Catholic Doctors Offer Homeopathic 'Gay Treatment' - Page 2

JoeTheJuggler · 4th June 2011, 08:54 AM

Originally Posted by Seismosaurus

The skin cells of a gay, of course. We all know that touching a gay person makes you gay, Patriot University researchers proved the truthiness of that a long time ago.

Unless of course said contact is in the context of homophobic felonious assault (beatings, murder, etc.)

Beerina · 4th June 2011, 09:02 AM

Originally Posted by MG1962

So the Catholic Church upsets Homosexuals. This is news why exactly?

It's the response, building on memetics for the purpose of outlawing things eventually, I'm gonna guess.

jiggeryqua · 4th June 2011, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by Lothian

Labrecque M, Audet D, Latulippe LG, Drouin J. Homeopathic treatment of warts. CMAJ. 1992;146:1749–1753. and
Kainz JT, Kozel G, Haidvoge M, Smolle J. Homeopathic versus placebo therapy of children with warts on the hands: a randomized double-blind clinical trial. Dermatology. 1996;193:318–320.

But who cares if a 174 person and a 70 person trial showed it was no better than a placebo. If yours disappeared it must have been the thuja, it couldn't have been coincidence could it?

Thank you, Lothian. Links would have been nice, I have a full-time job and only an anecdote about thuja, so I'm not going to trouble my library to get hold of those papers. I don't know the status of those researchers in their field, I don't have any specialist knowledge of either HPV or thuja (in the botanical sense) and without reading the papers I can't comment on what they've shown, but let us imagine a study that shows that penicillin added to massage oils for a backrub doesn't cure syphillis. Silly, I know, but whose claims were they testing? I do not believe, by the way, that scientists are not human. I do believe that the study of science improves people, probably including their probity, but I observe that an academic career in science is not solely, if at all, governed by scientific thinking. It's governed by human thinking and subject to ambition, self-delusion, group orthodoxy and so on. "I see no ships", someone said, might have been Nelson. Not a scientist, just some other sort of human being.

What I can see from your thoughtful contribution is that you've offered two trials involving 244 people. Would that be enough if they appeared to show some efficacy?

Originally Posted by Maurice Ledifficile

Yo, this is not a game, where we pretend that a perfectly potent homeomagic remedy doesn't "really" work because it would shatter precious beliefs. That's just not it. You should not be so convinced at all. The fact is, I'm not going to call you a liar, but I don't know you and for all I know, maybe your various warts didn't go away so precisely at the same time at all. If it worked so well for you, it should work for trials (you know, the ones with thorough protocols).

There are not that many coincidences. Therefore, you only "hear it over and over again" because they're weird. There are trillions of incidents in your daily life. A lot of them are going to be against tremendous odds. I am not anywhere near the point where I have to "see" that there's any sort of miracle here.

And it's not that we can't figure out how it works either. Seriously, come on... Come back to us. Who got to you, man?

Yes, thank you for trotting out the same tired line about coincidences. I'll trot out the same tired line about dismissing individual 'coincidences' and singing 'lalalala'. That doesn't get either of us anywhere. Nobody mentioned 'miracles' but you, by the way. Something we don't understand isn't a miracle, something we have yet to explain is not a miracle. Something we dismiss because we dismiss it because we dismiss it isn't a miracle either.

You might do well to take a tip from Lothian, and present evidence rather than personalise the argument. You didn't call me a liar, as you say - you said you wouldn't but I might be, which is a tad more subtle but still not a strong argument and in many cases counter-productive, since some people will quite reasonable cease to engage with you.

Since you didn't cite any studies, I'm going with the 'science-faith' explanation. I know that science generally produces more reliable facts than non-scientific endeavours. I do not believe that science always has it right (that's been proven), or that any given study has any validity. I don't think scientists do either, do they? We could ask one. I believe they'd say that an accumulation of probably reliable studies tends to support a theory, which remains open to revision.

I didn't, by the way, 'hear coincidence over and over again', nor say such a thing. I hate to turn this into 'read for comprehension' (or possibly 'read without prejudice'), but what I meant was that if you dismiss one coincidence as a coincidence and then the next and the next and so on, you will not see the pattern. Again, I did not just say there was a particular pattern in a particular example. I'm saying there's more to skepticism than chanting party lines on give topics. I really must make myself a convenient shorthand link to the bigfoot thread where an indistinct blob in a wildlife documentary was "certainly; positively; without a doubt" "an eagle; a moose; a bear" and turned out to be a camerman on a quad bike. The point for so many is not to examine the evidence, just to be seen not saying "maybe it's a bigfoot".

(If you now make out I think bigfoot is real, I will pop you on ignore).

Nobody 'got to me', man. Who got to you, to make you think you needed to be on one side of some righteous war, where I can get 'turned' by the 'enemy'? The world of quotemining is not restricted to CTers, it seems. Quote me saying I have no investment of any sort in homeopathy. Quote me saying it doesn't work because it can't work.

Originally Posted by Emet

It wold seem that the confusion stems from the word competent.

You have a competent GP who may or may not know whether something is homeopathic.

You have a competent physician who prescribes homeopathic remedies for HPV.

I think I see the problem.

I have a competent GP. Your basis for doubting whether she knew the remedy was homeopathic is confusion, your confusion, over my saying I did not know what her thoughts were. Of course I don't, and neither do you. You didn't even need that red herring, of course (see immediately above). The argument against would be more convincing if you followed Lothian's lead and stuck to facts. I had a competent GP who prescribed a homeopathic remedy for HPV, and my HPV was promptly remedied. What's the problem? Orthodoxy.

Arcade22 · 4th June 2011, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

That's what I was thinking.

Maybe the treatment is just a quick little glimpse of gay porn.

The abysmal quality of most 'professional' gay pornography ought to turn many gay men straight within seconds...

Lothian · 4th June 2011, 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by jiggeryqua

Thank you, Lothian. Links would have been nice, I have a full-time job and only an anecdote about thuja, so I'm not going to trouble my library to get hold of those papers. I don't know the status of those researchers in their field, I don't have any specialist knowledge of either HPV or thuja (in the botanical sense) and without reading the papers I can't comment on what they've shown, but let us imagine a study that shows that penicillin added to massage oils for a backrub doesn't cure syphillis. Silly, I know, but whose claims were they testing? I do not believe, by the way, that scientists are not human. I do believe that the study of science improves people, probably including their probity, but I observe that an academic career in science is not solely, if at all, governed by scientific thinking. It's governed by human thinking and subject to ambition, self-delusion, group orthodoxy and so on. "I see no ships", someone said, might have been Nelson. Not a scientist, just some other sort of human being.

What I can see from your thoughtful contribution is that you've offered two trials involving 244 people. Would that be enough if they appeared to show some efficacy?

It would certainly be preferable to an anecdote that it didn't work.

jimtron · 4th June 2011, 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by MG1962

So the Catholic Church upsets Homosexuals. This is news why exactly?

I've heard of supposed "gay cures" before, but not homeopathic gay cures.

MontagK505 · 4th June 2011, 11:07 PM

Originally Posted by MG1962

sperm?

One wiggler per liter of water???

MontagK505 · 4th June 2011, 11:09 PM

Originally Posted by Arcade22

The abysmal quality of most 'professional' gay pornography ought to turn many gay men straight within seconds...

Did you do a proper "double-blind" study to support this contention?

Andrew Wiggin · 5th June 2011, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by MontagK505

Did you do a proper "double-blind" study to support this contention?

Kept his eyes closed under the blindfold for true double blindness? Kinky.

4th June 2011, 08:54 AM	#41
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,833	Originally Posted by Seismosaurus The skin cells of a gay, of course. We all know that touching a gay person makes you gay, Patriot University researchers proved the truthiness of that a long time ago. Unless of course said contact is in the context of homophobic felonious assault (beatings, murder, etc.)
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

4th June 2011, 09:02 AM	#42
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Originally Posted by MG1962 So the Catholic Church upsets Homosexuals. This is news why exactly? It's the response, building on memetics for the purpose of outlawing things eventually, I'm gonna guess.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

4th June 2011, 11:20 AM	#44
Arcade22 Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Västerbotten, Sweden Posts: 1,833	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler That's what I was thinking. Maybe the treatment is just a quick little glimpse of gay porn. The abysmal quality of most 'professional' gay pornography ought to turn many gay men straight within seconds...
	__________________ The habit of the religious way of thinking has biased our mind so grievously that we are — terrified at ourselves in our nakedness and naturalness; it has degraded us so that we deem ourselves depraved by nature, born devils. Max Stirner

4th June 2011, 04:20 PM	#46
jimtron Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Chicago Posts: 2,966	Originally Posted by MG1962 So the Catholic Church upsets Homosexuals. This is news why exactly? I've heard of supposed "gay cures" before, but not homeopathic gay cures.
	__________________

4th June 2011, 11:07 PM	#47
MontagK505 Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Peoples Republick of Kalifornia Posts: 1,800	Originally Posted by MG1962 sperm? One wiggler per liter of water???
	__________________ Self deception is the root of all evil. Political correctness is linguistic Fascism. - P.D. James

4th June 2011, 10:12 AM	#43
jiggeryqua Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 2,927	Originally Posted by Lothian Labrecque M, Audet D, Latulippe LG, Drouin J. Homeopathic treatment of warts. CMAJ. 1992;146:1749–1753. and Kainz JT, Kozel G, Haidvoge M, Smolle J. Homeopathic versus placebo therapy of children with warts on the hands: a randomized double-blind clinical trial. Dermatology. 1996;193:318–320. But who cares if a 174 person and a 70 person trial showed it was no better than a placebo. If yours disappeared it must have been the thuja, it couldn't have been coincidence could it? Thank you, Lothian. Links would have been nice, I have a full-time job and only an anecdote about thuja, so I'm not going to trouble my library to get hold of those papers. I don't know the status of those researchers in their field, I don't have any specialist knowledge of either HPV or thuja (in the botanical sense) and without reading the papers I can't comment on what they've shown, but let us imagine a study that shows that penicillin added to massage oils for a backrub doesn't cure syphillis. Silly, I know, but whose claims were they testing? I do not believe, by the way, that scientists are not human. I do believe that the study of science improves people, probably including their probity, but I observe that an academic career in science is not solely, if at all, governed by scientific thinking. It's governed by human thinking and subject to ambition, self-delusion, group orthodoxy and so on. "I see no ships", someone said, might have been Nelson. Not a scientist, just some other sort of human being. What I can see from your thoughtful contribution is that you've offered two trials involving 244 people. Would that be enough if they appeared to show some efficacy? Originally Posted by Maurice Ledifficile Yo, this is not a game, where we pretend that a perfectly potent homeomagic remedy doesn't "really" work because it would shatter precious beliefs. That's just not it. You should not be so convinced at all. The fact is, I'm not going to call you a liar, but I don't know you and for all I know, maybe your various warts didn't go away so precisely at the same time at all. If it worked so well for you, it should work for trials (you know, the ones with thorough protocols). There are not that many coincidences. Therefore, you only "hear it over and over again" because they're weird. There are trillions of incidents in your daily life. A lot of them are going to be against tremendous odds. I am not anywhere near the point where I have to "see" that there's any sort of miracle here. And it's not that we can't figure out how it works either. Seriously, come on... Come back to us. Who got to you, man? Yes, thank you for trotting out the same tired line about coincidences. I'll trot out the same tired line about dismissing individual 'coincidences' and singing 'lalalala'. That doesn't get either of us anywhere. Nobody mentioned 'miracles' but you, by the way. Something we don't understand isn't a miracle, something we have yet to explain is not a miracle. Something we dismiss because we dismiss it because we dismiss it isn't a miracle either. You might do well to take a tip from Lothian, and present evidence rather than personalise the argument. You didn't call me a liar, as you say - you said you wouldn't but I might be, which is a tad more subtle but still not a strong argument and in many cases counter-productive, since some people will quite reasonable cease to engage with you. Since you didn't cite any studies, I'm going with the 'science-faith' explanation. I know that science generally produces more reliable facts than non-scientific endeavours. I do not believe that science always has it right (that's been proven), or that any given study has any validity. I don't think scientists do either, do they? We could ask one. I believe they'd say that an accumulation of probably reliable studies tends to support a theory, which remains open to revision. I didn't, by the way, 'hear coincidence over and over again', nor say such a thing. I hate to turn this into 'read for comprehension' (or possibly 'read without prejudice'), but what I meant was that if you dismiss one coincidence as a coincidence and then the next and the next and so on, you will not see the pattern. Again, I did not just say there was a particular pattern in a particular example. I'm saying there's more to skepticism than chanting party lines on give topics. I really must make myself a convenient shorthand link to the bigfoot thread where an indistinct blob in a wildlife documentary was "certainly; positively; without a doubt" "an eagle; a moose; a bear" and turned out to be a camerman on a quad bike. The point for so many is not to examine the evidence, just to be seen not saying "maybe it's a bigfoot". (If you now make out I think bigfoot is real, I will pop you on ignore). Nobody 'got to me', man. Who got to you, to make you think you needed to be on one side of some righteous war, where I can get 'turned' by the 'enemy'? The world of quotemining is not restricted to CTers, it seems. Quote me saying I have no investment of any sort in homeopathy. Quote me saying it doesn't work because it can't work. Originally Posted by Emet It wold seem that the confusion stems from the word competent. You have a competent GP who may or may not know whether something is homeopathic. You have a competent physician who prescribes homeopathic remedies for HPV. I think I see the problem. I have a competent GP. Your basis for doubting whether she knew the remedy was homeopathic is confusion, your confusion, over my saying I did not know what her thoughts were. Of course I don't, and neither do you. You didn't even need that red herring, of course (see immediately above). The argument against would be more convincing if you followed Lothian's lead and stuck to facts. I had a competent GP who prescribed a homeopathic remedy for HPV, and my HPV was promptly remedied. What's the problem? Orthodoxy.

4th June 2011, 11:32 AM	#45
Lothian Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: https://twitter.com/CV4UK Posts: 10,373	Originally Posted by jiggeryqua Thank you, Lothian. Links would have been nice, I have a full-time job and only an anecdote about thuja, so I'm not going to trouble my library to get hold of those papers. I don't know the status of those researchers in their field, I don't have any specialist knowledge of either HPV or thuja (in the botanical sense) and without reading the papers I can't comment on what they've shown, but let us imagine a study that shows that penicillin added to massage oils for a backrub doesn't cure syphillis. Silly, I know, but whose claims were they testing? I do not believe, by the way, that scientists are not human. I do believe that the study of science improves people, probably including their probity, but I observe that an academic career in science is not solely, if at all, governed by scientific thinking. It's governed by human thinking and subject to ambition, self-delusion, group orthodoxy and so on. "I see no ships", someone said, might have been Nelson. Not a scientist, just some other sort of human being. What I can see from your thoughtful contribution is that you've offered two trials involving 244 people. Would that be enough if they appeared to show some efficacy? It would certainly be preferable to an anecdote that it didn't work.

4th June 2011, 11:09 PM	#48
MontagK505 Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Peoples Republick of Kalifornia Posts: 1,800	Originally Posted by Arcade22 The abysmal quality of most 'professional' gay pornography ought to turn many gay men straight within seconds... Did you do a proper "double-blind" study to support this contention?
	__________________ Self deception is the root of all evil. Political correctness is linguistic Fascism. - P.D. James

5th June 2011, 08:23 AM	#49
Andrew Wiggin Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: A small planet named for its dirt. You'll find it filed under 'mostly harmless' Posts: 2,914	Originally Posted by MontagK505 Did you do a proper "double-blind" study to support this contention? Kept his eyes closed under the blindfold for true double blindness? Kinky.
	__________________ "Everyone takes the limits of his own vision for the limits of the world." - Arthur Schopenhauer "New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled, the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not taking part in them?' " - H. G. Wells