How even a woo says wooism works...

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Hi folks, it's that evil allopathic vet back again.

New series on BBC Radio 4. Worth a listen via internet link here;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/other_medicine.shtml

My favourite quote from a practising woo...

"CAM has something to offer them and when they receive CAM, even though it may be directed, acupuncture may be directed at a painful knee or a painful hip, and their pain doesn't seem to improve they still want to go on having acupuncture because it
somehow improves their general wellbeing, it makes their problem easy to bear, it's something they will even pay for, although when we actually measure out CAM in terms of pain it doesn't necessarily seem to be helping their pain. So there's
something there, it's about their quality of life, their feeling of wellbeing, perhaps a sense of coherence but the behaviour is very clear - people will go on having CAM and seek CAM but off their own volition, without any coercion because it offers them
something that conventional medicine doesn't."

Rolfe's suggestion was that beyond placebo effect we must allow for the 'sheer embarrassment' factor- the punter has paid money for it and is just too ashamed to admit the truth to themselves.

[Benguin]

Hi there hairy one! welcome back.

There's also the 'counselling competent' of an acupuncturist spending time showing 'concern' and providing 'care'. If you want to feel somebody being sympathetic for a while they've got that on offer. GPs and specialists don't have the time (or sometimes the skill).

[Eos of the Eons]

http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3208423,00.html

sCAM kills again. How do they defend themselves? The parents of a 17 year old girl died while being treated by the guy in the link, and they defend her killer.

Yep, too arrogant to admit they were wrong. I guess they would feel too much guilt if they admit they put her in danger.

I guess this feeling of "well being" could also be called delusion.

[Rolfe]

I think there's a lot in the point about spending time with the patient. When someone has an illness that isn't going to go away with a couple of aspirins and a day in bed, they want to feel they're doing something. Their doctor will give them ten minutes and then maybe suggest they come back in a couple of weeks. The patient wants to do more.

Just having appointments and the feeling that somebody is on their side and actively working with them against the illness can feel good enough that people are prepared to pay for it. Especially if the alternative is sitting at home watching daytime TV and feeling helpless.

Rolfe.

[Sarah-I]

It is a real shame that what you don't seem to point out by linking to this article is that practitioners in the UK anyway are fully trained and belong to professional bodies. We all carry indemnity insurance too.

Also, no practitioner in their right mind and who is properly trained would ever claim to be able to cure cancer either.

Shame you did not bother to state this rather than scaremongering beforehand!!!

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
It is a real shame that what you don't seem to point out by linking to this article is that practitioners in the UK anyway are fully trained and belong to professional bodies. We all carry indemnity insurance too.

Also, no practitioner in their right mind and who is properly trained would ever claim to be able to cure cancer either.

Shame you did not bother to state this rather than scaremongering beforehand!!!

Yay. You carry indemnity insurance. Big freakin' deal. I have health insurance, car insurance, renter's insurance, life insurance, disability insurance. You carry indemnity insurance because you have to.

No practioner in their right mind and who is properly trained would ever claim to have delusions of adequacy and attempt something on another human being when the patient needs to see someone else.

Shame you did not bother to remember this rather than instinctively insulting someone beforehand!!!

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
practitioners in the UK anyway are fully trained and belong to professional bodies. We all carry indemnity insurance too.Really? Please point out the legislation requiring anyone who practises homoeopathy, or acupuncture, or herbalism, or anything you like to have any specific qualifications and to carry indemnity insurance.

And what's with the "we"? You were a student, last time we spoke.

Rolfe.

[Eos of the Eons]

:D Scaremongering again, yep, that's me, the JREF scaremonger.

Sad thing is, the facts speak for themselves. sCAM uses untested and unproven methods of treatment. They scare people away from doctors (hypocrite), and DO use people as guinea pigs in their experimental, hypothesis based wooism. They do everything that they accuse doctors of doing. They must be looking in the mirror when coming up with their own scaremongering.

They have one thing going for them, time to spend wooing customers. I'll take the few minutes for actual treatment over spending an hour with a sCAM practitioner.

One option would be some therapy for people facing longer term illness. Good therapy, with a qualified person to listen and offer advice that would be beneficial to the person's well being.

Our doctors not only work full time, but are required to take shifts for on-call and walk-in clinics. They work hard, and it's not their choice to just spend a few moments with people while facing a whole waiting room of patients that wait up to an hour to see their doctor. Or you can make an appointment and wait a whole month in order not to wait in a waiting for an hour. I've been waiting since January to see a doctor that I had to make an appt. for in Oct. at that time. I got bumped to September. It's not the doctors that prefer to just spend a few minutes, but a system that needs revamping. We need more doctors, not more sCAM.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Really? Please point out the legislation requiring anyone who practises homoeopathy, or acupuncture, or herbalism, or anything you like to have any specific qualifications and to carry indemnity insurance.

And what's with the "we"? You were a student, last time we spoke.

Rolfe.

Well they'd have to carry insurance because sooner or later someone is gonna sue their @ss for being incompetent, even life-threatening boobs. It's why they all need it.

Hey, I'm a licensed minister. Unlike farce remedies, my position hurts no one, and has even helped them a time or two. Ad, I got it for free, without having to enroll and pay useless fees to blow hards needing money and unable to get a real job.

[TeaBag420]

Originally posted by Suezoled
Well they'd have to carry insurance because sooner or later someone is gonna sue their @ss for being incompetent, even life-threatening boobs. It's why they all need it.

Hey, I'm a licensed minister. Unlike farce remedies, my position hurts no one, and has even helped them a time or two. Ad, I got it for free, without having to enroll and pay useless fees to blow hards needing money and unable to get a real job.

Well, you got what you paid for, Johnnie Universal Life Church.

Collecting useless fees IS a real job.

[Kiwi Kid]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3208423,00.html

sCAM kills again. How do they defend themselves? The parents of a 17 year old girl died while being treated by the guy in the link, and they defend her killer.

Yep, too arrogant to admit they were wrong. I guess they would feel too much guilt if they admit they put her in danger.

I guess this feeling of "well being" could also be called delusion. That poor young bastard Sean.
if he's been doing such a poor job and injuring people, we would have known about him a long time ago.Turns out he was doing a poor job. Not only that, he was fraudulently claiming "qualifications" he hadn't gained. What makes me incredulous is that instead of vilifying O'Connel, his association is raising a fund to defend him!

The Flanagans blame O'Connell's treatments for hastening their son's death. They now are fighting for state licensing of naturopaths to ensure they are properly trained.This is something I totally disagree with. Licensing gives official legitimacy to something that hasn't shown it deserves it. Also, if you properly train someone in naturopathy then all you get is someone who is better at doing unproven therapies. What's the frigging point?
"I don't believe she had a heart attack," Bresina said. "She had an allergic reaction to a B12 shot."Yeah? And who gave that shot?
But other patients don't share her view.

Donna Taylor took her 88- year-old mother to O'Connell for treatment of skin cancer on her nose.Actually, it was the patient's daughter's husband who saved the 88 year-old from the quack remedy. He probably despairs at his wife's habit of consulting sCAM artists.

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
It is a real shame that what you don't seem to point out by linking to this article is that practitioners in the UK anyway are fully trained and belong to professional bodies. We all carry indemnity insurance too.

Also, no practitioner in their right mind and who is properly trained would ever claim to be able to cure cancer either.

Shame you did not bother to state this rather than scaremongering beforehand!!!

Eos is north american and would not be aware of the differences between UK sCAMmers and the trans-atlantic variety. My entirely unscientific prejudice is that they are a bit worse over there.

Why do they not claim to be able to cure cancer? because they no they cannot? or because they know such a claim would be illegal? Do they accept it is a limitation of their treatment? Prove that they would still hold back from the claim if the law wasn't in place.

I have to carry indemnity insurance to tinker with peoples computer programs and when I do paid photographic work. It makes sense, as I could cause expensive problems way beyond what I can afford to sort out. It is no indication of my ability in either, and is sometimes a requirement.

The professional bodies you refer to also indicate nothing other than the ability to pay a subscription. Their entrance requirements are subject to no scrutiny either in efficacy or enforcement. With the exception of chiropractic and, to a lesser extent, acupuncture.

[Sarah-I]

Benguin,

To register with the Society of Homeopaths consists of a lot more than paying a subscription fee. Firstly, you must train at an establishment approved by them and this means training for three years full time and four years part time. Qualifications must then be verified and practitioners must also have site visits to their place of work ensure that it is suitable. You must also submit at least 10 cases before you can become a full member that is an RSHom.

I think that this is a lot more than just paying a subscription fee don't you?

Conventional medicine does claim to be able to cure cancer either and should not do so, so we should not be any different in this respect.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
To register with the Society of Homeopaths consists of a lot more than paying a subscription fee. Firstly, you must train at an establishment approved by them and this means training for three years full time and four years part time. Qualifications must then be verified and practitioners must also have site visits to their place of work ensure that it is suitable. You must also submit at least 10 cases before you can become a full member that is an RSHom.So what? Since there's no legislation to prevent anyone at all from practising as a homoeopath. You could be drummed out of the Society for gross malpractice (assuming they'd ever do that) and just go on practising without interruption. You could have an unrecognised qualification from Bongo-Bongo Land or just bought on the Internet and just put up your plate and start seeing patients.

Or you could just put up your plate regardless and design some pretty "diplomas" on your word processor to decorate your walls and impress your hapless patients.

So all your protestations implying that practitioners have to meet certain standards are entirely untrue. Not only that, the homoeopaths themselves declined to be involved in a current initiative that could have restricted the term "homoeopath" to people who did have certain qualifications.

Stop pretending to be what you're not.

Rolfe.

[Benguin]

As rolfe said. Adding my pontifcation.

Three stages to be recognised as 'professional';

1. Unambiguously and unequivicoally defining entrance requirements according to academic and vocational criteria.

2. Obtaining the legal mandate to enforce the use of the descriptive term as required.

3. Code of ethics and professional review to kick out the miscreants.

I was an engineer. The reason engineers have no recognition and it's a rubbish profession to enter is they never sorted out (2) in the UK.

Much respect to the vets and the others for holding on to professional Kudos.

As and when the Homeopaths prove they've something to offer, etc.

[Zombified]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
Conventional medicine does claim to be able to cure cancer either and should not do so, so we should not be any different in this respect.
Did you mean to say "does not" above?

Do homeopaths claim to be able to extend the life expectancy of cancer patients of any particular cancer?

Do your certification requirements include training on when to refer patients to doctors?

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Zombified
Do your certification requirements include training on when to refer patients to doctors? Please follow the link in my sig line for the best information I can come up with on that one.

Rolfe.

[Benguin]

I think the very idea that this is of any use (http://www.helios.co.uk/cgi-bin/store.cgi?action=link&sku=AECD) tells us quite a lot about the dangers of listening to these people.

I wonder what happen to a paramedic who tried to use this stuff on a casualty? I would hope that St John's/Red Cross would take my certifcate away if they ever found out I'd tried to 'complement' first aid with this sort of thing.

[anonimouse]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
To register with the Society of Homeopaths consists of a lot more than paying a subscription fee. Firstly, you must train at an establishment approved by them and this means training for three years full time and four years part time. Qualifications must then be verified and practitioners must also have site visits to their place of work ensure that it is suitable. You must also submit at least 10 cases before you can become a full member that is an RSHom.

And what is the punishment if one practices homeopathy without a license? You know, doctors who practice medicine without a license go to jail. Do homeopaths?

Didn't think so.

[B]Conventional medicine does claim to be able to cure cancer either and should not do so, so we should not be any different in this respect. [B]

An irrelevant moral equivalence argument at best. Your best defense can't be "well, doctors do it, too". That's the intellectual equivalent to "he hit me first".

FTR, conventional medicine actually affects real progress in slowing or reversing cancer and extending survival time. Is there one worthwhile study that shows homeopathy does the same?

[Sarah-I]

The Society of Homeopaths has a code of ethics. You can e-mail them and obtain of copy if you wish.

Yes, homeopathy courses include modules on anatomy, biochemistry, physiology, integrated physiology, pathology and differential diagnosis. This is pretty full training and any practitioner should know when to refer on and when their treatment was not appropriate.

Conventional medicine DOES NOT claim to be able to cure cancer quite rightly and we don't either. In a case of cancer homeopathic remedies could work very well for pain control and making the patient a lot more comfortable. Very useful for palliative care.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
In a case of cancer homeopathic remedies could work very well for pain control and making the patient a lot more comfortable. Very useful for palliative care. Proof?

Unsupported assertions while still not being able to figure out any way at all to tell a homoeopathic remedy from the stock solvent really don't count for very much.

And to roll back a bit, what use is any instruction about diagnosis to a homoeopath, when Hahnemann himself said that it was useless and counterproductive to try to reach a diagnosis, and everything should be deduced from the symptom-taking alone?

And what use is a code of ethics when there's no sanction available against anyone who breaks it?

Rolfe.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
The Society of Homeopaths has a code of ethics. You can e-mail them and obtain of copy if you wish.

Yes, homeopathy courses include modules on anatomy, biochemistry, physiology, integrated physiology, pathology and differential diagnosis. This is pretty full training and any practitioner should know when to refer on and when their treatment was not appropriate.

Conventional medicine DOES NOT claim to be able to cure cancer quite rightly and we don't either. In a case of cancer homeopathic remedies could work very well for pain control and making the patient a lot more comfortable. Very useful for palliative care.

I'm with Rolfe, still, on questioning why you bother with "diagnosis". Stick to your paradigm at least and don't play at being real doctors.

Do the pathology lectures explain how a calcium plaque in an artery detaches and causes strokes?

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
The Society of Homeopaths has a code of ethics. You can e-mail them and obtain of copy if you wish.

Oh, the irony.

I could get it myself from their website. All together now (http://www.homeopathy-soh.com/resources/site_www.homeopathy-soh.com_5/publications/codeofethic_FusePub_v1_P269.pdf).

It seems your code of ethics details how you can be expelled for misconduct (page 10). All looks good, and I withdraw some of my earlier criticism.

If Rolfe or BSM makes a mistake they can be kicked out of Vetting and never allowed near animals again. Same with regular medics, dentists, pharmacists and even first aiders. They can also be sued.

Now, how come where we've had practitioners like this one (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2666411.stm) doing the wrong thing, their future ability to practise can be suspended or removed .... yet for a homeopath, the worst that can happen is they get chucked out of their club. They can join another one, or not bother. What no-one can do is stop them being a homeopath.

I actually don't think the professional conduct route is massively significant in your societies ... the fundamental problem is a constant refusal to accept the homeopathy may not have helped and homeopathic advice may have been harmful. Any professional will always confess mistakes can happen, perople can be negligent etc, and that is what this codes are for and why they get enforced. Homeopathic logic involves sitting around dreaming up ways of taking the credit for any improvement and shifting the blame for deterioration.

In terms of letting them in, how can you possibly assess whether a homeopath can mix the remedy correctly? If you can't all you are doing is giving them a pretty piece of card for getting the pantomime actions right. How would you ever discover if you've got homeopaths out there who are not quite doing it right? How would identify them and have the re-trained or removed? How is it possible that 100% of homeopaths have qualified and mastered these techniques with no exceptions?

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by TeaBag420
Well, you got what you paid for, Johnnie Universal Life Church.

Collecting useless fees IS a real job.

Hey, I'm doing gay civil services too.

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
[QUOTE]
Conventional medicine does claim to be able to cure cancer either and should not do so, so we should not be any different in this respect.

Actually, it seems you are not allowed to make a claim to be able to cure anything (unless it hasn't been named .. ?!?!).

Page 9, section 72
To avoid making claims (whether explicit, implied; orally or in writing) implying cure of any named disease.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
The Society of Homeopaths has a code of ethics. You can e-mail them and obtain of copy if you wish.

Yes, homeopathy courses include modules on anatomy, biochemistry, physiology, integrated physiology, pathology and differential diagnosis. This is pretty full training and any practitioner should know when to refer on and when their treatment was not appropriate.

Conventional medicine DOES NOT claim to be able to cure cancer quite rightly and we don't either. In a case of cancer homeopathic remedies could work very well for pain control and making the patient a lot more comfortable. Very useful for palliative care.

Well that's what you say this week.

Although I'm interested in this "code of ethics" as well, as I've seen and dealt with many homeopaths who don't even know when not to start, much less when to stop.

Paying someone for a glass of water, a sugar pill, some little ritual to the spirits; it's all faith based treatments. At least Christian Science can deal with illnesses that don't exist; human and animals are asked to treat their illnesses with medicine that doesn't exist.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Benguin
Actually, it seems you are not allowed to make a claim to be able to cure anything (unless it hasn't been named .. ?!?!).

Page 9, section 72
To avoid making claims (whether explicit, implied; orally or in writing) implying cure of any named disease. S'true, if you read the stuff on the homoeopathy forums, they just go on and on about achieving a deep and lasting and permanent cure, but they don't always say of what.

Except that sometimes they do.

In fact, I thought that was the whole point. Allopathy just suppresses disease, later to come out as cancer or something, but homoeopathy provides a deep and lasting cure. So they all say from Hanhnemann down.

Any more of Hahnemann's most essential tenets getting chucked out? Or do they still tell you all disease is really suppressed itch?

Rolfe.

[Benguin]

We never got the remedy mixing conundrum resolved. I'm going to pompously assert WooWooWim realised he was intellectually outgunned and ran off crying "I don't talk to Randilanders".

What was sad was how a number of real Homeos wanted to see answers to the questions I posed, whilst being hurt that someone from outside the cult should be so impertinent as to pose them.

They really don't stand a chance if they can't even be candid with each other.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I notice that Sarah has run away from the question of the underlying pathology of strokes. Whichever doorknob she's getting education from, they aren't teaching her pathology very well!

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Benguin
Eos is north american and would not be aware of the differences between UK sCAMmers and the trans-atlantic variety. My entirely unscientific prejudice is that they are a bit worse over there.

(snipped)


Actually, Eos is Canadian.

[Chris Haynes]

Canada is also in North America... some folks like to distinguish us from the Europeans and lump us together just by calling us North Americans (of course, that also includes Mexico). Something you learn when you hang out with a bunch of Canadians (like all my in-laws... oops, except for the Dutch in-laws).

I would also like to comment that Sarah never answered my question about how well Hahnemann treated syphilis... since he discovered a "miasm" called "syphilis". Let's see where was that... oh here it is:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870591349#post1870591349 (I noticed this was a thread killer, oh well).

[Eos of the Eons]

Ohhh, Caaanaaadaaa...

Yes, we have our political parties that support sCAM (the official opposition has chiros that are elected to office). I just saw a chiro ad on the TV of all places, ech. We have big time sCAM activity that goes completely unopposed and unregulated. As long as your product doesn't have official claims on the packaging, then you can sell whatever you want as a "food supplement", and ANYBODY can be a homeo or naturopath.

Some Canadians are whining, enough to get a law passed stipulating that chiros can't give advice on vaccines. That was awesome when that law was passed, but try getting it enforced.

http://www.chirowatch.com/

It doesn't matter what chiropractic regulators say or do about anti-vaccine chiros. Their hands-off policy when it comes to dealing with their own licensed health care professionals who defy their policies and codes of ethics has once again resulted in more letters to the editor, more flyers, more signs in their waiting rooms about the bad effects of vaccines. In Ontario, a chiropractor who happens to be on the executive council of the CCO claims to be a pediatric specialist and circulates anti-vaccine junk at health shows. Even that is against their regulations. But, no one cares, do they?
http://www.chirowatch.com/Chiro-anti-vax/index.html
Anti-vaccine crap gets them business. They don't care if it's true or not.

Then get all the naturopaths pushing the same material to get business, and it's a free for all here.

I can't go to work without seeing 5 or more businesses that are completely woo. We have rejuvaslim, chiros, herbal magic, hypnotists offering you weight loss and stop-smoking sessions, massage therapists offering detox and crystal therapy, etc. All on my 10 minute drive to work. Drives me nuts. Our city has more chiros than doctors, and more herbal stores than drug stores.

Argh.

[RSLancastr]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
This is pretty full training and any practitioner should know when to refer on and when their treatment was not appropriate.Evidently not, or they would never treat anyone.

[Prester John]

*Polishes his Homeopathic practitioner plaque*



It is a real shame that what you don't seem to point out by linking to this article is that practitioners in the UK anyway are fully trained and belong to professional bodies. We all carry indemnity insurance too.


My insuranse seems to have lapsed, and quite frankly i make it up as i go along and am only in it for the money (and the cute girls ). So stuff the Society of Homeopaths coz there is f all they can do about me, or me calling myself a homeopath, setting up a shop and conning people. (Not that they seem to have objection to conning people).

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Prester John
(and the cute girls )

Tell me more ... I'm due a change of profession soon anyway.

[Sarah-I]

No homeopath becomes a practitioner for the money. Fees are extremely reasonable.

There are lots of doctors that are just in it for the money and especially when the time comes for them to take up consultancy posts and then go into private practice where they just rake it in.

Yes, Hahnemann treated many cases of Syphillis very successfully with homeopathic remedies and the effects of the Syphilitic miasm too.

You might find it helpful to read the book entitled Notes on The Miasms by Dr Proceso S Ortega. This should explain everything very clearly to you.

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
No homeopath becomes a practitioner for the money.



Evidence?


Fees are extremely reasonable.


Compared to what? Given all you'll get is some homilies and a sugar pill I contend it's a mighty rip off.


There are lots of doctors that are just in it for the money and especially when the time comes for them to take up consultancy posts and then go into private practice where they just rake it in.

Raking it in and just being in it for the money are very different. I deal with professionals all the time who are hard-nosed and motivated on money. That doesn't stop them being excellent, or indicate anything about their skill, dedication or commitment.


Yes, Hahnemann treated many cases of Syphillis very successfully with homeopathic remedies and the effects of the Syphilitic miasm too.

Evidence? Independent, I mean.

You might find it helpful to read the book entitled Notes on The Miasms by Dr Proceso S Ortega. This should explain everything very clearly to you.

Amazon don't carry that ... where would one find it?

I hope he really is a doctor and not just claiming to be ... that would be breaking the rules.

[geni]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
No homeopath becomes a practitioner for the money. Fees are extremely reasonable.

Over $200 an hour? I've met lawers who don't earn that


There are lots of doctors that are just in it for the money and especially when the time comes for them to take up consultancy posts and then go into private practice where they just rake it in.


Irellivant ad hom


Yes, Hahnemann treated many cases of Syphillis very successfully with homeopathic remedies and the effects of the Syphilitic miasm too.

Prove it


You might find it helpful to read the book entitled Notes on The Miasms by Dr Proceso S Ortega. This should explain everything very clearly to you. [/B]

The libiary does not appear to have a copy. I wounder why.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
No homeopath becomes a practitioner for the money. Fees are extremely reasonable.

There are lots of doctors that are just in it for the money and especially when the time comes for them to take up consultancy posts and then go into private practice where they just rake it in.

Yes, Hahnemann treated many cases of Syphillis very successfully with homeopathic remedies and the effects of the Syphilitic miasm too.

You might find it helpful to read the book entitled Notes on The Miasms by Dr Proceso S Ortega. This should explain everything very clearly to you. Sarah-I, you keep posting things like that. You know, those are just words.

Look at this:

Homeopathy has no effect over placebo.

All the case stories are anecdotical.

Hoemopaths arbitrarily ascribe everything beneficial to homeopathy and everything non-beneficial to allopathy.

Those are just words, too. Do you accept them at face value? No, you don't. So why should I accept your words at face value? Can you see the problem?

However, there is one difference: I can support my statements with evidence. Can you?

Hans

[Sarah-I]

These cases are not case stories at all. They are full case histories that contain a full diagnosis with details of all tests performed both before and after administration of remedies.

The tests show definite improvements both before and after, so I think these are a little more than case stories don't you?

[geni]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
These cases are not case stories at all. They are full case histories that contain a full diagnosis with details of all tests performed both before and after administration of remedies.

Ok lets see them then

The tests show definite improvements both before and after, so I think these are a little more than case stories don't you? [/B]

Nope becuase they are still n=1 and you have selected only the cases where there is a posertive result.

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
These cases are not case stories at all. They are full case histories that contain a full diagnosis with details of all tests performed both before and after administration of remedies.

The tests show definite improvements both before and after, so I think these are a little more than case stories don't you?

You mean like the CVA dog anecdote that fell apart under scrutiny?

Follow the link in my sig and understand what we mean when we use terms like 'proof'

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
These cases are not case stories at all. They are full case histories that contain a full diagnosis with details of all tests performed both before and after administration of remedies.

The tests show definite improvements both before and after, so I think these are a little more than case stories don't you?

Oh, look you've popped up again with more platitdues and unsubstantiatable claims. On the other thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45657&perpage=40&pagenumber=3) you bleat about being called on chickening out of discussing the pathology of strokes, but guess what folks,

"I have a very good and clear understanding of pathology and have not chickened out of any discussion as far as I am aware."


the one thing she has done is chickened out of discussing the pathology of strokes.

So, come on Sarah, are strokes caused "by a calcium plaque in the neck breaking away."??

You made that statement at 10:07 26/9/04.

Rolfe called you on it, 14mins later. I called you on it 9 hours later. You have then posted 4 times over the subsequent day and a half. You are obviously reading closely enough to know that you are being addressed directly so answer the question or the charge of hypocrisy stands.

Let's repeat the question so you can't say you missed it;

Are strokes caused "by a calcium plaque in the neck breaking away."??

We're still waiting.

[Benguin]

BSM, If you thought such an event had happened would you want a PM to confirm? You can PM the response to me if you like :D

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
These cases are not case stories at all. They are full case histories that contain a full diagnosis with details of all tests performed both before and after administration of remedies.

The tests show definite improvements both before and after, so I think these are a little more than case stories don't you? Do you think she's really this stupid, or just putting it on to be annoying?

Which part of "a single case report proves nothing" don't you understand, Sarah? Picking out the cases you like and showcasing them proves nothing either. Doesn't matter how well documented they are.

Rolfe.

[Sarah-I]

This question has been answered on the other thread relating to Vet Homeopathy.

Just to let you know, this is not what I think or thought at the time, but this is what TWO FULLY QUALIFIED VETS told me. There is something sadly lacking in the education of vets then isn't there?

[geni]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
Just to let you know, this is not what I think or thought at the time, but this is what TWO FULLY QUALIFIED VETS told me. There is something sadly lacking in the education of vets then isn't there?

Nope it's what you claim top remeber 2 fully qualified vets told you. And susupse you did remebr correctly and the vets were right so what?

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
This question has been answered on the other thread relating to Vet Homeopathy.

Just to let you know, this is not what I think or thought at the time, but this is what TWO FULLY QUALIFIED VETS told me. There is something sadly lacking in the education of vets then isn't there?

Well, the "this is not what I think..." part seems to be a pretty sad explanation for taking things at face value so easily.

Homeopathic vets? Or licensed Doctors of Veterinary Medicine? Where are their studies or sources backing up that assertion?

Because there are two fully qualified vets here telling you otherwise.

And Rolfe luv, I'm assuming that other question was rhetorical?

[Suezoled]

*mumbles madly about ischemics and cookie dough, oatmeal and lactose intolerances and hemorrhages.... oh my!*

[Anders]

Originally posted by Sarah-I

Yes, homeopathy courses include modules on anatomy, biochemistry, physiology, integrated physiology, pathology and differential diagnosis. This is pretty full training and any practitioner should know when to refer on and when their treatment was not appropriate.

Funny thing Sarah, I'm taking biochemstry courses right now, and I don't see any passages about "water memory" in any courses. Not in the organic chemistry courses, not in the biochemistry courses, not on any level. And thats because "water memory" is unscientific, and why waste time on learning the wrong information when there are so many other things to learn. For instance, how organic compounds react. Do you know why different organic compounds react? Medical drugs are usually organic compounds. They react because the want to be stable, simplified. But I guess that my books on organic chemistry doesn't look like the books homeopathy courses promote.

[edited for bad bad spelling]

[Eos of the Eons]

Further proof that anybody can teach anything and have people study crap and get credit for it:

It would seem that any wacko and/or scam artist in Canada can set up a private school to teach anything they want in the field of alternative medicine. Then they can take their huge tuition that they paid to study some bizarre, unproved alternative medical scam and fill in a form to deduct their tuition. Why does the government of Canada allow this?

Here is a Google search for HealthPro College of Natural Medicine.

http://www.google.ca/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=%22HealthPro+College+of+Natural+Medicine%22

I wrote the government because these schools promised students that they would get tax credits for their tuition. This little dity sat on someone's desk for nearly a month before they responded. The bottom line is that they don't care about any of this as far as I am concerned.

The government should be ashamed of themselves for not controlling quack schools. Why in the world are these quacks allowed to promise their students that they can get tax relief?

Does the term caveat emptor come to mind?

Our government, by providing tax credits to these students are actually making the situation worse.

The chances for any of these students to make a living at these scams is not very good. How will they ever be able to repay the loans?

Please review this situation with the CCRA and provide the public with assurances that these types of scam deductions are stopped.

Terry Polevoy, MD
HealthWatcher.net
Kitchener-Waterloo


You can learn whatever crap you want and sell it to people as sCAM and offer who knows what in whatever supplements as health advising. Naturopaths are scary. Well, it's the same with chiros, they learn crap and then go out and "practice" it.

There are no laws about these things. I could teach a course on ear candling and channeling crystals, teach it in a way that nobody else does, and tell everybody that I'm the only one that teaches it "right".

[Benguin]

Perhaps now is the time to start up "Placebo healing - recovery the natural way".

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Suezoled
Homeopathic vets? Or licensed Doctors of Veterinary Medicine? Where are their studies or sources backing up that assertion?

Because there are two fully qualified vets here telling you otherwise.

And Rolfe luv, I'm assuming that other question was rhetorical? All vets are fully qualified vets. It's just that some of them go woo, sadly.

There's no such thing as a "licensed Doctor of Veterinary Medicine" in this country, here you have to be a Member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, and if you aren't, you aren't a vet and you can't treat animals, end of story. (The DVM is a very very rarified degree you really have to be a professor to get.)

But from what Sarah said, first it was one mainstream vet who said the dog had had a stroke, and then that this was caused by calcium plaques in the neck breaking away, and then in a later post there were two. What, if anything, this has to do with homoeopathy is entirely unclear, and apparently the dog in question was never treated homoeopathically.

We're just intrigued that Sarah kicked this off by saying something about "would a case of a dog with a CVA be 'serious' enough" (for homoeopaths not to get involved?), and both BSM and I responded to that by pointing out that "strokes" are extremely rare in dogs, and what is often perceived by the owner as a stroke is in fact a (usually) self-correcting condition called vestibular syndrome. In order for anyone to be sure a dog had had a stroke (given how rare it is and how easily other conditions of dogs can mimic the signs of stroke in humans), you'd really need to see an MRI scan. Which we're pretty sure wasn't done. Then Sarah started to go on about calcium plaques in the neck. Which is baffling the hell out of both of us.

All in relation to a dog who may well have had neither a stroke nor vestibular syndrome (given the preponderance of respiratory signs which aren't typical of either), and who wasn't treated with homoeopathy.

I've heard of off-topic posts, but this one takes the proverbial cake.

And no, the question wasn't really rhetorical. Some of Sarah's posts suggest she's quite intelligent, really, and I find it hard to see how such a person can simply go on repeating these unsupported statements about "it works" while totally failing to address any of the problems of lack of evidence and so on. At least some of the other homoeopaths actually try to engage with these questions. So I wonder if these "O yes it works I can tell you about a case where...." posts are just written to annoy us.

Rolfe.

[Benguin]

I've been dying to ask ... what is a calcium plaque?

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Benguin
I've been dying to ask ... what is a calcium plaque? You'll need to aske Sarah. She seems to be the one who knows. After all, she says she's extremely knowledgeable about pathology and understands the causes of strokes in humans very well indeed, so I'm hoping she might educate us all.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
No homeopath becomes a practitioner for the money. Fees are extremely reasonable.Hmm, define "reasonable". The mark-up on unadulterated sugar is simply eye-popping.

Times for another quick reminder of the difference between turnover and profit. You might have relatively high fees, but if you have huge overheads for sophisticated equipment and facilities and so on, your profit margin may still be quite slim. In contrast if all you need is a consulting room with a desk and a couple of chairs and maybe a pot plant and a few pretty "diplomas" on the wall, then even a comparatively modest fee can turn into a great deal of money in the pocket.Originally posted by Sarah-I
Yes, Hahnemann treated many cases of Syphillis very successfully with homeopathic remedies and the effects of the Syphilitic miasm too.Boring repeat of request for evidence.

Rolfe.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Benguin
I've been dying to ask ... what is a calcium plaque?

My best gues is that it is an inept reference to an atheroma, the central lesion of arteriosclerosis, but it's Sarah who's meant to be demonstrating her grasp of pathology not you or me, so PM me if you need more.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
My best gues is that it is an inept reference to an atheroma, the central lesion of arteriosclerosis, but it's Sarah who's meant to be demonstrating her grasp of pathology not you or me, so PM me if you need more. That was my guess as well. Though it's not something I know a huge amount about, because dogs don't get them. (OK, I'm not saying that there isn't some report somewhere in the literature as a curiosity-case, but in donkey's years of post-morteming dogs when I couldn't shove the job on to someone else, I've never seen one.)

It's a constant source of amazement to me the way dogs can eat all that fat and stuff, and walk around with cholesterols of 7 or 8 mmol/l, and even twice that or more in the case of diabetic dogs or dogs with Cushing's or hypothyroidism, and never a furred-up artery do we see. Some lessons there for the comparative physiologists, if they cared to look, I think.

So seriously, this calcium plaque thing is not something I know anything about. Now Sarah has told us what an expert she is in pathology, and the causes of stroke in man, so we're all hoping for some education here. Calcium plaques in the neck, and their relationship to stroke. Take it away, Sarah....

If she ever gets round to addressing the question, instead of regaling us with yet more tales of people who conveniently happened to get better (or even get worse) after the took a homoeopathic remedy.

Rolfe.

[Suezoled]

Maybe we should all back up and find out what the homepathic definition is for "stroke," since their definition of "medicine" differs so much as well.
And I am curious as to know what the homeopathic equivalent for C6H12O6 and if C12H22O11 is an acceptable equivalent for daily or even lifetime use.

[Chris Haynes]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
...Yes, Hahnemann treated many cases of Syphillis very successfully with homeopathic remedies and the effects of the Syphilitic miasm too.

You might find it helpful to read the book entitled Notes on The Miasms by Dr Proceso S Ortega. This should explain everything very clearly to you.

No... I want YOU to give the proof that Hahnemann cured syphilis. Also, while you are at it, explain the difference between the "miasm" of syphilis and Treponema pallidum. Tell us exactly what stage of syphilis Hahnemann achieved his cure with homeopathy.

In the course of medical history... when something is found to work it then becomes the standard of care to use what works. If homeopathy actually works for syphilis, then that would be the standard of care for syphilis. But when I look it up... I see that the cure for syphilis is an injection of antibiotic:
http://www.cdc.gov/std/Syphilis/STDFact-Syphilis.htm ... In fact it is noted as "easily cured"... and if it is not treated can lead to very nasty and painful symptoms.

As I have mentioned before when you claimed homeopathy does wonders for tuberculosis and syphilis... our county is battling those two diseases right now. Send them some of your wisdom (see chart at bottom):
http://www.metrokc.gov/HEALTH/epilog/vol4409.htm (remember, this is the same public health agency that wanted to incarcerate a person with TB who would not continue treatment).

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Suezoled
Maybe we should all back up and find out what the homepathic definition is for "stroke," since their definition of "medicine" differs so much as well.
And I am curious as to know what the homeopathic equivalent for C6H12O6 and if C12H22O11 is an acceptable equivalent for daily or even lifetime use.

Okay, I admit it was a bit of a trick question. But it should have been easy for a learned student of homeopathy to figure out.