Child dies after being given homeopathic "medicine" [Archive]

jimlintott

16th December 2003, 08:09 AM

How could they possibly have thought that water was going to help their little girl? And as for "reliving past life trauma's... I just don't understand how loving parents could do this.

First of all I would be very sure that they didn't believe that it was just water. Secondly just because parents are loving doesn't mean they are intelligent.

I don't believe that charging these parents will do any good whatsoever. I see them as much as a victim of homeopathy as the deceased child. Who should be suffering the whole force of the legal system are the non-medical practioners who dispensed medical advice.

Mr Byrne said it beggared belief why two apparently loving parents would go against the opinions of medical experts.

So, they were stupid. Plenty of people are stupid. If a layperson of less than average intelligence (half the population) is listening to Doctors and Homeopaths I could see their difficulty. Doctors are honest. They tell you the pros and cons. They tell you how certain or uncertain they are that the treatment will work. They are only as sure as they can be. Homeopaths are always very certain their stuff will work. Without this confidence the placebo effect would never kick in. So a layperson who doesn't think critically may find the confidence of the homeopath irresistable. If they are religous then they might also be predisposed to believe in magic or miracles. It's all very sad, really.

I'm all for attacking the homeopathic industry and its practioners but I feel these parents are also victims.

Rolfe

16th December 2003, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by jimlintott
Who should be suffering the whole force of the legal system are the non-medical practioners who dispensed medical advice.

I'm all for attacking the homeopathic industry and its practioners but I feel these parents are also victims.[BROKEN RECORD]
It's not just the non-medical practitioners. The thing that really makes me see red is the tacit acceptance of homoeopathic practice within the medical community.

Medically-qualified homoeopaths somehow manage to avoid being drummed out of the profession, for reasons which seem to have a lot more to do with history and politics than actual medicine or science. They can sound relatively plausible if you're not allowed to push them too far, and their very certainty that they are "doing good" seems to fend off the critics unless these critics are quite astonishingly well-versed in the subject. Whether it's this, or a reluctance to criticise a colleague, or simply the social connections of the woo-woo tendency, homoeopathy seems to have some sort of diplomatic immunity within the medical profession.

The real killer, however, is that this medical acceptance allows all the homoeopaths to claim that of course this is a valid method, look, qualified doctors practise it.

This is a shocking state of affairs, but I don't see it changing any time soon.
[/BROKEN RECORD]

Rolfe.

sickstan

16th December 2003, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by Rolfe
[BROKEN RECORD]
It's not just the non-medical practitioners. The thing that really makes me see red is the tacit acceptance of homoeopathic practice within the medical community.
[quote]

When in medical school and residency, we were not only asked to accept CAM (complementary and alternative medicine) but to practice it in some cases.

[quote]
Medically-qualified homoeopaths somehow manage to avoid being drummed out of the profession, for reasons which seem to have a lot more to do with history and politics than actual medicine or science. They can sound relatively plausible if you're not allowed to push them too far, and their very certainty that they are "doing good" seems to fend off the critics unless these critics are quite astonishingly well-versed in the subject. Whether it's this, or a reluctance to criticise a colleague, or simply the social connections of the woo-woo tendency, homoeopathy seems to have some sort of diplomatic immunity within the medical profession.

The real killer, however, is that this medical acceptance allows all the homoeopaths to claim that of course this is a valid method, look, qualified doctors practise it.[/BROKEN RECORD]

What makes me angry are all those MDs and DOs that will accept and further propagate CAM nonsense. This presupposes that CAM has been put up to rigorous POEM (patient-oriented evidence that matters) testing and that one can "trust" the doctor to advise only what is good for people. It ALSO perpetuates the model of medicine that is paternalistic and patronizing. "Oh here's some stuff -- don't worry it's safe and effective and has no side effects." I personally cannot incorporate most CAM therapies into my practice, since I don't like lying and/or trying to explain something I don't have any comprehension of (e.g., energy fields and bad kharma).

Rolfe

16th December 2003, 10:48 AM

Have you looked at Bandolier, Complementary and Alternative Therapies (http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/booths/altmed.html)? This is a very good resource.

Rolfe.

athon

16th December 2003, 04:25 PM

The typical acceptance within the community is that most people don't use 'alternative' medicine for anything serious. There are people even on this forum that say alternative medicine might work, as if this makes it acceptable for people to use as an alternative to more serious drug regimes.

I've said it a number of times - if homeopathy does work, we have no idea how it interacts with the body, which makes it a dangerous choice of drug. If it doesn't work, it is a dangerous choice of remedy for a serious condition. And yet society continues to think homeopathy and naturopathy is simply 'herbs and stuff'.

Will the government do anything about it? Probably not - the social acceptance is too great. Unfortunately the parents weren't unintelligent, indeed were probably quite well informed. It's simply a case where they made decisions based on an acceptance of the wrong sort of information. And worse still, the fact that we can make such decisions for our children is a cause for concern.

IMO (PM McRae now making the decisions :)), the 'alternative' should be removed from the term 'alternative medicines' and they should be labelled 'unsupported' or 'unvalidated' or something similar, some term to indicate that science currently indicates they have no medical application. They should then be put into a category where if they are to be sold, they have to be labelled (like cigarettes) 'this product may not work as it is an unvalidated medical product'. Finally, the government needs to make it clear that using 'alternative' medicine to treat a serious condition is akin to child abuse, and they need to give powers to family services to intervene.

But then, I'm not PM, so...

Athon

Rolfe

16th December 2003, 05:16 PM

Serious danger here that we're going to get back into the yah-boo match of "there's no such thing as alternative medicine, there's just medicine, and something else", versus, "of course there's such a thing, it's a recognised term". Let's not.

But I agree with every word, Athon. Plus I'd like it to be mandatory for all homoeopathic preparations to be labelled with exactly how much of the alleged active ingredient they contain, in ppm or pg/l or whatever they like. :D Come to that, same for all these "herbal" products as well.

No, you're not PM. I assume you're not married to a woo-woo who has acupuncture earrings inserted and goes round with herbs prescribed by Carol Kaplan (earning more for this advice than I do running a diagnostic laboratory) to free her karma or something. Put that together with a Queen who walks around with homoeopathic onion in her handbag in case she feels a sniffle coming on, and a Prince who urges the government to promote homoeopathy, and is it any wonder there's no money for the treatment needed to keep pensioners from going blind? [/RANT]

Rolfe.

Eos of the Eons

16th December 2003, 10:48 PM

The 13-month-old girl died after she was taken off the anti-convulsant medication prescribed to her by Royal Children's Hospital epilepsy specialists.

Her parents, Helena and Warren, instead sought the advice of a kinesiologist, an osteopath and even a psychic who told the couple Isabella was reliving past-life traumas.

Past life traumas?

The parents were retarded, beyone ignorant, and I bet they won't learn a thing from this. I almost think it is better they don't have a child, but they made one suffer for their stupidity.

I just don't know what to say anymore. This is ridiculous.

athon

16th December 2003, 11:47 PM

It's strange how those who advocate alternative medicine are all silent on the issue at the moment. They're quite talkative when it comes to stating that these treatments have merit - yet when it comes to the actual application of those treatments, and the results, nobody says a word.

I've never said we should discourage research in these fields. We enter a dangerous world if any form of private, independent study is discouraged by a government (within ethical boundaries, of course). If a scientist wants to test water-memory, I for one will stand up and clap. Go for it! The moment somebody uses such treatments as if they have been validated, they will find a most vocal opponent in me.

Athon

Kumar

17th December 2003, 12:33 AM

Hello,

Good informative sites. Just compare & give datas here. Since,I will be out, we can discuss after. Till then pls study.

Link (http://www.mercola.com/2003/nov/26/death_by_medicine.htm) & also here. (http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&q=death+by+medicine&meta=)

Wish you all merry X'mas & happy new year.:D

Cheers.

Eos of the Eons

17th December 2003, 12:50 AM

Originally posted by athon
It's strange how those who advocate alternative medicine are all silent on the issue at the moment. They're quite talkative when it comes to stating that these treatments have merit - yet when it comes to the actual application of those treatments, and the results, nobody says a word.

I've never said we should discourage research in these fields. We enter a dangerous world if any form of private, independent study is discouraged by a government (within ethical boundaries, of course). If a scientist wants to test water-memory, I for one will stand up and clap. Go for it! The moment somebody uses such treatments as if they have been validated, they will find a most vocal opponent in me.

Athon

Good point. I just had a naturopath lover tell me I can't talk about this kind of topic at all because I'm "biased".

I can't talk about these stories because I'm biased.

Yep, have to shut up and not care that people die cause "I don't believe" in naturpathy.

Sighs.

Your point flattens that ridiculous argument. Thank you

Eos of the Eons

17th December 2003, 12:52 AM

Sighs. Links. Whatever Kumar. Yawn

Rolfe

17th December 2003, 03:44 AM

Tell you what, Kumar, why don't you study? That's what you said you were going to do.

And a very happy Christmas to you too. :)

Rolfe.

jimlintott

17th December 2003, 09:29 AM

[BROKEN RECORD]
It's not just the non-medical practitioners. The thing that really makes me see red is the tacit acceptance of homoeopathic practice within the medical community.

Medically-qualified homoeopaths somehow manage to avoid being drummed out of the profession, for reasons which seem to have a lot more to do with history and politics than actual medicine or science. They can sound relatively plausible if you're not allowed to push them too far, and their very certainty that they are "doing good" seems to fend off the critics unless these critics are quite astonishingly well-versed in the subject. Whether it's this, or a reluctance to criticise a colleague, or simply the social connections of the woo-woo tendency, homoeopathy seems to have some sort of diplomatic immunity within the medical profession.

The real killer, however, is that this medical acceptance allows all the homoeopaths to claim that of course this is a valid method, look, qualified doctors practise it.

This is a shocking state of affairs, but I don't see it changing any time soon.
[/BROKEN RECORD]

I thought I would play that again. I didn't realise how much of this is actually in the medical community. Frightening.

Rolfe

18th December 2003, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by jimlintott
I thought I would play that again. I didn't realise how much of this is actually in the medical community. Frightening. Yeah, well, just look at....

The Faculty of Homeopaths (http://www.trusthomeopathy.org/) (established by Act of Parliament)
The Homeopathic Professionals Teaching Group (http://www.hptg.org/)
The British Association of Homeopathic Veterinary Surgeons (http://www.bahvs.com/)
and my personal pet peeve,
The Alternative Veterinary Medicine Centre (http://www.alternativevet.org/) (complete with many warnings to the effect that it is illegal for anyone without a veterinary qualification to treat an animal)

Scary. :crazy:

Rolfe.

Eos of the Eons

18th December 2003, 09:08 PM

Those sites are sooo professional looking, they MUST know what they are talking about, and MUST be credible, and it MUST be true.

Gag

Hmm, your favorite site lists "cage animals" and "Camelids"
as species...hahahahhaha!

And "BERSERK MALE SYNDROME"

Har har har!

Rolfe

19th December 2003, 05:15 AM

That site also contains some gems on "crystal healing" (this page here (http://www.alternativevet.org/crystals.htm), for example)....The practice of crystal therapy predates history, in much the same way as herbal medicine. Primitive man was in tune with his environment and would have known of the valuable energy of crystals, particularly quartz.

The Atlantean civilisation, according to tradition, made great and formal use of quartz crystals, even in technology. The Ancient Egyptians were well-versed in crystal lore. It seems that our discovery of crystal radios and of micro-chips, forming the basis of modern electronics, which governs so much of our lives, is but a re-invention with different applications.

Many different crystals are used in crystal therapy, the most common being quartz and its varieties. It is said that one feels ‘drawn’ to a crystal that is of personal value. Certainly, animals appear to select crystals, given a choice. Is it any wonder that homeopathic quartz (Silica) is such a powerful, strengthening and ‘awakening’ remedy?This guy is a veterinary graduate from the University of Cambridge. :nope:

Rolfe.

Rouser2

20th December 2003, 05:15 AM

Originally posted by athon [/i]

>>It's strange how those who advocate alternative medicine are all silent on the issue at the moment. They're quite talkative when it comes to stating that these treatments have merit - yet when it comes to the actual application of those treatments, and the results, nobody says a word.

It is just as fallacious to presume cowed silence on the part of Alternative Medicine advocates as it is to assume that homeopathy or the absence of the prescibed medication was cause of death. There is a lot that the reader of this story does not know. If, for example, the couple had been administering homeopathic liquids to the infant, and then suddenly switched to MD prescibed anti-convulsive medication and shortly thereafter the infant died, would a black-robed oath taker have charged them?

-- Rouser

Rouser2

20th December 2003, 05:33 AM

Originally posted by belinda [/i]

>>is just depresses me :( These parents (http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,8179388%255E26462,00.html) were told that their 13 month old needed medication for her epilepsy - but decided homeopathic water was just as good.

We don't know that. Perhaps they thought the prescribed medication was harmful. Nor is your presumption that the homeopathic substance was merely "water" jibe with the story which calls it a "mixture".

>>The girl died after two weeks of not getting her medication.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc -- the fallacy of "after the fact, therefore because of the fact. Perhaps the infant died from the effects of the prescibed medication, and not the homeopathic mixture.

< The parents are now (hopefully) being charged with wrongful death...

Can you imagine a headline reading:

Infant dies after Parents Agree to Anti-Convulsive Medication. Parents and Prescribing Physicain Charged with Wrongful Death

Rouser

Darwin'sGoat

20th December 2003, 07:08 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
We don't know that. Perhaps they thought the prescribed medication was harmful. Nor is your presumption that the homeopathic substance was merely "water" jibe with the story which calls it a "mixture".

Yes, maybe they thought that it was harmful. Maybe they also thought that it wasn't going to do anything because they fell for the lies told to them by the psychic, kinesiologist, and osteopath.

You are correct in saying that we have no idea if the "mixture" was water or not. However as this well written article written by the "Institute of Science in Society" (ISIS) points out homeopathic mixtures need contain absolutely nothing aside from water because of the mystical ability of water to keep a "memory" of the substances previously mixed into it.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/water3.php

The mixture they gave the child may very well have been some herbs and dirt mixed in with water, but it's much more fun to run with the idea of 'water memory'. It sounds so high tech.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc -- the fallacy of "after the fact, therefore because of the fact. Perhaps the infant died from the effects of the prescibed medication, and not the homeopathic mixture.

Or we can go with the more likely cause, the one which the coroner gave,

"Coroner Phil Byrne yesterday found a fundamental breach of duty of care by the parents contributed to Isabella Denley's death in October 2002.

The 13-month-old girl died after she was taken off the anti-convulsant medication prescribed to her by Royal Children's Hospital epilepsy specialists."

Can you imagine a headline reading:

Infant dies after Parents Agree to Anti-Convulsive Medication. Parents and Prescribing Physicain Charged with Wrongful Death

Or the ever popular:

Idiot Parents Stoned for Being too Stupid - Psychics, Kinesiologists, and Osteopaths Exiled From Australia

Rouser2

20th December 2003, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by Darwin'sGoat [/i]

>>Re: Re: Child dies after being given homeopathic "medicine"

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rouser2
We don't know that. Perhaps they thought the prescribed medication was harmful. Nor is your presumption that the homeopathic substance was merely "water" jibe with the story which calls it a "mixture".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Yes, maybe they thought that it was harmful. Maybe they also thought that it wasn't going to do anything because they fell for the lies told to them by the psychic, kinesiologist, and osteopath.

How do you know what they were told by whom? And how do you know they were lies?

>>You are correct in saying that we have no idea if the "mixture" was water or not. However as this well written article written by the "Institute of Science in Society" (ISIS) points out homeopathic mixtures need contain absolutely nothing aside from water because of the mystical ability of water to keep a "memory" of the substances previously mixed into it.

But that begs the question of the story at hand which describes it as a mixture. And no matter how critics try to paint Alternative Medical fields as kookie as possible, the homeopathic practictioners I read believe in no such "water memory" nonsense. Stawman arguments are only for those who reside in the Land of Oz.

>>The mixture they gave the child may very well have been some herbs and dirt mixed in with water, but it's much more fun to run with the idea of 'water memory'. It sounds so high tech.

More fun for those who could care less about what the real truth may be.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc -- the fallacy of "after the fact, therefore because of the fact. Perhaps the infant died from the effects of the prescibed medication, and not the homeopathic mixture.

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

>>Or we can go with the more likely cause, the one which the coroner gave,

>>"Coroner Phil Byrne yesterday found a fundamental breach of duty of care by the parents contributed to Isabella Denley's death in October 2002.
The 13-month-old girl died after she was taken off the anti-convulsant medication prescribed to her by Royal Children's Hospital epilepsy specialists."

That, of course, is a conclusion unsupported by any facts. All people, young and old, who die, die some time after they ingest something.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can you imagine a headline reading:

Infant dies after Parents Agree to Anti-Convulsive Medication. Parents and Prescribing Physicain Charged with Wrongful Death
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>Or the ever popular:

>>Idiot Parents Stoned for Being too Stupid - Psychics, Kinesiologists, and Osteopaths Exiled From Australia

In America, it is not a crime to be stupid. Medical "experts" prove it all the time.

-- Rouser

Rolfe

20th December 2003, 01:08 PM

Rouser, what do you actually think is in homoeopathic preparations? I mean the "high potency" ones the professionals use, rather than the "low potency" OTC preparations.

Rolfe (who is going to regret having asked this, but never mind).

Eos of the Eons

20th December 2003, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by belinda [/i]

Infant dies after Parents Agree to Anti-Convulsive Medication. Parents and Prescribing Physicain Charged with Wrongful Death

Rouser

The child was surviving on the medication. Anti-convulsive meds don't cause death...or yes, the doc would be sued...duh.

It was give the meds or the kid will die. That was clear.

Warren and Helena Denley took 13-month-old Isabella to a psychic and various natural therapists in the months before she died and ignored warnings that anticonvulsant drugs were crucial to combating her life-threatening condition, an inquest heard.

Coroner Phil Byrne yesterday blamed the Melbourne couple for the death of their daughter on October 19 last year, finding that the withdrawal of medication was a "fundamental breach of duty of care".

A psychic told the couple that the convulsions and seizures were related to trauma she had experienced in a "past life".

http://theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,8173577%255E23289,00.html

They stopped giving the kid the meds that would allow her to live.

They heard from the homeopath that the kid would get better off of the meds...cause the side effects would subside.

Well, no meds, no side effects, no life.

They chose to let the kid die.

For the last two weeks of her life, Isabella was given only a homeopathic mixture for her seizures.

THey gave her the homeopathic meds for her seizures. They knew she need something for her seizures or she would die. They knew that.

They were idiots and turned to wooism. Why? I I've posted elsewhere why. The arguments agains doctors and for 'natural' remedies is hyped on mothering sites.

This has to stop. Parents need to know the consequences of the liars that put up parenting sites to denounce modern medicine and make money off of their wooism.

All quotes from this link (http://216.92.20.151/discussions/index.php?)

I agree that pharmaceuticals can /do supress symptoms & hinder the bodys ways of getting rid of illness

I got so fed up with our mainstream ped's approach to treatment, that I took ds to a naturopath. The experience was great!

It’s sad that some jerkoff doctors can only think of convenience for them over their patients well being, and it seems so common!

http://mothering.com/discussions/showthread.php?s=abe104fc58e24c62500a9ef0ac
9ac54b&threadid=85298&highlight=epileptic

Dd had seizures at 5 months and we needed testing but we were able to treat/resolve them naturally

My son had very intense seizures.....all different kinds. The doctors wanted
to medicate, we chose not to & pursued natural rememdies. Eventually, we
found that food caused his seizures. He has been seizure-free & healthy for
2 1/2 years.

Since you know your son reacts more before eating, it could definitely be
related to blook sugar. My recommendation is to do lots of research before
making any decisions.

My son had seizures but was not epileptic.

I'll give you some of the information that we found helpful for reducing
them without drugs.

We used Progesterone Cream (put a little dab - smaller than a pea, on each
shoulder daily). It helps repair the myelin sheath on the ends of the
nerves. Boys can handle more progesterone than girls.

____________________________________________

http://mothering.com/discussions/showthread.php?s=abe104fc58e24c62500a9ef0ac
9ac54b&threadid=73369&highlight=epileptic

I was diagnosed with epilepsy at 9 years old. I had literally hundreds of
seizures a day until about 4 years ago when I went through a treatment of
Tibetan Herbs (given to me by the Dalai Lama's personal physician during our
stay in India). I no longer take ANY western medicine, after years of taking
it 5 times a day and am seizure free. There is hardly any incidence of
epilepsy in Tibetan culture.

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

Having a less acidic and more alkaline body chemistry appears to slow, even
stop, the spread of cancer within the body. By getting the body to use
oxygen better, it tends to boost healthy cells and promote the alkaline
chemistry. Decreasing the amount of meats and dairy consumed, while at the
same time increasing the amount of fresh fruits and veggies also increases
the alkaline environment. .

_____

http://mothering.com/discussions/showthread.php?s=abe104fc58e24c62500a9ef0ac
9ac54b&threadid=101965

The parents are told doctors are wrong. The epilepsy was a misdiagnosis because it was past life, not epilepsy that was the problem.

They were told the meds were worse for the kid than 'natural' side effect free (but ineffective) holistic junk.

The parents obviously were sucked in by the propoganda.

Parents need to know reality from propoganda.

All quotes from this link (http://216.92.20.151/discussions/index.php?)

BTox

20th December 2003, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc -- the fallacy of "after the fact, therefore because of the fact. Perhaps the infant died from the effects of the prescibed medication, and not the homeopathic mixture.

Rouser

This sounds familiar, just like the claims that any vaccines cause death. Perhaps the deaths are completely unrelated? We'll never know.

BTox

20th December 2003, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
But that begs the question of the story at hand which describes it as a mixture. And no matter how critics try to paint Alternative Medical fields as kookie as possible, the homeopathic practictioners I read believe in no such "water memory" nonsense. Stawman arguments are only for those who reside in the Land of Oz

Have you ever communicated with a homeopath? Or just read AP articles? So please tell us, if they don't believe in water memory, how do they explain the alleged efficacy of a 30C or higher remedy?

Originally posted by Rouser2

That, of course, is a conclusion unsupported by any facts. All people, young and old, who die, die some time after they ingest something.

Exactly, just as some die after getting a vaccine. No proof that there is any causation whatsoever.

Originally posted by Rouser2

In America, it is not a crime to be stupid. -- Rouser

Sadly, true, as otherwise you'd be serving a life sentence!

Rolfe

20th December 2003, 04:37 PM

Just in case my simple question gets buried, I'll ask again.

Rouser, what do you think is in a "high potency" (ultramolar) homoeopathic remedy apart from water/alcohol or lactose?

Rolfe.

T'ai Chi

20th December 2003, 05:20 PM

If someone dies as a result of taking OTC "homeopathic" medicine, is that to be blamed on homeopathy, or traditional medicine (since some OTC homeopathic doses are normal doses)?

Rouser2

20th December 2003, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons [/i]

>>
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by belinda [/i]

>>Infant dies after Parents Agree to Anti-Convulsive Medication. Parents and Prescribing Physicain Charged with Wrongful Death

>>The child was surviving on the medication. Anti-convulsive meds don't cause death

What psychics are you listening to? There is plenty of evidence to suggest that anti-convulsive meds do indeed cause death, as well as plenty of horrifying side effects, which is probably why the couple sought counsel elsewhere.

>>It was give the meds or the kid will die. That was clear.

Clear to who? Certainly not made clear to the couple.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Warren and Helena Denley took 13-month-old Isabella to a psychic and various natural therapists in the months before she died and ignored warnings that anticonvulsant drugs were crucial to combating her life-threatening condition, an inquest heard.

But the couple claims there were no such warnings.

>>Coroner Phil Byrne yesterday blamed the Melbourne couple for the death of their daughter on October 19 last year, finding that the withdrawal of medication was a "fundamental breach of duty of care".

The Coroner's finding is not supported by any facutual information, but merely is an assertion. In fact, in what is known as Sudden Unexplained Death in Epilepsy (SUDEP) the autopsy will not reveal the toxilogical or anatomical cause of death.

"SUDEP (Sudden Unexplained Death in Epilepsy Patients)is the sudden, unexplained and unexpected death of an individual with epilepsy. The cause of death cannot be determined. When an autopsy is performed on an individual suspected of dying from SUDEP, the examination does not reveal a toxicological or anatomic cause of death. SUDEP cases were recorded as early as the 1900's but it was not understood. It has only been recent that the risk factors of SUDEP have been identified, although there is still much more research to be done. "

"SUDEP occurs in approximately 1 in 1000 people with epilepsy per year. Those who take multiple anticonvulsant drugs could increase their risk up to 1 in 100 people per year. SUDEP accounts for 12-15% of deaths in people with epilepsy. People with epilepsy have an increased death rate of three times compared to the rate of the general population. "

From Epilepsy ONtario

http://epilepsyontario.org/client/EO/EOWeb.nsf/web/SUDEP+-+Frequently+Asked+Questions

>>They stopped giving the kid the meds that would allow her to live.

Perhaps they stopped giving the kid the meds that were killing her.

>>Well, no meds, no side effects, no life.

A conclusion unsupported by facts. That is the standard line that all Establishment MDs give to sell their all of their dangerous nostrums.

>>They chose to let the kid die.

On the other hand, when they saw the meds werel killing their kid, they chose to look for other choices.

>>THey gave her the homeopathic meds for her seizures. They knew she need something for her seizures or she would die. They knew that.

The original story belies that conclusion.

>>They were idiots and turned to wooism.

Perhaps the worst of the wooism were the medical doctors who prescribed dangerous, deadly anti-seizure drugs in the first place. On the other hand, the child may have died either way. We don't have enough infomation to really know. Nor, probably, does the Coroner. But like all those who worship at the alter of Modern Medicine, it is easy to jump to knee-jerk conclusions in support of one's own worshipful beliefs.

>>This has to stop. Parents need to know the consequences of the liars that put up parenting sites to denounce modern medicine and make money off of their wooism.

Perhaps parents need to inform themselves all about what you call "woosim" in Modern Medicine as well.

UK reports of fatal drug reactions in kids rising
From M Northwestern Memorial Health News

Last Updated: 2002-11-27 11:48:56 -0400 (Reuters Health

LONDON (Reuters Health) - British doctors are reporting an increasing number of cases where the deaths of children might have been caused by drug side effects, researchers said on Wednesday

"One of the areas that concerned us was the large number of deaths associated with anticonvulsants. One third of the suspected adverse drug reactions involved the new anticonvulsants," Choonara told Reuters Health. "But the honest answer is that we can't say definitely there is an increased risk."
Anticonvulsant drugs used to treat epilepsy were associated with the largest number of reports, 65 of the total 331 reports. In 31 of those reports, a specific anticonvulsant called sodium valproate was mentioned.

http://health_info.nmh.org/HealthNews/reuters/NewsStory1127200224.htm

From Health NewsFlash

Epilepsy - Risks

Are There Special Risks Associated With Epilepsy?

For reasons that are poorly understood, people with epilepsy have an increased risk of dying suddenly for no discernible reason. This condition, called sudden unexplained death, can occur in people without epilepsy, but epilepsy increases the risk about two-fold. Researchers are still unsure why sudden unexplained death occurs. One study suggested that use of more than two anticonvulsant drugs may be a risk factor.
http://epilepsy.healthnewsflash.com/fb_11.php

* * *

Changes in arrhythmia profile and heart rate variability during abrupt withdrawal of antiepileptic drugs. Implications for sudden death.
Kenneb¨ack G; et al.
Seizure, 6(5):369-75 1997 Oct.
The results of this study show that 3 out of 10 epileptic patients who discontinued treatment with carbamazepine and phenytoin, developed significant reduction of heart rate variability and a 10-fold increase in ventricular premature beats. These changes in cardiac function have been associated with increased mortality in other groups of patients, and may contribute to the increased incidence of sudden unexpected death in epileptic patients.

Antiepileptic drugs as a cause of worsening seizures.
Perucca E, et al.
Epilepsia 1998 Jan;39(1):5-17.
This review discusses the well-known phenomenon of paradoxical exacerbation of seizures that occurs in epileptic patients treated with antiepileptic drugs. The mechanism by which antiepileptic drugs can worsen seizures is not completely understood, but it is believed to be mediated either by toxicity from drug overdose, or by the primary mechanism of action of these drugs. Carbamazepine, phenytoin, vigabratin, gabapentin, and occasionally benzodiazepines, have been associated with the precipitation or worsening of a variety of seizures. The authors conclude that this effect is a common and serious complication related to anticonvulsant treatment, which is often overlooked by the treating physician.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/rboon/StudiesofTreatmentsforSeizures.htm

-- Rouser

BTox

20th December 2003, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
If someone dies as a result of taking OTC "homeopathic" medicine, is that to be blamed on homeopathy, or traditional medicine (since some OTC homeopathic doses are normal doses)?

There is no such thing as a homeopathic OTC drug. The products you are referring to are considered dietary supplements and fall under DSHEA, so the blame would fall on the fools that passed that moronic act.

Rolfe

21st December 2003, 06:25 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
If someone dies as a result of taking OTC "homeopathic" medicine, is that to be blamed on homeopathy, or traditional medicine (since some OTC homeopathic doses are normal doses)? I can't see anyone dying from an OTC homoeopathic preparation which is really homoeopathic - 6X or more. These do have some molecules of "remedy" in them, true, but even they are so dilute that the chances of an adverse reaction are minimal.

But even if they did, how would that be down to "traditional" medicine? If by that you mean real medicine (pharmacotherapeutics) and not "TCM" or similar? The things in homoeopathic OTC remedies have nothing to do with real medicine, mountain daisy ("arnica") and stuff like that are purely homoeopathic obsessions.

Any OTC "homoeopathic" preparation which has a "normal" dose of a recognised pharmaceutical is simply misusing the "homoeopathic" label to avoid having to satisfy the efficacy, safety and quality strictures that apply to real medicines sold as such. Things marketed as "1X" or "2X" are in that category, and if anyone was harmed by them (like the guy in the recent Zicam case) the fault lies with those who use an exemption granted to homoeopathy on the grounds that as there's pretty much nothing in it it doesn't matter, to avoid their responsibilities to sell only properly safety-tested pharmaceuticals.

Rolfe.

Rolfe

21st December 2003, 06:26 AM

Rouser, what do you think is in a "high potency" (ultramolar) homoeopathic remedy apart from water/alcohol or lactose?

Rolfe.

Eos of the Eons

21st December 2003, 03:55 PM

You obviously didn't read the articles about the couple Rouse, even after I quoted the parts

WHERE THE DOCTORS MADE IT CLEAR TO THE COUPLE THAT THE KID WOULD DIE WITHOUT THE MEDICATION.

Since you refuse to stick to the facts, I then refuse to discuss anything of this further with you. Arguing with ignorance is like talking to a brick wall. Pointless.

athon

21st December 2003, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
You obviously didn't read the articles about the couple Rouse, even after I quoted the parts

WHERE THE DOCTORS MADE IT CLEAR TO THE COUPLE THAT THE KID WOULD DIE WITHOUT THE MEDICATION.

Since you refuse to stick to the facts, I then refuse to discuss anything of this further with you. Arguing with ignorance is like talking to a brick wall. Pointless.

Funny how people come to this conclusion very quickly with Rouser. He avoids pivotal questions, throws unsupported nonsense at you, ignores the explanations you give and then demonstrates just how ignorant he is on a given topic.

I don't mind arguing a point, but only when there is some substance to the argument.

Athon

Darwin'sGoat

21st December 2003, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Arguing with ignorance is like talking to a brick wall. Pointless.

I think "Arguing with ignorance is like a naked porcupine. Pointless." might be better.

Rouser2

22nd December 2003, 03:06 AM

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons [/i]

>>You obviously didn't read the articles about the couple Rouse, even after I quoted the parts

>>WHERE THE DOCTORS MADE IT CLEAR TO THE COUPLE THAT THE KID WOULD DIE WITHOUT THE MEDICATION.

You obviously did not read the passage in the original story that
"...Mr Byrne said he rejected claims made by the couple that doctors had not informed them of the risks involved in stopping the medication."
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,8179388%255E26462,00.html

Thus, it is obvious that the couple claims to not have been informed of the alleged risk of stopping the medication, but their claims were merely rejected out of hand. Obviously, it is clear that neither was the couple warned of the increased risk of death from continuing with the medication. What you have here is the unquestioned acceptance of the infallibility of the Medical Establishment, regardless of the numerous scientific studies pointing to the inherent dangers of prescribed anti-convulsive medications. From what can be gleaned from the story, being mindful of the studies dealing with increased risk of death of epileptic patients on anti-convulsive drugs, is the failure of the authorities to even consider the possiblity, that the child's death was due to the medication itself.
And it is your failure as well. But in order to see the light, you must first extract your head from out of the sand.

-- Rouser

Prester John

22nd December 2003, 05:16 AM

Yes but the Coroner accepted that they had recieved warnings.

None of us being previledged to the details of the case can really make more comments, except to note the the Coroner found sufficient evidence for in his opinion "a fundamental breach of duty of care".

Rolfe

22nd December 2003, 06:34 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Nor is your presumption that the homeopathic substance was merely "water" jibe with the story which calls it a "mixture".Rouser, this is something you are also ignoring on the flu vaccine thread you opened in the Politics forum.

What do you think is in a "high potency" (ultramolar) homoeopathic remedy apart from water/alcohol or lactose?

Rolfe.

Rouser2

22nd December 2003, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by Prester John
Yes but the Coroner accepted that they had recieved warnings.

None of us being previledged to the details of the case can really make more comments, except to note the the Coroner found sufficient evidence for in his opinion "a fundamental breach of duty of care".

"Accepted" is not an accurate word from all we know. "Presumed" is. The Coroner presumed that they had received warnings. But since the original story includes a claim from the parents that they had not been informed of any special danger from stopping the medicaitons, then what you have here is a dispute between the parties. If the claims of the physician are to be upheld, they'd better either have witnesses or proof in writing. At least that's how it would be handled in American Courts. Hearsay shouldn't convict anybody, but in my opinion, it is the prescribing physician who should be charged with wrongful death, and not the parents.

-- Rouser

BillHoyt

22nd December 2003, 11:12 AM

Rouser2

22nd December 2003, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by Prester John
Yes but the Coroner accepted that they had recieved warnings.

None of us being previledged to the details of the case can really make more comments, except to note the the Coroner found sufficient evidence for in his opinion "a fundamental breach of duty of care".

The only evidence the Coroner could have possibly have, is the admission of the parents that they stopped the medication. From what is known about sudden deaths in epliiptics, there is no other possible evidence, unless the homeopathic mixtures contained harmful substances, a highly unlikely circumstance, since the Coroner's assertion is only that medication was stopped.

-- Rosuer

BTox

22nd December 2003, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2

..but in my opinion, it is the prescribing physician who should be charged with wrongful death, and not the parents.

-- Rouser

Thankfully, your opinion has no bearing on this case. The horrors of "alternative" medicine for all to see - an innocent child dead - and once again Rouser buries his head in the sand.

Rouser2

22nd December 2003, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by Rolfe
Rouser, this is something you are also ignoring on the flu vaccine thread you opened in the Politics forum.

What do you think is in a "high potency" (ultramolar) homoeopathic remedy apart from water/alcohol or lactose?

Rolfe.

I consider these type of questions a diversion from the topic at hand. Why don't you start a separate thread?

-- Rouser

BillHoyt

22nd December 2003, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
"Accepted" is not an accurate word from all we know. "Presumed" is. The Coroner presumed that they had received warnings. But since the original story includes a claim from the parents that they had not been informed of any special danger from stopping the medicaitons, then what you have here is a dispute between the parties. If the claims of the physician are to be upheld, they'd better either have witnesses or proof in writing. At least that's how it would be handled in American Courts. Hearsay shouldn't convict anybody, but in my opinion, it is the prescribing physician who should be charged with wrongful death, and not the parents.

-- Rouser

Your pretzel logic needs salt. The physician prescribed the appropriate medicine. The parents listened to woos, and substituted water for the medicine. They clearly breached fundamental parental duty. As the details become clearer, the parental claim will, I strongly suspect, crumble. AED blood levels are usually monitored to be sure the absorption level and metabolism have balanced out to a steady state within the therapeutic range. Hard to believe this monitoring was occurring without the parents and the physician discussing the whys and wherefores in detail.

Rouser2

22nd December 2003, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt [/i]

>>AED blood levels are usually monitored to be sure the absorption level and metabolism have balanced out to a steady state within the therapeutic range. Hard to believe this monitoring was occurring without the parents and the physician discussing the whys and wherefores in detail.

Hard to believe the physician told the parents of the increased risk of death due to the medication as supported by numerous studies, only a few of which are cited above.

-- Rouser

BillHoyt

22nd December 2003, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by BillHoyt [/i]

>>AED blood levels are usually monitored to be sure the absorption level and metabolism have balanced out to a steady state within the therapeutic range. Hard to believe this monitoring was occurring without the parents and the physician discussing the whys and wherefores in detail.

Hard to believe the physician told the parents of the increased risk of death due to the medication as supported by numerous studies, only a few of which are cited above.

-- Rouser

You are more than a bit confused. I suggest you re-read the story and figure out what actually happened here. :dl:

Prester John

22nd December 2003, 02:13 PM

From the Coroner
"I accept they were advised of the dangers (by doctors). The fact is they were unreceptive," he said.

Now the use of the phrase "i accept they were advised" implies that the coroner was given information by the childs doctors. It implies that the Coroner spoke directly to the childs Doctors. Not just the parents

Rouser said:
"Accepted" is not an accurate word from all we know. "Presumed" is. The Coroner presumed that they had received warnings
Yes but that was the Coroners language, not mine, unless you have privelidged knowledge you cannot claim that the Coroner only spoke to the parents. The quote from the article clearly implies that the coroner spoke to the doctor

(Apologies for making the same point twice, but its hard to get some people to comprehend a point)

Rolfe

22nd December 2003, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
I consider these type of questions a diversion from the topic at hand. Why don't you start a separate thread?Nice one.

Rouser has declared, unprompted, on both this thread and the flu vaccine one, that he does not believe that homoeopathic remedies are "content-free" or "only water". This belief is apparently based on a dictionary definition of homoeopathy as dealing with "minute" or "infinitesimal" amounts of substance, and some pro-homoeopathy types who refer to "mixtures" and other terms implying content.

The little matter of Avogadro's number has been explained to him by several people, as has the reason why homoeopathy is eligible for the JREF challenge. His only reply so far demonstrated nothing but a lack of familiarity with the terms of the challenge.

I think we're all at a loss to know what he thinks is in these preparations. Personally, I think he just had no clue what he was talking about, shot his mouth off in ignorance, and now doesn't know how to say "I was mistaken".

The question first arose in the flu vaccine thread, where I agree it was slightly off-topic (though it was Rouser himself, the thread starter, who brought the subject up). I have therefore chosen to pursue the answer in this thread, where it seems very much on-topic.

Seems that Rouser's answer is so complex it needs a thread to itself. :D Well, if he has such world-shattering information (and incidentally, probably a sure-fire way to win the million dollars), then I look forward to him starting his own thread to allow us to discuss it in the depth it obviously requires.

Otherwise, I'm just going to chalk this one down to a clear case of running away from a question he can't answer.

:dl:
Rolfe.

Rouser2

22nd December 2003, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by Prester John
From the Coroner

Now the use of the phrase "i accept they were advised" implies that the coroner was given information by the childs doctors. It implies that the Coroner spoke directly to the childs Doctors. Not just the parents

Rouser said:

Yes but that was the Coroners language, not mine, unless you have privelidged knowledge you cannot claim that the Coroner only spoke to the parents. The quote from the article clearly implies that the coroner spoke to the doctor

(Apologies for making the same point twice, but its hard to get some people to comprehend a point)

The article reads:

"Mr Byrne said he rejected claims made by the couple that doctors had not informed them of the risks involved in stopping the medication."

'I accept they were advised of the dangers (by doctors). The fact is they were unreceptive,' he said.' "

Comment: The fact is, if the office of Coroner is the same in Australia as it is in the US (or I presume the UK as well, where both nations derive their common law) it is not the job of the Coroner to determine anything but cause of death. In this case that would be impossible. It would be the government prosecutor whose job it would be to determine who said what to whom. Clearly, from this story, there is a dispute. Did the doctors lay it out or not? I don't know and neither do you. I'm quite certain they did not lay out the dangers of the drug itself. That's just how Modern Medicine operates. An Alternative Medicator would never get away with it. But the MD physician has a "LICENSE" -- a license to kill.

-- Rouser

BTox

22nd December 2003, 07:00 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2

I'm quite certain they did not lay out the dangers of the drug itself. That's just how Modern Medicine operates. An Alternative Medicator would never get away with it. But the MD physician has a "LICENSE" -- a license to kill.

-- Rouser

No, you have no idea, just a biased and uninformed guess. Let's remember the facts of this case, the child was being successfully treated by a qualified doctor. The child was taken off necessary and life-saving medication by an "alternative" practitioner, aka a quack. The child died directly due to the idiotic actions of the parents and quack advisor. Again, ignorance and stupidity result in the needless death of an innocent child.

Rouser2

23rd December 2003, 05:00 AM

]Originally posted by BTox [/i]

>>No, you have no idea, just a biased and uninformed guess. Let's remember the facts of this case, the child was being successfully treated by a qualified doctor.

Since there are indications in the story that the child exhibited severe side effects, the notion that she was being "successfully" treated is a conclusion unsupported by fact.

>> The child was taken off necessary and life-saving medication by an "alternative" practitioner, aka a quack.

That the medication was "life-saving" and not life threatening is another conclusion unsupported by fact. The fact is that epileptic patients treated with anti-convulsive medication have a greater incidence of unexplained death. Moreover, your predictable use of the word "quack" is another conclusion unsupported by fact and betrays your own close-minded bias.

>>The child died directly due to the idiotic actions of the parents and quack advisor. Again, ignorance and stupidity result in the needless death of an innocent child.

The evidence suggests that there was no cause of death discernable, but the coroner simply leapt to his own unwarranted conclusion in the face of Science which points to increased risk of death in patients treated with anti-convulsive medications. But when the subject is Religion as in the Religon of Modern Medicine,
facts count for nothing in the mindset of the True Believer.

-- Rouser

BillHoyt

23rd December 2003, 06:01 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
]Since there are indications in the story that the child exhibited severe side effects, the notion that she was being "successfully" treated is a conclusion unsupported by fact.
What side effects, rouser? Nausea? Rash? Confusion? The side effects recorded for these medications are generally quite minor when compared with asphyxiating yourself with your own tongue, wouldn't you say?

That the medication was "life-saving" and not life threatening is another conclusion unsupported by fact. The fact is that epileptic patients treated with anti-convulsive medication have a greater incidence of unexplained death. Moreover, your predictable use of the word "quack" is another conclusion unsupported by fact and betrays your own close-minded bias.
Bullsh!t, you crank. The couple consulted quacks. One looked into the kid's eyes for a "diagnosis." A psychic "diagnosed" past-life trauma. Where is the evidence supporting this quackery? The evidence supporting the life-saving nature of AEDs is filed with the FDA. Do you need citations from the literature here?
The evidence suggests that there was no cause of death discernable, but the coroner simply leapt to his own unwarranted conclusion in the face of Science which points to increased risk of death in patients treated with anti-convulsive medications. But when the subject is Religion as in the Religon of Modern Medicine,
facts count for nothing in the mindset of the True Believer.

-- Rouser
You keep trying to turn this into a death by the AED that the parents had stopped giving the child? What is your evidence for this balderdash?

Prester John

23rd December 2003, 06:35 AM

The fundamental weakness in your unsubstantiated claims Rouser is that when the Child died, she was not on any of the prescibed medicines, as she had been taken off them by her parents.

The Coroner, who is probably has reasonable knowledge about causes of death, and is aware of a lot more details than you or I decided there was sufficient evidence, in his opinion, for the case to be looked at with a view to a criminal prosecution.

If your so concerned Rouser, why don't you start another thread, with all the evidence of why anti-convulsive medication is worse than non treatment. I look forward to a well presented and rational case as you seem convinced of the evidence.

yours in Anticipation

PJ

Rolfe

23rd December 2003, 06:56 AM

Originally posted by Prester John
If your so concerned Rouser, why don't you start another thread, with all the evidence of why anti-convulsive medication is worse than non treatment. I look forward to a well presented and rational case as you seem convinced of the evidence.He can start that thread at the same time as he starts the one where he's going to tell us what's in homoeopathic preparations (and hopefully why it's better for epilepsy than anticonvulsants). Don't hold your breath.

Rouser has a weird view of medicine and doctors which is so off-the-wall I'm not sure it's worth debating. "Licence to kill"! He seems quite unable to accept that any standard medical treatment might be beneficial at all, while at the same time unquestioningly believing that any peculiar woo-woo is bound to be a good thing, even when he knows nothing about the woo-woo in question.

Anticonvulsants are powerful drugs, and they can be dangerous. (Sorry, Eos, but this is true. However, nobody will be sued so long as the drugs have been used responsibly - otherwise the practice of medicine would be impossible.) These medications need to be used and monitored very carefully. However, this is yet another situation where the balance of risk has to be considered, and comes down very heavily in favour of treating. There may be more mysterious deaths in patients on treatment, but that's because the deaths in untreated epileptics aren't in the least mysterious.

You'll always be able to dredge up cases where anticonvulsant treatment has either gone wrong, or failed to save the patient. But against that has to be set the millions of epilepsy sufferers leading normal lives and holding down good jobs on that medication, instead of being housebound with regular fits or even dying, as would undoubtedly be the case if they were left untreated.

What's really amazing here is Rouser's attempts to hyper-analyse this story based on nothing but a very short newspaper article. The article states that the coroner determined that the parents had been warned by the doctors of the risks inherent in withdrawing anticonvulsant medication, they did so anyway, and the child died. They seemed to have been influenced in this decision by varions AltMed proponents, and were giving a homoeopathic remedy when the child died. That's it.

I don't see how anything else can be made of it without getting more information, Court records, witness statements and so on. But Rouser seems to have decided for himself that the child died of a delayed effect of the earlier anticonvulsant medication (the same stuff squillions of people take daily, and to which they owe their ability to live a normal life), and the homoeopathic remedy, which by the way he knows contained some mysterious substance he won't tell us about, was doing nothing but good.

Yeah, right.

Rolfe.

BTox

23rd December 2003, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Since there are indications in the story that the child exhibited severe side effects, the notion that she was being "successfully" treated is a conclusion unsupported by fact.

Since you have no knowledge of this topic, nor apparently any knowledge of any other health topic or issue, your guesses on this issue are irrelevant.

Originally posted by Rouser2
That the medication was "life-saving" and not life threatening is another conclusion unsupported by fact. The fact is that epileptic patients treated with anti-convulsive medication have a greater incidence of unexplained death. Moreover, your predictable use of the word "quack" is another conclusion unsupported by fact and betrays your own close-minded bias.

Again, since you have no knowledge of this topic, nor apparently any knowledge of any other health topic or issue, your guesses on this issue are irrelevant.

Originally posted by Rouser2
The evidence suggests that there was no cause of death discernable, but the coroner simply leapt to his own unwarranted conclusion in the face of Science which points to increased risk of death in patients treated with anti-convulsive medications. But when the subject is Religion as in the Religon of Modern Medicine,
facts count for nothing in the mindset of the True Believer.

-- Rouser

The fact is the child died directly because of intervention from an "alternative" medicine quack. As anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the health sciences knows, modern medicine is evidence-based and relies on scientific principles to develop, test and manufacture products that are effective and safe. "Alternative" medicine, by contrast, is based on the principles of fantasy, magic and ignorance, and avoids science completely as the pushers of this nonsense know science invalidates their every claim.

And might I add, you, sir, are a nitwit.

Rolfe

23rd December 2003, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by BTox
As anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the health sciences knows, modern medicine is evidence-based and relies on scientific principles to develop, test and manufacture products that are effective and safe.To be realistic, "safe" is relative. I wouldn't call phenobarbitone "safe". Well, safe like a scalpel, maybe.

You have to be very careful with these drugs, but it's all about relative risk, and the risk to life of uncontrolled fits is enormously greater than the risks inherent in anticonvulsant medication. As the very sad story of this poor little girl demonstrates. And Rouser (who still hasn't started these new threads, I see) is determined to ignore.

This reminds me of a conversation I saw on a homoeopathy board. Every time the critic suggested that homoeopathy is ineffective, the homoeopaths responded by citing an instance where real medicine had proved to be dangerous. Thalidomide (45 years ago, remember?) was the favourite. It went like this....

This is a bit like needing to cut down a tree. A chain saw is a good tool for cutting down a tree. You protest that chain saws are dangerous, and suggest using a feather. I protest that feathers are not much good at cutting down trees. You maintain that feathers are perfectly safe. Stalemate.

Rouser and his cronies are like someone trying to cut down a tree with a feather. Every time someone urges the merits of chain saws, he points to lurid newspaper reports of gory accidents involving chain saws. Many of these happened a long time ago, before extra safety attachments were developed, and involved inexperienced or reckless operators. Never mind, chain saws are proven killers. Now, hand me that nice safe feather....

Unfortunately in this case the tree blew down and killed the child, for want of the chain saw to fell it safely.

Rolfe. (Still waiting for Rouser's new thread on the content of homoeopathic remedies....)

Rouser2

23rd December 2003, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt [/i]

>>What side effects, rouser? Nausea? Rash? Confusion?

Yes, all of that and much more.

>>The side effects recorded for these medications are generally quite minor when compared with asphyxiating yourself with your own tongue, wouldn't you say?

The side effects are not minor. Death, for example, is a rather final side effect and hardly minor.

A comparative review of the adverse effects of anticonvulsants in children with epilepsy.
Wallace SJ.
Drug Saf, 15(6):378-93 1996 Dec.
This article discusses the principal adverse effects associated with anticonvulsant treatment in children with epilepsy. Neurological effects such as double vision, tremor, motor disturbances, and changes in cognitive performance have been associated with all types of anticonvulsants. Gastrointestinal toxicity, liver disease, weight gain, skin rash, hair loss, precipitation of metabolic bone disease and renal stone formation, occur at different frequencies according to the type of drug used. Of all the drugs, phenytoin and felbamate are associated with the highest rates of adverse effects and with the highest rates of treatment interruption.

Acute hepatic failure associated with valproic acid in children. Report of 3 cases.
Antoniuk SA. et al.
Arq Neuropsiquiatr, 54(4):652-4 1996 Dec.
This article reports on the cases of three epileptic children who developed acute hepatic failure secondary to valproic acid treatment. Hepatic failure was followed by death in one child. All children were being treated concurrently with several antiepileptic drugs.

Antiepileptic drugs as a cause of worsening seizures.
Perucca E, et al.
Epilepsia 1998 Jan;39(1):5-17.
This review discusses the well-known phenomenon of paradoxical exacerbation of seizures that occurs in epileptic patients treated with antiepileptic drugs. The mechanism by which antiepileptic drugs can worsen seizures is not completely understood, but it is believed to be mediated either by toxicity from drug overdose, or by the primary mechanism of action of these drugs. Carbamazepine, phenytoin, vigabratin, gabapentin, and occasionally benzodiazepines, have been associated with the precipitation or worsening of a variety of seizures. The authors conclude that this effect is a common and serious complication related to anticonvulsant treatment, which is often overlooked by the treating physician.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/rboon/StudiesofTreatmentsforSeizures.htm

A rather predictable list of possible side effects which include an exacerbation of the very symptoms a drug is supposed to alleviate, can be found in very, very many of the nostrums served up by Modern Medicine as referenced publcations such as the PDR. Naturally, true believers do not bother even checking such references as it would destroy their faith in "The Church" of Modern Medicine.

-- Rouser

Rouser2

23rd December 2003, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt [/i]

>>The couple consulted quacks.

Another ad hominem attack in place of any reasoned argument.

>> One looked into the kid's eyes for a "diagnosis."

A routine procedure for any M.D. as well.

>>A psychic "diagnosed" past-life trauma. Where is the evidence supporting this quackery?

If you are going to put down, indict and convict desperate parents for their belief in a "past life", would you also indict people who believe in a future life and call its practiioners "quacks" as well?? Is there any more evidence for the one than the other? If you do that, of course, you indict a majority of Americans, and perhaps even a few million Aussies as well.

>>The evidence supporting the life-saving nature of AEDs is filed with the FDA. Do you need citations from the literature here?

It would be of interest, but not surprising, even though FDA has no jurisdiction in Australia.

-- Rouser

Rouser2

23rd December 2003, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt [/i]

>>You keep trying to turn this into a death by the AED that the parents had stopped giving the child? What is your evidence for this balderdash?

It is all conjecture, just as the Coroner's assertion is pure conjecture. But my conjecture is given weight by the scientific medical literature while the Coroner seems to only make his deduction on the basis of "after the fact, therefore because of the fact."

-- Rouser

Rouser2

23rd December 2003, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by Prester John [/i]

>>The fundamental weakness in your unsubstantiated claims Rouser is that when the Child died, she was not on any of the prescibed medicines, as she had been taken off them by her parents.

That is your own version of post hoc ergo propter hoc. The poisoneous effects of medications oft times take weeks and even months before taking effect.

-- Rouser

Rouser2

23rd December 2003, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by Rolfe [/i]

>>There may be more mysterious deaths in patients on treatment, but that's because the deaths in untreated epileptics aren't in the least mysterious.

False. Unexplained deaths of epileptics is just that. There is no anatomical or toxilogical evidence to be found.

-- Rouser

Rouser2

23rd December 2003, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by Rolfe [/i]

>>I don't see how anything else can be made of it without getting more information, Court records, witness statements and so on.

Oh, but that is my point. But the Coroner (and his "Amen Chorus on this board) seems to have convicted the couple without any evidence at all.

-- Rouser

Prester John

23rd December 2003, 03:10 PM

My we can read alot into a couple of lines from a newspaper article.
The only fact we know is that the coroner had sufficient evidence infront of him to pass the case on for possible prosecution. There are a number of inferences that we can draw from this, none of which particually support the Rouser world view, although as we ALL lack inside knowledge its kind of a pointless debate.

Rouser2

23rd December 2003, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by BTox [/i]

>>The fact is the child died directly because of intervention from an "alternative" medicine quack.

I guess, besides a conclusion unsupported by facts, along with more tiresome ad hominem attacks, BTox now with so little to offer sinks to The Big Lie. He hopes that if he repeats it often enough, even he will begin to believe it.

>> As anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the health sciences knows, modern medicine is evidence-based and relies on scientific principles to develop, test and manufacture products that are effective and safe.

Oh, that indeed is the propaganda, but unfortunately, far from the truth.

>>"Alternative" medicine, by contrast, is based on the principles of fantasy, magic and ignorance, and avoids science completely as the pushers of this nonsense know science invalidates their every claim.

That's your assertion. Others rely on some aspects of Alternative Medicine for the very reason that it is more "science" based. And, I might add, more honest. At the very least, in most cases, it is far less harmful.

-- Rouser

belinda

23rd December 2003, 03:23 PM

Well at least posting this story has generated healthy ?! debate and answered my original question....how could loving parents do this. Answer: - They do if they are anything like Rouser [shudder] :p

BTW Rouser unless you have a great deal of knowledge about Coroner Court proceedings in Australia (which I have been involved in through work before) I would be very careful about what you say the Coroner did and didn't know. You are basing your knowledge on a very small news article and nothing else. To draw conclusions from a quote (which may or may not have been misquoted) in a newspaper article is close to being slanderous as you are impuning his decision as a Coronor.

BillHoyt

23rd December 2003, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by BillHoyt [/i]

>>You keep trying to turn this into a death by the AED that the parents had stopped giving the child? What is your evidence for this balderdash?

It is all conjecture, just as the Coroner's assertion is pure conjecture. But my conjecture is given weight by the scientific medical literature while the Coroner seems to only make his deduction on the basis of "after the fact, therefore because of the fact."

-- Rouser
1. In a recent Nova Scotia study, sir, the rarity of infant SUDEP was underscored. Of 693 infants diagnosed with epilepsy, there was but one possible SUDEP case. That rate's a bit over 1 / 1,000.1

2. Despite your continued presumption that AEDs are responsible for SUDEP, this is not at all known. That connection has been hypothesized, as have many others. The other major hypothesis is cardiac arrythmia. A recent NIH study has found that epileptic seizures cause EKG abnormalities that resemble those hypothesized to cause SUDEP. If this finding holds up, then SUDEP would appear to be a cardiac side effect of epilepsy itself. One that has not hitherto been noted and not controlled by AEDs.2

3. Dr. McKay reports Isabella's condition was life-threatening. Her seizures were severe and convulsive.3

4. Dr. Hanson reports that toxicology found no AEDs in Isabella's corpse.3

Sure, rouser, clearly just post hoc reasoning.

_____

1Article on Nova Scotia study (http://www.neurologyreviews.com/feb00/nr_feb00_epilepsydeath.html)
2Opherk C, Coromilas J, Hirsch LJ. Heart rate and EKG changes in 102 seizures: analysis of influencing factors. Epilepsy Res. 2002 Dec;52(2):117-27.
3Isabella article (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/25/1069522605256.html)

Rolfe

23rd December 2003, 04:56 PM

Still not started these new threads, Rouser?

You've declared, unprompted, in two different threads, that you believe there's something more than water/alcohol or lactose in "high potency" homoeopathic preparations. I for one am keen to know what this is. If you seriously think that's off topic for this thread, then why don't you post such original information somewhere more suitable?

We're waiting, now.

Rolfe.

Rouser2

23rd December 2003, 06:53 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt [/i]

>>1. In a recent Nova Scotia study, sir, the rarity of infant SUDEP was underscored. Of 693 infants diagnosed with epilepsy, there was but one possible SUDEP case. That rate's a bit over 1 / 1,000.1

Indeed. All the more reason for doctors to pay attention to all of the studies that indicate that the primary reason for SUDEP is the administration of anti-convulsive drugs. There seems to be no mention of such drugs in the Nova Scotia study.

Incidence of death in patients with intractable epilepsy during nitrazepam treatment.
Rintahaka PJ, Nakagawa JA, Shewmon DA, Kyyronen P, Shields WD.
Epilepsia 1999 Apr;40(4):492-6.
The results of this study show that patients with intractable epilepsy treated with nitrazepam have a 3.5-fold increased risk of dying, compared to untreated patients. The risk is particularly high in children younger than 3.4 years, in whom treatment with nitrazepam is associated with a 15-fold increase in rates of mortality.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/rboon/StudiesofTreatmentsforSeizures.htm

-- Rouser

Rouser2

23rd December 2003, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt [/i]

>>3. Dr. McKay reports Isabella's condition was life-threatening. Her seizures were severe and convulsive.3

Life-threatening those seizures indeed were with the administratioin of the doctor's anti-convulsive treatments.

-- Rouser

Rouser2

23rd December 2003, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt [/i]

>> Dr. Hanson reports that toxicology found no AEDs in Isabella's corpse.

No. You've got it all wrong again. It's Dr. Ranson, not Hansen in the first place, and what he said is that there was no AEDs in her "system", in other words, her digestive system, not her corpse. There was no autopsy done on the corpse.

-- Rouser

Rouser2

23rd December 2003, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by belinda [/i]

>>BTW Rouser unless you have a great deal of knowledge about Coroner Court proceedings in Australia (which I have been involved in through work before) I would be very careful about what you say the Coroner did and didn't know. You are basing your knowledge on a very small news article and nothing else. To draw conclusions from a quote (which may or may not have been misquoted) in a newspaper article is close to being slanderous as you are impuning his decision as a Coronor.

If the Coroner based his assertion that the withdrawal of anti-convulsive drugs was the cause of death in the absence of any other evidence, and in the face of all the medical/scientific evidence of the dangers of death due to such drugs to the contrary, then the Coroner is just as much of a nitwit as the prescribing doctor. How's that for "slanderous"???

-- Rouser

BTox

23rd December 2003, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
The side effects are not minor. Death, for example, is a rather final side effect and hardly minor.

A rather predictable list of possible side effects which include an exacerbation of the very symptoms a drug is supposed to alleviate, can be found in very, very many of the nostrums served up by Modern Medicine as referenced publcations such as the PDR. Naturally, true believers do not bother even checking such references as it would destroy their faith in "The Church" of Modern Medicine.

-- Rouser

What's the point of those references? They only show an "association" between the anticonvulsants and adverse reactions. There's no definitive proof that those drugs cause any of those adverse reactions at all. Post hoc fallacy once again...

BTox

23rd December 2003, 07:36 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
That is your own version of post hoc ergo propter hoc. The poisoneous effects of medications oft times take weeks and even months before taking effect.

-- Rouser

And that is you own version of ignorant nonsense. I guess you didn't catch a key point in all this that the child was taken off the medication, then died as a result of being taken off the medication.

BTox

23rd December 2003, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Life-threatening those seizures indeed were with the administratioin of the doctor's anti-convulsive treatments.

-- Rouser

Completely unsubstantiated conjecture. You, sir, are a nincompoop. And a nitwit.

BTox

23rd December 2003, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
I guess, besides a conclusion unsupported by facts, along with more tiresome ad hominem attacks, BTox now with so little to offer sinks to The Big Lie. He hopes that if he repeats it often enough, even he will begin to believe it.

Rouser has yet to support any argument, either here or on the vaccination thread, with a shred of fact-based evidence. And that's a fact.

Originally posted by Rouser2
Oh, that indeed is the propaganda, but unfortunately, far from the truth.

That indeed is the truth, as painful and seemingly impossible it is for you to accept. But for someone with no education, training or experience in the health sciences, it is, sadly, no surprise.

Originally posted by Rouser2
That's your assertion. Others rely on some aspects of Alternative Medicine for the very reason that it is more "science" based. And, I might add, more honest. At the very least, in most cases, it is far less harmful.

-- Rouser

Completely and totally false, without a shred of factual evidence to back it up. Name one "alternative" medical treatment that is more science based, and then supply the evidence that it is less harmful. We anxiously await an answer...

jimlintott

23rd December 2003, 08:59 PM

Others rely on some aspects of Alternative Medicine for the very reason that it is more "science" based.

I find this sentence confusing. I'm just a layperson but I always thought you were either doing medicine or you weren't. Why shouldn't that word 'alternative' throw up a big red flag?

Same problem with the 'more' science based. Is that like Superman science or something?

Stupidity will always claim more lives than medicine can save.

BillHoyt

23rd December 2003, 09:27 PM

Do me the courtesy of not chopping up your inane comments so as to break the chain of the discussion, sir. If you continue to play this game, I will simply paste them back together and have at your posts again, so it is rather useless.

Indeed. All the more reason for doctors to pay attention to all of the studies that indicate that the primary reason for SUDEP is the administration of anti-convulsive drugs. There seems to be no mention of such drugs in the Nova Scotia study.
How circular can your pea-brain get? I already addressed this point. Your claim about the role of AED is unsubstantiated. This study attempts to distinguish between that possibility and the possibility that SUDEP is simply another manifestation of epilepsy. Let me break that down for you: this study tests the hypothesis that epilepsy itself is the cause.

Incidence of death in patients with intractable epilepsy during nitrazepam treatment.
Rintahaka PJ, Nakagawa JA, Shewmon DA, Kyyronen P, Shields WD.
Epilepsia 1999 Apr;40(4):492-6.
The results of this study show that patients with intractable epilepsy treated with nitrazepam have a 3.5-fold increased risk of dying, compared to untreated patients. The risk is particularly high in children younger than 3.4 years, in whom treatment with nitrazepam is associated with a 15-fold increase in rates of mortality.
I’m sorry, but was Isabella treated with nitrazepam? I don’t remember seeing that. Does this study indicate an increased risk of death long after treatment was halted? Where? Has this study yet been replicated? No. Does it have relevance to this case? No.

No. You've got it all wrong again. It's Dr. Ranson, not Hansen in the first place, and what he said is that there was no AEDs in her "system", in other words, her digestive system, not her corpse. There was no autopsy done on the corpse.
Perhaps you should stop redefining terms and spend some time reading the articles already cited in this thread:

“But he said toxicology samples were taken from the baby to determine whether the level of anti-convulsants was in keeping with the prescribed clinical dosage.

The toxicology report did not detect any anti-convulsive drugs.”

BTox

23rd December 2003, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by jimlintott
Same problem with the 'more' science based. Is that like Superman science or something?

Stupidity will always claim more lives than medicine can save.

Rouser continues to spew incredibly stupid and ignorant comments on this board, and this one is a perfect example. Claiming "alternative" medicine is more science-based than conventional, modern medicine is like claiming creationism is more science-based than evolution. Rouser is truly an idiot.

Eos of the Eons

23rd December 2003, 10:09 PM

I'm a Tattle Tale, Nyah!! (http://whoslying.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=260)

Rolfe

24th December 2003, 03:10 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Life-threatening those seizures indeed were with the administratioin of the doctor's anti-convulsive treatments.This is such a ridiculous assertion I can't see much point in continuing the discussion. For pity's sake, nobody here even seems to know what treatment the child had been on!

I repeat what I said about feathers and chain saws, and that it is quite beyond dispute that the balance of risk/benefit in this sort of case lies heavily with the decision to treat.

I just can't see where Rouser is coming from.

Rolfe.

Rouser2

24th December 2003, 05:37 AM

Originally posted by BTox [/i]

>>And that is you own version of ignorant nonsense. I guess you didn't catch a key point in all this that the child was taken off the medication, then died as a result of being taken off the medication.

That is asserting the consequent. More fallacious reasoning. You simply assert the very thing that has yet to be proved. The question is why did the child die? The medical/scientific evidence suggests it is more likely because of the drugs than because of withrdrawal of the drugs.

-- Rouser

BillHoyt

24th December 2003, 05:45 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by BTox [/i]

>>And that is you own version of ignorant nonsense. I guess you didn't catch a key point in all this that the child was taken off the medication, then died as a result of being taken off the medication.

That is asserting the consequent. More fallacious reasoning. You simply assert the very thing that has yet to be proved. The question is why did the child die? The medical/scientific evidence suggests it is more likely because of the drugs than because of withrdrawal of the drugs.

-- Rouser

No, nitwit, that would be called affirming the consequent, it it were. But it is not. The following facts have already been pointed out to you:

o Toxicology found no AEDs in Isabella's system
o "System" does not mean digestive system, you dork
o Isabella was taken off the medication long before her death
o The death rate from infant epileptic seizures far exceeds the SUDEP death rate
o Any possible connection between SUDEP and AEDs has not yet been demonstrated

This is called evidentiary reasoning. Coupled with statistical reasoning.

Of course, all this assumes you can reason at all, which is clearly not a fact in evidence.

Yahweh

24th December 2003, 05:47 AM

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
I'm a Tattle Tale, Nyah!! (http://whoslying.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=260)
Congratulations, Eos, your an internet personality!

Rouser2

24th December 2003, 05:53 AM

Originally posted by BTox [/i]

>>. Name one "alternative" medical treatment that is more science based, and then supply the evidence that it is less harmful.

The word "treatment" presupposes "doing" something for every condition, every ailment. I would propose that a legitimate Alternative Therapy for whole lot of conditions, would be the 'Non-Treatment" treatment. For example, in the case of infant epileptics, instead of accepting the dangerous drugs of Modern Medicine, it would be better to "Do Nothing". Modern Medicine has a nostrum for every physical inconvenience. If you have a headache, take a pill. The alternative would be to NOT take a pill. Modern Medicine says if you can't sleep, take a pill. If you have heartburn or indigestion, take a pill. If you are hypertensive, take a pill. If you are depressed, take a pill. If you are libido challenged, take a pill. If your child can't sit still in school, put him on drugs, etc., etc., etc.. I'd say No Treatment would be a good scientific alternative. And when Modern Medicine warns you that the best way to avoid sickness and death from serious illiness is to have regular physical examinations, I say that physical exams can be dangersous to one's health. One should never go in for one unless one has very real symptoms, and even then, one should think twice. Modern Modern Medicine and Modern Dentistry recommends regular preventive diagnostic x-rays, mammogams, etc. But x-rays can induce cancer. The No Treatment Alternative is to refuse them. Etc., Etc., Etc. Get the idea???

-- Rouser

BillHoyt

24th December 2003, 06:10 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by BTox [/i]

>>. Name one "alternative" medical treatment that is more science based, and then supply the evidence that it is less harmful.

The word "treatment" presupposes "doing" something for every condition, every ailment. I would propose that a legitimate Alternative Therapy for whole lot of conditions, would be the 'Non-Treatment" treatment. For example, in the case of infant epileptics, instead of accepting the dangerous drugs of Modern Medicine, it would be better to "Do Nothing". Modern Medicine has a nostrum for every physical inconvenience. If you have a headache, take a pill. The alternative would be to NOT take a pill. Modern Medicine says if you can't sleep, take a pill. If you have heartburn or indigestion, take a pill. If you are hypertensive, take a pill. If you are depressed, take a pill. If you are libido challenged, take a pill. If your child can't sit still in school, put him on drugs, etc., etc., etc.. I'd say No Treatment would be a good scientific alternative. And when Modern Medicine warns you that the best way to avoid sickness and death from serious illiness is to have regular physical examinations, I say that physical exams can be dangersous to one's health. One should never go in for one unless one has very real symptoms, and even then, one should think twice. Modern Modern Medicine and Modern Dentistry recommends regular preventive diagnostic x-rays, mammogams, etc. But x-rays can induce cancer. The No Treatment Alternative is to refuse them. Etc., Etc., Etc. Get the idea???

-- Rouser

Sure, we get it. You've just now affirmed what has been transparent for some time. You can't reason statistically. You would rather deny a useful treatment for fear of an adverse reaction. You commit the Type II statistical error. You can't see that the efficacy numbers far outweigh the adverse reaction numbers. You'd rather kill the patient and absolve the guilt by assuring yourself you "did no harm."

Rouser2

24th December 2003, 06:12 AM

Originally posted by jimlintott [/i]

>>I find this sentence confusing. I'm just a layperson but I always thought you were either doing medicine or you weren't. Why shouldn't that word 'alternative' throw up a big red flag?

It should. Especially, if like most people, you've been conditioned to think that way. I think that the word "Medicine" itself should always throw up a red flag, alternative or not.

-- Rouser

Rouser2

24th December 2003, 06:17 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt [/i]

>>Do me the courtesy of not chopping up your inane comments so as to break the chain of the discussion, sir. If you continue to play this game, I will simply paste them back together and have at your posts again, so it is rather useless.

If you keep on obsfusicating, I'll keep on re-organizing.

>>How circular can your pea-brain get? I already addressed this point. Your claim about the role of AED is unsubstantiated.

How many more studies to you require?

>>This study attempts to distinguish between that possibility and the possibility that SUDEP is simply another manifestation of epilepsy.

If you are referring to the Nova Scotia study, I see no mention at all of anti-convulsive drugs.

-- Rouser

BillHoyt

24th December 2003, 06:18 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by jimlintott [/i]

>>I find this sentence confusing. I'm just a layperson but I always thought you were either doing medicine or you weren't. Why shouldn't that word 'alternative' throw up a big red flag?

It should. Especially, if like most people, you've been conditioned to think that way. I think that the word "Medicine" itself should always throw up a red flag, alternative or not.

-- Rouser

No, sir. Your abuse of nearly any word should throw up the red flags. Now, then, where is the scientific evidence for alternative treatments? The drill here at JREF is the usual: start with papers from peer-reviewed journals.

Rouser2

24th December 2003, 06:20 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt [/i]

>>I’m sorry, but was Isabella treated with nitrazepam?

I don't know and neither do you, but she may have. This is just one study of several I have cited including several other drugs with death as an associated "side effect".

-- Rouser

BillHoyt

24th December 2003, 06:26 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
If you keep on obsfusicating, I'll keep on re-organizing.
You are the one "obsfusicating" via divide et empera. I won't countenance it. But, by all means, try it again. The onlookers here need to see what cranks will stoop to.
How many more studies to you require?
Address the questions, sir, and stop deflecting. The key questions here concern Isabella. Did she have intractable epilepsy? No. Was she on nitrazapem? No. Did she have nitrazapem in her system at the time of death? No. Then what relevance does a single, unrepeated study about nitrazapem and intractable epilepsy have for Isabella? None. This is the fallacy of the red herring.

If you are referring to the Nova Scotia study, I see no mention at all of anti-convulsive drugs.
Fallacious: begging the question. You assume AEDs cause SUDEP, and then question a study attempting to find the cause of SUDEP? And you want to preach here about the scientific basis of your quackery?

BillHoyt

24th December 2003, 06:28 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by BillHoyt [/i]

>>I’m sorry, but was Isabella treated with nitrazepam?

I don't know and neither do you, but she may have. This is just one study of several I have cited including several other drugs with death as an associated "side effect".

-- Rouser
Right, so your lame argument has now lost a leg, hasn't it. Now you're onto the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantium. How about you begin looking at the evidence?

Rouser2

24th December 2003, 06:30 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt [/i]

>>“But he said toxicology samples were taken from the baby to determine whether the level of anti-convulsants was in keeping with the prescribed clinical dosage.

Here is the excerpt:

"Forensic pathologist David Ranson said that in the absence of an autopsy, he was unable to determine whether there was any internal trauma or an underlying disease that could have directly or indirectly contributed to Isabella's death.
But Dr Ranson said toxicology samples taken from Isabella did not detect any anti-convulsant drugs in her system."

"In her system", meaning her digestive system. If she had not taken any drugs in two weeks, that would be the case. But as to damage from the drugs to her brain or heart or any other internal organ, that would be impossible to determine without an autopsy, and probably impossible even with an autopsy.

-- Rouser

Rouser2

24th December 2003, 06:33 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt [/i]

>>o The death rate from infant epileptic seizures far exceeds the SUDEP death rate

Source?

-- Rouser

BTox

24th December 2003, 06:38 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2

"In her system", meaning her digestive system. If she had not taken any drugs in two weeks, that would be the case. But as to damage from the drugs to her brain or heart or any other internal organ, that would be impossible to determine without an autopsy, and probably impossible even with an autopsy.

-- Rouser

Good God, man, do you know ANYTHING at ALL about health? Every post adds more evidence that you do not. In her system does NOT mean in her digestive system - it means blood levels, tissue samples of specific organs, etc.

Rouser2

24th December 2003, 06:39 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt [/i]

>>You can't see that the efficacy numbers far outweigh the adverse reaction numbers.

That's the propaganda alright. Got any specific facts to back it up???

-- Rouser

BTox

24th December 2003, 06:40 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
The medical/scientific evidence suggests it is more likely because of the drugs than because of withrdrawal of the drugs.

-- Rouser

The scientific evidence suggests no such thing. Only Rouser the know nothing suggests this absurd notion.

Rouser2

24th December 2003, 06:43 AM

]Originally posted by BillHoyt [/i]

>>No, sir. Your abuse of nearly any word should throw up the red flags. Now, then, where is the scientific evidence for alternative treatments? The drill here at JREF is the usual: start with papers from peer-reviewed journals.

You mean in all of the one hundred million ailments known to man? Why don't you pick your poison? The drill here is specificity.

-- Rouser

Rouser2

24th December 2003, 06:48 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt [/i]

>>Address the questions, sir, and stop deflecting. The key questions here concern Isabella. Did she have intractable epilepsy? No.

False. The answer is not known.

<< Was she on nitrazapem? No.

False again. The answer is, not known.

>> Did she have nitrazapem in her system at the time of death?

In her digestive system? No. But that proves nothing.

>>Then what relevance does a single, unrepeated sudy about nitrazapem and intractable epilepsy have for Isabella? None. This is the fallacy of the red herring.

In combination with all of the other studies I've cited, it is powerful evidence that in treating infant epileptic patients, the treatment itself is worse than the disease.

-- Rouser

BTox

24th December 2003, 06:49 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
The word "treatment" presupposes "doing" something for every condition, every ailment. I would propose that a legitimate Alternative Therapy for whole lot of conditions, would be the 'Non-Treatment" treatment. For example, in the case of infant epileptics, instead of accepting the dangerous drugs of Modern Medicine, it would be better to "Do Nothing".

Well, at least now we see why you are supportive of homeopathy, as this is exactly equivalent to the "do nothing" approach as all treatments are nothing but placebos.

Originally posted by Rouser2
I'd say No Treatment would be a good scientific alternative.

You can say what ever nonsense you so desire, it does not change reality or the facts of medical science. No treatment is a viable alternative ONLY in a very few, non life-threatening and self-limiting conditions.

Originally posted by Rouser2
And when Modern Medicine warns you that the best way to avoid sickness and death from serious illiness is to have regular physical examinations, I say that physical exams can be dangersous to one's health. One should never go in for one unless one has very real symptoms, and even then, one should think twice. Modern Modern Medicine and Modern Dentistry recommends regular preventive diagnostic x-rays, mammogams, etc. But x-rays can induce cancer. The No Treatment Alternative is to refuse them. Etc., Etc., Etc. Get the idea???

-- Rouser

Yet another one of the most ridiculous and ignorant statements I've seen from you, and completely and totally unsupported by any scientific evidence. Your hatred for modern medicine and science is as transparent as window glass.

Rouser2

24th December 2003, 06:50 AM

Originally posted by BTox

Good God, man, do you know ANYTHING at ALL about health? Every post adds more evidence that you do not. In her system does NOT mean in her digestive system - it means blood levels, tissue samples of specific organs, etc.

I believe it means her digestive system. You can't tell about an organ unless you cut. There was no autopsy.

-- Rouser

Rouser2

24th December 2003, 06:53 AM

Originally posted by BTox [/i]

>>Well, at least now we see why you are supportive of homeopathy, as this is exactly equivalent to the "do nothing" approach as all treatments are nothing but placebos.

I've never said I "supported" homeopathy.

-- Rouser

BTox

24th December 2003, 06:55 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by BillHoyt [/i]

>>You can't see that the efficacy numbers far outweigh the adverse reaction numbers.

That's the propaganda alright. Got any specific facts to back it up???

-- Rouser

Every vaccine approved for use in the U.S. has benefits that far outweigh the extremely remote chance of serious adverse reaction. Every drug approved in the U.S. must demonstrate the benefits outweigh the risks. However, the system is not 100% perfect and very infrequently, a drug slips through that has an unacceptable adverse reaction incidence which requires the drug be withdrawn from the market. All this is backed by carefully controlled scientific experiments and clinical trials.

Do you have any facts to support the insane notion that the risks to vaccines or approved drugs outweigh the benefits? Didn't think so...

BTox

24th December 2003, 06:56 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2

I believe it means her digestive system. -- Rouser

Wrong. Blood samples are always taken.

BillHoyt

24th December 2003, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by BillHoyt [/i]

>>o The death rate from infant epileptic seizures far exceeds the SUDEP death rate

Source?

-- Rouser
The death rate amongst children with epilepsy is 3.8% 1,. Contrast that with SUDEP amongst the same children of 0.1%1

---
1Camfield CS, Camfield PR, Veugelers PJ. Death in children with epilepsy: a population-based study. Lancet. 2002 Jun 1;359(9321):1891

Eos of the Eons

24th December 2003, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by Yahweh

Congratulations, Eos, your an internet personality!

Aw hey, just proving the "science" behind these types Rouser supports is just a pack of made up lies. As usual.

Rouser2

24th December 2003, 10:22 AM

Originally posted by BTox [/i]

>>Every vaccine approved for use in the U.S. has benefits that far outweigh the extremely remote chance of serious adverse reaction.

An assertion which is instantly impeached by the word "every".

>> Every drug approved in the U.S. must demonstrate the benefits outweigh the risks. However, the system is not 100% perfect

Yeah, well that's double talk.

>> and very infrequently, a drug slips through that has an unacceptable adverse reaction incidence which requires the drug be withdrawn from the market.

"Very infrequently???"

>>All this is backed by carefully controlled scientific experiments and clinical trials.

Carefully controlled? Or carefully manipulated?

>>Do you have any facts to support the insane notion that the risks to vaccines or approved drugs outweigh the benefits? Didn't think so...

Depends on which vaccine. Want to talk about Swine Flu Vaccine?? Sabin Oral Polio since circa 1977??

-- Rouser

Suezoled

24th December 2003, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by BTox [/i]

>>(snipped irreverent comments)

>>Do you have any facts to support the insane notion that the risks to vaccines or approved drugs outweigh the benefits? Didn't think so...

Depends on which vaccine. Want to talk about Swine Flu Vaccine?? Sabin Oral Polio since circa 1977??

-- Rouser

Swine flu: http://www.vaccinationnews.com/DailyNews/May2002/SwineFlusVaxLessons.htm
Sabin Oral Polio 1977
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/polio3.html

Although, it's fallacious to assume that no lessons were learned or are learned when unexpected and tragic events occur. It's not 1977. The new Oral Polio vaccine is much safer, with far fewer contraindications.

Suezoled

24th December 2003, 10:31 AM

Homepoathy and herbals assume and close their ears and doors. Science assumes, learns, and self corrects.

Rouser2

24th December 2003, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by BTox [/i]

>>What's the point of those references? They only show an "association" between the anticonvulsants and adverse reactions. There's no definitive proof that those drugs cause any of those adverse reactions at all. Post hoc fallacy once again...

The point of those references, including the PDR, is to alert doctors and patients of the possilbe risks of the medication. Doctors rarely show the exact figures as published, but merely inform that patient that there is "some risk". Nor do such references even give percentages, but only some number of some such reaction (or death as it may be) had been reported. A very superficial way for the drug manufacturer to protect against possible lawsuits for lack of disclosure without getting too specific. But if there was a substantial risk of a particular drug doing more harm than potential good, most patients would like to know about it but the way the system works, they usually don't know it unless they look it up for themselves.

-- Rouser

Suezoled

24th December 2003, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by BTox [/i]

>>What's the point of those references? They only show an "association" between the anticonvulsants and adverse reactions. There's no definitive proof that those drugs cause any of those adverse reactions at all. Post hoc fallacy once again...

The point of those references, including the PDR, is to alert doctors and patients of the possilbe risks of the medication. Doctors rarely show the exact figures as published, but merely inform that patient that there is "some risk". Nor do such references even give percentages, but only some number of some such reaction (or death as it may be) had been reported. A very superficial way for the drug manufacturer to protect against possible lawsuits for lack of disclosure without getting too specific. But if there was a substantial risk of a particular drug doing more harm than potential good, most patients would like to know about it but the way the system works, they usually don't know it unless they look it up for themselves.

-- Rouser

Oh wow. Conspiracy theory, accusation of inaccuracy from someone who supports an inaccurate methodology who won't admit mistakes....

If you ask a medical doctor contraindications, the doctor will tell you. If you ask a naturalist "doctor," they are as misinformed as the person they are misinforming. (and if you don't ask at all, it won't be told.)

Rouser2

24th December 2003, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt [/i]

>>
The death rate amongst children with epilepsy is 3.8% 1,. Contrast that with SUDEP amongst the same children of 0.1%1

First you said infants, and now you say children. That reference is the same Nova Scotia study you referenced before. But it is not about "infants" but "children" up to age 21. In any case, if there are more non-SUDEP deaths than SUDEP deaths in infants or in children, none of that addresses the possible association of either with anti-convulsive drugs.

-- Rouser

BillHoyt

24th December 2003, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
The point of those references, including the PDR, is to alert doctors and patients of the possilbe risks of the medication. Doctors rarely show the exact figures as published, but merely inform that patient that there is "some risk". Nor do such references even give percentages, but only some number of some such reaction (or death as it may be) had been reported. A very superficial way for the drug manufacturer to protect against possible lawsuits for lack of disclosure without getting too specific. But if there was a substantial risk of a particular drug doing more harm than potential good, most patients would like to know about it but the way the system works, they usually don't know it unless they look it up for themselves.

-- Rouser
Nice post, rouser. Perhaps you didn't notice that you just contradicted yourself. Here you state that the risks are known to the doctors and the manufacturers. Just how did they come to know that if the research hadn't actually been done? Let us examine your previous nonsense:

>>All this is backed by carefully controlled scientific experiments and clinical trials.

Carefully controlled? Or carefully manipulated?
We should note, for the record, of course, that this is the fallacy of the subject/motive shift. The subject was the studies, rather than address them directly, you impugn the motives behind them. Fallacious. But wait, there's so much more! Now you completely contradict yourself by impugning either the doctor's motives or competence!

So, here is your dilemma, rouser: Are the data trustworthy? Or not? If they are trustworthy, why do you claim we should not trust them? If they are not trustworthy, why do you claim the doctors shirk their responsibility to fully inform the patients? Awaiting your resolution.

BTox

24th December 2003, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by BTox [/i]

>>Every vaccine approved for use in the U.S. has benefits that far outweigh the extremely remote chance of serious adverse reaction.

An assertion which is instantly impeached by the word "every".

Really? Provide evidence of a currently available vaccine that is not.

Originally posted by Rouser2
>> Every drug approved in the U.S. must demonstrate the benefits outweigh the risks. However, the system is not 100% perfect

Yeah, well that's double talk.

>> and very infrequently, a drug slips through that has an unacceptable adverse reaction incidence which requires the drug be withdrawn from the market.

"Very infrequently???"

A fact. Evidence to the contrary?

Originally posted by Rouser2
[B
>>Do you have any facts to support the insane notion that the risks to vaccines or approved drugs outweigh the benefits? Didn't think so...

Depends on which vaccine. Want to talk about Swine Flu Vaccine?? Sabin Oral Polio since circa 1977??

-- Rouser [/B]

Want to choose a vaccine that is currently on the market? Didn't think so...

Rouser2

24th December 2003, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by Suezoled [/i]

>>If you ask a medical doctor contraindications, the doctor will tell you.

Patient: "But Doctor, you never told me this medication could make me blind, deaf, dumb and crippled for life.

Doctor: "Hey, I'm real sorry about that, but you never asked."

-- Rouser

Suezoled

24th December 2003, 11:05 AM

*sighs* I'm not nearly in your league Billyhoyt or CFlarsen. But I'm learning...

Rouser2

24th December 2003, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by BTox

Really? Provide evidence of a currently available vaccine that is not.

A fact. Evidence to the contrary?

Want to choose a vaccine that is currently on the market? Didn't think so...

Oh, the oral vaccine is still around. A big to-do now about it in Nigeria. I think the CDC has finally seen the light, but not The WHO.

-- Rouser

Eos of the Eons

24th December 2003, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Suezoled [/i]

>>If you ask a medical doctor contraindications, the doctor will tell you.

Patient: "But Doctor, you never told me this medication could make me blind, deaf, dumb and crippled for life.

Doctor: "Hey, I'm real sorry about that, but you never asked."

-- Rouser

Pfft, a doc would be sued if he said that. Docs ALWAYS give listings of side effects.

Unlike naturopaths or homeopaths. They are the ones denying side effects...cause nature has none, pfft.

Well, since the stuff has NO effect at all, there are no side effects.

If there is an effect, they are putting in prescription meds and lying about it.The sellers of an alleged herbal cancer cure entered "no contest"
pleas and signed consent agreements to settle criminal and civil
charges brought by the Los Angeles District Attorney that they
illegally added prescription drug ingredients to their allegedly
"natural" products. The products were marketed by International
Medical Research, of Brea, California, which did business as
BotanicLab. Under the agreements, John Chen, sister Sophie Chen, and
Allan Xuhui Wang admitted to single misdemeanors involving the
marketing of misbranded and adulterated food. Their defunct company
pleaded no contest to the felony count of producing a product that
presents a danger to the public. The corporation agreed to pay
$350,000, the Chens agreed to pay $46,500 each, and Wang agreed to
pay $56,500. "

BillHoyt

24th December 2003, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by BillHoyt [/i]

>>
The death rate amongst children with epilepsy is 3.8% 1,. Contrast that with SUDEP amongst the same children of 0.1%1

First you said infants, and now you say children. That reference is the same Nova Scotia study you referenced before. But it is not about "infants" but "children" up to age 21. In any case, if there are more non-SUDEP deaths than SUDEP deaths in infants or in children, none of that addresses the possible association of either with anti-convulsive drugs.

-- Rouser
That's right; it was children, not infants. We are not talking about AED/SUDEP association here; we are talking about your inability to distinguish efficacy and side effects. The point you persist in attempting to evade is that 3.8% die from seizures, and .1% die from SUDEP. The point is pretty obvious. The trade-off is pretty obvious. Quit deflecting.

Suezoled

24th December 2003, 11:16 AM

BTox

24th December 2003, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2

Oh, the oral vaccine is still around. A big to-do now about it in Nigeria. I think the CDC has finally seen the light, but not The WHO.

-- Rouser

Talking about the U.S. And of course, even the oral vaccine has helped almost eradicate polio from the planet, so the claim that it does more harm than good cannot be substantiated. Funny you mention Nigeria, as that is one of the places where wild polio has made a come-back, thanks to failure to vaccinate pushed by morons like you.

BTox

24th December 2003, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
The point of those references, including the PDR, is to alert doctors and patients of the possilbe risks of the medication. Doctors rarely show the exact figures as published, but merely inform that patient that there is "some risk". Nor do such references even give percentages, but only some number of some such reaction (or death as it may be) had been reported. A very superficial way for the drug manufacturer to protect against possible lawsuits for lack of disclosure without getting too specific. But if there was a substantial risk of a particular drug doing more harm than potential good, most patients would like to know about it but the way the system works, they usually don't know it unless they look it up for themselves.

-- Rouser

More unsubstantiated drivel. I have been taking zocor for several years. When I first started taking it, the doctor listed possible serious side effects, including liver damage and muscle breakdown that can cause kidney failure. Like most medications, these serious adverse reactions have a low incidence. As prescribed by FDA approval of this drug, I was instructed to immediately report any unusual muscle soreness, and had blood tests every 6 months for the first 2 years to screen for elevated liver enzymes. Neither adverse reaction has occured, and guess what - it works. My total cholesterol dropped from 265 (previously unaffected by diet manipulation and cholesterol sequestering medication) to 190. Modern medicine, and science, triumph again.

Rouser2

24th December 2003, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt [/i]

>>That's right; it was children, not infants. We are not talking about AED/SUDEP association here; we are talking about your inability to distinguish efficacy and side effects. The point you persist in attempting to evade is that 3.8% die from seizures, and .1% die from SUDEP. The point is pretty obvious. The trade-off is pretty obvious. Quit deflecting. [/B][/QUOTE]

3.8% die from seizures? Oh, but that isn't true at all! Seizures aren't not even mentioned in the study.

-- Rouser

Rouser2

24th December 2003, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by BTox

Talking about the U.S. And of course, even the oral vaccine has helped almost eradicate polio from the planet, so the claim that it does more harm than good cannot be substantiated. Funny you mention Nigeria, as that is one of the places where wild polio has made a come-back, thanks to failure to vaccinate pushed by morons like you.

More post hoc, ergo propter hoc. The stories I read say that Polio had been completely erradicated from the country. So now it's back? Perhaps the vaccinations gave only temporary, superficial immunity.

-- Rouser

BTox

24th December 2003, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2

More post hoc, ergo propter hoc. The stories I read say that Polio had been completely erradicated from the country. So now it's back? Perhaps the vaccinations gave only temporary, superficial immunity.

-- Rouser

More jibberish. Yes, wild polio is making a comeback in some regions, thanks to vaccination rates as low as 16% in some regions.

So still haven't found an example of a current vaccine or drug causing more harm than good? Keep searching those tabloids!

Rouser2

24th December 2003, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by BTox [/i]

>>More unsubstantiated drivel. I have been taking zocor for several years. When I first started taking it, the doctor listed possible serious side effects, including liver damage and muscle breakdown that can cause kidney failure. Like most medications, these serious adverse reactions have a low incidence. As prescribed by FDA approval of this drug, I was instructed to immediately report any unusual muscle soreness, and had blood tests every 6 months for the first 2 years to screen for elevated liver enzymes. Neither adverse reaction has occured, and guess what - it works. My total cholesterol dropped from 265 (previously unaffected by diet manipulation and cholesterol sequestering medication) to 190. Modern medicine, and science, triumph again.

I wish you luck and a contiuned roll of sevens. Just in case, here's a link to a PI attorney site with some disturbing news about statins in general which I spose would include Zocor.

"Zocor, also known as simvastatin, is a cholesterol lowering medication manufactured by Merck & Co. Zocor belongs to the statin family of cholesterol drugs and is considered a 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitor.
Recently, another statin drug, Baycol, was removed from the market after causing at least 52 deaths. As a result, the safety of all statin drugs has subsequently come into question. While the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) maintains that Zocor causes considerably fewer adverse side effects than Baycol, the agency acknowledges that Zocor does pose some risk.
All statins increase a patient's chances of developing myositis and rhabdomyolysis, potentially fatal conditions that cause muscle pain and muscle deterioration and may lead to kidney failure. According to the FDA, the chances of developing myositis or rhabdomyolysis from Zocor are low. As such, Zocor remains on the market. See a licensed physician if you have concerns regarding the safety of Zocor, other statins, or any prescription drug. It should be noted that with the exception of Baycol, most doctors believe that the benefits of statin therapy outweigh the risks associated with this class of drugs.
Researchers have linked concurrent use of Serzone and Zocor to the development of rhabdomyolysis. A March 2003 article, written by physicians at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine and published in John Hopkins University's Advanced Studies in Medicine, discussed three recent cases of rhabdomyolysis in patients who had undergone concomitant use of Serzone and Zocor."

http://www.injuryboard.com/view.cfm/Topic=817

Comment: Don't you think you might be a little better off by simply eating less and exercising more???

-- Rouser

BillHoyt

24th December 2003, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
3.8% die from seizures? Oh, but that isn't true at all! Seizures aren't not even mentioned in the study.

-- Rouser
Really? Did you even read the first line of the paper? Here it is, ranter2:

"Families of children with newly diagnosed epilepsy worry about death during a seizure."

What Camfield, et. al. found was the seizures themselves were not the independent factor in the deaths, sir. They found that the underlying neurological deficit was the independent factor. Seizures absent neurological deficit were insufficient.

But these details are neither here nor there, are they? You didn't even read the first sentence of the paper, wherein, quite clearly, "seizure" is mentioned.

Terry

24th December 2003, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
[...]
Comment: Don't you think you might be a little better off by simply eating less and exercising more???

-- Rouser [/B]

Comment: did you even read what you quoted? Btox said in the material you quoted that his doctor discussed the possibilty of these very side effects. Btox said in the material you quoted that his cholesterol level didn't respond to diet manipulation.

--Terry.

Rouser2

24th December 2003, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt [/i]

>>Really? Did you even read the first line of the paper? Here it is, ranter2:

>>"Families of children with newly diagnosed epilepsy worry about death during a seizure."

>>What Camfield, et. al. found was the seizures themselves were not the independent factor in the deaths, sir. They found that the underlying neurological deficit was the independent factor. Seizures absent neurological deficit were insufficient.

There is nothing in the abstract of the study itself that identifies "seizures' as a cause of death, the initial sentence notwithstanding.

-- Rouser

Rouser2

24th December 2003, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by Terry

Comment: did you even read what you quoted? Btox said in the material you quoted that his doctor discussed the possibilty of these very side effects. Btox said in the material you quoted that his cholesterol level didn't respond to diet manipulation.

--Terry.

"manipulation and cholesterol sequestering medication" is not the same as eat less, exercise more -- the alternative, holistic No Treatment treatment.

-- Rouser

BTox

25th December 2003, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2

I wish you luck and a contiuned roll of sevens. Just in case, here's a link to a PI attorney site with some disturbing news about statins in general which I spose would include Zocor.

"Zocor, also known as simvastatin, is a cholesterol lowering medication manufactured by Merck & Co. Zocor belongs to the statin family of cholesterol drugs and is considered a 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitor.
Recently, another statin drug, Baycol, was removed from the market after causing at least 52 deaths. As a result, the safety of all statin drugs has subsequently come into question. While the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) maintains that Zocor causes considerably fewer adverse side effects than Baycol, the agency acknowledges that Zocor does pose some risk.
All statins increase a patient's chances of developing myositis and rhabdomyolysis, potentially fatal conditions that cause muscle pain and muscle deterioration and may lead to kidney failure. According to the FDA, the chances of developing myositis or rhabdomyolysis from Zocor are low. As such, Zocor remains on the market. See a licensed physician if you have concerns regarding the safety of Zocor, other statins, or any prescription drug. It should be noted that with the exception of Baycol, most doctors believe that the benefits of statin therapy outweigh the risks associated with this class of drugs.
Researchers have linked concurrent use of Serzone and Zocor to the development of rhabdomyolysis. A March 2003 article, written by physicians at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine and published in John Hopkins University's Advanced Studies in Medicine, discussed three recent cases of rhabdomyolysis in patients who had undergone concomitant use of Serzone and Zocor."
eating less and exercising more???

-- Rouser

Gee, those are exactly the adverse effects described by my doctor. I'm sure that legal site doesn't mention it, but those rare effects occur soon after initial use, after more than a year, the chances of them occuring become even more remote.

Hey, did you know that more than 50% of the cardiologists in the U.S. take statins - most as a prophylaxis to significantly reduce the risk of dying from heart disease.

BTox

25th December 2003, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2

"manipulation and cholesterol sequestering medication" is not the same as eat less, exercise more -- the alternative, holistic No Treatment treatment.

-- Rouser

Another common fallacy of "alternative" treatment - something that works on some percentage of the population will work on all. I'm sure you'll hate to hear this, but the first thing my MD recommended was a change in diet and more exercise, even though my diet was already excellent and I exercised 2-3 X/week. I modified my diet even further and increased exer. to 5 X/week - after a year, my cholesterol had crept even higher. So you can see your simpleton approach is invalid once again.

BillHoyt

25th December 2003, 06:23 PM

Here, gentle readers, we are treated to the fallacy of the No True Scotsman maneuver. Rouser first claimed this:
Seizures aren't not even mentioned in the study.
I then pointed out to him that the very first sentence of the paper most assuredly did mention “seizures.”
Now rouser engages in a two-fold NTS with this:
There is nothing in the abstract of the study itself that identifies "seizures' as a cause of death, the initial sentence notwithstanding.
First, rouser retreats to discussing the abstract, rather than the paper. Second, rouser shifts from claiming seizures aren’t mentioned to the new claim that they aren’t identified as a casue of death.

Please note that “seizure” was first raised in the “Background” section of the paper. This is quite important. Each section of a science paper has a purpose. The purpose of “background” is to spell out the nature of the problem under investigation. It must demonstrate that there is a reason for the reader to spend time with the paper. It must demonstrate that there was a reason for those funding the study to have spent their money. Also, a reason for the publisher to spend his money putting the paper to press. If a reviewer sees a background that sets up one question and fails to address it, the paper would immediately go back to the authors for revision.

Okay, so lets say you don’t already know that the claim is patently absurd, and, like rouser, don’t have access to Lancet or don’t want to spend the $30 to get the online version of the paper. How do you assess rouser’s strange claim? Well, this paper is rather important because of the study design. (It was a relatively large scale, long term cohort study.) It was reviewed in Neurology Reviews and that is available on line. The review also includes statements from Camfield on the study.

Here is what Camfield says:

“"It's interesting to look at the epilepsy and seizure types of these children," Dr. Camfield said. "In the absence group of 97 children, none died. In the children with partial and primary generalized epilepsies, 2% died, or 12 of 511 children." Of the 85 children with other generalized epilepsies, 13 (15%) died.”
But I thought this paper had nothing to do with seizure. And that the seizures had nothing to do with the deaths. And here is Camfield segregating the deaths by seizure type! What is going on?

Note also the import of absence epileptics, who suffered no deaths in this study! Absence epilepsy is characterized by relatively mild seizures. Unlike the tongue-swallowing tonic-clonic seizures, absence epileptic seizures usually result in the victim blankly staring into space, seemingly unconscious during the seizure. Here Camfield is pointing to a correlation of seizure severity and probability of death.

Here is Camfield again on the SUDEP death:

“"The child who died from probable SUDEP was a mildly mentally handicapped 21-year-old with tuberous sclerosis, frequent seizures, and poor medication compliance," Dr. Camfield said.”
What? The SUDEP victim had poor medication complicance? Could this tidbit bear some significance on rouser’s claim that the meds themselves cause SUDEP? I guess rouser will have to actually break down and read the paper, won’t he?

Neurology reviews (http://www.neurologyreviews.com/feb00/nr_feb00_epilepsydeath.htm)

Alas, rouser is right in one sense. One can hardly say the paper “mentions” seizures when that paper is entiirely about seizures, can one?

Rouser2

26th December 2003, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by BTox [/i]

>>Gee, those are exactly the adverse effects described by my doctor. I'm sure that legal site doesn't mention it, but those rare effects occur soon after initial use, after more than a year, the chances of them occuring become even more remote.

Sounds more than a little absurd to me. How do you know that???

>>Hey, did you know that more than 50% of the cardiologists in the U.S. take statins - most as a prophylaxis to significantly reduce the risk of dying from heart disease.

Nope. Did not know that. How do you know that?

-- Rouser

Rouser2

26th December 2003, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by BTox [/i]

>>Another common fallacy of "alternative" treatment - something that works on some percentage of the population will work on all.

Don't recall making such a sweeping statement.

>> I'm sure you'll hate to hear this, but the first thing my MD recommended was a change in diet and more exercise,

What you first reported was diet "manipulation" together with drugs, I do believe.

>> even though my diet was already excellent

What constitutes "excellent" to a person with bad cholesterol count?

>> and I exercised 2-3 X/week. I modified my diet even further and increased exer. to 5 X/week - after a year, my cholesterol had crept even higher.

But still taking anti-bad cholesterol drugs, I presume.

>>So you can see your simpleton approach is invalid once again.

I assume nothing. Nor should you. Your cholesterol numbers may mean you are perfrectly OK.

-- Rouser

Rouser2

26th December 2003, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt [/i]

>>Here, gentle readers, we are treated to the fallacy of the No True Scotsman maneuver. Rouser first claimed this:

>>I then pointed out to him that the very first sentence of the paper most assuredly did mention “seizures.”
Now rouser engages in a two-fold NTS with this:

>>First, rouser retreats to discussing the abstract, rather than the paper. Second, rouser shifts from claiming seizures aren’t mentioned to the new claim that they aren’t identified as a casue of death.

>>Please note that “seizure” was first raised in the “Background” section of the paper. This is quite important.

It is completely irrelevant. The study makes no mention of "seizures" as a cause of death. But you, yourself have concluded that there is no such correlation:

>>"What Camfield, et. al. found was the seizures themselves were not the independent factor in the deaths, sir."

-- Bill Hoyt

>>Okay, so lets say you don’t already know that the claim is patently absurd, and, like rouser, don’t have access to Lancet or don’t want to spend the $30 to get the online version of the paper. How do you assess rouser’s strange claim? Well, this paper is rather important because of the study design. (It was a relatively large scale, long term cohort study.) It was reviewed in Neurology Reviews and that is available on line. The review also includes statements from Camfield on the study.

>>Here is what Camfield says:

“"It's interesting to look at the epilepsy and seizure types of these children," Dr. Camfield said. "In the absence group of 97 children, none died. In the children with partial and primary generalized epilepsies, 2% died, or 12 of 511 children." Of the 85 children with other generalized epilepsies, 13 (15%) died.”

>>But I thought this paper had nothing to do with seizure. And that the seizures had nothing to do with the deaths. And here is Camfield segregating the deaths by seizure type! What is going on?

What is going on is more false interpolations are your part. A group of partial and primary generalized epilipsies may presume that such "children" have seizures from time to time. But it does not state anything about dying during a seizure.

>>Note also the import of absence epileptics, who suffered no deaths in this study! Absence epilepsy is characterized by relatively mild seizures. Unlike the tongue-swallowing tonic-clonic seizures, absence epileptic seizures usually result in the victim blankly staring into space, seemingly unconscious during the seizure. Here Camfield is pointing to a correlation of seizure severity and probability of death.

Not at all. He is pointing to a group of epileptics with those mild symptoms, not the seizures themselves.

>>Here is Camfield again on the SUDEP death:

“"The child who died from probable SUDEP was a mildly mentally handicapped 21-year-old with tuberous sclerosis, frequent seizures, and poor medication compliance," Dr. Camfield said.”
What? The SUDEP victim had poor medication complicance? Could this tidbit bear some significance on rouser’s claim that the meds themselves cause SUDEP? I guess rouser will have to actually break down and read the paper, won’t he?

At age "21", I don't know how anyone could call this person a "child". Nonetheless, one anecdotal report of this non-child child can hardly be favorably weighed in the balance against the numerous other studies pertaining to real "children" which show more deaths associated with anti-convulsive drugs than not.

>>Alas, rouser is right in one sense. One can hardly say the paper “mentions” seizures when that paper is entiirely about seizures, can one?

The paper is about deaths; not seizures per se as cause of deaths.

-- Rouser

BillHoyt

26th December 2003, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Not at all. He is pointing to a group of epileptics with those mild symptoms, not the seizures themselves.
Rouser,

I call you to a halt. I am done. You are a moron. Not only have you not read the abstract. Not only have you not read the paper. Not only can you not interpret simple English, let alone scientific language. You didn't even read the review whose link I provided.

Read the review. Read it carefully. Find your error in the quote above. I may continue after you have published your correction. You have one post. If you fail to get how astoundingly stupid you are and correct it in the next post, I will simply heckle you and throw pies and rotten tomatoes. You are the king of dunces, you arrogant and mentally challenged moron.

BTox

26th December 2003, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by BTox [/i]

>>Gee, those are exactly the adverse effects described by my doctor. I'm sure that legal site doesn't mention it, but those rare effects occur soon after initial use, after more than a year, the chances of them occuring become even more remote.

Sounds more than a little absurd to me. How do you know that???

Well of course, all medical facts that you don't like sound absurd to you. But it is a fact.

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by BTox [/i]
>>Hey, did you know that more than 50% of the cardiologists in the U.S. take statins - most as a prophylaxis to significantly reduce the risk of dying from heart disease.

Nope. Did not know that. How do you know that?

-- Rouser

I read it in an AP article. Ask Daniel Q. Haney about it.

BTox

26th December 2003, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by BTox [/i]

>> I'm sure you'll hate to hear this, but the first thing my MD recommended was a change in diet and more exercise,

What you first reported was diet "manipulation" together with drugs, I do believe.

No, you misunderstood. A common problem with you.

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by BTox [/i]
>> even though my diet was already excellent

What constitutes "excellent" to a person with bad cholesterol count?

You don't seem to understand that cholesterol can be completely unrelated to diet. But since you know nothing about health, this is not a surprise.

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by BTox [/i]>> and I exercised 2-3 X/week. I modified my diet even further and increased exer. to 5 X/week - after a year, my cholesterol had crept even higher.

But still taking anti-bad cholesterol drugs, I presume.

You presume incorrectly.

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by BTox [/i]>>So you can see your simpleton approach is invalid once again.

I assume nothing. Nor should you. Your cholesterol numbers may mean you are perfrectly OK.

-- Rouser

No, I assume nothing as well. What I know for a fact is you are a nitwit.

Rouser2

26th December 2003, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt [/i]

>>Yu didn't even read the review whose link I provided.

Ever try to click on your own "links"? They keep coming up blank. Just like your arguments. And when you quote from a study, what you quote only impeaches what you have been saying.

-- Rouser

Rouser2

26th December 2003, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by BTox [/i]

>>>>Hey, did you know that more than 50% of the cardiologists in the U.S. take statins - most as a prophylaxis to significantly reduce the risk of dying from heart disease.

Nope. Did not know that. How do you know that?

-- Rouser
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>I read it in an AP article.

Uh, could you be a little more specific???

Rouser

Rouser2

26th December 2003, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by BTox [/i]

>>Originally posted by BTox [/i]

>> I'm sure you'll hate to hear this, but the first thing my MD recommended was a change in diet and more exercise,

What you first reported was diet "manipulation" together with drugs, I do believe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>No, you misunderstood. A common problem with you.

Well here are your exact words as quoted above:
"My total cholesterol dropped from 265 (previously unaffected by diet manipulation and cholesterol sequestering medication) to 190

Cholesterol sequestering medication sure sounds like a failed drugs and diet nostrum to me? Now how could I or anyone misunderstand your own plain English???

-- Rouser

Rolfe

26th December 2003, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Rouser,

I call you to a halt. I am done. You are a moron. Not only have you not read the abstract. Not only have you not read the paper. Not only can you not interpret simple English, let alone scientific language. You didn't even read the review whose link I provided.

Read the review. Read it carefully. Find your error in the quote above. I may continue after you have published your correction. You have one post. If you fail to get how astoundingly stupid you are and correct it in the next post, I will simply heckle you and throw pies and rotten tomatoes. You are the king of dunces, you arrogant and mentally challenged moron. Sort of sounds a bit like the conclusion I came to several pages ago. We're looking at a fixed irrational belief here, and like all such beliefs it isn't going to be changed by any amount of evidence or rational argument.

Rouser is irrationally convinced that anticonvulsant medication does more harm than good, although he knows nothing about the subject and doesn't even know the name of the drug he's talking about. No amount of evidence to the contrary will sway him, though you talk till hell freezes over.

Rouser is also convinced that the entire, enormous, heterogenous medical profession is deliberately endangering patients' lives by meddling, when in fact good old nature will handle things better every time. There's no possible way to handle ignorance like that.

I for one am fed up going round the same tired exercise wheel in this thread. However, I'd still be fascinated to know what Rouser thinks is in "high-potency" homoeopathc preparations apart from water/alcohol and lactose. He's said several times that there's more than that in these remedies, but refused to elaborate even under repeated challenge.

Now, Rouser, how about giving us all a break and starting that new thread to tell us of your novel discovery in this area?

Rolfe.

BillHoyt

26th December 2003, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by BillHoyt [/i]

>>Yu didn't even read the review whose link I provided.

Ever try to click on your own "links"? They keep coming up blank. Just like your arguments. And when you quote from a study, what you quote only impeaches what you have been saying.

-- Rouser
I see. So your idiocy is even deeper than I thought. You commented on a broken link. You knew the content of that web page even though you could not get to it? It has been abundantly obvious until now that you don't bother reading the information being provided and that you don't understand what you do read. Now you confess to claiming to have undrstood something you couldn't read! You're a laughingstock. A clown. A disingenous, ranting, crank quack.

BTox

26th December 2003, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2

>>No, you misunderstood. A common problem with you.

Well here are your exact words as quoted above:
"My total cholesterol dropped from 265 (previously unaffected by diet manipulation and cholesterol sequestering medication) to 190

Cholesterol sequestering medication sure sounds like a failed drugs and diet nostrum to me? Now how could I or anyone misunderstand your own plain English???

-- Rouser

How could you misunderstand plain English? A question for the ages:

Another common fallacy of "alternative" treatment - something that works on some percentage of the population will work on all. I'm sure you'll hate to hear this, but the first thing my MD recommended was a change in diet and more exercise, even though my diet was already excellent and I exercised 2-3 X/week. I modified my diet even further and increased exer. to 5 X/week - after a year, my cholesterol had crept even higher. So you can see your simpleton approach is invalid once again.

BTox

26th December 2003, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by BTox [/i]

>>>>Hey, did you know that more than 50% of the cardiologists in the U.S. take statins - most as a prophylaxis to significantly reduce the risk of dying from heart disease.

Nope. Did not know that. How do you know that?

-- Rouser
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>I read it in an AP article.

Uh, could you be a little more specific???

Rouser

Seek and ye shall find.

Rouser2

27th December 2003, 03:04 AM

Originally posted by BTox [/i]

>>I read it in an AP article.

Uh, could you be a little more specific???

Rouser
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>Seek and ye shall find.

Oh, I have. But it is not to be found. You know what I think? I think you just made it up.

-- Rouser

Rouser2

27th December 2003, 03:08 AM

Originally posted by Rolfe [/i]

>>Now, Rouser, how about giving us all a break and starting that new thread to tell us of your novel discovery in this area?

How about you citing the exact wording and protocol of the alleged Randi milliion dollar challenge as it pertains to homeopathy? Can't seem to find this anywhere.

-- Rouser

Rouser2

27th December 2003, 03:19 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

I see. So your idiocy is even deeper than I thought. You commented on a broken link. You knew the content of that web page even though you could not get to it? It has been abundantly obvious until now that you don't bother reading the information being provided and that you don't understand what you do read. Now you confess to claiming to have undrstood something you couldn't read! You're a laughingstock. A clown. A disingenous, ranting, crank quack.

This ranting crank quack only asks that when you post a link, it ought to work -- at least some of the time, so that we ranting crank quacks can try to enlighten ourselves as to your high minded level of understanding, especially as to why your quoted excerpts always seem to undermine and run counter to your assertions.

-- Rouser

BillyJoe

27th December 2003, 03:57 AM

I have just read this entire thread and am overcome by a feeling of deja vu. Nothing has changed in two years.

BillHoyt

27th December 2003, 06:11 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2

This ranting crank quack only asks that when you post a link, it ought to work -- at least some of the time, so that we ranting crank quacks can try to enlighten ourselves as to your high minded level of understanding, especially as to why your quoted excerpts always seem to undermine and run counter to your assertions.

-- Rouser
You really put the dash in balder, rouser. What you ask is that we believe you understand something about medicine. You don't. You ask that we believe you have studied the issues you raise. You haven't. You demand that we present counter-evidence to your rantings. We do. Then you demand we believe you have read and considered our evidence and found it wanting.

But you didn't read it. You've been caught now not reading it. Twice. You didn't read the paper. Yet you told us it didn't mention seizures. You didn't even read the abstract's opening sentence, rouser! Then you changed your claim to scope it to the abstract. I then posted an inadvertently broken link to a review. I also posted salient comments from Dr. Camfield, wherein she (that's right, dummy, she) makes clear the observed relationship between seizures and deaths. Those with the mildest seizures had no deaths. Those with the most severe suffered the most deaths. Before chastising me for the broken link, you demanded we all believe you had read and considered the review and found it wanting. Now, and only now, after, and only after, I caught you not even knowing Dr. Camfield is female, do you admit you didn't read the review!

Next time someone messes up a link, how about you refrain from commenting on it until it has been fixed or you have found the page, you nitwit? You can shove your deceit, your lies, and your games up your rump, rouser. You might as well find another use for it. Other than hoisting yourself up by it.

Rouser2

27th December 2003, 08:27 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt [/i]

>>But you didn't read it. You've been caught now not reading it. Twice. You didn't read the paper.

Which paper would that be? The one that comes up blank?

>>Yet you told us it didn't mention seizures.

As a cause of death? Nope.

>>Then you changed your claim to scope it to the abstract. I then posted an inadvertently broken link to a review. I also posted salient comments from Dr. Camfield, wherein she (that's right, dummy, she) makes clear the observed relationship between seizures and deaths.
Those with the mildest seizures had no deaths. Those with the most severe suffered the most deaths. Before chastising me for the broken link, you demanded we all believe you had read and considered the review and found it wanting. Now, and only now, after, and only after, I caught you not even knowing Dr. Camfield is female, do you admit you didn't read the review!

"Caught" me??? And just which Dr. Camfield would that be? One being a he and the other a she??? Or did you overlook that too???

>>Next time someone messes up a link, how about you refrain from commenting on it until it has been fixed or you have found the page,

I don't comment on what I don't read. I only make comments on things I do read -- like your quotes and summaries from unkown sources which always seem to come up blank.

>> you nitwit? You can shove your deceit, your lies, and your games up your rump, rouser. You might as well find another use for it. Other than hoisting yourself up by it.

Reminds me of what Harry Truman said regarding his moniker "Give 'em Hell, Harry!" Truman once explained, "I really don't give anybody hell. I merely tell them the truth and they think it's hell."

-- Rouser

BillHoyt

27th December 2003, 10:12 AM

Clown show is over, clown.:rr:

Eos of the Eons

27th December 2003, 01:42 PM

You can shove your deceit, your lies, and your games up your rump, rouser. You might as well find another use for it. Other than hoisting yourself up by it.

:D

BTox

27th December 2003, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2

Oh, I have. But it is not to be found. You know what I think? I think you just made it up.

-- Rouser

You have terrible research skills - a fundamental problem as we all can see.

BTox

27th December 2003, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
How about you citing the exact wording and protocol of the alleged Randi milliion dollar challenge as it pertains to homeopathy? Can't seem to find this anywhere.

-- Rouser

More evidence of poor research skills.

BTW, still waiting for your current vaccine that does more harm than good. And still waiting for your "alternative" medicine example that is efficacious and more safe than conventional treatment. Along with documentary evidence, of course.

BTox

27th December 2003, 02:03 PM

Rouser, a clue for you:

Doctors themselves are swallowing statins at a rapid clip - and not just to protect their hearts, but also their brains, bones and to ward off cancer. Though very preliminary, recent studies encouragingly suggest that statins may lower the risk of Alzheimer's disease, osteoporosis, and even colon cancer.

"I typically ask a group of cardiologists how many are taking a statin, and about 75 percent hold up their hands," said Dr. Antonio Gotto, a prominent cardiologist and statin proponent who is dean of Weill Medical College of Cornell University.

But the very success of the statins is raising a tough ethical question for the medical profession: Why isn't everybody taking them?

"Most people who could substantially benefit from statins are not getting them," said Dr. Stephen B. Hulley of the University of California in San Francisco, citing recent reports of surveys done in the past few years.

BillyJoe

28th December 2003, 03:14 AM

Rousser is the only person I 've ever met on this forum who I have positively disliked. His extreme self-confidence has no justification whatsoever. He is ignorant and arrogant
Because of the way he sees the world and his place in it, he is a danger to himself and to everyone around him.
When he gets a serious medical illness he will die. I only hope it happens to him before it happens to one of his children because at least then they will have a chance.

BillyJoe.

PS
As I said before, he has not changed over the two years he has been here. I suggest we ignore any further posts he makes. He is a cracked pot and should be thrown out with the garbage.

Rouser2

28th December 2003, 05:55 AM

Originally posted by BTox [/i]

>>BTW, still waiting for your current vaccine that does more harm than good.

Already answered that one. The oral polio vaccine. But there are others.

>> And still waiting for your "alternative" medicine example that is efficacious and more safe than conventional treatment. Along with documentary evidence, of course.

The examples are too numerous to mention just one. But the pernicious effects of Modern Medicine are exposed every time there is a doctor's strike. The adverse effects of such strikes fall hardest on morticians who suffer from a substantial loss of business.

BMJ 2000;320:1561 ( 10 June )

News
Doctors' strike in Israel may be good for health

Industrial action by doctors in Israel seems to be good for their patients' health. Death rates have dropped considerably in most of the country since physicians in public hospitals implemented a programme of sanctions three months ago, according to a survey of burial societies.
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/320/7249/1561

* * *

"In 1976 in Bogota, Colombia, doctors went on strike during a 52-day period. The death rate went down 35% during that time. In Los Angeles in 1976, doctors went on strike to protest increasing costs of malpractice insurance. The death rate decreased by 18%. When the strike ended, the death rate returned to pre-strike proportions. In Israel in 1973, during a month-long strike, the death rate dropped 50%. The last time the death rate had been that low was when there was a doctor's strike 20 years before." - R. Mendelsohn, "Confessions of a Medical Heretic"

* * *

"It doesn't surprise me death rates drop when doctors strike. Adverse reactions to drugs plays a huge role, especially in countries where Chemical Sensitivity is not well recognized.
More attention might be given to the unhealthy protectionist relationship between doctors and drug companies which supply their "tools of trade" and the further extension of this relationship between drug companies and the actual owners of patient rights to many drugs which are the Agvet pesticide manufacturers, and the impact of their toxic products on human health.
The "relationship" is decidedly "unhealthy."
Rex Warren President Australian Chemical Trauma Alliance

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/320/7249/1561#8615

Rouser2

28th December 2003, 06:16 AM

Originally posted by BTox [/i]

>>Rouser, a clue for you:

"Most people who could substantially benefit from statins are not getting them," said Dr. Stephen B. Hulley of the University of California in San Francisco, citing recent reports of surveys done in the past few years.

Btox, a clue for you:

Carcinogenicity of lipid-lowering drugs
T. B. Newman and S. B. Hulley
Department of Laboratory Medicine, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, USA.

"All members of the two most popular classes of lipid-lowering drugs (the fibrates and the statins) cause cancer in rodents, in some cases at levels of animal exposure close to those prescribed to humans. In contrast, few of the antihypertensive drugs have been found to be carcinogenic in rodents. Evidence of carcinogenicity of lipid-lowering drugs from clinical trials in humans is inconclusive because of inconsistent results and insufficient duration of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS--Extrapolation of this evidence of carcinogenesis from rodents to humans is an uncertain process. Longer-term clinical trials and careful postmarketing surveillance during the next several decades are needed to determine whether cholesterol-lowering drugs cause cancer in humans. In the meantime, the results of experiments in animals and humans suggest that lipid-lowering drug treatment, especially with the fibrates and statins, should be avoided except in patients at high short-term risk of coronary heart disease."

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/275/1/55

BTox

28th December 2003, 08:09 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by BTox [/i]

>>BTW, still waiting for your current vaccine that does more harm than good.

Already answered that one. The oral polio vaccine. But there are others.

No, that was debunked. And you have no others.

Originally posted by Rouser2
>> And still waiting for your "alternative" medicine example that is efficacious and more safe than conventional treatment. Along with documentary evidence, of course.

The examples are too numerous to mention just one. But the pernicious effects of Modern Medicine are exposed every time there is a doctor's strike. The adverse effects of such strikes fall hardest on morticians who suffer from a substantial loss of business.

Too numerous to mention? In other words, none.

You sir, are a nitwit.

BTox

28th December 2003, 08:11 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by BTox [/i]

>>Rouser, a clue for you:

"Most people who could substantially benefit from statins are not getting them," said Dr. Stephen B. Hulley of the University of California in San Francisco, citing recent reports of surveys done in the past few years.

Btox, a clue for you:

Carcinogenicity of lipid-lowering drugs
T. B. Newman and S. B. Hulley
Department of Laboratory Medicine, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, USA.

Old news, and long since disproven. Why else would all these doctors be taking them? You are truly clueless.

BTox

28th December 2003, 08:13 AM

Originally posted by BillyJoe
PS
As I said before, he has not changed over the two years he has been here. I suggest we ignore any further posts he makes. He is a cracked pot and should be thrown out with the garbage.

He's been spewing this jibberish for two years? I've had my say with him, and it has become boring slashing down every cardboard canard he throws up.

Rouser2

28th December 2003, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by BTox [/i]

>>Old news, and long since disproven. Why else would all these doctors be taking them? You are truly clueless.

You mean all those doctors in all of the un-sourced stories you've recently sunk to posting? Hey, if you havn't got anything of substance to add, why not just make it up, eh?

-- Rouser

Rouser2

28th December 2003, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by BTox [/i]

>>:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by BTox [/i]

>>BTW, still waiting for your current vaccine that does more harm than good.

Already answered that one. The oral polio vaccine. But there are others.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>No, that was debunked. And you have no others.

Debunked? I don't think so.

But there are plenty more:

Anthrax
BCG
Chickenpox
Hepatitus B
MMR
Smalpox
Flu

A short list.

-- Rouser

Eos of the Eons

28th December 2003, 06:22 PM

Anthrax
BCG
Chickenpox
Hepatitus B
MMR
Smalpox
Flu

No harm, no harm, no harm, etc.

What's your point rouser? You believe all the pseudoscience and lies like those of Viera Scheibner and "Dr." Wakefield?

hahahahahha!!! A truly paranoid deluded individual!

My kids have had them all except BCG, Anthrax and smallpox, and are fine fine fine. Heck, I've had them all, and I'm allergic eggs.

BillyJoe

28th December 2003, 07:27 PM

The Carpet Crawlers

There is lambswool under my naked feet.
The wool is soft and warm,
- gives off some kind of heat.
A salamander scurries into flame to be destroyed.
Imaginary creatures are trapped in birth on celluloid.
The fleas cling to the golden fleece,
Hoping they'll find peace.
Each thought and gesture are caught in celluloid.
There's no hiding in my memory.
There's no room to a void.

The crawlers cover the floor in the red ochre corridor.
For my second sight of people, they've more lifeblood than before.
They're moving in time to a heavy wooden door,
Where the needle's eye is winking, closing in on the poor.
The carpet crawlers heed their callers:
"We've got to get in to get out"

There's only one direction in the faces that I see;
It's upward to the ceiling, where the chamber's said to be.
Like the forest fight for sunlight, that takes root in every tree.
They are pulled up by the magnet, believing they're free.
The carpet crawlers heed their callers:
"We've got to get in to get out"

Mild mannered supermen are held in kryptonite,
And the wise and foolish virgins giggle with their bodies glowing bright.
Through a door a harvest feast is lit by candlelight;
It's the bottom of a staircase that spirals out of sight.
The carpet crawlers heed their callers:
"We've got to get in to get out"

The porcelain mannikin with shattered skin fears attack.
The eager pack lift up their pitchers - they carry all they lack.
The liquid has congealed, which has seeped out through the crack,
And the tickler takes his stickleback.
The carpet crawlers heed their callers:
"We've got to get in to get out"

(Genesis - The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway}

Rouser2

28th December 2003, 08:38 PM

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons [/i]

>>My kids have had them all except BCG, Anthrax and smallpox, and are fine fine fine. Heck, I've had them all, and I'm allergic eggs.

Some people are not so fine. Others are dead. They do not post on this board. They are silent.

-- Rouser

BillyJoe

28th December 2003, 09:18 PM

Maxwell's Silver Hammer

Bang! Bang! Maxwell's silver hammer came down upon his head.
Clang! Clang! Maxwell's silver hammer made sure that he was dead.

BTox

28th December 2003, 09:27 PM

Some people are brain dead. Unfortunately they post on this board. Yet they are silent.

NullPointerException

28th December 2003, 10:53 PM

When a person I know worked in Germany they were forced to read up on homeopathic remedies to ensure they knew to ask their patients whether or not they were taken x homeopathic remedy which could seriously react to real medication.

Also, I think alternative medicine is a good name. Medicine will make you feel better, and than you have the alternative, which will do absolutely nothing.

Zep

29th December 2003, 12:21 AM

A few more reports to deal with, Rouser.

The Age, 20 August 2003 (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/19/1061261150080.html)

The Age, 16 December 2003 (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336887473.html?from=storyrhs)

Yahoo News, 25 November 2003 (http://au.news.yahoo.com/031125/2/mo3y.html)

I believe all your so-called objections will be answered if you take the time to read them.

BillyJoe

29th December 2003, 12:44 AM

Originally posted by Zep
I believe all your so-called objections will be answered if you take the time to read them. Don't you bet on it, zep.....:D

Zep

29th December 2003, 12:57 AM

Also helpful, Rouser - Overview of the Coroners Court of Victoria, Australia (http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/CA2569020010922A/page/Listing-coronerscourt-Coroners+Court+of+Victoria+-+Overview?OpenDocument&1=0-Courts+and+Tribunals~&2=0-Coroner%27s+Court~&3=~&REFUNID=78A989AAE821E1A2CA256C2800210E66~#reportab le). I think you will find that Coroner Byrne acted with skill, and sensibly and well within his rights as he is required to do by law.

The only "idiots" are those who believed that "alternative therapies" in any way were helpful.

The facts of the case clearly show that the parents simply and wilfully removed their child from helpful medication because they didn't like the look of the side-effects. Therefore the child was not receiving medication for some months prior to death. In that time, the side-effects decreased but the original symptoms returned, eventually leading to the death of the child. This was shown by a competent forensic scientist to be a death by neglect of medication, not a deliberate poisoning by "modern medicine".

That the child was treated with "alternative" medication during that time was, of itself, no consequence. It was exactly the same as doing nothing. The REAL issue at hand was that the parents convinced themselves, with help from the alternative therapists, that they were helping the child and not actually neglecting it. In effect, these therapists aided and abetted the emotionally vulnerable parents' ill-informed neglect of recommended medication (and the therapists probably cost them much money into the bargain).

You need to ask yourself this: Would you have still supported these parents if there had been no alternative therapies employed at all in this case? That is, the parents practiced deliberate medical neglect on a child resulting in a predicted death that was avoidable? Because this is what the parents have done in effect. And this is why the Coroner Byrne is considering referal for potential prosecution.

Zep

29th December 2003, 01:53 AM

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Don't you bet on it, zep.....:D Alas, so true! :)

BillyJoe

29th December 2003, 01:54 AM

Zeppity do dah,

>>I think you will find that Coroner Byrne acted with skill, and sensibly and well within his rights as he is required to do by law.

Says who?

>>The only "idiots" are those who believed that "alternative therapies" in any way were helpful.

A lot you know you idiot

>>The facts of the case clearly show that the parents simply and wilfully removed their child from helpful medication because they didn't like the look of the side-effects. Therefore the child was not receiving medication for some months prior to death.

And if he had of held on a bit longer all those deadly drugs would have eventually been washed out of his system.

>>In that time, the side-effects decreased but the original symptoms returned, eventually leading to the death of the child.

Says you but what would you know.

>>This was shown by a competent forensic scientist to be a death by neglect of medication, not a deliberate poisoning by "modern medicine".

And you know this pathologist personally do you??

>>That the child was treated with "alternative" medication during that time was, of itself, no consequence. It was exactly the same as doing nothing.

Of course you would say this you brain washed by Modern Medicine imbecile.

>>The REAL issue at hand was that the parents convinced themselves, with help from the alternative therapists, that they were helping the child and not actually neglecting it. In effect, these therapists aided and abetted the emotionally vulnerable parents' ill-informed neglect of recommended medication (and the therapists probably cost them much money into the bargain).

Those therapists would have saved the childs life if only the parents had of come to them sooner.

>>You need to ask yourself this: Would you have still supported these parents if there had been no alternative therapies employed at all in this case?

Of course not. The child needed real help which he eventually got. But it was too late.

>>That is, the parents practiced deliberate medical neglect on a child resulting in a predicted death that was avoidable? Because this is what the parents have done in effect. And this is why the Coroner Byrne is considering referal for potential prosecution.

It is the doctors who killed this child with those deadly pharmaceuticals and it is the doctors and the pharmaceutical companies who should be prosecuted.

Rustler2

Zep

29th December 2003, 02:26 AM

You do that well, TJ! Ever thought of posting on a skeptics forum?

Rouser2

29th December 2003, 06:44 AM

Originally posted by NullPointerException [/i]

>>Also, I think alternative medicine is a good name. Medicine will make you feel better, and than you have the alternative, which will do absolutely nothing.

Alternative Medicine, is to the Medical Establishment, Medical "Treason."

But...

"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason." -- Ovid

-- Rouser

Rouser2

29th December 2003, 06:47 AM

Originally posted by Zep
A few more reports to deal with, Rouser.

The Age, 20 August 2003 (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/19/1061261150080.html)

The Age, 16 December 2003 (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336887473.html?from=storyrhs)

Yahoo News, 25 November 2003 (http://au.news.yahoo.com/031125/2/mo3y.html)

I believe all your so-called objections will be answered if you take the time to read them.

I do not bother looking up alleged references to a poster's unstated point. If you have a point, state it. Do you have a point?

-- Rouser

BillHoyt

29th December 2003, 06:57 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2

I do not bother looking up alleged references to a poster's unstated point. If you have a point, state it. Do you have a point?

-- Rouser

You don't read them when they are related to points either. When you do read them, you don't understand them. :dl:

Rouser2

29th December 2003, 07:02 AM

Originally posted by Zep [/i]

>>Also helpful, Rouser - Overview of the Coroners Court of Victoria, Australia. I think you will find that Coroner Byrne acted with skill, and sensibly and well within his rights as he is required to do by law.

There is nothing in your link that pertains to the Coroner's skill, nor whether he acted "sensibly".

>>The only "idiots" are those who believed that "alternative therapies" in any way were helpful.

Ad hominem attack in place of evidence sinks your own credibiity to zero.

>>The facts of the case clearly show that the parents simply and wilfully removed their child from helpful medication because they didn't like the look of the side-effects. Therefore the child was not receiving medication for some months prior to death. In that time, the side-effects decreased but the original symptoms returned, eventually leading to the death of the child.

A conclusion unsupported by any facts.

>>This was shown by a competent forensic scientist to be a death by neglect of medication, not a deliberate poisoning by "modern medicine".

The competency of the Coroner is something which has not been established. The possibilty that death was due to the medication itself, or some other cause is reasonable given the facts we know about the case, and the facts we know about deaths associated with anti-convulsive medication.

>>That the child was treated with "alternative" medication during that time was, of itself, no consequence. It was exactly the same as doing nothing.

Doing "nothing" often times is a far more effecacious than submittiing to the dangerous nostrums of Modern Medicine. In the case of infant epilileptics, "doing nothing" is supported by the science as well.

>>You need to ask yourself this: Would you have still supported these parents if there had been no alternative therapies employed at all in this case? That is, the parents practiced deliberate medical neglect on a child resulting in a predicted death that was avoidable? Because this is what the parents have done in effect. And this is why the Coroner Byrne is considering referal for potential prosecution.

Death cannot be "predicted" in epileptics. The rest of this paragraph is just more assertions, unsupported by any facts.

-- Rouser

BTox

29th December 2003, 07:07 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2

>>No, that was debunked. And you have no others.

Debunked? I don't think so.

But there are plenty more:

Anthrax
BCG
Chickenpox
Hepatitus B
MMR
Smalpox
Flu

A short list.

-- Rouser

You are still here? Amazing... so this is your "short list" of vaccines that do more harm than good? Let's see...

Anthrax - a conclusion unsupported by any facts
BCG - a conclusion unsupported by any facts
Chickenpox - a conclusion unsupported by any facts
Hepatitus B - a conclusion unsupported by any facts
MMR - a conclusion unsupported by any facts
Smalpox - a conclusion unsupported by any facts
Flu - a conclusion unsupported by any facts

You are just flailing now...

jimlintott

29th December 2003, 08:36 AM

A couple of quick, personal anecdotes about succesful conventional medical treatment. Recently a Doctor discovered several cavities in my teeth. She fixed these quickly with no pain. Earlier this year I had two wisdom teeth removed. One was impacted and the other crooked and irritating. A few years ago I had a hernia. The surgeon who fixed me said that it wasn't that long ago that hernia would have been one of the biggest killers in this area.

Pray tell, what are the homeopathic remedies for dental cavities, impacted wisdom teeth and hernia?

Is there a homeopathic remedy for broken arm?

geni

29th December 2003, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by jimlintott
Is there a homeopathic remedy for broken arm?

Arnica

Rouser2

29th December 2003, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by BTox

You are still here? Amazing... so this is your "short list" of vaccines that do more harm than good? Let's see...

Anthrax - a conclusion unsupported by any facts
BCG - a conclusion unsupported by any facts
Chickenpox - a conclusion unsupported by any facts
Hepatitus B - a conclusion unsupported by any facts
MMR - a conclusion unsupported by any facts
Smalpox - a conclusion unsupported by any facts
Flu - a conclusion unsupported by any facts

You are just flailing now...

When the student is ready, the teacher appears. Pick your poison. Give it your best shot. Which of these would you defend as potentially doing more good than harm? Please support your choice with FACTS.

-- Rouser

Rouser2

29th December 2003, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by jimlintott [/i]

A couple of quick, personal anecdotes about succesful conventional medical treatment. Recently a Doctor discovered several cavities in my teeth. She fixed these quickly with no pain.

>>No pain? Did she give you general anesthetic? Novocaine? or just a water drill? The alternative treatment to traditional cavity fixing, is 1. not to get them in the first place and 2. not to use dangerous mercury-laden amalgums to fill them.

>>One was impacted and the other crooked and irritating. A few years, Earlier this year I had two wisdom teeth ago I had a hernia. The surgeon who fixed me said that it wasn't that long ago that hernia would have been one of the biggest killers in this area.

I sort of doubt that, but perhaps you have some documentary evidence besides what your surgeon told you?

>>Pray tell, what are the homeopathic remedies for dental cavities, impacted wisdom teeth and hernia?

None that I know of. Who ever said there was?

>>Is there a homeopathic remedy for broken arm?

I sort of doubt it. You will find that if you read this entire thread from the beginning, that I, for one, support and uphold Modern Medicine in the good work it does, which first and foremost is the treatment of trauma injury.

-- Rouser

BTox

29th December 2003, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2

When the student is ready, the teacher appears. Pick your poison. Give it your best shot. Which of these would you defend as potentially doing more good than harm? Please support your choice with FACTS.

-- Rouser

All of them. And since you are making the ridiculous claim that they cause more harm than good, it is up to you to supply factual data that they do. I'm still waiting...

PS Thought you'd find this enlightening, from the CDC 2003 annual report:

Americans who die each year from vaccine-preventable diseases: 48,000
Estimated percentage of children worldwide not reached by vaccination programs: 30%
Childhood deaths worldwide from vaccine-preventable diseases, annually: 2,400,000
...
Proportion of the world's population infected with the bacterium that causes tuberculosis: one-third
Without prevention and treatment, predicted annual number of new TB infections, illnesses and deaths, worldwide, by 2020, respectively: 1,000,000,000; 200,000,000; 35,000,000

Source: cdc 2003 annual report (http://www.cdc.gov/CDC.pdf)

The horror... the horror...

BTox

29th December 2003, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
>>No pain? Did she give you general anesthetic? Novcaine? or just a water drill? The alternative treatment to traditional cavity fixing, is 1. not to get them in the first place and 2. not to use dangerous mercury-laden amalgums to fill them.
removed.
-- Rouser

PS Dental amalgams (not amalgums) are not dangerous.

Rouser2

29th December 2003, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by BTox [/i]

>>All of them. And since you are making the ridiculous claim that they cause more harm than good, it is up to you to supply factual data that they do. I'm still waiting...

Another predictable cop-out. This space is not suitable for a book. Surely you could pick just one. But no, you choose to duck, shuffle and jive. It is you who make the claim for these vaccines. First, you back it up -- Specifically -- if you can.

-- Rouser

BTox

29th December 2003, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by BTox [/i]

>>All of them. And since you are making the ridiculous claim that they cause more harm than good, it is up to you to supply factual data that they do. I'm still waiting...

Another predictable cop-out. This space is not suitable for a book. Surely you could pick just one. But no, you choose to duck, shuffle and jive. It is you who make the claim for these vaccines. First, you back it up -- Specifically -- if you can.

-- Rouser

No sir, it is you who has, does and will continue to cop-out. I provided more than enough factual data that the flu vaccine saves thousands of lives annually, just in the U.S., with a maximum cost of 20 lives, the actual cost between 0-5. There are reams of data on the safety and efficacy of all the vaccines you list. You have claimed that modern medicine harms more than it saves. You have not provided one scintilla of evidence to back it up. The onus is on you. We anxiously await...

Suezoled

29th December 2003, 12:51 PM

Hey, Btox, I'm making some popcorn while we wait for this overwhelming evidence on how mainstream meds cause more harm than homeopath or "alternative" meds do. Do you like butter on your popcorn?

BTox

29th December 2003, 12:56 PM

No butter for me. Make it an extra large tub, I think we'll be waiting for ANY credible evidence for a very long time. ;)

Prester John

29th December 2003, 03:29 PM

The rascist Rouser still at it ? Its kind of like bashing your head against a brick wall really, you can continue all day but you won't get anywhere and you'll end up with a headache. I still have yet to see anything from Rouser to indicate any understanding or reasoning ability of any of the topics he (in the loosest possible way) "discusses".
Perhaps we should compile a list of questions he has not answered and just post them in reply to his posts :) Wonder where i got that idea from!

He could start with Rolfes question.

Rouser2

29th December 2003, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by BTox

No sir, it is you who has, does and will continue to cop-out. I provided more than enough factual data that the flu vaccine saves thousands of lives annually, just in the U.S., with a maximum cost of 20 lives, the actual cost between 0-5. There are reams of data on the safety and efficacy of all the vaccines you list. You have claimed that modern medicine harms more than it saves. You have not provided one scintilla of evidence to back it up. The onus is on you. We anxiously await...

So I take it, you'd rather blather.

-- Rouser

kookbreaker

29th December 2003, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2

So I take it, you'd rather blather.

-- Rouser

You have a funny definition of 'blather' that seems to mean: "posts evidence that trounces Rouser's silly primitive mindset."

You're not fooling anybody, Rouser. I suspect you can't even fool yourself.

Prester John

29th December 2003, 04:55 PM

posted by Rouser

So I take it, you'd rather blather.

:i:

Eos of the Eons

29th December 2003, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Eos of the Eons [/i]

>>My kids have had them all except BCG, Anthrax and smallpox, and are fine fine fine. Heck, I've had them all, and I'm allergic eggs.

Some people are not so fine. Others are dead. They do not post on this board. They are silent.

-- Rouser

They are not dead. In the last 50 years there have been no deaths whatsoever at all from vaccine reactions.

The few recorded one in a million reactions were allergic and the kids fully recovered. They are silent because there are none.

http://www.geocities.com/healthbase/vaccination.html
http://www.show.scot.nhs.uk/thb/mmr/facts.htm#THE%20FACTS
Vaccines have had a greater impact on protecting children from death and complications from infectious diseases than has any other public health intervention. The public health importance of continuing coverage was demonstrated by the measles epidemic of 1989—1991, a period when coverage levels fell.

http://www.acsh.org/press/releases/vaccines090401.html

Not vaccinating causes death

http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/anti-immune.htm

http://www.meddie.com/search/Health/Child_Health/Immunizations/

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Naturopathy/immu.html

http://www.pathguy.com/antiimmu.htm

BTox

29th December 2003, 08:15 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2

So I take it, you'd rather blather.

-- Rouser

I've got nothing to blather about until I see some factual evidence that one of those vaccines you listed does more harm than good. Still waiting...

Rouser2

30th December 2003, 03:38 AM

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons [/i]

>>In the last 50 years there have been no deaths whatsoever at all from vaccine reactions.

A rather sweeping statement but unsupported by any of the links to pro-vac "sources" which you have spammed herein.

-- Rouser

Prester John

30th December 2003, 06:10 AM

A rather sweeping statement but unsupported by any of the links to pro-vac "sources" which you have spammed herein.

Ho Ho, since it is such a "sweeping statement" made by Eos, then it should be exceedingly easy for you to present a irrefutable demonstration of the (vast) number of deaths that vaccines are responcible for.

No evidence except that in your imagination? thought not !

:tr:

Rouser2

30th December 2003, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by Prester John

Ho Ho, since it is such a "sweeping statement" made by Eos, then it should be exceedingly easy for you to present a irrefutable demonstration of the (vast) number of deaths that vaccines are responcible for.

No evidence except that in your imagination? thought not !

:tr:

Sweeping and imbecilic. Not even die-hard defenders of Modern Medicine (like Btox, for example) would rush to defend such ludicrous nonsense. The documented scores of deaths from the Swine Flu vaccine alone betray the innanity and inherent dishonesty of the poster. But it's not an original tac. You make an outrageously false statement, then post hundreds of thousands of irrelevant words of spam to back it up. But the poster has been called on his tac and exposed. His moral character and journalistic integrity weighed in the balance and found wanting. Next time, no one will even bother reading his spam. Shame on you for being taken in. Next victim.

-- Rouser

Deetee

30th December 2003, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2

You make an outrageously false statement, then post hundreds of thousands of irrelevant words of spam to back it up.
-- Rouser

You posess a lack of insight into your own mentation that is truly refreshing.

Darwin'sGoat

30th December 2003, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Next time, no one will even bother reading his spam.

Why the heck not? I keep finding myself drawn to your drivel.

An Infinite Ocean

30th December 2003, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by Deetee

You posess a lack of insight into your own mentation that is truly refreshing.

Rouser is engaging in what I believe is termed 'projection', by those in psychology circles.

To be honest, I still suspect that he's just trolling. I find it difficult to believe that even the most ardent anti-vaccine nut (however mentally derranged he may be) would genuinely exhibit such rabid stupidity and wrong-brained ignorance as that displayed by our friend Rouser.

BillyJoe

30th December 2003, 08:46 PM

The sad fact is that he is NOT a troll.

Eos of the Eons

31st December 2003, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2

A rather sweeping statement but unsupported by any of the links to pro-vac "sources" which you have spammed herein.

-- Rouser

Unsupported? The fact that noone has died supports the statement.

There are unproven claims in abundance, but no death can be directely and irrefutably linked to a vaccine.

I really like the claims of smallpox vaccine causing smallpox epidemics. I bust a gut every time I hear it.

BillHoyt

31st December 2003, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
I really like the claims of smallpox vaccine causing smallpox epidemics. I bust a gut every time I hear it.
I hear this all the time, and about nearly every vaccine. I agree with you, though, the smallpox one is the funniest. It shows enormous ignorance. If you look carefully, you will see it insinuated as well. They twist the cowpox viral shredding causing others to get cowpox sometimes (True) to make it sound as if it gives the others smallpox. When called on it, the smart ones immediately get all huffy and tell you that isn't what they said. The best way to address this bullsh!t, IMO, is to call on them for clarification.

Eos of the Eons

31st December 2003, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

I hear this all the time, and about nearly every vaccine. I agree with you, though, the smallpox one is the funniest. It shows enormous ignorance. If you look carefully, you will see it insinuated as well. They twist the cowpox viral shredding causing others to get cowpox sometimes (True) to make it sound as if it gives the others smallpox. When called on it, the smart ones immediately get all huffy and tell you that isn't what they said. The best way to address this bullsh!t, IMO, is to call on them for clarification.

And you can hardly call the shedded "vaccinia" a cause of an epidemic.

They say the smallpox vaccine caused outbreaks kill millions. Yah.

Serious reactions are extremely rare. About one in a million children will have a serious allergic reaction, marked by difficulty breathing, hoarseness or wheezing, hives, paleness, weakness, a racing heartbeat, or dizziness. Children have allergic reactions within a few hours of getting the shot if they have them at all. And while more than 70 million doses of the MMR vaccine have been distributed in the United States since 1990, only 11 children have had a severe allergic reaction to it, and all of them recovered.

http://www.babycenter.com/refcap/baby/babywellness/1567.html

Eos of the Eons

31st December 2003, 04:06 PM

http://www.babycenter.com/refcap/baby/babywellness/1567.html [/B]From the new book, Bad Medicine: Misconceptions and Misuses Revealed, from Distance Healing to Vitamin O, by Christopher Wanjek:
“Those who argue against vaccination have, unfortunately, lost the sense of how miserable life was before vaccines – how entire families were wiped out, how a husband and wife had ten children knowing that seven would likely die before reaching adulthood.”
(And that's only one of many quotes related to the topic -- I recommend the book highly.)"
:

Rolfe

31st December 2003, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
How about you citing the exact wording and protocol of the alleged Randi milliion dollar challenge as it pertains to homeopathy? Can't seem to find this anywhere.The most recent version, from the commentary dated 22nd August 2003 (http://www.randi.org/jr/082203.html).It's been tricky working out how to perform this simple inquiry: can the applicant differentiate between homeopathic and non-homeopathic materials? We'll accept positive results and the determination can be done by any means: chemical, physical, optical, biological (in vivo or in vitro), using infrared, ultraviolet, polarized, high-intensity, or pulsed light, conductivity or electrochemical means, Tarot cards, or a crystal ball.I hope that's clear enough. I'm waiting with bated breath to find out how you propose to do it.

Rolfe.

Rouser2

1st January 2004, 03:15 AM

Originally posted by Rolfe [/i]

>>
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rouser2
How about you citing the exact wording and protocol of the alleged Randi milliion dollar challenge as it pertains to homeopathy? Can't seem to find this anywhere.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>The most recent version, from the commentary dated 22nd August 2003.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's been tricky working out how to perform this simple inquiry: can the applicant differentiate between homeopathic and non-homeopathic materials? We'll accept positive results and the determination can be done by any means: chemical, physical, optical, biological (in vivo or in vitro), using infrared, ultraviolet, polarized, high-intensity, or pulsed light, conductivity or electrochemical means, Tarot cards, or a crystal ball.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>I hope that's clear enough. I'm waiting with bated breath to find out how you propose to do it.

Rolfe.

* * *
Comment:

The entire test proposition is based upon an alleged article from the London Guardian (undated and unsourced) which claims a certain website (unnamed and unsourced) claimed that x-rays can alter the effectivness of a homeopathic substance. Since there is no valid claim that one can check by source regarding x-rays and homeopathic remedies nor exactly who authored the original warning regarding x-rays, the entire challenge, is, as I suspected, bogus and disingenuous. A Leaflet from something called Society of Homeopaths is hardly something one can reference in a library or a computer. But the challenge itself is not whether one can tell the difference between a homeopathic remedy and pure water as I believe you originally claimed, but to tell the difference between a homeopathic remedy that has been x-rayed versus one that has not been x-rayed. An absurd challenge. We know, for example, that x-rays effect the human body and lower its resistence to bad stuff like cancer. But who can tell the difference via any kind of test of a person who has had a dental x-ray and one who has not? Thus, the entire Randi homeopathy challenge is bogus and disingenuous, as is your own mis-characterization of it.

-- Rouser

BillHoyt

1st January 2004, 07:17 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Rolfe [/i]

>>
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rouser2
How about you citing the exact wording and protocol of the alleged Randi milliion dollar challenge as it pertains to homeopathy? Can't seem to find this anywhere.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>The most recent version, from the commentary dated 22nd August 2003.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's been tricky working out how to perform this simple inquiry: can the applicant differentiate between homeopathic and non-homeopathic materials? We'll accept positive results and the determination can be done by any means: chemical, physical, optical, biological (in vivo or in vitro), using infrared, ultraviolet, polarized, high-intensity, or pulsed light, conductivity or electrochemical means, Tarot cards, or a crystal ball.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>I hope that's clear enough. I'm waiting with bated breath to find out how you propose to do it.

Rolfe.

* * *
Comment:

The entire test proposition is based upon an alleged article from the London Guardian (undated and unsourced) which claims a certain website (unnamed and unsourced) claimed that x-rays can alter the effectivness of a homeopathic substance. Since there is no valid claim that one can check by source regarding x-rays and homeopathic remedies nor exactly who authored the original warning regarding x-rays, the entire challenge, is, as I suspected, bogus and disingenuous. A Leaflet from something called Society of Homeopaths is hardly something one can reference in a library or a computer. But the challenge itself is not whether one can tell the difference between a homeopathic remedy and pure water as I believe you originally claimed, but to tell the difference between a homeopathic remedy that has been x-rayed versus one that has not been x-rayed. An absurd challenge. We know, for example, that x-rays effect the human body and lower its resistence to bad stuff like cancer. But who can tell the difference via any kind of test of a person who has had a dental x-ray and one who has not? Thus, the entire Randi homeopathy challenge is bogus and disingenuous, as is your own mis-characterization of it.

-- Rouser

:dl: :dl: :dl: :dl:

Rolfe

1st January 2004, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
But the challenge itself is not whether one can tell the difference between a homeopathic remedy and pure water as I believe you originally claimed, but to tell the difference between a homeopathic remedy that has been x-rayed versus one that has not been x-rayed.No, Rouser.

The challenge is to tell the difference between water/alcohol or lactose (the "solvents" used in homoeopathy), and the homoeopathically prepared material. As I said several times. You have said (also several times) that there is something else in addition to water/alcohol or lactose in homoeopathic preparations. I'm still waiting for you to tell us what, never mind how it might be detected.

The reference to the X-rays was just a particular wrinkle on the challenge, brought up in that Commentary, based on the preposterous statement that x-rays can "deactivate" homoeopathic preparations. The homoeopaths are quite keen on these claims, because it sounds impressive, and it also gives them a get-out when the remedies don't work. Doesn't stop them sending the remedies out by post, in a system where packages are liable to security x-rays, though.

The basic challenge is as stated. Differentiate between an ultramolar homoeopathic preparation (of your own choice) and the unmagicked solvent material. Any way you like. If the homoeopathic preparation contains something else apart from the solvent, as you have repeatedly stated, it should be quite easy, no?

Rolfe.

Rouser2

2nd January 2004, 04:24 AM

Originally posted by Rolfe [/i]

>>The basic challenge is as stated. Differentiate between an ultramolar homoeopathic preparation (of your own choice) and the unmagicked solvent material. Any way you like. If the homoeopathic preparation contains something else apart from the solvent, as you have repeatedly stated, it should be quite easy, no?

Rolfe.

Don't need to test anything. It's clear as can be.

Randi: " I propose that a control batch of water (bottles of already-packaged product, exposed to heavy x-rays) be mixed with non-radiated samples, and presented to an applicant, to be sorted out."

Well then, if non-radiated samples are to be mixed with radiated samples then the radiated samples would have more radiation than the non-radiated samples, presumeably detectable with a radiation detection device. And therein is the difference. Randi says any detection device is allowable. I thus propose that the million dollars I am entitled to be donated instead to further the teaching of Logic in all of our alleged schools of science -- and Institutes of Magic.

-- Rouser

Prester John

2nd January 2004, 05:50 AM

Rouser I am in awe of your logic, understanding of Randis' challenge and knowledge of Physics. Truly you are in a league of your own.

Terry

2nd January 2004, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2

Well then, if non-radiated samples are to be mixed with radiated samples then the radiated samples would have more radiation than the non-radiated samples, presumeably detectable with a radiation detection device.

-- Rouser [/B]

Go for it dude! An easy million! (But you actually have to show your method works, not just say what it is.)

On the other hand, you may care to consider that being exposed to x-rays does not cause a substance to become radioactive.

--Terry

kookbreaker

2nd January 2004, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by Terry

On the other hand, you may care to consider that being exposed to x-rays does not cause a substance to become radioactive.

--Terry

Sure it does! Just like being exposed to light makes you lighter!

(Hey, I'm just expanding on Rouser's illogic train).

Rouser2

2nd January 2004, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by Terry [/i]

>>Go for it dude! An easy million! (But you actually have to show your method works, not just say what it is.)

When you come down to it, Randi doesn't know what his method is either. There is no published protocol -- only a single knee-jerk remark which makes no sense.

>>On the other hand, you may care to consider that being exposed to x-rays does not cause a substance to become radioactive.

Hardly. But I would consider that there is no end to the nitwittery expressed by the parade of pseudo-intellectuals on this board.

-- Rouser

Eos of the Eons

2nd January 2004, 06:38 PM

:D

No proofs, just grudgery, ha ha.

BTox

2nd January 2004, 09:18 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Hardly. But I would consider that there is no end to the nitwittery expressed by the parade of pseudo-intellectuals on this board.

-- Rouser

Case in point:

Don't need to test anything. It's clear as can be.

Randi: " I propose that a control batch of water (bottles of already-packaged product, exposed to heavy x-rays) be mixed with non-radiated samples, and presented to an applicant, to be sorted out."

Well then, if non-radiated samples are to be mixed with radiated samples then the radiated samples would have more radiation than the non-radiated samples, presumeably detectable with a radiation detection device. And therein is the difference. Randi says any detection device is allowable. I thus propose that the million dollars I am entitled to be donated instead to further the teaching of Logic in all of our alleged schools of science -- and Institutes of Magic.

-- Rouser

Prester John

3rd January 2004, 02:37 AM

I take it science was never your strong point Rouser!

Rolfe

3rd January 2004, 03:53 PM

I think Rouser neither knows nor cares what the actual terms of the Challenge are. Indeed, this only came up because he persisted in insisting that there was something else in ultramolar homoeopathic preparations besides water/alcohol or lactose. I then remarked that in that case he'd have no trouble getting the million dollars, obviously.

Yes, the Challenge is to distinguish a homoeopathic preparation (of the applicant's choice, so long as it is an ultramolar potency) from the basic material(s) of the solvent, without the homoeopathic voodoo steps. Any way you like. I have had email confirmation of this from Linda some time ago, as I checked with her specially before spelling it out to a homoeopathic colleague (who doesn't seem to want the money, for some unfathomable reason).

Never mind, let's put the Challenge aside for the moment.

Rouser has clearly stated in this and at least one other thread that homoeopathic preparations are not "content-free", and contain something more than the basic solvents. His grounds for this belief seem rather tenuous - a short dictionary definition of homoeopathy as a method involving "very dilute" preparations containing "infinitesimal" amounts of the active substance, and the use of the word "mixture" in the newspaper report which started this thread. However, repeated explanations of the methods used by the homoeopaths to prepare the remedies, and the consequences of Avogadro's number, doesn't seem to have convinced him that he's mistaken.

So, can we rewind? Rouser, what is in these ultramolar homoeopathic preparations other than water/alcohol or lactose?

Simple question, asked about a dozen times now. A simple answer would be nice.

Rolfe.

Rolfe

5th January 2004, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by Rolfe
Rouser, what is in these ultramolar homoeopathic preparations other than water/alcohol or lactose?Bump.

Rolfe.

Prester John

6th January 2004, 01:33 AM

*Tumble weed rolls across thread*
*forlorn wind blows*

Rouser2

6th January 2004, 04:28 AM

Originally posted by Rolfe [/i]

>>...Avogadro's number, doesn't seem to have convinced him that he's mistaken.

>>So, can we rewind? Rouser, what is in these ultramolar homoeopathic preparations other than water/alcohol or lactose?

There is nothing whatsoever in the off-cuff Randi homeopathic "challenge" as you have referenced that has any mention whatsoever of "ultramolar" preparations, nor of "Avogadro's number".

-- Rouser

Prester John

6th January 2004, 04:42 AM

A straight question Rolfe, does not result in a straight answer from Rouser!

Go on Rouser answer the question, don't just sidestep it!

Also explain to me about the Xray thing.

Rolfe

6th January 2004, 05:53 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
There is nothing whatsoever in the off-cuff Randi homeopathic "challenge" as you have referenced that has any mention whatsoever of "ultramolar" preparations, nor of "Avogadro's number".Never mind the JREF Challenge. This goes back to the first page of this thread, when Rouser said:Nor is your presumption that the homeopathic substance was merely "water" jibe with the story which calls it a "mixture".In fact, it goes even further back, to a thread Rouser started (inexplicably) in the Politics forum - Flu Vaccine Panic A Medical Poseidon Adventure? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=32172&perpage=30&pagenumber=9)Homeopathic remedies "content-free"?? I don't think so.andI don't think by "medicinal subtances' they are referring to water.We simply want to know what you think is in these preparations apart from the basic solvent (water, water/alcohol or lactose).

With all respect to Prester John, can we leave "the x-ray thing" till he's answered this?

Rolfe.

Prester John

6th January 2004, 07:22 AM

With all respect to Prester John, can we leave "the x-ray thing" till he's answered this?

Sure. :D

Rouser2

6th January 2004, 03:52 PM

]Originally posted by Rolfe [/i]

>>Never mind the JREF Challenge. This goes back to the first page of this thread, when Rouser said:In fact, it goes even further back, to a thread Rouser started (inexplicably) in the Politics forum - Flu Vaccine Panic A Medical Poseidon Adventure? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=32172&perpage=30&pagenumber=9)andWe simply want to know what you think is in these preparations apart from the basic solvent (water, water/alcohol or lactose).

>>With all respect to Prester John, can we leave "the x-ray thing" till he's answered this?

Rolfe.

Comment:

Never mind the JREF Challenge? Good idea. Because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the other question(s). You ask, what do I think are in these preparations?? What a silly, sophomoric question. It all depends on which one your are referring to. If you claim they all contain nothing but water or solvent. I have a feeling you may be slightly off base.

-- Rouser

Zombified

6th January 2004, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
It all depends on which one your are referring to.
Rouser, would you be so kind as to choose one as an example and just explain what's in that one? Thanks.

Rouser2

7th January 2004, 04:29 AM

Originally posted by Zombified

Rouser, would you be so kind as to choose one as an example and just explain what's in that one? Thanks.

Sure. Dilute homeopathic oral DPT vaccine. Active ingredient? the DPT vaccine (administered to counter the adverse effects of injected DPT vaccine).

You're welcome.

-- Rouser

MRC_Hans

7th January 2004, 05:29 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2

Sure. Dilute homeopathic oral DPT vaccine. Active ingredient? the DPT vaccine (administered to counter the adverse effects of injected DPT vaccine).

You're welcome.

-- Rouser And how would you propose to provide evidence of this content? (Assuming potency > 12C)

Hans

Rolfe

7th January 2004, 10:22 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Sure. Dilute homeopathic oral DPT vaccine. Active ingredient? the DPT vaccine.That's an unusual choice. I'm tempted to ask where I can find the proving results for this preparation, and what is it about these results that suggests it as a suitable simillillillimium for these hypothetical adverse reactions.

However, I won't. I'll just ask you what "potency" you're talking about, and remark pre-emptively (with MRC_Hans) that if this is greater than 12C or 24X there is no DPT vaccine in the preparation.

Note - 200C seems to be a popular potency for this type of preparation. Read all about it. (http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/homeopathy2.htm)

Rolfe.

Edited to add: The reason I think this choice is odd is that it seems to be the sort of thing homoeopaths disown as "not homoeopathy" - especially when it doesn't work.The use of potentised disease products for the treatment or prevention of a named disease is correctly termed "isopathy" (from the Greek iso meaning "the same as") and while often considered to be part of the system of homoeopathy, it is, strictly speaking, a separate discipline. The correct term for a potentised medicine made from disease products or the causal agents of infectious disease is a "nosode".Source is here (http://vetlab.co.uk/voodoo/vettimes.html#gregory2).

While I suppose this stuff will do as well as any other to illustrate why Rouser is wrong when he states that there is DPT vaccine in the preparation in question (assuming an ultramolar potency, as I explicitly specified about the first ten times I put the question), it would still be interesting to consider one of the real homoeopathy stalwarts like belladonna.

Rouser2

7th January 2004, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
And how would you propose to provide evidence of this content? (Assuming potency > 12C)

Hans

I don't. The question posed was to merely provide an example of a homeopathic mixture. That I have provided.

-- Rouser

Darwin'sGoat

7th January 2004, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
I don't. The question posed was to merely provide an example of a homeopathic mixture. That I have provided.

Wow. A stunning response. Does this mean that you've given up?

Rouser2

7th January 2004, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by Rolfe [/i]

>>That's an unusual choice. I'm tempted to ask where I can find the proving results for this preparation, and what is it about these results that suggests it as a suitable simillillillimium for these hypothetical adverse reactions.

That's off point. The request was merely to cite a homoepathic mixture. That I did.

>>However, I won't. I'll just ask you what "potency" you're talking about, and remark pre-emptively (with MRC_Hans) that if this is greater than 12C or 24X there is no DPT vaccine in the preparation.

I have no clue as to potency and neither do you. I merely accept as a hypothetical given as to what the mixture consists of.

>> The reason I think this choice is odd is that it seems to be the sort of thing homoeopaths disown as "not homoeopathy" - especially when it doesn't work.

That's all your spin. A homeopath can call any diluted mixture homeopathic if he wants to. Seems to me it certainly satisfies the dictionary definition of the word.

-- Rouser

Zombified

7th January 2004, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
That's off point. The request was merely to cite a homoepathic mixture. That I did.Thanks. What dilution do you think this preparation has? Assuming a dilution more than 24x, in what sense does the preparation 'contain' any of the vaccine?

Rouser2

7th January 2004, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by Darwin'sGoat

Wow. A stunning response. Does this mean that you've given up?

Given up? On what? Beats me. The challenger suggested there was nothing in a homeopathic mixture but solvent. That would seem to be patent nonsense.

-- Rouser

Prester John

7th January 2004, 02:28 PM

The challenger suggested there was nothing in a homeopathic mixture but solvent. That would seem to be patent nonsense.

(Sorry Rolfe to get here first.)

So Rouser what is avogadro's number ?

What is in a homeopathic preperation, of greater than 12C or 24X, of say DPT vaccine eh?

(Mental Note :Question well enoughed defined now, expect no direct answer from Rouser!)

Rolfe

7th January 2004, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
The request was merely to cite a homoepathic mixture. That I did.No. The request, as it appeared for the first time on the first page of this thread, was:Rouser, what do you actually think is in homoeopathic preparations? I mean the "high potency" ones the professionals use, rather than the "low potency" OTC preparations.Note that second sentence (post is here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32336#post1870240003)).

Nobody is disputing that the "low potency" preparations have some molecules of "remedy" in them. That's why the request was worded as it was, both the first time and on SIX more occasions I posed it on this thread (plus a couple of times on Rouser's vaccine thread in the Politics forum, just for good measure). Each time the question was either ignored or side-stepped. I therefore decided to see what would happen if I left out the "ultramolar" part.

Aha, a bite!I have no clue as to potency and neither do you.Rouser may have no clue as to potency, as he seems to have no clue about homoeopathy in general. However, potency is all-important. Professional homoeopaths seldom use anything below 12C or 24X, indeed 30C seems to be especially popular. This is the type of preparation that is being criticised as being "content-free", and it is what this discussion has been about from the first.

So, let's go again.Rouser, what do you think is in a "high potency" (ultramolar) homoeopathic remedy apart from water/alcohol or lactose?This quote is from the second time the question was put, I see on 20th December.

To smooth things along a bit, I'll quote from a post of mine (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32172&perpage=30&pagenumber=9#post1870239998) in the earlier "Poseidon adventure" thread...Let's go back to Avogadro's number again. Remember Avogadro's number? 6.02214 x 1023. It's the number of molecules in a gramme of substance. Matter is not infinitely divisible. So if you keep on diluting and diluting, eventually you run out of molecules. Homoeopaths go on diluting way beyond that, and then some. Explained here (http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/homeopathy2.htm).

Because of this simple fact of chemistry, the chances of a dose of one of the "ultramolar" potencies having even a single molecule in it are something so spectacularly low that even Camelot couldn't sell lottery tickets for it.So, now we've put the question back in its original form, can we have an answer?

Rolfe.

Rolfe

7th January 2004, 05:10 PM

Two points.

1. I've noticed an error in that previous post. Avogadro's number is the number of molecules in a gramme of hydrogen (molecular weight 1 dalton). Or the number of molecules in (1 x molecular weight) of anything else. Doesn't change the point, but let's be accurate here.

2. It occurs to me that Rouser might have achieved a significant feat here - arguably, he has successfully declared that black is white, or at least a fair equivalent.

He has tried to define homoeopathy as anything at all which is diluted.A homeopath can call any diluted mixture homeopathic if he wants to.This includes practically every medicine I can think of off-hand. Everything has some sort of carrier substance incorporated in the presentation, either a bulking agent for pills or a solvent for liquid medicine. Thus Rouser has redefined all conventional medicine as "homoeopathy".

Yet at the same time he is resolutely ignoring ultramolar preparations, insisting on only discussing the "weak" potencies which actually contain some residual molecules. By doing this he excludes the overwhelming majority of the preparations actually used by professional homoeopaths.

So, conventional medicine is homoeopathy, and homoeopathy isn't.

Original, I'll give him that. :nope:

Rolfe.

Eos of the Eons

7th January 2004, 06:55 PM

THis site is as ridiculous as rouser

http://www.salugenecists.com/

Medscape article on naturopathy

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/465994_1

This all is gonna give me nightmares.

BTox

7th January 2004, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by Rolfe
Two points.

1. I've noticed an error in that previous post. Avogadro's number is the number of molecules in a gramme of hydrogen (molecular weight 1 dalton). Or the number of molecules in (1 x molecular weight) of anything else. Doesn't change the point, but let's be accurate here.

A simpler definition is the # of atoms or molecules per mole.

Originally posted by Rolfe
2. It occurs to me that Rouser might have achieved a significant feat here - arguably, he has successfully declared that black is white, or at least a fair equivalent.

He's quite good at that, isn't he? Yet when called on it, he refuses to offer any evidence and attempts to get you to prove him wrong!

Originally posted by Rolfe
He has tried to define homoeopathy as anything at all which is diluted.This includes practically every medicine I can think of off-hand. Everything has some sort of carrier substance incorporated in the presentation, either a bulking agent for pills or a solvent for liquid medicine. Thus Rouser has redefined all conventional medicine as "homoeopathy".

Yet at the same time he is resolutely ignoring ultramolar preparations, insisting on only discussing the "weak" potencies which actually contain some residual molecules. By doing this he excludes the overwhelming majority of the preparations actually used by professional homoeopaths.

So, conventional medicine is homoeopathy, and homoeopathy isn't.

Original, I'll give him that. :nope:

Rolfe.

Rouser knows as much about homeopathy as he knows about conventional medicine, which is nothing. As you point out, the vast majority of homeopathic "remedies" used are 12C or higher, all of which are above the dilution that would allow even a single molecule of starting material to be retained. He is the definition of clueless!