



boils, shingles, gangrene, food poisioning, headache, quite alot of uses(DONT TRY ITS LETHAL get proper medical advice first,)

me showing my love of deadly things

Originally posted by Segnosaur


Well, from the sounds of things, it looks like your pharmacist screwed up. Or your doctor. Unfortunately it happens. 99.9% of people will be perscribed the correct medicine... the 0.1% may get misdiganosed, or get medicine that they aren't supposed to take... much of medicine is about risk management.

And its unfortunate that you only got 10 minutes with your doc. However, I would rather spend 10 minutes with a doc that I knew could probably help me, than someone who is going to suggest a remedy which I know hasn't been proven. This is one of the big problems that modern medicine has. Far too many people want to spend time with their doctor... and when the doctor doesn't have enough time, they go to someone who will (like a Homeopath, or chiropractor), who may not have any real ability to help cure them, but because they spend time with the patient, the patient thinks they are doing a good job. (For example, see this thread: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10526 )

Yes I know and agree. Over here its like that in some parts better some not so and you dont get a choice unelss you go private or move to a better doctors surgery. Who wouldnt go to somebody who sit and listen?

me

Originally posted by richardm
I'd just like to digress for a moment, R-S. We've touched a little on herbalism. Herbalism is the art of figuring out what plants do what for your benefit. We'll discount for the moment the "Doctrine of Signatures", that told us that God made plants in a particular shape in order to indicate what part of the body they'd heal. Let's look at the classic case of Aspirin.

We all know that the basis of aspirin can be found in willow bark. So you have a toothache: you peel off a bit of bark and chew away, and your toothache feels better. At this point, herbalism stops, happy with the result.

But some people aren't happy with it. Sometimes it doesn't work very well; sometimes it gives you bad stomach pains; often you end up with some sort of poorly tummy anyway if you use it often. And some of those people tried to work out why.

The general poorly tummy problem is, perhaps, because of the cellulose in the bark. Sometimes it doesn't work very well, perhaps because the dose of whatever-it-is in the bark is naturally lower - a bad summer? Sometimes it gives you very bad stomach pains because the dose of whatever-it-is is too high, and that causes problems.

What would be ideal would be to find out what is in the bark that helps the toothache, and isolate it so we can control the dose easily. Then we can work out what the right dose is for most people, and make it easy for them to get that right dose.

Doesn't that sound better than chewing a bit of bark?

For a large part, modern pharmaceuticals follow this model. Right now there are people in the rainforests analysing new plants, and people here analysing old plants.

Herbalism is just an amateur version of that, wouldn't you say?

Ameatuerist..Nope it was started before the pharmaceuticals took over(MONEY ORINENTATED) Herbalsim goes back a long way in time.

Chew a bark yes its toxic but then so is the potato that can kill, pepers kill a cell of your brain when you eat them because they are toxic. As with anything you have to build up an immunity, and get a correct diagnoisis.

Herbalism we can chat about that I like herabalism.


corsair yes I use some herbs like in cooking before you jump into my mouth again:D

me showing also my love of toxic plants

[xouper]

Originally posted by xouper
Using the homeopathic notation for dilutions, the water at Fort Leavenworth has an arsenic dilution of 12X (or 6C). I wonder what a homeopathic drug using arsenic as its agent is supposed to cure you of.Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
boils, shingles, gangrene, food poisioning, headache, quite alot of uses(DONT TRY ITS LETHAL get proper medical advice first,) What do you mean it's lethal? The people at Fort Leavenworth are drinking tap water that's a 12X dilution of arsenic and they aren't getting any medical advice first. If 12X of arsenic is supposed to cure boils, shingles, gangrene, food poisioning, headache, and other things, then no one at Fort Leavenworth who drinks the water should ever get any of those things.

[richardm]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower


Ameatuerist..Nope it was started before the pharmaceuticals took over(MONEY ORINENTATED) Herbalsim goes back a long way in time.



Sure it does, but is there anything intrinsically wrong with working out what it is about a herb that does the trick, and separating that good part from all the other parts that you don't need? Fundamentally, this is how many drugs are produced to this day, so to say that herbalism has an edge on modern drugs is simply to accept that impurity in medicine is a benefit.


Chew a bark yes its toxic but then so is the potatoe that can kill, pepers kill a cell of your brain when you eat them becuses they are toxic. As with anything you have to build up an immunity, and get a correct diagnoisis.


Potatoes kill? I know that, like tomatoes, they were treated with great suspicion for many years; are they not both related to Deadly Nightshade? But on the other hand, has anyone ever been poisoned by a potato?


Herbalism we can chat about that I like herabalism.


Maybe it should be a new thread - we're drifting off topic here.

[Flatworm]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower

Produce a fever to kill a fever.
example pervuvian bark aka cinchona bark(quinine) produces same efect as malaria, if yu have malaria and take this(AND FOR GODS SAKE DONT DO IT WITHOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ADVICE FIRST) it will like the malaria "similars"


Quinine produces cycles of fever and chills? I'm sorry, but it doesn't work because of some mystical similarity in symptoms, but because it's quite simply toxic to Plasmodium, the organism responsible for malaria.


orthodox medicine kill the sympton not cure it, by blocking nerve signals."opposite"

Modern medicine has many tools at its disposal. Many do in fact cure the root cause, rather than blocking the symptom (antibiotics come to mind). Others simply alleviate symptoms, but regardless of their effect it is remarkably ignorant to claim all modern pharmaceuticals work by blocking nerve signals.

Originally posted by xouper
What do you mean it's lethal? The people at Fort Leavenworth are drinking tap water that's a 12X dilution of arsenic and they aren't getting any medical advice first. If 12X of arsenic is supposed to cure boils, shingles, gangrene, food poisioning, headache, and other things, then no one at Fort Leavenworth who drinks the water should ever get any of those things.




Of course it is so dont try taking the stuff I mean :P
why on earth are they drinking it? more so why is in the water? Theres me thinking the UK water was vile :rolleyes:

me glad not living over the pond drinking arsenic water.

Originally posted by richardm


Sure it does, but is there anything intrinsically wrong with working out what it is about a herb that does the trick, and separating that good part from all the other parts that you don't need? Fundamentally, this is how many drugs are produced to this day, so to say that herbalism has an edge on modern drugs is simply to accept that impurity in medicine is a benefit.

[B]

Potatoes kill? I know that, like tomatoes, they were treated with great suspicion for many years; are they not both related to Deadly Nightshade? But on the other hand, has anyone ever been poisoned by a potato?

[B]

Maybe it should be a new thread - we're drifting off topic here.
Go do another topic on herbaslism then RM, :D

Yes a tribe in africa were given some potatoes and they died and there have been reports of potato poisioning here as well over the years. It was in the news or tomorrows world one of them.

me remembering a tv prog or news item on the subject.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower


Of course it is so dont try taking the stuff I mean :P
why on earth are they drinking it? more so why is i in the water? Theres me thinking the UK water was vile :rolleyes:


Perhaps because it's impossible to filter public water supplies to remove every single contaminant. The goal is to filter the water enough so that the contaminants are harmless. So, the arsenic in the public water is non-toxic, and yet still more plentiful than in the standard homeopathic "remedy".

The question still remains, why aren't people in Fort Leavenworth completely free of the conditions you stated that Arsenic supposedly cures?

Originally posted by Flatworm


Quinine produces cycles of fever and chills? I'm sorry, but it doesn't work because of some mystical similarity in symptoms, but because it's quite simply toxic to Plasmodium, the organism responsible for malaria.



Modern medicine has many tools at its disposal. Many do in fact cure the root cause, rather than blocking the symptom (antibiotics come to mind). Others simply alleviate symptoms, but regardless of their effect it is remarkably ignorant to claim all modern pharmaceuticals work by blocking nerve signals. That was an example I knew of,
LET ME RUN THIS BY AGAIN... HOMEOPATHY PRINCIPLES TREAT LIKE WITH LIKE(SIMILARS) that is how it is supposed to work,

me again quoting the homeopathic principles available on all good web sites.

Originally posted by Ipecac



Perhaps because it's impossible to filter public water supplies to remove every single contaminant. The goal is to filter the water enough so that the contaminants are harmless. So, the arsenic in the public water is non-toxic, and yet still more plentiful than in the standard homeopathic "remedy".

The question still remains, why aren't people in Fort Leavenworth completely free of the conditions you stated that Arsenic supposedly cures?

How do i know what Fort leavenworth has, i'm this side of the pond not yours:P

I said RM you know that round round feeling you said I getting dizzy lmao. ion respnce that arsenic is supposed to cure the list I didnt say it did or how much is needed. I looked it up and there you go the answer.

round round flower goes round
I dont need a man to drive me crazy
this site does it easy
round round flower round round.:D

me in a spin

[xouper]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
Of course it is so dont try taking the stuff I mean :P
why on earth are they drinking it? more so why is i in the water? Theres me thinking the UK water was vile :rolleyes: Yes, arsenic is poisonous, but a 12X dilution of arsenic is not. The U.S. government considers regular consumption of 7X dilution of arsenic to be within their guidelines for safe drinking water. Meaning the water at Fort Leavenworth is 10,000 times safer than the federal limit. If you had clicked the links I gave, you would know this. And you would also know where the arsenic came from in the Fort Leavenworth tap water.


Edited to correct: I should have typed 8X not, 7X. Sorry if I confused anyone. 10,000 has only 4 zeros, not 5.

[Flatworm]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower


Of course it is so dont try taking the stuff I mean :P
why on earth are they drinking it? more so why is i in the water? Theres me thinking the UK water was vile :rolleyes:

I don't think you're quite grasping the level of dilution here. I would drink water with one part in 10^12 arsenic in it any day.

Consider Hydrofluoric acid, one of the most powerful acids known. Concentrated to the point of saturation, it can be used to etch glass. However, at 10^-12 M concentration, the surrounding water contributes 100,000 times more hydronium ions than the HF. The pH of a completely pure 10^-12 M HydroFluoric acid solution would be 6.999996 . You could drink this every day of your life without harmful effects.

Originally posted by xouper
Yes, arsenic is poisonous, but a 12X dilution of arsenic is not. The U.S. government considers regular consumption of 7X dilution of arsenic to be within their guidelines for safe drinking water. Meaning the water at Fort Leavenworth is 10,000 times safer than the federal limit. If you had clicked the links I gave, you would know this. And you would also know where the arsenic came from in the Fort Leavenworth tap water.



Listen xouper it is no good you shouting numbers at me, I dont do maths and I switch off. The only time I enjoyed maths type of thing is( 69;) ) when I learnt about Quantam mechanics and nuclear physics, until I got bored.:D


me oh yes quantam mechanic hates numbers easily bored.

[Flatworm]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
That was an example I knew of,
LET ME RUN THIS BY AGAIN... HOMEOPATHY PRINCIPLES TREAT LIKE WITH LIKE(SIMILARS) that is how it is supposed to work,

Well, the main point here is that it doesn't work. That's what the properly conducted scientific research is telling us. The idea that similarity between an illness's symptoms and those of a high dosage of a particular substance is a reliable guide to identifying effective remedies has never been borne out in scientific testing. Homeopaths generally resort to pointing out a few (often very tenuous) examples and claim they prove their theory in general.

Can you show me where you got the idea that quinine produces symptoms similar to malaria? Similar enough to warrant drawing a link between drug and disease to the exclusion of other drugs and other diseases?

You won't find it here. (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/uspdi/202499.html#SXX17)

[xouper]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
Listen xouper it is no good you shouting numbers at me, I dont do maths and I switch off. Unless you understand the numbers, you have no understanding of the dilutions. It's that simple. But thank you for admitting that you have no clue.

[Ipecac]

And it's not like those were a boatload of numbers. 12 times, 7 times, and 10,000. What's not to understand?

[afree87]

Lookie here, R.S.:

Arsenic is very deadly. You don't want it in your water.

The water at Fort Whatsit contained 6C of arsenic, and that's still a tiny percentage of the federal limit.

So why would 15C or 30C of some herb do anything?

[xouper]

Originally posted by Ipecac
And it's not like those were a boatload of numbers. 12 times, 7 times, and 10,000. What's not to understand? Well, to be fair, I mistyped the 7X. Should have been 8X. I went back and added an erratum.

Isn't anyone checking my numbers? :p

[RichardR]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
Treat like with like. Similars is the term. I can only back it up with what I know hard concrete scientific evidence as in clinical trial, probably not, alI can back it up with is what I know on how it works and what i know about homeopathy, if that is not good enough then it ends. . I know what the claim for homeopathy is. I wanted to see if you had any proof. You don’t have any and that’s OK, but I ask you – if you have no proof, why do you believe it? It goes against everything that is known by science. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong, but doesn’t it mean we need some proof?

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
Half of all illnesses around are caused side effects of modern medicines. YES that has been well documented on already, Vallium, Prozac, Celebrex/Voix etc There side effects cause more illnesess in that person to develop not all patients will but there are some that do.(again see above for the piece I put, it is a real person that went through it and not me) . If by “illnesses”, you are including the known side effects, then you are misrepresenting the facts.

Btw, I’m not sure what you provided these links for:

http://www.nida.nih.gov/ResearchRep...escription.html
Link doesn’t work

http://www.benzodiazepine.org/
Drug addiction article. Doesn’t answer the questions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/1024617.stm
bbc article on Melanie Griffith. Doesn’t answer the questions

http://www.benzo.org.uk/abpord.htm
http://www.solpadeinehelp.org.uk/
http://www.grieved.fsnet.co.uk/
More on addictions. Doesn’t answer the questions

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by xouper
Well, to be fair, I mistyped the 7X. Should have been 8X. I went back and added an erratum.

Isn't anyone checking my numbers? :p




Oh, well then no wonder she was confused! Geez Xouper!

[dmarker]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower

Force or kick start the healing process etc, make the bodies immune system kick in and deal with the sympton.

Isn't that unnatural?

[Soubrette]

xouper

Sorry I missed yours (the one molecule thing) and yes it explains it perfectly:)

That coupled with the fact that after a certain dilution there is not enough water on the planet to dilute further using all the original solution (within its subsequent dilutions) make me see that it is likely that only very very rarely will one of the dilutions contain even one molecule of the original.

If that makes sense;)

And thanks to Andalyn too:)

Sou

[xouper]

Originally posted by Soubrette
That coupled with the fact that after a certain dilution there is not enough water on the planet to dilute further using all the original solution (within its subsequent dilutions) make me see that it is likely that only very very rarely will one of the dilutions contain even one molecule of the original.Several people have given different angles attempting to de-mystify this. Here's another one.

If one fluid ounce of a 30C dilution contains even one molecule of a homeopathic agent, it can no longer be called a 30C dilution, because one molecule per ounce is by definition a 12C dilution.

[davidhorman]

If one fluid ounce of a 30C dilution contains even one molecule of a homeopathic agent, it can no longer be called a 30C dilution, because one molecule per ounce is by definition a 12C dilution.

Ah, but Xoup, the number of water molecule shell thingies will be different each time you dilute, and that's what counts.

...or whatever other explanation a homeopath might give.

David

[xouper]

Originally posted by davidhorman
Ah, but Xoup, the number of water molecule shell thingies will be different each time you dilute, and that's what counts. ...or whatever other explanation a homeopath might give.Ah, but David, the next question is how many "water molecule shell thingies" are there in an ounce of 30C dilution? Is it more or less than the number of "water molecule shell thingies" in a 60C dilution? Or if it's the same number for both, then how is a scientist supposed to measure the difference between a 30C and 60C dilution? I assume these questions are answered somewhere, I just haven't found them yet.

[Doctor X]

John:

Ah, but Xoup, the number of water molecule shell thingies will be different each time you dilute, and that's what counts.

...or whatever other explanation a homeopath might give. . . .

My favorite "explanation" is that the "water remembers" the substance.

However, no homeopath has been then able to explain sewage treatment. . . .

DON'T DRINK THE WATER!!!!!!!

--J.D.

If you outlaw homeopathy, you will have to outlaw other stupid ideas as well. God comes to mind.

Originally posted by Flatworm


Well, the main point here is that it doesn't work. That's what the properly conducted scientific research is telling us. The idea that similarity between an illness's symptoms and those of a high dosage of a particular substance is a reliable guide to identifying effective remedies has never been borne out in scientific testing. Homeopaths generally resort to pointing out a few (often very tenuous) examples and claim they prove their theory in general.

Can you show me where you got the idea that quinine produces symptoms similar to malaria? Similar enough to warrant drawing a link between drug and disease to the exclusion of other drugs and other diseases?

You won't find it here. (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/uspdi/202499.html#SXX17)

I said pervuvian bark produces like for like,which quinine is extracted from.

Me wishing people would read and not add things that arent there.

Originally posted by Ipecac
And it's not like those were a boatload of numbers. 12 times, 7 times, and 10,000. What's not to understand? 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.


me wishing people wouldnt keep saying I dont understand numbers, I am not intrested in numbers.

Originally posted by afree87
Lookie here, R.S.:

Arsenic is very deadly. You don't want it in your water.

The water at Fort Whatsit contained 6C of arsenic, and that's still a tiny percentage of the federal limit.

So why would 15C or 30C of some herb do anything?

15c 30c what of? Asprin isnt total asprin is it yet that works to some effect doesnt it?

0.26% active ingrediant convert it to c, tell me the result of the c
0.308g as above

me making a comparrison.

Originally posted by RichardR
I know what the claim for homeopathy is. I wanted to see if you had any proof. You don’t have any and that’s OK, but I ask you – if you have no proof, why do you believe it? It goes against everything that is known by science. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong, but doesn’t it mean we need some proof?

If by “illnesses”, you are including the known side effects, then you are misrepresenting the facts.

Btw, I’m not sure what you provided these links for:

http://www.nida.nih.gov/ResearchRep...escription.html
Link doesn’t work

http://www.benzodiazepine.org/
Drug addiction article. Doesn’t answer the questions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/1024617.stm
bbc article on Melanie Griffith. Doesn’t answer the questions



http://www.benzo.org.uk/abpord.htm
http://www.solpadeinehelp.org.uk/
http://www.grieved.fsnet.co.uk/
More on addictions. Doesn’t answer the questions

Why do I believe simple science does not explain everything and science is still in its infant stage, subject to change(when allowed and not covered up) I know people it has helped I have read its why and where fores, Now as the feel good factor cant be scientifically proven, and it plays a part in homeopathy I believe for same it does work despite claims that there is nothing in it.

The idea of Homeopathy is feasible, Herbalism more so,
theory of mine probably ludricous.... bodies chemicals, energy sound etc, are fragile, anything that changes its normality the body attacks, adding more chemicals etc that are foreign to the body create more probs. Homeopathy attacks the chemical etc that is foreign and so aids the body recovery by making it null by treating itself with itself and removing it from the body.
After all we know less about our bodies than many other things.


Went off track a bit there, guess thats what I get for doing my homework:p at the same time as posting, and trying to go through 100gb of stored information. The drug adiction part was that it down happen was for somebody else.

Proof exactly what do you need?

Like I said I know about homeopathy I am not an expert or user of it I have read it looked it up and studied it for my own interest.

If by “illnesses”, you are including the known side effects, then you are misrepresenting the facts. Lost me

me been told I can believe unless science tell me too or richardr does.

Originally posted by dmarker


Isn't that unnatural?

No why?

similars help the body nice
opposites dont bad

me getting the feeling my questions dont get answered

[corplinx]

If someone dies from taking homeopathic remedies in lieu of real treatment, I would say natural selection just occured.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
Why do I believe simple science does not explain everything and science is still in its infant stage, subject to change(when allowed and not covered up) I know people it has helped I have read its why and where fores, Now as the feel good factor cant be scientifically proven, and it plays a part in homeopathy I believe for same it does work despite claims that there is nothing in it.

Science doesn’t explain everything. (Yet.) But that doesn’t mean that we should make up things and use “science doesn’t explain everything” as the reason to believe in what we just made up. Hahnemann observed something he thought applied to quinine, and then made up the idea that this is universal. Do you have any reason to believe in Hahnemann’s invented explanation?

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
The idea of Homeopathy is feasible, Herbalism more so,
theory of mine probably ludricous.... bodies chemicals, energy sound etc, are fragile, anything that changes its normality the body attacks, adding more chemicals etc that are foreign to the body create more probs. Homeopathy attacks the chemical etc that is foreign and so aids the body recovery by making it null by treating itself with itself and removing it from the body.
After all we know less about our bodies than many other things.

I ask you to consider that all of that is simply made up.

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
RR: If by “illnesses”, you are including the known side effects, then you are misrepresenting the facts.
RS: Lost me Sorry – I didn’t phrase that very well. What I meant was this. You are counting the known side effects of drugs in the total of “all illnesses around”. As these side effects are caused by the drug, you use this to say ”Half of all illnesses around are caused by the side effects of modern medicines”.

But you are misrepresenting these side effects as illnesses. Most of them are mild compared with the illness the drug cures. Some people don’t get side effects. Some side effects (eg sickness from chemotherapy), are less severe than the symptoms they cure (death). They are not illnesses.

[Charlie in Dayton]

Originally posted by Dub


Sorry but, it is correct. Do you understand the mathematics behind the labeling "6c" "30c" etc? If not let me quickly explain. 1c = 1 in 100 dilution. 2c = 1 in 10,000, 3c = 1 in 1000000 and so forth.. using 100 as the multiplier. Like I stated at 15c there's not even enough water on Earth to disolve one drop in. The chance of a 30c solution even containing a single molecule of the original solution are astronomical. It has been shown through careful analysis that such solutions do not contain even a single molecule of the original solution.

Do I have this right? The number before the 'c' refers to dilutions as in exponents of 100? 1c = 100 to the 1st power = 100? 3c = 100 cubed? 6c = 100 to the 6th? 15c = 100 to the 15th power?

So if you start with a gallon of the good stuff, 1c=100 gallons, 3c=1 million gallons, 6c=1,000,000,000,000 gallons, etc?

So a 1c dilutes to a strength of .01, 3c dilutes to .000001, 6c is down to .000000000001?

Do I have this right? That makes a drop in a gallon a dilution somewhere around .0000169%, and a drop of THAT in a pure gallon makes...ahh...
.00000000000000685%, or thereabouts. I'm no chemist...where along this route do we start getting down to molecular dilutions and less?

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Charlie in Dayton


Do I have this right? The number before the 'c' refers to dilutions as in exponents of 100? 1c = 100 to the 1st power = 100? 3c = 100 cubed? 6c = 100 to the 6th? 15c = 100 to the 15th power?

So if you start with a gallon of the good stuff, 1c=100 gallons, 3c=1 million gallons, 6c=1,000,000,000,000 gallons, etc?

So a 1c dilutes to a strength of .01, 3c dilutes to .000001, 6c is down to .000000000001?


Yup.

A molecule may (and that's a big may) be hanging around at 12C.

[richardm]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower


15c 30c what of? Asprin isnt total asprin is it yet that works to some effect doesnt it?



Yes, but it is the amount of dilution that makes homeopathy impossible. I have some paracetemol tablets in my drawer, here. According to the label, they contain 500mg of the active ingredient. The tablets themselves are quite large; I'd guess (I don't have scales accurate enough, so this is a very rough estimate) around the 1g mark, but I'll be generous and say maybe around 2g (that is to say 2000mg). So using that rough guide to weight, 1/4 of that tablet is active ingredient, and the rest is filler.

Compare that to a homeopathic remedy. Even a 1C preparation is 1/100 active ingredient to filler. A 2C preparation would be 1/10000. 3C would be 1/1000000. And so on, until you reach the astronomical dilutions we're worried about. We've been talking about 30C. Do you see how insanely dilute that would be?

[Titanpoint]

Off topic but I really like this picture of Randi

[richardm]

He looks like he's about to attack :D

[xouper]

Originally posted by Charlie in Dayton
Do I have this right? The number before the 'c' refers to dilutions as in exponents of 100?Yep. You understand correctly. And the number in front of an X stands for exponents of ten. Thus 24X = 12C, which means one molecule of homeopathic agent per fluid ounce of water (approximately).

By comparison, the federal EPA limit for arsenic in drinking water is 10 ppb (parts per billion) which is equivalent to 4C.

According to one source (http://www.abchomeopathy.com/shop.php) I looked at, Arsenicum Album is their second most popular remedy and can be bought in dilutions of 6X, 12X, 30X, 6C, 12C, 30C, 200C, 1M and 10M (where 1M = 1000C).

That source also has a list of ailments (http://www.abchomeopathy.com/mm/Ars.html) that homeopathic arsenic is supposed to remedy. The people who drink the tap water at Fort Leavenworth are getting a free and steady supply of 6C arsenic. Does this mean they will not get any of the ailments on that list?

[Lothian]

The picture is outrageous. James Randi should sue. It has obviously been digitally doctored by the homeopathic community. The way they placed him between a jug of homeopathic hayfever cure on the right and homeopathic arthritis cure on the left make it look as if James endorses these products.

[xouper]

Originally posted by Lothian
A molecule may (and that's a big may) be hanging around at 12C.When talking about the number of molecules in a homeopathic dilution, it is also necessary to specify the volume of remedy. For example, in a gallon of 12C arsenic, one would expect to have about 128 molecules of arsenic. Compare that with a gallon of tap water from Fort Leavenworth, KS, which typically has 128,000,000,000,000 molecules of arsenic.

That picture looks like Uncle Albert out of Only fools and Horses,

observational me

Originally posted by richardm


Yes, but it is the amount of dilution that makes homeopathy impossible. I have some paracetemol tablets in my drawer, here. According to the label, they contain 500mg of the active ingredient. The tablets themselves are quite large; I'd guess (I don't have scales accurate enough, so this is a very rough estimate) around the 1g mark, but I'll be generous and say maybe around 2g (that is to say 2000mg). So using that rough guide to weight, 1/4 of that tablet is active ingredient, and the rest is filler.

Compare that to a homeopathic remedy. Even a 1C preparation is 1/100 active ingredient to filler. A 2C preparation would be 1/10000. 3C would be 1/1000000. And so on, until you reach the astronomical dilutions we're worried about. We've been talking about 30C. Do you see how insanely dilute that would be? Isnt homeopathic remedies made up using alcohol?

Are you asking me or telling me richard?

me

[richardm]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
Isnt homeopathic remedies made up using alochol?



Mmmm, not as far as I know - I believe they're all diluted using distilled water.


Are you asking me or telling me richard?

I'm telling you - are you listening? :D

[richardm]

... Actually, you're quite right, r-s, some homeopathic remedies are dissolved in alcohol. However, it doesn't matter what they're diluted with - it is the degree of dilution that matters.

Originally posted by RichardR


Science doesn’t explain everything. (Yet.) But that doesn’t mean that we should make up things and use “science doesn’t explain everything” as the reason to believe in what we just made up. Hahnemann observed something he thought applied to quinine, and then made up the idea that this is universal. Do you have any reason to believe in Hahnemann’s invented explanation?



I ask you to consider that all of that is simply made up.

Sorry – I didn’t phrase that very well. What I meant was this. You are counting the known side effects of drugs in the total of “all illnesses around”. As these side effects are caused by the drug, you use this to say ”Half of all illnesses around are caused by the side effects of modern medicines”.

But you are misrepresenting these side effects as illnesses. Most of them are mild compared with the illness the drug cures. Some people don’t get side effects. Some side effects (eg sickness from chemotherapy), are less severe than the symptoms they cure (death). They are not illnesses.

On lost bit now I get you its abut as clear as mud with me but I get you. Right then some sideffects yes are beter than the illness (cancer) but not the rest, how is valliums side effect better than the depression get my drift?
Still stand by half of all illnesses are casued by the side effects of modern medicines. Think that was where my links came into play..then again maybe not.

As for Hahnemann he just followed on from what the sanskrit and chinese had already documented. Homeopathy was sold in by the swiss in 1774.
To get an accurate similar aid, youhave to have a full "personailty" diagnosis on that you then get the similar remedy.

Now according to what I quickly glanced over ->"the remedies are only diluted twice with alcohol 1 drop to 9 of alcohol in 6 testubes(1x=1 tube of)that is 6 x together in on set of 6 test tubes, shaken for the period of time, then 1 drop from this mix is then repeated(2x) then finally poured over the lactose based pills. that makes" <--

Water? I have not seen any mention of water?

me asking and saying not in my research did I see water mentioned, plus

Originally posted by richardm
... Actually, you're quite right, r-s, some homeopathic remedies are dissolved in alcohol. However, it doesn't matter what they're diluted with - it is the degree of dilution that matters. The orginal drop is strong and probably to strong for the body(aresnic, bryonia, lachesis, belladonna) spring to mind unless diluted will kill.

me again showing my wonderful love of deadly plants and a snake(lachesis)

did horizon use water not alcohol, allthe remedies ihave seen are all alcohol dilution, and that in itself is stronger than water to hold the orignal ingrediants in or world the the effect of.:D

Just thought water is containmenated but alcohol is pure isnt it?

me

Originally posted by richardm


Mmmm, not as far as I know - I believe they're all diluted using distilled water.



I'm telling you - are you listening? :D

distilled water still contains extras, therefore could presume contaiminaton of and make void the test?

Dont tell me teach me. willing here :D

me

[richardm]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
did horizon use water not alcohol, allthe remedies ihave seen are all alcohol dilution, and that in itself is stronger than water to hold the orignal ingrediants in or world the the effect of.:D

Just thought water is containmenated but alcohol is pure isnt it?

Well, Horizon used water, and that was consistent both with the tests performed by Jacques Benveniste and with many homeopathic remedies. Some remedies are dissolved in alcohol, but by no means all. Funnily enough, alcohol has significantly different properties to water, so any suggestion that the "memory effect" of water is the answer to the problems with homeopathy would be rather damaged if alcohol was the main constituent.

Freshly distilled water is as pure as freshly distilled alcohol, but they inevitably don't stay pure for long, since both absorb bits and pieces of other substances from the air, and indeed, if I recall correctly, from the glassware they're contained in. It may be possible under extremely expensive conditions to restrict this, but I'm (almost!) certain that you cannot eliminate it.

Have another look at Xouper's calculations above - especially the one where he describes a 12C solution as being 1 molecule of active "stuff" per ounce of water.

Then think about all the other bits that are going to be present in that water. How is the water going to know which is the "drug" molecule that needs to be remembered, and which are the "junk" molecules that need to be forgotten?

[richardm]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower


distilled water still contains extras, therefore could presume contaiminaton of and make void the test?


The test was done to see whether a homeopathic remedy could affect the behaviour of a bunch of cells. It used the same methods to make the solutions as a homeopathist would use, so if there was something in there that would invalidate the tests, then that would make the homeopathic remedies equally invalid.


Dont tell me teach me. willing here :D

My tongue was in my cheek ;)

[richardm]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
The orginal drop is strong and probably to strong for the body(aresnic, bryonia, lachesis, belladonna) spring to mind unless diluted will kill.

I s'pose it depends on how big your drop is, really. Did you know that some Victorian gentlemen used to take arsenic as a recreational drug? They reckoned that it increased their virility. They used to munch charcoal to fend off some of the symptoms, and had little silver spoons to dose themselves with.

Mind you, they're all dead now.

Come to think of it, I went through a phase of collecting Victorian bottles, and had a selection of "tonics". One of these had the remnents of the contents still in it, complete with what looked very much like arsenic crystals in the bottle. "Drink up now!"

[Dorman]

As for Hahnemann he just followed on from what the sanskrit and chinese had already documented.

I am wondering -- is there any reference for this ? Did Hahnemann say this, or did he claim to have found something original ?

[Flatworm]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower


I said pervuvian bark produces like for like,which quinine is extracted from.

Have it your way. Can you provide any support for your claim that pervuvian bark produces symptoms similar enough to malaria so as to link the two to the exclusion of all other diseases and possible substances?

Can the principles of homeopathy explain why, if the entire bark is required to produce similar symptoms, only the quinine is required to effectively treat malaria?

[Flatworm]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower

Why do I believe simple science does not explain everything and science is still in its infant stage, subject to change(when allowed and not covered up) I know people it has helped I have read its why and where fores,


The only problem is that when the experiment is carefully designed to avoid cheating and self-delusion, the effect disappears- every time.


Now as the feel good factor cant be scientifically proven, and it plays a part in homeopathy I believe for same it does work despite claims that there is nothing in it.


The 'feel good factor' has been shown to a strong degree of certainty to be the placebo effect.


The idea of Homeopathy is feasible,


No, it is not, and if you actually understood the numbers like you claim to, you would realize this.


Herbalism more so,


Herbalism is just pharmacology, stripped of quality control and scientific rigor. It works sometimes and to varying degrees, with little information provided to patients as to actual efficacy and side effects.


theory of mine probably ludricous.... bodies chemicals, energy sound etc, are fragile, anything that changes its normality the body attacks, adding more chemicals etc that are foreign to the body create more probs.


This has been repeatedly shown to not be the case.


Homeopathy attacks the chemical etc that is foreign and so aids the body recovery by making it null by treating itself with itself and removing it from the body.


Under rigorously controlled conditions, it can be and has been shown that homeopathy does precisely d*ck.

Mainstream science knows quite a bit about chemicals and exactly what it would take to 'attack' and neutralize them. Homeopathy doesn't fit the bill.

[Flatworm]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
did horizon use water not alcohol, allthe remedies ihave seen are all alcohol dilution, and that in itself is stronger than water to hold the orignal ingrediants in or world the the effect of.:D

Just thought water is containmenated but alcohol is pure isnt it?

I don't see why the alcohol should be any more pure than the water.

You still don't get it. It doesn't matter if you dilute it in water, alcohol, or guacamole. At dilution levels like 30C, what you have is water, alcohol, or guacamole- as pure as your original source. There is not a molecule of the active ingredient remaining.

[Ipecac]

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.

If you do understand, then the numbers were helpful. If you want to discuss this issue, numbers are important. Trying to make people explain it without numbers because you "don't do numbers" is not useful.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
On lost bit now I get you its abut as clear as mud with me but I get you. Right then some sideffects yes are beter than the illness (cancer) but not the rest, how is valliums side effect better than the depression get my drift?
Still stand by half of all illnesses are casued by the side effects of modern medicines. Think that was where my links came into play..then again maybe not. Since most people suffer no (or virtually no) side effects from most drugs, I suggest you are overreaching here in a big way. For your claim to stand you will have to provide a reference to a study that backs it up.

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
As for Hahnemann he just followed on from what the sanskrit and chinese had already documented. Homeopathy was sold in by the swiss in 1774.
To get an accurate similar aid, youhave to have a full "personailty" diagnosis on that you then get the similar remedy. That’s the first I’ve heard of homeopathy being based on any ancient texts. What reason do you have to believe in this?

Anyway, this is the argument from the ancients fallacy – because it is old it must be true. But it is a fallacy. The ancient Chinese had their myths just as they did in Europe. And they were still just myths. You still have offered no reason to believe that like cures like. Without any evidence, can’t you at least consider that it might not be true?

Originally posted by richardm


Well, Horizon used water, and that was consistent both with the tests performed by Jacques Benveniste and with many homeopathic remedies. Some remedies are dissolved in alcohol, but by no means all. Funnily enough, alcohol has significantly different properties to water, so any suggestion that the "memory effect" of water is the answer to the problems with homeopathy would be rather damaged if alcohol was the main constituent.

Freshly distilled water is as pure as freshly distilled alcohol, but they inevitably don't stay pure for long, since both absorb bits and pieces of other substances from the air, and indeed, if I recall correctly, from the glassware they're contained in. It may be possible under extremely expensive conditions to restrict this, but I'm (almost!) certain that you cannot eliminate it.

Have another look at Xouper's calculations above - especially the one where he describes a 12C solution as being 1 molecule of active "stuff" per ounce of water.

Then think about all the other bits that are going to be present in that water. How is the water going to know which is the "drug" molecule that needs to be remembered, and which are the "junk" molecules that need to be forgotten?

water remembers ?????????????? where did that come from?

all the remedies i know of all contain alcohol not water.
for example( I know the deadlier ones but this is fairly ok, done it myself, does soothe wounds suspect iodine substitue)( Warning Dont try this unless you know what your doing )

50g/2oz of fresh maigold flowers(calendula officinalis or you can uses hypericum perfoliatum(st Johns wort)
or 25g.1oz dried
100ml/3floz alcohol(brandy or vodka)
1~measure out the ingredients wash the flowers then pulverize them by chopping finely and grinding in a pestle n mortar. add flower to the bowl and mix throughly with alcohol. Or put flowers and alcohol into food processor and whizz for 1-2 mins.
2~ pour mixture into large airtight container such as a large glass jar, fill it completely so all air is excluded and store in cool dark place until the liquid turns dark brown. If the jar is clear take extra care to ensure that no light gets to the mixture.
3~agiate the container regularly everyday for 1 week, the liqiud at the base of the jar will darken- this the ticture.
4~after a week strain through a fine sieve, strain a second time through muslin. Fill small glass bottle to the top to exclude air. Label and date. store in cool dark places(not refigerator).

What the x is in that no clue or what is left but that is a typical homepathic remedy.

Can use this too bathe cuts or mouthwash, soothe burnt tongue only after proper medical consultation first.

me and known homeopathic remedy surce leaflet given by GP.

Originally posted by RichardR
Since most people suffer no (or virtually no) side effects from most drugs, I suggest you are overreaching here in a big way. For your claim to stand you will have to provide a reference to a study that backs it up.

That’s the first I’ve heard of homeopathy being based on any ancient texts. What reason do you have to believe in this?

Anyway, this is the argument from the ancients fallacy – because it is old it must be true. But it is a fallacy. The ancient Chinese had their myths just as they did in Europe. And they were still just myths. You still have offered no reason to believe that like cures like. Without any evidence, can’t you at least consider that it might not be true?



No ,i am not go look back at the links I put up. that explains look at people who have had the side effects the webs full of their stories how ruine health and the courts too from being sueing. Not wrong on this. Study why a study with court cases in the news etc that is enough to back that up surely?
I read that he did.

no:D



Sympthtyum Botanical name is dervied from greek and means to unite. This cause bone to grow and so promtoes the fs healing of fractures. Use fo hard body parts(bone I mean) cant be used if a pin is insitu.

arnica aka fallkraut(fall herb) used in brusing

baptisia sympton drowsy almost drunken dusky red complexion. sypmtons resemble typhoid fever.

me and plant, research material via unknown source harvested from and memory of such things.

Originally posted by Ipecac


If you do understand, then the numbers were helpful. If you want to discuss this issue, numbers are important. Trying to make people explain it without numbers because you "don't do numbers" is not useful.

HUH?:D

why are numbers important? there numbers just the strength, and if your making it with water thens its useless.

Depending on the strength of the remedy then the x is stronger. 200x for arnica is the strongest i have come across so that is potent is it not?

going doo lally me

Originally posted by richardm


The test was done to see whether a homeopathic remedy could affect the behaviour of a bunch of cells. It used the same methods to make the solutions as a homeopathist would use, so if there was something in there that would invalidate the tests, then that would make the homeopathic remedies equally invalid.

[B]

My tongue was in my cheek ;)
You again people will talk;)

glad your tongue was would look funny in your pocket:D

didnt see it so cant comment on something I didnt watch.

me wondering wether to jump richardsm bones(joking)

Originally posted by Flatworm


I don't see why the alcohol should be any more pure than the water.

You still don't get it. It doesn't matter if you dilute it in water, alcohol, or guacamole. At dilution levels like 30C, what you have is water, alcohol, or guacamole- as pure as your original source. There is not a molecule of the active ingredient remaining. Alchol is pure thats why. Water contains minerals and other things. Sterile I think is better than pure.

:p @ that dont be silly

me wondering wether to blow you up

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower


water remembers ?????????????? where did that come from?

all the remedies i know of all contain alcohol not water.
for example( I know the deadlier ones but this is fairly ok, done it myself, does soothe wounds suspect iodine substitue)( Warning Dont try this unless you know what your doing )

50g/2oz of fresh maigold flowers(calendula officinalis or you can uses hypericum perfoliatum(st Johns wort)
or 25g.1oz dried
100ml/3floz alcohol(brandy or vodka)
1~measure out the ingredients wash the flowers then pulverize them by chopping finely and grinding in a pestle n mortar. add flower to the bowl and mix throughly with alcohol. Or put flowers and alcohol into food processor and whizz for 1-2 mins.
2~ pour mixture into large airtight container such as a large glass jar, fill it completely so all air is excluded and store in cool dark place until the liquid turns dark brown. If the jar is clear take extra care to ensure that no light gets to the mixture.
3~agiate the container regularly everyday for 1 week, the liqiud at the base of the jar will darken- this the ticture.
4~after a week strain through a fine sieve, strain a second time through muslin. Fill small glass bottle to the top to exclude air. Label and date. store in cool dark places(not refigerator).

What the x is in that no clue or what is left but that is a typical homepathic remedy.

Can use this too bathe cuts or mouthwash, soothe burnt tongue only after proper medical consultation first.

Even assuming this worked, why would you want to go to all this trouble when you can buy dozens of topical antibiotics or antispetics that would do the same or better job? :)

[RichardR]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
No ,i am not go look back at the links I put up. that explains look at people who have had the side effects the webs full of their stories how ruine health and the courts too from being sueing. Not wrong on this. Study why a study with court cases in the news etc that is enough to back that up surely?
I read that he did. Nowhere have you backed up your claim that ”Half of all illnesses around are caused by the side effects of modern medicines”. If you had any basis for this claim you would have posted it by now. But you haven’t. It’s an empty claim. And wrong.

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
Sympthtyum Botanical name is dervied from greek and means to unite. This cause bone to grow and so promtoes the fs healing of fractures. Use fo hard body parts(bone I mean) cant be used if a pin is insitu.

arnica aka fallkraut(fall herb) used in brusing

baptisia sympton drowsy almost drunken dusky red complexion. sypmtons resemble typhoid fever. I have no idea what this is about. But again you have not backed up your claim that ”you treat same with same that cures the whole“. Hardly surprising. No one has ever been able to show any reason to believe this.

Your claims are empty. There is no reason to believe in any of the claims of homeopathy.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
Alchol is pure thats why. Water contains minerals and other things. Sterile I think is better than pure.

:p @ that dont be silly

The purity is irrelevant. What is relevant is that if you dilute something as much as homeopaths do, there is an insignificant chance that there is a SINGLE molecule left of whatever it is that's supposed to have medicinal value.

[Foodbunny]

Searched the web for homeopathy water. Results 1 - 10 of about 90,100.

Searched the web for homeopathy alcohol. Results 1 - 10 of about 31,100.

While it does appear that some people are using alcohol instead of water, water is way ahead of them. Considering the level of dilution being used there's no reason that alcohol would work better than water unless you think alcohol has a memory and water doesn't. There still wouldn't be even a single molecule of the original substance in either one.

Originally posted by Flatworm


The only problem is that when the experiment is carefully designed to avoid cheating and self-delusion, the effect disappears- every time.



The 'feel good factor' has been shown to a strong degree of certainty to be the placebo effect.



No, it is not, and if you actually understood the numbers like you claim to, you would realize this.



Herbalism is just pharmacology, stripped of quality control and scientific rigor. It works sometimes and to varying degrees, with little information provided to patients as to actual efficacy and side effects.



This has been repeatedly shown to not be the case.



Under rigorously controlled conditions, it can be and has been shown that homeopathy does precisely d*ck.

Mainstream science knows quite a bit about chemicals and exactly what it would take to 'attack' and neutralize them. Homeopathy doesn't fit the bill.
1 why does it. that can be said for many things in science too.
2 and so?
3 said it before depends on strength of orignal remedy. 3 x of lachesis is far beeter than getting that neat thats for sure.
4 I know that gee :rolleyes: thats hey pharmacies are going into the great unknown armed with yes herbalistic records. Theres validity for you. Every one knows th side effects fromeating certian plants or not that is documented not only by toxicolgists, but by plants people the world over including the australian army.
5 Not a scientist so how would I know just my musing, wanna see my therory on the beyond the event horizon and beyond even einstein didnt escape my version.
6 dont swear no need for it.
6a, if i put you under riorous testing i suspect you wouldnt qualify for something either. sceince does not explain everything as it improves it can look at past things, DNA for one look how that reopened cases, until science is at the stage where it can answer everything and dismiss or endorse, then what its current stage is minor and i cant accept its word as yet. that s my belief I equally ahve disbelief that make me more sketptical thatn you could ever be. This homeopahy isnt one of them, peole find it helps and I wont knock it for allowing them some people pain free time.
If that makes me a woose glady I accept it I am human and have feelings I'll admit that willingly.

me in full anticipation of shallI disect a worm:D(joking)

Originally posted by Foodbunny
Searched the web for homeopathy water. Results 1 - 10 of about 90,100.

Searched the web for homeopathy alcohol. Results 1 - 10 of about 31,100.

While it does appear that some people are using alcohol instead of water, water is way ahead of them. Considering the level of dilution being used there's no reason that alcohol would work better than water unless you think alcohol has a memory and water doesn't. There still wouldn't be even a single molecule of the original substance in either one.


Everything I bet you find has a memory after all most things have some form of energy or living part.


my friends input

Originally posted by Ipecac


The purity is irrelevant. What is relevant is that if you dilute something as much as homeopaths do, there is an insignificant chance that there is a SINGLE molecule left of whatever it is that's supposed to have medicinal value.
not in all cases yes i have already said if tha is the case ban that particular healing agent if it doesnt prove to work.

circles again.:mad:
me wondering wetehr to talk to the wall or door?

[Flatworm]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
Alchol is pure thats why. Water contains minerals and other things. Sterile I think is better than pure.

:p @ that dont be silly

We are quite capable of producing demineralized water, thank you very much. There's no reason to suppose the alcohol is any more pure- how do you suppose the alcohol was made? Generally it's distilled from a water-alcohol mixture produced by fermentation.

However, that's beside the point. It doesn't matter what you mix the "mother tincture" with- after diluting it to the point of one part in 10^23, you'd be lucky to have a single molecule of the active ingredient left. That corresponds to a homeopathic dilution of 23X or just under 12C.

Imagine you have a bottle with a solution containing 10g of pure elemental arsenic. That corresponds to

82,500,000,000,000,000,000,000

molecules of arsenic. Now consider how many jars of the same volume as the original it would take to make a 30C dilution. 30C means that the source bottle is divided up amongst 100 bottles of solvent and shaken, then a single bottle is taken from the 100 and becomes the new source bottle. The process is repeated 29 more times. That means the total number of bottles those 82,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules are divided amongst is 10^60 or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

There just aren't enough molecules to go around, whether you use water, alcohol, Pine Sol, or Mountain Dew as a solvent.

Originally posted by RichardR
Nowhere have you backed up your claim that ”Half of all illnesses around are caused by the side effects of modern medicines”. If you had any basis for this claim you would have posted it by now. But you haven’t. It’s an empty claim. And wrong.

I have no idea what this is about. But again you have not backed up your claim that ”you treat same with same that cures the whole“. Hardly surprising. No one has ever been able to show any reason to believe this.

Your claims are empty. There is no reason to believe in any of the claims of homeopathy.

I BELIEVE IT works in certain aspects. You cant say arnica doesnt work as its been taken over by the big manufacturers.

Why do I have to back up my claim? Go look at links for side effects in any newsparer celebrex is investigated for its side effects and was banned a while back, what isnt that proof? Vallium addicts are they not proof of side effects?

me knowing arnica works on bruising, and sayng about the ban issued by the over pond medical overlords about celebrex and vioxx side effect as per news item and paper.

Originally posted by Flatworm


We are quite capable of producing demineralized water, thank you very much. There's no reason to suppose the alcohol is any more pure- how do you suppose the alcohol was made? Generally it's distilled from a water-alcohol mixture produced by fermentation.

However, that's beside the point. It doesn't matter what you mix the "mother tincture" with- after diluting it to the point of one part in 10^23, you'd be lucky to have a single molecule of the active ingredient left. That corresponds to a homeopathic dilution of 23X or just under 12C.

Imagine you have a bottle with a solution containing 10g of pure elemental arsenic. That corresponds to

82,500,000,000,000,000,000,000

molecules of arsenic. Now consider how many jars of the same volume as the original it would take to make a 30C dilution. 30C means that the source bottle is divided up amongst 100 bottles of solvent and shaken, then a single bottle is taken from the 100 and becomes the new source bottle. The process is repeated 29 more times. That means the total number of bottles those 82,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules are divided amongst is 10^60 or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

There just aren't enough molecules to go around, whether you use water, alcohol, Pine Sol, or Mountain Dew as a solvent.
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.

research stored data unknown source saying about the x and how it is made up according to my hardrive.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower

not in all cases yes i have already said if tha is the case ban that particular healing agent if it doesnt prove to work.

circles again.:mad:

I'm sorry, R-S, but without punctuation, I can't even tell what you're trying to say here.

[Foodbunny]

The fact of the matter is that if homeopathy worked, if they could just put incredibly small amounts of an active chemical into water or alcohol or any cheap to produce material and sell it for the same amount with the same level of effectiveness the pharmaceutical companies be all over it. They'd make more money if homeopathy worked. But they'd have to prove it through double-blinded clinical trials, unlike Joe P. Neighborhood who can sell his stuff as a food supplement without doing any tests at all.

Originally posted by Flatworm


Have it your way. Can you provide any support for your claim that pervuvian bark produces symptoms similar enough to malaria so as to link the two to the exclusion of all other diseases and possible substances?

Can the principles of homeopathy explain why, if the entire bark is required to produce similar symptoms, only the quinine is required to effectively treat malaria?

Dr hahenemann did that on himself all it says he used crude doses of peruvian bark(cichona bark ehich quinine is dererived) he came out with similar symptons to malaria, which stopped when he stopped taking the bark. like cure like principle or the law of similars was formed this was after disageeing with the treatment for maria by another doctors translated work.


me using the recalled memoryand hardrives stroed data of Dr h work aslo available in all god websites promtoing his ideals.

Originally posted by Foodbunny
The fact of the matter is that if homeopathy worked, if they could just put incredibly small amounts of an active chemical into water or alcohol or any cheap to produce material and sell it for the same amount with the same level of effectiveness the pharmaceutical companies be all over it. They'd make more money if homeopathy worked. But they'd have to prove it through double-blinded clinical trials, unlike Joe P. Neighborhood who can sell his stuff as a food supplement without doing any tests at all. what and risk losing revenue on the other products they never swallow that.

me proving I havent a gold diggers personality, and the big co do.

[Flatworm]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower

1 why does it. that can be said for many things in science too.


Really, it does? If an effect disappears under scrutiny in mainstream science, we suspect (and rightly so) that someone is being fooled into believing there was an effect, whether by mistake or intentionally.


2 and so?


And so there is no more basis for claiming effectiveness of homeopathic remedies or the accuracy of homeopathic principles than there is for claiming that sugar pills are effective against all ailments.


3 said it before depends on strength of orignal remedy. 3 x of lachesis is far beeter than getting that neat thats for sure.


To a certain point, yes. When homeopaths dilute tinctures to the point where the original ingredient is still present in quantities that can affect living tissues, they are essentially practicing amateur pharmacology.

When they use dilutions that exceed one part in about 10^24 (i.e. 24X or 12C) the strength of the original tincture doesn't enter into it because there isn't any of it left at all.


4 I know that gee :rolleyes: thats hey pharmacies are going into the great unknown armed with yes herbalistic records. Theres validity for you. Every one knows th side effects fromeating certian plants or not that is documented not only by toxicolgists, but by plants people the world over including the australian army.


Yes, pharmacology is informed by herbalism. Herbalism is to modern pharmaceuticals what alchemy is to modern chemistry. Pharmacology has grown far beyond herbalism, using evidence-based methods for ensuring effectiveness, safety, and consistent dosing.


6a, if i put you under riorous testing i suspect you wouldnt qualify for something either.


I'm not the one making claims.


sceince does not explain everything as it improves it can look at past things, DNA for one look how that reopened cases, until science is at the stage where it can answer everything and dismiss or endorse, then what its current stage is minor and i cant accept its word as yet. that s my belief I equally ahve disbelief that make me more sketptical thatn you could ever be.


Science hasn't answered everything, but that doesn't imply that unscientific doctrines like Homeopathy answer anything. In this case, the specific question was whether homeopathy works, and science did find an answer: No.


This homeopahy isnt one of them, peole find it helps and I wont knock it for allowing them some people pain free time.
If that makes me a woose glady I accept it I am human and have feelings I'll admit that willingly.

I'm sure that many people can find relief through the psychological effect of a placebo. That has been repeatedly demonstrated. Modern medicine shies away from giving people phony medication in the hopes it will have a psychosomatic effect because of ethical principles. We expect doctors to be honest with us about what medicines do and whether they're effective.

Originally posted by Ipecac


I'm sorry, R-S, but without punctuation, I can't even tell what you're trying to say here.
not in all cases,

yes i have already said if that is the case ban that particular healing agent if it doesnt prove to work.

circles again. ] not that hard to read.

me being rc

[Darat]

Originally posted by Foodbunny
The fact of the matter is that if homeopathy worked, if they could just put incredibly small amounts of an active chemical into water or alcohol or any cheap to produce material and sell it for the same amount with the same level of effectiveness the pharmaceutical companies be all over it. They'd make more money if homeopathy worked. But they'd have to prove it through double-blinded clinical trials, unlike Joe P. Neighborhood who can sell his stuff as a food supplement without doing any tests at all.

And if you think about it further EVERY homeopathic remedy must be "homoeopathically contaminated" since the "effect" is present at such a level that no human agency could "homoeopathically sterilise” the water used in the original 1:10 dilution.

At the dilution that is meant to be effective EVERY homeopathic remedy must contain, homoeopathically, EVERY SINGLE "active" homeopathic substance! Therefore every remedy is the same – yet they are all meant to have “specific activities”.

[Flatworm]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower

Dr hahenemann did that on himself all it says he used crude doses of peruvian bark(cichona bark ehich quinine is dererived) he came out with similar symptons to malaria, which stopped when he stopped taking the bark. like cure like principle or the law of similars was formed this was after disageeing with the treatment for maria by another doctors translated work.

So all you have to support this idea is Hahneman's say-so? Did Hahnemann ever suffer from malaria?

One day they may realise soon
when my words suddenly go boom
That if there is nothing left but blanks
then the medince is removed from the ranks
If the substance is still in there
and it works thats all I care
If it isnt then thats the end
now stop driving me round the bend
I belive if people are helped
if nobody is then spank me with a leather belt.


me and the joy of arghhhhhhhhhh

[RichardR]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
I BELIEVE IT works in certain aspects. You cant say arnica doesnt woras its been taken over tby the big manufacturers. Is that what your claim boils down to – I believe? OK, it’s official – homeopathy is faith healing. Thanks for confirming that for us RS.

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
Why do I have to back up my claim? Go look at links for side effects int eh ny newsparer clebrex is investigated for its side effects and was banned a shile back, what isnt that proof? Vallium addicts are they not proof of side effects? Why do you believe it if you don’t have any reason you can articulate? Why make a claim if you can’t back it up?

You don’t have to back it up. But if you don’t, why should I take you seriously anymore? I’m not going to waste any more time replying to someone who just makes claims but won’t back them up. Bye.

[Foodbunny]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
what and risk losing revenue on the other products they never swallow that.

They'd lose nothing. They'd release the exact same stuff, for the exact same price, only diluted down to near nothing. They'd get the same money and the same effects (or even better effects if we go with the "less is better" mentality) for less cost to them. They'd literally have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Originally posted by Flatworm


So all you have to support this idea is Hahneman's say-so? Did Hahnemann ever suffer from malaria?

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:D

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"<--

oh me and my hardrive go strolling for research unknown data strored again.

Originally posted by RichardR
Is that what your claim boils down to – I believe? OK, it’s official – homeopathy is faith healing. Thanks for confirming that for us RS.

Why do you believe it if you don’t have any reason you can articulate? Why make a claim if you can’t back it up?

You don’t have to back it up. But if you don’t, why should I take you seriously anymore? I’m not going to waste any more time replying to someone who just makes claims but won’t back them up. Bye.

GRRRRRRR I said I belived in it you started demanding such like and so forth. I gave you what I knew, I am not a scientist nor medically trained yet you still kept on its my own views. I dont demand you back up your own thoughts do I.

Its well known or are you going to deny all the medical negligence cases from the side effects cases and tell all the vallium prozac vioxx users nah prove it?

me getting dizzy

http://www.positivehealth.com/permit/Articles/Homoeopathy/lewith17.htm

Good read Hahnemanns for yourself.

me and a search engine could have been worse go boil your head often gets shouted by me too:D

[Yahzi]

Sunflower
What the x is in that no clue or what is left but that is a typical homepathic remedy
The procedure you described is not a homeopathic procedure. The result is not a homeopathic remedy.

It is folk medicine, or even herbal medicine. But it is not homeopathy.

You would do well to stop defending an art you don't actually practice.

To be effective, any valid therapy must be based on a deep understanding of and respect for the uniqueness of each individual.
One pellet of the Ruta, taken every 2 hours during eye strain is all that is necessary.
First they tell you it's all individualized, then they tell you the standard treatment that suffices for everyone.

It's like the people who say God's plan is to great for human minds to comprehend, and BTW here is your part in it.

i gave you what I knew, I am not a scientist nor medically trained
Then what you know isn't sufficient.

I dont demand you back up your own thoughts do I.
You should.

http://www.wddty.co.uk/

25th April 2001

Author:
Catrin Barker, Principal Pharmacist, DIAL


The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have raised safety concerns about the use of propofol (Diprivan) in children. Their concerns are based on the review of data from a randomised controlled clinical trial that evaluated the safety and effectiveness of Diprivan against other standard sedative agents in paediatric ICU patients. In the study a total of 327 paediatric patients were randomised to receive either Diprivan 2% (113 patients), Diprivan 1% (109 patients) or a standard sedative agent (eg. lorazepam, chloral hydrate, fentanyl, ketamine, morphine or phenobarbital). Diprivan was initiated at an infusion rate of 5.5mg/kg/hr and titrated as needed to maintain sedation at a required level. 25 patients died during the trial or during a 28 day follow up period: 11%,8% and 4% in each of the respective groups. In the FDAs opinion, careful review of the deaths failed to reveal a correlation with underlying disease status or a definite pattern to the causes of death. Astra Zeneca are initiating a new clinical trial designed specifically to evaluate any differences in adverse events and deaths in paediatric patients randomised to propofol or standard sedative agents for ICU sedation.

Comment: Propofol (Diprivan) is not licensed in the USA or in the UK for sedation of children under 16 years of age in intensive care. In 1992 The Committee On Safety of Medicines in the UK warned about serious adverse effects and fatalities in children associated with the use of propofol (Diprivan) for sedation in ICU.(1) In 1998, Bray (2) published a series of case reports in 18 children who had received propofol infusions and had suffered serious adverse effects, described as “propofol infusion syndrome”. An association with a mean dose greater than 4mg/kg/hr and a duration of 48 hours or longer was reported. However a causative relationship could not be proven because of the nature of the study and the small number of patients included.

Propofol infusion is sometimes used (off licence) for sedation of paediatric patients on PICU but the maximum infusion rate is usually limited to 4mg/kg/hr and the duration to 24 hours. High dose, long term infusion in children is not recommended. (2)

death nice side effect....not


asprin has just been banned to all under 16yrs old(fever never give for) as it causes reyes syndrome(side effect)

FDA Warn Health Professionals of Occular Side Effects of Topiramate (Topamax).

Date:
5ht October 2001

Author:
Catrin Barker, Principal Pharmacist, DIAL


Janssen Cilag (US) are issuing a “Dear Doctor” letter in the USA to advise possible occular toxiciy with Topiramate. The labelled warnings for Topiramate have been revised following 23 reported cases (22 adult and 1 child) of acute myopia and secondary acute angle-closure glaucoma.

Janssen Cilag in the UK are in discussion with the Medicines Control Agency and expect to circulate a similar “Dear Doctor” letter in the near future.

The letter issued in the US can be viewed at http://www.fda.gov/medwatch.safety/2001/safety01.htm

Prepared by Susan Wileman (Medicines Information Technician DIAL)

Date of Preparation: 5th October 2001

guess what yep your right its quoted what ever gave that away?

Why should I demand such a thing?

I am not arrgoant or rude and dont wish to be, I take what people say and make my mind up not demand they fit mine.

Do you ever consider your wrong?

me on a soap box, so cute when angry :D

[Flatworm]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower

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 .


He never had the disease, so he never experienced both sets of symptoms- yet he claims they were similar enough to link the two to the exclusion of all other substances and diseases... and we're supposed to take his word for it? Does he even actually describe what the exact symptoms were or do we only get to hear that they were "similar"?

What follows is a rather interesting bit of plagiarism:


HOMEOPATHY
Homeopathy is a scientific method of therapy... based on a deep understanding of and respect for the uniqueness of each individual.


Appears:

http://www.pipeline.com/~ekondrot/whathom.htm

http://homeopathiceye.com/ho.html


Ruta is a common homeopathic remedy ...stirred gently between each dose

The complete text appears:

http://nutritionalresearch.net/featured.htm

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

Perhaps you're not used to this forum, but it is generally considered dishonest here, as it is in any professional or academic setting, to post material without indicating your source.

Homeopaths, like naturopaths, make reference to very warm and fuzzy principles like "treating the whole person" and being "all-natural". The problem is that these principles are horifically simplistic and as yet have failed to produce results on par with "cold, unnatural" science-based medicine.

[Flatworm]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
I dont demand you back up your own thoughts do I.


The whole point of skepticism is to demand exactly that of yourself- to examine your own beliefs and think "why do I believe this? Does this hold up to careful scrutiny?"

What I know is sufficient for my needs and my needs are not here to excuslively serve your. They serve me enough to make a uniformed judgement on it, i find what I need to know and that suits me fine. I know probably more than you. Anything I have expericned seen or watched is all added into it. I have the side effect illness of a certain drug, its on my medical notes is that scientific enough for you. :confused:

You lept on somthing the side effects and didnt read it all first other wise you would have seen its my own view. I can produce links to in the news medicines, but that wont appease you will it?

http://www.vioxx-celebrex-side-effects.com/html/faqs.html
http://www.medhelp.org/forums/mentalhealth/messages/31068a.html
http://www.soton.ac.uk/~gk/scifi/effects.htm

me and a search engine.

Originally posted by Flatworm


The whole point of skepticism is to demand exactly that of yourself- to examine your own beliefs and think "why do I believe this? Does this hold up to careful scrutiny?"
Why and to what scrutiny 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?

me:confused:

The Pharmaceutical Journal Vol 265 No 7118 p575
October 14, 2000 The Conference
Crookes lecture
Side effects of analgesics can be anticipated from patients' conditions
The adverse effects which patients might experience when using over-the-counter analgesics could be anticipated from a knowledge of patients’ existing conditions, it was explained in a lecture sponsored by Crookes Healthcare given on September 10

The most important risk factor for adverse effects when taking over-the-counter analgesics was the use of concomitant medication, Professor Nicholas Moore (professor of clinical pharmacology, University of Bordeaux, France) said. The condition that the analgesic was being used to treat also had an influence on whether adverse effects might occur.
Professor Moore’s findings were taken from the results of the paracetamol, aspirin and ibuprofen new tolerability (PAIN) study.1 This was a randomised, blinded, parallel-group trial of paracetamol (P), aspirin (A) and ibuprofen (I) administered to patients by French general medical practitioners at doses equivalent to the OTC indications for the products in France at that time. The maximum daily doses were 3g (P or A) or 1.2g (I) to be taken for up to seven days. Patients completed diaries of drug use and adverse effects and were given follow-up calls by their GP after 24 hours and seven to nine days. In total 8,677 patients were randomised (P=2,888; A=2,900; I=2,886). The aim of the trial was to show that ibuprofen was equal to paracetamol and superior to aspirin in terms of tolerability.
Of the patients entering the trial, 99.5 per cent were evaluable and 95 per cent complied with the “rather simple” protocol. This was “almost as good a response as a phase I trial”, Professor Moore said. The most common indications were musculoskeletal pain (33 per cent), colds or influenza (20) and backache (16). Around 25 per cent of patients had concomitant diseases and 45 per cent were taking other medicines during the study.
Looking at the primary end point of the trial, adverse effects were seen in 14.5 per cent (P), 18.5 per cent (A) and 13.7 per cent (I) of patients. This was a significant difference with respect to A and the hypothesis was proven.
“Aspirin had more adverse effects in all categories,” Professor Moore said.

Other risk factors
Presenting a more detailed analysis of the adverse effect profiles from the trial, Professor Moore asked: “So, which patients should we look out for?”
Women had reported more adverse events than men, which could have been because they either complained more or they were, it seemed, more resistant to the action of analgesics, he said.
In terms of age, it was a case of “the older you get the more adverse effects you have”, but Professor Moore noted that “the young complain more than the middle aged”.
Patients with a higher temperature at the start of the trial had fewer adverse events. This might be because patients treating feverish conditions had taken shorter courses of treatment.
The condition which was being treated had an effect on the adverse effect profile. Greater numbers of events were reported when the condition was backache, musculoskeletal pain, headache or “other”.
However, the most important factor was the use of concomitant medication. The greater the number of additional medicines that were being taken the greater was the risk of adverse effects. The greatest risk came if any of the concomitant medicines was “prohibited”, ie, contraindicated on the summary of product characteristics or packaging. This showed that “forbidden medicines were on the label for a good reason” and that OTC analgesics should not be used if they were present.
“The greatest risk of adverse effects with aspirin is in patients with as few as one concomitant medicine. Thus we should not give aspirin to patients taking other drugs,” Professor Moore said. However, when more than three concomitant medicines were being taken then the risk of adverse effects was greater for paracetamol than for aspirin.
In conclusion, Professor Moore said that in common painful conditions, when the product labelling was respected, paracetamol and ibuprofen had equal tolerability.

Aspirin as an analgesic
Answering questions after the lecture, Professor Moore said that when comparing paracetamol and aspirin, then aspirin increased the risk of adverse effects whatever the dose used was. It was not as well tolerated as paracetamol. In his opinion, aspirin should be restricted to use for cardiovascular indications and should no longer be sold over the counter as an analgesic.
Comparing paracetamol and the non-aspirin non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NANSAIDs), such as ibuprofen, the perception that NANSAIDs were bound to cause more adverse effects was a spill-over from long-term, high-dose studies. This was not applicable to short-term, low-dose use.
“We have indications from the PAIN study that ibuprofen actually has fewer gastrointestinal effects, such as dyspepsia, than paracetamol, which flies in the face of accepted knowledge.”
Asked if the study validated the packaging warnings to “Always read the label”, Professor Moore said that as long as the labelling criteria had been followed the patient population in the study had been perfectly representative of the normal population who purchased OTC analgesics. For example, aspirin sensitivity or asthma had been exclusion criteria for the study.
“Thank God there are pharmacists to help patients read the labels,” he added.

References
Moore N, Van Ganse E, Le Parc J-M, Wall R, Schneid H, Farhan M, et al. The PAIN study: paracetamol, aspirin and ibuprofen new tolerability study. Clin Drug Invest 1999;18: 89-98.

http://www.nassdb.org.uk/f2/Paracetamol_Codeine.htm

God can I stop now. I'm bored:(

Originally posted by Flatworm


He never had the disease, so he never experienced both sets of symptoms- yet he claims they were similar enough to link the two to the exclusion of all other substances and diseases... and we're supposed to take his word for it? Does he even actually describe what the exact symptoms were or do we only get to hear that they were "similar"?

What follows is a rather interesting bit of plagiarism:



Appears:

http://www.pipeline.com/~ekondrot/whathom.htm

http://homeopathiceye.com/ho.html



The complete text appears:

http://nutritionalresearch.net/featured.htm

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

Perhaps you're not used to this forum, but it is generally considered dishonest here, as it is in any professional or academic setting, to post material without indicating your source.

Homeopaths, like naturopaths, make reference to very warm and fuzzy principles like "treating the whole person" and being "all-natural". The problem is that these principles are horifically simplistic and as yet have failed to produce results on par with "cold, unnatural" science-based medicine.

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

no I dont know a lot what I do is for my own benefit to help me, I am true to myslef as to others.

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.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
Do you ever consider your wrong? My irony meter just blew a fuse.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
http://www.wddty.co.uk/

25th April 2001

Author:
Catrin Barker, Principal Pharmacist, DIAL


The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have raised safety concerns about the use of propofol (Diprivan) in children.

blah blah I saw "a causative relationship could not be proven because of the nature of the study and the small number of patients included."

Strangely enough I didn't see anything that said ”HALF of all illnesses around are caused by the side effects of modern medicines”.

Originally posted by Yahzi
Sunflower

The procedure you described is not a homeopathic procedure. The result is not a homeopathic remedy.

It is folk medicine, or even herbal medicine. But it is not homeopathy.

You would do well to stop defending an art you don't actually practice.



First they tell you it's all individualized, then they tell you the standard treatment that suffices for everyone.

It's like the people who say God's plan is to great for human minds to comprehend, and BTW here is your part in it.


Then what you know isn't sufficient.


You should.


Sorry to burst you bubble but I typed that out of a book labeld homeopathy , dont tell me what I can or cannot do you have no jurisidiction to do that PERIOD. I will defend what my view is and i feel it works for some and it helped me and that is it just because some leap before looking dont trhrow it back to me.

It works for some people it wrokded for me at a low point, that recipe is a remedy that is how you make a homeopathic remedy and it has an x factor I am sure but seeing as no shops are open I cant go look for it. If it has the orginal substance in it leave unbanned if it hasnt remove it what I said allalong.

I know what I know and so what if i dont practise it I know gardening am I to stop that as I am not a proffessional gardener too? that is what you are saying I also practise cooking I know nothing about that shall I stop ?

Dont anyone ever tell me not to do something i believe in, I belive in it I needed it. I cant be hard and cold as some of you appear to be, Irahter be dead.

Originally posted by RichardR
I saw "a causative relationship could not be proven because of the nature of the study and the small number of patients included."

Strangely enough I didn't see anything that said ”HALF of all illnesses around are caused by the side effects of modern medicines”.
dont be so pendantic on words. you kknow what I meant so lay off

[RichardR]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
The Pharmaceutical Journal Vol 265 No 7118 p575
October 14, 2000 The Conference
Crookes lecture
Side effects of analgesics can be anticipated from patients' conditions

blah blah Still can't find anything that said ”HALF of all illnesses around are caused by the side effects of modern medicines”.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower

dont be so pendantic on words. you kknow what I meant so lay off Are you now withdrawing this statement:

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

and I am approaching meltdown. Cynical isnt the be all or end all of life. Being humane to others is.

Learn it.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
and I am approaching meltdown. Cynical isnt the be all or end all of life. Being humane to others is.

Learn it. This statement is cynical:

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

Originally posted by RichardR
Are you now withdrawing this statement:

”HALF of all illnesses around are caused by the side effects of modern medicines”?
No coz when you add them all up I suspect they do tally half.

I'll stick by it it s my won view and I havent seen anything to sway me otherwise.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower

No coz when you add them all up I suspect they do tally half. So what did you mean by this:

"dont be so pendantic on words. you kknow what I meant so lay off"?

Originally posted by RichardR
This statement is cynical:

”HALF of all illnesses around are caused by the side effects of modern medicines”. no it isnt you may read it like that but it isnt its my own view having recieved that part of modern medicine. Ican lay blame anywhere, I stand my it Its a view my own view until i see somethng that makes me change my mind.

If I wanted to be cynical I would and I dont. that said in angry hurting voiceing.

[Foodbunny]

See, the problem here is that you originally posted your belief as a fact. That doesn't fly well here, if you state something as a fact instead of a belief people want to see what supports your statement and "Uh, well, I think so" isn't going to help you out very much.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
no it isnt you may read it like that but it isnt its my own view having recieved that part of modern medicine. Ican lay blame anywhere, I stand my it Its a view my own view until i see somethng that makes me change my mind.

If I wanted to be cynical I would and I dont. that said in angry hurting voiceing. Cynical means: (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cynical)

1. Believing or showing the belief that people are motivated chiefly by base or selfish concerns; skeptical of the motives of others: a cynical dismissal of the politician's promise to reform the campaign finance system.
2. Selfishly or callously calculating: showed a cynical disregard for the safety of his troops in his efforts to advance his reputation.
3. Negative or pessimistic, as from world-weariness: a cynical view of the average voter's intelligence.
4. Expressing jaded or scornful skepticism or negativity: cynical laughter


Hum. didn't se anything about an angry hurting voice. I did see "Negative or pessimistic".

Originally posted by Foodbunny
See, the problem here is that you originally posted your belief as a fact. That doesn't fly well here, if you state something as a fact instead of a belief people want to see what supports your statement and "Uh, well, I think so" isn't going to help you out very much. I said what as a fact? Did I? to Foodbunny

Richardr to you http://www.smilies.nl/redbite.gif
http://www.smilies.nl/countdown.gif
http://www.smilies.nl/eviltongue.gif

[RichardR]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
Is aid what as a fact? did I?

Richard :p Could you try rewriting that as something that makes sense?

[Elaborate]

1) The few failures, mistreatments, and misdiagnosises (spelling? plural of misdiagnosis) have absolutely nothing to do with the validity of homeopathy. This is not a case in which if one option is false, the other must be true. You must provide evidence for your position for anyone to accept it.

2) On you "like cures like" idea. What of penicillin? This antiboitic does not produce symptoms of the disease-causing bacteria it kills. If that idea does not hold up in all cases, it cannot be true. The scientifically proven fact is that quinine kills the malaria parasite. According to here (http://sres.anu.edu.au/associated/fpt/nwfp/quinine/Quinine.html), quinine is rarely used anymore, being replaced by synthetic drugs like chloroquine and mefloquine.

[xouper]

Originally posted by Flatworm
... after diluting it to the point of one part in 10^23, you'd be lucky to have a single molecule of the active ingredient left.Depends on the volume. For example, in a gallon of 12C arsenic, one would expect to have about 128 molecules of arsenic, not just one.

[xouper]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
God can I stop now. I'm bored:( Yes, please stop. I'm bored too, of reading your incoherent blatherings and unsubstantiated assertions on the topic of homeopathy.

[Ipecac]

R-S,

You will find that on this board, saying "I believe" with no evidence to back up that belief won't get you very far. Sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling won't either.

If you communicate clearly, express your views and are willing to discuss and exchange information, you'll get along fine, regardless of whether or not people agree with you.

[dmarker]

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower


No why?

similars help the body nice
opposites dont bad

So more codine should help your body overcome your addiction?

[Doctor X]

With all due respect one cannot debate with a closed mind.

To paraphrase Penn of Penn & Teller, "we cured polio." Whatever unsubstantiated claim a proponent of homeopathy and other quackery wishes to make, science came up with a vaccine.

THUS FAR, homeopathy has not demonstrated a verifiable clinical effect.

Game.

Set.

Match.

--J.D.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Doctor X
With all due respect one cannot debate with a closed mind.

To paraphrase Penn of Penn & Teller, "we cured polio." Whatever unsubstantiated claim a proponent of homeopathy and other quackery wishes to make, science came up with a vaccine.

THUS FAR, homeopathy has not demonstrated a verifiable clinical effect.

Game.

Set.

Match.

--J.D.

Well said.

[xouper]

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.

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

[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

Originally posted by Elaborate
1) The few failures, mistreatments, and misdiagnosises (spelling? plural of misdiagnosis) have absolutely nothing to do with the validity of homeopathy. This is not a case in which if one option is false, the other must be true. You must provide evidence for your position for anyone to accept it.

2) On you "like cures like" idea. What of penicillin? This antiboitic does not produce symptoms of the disease-causing bacteria it kills. If that idea does not hold up in all cases, it cannot be true. The scientifically proven fact is that quinine kills the malaria parasite. According to here (http://sres.anu.edu.au/associated/fpt/nwfp/quinine/Quinine.html), quinine is rarely used anymore, being replaced by synthetic drugs like chloroquine and mefloquine. Try reading you will see abut 4 different discussions going on at the same time. http://www.smilies.nl/eviltongue.gif