What my GF bought

Dabljuh · 24th September 2007, 09:51 AM

First of all, until yesterday I didn't mind homoepathy. I don't buy into the argument that people who take homeopathic "remedies" would otherwise be treated with real medication.

Alternative medicine is popular for a reason, because it often does less harm overall than most pharmaceutical treatments, and I'm very skeptical of the medical establishment as a whole (as some of you may know). So I'm willing to defend homeopathy most of the time as "At least it doesn't hurt" fully aware that it's a load of crap.

But then my GF bought food supplements. She thought she was buying minerals (calcium, magnesium etc) until I read the label. It was "homeopathic minerals." "Homeopathic calcium", "homeopathic magnesium". In reality this stuff doesn't contain any minerals at all.

Ok, the label says its homeopathic in fine print in the corner, and the big letters say its Calcium Something. And it doesn't contain an actual mg/dose of the minerals statement, just a "2 pops every day" kinda advice.

I'm pissed. This is fraud, dammit.

Rolfe · 24th September 2007, 10:03 AM

Well, what she bought was a fraud, capitalising on the lack of regulation of "homoeopathic" products. It wasn't actually homoeopathy.

That's a different sort of fraud.

Rolfe.

madurobob · 24th September 2007, 10:09 AM

Originally Posted by Dabljuh

Alternative medicine is popular for a reason, because it often does less harm overall than most pharmaceutical treatments, and I'm very skeptical of the medical establishment as a whole (as some of you may know). So I'm willing to defend homeopathy most of the time as "At least it doesn't hurt" fully aware that it's a load of crap.

But then my GF bought food supplements. She thought she was buying minerals (calcium, magnesium etc) until I read the label. It was "homeopathic minerals." "Homeopathic calcium", "homeopathic magnesium". In reality this stuff doesn't contain any minerals at all.

And yet you still insist it does no harm? Suppose your GF had a chronic calcium deficiency and desperately needed calcium. Had you not pointed out the total lack of calcium in her calcium pills, she may well have suffered terribly.

How can you honestly still say "at least it doesn't hurt" when you've experienced firsthand how it could?

Dabljuh · 24th September 2007, 10:58 AM

No problem, it didn't hurt (except for the 15$). You shouldn't fight a nutritional deficiency with pills alone. A dietary change is always better.

I have a couple of magnesium pills around, in case I get symptoms of a magnesium deficiency (My eyes go crazy) I eat a couple of em and remember to buy more veggies and eat less carbohydrates. (Magnesium deficiency can be caused by eating too much processed/refined starch)

My GF had got an iron deficiency diagnosed, and was treated with iron infusions. [hint: I'm generally skeptical of injections of this type. If anyone has informations on this type of treatment post something about it] Because the increased iron levels can hamper the absorption of other minerals, she figured it'd be smart to supplement those as a precaution.

There simply is no instant remedy pill, where, when you fail to take it, you die or something otherwise horrible happens. Only injections have even the potential to do that (atropine, morphine, insuline, ephenedrine etc)

Mineral supplements is something you take to prevent possible problems, and even those supplements can cause problems by themselves as the spurious elements are in a fragile balance. If you take too much of one thing, it'll hamper the absorption of another thing etc.

The reason I feel frauded for her is because she wasted a 15$ on something that is worthless for the purpose she bought it for.

She does sometimes treat stuff with homoepathy, but even she says she feels cheated.

I don't mind people selling homeopathic remedies as long as the label says big n fat that it's homeopathic. A flu usually doesn't need more than the person staying in bed a couple days (and there's no good treatment anyways)

Where I think the line is crossed is dietary supplements.

Michael Redman · 24th September 2007, 11:06 AM

If you don't care if it works, so long as it doesn't hurt, I would think you would prefer supplements that didn't contain any actual ingredients. You can certainly do real harm ingesting real minerals. These supplements, on the other hand, are quite safe.

Dabljuh · 24th September 2007, 12:09 PM

You'd think wrong. I don't mind other people taking worthless stuff (as long as they bear me telling them all the time that <s>they're</s> the medication is worthless) but I do mind people selling something as something that's tried and true when it is in fact worthless.

Consider aspirin. Say you bring a box of aspirine home. You know aspirin, since you've probably taken it a lot. At home you read the label more accurately and realize this is "homeopathic aspirine". Wouldn't you feel cheated? It says "aspirine" right there on the box, but isnt.

The example is probably bad since aspirine is a trademark. "Calcium" and "Magnesium" etc are not, and thus are not protected. If I buy a box of dietary supplements that say "X" on them, I expect "X" to be in it. Anything else is fraud.

That's a difference to saying "The compound in this box will cure Y" when it actually doesn't. I don't expect any compound to cure Y 100% of the time. I realize some stuffs may actually have a chance at it and others don't.

There's a grave difference between saying "This box contains X" and "What's in this box cures Y". You can know X. Knowing what cures Y is a lot harder.

Another example: Coke, Weed, Heroin. If I buy a pill off a guy and he tells me its gonna make me fly, I prolly won't kill him if it doesn't in the end. If the guy sells me heroin and it turns out its "homeopathic heroin", he's one dead sucker.

You need to know your poison. What I criticise about homeopathy is that it's not working any better than a placebo. What I criticise about "homeopathic calcium" is that it doesn't contain any calcium, I don't care if the calcium "works" or not when buying it, because I buy calcium, not a cure.

fls · 24th September 2007, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by Dabljuh

No problem, it didn't hurt (except for the 15$). You shouldn't fight a nutritional deficiency with pills alone. A dietary change is always better.

I have a couple of magnesium pills around, in case I get symptoms of a magnesium deficiency (My eyes go crazy) I eat a couple of em and remember to buy more veggies and eat less carbohydrates. (Magnesium deficiency can be caused by eating too much processed/refined starch)

Yeah, that acute magnesium deficiency's a real bugger. You may consider laying off the you-know-what, though.

Quote:

My GF had got an iron deficiency diagnosed, and was treated with iron infusions. [hint: I'm generally skeptical of injections of this type. If anyone has informations on this type of treatment post something about it]

I gots lots of information. What do you prefer....unsubstantiated anecdote, thinly disguised ads from purveyors of snake oil, or maverick scientist from an unrelated field?

Quote:

Mineral supplements is something you take to prevent possible problems, and even those supplements can cause problems by themselves as the spurious elements are in a fragile balance. If you take too much of one thing, it'll hamper the absorption of another thing etc.

I often wonder how the human race managed to survive so long considering the exquisitely fragile balance we seem to be in.

Quote:

The reason I feel frauded for her is because she wasted a 15$ on something that is worthless for the purpose she bought it for.

For the stated purpose, it was probably as useful as anything else she could have bought.

Quote:

She does sometimes treat stuff with homoepathy, but even she says she feels cheated.

I don't mind people selling homeopathic remedies as long as the label says big n fat that it's homeopathic. A flu usually doesn't need more than the person staying in bed a couple days (and there's no good treatment anyways)

Where I think the line is crossed is dietary supplements.

It's my impression that for the way that dietary supplements are usually used, it doesn't really matter if they're homeopathic or not. And as Michael pointed out, there is probably less chance of harm with the homeopathic ones (not zero chance though, as discussed in this thread).

ETA:
I do have a little sympathy, though. I have several times almost bought homeopathic preparations because it required careful reading to notice that part. Either drug stores shouldn't carry them, or they should be in a section quite different from the conventional therapeutics.

Linda

madurobob · 24th September 2007, 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by Dabljuh

Another example: Coke, Weed, Heroin. If I buy a pill off a guy and he tells me its gonna make me fly, I prolly won't kill him if it doesn't in the end. If the guy sells me heroin and it turns out its "homeopathic heroin", he's one dead sucker.

What a brilliant idea! Homeopathic Heroin!

Then, once everyone was hooked, I could set up a series of homeopathic methadone clinics....

Ivor the Engineer · 24th September 2007, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by fls

<snip>

ETA:
I do have a little sympathy, though. I have several times almost bought homeopathic preparations because it required careful reading to notice that part. Either drug stores shouldn't carry them, or they should be in a section quite different from the conventional therapeutics.

Linda

I'd have thought that cheap drugs and stuff for personal use would be obtained by physicians in a similar way to how stationary for personal use is by people in other professions

krazyKemist · 24th September 2007, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by Dabljuh

First of all, until yesterday I didn't mind homoepathy. I don't buy into the argument that people who take homeopathic "remedies" would otherwise be treated with real medication.

Why ? Most people who buy homeopathy do not know there is no active substance in it, and depends on some mysterious "potentisation". Ask around. They associate it with "natural", which is another fallacy.

Quote:

Alternative medicine is popular for a reason, because it often does less harm overall than most pharmaceutical treatments, and I'm very skeptical of the medical establishment as a whole (as some of you may know). So I'm willing to defend homeopathy most of the time as "At least it doesn't hurt" fully aware that it's a load of crap.

Alternative medicine is popular because it is equal to natural, which itself is equal to good in most people's minds. People forget that cobra venom, hemlock, botulic toxin and digitalin are all natural, and all poisonous. Most of us have had no contact with untamed nature, which we would find quite different from what we imagine it is.

Quote:

But then my GF bought food supplements. She thought she was buying minerals (calcium, magnesium etc) until I read the label. It was "homeopathic minerals." "Homeopathic calcium", "homeopathic magnesium". In reality this stuff doesn't contain any minerals at all.

That may be there to avoid regulation and mandatory testing. It has been done in the past; some homeopathic preparations have even been found to contain actual drugs so that they, well, be effective. It may contain some things (including calcium) in unknown amounts.

Quote:

Ok, the label says its homeopathic in fine print in the corner, and the big letters say its Calcium Something. And it doesn't contain an actual mg/dose of the minerals statement, just a "2 pops every day" kinda advice.

I'm pissed. This is fraud, dammit.

It is. But can't your GF get her calcium from her food ? Isn't that more natural ? I never understood the logics of the food supplement crowd. How natural is it to eat pills instead of food in an attempt to self medicate ? Why distrust products which are tested for efficacy and safety and put trust in products which are not ? Vitamin manufacturers are not charities either. They too are in this business for profit.

the Kemist

Dabljuh · 25th September 2007, 03:06 AM

Originally Posted by krazyKemist

Why ? Most people who buy homeopathy do not know there is no active substance in it, and depends on some mysterious "potentisation". Ask around. They associate it with "natural", which is another fallacy.

Most people buy drugs because they think they work. If they believe they work because of good advertisement, or because of personal experience isn't important.

Quote:

Alternative medicine is popular because it is equal to natural, which itself is equal to good in most people's minds. People forget that cobra venom, hemlock, botulic toxin and digitalin are all natural, and all poisonous. Most of us have had no contact with untamed nature, which we would find quite different from what we imagine it is.

Well can't really agree there. People like "Natural" medicine because they've made bad experiences with pharmaceutical (chemical) products. Its not just hippies (anarcho-primitivists) who like homeopathy. They want *gentle* medicine, rather than the chemical mace. And it doesn't get much more gentle than lactose pills.

Quote:

It is. But can't your GF get her calcium from her food ? Isn't that more natural ? I never understood the logics of the food supplement crowd. How natural is it to eat pills instead of food in an attempt to self medicate ? Why distrust products which are tested for efficacy and safety and put trust in products which are not ? Vitamin manufacturers are not charities either. They too are in this business for profit.

As I said, its not about "natural", its about "gentle", hard to overdose. And homeopathic stuff has a fairly good safety record. "As long as it doesn't harm".

Now the supplements. The thing is, our food isn't natural. Maybe it never was, there's folks who advertise "cavemen diets" - fruits and veggies, little meat, mostly uncooked. Stuff like that. Now its kind of ridiculous to supplement a bad diet with pills, but still. It may have some values. Those minerals probably work even better when digested from plants and animals, rather than in an elemental form, or a salt.

Originally Posted by fls

Yeah, that acute magnesium deficiency's a real bugger. You may consider laying off the you-know-what, though.

Since you're putting it that way, you're probably talking of something sexy. Or you're telling me to quit the pancakes, I dunno. Feel free to elaborate. [edit] Ah, now I get it. I said "My eyes go crazy" - well that was a bit inaccurate. Basically the eyelids start to "vibrate". Very annoying.

fls · 25th September 2007, 03:35 AM

Originally Posted by Dabljuh

Most people buy drugs because they think they work. If they believe they work because of good advertisement, or because of personal experience isn't important.

Well can't really agree there. People like "Natural" medicine because they've made bad experiences with pharmaceutical (chemical) products. Its not just hippies (anarcho-primitivists) who like homeopathy. They want *gentle* medicine, rather than the chemical mace. And it doesn't get much more gentle than lactose pills.

As I said, its not about "natural", its about "gentle", hard to overdose. And homeopathic stuff has a fairly good safety record. "As long as it doesn't harm".

Exactly. So, again, you really should have no complaint with the pills your GF bought. She can think the pills work regardless of what they're actually made of, and they're likely to be gentle. Isn't that all she's asking of them?

Quote:

Now the supplements. The thing is, our food isn't natural. Maybe it never was, there's folks who advertise "cavemen diets" - fruits and veggies, little meat, mostly uncooked. Stuff like that. Now its kind of ridiculous to supplement a bad diet with pills, but still. It may have some values. Those minerals probably work even better when digested from plants and animals, rather than in an elemental form, or a salt.

When all you're treating is an idea, does the substance really matter?

Quote:

Since you're putting it that way, you're probably talking of something sexy. Or you're telling me to quit the pancakes, I dunno. Feel free to elaborate. [edit] Ah, now I get it. I said "My eyes go crazy" - well that was a bit inaccurate. Basically the eyelids start to "vibrate". Very annoying.

I was trying to feed you a good line.

Linda

Rasmus · 25th September 2007, 03:44 AM

I'll never understand homeopathy ...

What about "like cures like"? Shouldn't a calcium deficiency require some homeopathic remedie other than diluted calcium?

So it would actually be very important to clearly label homeopathic remedies as being homeopathic, since one would be looking for different substances, no?

Zep · 25th September 2007, 03:52 AM

Labelling something "homeopathic" is simply a marketing ploy. Chances are the product is lightyears away from being anything homeopathic at all. It's just a bunch of words on the box or tube.

See my sig? It's all about the dollars.

Cuddles · 25th September 2007, 07:15 AM

Originally Posted by Dabljuh

but I do mind people selling something as something that's tried and true when it is in fact worthless.

So that would be all alternative medicine then. It's been said before and will no doubt be said again - there is no such thing as alternative medicine. If it works, it's just medicine. If it doesn't work, it's not any kind of medicine, alternative or otherwise. Don't you feel just a litte hypocritical when you complain about selling worthless things as if they work while at the same time supporting worthless stuff that's sold as if it works?

TX50 · 25th September 2007, 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by Zep

Labelling something "homeopathic" is simply a marketing ploy. Chances are the product is lightyears away from being anything homeopathic at all. It's just a bunch of words on the box or tube.

See my sig? It's all about the dollars.

Yes. This is also common where I live currently (Netherlands). Many things
are labelled "homeopathic" when they would more correctly be called "herbal"
remedies, with significant active ingredients. Many of them work a treat too.

ponderingturtle · 25th September 2007, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by TX50

Yes. This is also common where I live currently (Netherlands). Many things
are labelled "homeopathic" when they would more correctly be called "herbal"
remedies, with significant active ingredients. Many of them work a treat too.

Well this is often because they have real medicine in there as well that is not on the label.

krazyKemist · 25th September 2007, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by Dabljuh

Well can't really agree there. People like "Natural" medicine because they've made bad experiences with pharmaceutical (chemical) products. Its not just hippies (anarcho-primitivists) who like homeopathy. They want *gentle* medicine, rather than the chemical mace. And it doesn't get much more gentle than lactose pills.

What most people don't understand is that everything in the body involves chemical reactions, and everything that works (has a real therapeutic effect) therefore contains 'chemicals' (herbal medicine is the founder of the modern pharmaceutical industry). That is why 'natural medicine' is a fallacy. Natural does equal good and gentle in most people's mind (make your own survey). And you do not need to be a hippy for that, granted.

Quote:

Now the supplements. The thing is, our food isn't natural. Maybe it never was, there's folks who advertise "cavemen diets" - fruits and veggies, little meat, mostly uncooked. Stuff like that. Now its kind of ridiculous to supplement a bad diet with pills, but still. It may have some values. Those minerals probably work even better when digested from plants and animals, rather than in an elemental form, or a salt.

What's 'natural' ? Isn't that something the vitamin/supplement industry wants you to believe ? They do have a lot of money to make encouraging distrust in the food supply, which is more rich and plentyful in the western world than ever. We have fresh fruits and vegetables even in the middle of winter, when our grandparents did not. Our grandparents did not take vitamin pills and we feast on them. Where's the logic ?

Actually, the only people who would really need those supplements either have specific health problems, extremely unhealthy food habits or live in the third world, where they cannot afford them. There is more than one reason to eat healthy instead of going for supplements:

- As you said, most vitamins and minerals, especially metals, are better absorbed, with much less problems, in food than in pills (just go on iron supplements and you'll see what I mean with problems).

- For a useful/healthy amount of vitamins and minerals, the cost is much less when taking it in food.

- Supplements have been known to contain harmful doses of vitamins and minerals, as well as dangerous trace compounds, being sold with little mandatory testing requirements. The food supply by comparison is submitted to mandatory testing and control in the western world.

- Eating healthily is part of an effort to have a good lifestyle. If you are not even willing to make an effort to eat properly, what's the odds of you going for physical activity ?

And that is why I dislike the food supplement industry. They undermine the effort to help people develop a good lifestyle, while ripping them off.

the Kemist

blutoski · 25th September 2007, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by Dabljuh

First of all, until yesterday I didn't mind homoepathy. I don't buy into the argument that people who take homeopathic "remedies" would otherwise be treated with real medication.

Alternative medicine is popular for a reason, because it often does less harm overall than most pharmaceutical treatments, and I'm very skeptical of the medical establishment as a whole (as some of you may know). So I'm willing to defend homeopathy most of the time as "At least it doesn't hurt" fully aware that it's a load of crap.

But then my GF bought food supplements. She thought she was buying minerals (calcium, magnesium etc) until I read the label. It was "homeopathic minerals." "Homeopathic calcium", "homeopathic magnesium". In reality this stuff doesn't contain any minerals at all.

Ok, the label says its homeopathic in fine print in the corner, and the big letters say its Calcium Something. And it doesn't contain an actual mg/dose of the minerals statement, just a "2 pops every day" kinda advice.

I'm pissed. This is fraud, dammit.

I think the four key complaints that I have about homeopathy are these:

it is often sold as a substitute for conventional treatments that are demonstrated to work. eg: stop taking statins, start taking Strauss Heart Drops
the public widely confuse 'homeopathic' with 'naturopathic,' and homeopathy exploits this - they are in the unique position to sell cheap solvent as medicine. granted: homeopathy is a type of naturopathy/herbalism, but notice that their merchandising prioritizes information about the plants that go into the mixtures, and barely mentions potentization or dilution.
many homeopathic remedies are simply not homeopathic - they are undiluted
many homeopathic remedies are adulterated with prescription medicines, and can interact with or negate a patient's existing regimen. eg: PC-SPES, or more recently, Axcil and Desirin

genesplicer · 25th September 2007, 03:04 PM

Don't worry, all that highly diluted "Homeopathic calcium" will work wonders to build up your highly diluted bone structure...

Dabljuh · 26th September 2007, 03:22 AM

Originally Posted by krazyKemist

What most people don't understand is that everything in the body involves chemical reactions, and everything that works (has a real therapeutic effect) therefore contains 'chemicals' (herbal medicine is the founder of the modern pharmaceutical industry). That is why 'natural medicine' is a fallacy. Natural does equal good and gentle in most people's mind (make your own survey).

No need to explain it to me. But there are chemical compounds that occur in nature, and there are chemical compounds that don't. Granted, both are 'chemicals' but they do not have to necessarily be chemically produced. Saying A is chemical while B is 'natural' is really nothing more than a crutch for saying 'A is chemically produced and does not occur in nature while B does' - Only people with very little education do not understand this and take 'A is natural, B is chemical' literally.

Quote:

They undermine the effort to help people develop a good lifestyle, while ripping them off.

Basically you are saying that supplements are a crutch.

Dabljuh · 26th September 2007, 03:24 AM

Originally Posted by blutoski

I think the four key complaints that I have about homeopathy are these:

it is often sold as a substitute for conventional treatments that are demonstrated to work. eg: stop taking statins, start taking Strauss Heart Drops
the public widely confuse 'homeopathic' with 'naturopathic,' and homeopathy exploits this - they are in the unique position to sell cheap solvent as medicine. granted: homeopathy is a type of naturopathy/herbalism, but notice that their merchandising prioritizes information about the plants that go into the mixtures, and barely mentions potentization or dilution.
many homeopathic remedies are simply not homeopathic - they are undiluted
many homeopathic remedies are adulterated with prescription medicines, and can interact with or negate a patient's existing regimen. eg: PC-SPES, or more recently, Axcil and Desirin

Now that's an interesting point of view. What would you do about the situation? Create legislation to make sure anything that says "homeopathic" is really "homeopathic" ?

Cuddles · 26th September 2007, 04:26 AM

Originally Posted by Dabljuh

No need to explain it to me. But there are chemical compounds that occur in nature, and there are chemical compounds that don't. Granted, both are 'chemicals' but they do not have to necessarily be chemically produced.

Chemicals not produced chemically?

Originally Posted by Dabljuh

Now that's an interesting point of view. What would you do about the situation? Create legislation to make sure anything that says "homeopathic" is really "homeopathic" ?

And then ban anything that says "homeopathic" until they can prove that it actually does anything.

Michael Redman · 26th September 2007, 06:53 AM

Originally Posted by Dabljuh

Only people with very little education do not understand this and take 'A is natural, B is chemical' literally.

I think that most people believe there is a fundamental qualitative difference between natural and synthetic substances. Whether they understand, academically, that "chemical" is not synonymous with "man-made", they still think that, as a rule, man made "chemicals" are more dangerous than natural substances.

Dr Adequate · 26th September 2007, 07:02 AM

Shouldn't homeopathic calcium give you calcium deficiency?

Michael Redman · 26th September 2007, 07:16 AM

Hydrofluoric acid would do the trick.

krazyKemist · 26th September 2007, 09:06 AM

Originally Posted by Michael Redman

Hydrofluoric acid would do the trick.

With the slight disadvantage of fusing your joints together. Well not at 30C. However, somebody should tell the poor idiot who would work on the preparation of the 'remedy'.

the Kemist

Rolfe · 26th September 2007, 09:51 AM

When we were trying to figure out if there was any homoeopathic preparation we would not be prepared to take a dose of at 6X, the only possible contenders (because of their extreme toxicity in small amounts) were botulinum toxin, pufferfish toxin and a Staph. enteritidis (I think) toxin. All very very natural. Synthetic things like nerve gases weren't even in the frame.

In the end however we decided that there was in fact nothing we wouldn't be prepared to take a single 6X dose of. By the time you've thought about the concentration of the "mother tincture", and how quickly it disappears on diluting, and how small a dose would be, and how much you'd actually get if you just took a sugar pill that had been sprayed with a drop or two of the 6X preparation - well, bring on the puffer-fish, I'm cool.

Rolfe.

ponderingturtle · 26th September 2007, 10:35 AM

Originally Posted by Rolfe

When we were trying to figure out if there was any homoeopathic preparation we would not be prepared to take a dose of at 6X, the only possible contenders (because of their extreme toxicity in small amounts) were botulinum toxin, pufferfish toxin and a Staph. enteritidis (I think) toxin. All very very natural. Synthetic things like nerve gases weren't even in the frame.

Rycin has killed in very low doses. And I think that polonium 210 could be in very low consentrations and be very radioactive.

It might depend on how large a dose of 6x you are talking about.

Rolfe · 26th September 2007, 01:20 PM

I think ricin was one of the ones considered, but it was a lot less toxic than these others. It's "natural" too of course. I don't think we looked at polonium - the discussion was pre Litvinenko. Now, is polonium "natural"? Probably, as it's not a synthetic molecule.

Anyway, it does depend on the dose. Only very very small quantities of the final potency are actually ingested, and it was that which made even that very "low" potency harmless. Note I specified one dose. It would be 5ml or less even of a liquid potency, but if you took a sugar pill it's a tiny amount. They only spray the pills or immerse them in the potency briefly, then allow them to dry.

Rolfe.

Dabljuh · 27th September 2007, 12:12 AM

Originally Posted by Cuddles

Chemicals not produced chemically?

Assist me with the articulation here. "Chemical reactions performed industrially by man"

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Shouldn't homeopathic calcium give you calcium deficiency?

If I get the homeopathic logic right, I think homeopathic calcium should cure a calcium overdose.

Originally Posted by Michael Redman

I think that most people believe there is a fundamental qualitative difference between natural and synthetic substances. Whether they understand, academically, that "chemical" is not synonymous with "man-made", they still think that, as a rule, man made "chemicals" are more dangerous than natural substances.

Its not so wrong. Magnesium for example is a key component of chlorophyl. Your body, over millennia of evolution, knows how to break down chlorophyl and get the magnesium. If you just eat powdered magnesium, the absorption is worse by several orders of magnitude. Of course, the magnesium is just the same, but in chlorophyl, it's embedded in a protein which is broken down and itself utilized in the digestion. Simply because your body hasn't evolved to digest powdered magnesium, it has evolved to digest chlorophyll and other proteins that contain the elements it needs. [edit:Actually (funny enough) 'synthetic chlorophyll' probably doesn't cut it either because a green plant will contain a truckload of additional proteins and stuff, which the body has evolved to also use in the digestion and absorption]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

When we were trying to figure out if there was any homoeopathic preparation we would not be prepared to take a dose of at 6X, the only possible contenders (because of their extreme toxicity in small amounts) were botulinum toxin, pufferfish toxin and a Staph. enteritidis (I think) toxin. All very very natural. Synthetic things like nerve gases weren't even in the frame.

In the end however we decided that there was in fact nothing we wouldn't be prepared to take a single 6X dose of. By the time you've thought about the concentration of the "mother tincture", and how quickly it disappears on diluting, and how small a dose would be, and how much you'd actually get if you just took a sugar pill that had been sprayed with a drop or two of the 6X preparation - well, bring on the puffer-fish, I'm cool.

Rolfe.

I thought the most toxic thing was Plutonium-239? Well if any homeopathic remedy says it's got plutonium in it, I'd immediatelly inform homeland security.

Terrorists could buy a homeopathic remedy the size of the sun and distill it until they get a critical amount of weaponized plutonium to use it in a terrorist attack!!!1

(That is, provided of course, under the completely unsubstantiated and unrealistic assumption that the homeopathic remedies were actually produced the "homeopathic way", rather than being just lactose pills with different labels)

Rolfe · 27th September 2007, 03:51 AM

Originally Posted by Dabljuh

I thought the most toxic thing was Plutonium-239?

If I remember the results of that investigation correctly, no. Plutonium was one of the things we looked at, and it wasn't as toxic on a molecule-per-molecule (or weight-for-weight) basis as the toxins. As I recall.

Originally Posted by Dabljuh

Well if any homeopathic remedy says it's got plutonium in it, I'd immediatelly inform homeland security.

No homoeopathic remedy ever says it has anything in it, for the very good reason that it probably doesn't have any of the whatever-it-is-on-the-label in it.

Like I said. Large print, "Belladonna 30C". Small print, "Contents: sucrose/lactose".

Rolfe.

Rolfe.

Soapy Sam · 27th September 2007, 10:04 AM

I suspect the concentration of plutonium in many soils is higher than would be found in a homoeopathic 6X plutonium pill. The terrorists would do better to dig up their back yard.

Deetee · 28th September 2007, 05:19 AM

Originally Posted by Rolfe

When we were trying to figure out if there was any homoeopathic preparation we would not be prepared to take a dose of at 6X, the only possible contenders (because of their extreme toxicity in small amounts) were botulinum toxin, pufferfish toxin and a Staph. enteritidis (I think) toxin. Rolfe.

Salmonella enteritidis?

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos · 28th September 2007, 05:26 AM

Originally Posted by Dabljuh

You'd think wrong. I don't mind other people taking worthless stuff (as long as they bear me telling them all the time that <s>they're</s> the medication is worthless) but I do mind people selling something as something that's tried and true when it is in fact worthless.

Dude, your reaction is all twisted up. Homeopathic medications are sold as tried and true, and are in fact worthless. Yet you say don't mind homeopathy. Perhaps you don't mind when other people get fooled, but do mind when you get fooled?

~~ Paul

Rolfe · 28th September 2007, 05:37 AM

Originally Posted by Deetee

Salmonella enteritidis?

No, it was a Staph or a Strep. Could have been a Staph aureus, come to think of it.

Rolfe.

ponderingturtle · 28th September 2007, 05:39 AM

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I think ricin was one of the ones considered, but it was a lot less toxic than these others. It's "natural" too of course. I don't think we looked at polonium - the discussion was pre Litvinenko. Now, is polonium "natural"? Probably, as it's not a synthetic molecule.

No it is a synthetic atom. And I am surprised ricin is less toxic but I would suspect that you would know more about that than me.

Quote:

Anyway, it does depend on the dose. Only very very small quantities of the final potency are actually ingested, and it was that which made even that very "low" potency harmless. Note I specified one dose. It would be 5ml or less even of a liquid potency, but if you took a sugar pill it's a tiny amount. They only spray the pills or immerse them in the potency briefly, then allow them to dry.

Rolfe.

Yes but you where not specific as to following homeopathic dosing rules and look at the people who prove Homeopathy doesn't work by trying to OD on it.

danielk · 28th September 2007, 06:03 AM

Originally Posted by Rolfe

In the end however we decided that there was in fact nothing we wouldn't be prepared to take a single 6X dose of.

Every time I read the accounts of skeptics trying to kill themselves with homeopathic "medicine", I'm in awe of their bravery. Not because I think homeopathy actually works, but simply because I wouldn't trust the homeopaths to manufacture their stuff correctly, especially when my health or even my life depends on it. Yes, I'm just a wimp.

I'd be interested to know how this particular problem is dealt with when skeptics do the mass suicide stunt in public. Testing the stuff for any harmful ingredients is going to be pretty expensive given the concentrations we're talking about, isn't it? And in any case it's not as impressive as making a beeline for the closest drugstore and swallowing a whole box of whatever homeopathic pills they sell.

Rolfe · 28th September 2007, 06:16 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

No it is a synthetic atom. And I am surprised ricin is less toxic but I would suspect that you would know more about that than me.

OK, I stand corrected about polonium's "natural goodness". (Reminds me of the time even pharmacies were promoting "organic germanium" just because someone had decided how nice and healing that name sounded. Yes, it was what the label said. Some people ended up in kidney failure....)

A bunch of us (including MRC_Hans and Geni) just looked up toxicity data on the Internet. I was surprised that ricin wasn't in the frame, though if I remember correctly it was one of the ones that wasn't far off.

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Yes but you where not specific as to following homeopathic dosing rules and look at the people who prove Homeopathy doesn't work by trying to OD on it.

Originally Posted by Rolfe

In the end however we decided that there was in fact nothing we wouldn't be prepared to take a single 6X dose of.

"A single 6X dose"? That's what I said. It's astonishing how little of the mother tincture is in a single dose, even of that preparation (1ppm, I think) - especially by the time you've just sprayed a little of it on some lactose pills and allowed it to dry, then taken one of the pills.

Rolfe.

Rolfe · 28th September 2007, 06:25 AM

Originally Posted by danielk

Every time I read the accounts of skeptics trying to kill themselves with homeopathic "medicine", I'm in awe of their bravery. Not because I think homeopathy actually works, but simply because I wouldn't trust the homeopaths to manufacture their stuff correctly, especially when my health or even my life depends on it. Yes, I'm just a wimp.

I'd be interested to know how this particular problem is dealt with when skeptics do the mass suicide stunt in public. Testing the stuff for any harmful ingredients is going to be pretty expensive given the concentrations we're talking about, isn't it? And in any case it's not as impressive as making a beeline for the closest drugstore and swallowing a whole box of whatever homeopathic pills they sell.

Realistically, I very much doubt there's anything that shouldn't be there in the overwhelming majority of homoeopathic preparations that really are homoeopathic (excluding that "1X" and "2X" Zicam, and scams like that), and are produced by the well-known homoeopathic manufacturers. They've got too much to lose if the adulteration was discovered.

The danger area is much more in Chinese herbal medicine, where anything is a herb, including betamethasone if that's what the guru decided, and even where plants are used, it only has to be a plant that looks like the one in the original recipe.

There's a well-known case where a Chinese herbal cream that was performing apparent miracles with children with eczema was found to be pretty much betamethasone cream repackaged. Of course it was producing a marked improvement. By using a prescription-only drug which the dermatologists wouldn't prescribe for the children because of the side-effects. So much for the natural medicine not having side effects.

There was another case (in Brighton) where a woman went into kidney failure after a Chinese herbalist gave her a herb which is actually banned in this country because it's known to cause kidney failure. The herbalist was acquitted because she said she didn't know what was in the preparation, she had trusted her supplier.

Rolfe.

24th September 2007, 09:51 AM	#1
Dabljuh Muse Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 601	What my GF bought First of all, until yesterday I didn't mind homoepathy. I don't buy into the argument that people who take homeopathic "remedies" would otherwise be treated with real medication. Alternative medicine is popular for a reason, because it often does less harm overall than most pharmaceutical treatments, and I'm very skeptical of the medical establishment as a whole (as some of you may know). So I'm willing to defend homeopathy most of the time as "At least it doesn't hurt" fully aware that it's a load of crap. But then my GF bought food supplements. She thought she was buying minerals (calcium, magnesium etc) until I read the label. It was "homeopathic minerals." "Homeopathic calcium", "homeopathic magnesium". In reality this stuff doesn't contain any minerals at all. Ok, the label says its homeopathic in fine print in the corner, and the big letters say its Calcium Something. And it doesn't contain an actual mg/dose of the minerals statement, just a "2 pops every day" kinda advice. I'm pissed. This is fraud, dammit.
Dabljuh Muse Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 601	__________________ Damn me, for I am Troll Skilled above-average and aware of it String Theory Sucks! If you're american and your position is largely reflected by the mainstream media, you are almost certainly wrong.

24th September 2007, 10:03 AM	#2
Rolfe Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 34,336	Well, what she bought was a fraud, capitalising on the lack of regulation of "homoeopathic" products. It wasn't actually homoeopathy. That's a different sort of fraud. Rolfe.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

24th September 2007, 10:09 AM	#3
madurobob Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Blue Heaven, NC Posts: 5,547	Originally Posted by Dabljuh Alternative medicine is popular for a reason, because it often does less harm overall than most pharmaceutical treatments, and I'm very skeptical of the medical establishment as a whole (as some of you may know). So I'm willing to defend homeopathy most of the time as "At least it doesn't hurt" fully aware that it's a load of crap. But then my GF bought food supplements. She thought she was buying minerals (calcium, magnesium etc) until I read the label. It was "homeopathic minerals." "Homeopathic calcium", "homeopathic magnesium". In reality this stuff doesn't contain any minerals at all. And yet you still insist it does no harm? Suppose your GF had a chronic calcium deficiency and desperately needed calcium. Had you not pointed out the total lack of calcium in her calcium pills, she may well have suffered terribly. How can you honestly still say "at least it doesn't hurt" when you've experienced firsthand how it could?
	__________________ Insert witty phrase or out of context post by another member here.

24th September 2007, 10:58 AM	#4
Dabljuh Muse Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 601	No problem, it didn't hurt (except for the 15$). You shouldn't fight a nutritional deficiency with pills alone. A dietary change is always better. I have a couple of magnesium pills around, in case I get symptoms of a magnesium deficiency (My eyes go crazy) I eat a couple of em and remember to buy more veggies and eat less carbohydrates. (Magnesium deficiency can be caused by eating too much processed/refined starch) My GF had got an iron deficiency diagnosed, and was treated with iron infusions. [hint: I'm generally skeptical of injections of this type. If anyone has informations on this type of treatment post something about it] Because the increased iron levels can hamper the absorption of other minerals, she figured it'd be smart to supplement those as a precaution. There simply is no instant remedy pill, where, when you fail to take it, you die or something otherwise horrible happens. Only injections have even the potential to do that (atropine, morphine, insuline, ephenedrine etc) Mineral supplements is something you take to prevent possible problems, and even those supplements can cause problems by themselves as the spurious elements are in a fragile balance. If you take too much of one thing, it'll hamper the absorption of another thing etc. The reason I feel frauded for her is because she wasted a 15$ on something that is worthless for the purpose she bought it for. She does sometimes treat stuff with homoepathy, but even she says she feels cheated. I don't mind people selling homeopathic remedies as long as the label says big n fat that it's homeopathic. A flu usually doesn't need more than the person staying in bed a couple days (and there's no good treatment anyways) Where I think the line is crossed is dietary supplements.
Dabljuh Muse Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 601	__________________ Damn me, for I am Troll Skilled above-average and aware of it String Theory Sucks! If you're american and your position is largely reflected by the mainstream media, you are almost certainly wrong.

24th September 2007, 11:06 AM	#5
Michael Redman Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: St. Paul, MN Posts: 3,063	If you don't care if it works, so long as it doesn't hurt, I would think you would prefer supplements that didn't contain any actual ingredients. You can certainly do real harm ingesting real minerals. These supplements, on the other hand, are quite safe.
	__________________ The rule is perfect; in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane. - Mark Twain

24th September 2007, 12:09 PM	#6
Dabljuh Muse Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 601	You'd think wrong. I don't mind other people taking worthless stuff (as long as they bear me telling them all the time that <s>they're</s> the medication is worthless) but I do mind people selling something as something that's tried and true when it is in fact worthless. Consider aspirin. Say you bring a box of aspirine home. You know aspirin, since you've probably taken it a lot. At home you read the label more accurately and realize this is "homeopathic aspirine". Wouldn't you feel cheated? It says "aspirine" right there on the box, but isnt. The example is probably bad since aspirine is a trademark. "Calcium" and "Magnesium" etc are not, and thus are not protected. If I buy a box of dietary supplements that say "X" on them, I expect "X" to be in it. Anything else is fraud. That's a difference to saying "The compound in this box will cure Y" when it actually doesn't. I don't expect any compound to cure Y 100% of the time. I realize some stuffs may actually have a chance at it and others don't. There's a grave difference between saying "This box contains X" and "What's in this box cures Y". You can know X. Knowing what cures Y is a lot harder. Another example: Coke, Weed, Heroin. If I buy a pill off a guy and he tells me its gonna make me fly, I prolly won't kill him if it doesn't in the end. If the guy sells me heroin and it turns out its "homeopathic heroin", he's one dead sucker. You need to know your poison. What I criticise about homeopathy is that it's not working any better than a placebo. What I criticise about "homeopathic calcium" is that it doesn't contain any calcium, I don't care if the calcium "works" or not when buying it, because I buy calcium, not a cure.
Dabljuh Muse Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 601	__________________ Damn me, for I am Troll Skilled above-average and aware of it String Theory Sucks! If you're american and your position is largely reflected by the mainstream media, you are almost certainly wrong.

24th September 2007, 12:12 PM	#7
fls Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 10,236	Originally Posted by Dabljuh No problem, it didn't hurt (except for the 15$). You shouldn't fight a nutritional deficiency with pills alone. A dietary change is always better. I have a couple of magnesium pills around, in case I get symptoms of a magnesium deficiency (My eyes go crazy) I eat a couple of em and remember to buy more veggies and eat less carbohydrates. (Magnesium deficiency can be caused by eating too much processed/refined starch) Yeah, that acute magnesium deficiency's a real bugger. You may consider laying off the you-know-what, though. Quote: My GF had got an iron deficiency diagnosed, and was treated with iron infusions. [hint: I'm generally skeptical of injections of this type. If anyone has informations on this type of treatment post something about it] I gots lots of information. What do you prefer....unsubstantiated anecdote, thinly disguised ads from purveyors of snake oil, or maverick scientist from an unrelated field? Quote: Mineral supplements is something you take to prevent possible problems, and even those supplements can cause problems by themselves as the spurious elements are in a fragile balance. If you take too much of one thing, it'll hamper the absorption of another thing etc. I often wonder how the human race managed to survive so long considering the exquisitely fragile balance we seem to be in. Quote: The reason I feel frauded for her is because she wasted a 15$ on something that is worthless for the purpose she bought it for. For the stated purpose, it was probably as useful as anything else she could have bought. Quote: She does sometimes treat stuff with homoepathy, but even she says she feels cheated. I don't mind people selling homeopathic remedies as long as the label says big n fat that it's homeopathic. A flu usually doesn't need more than the person staying in bed a couple days (and there's no good treatment anyways) Where I think the line is crossed is dietary supplements. It's my impression that for the way that dietary supplements are usually used, it doesn't really matter if they're homeopathic or not. And as Michael pointed out, there is probably less chance of harm with the homeopathic ones (not zero chance though, as discussed in this thread). ETA: I do have a little sympathy, though. I have several times almost bought homeopathic preparations because it required careful reading to notice that part. Either drug stores shouldn't carry them, or they should be in a section quite different from the conventional therapeutics. Linda
	__________________ God:a capricious creative or controlling force said to be the subject of a religion. Evidence is anything that tends to make a proposition more or less true.-Loss Leader SCAM will now be referred to as DIM (Demonstrably Ineffective Medicine) Look how nicely I'm not reminding you you're dumb.-Happy Bunny When I give an example, do not assume I am excluding every other possible example. Thank you. Last edited by fls; 24th September 2007 at 12:19 PM.

24th September 2007, 12:19 PM	#8
madurobob Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Blue Heaven, NC Posts: 5,547	Originally Posted by Dabljuh Another example: Coke, Weed, Heroin. If I buy a pill off a guy and he tells me its gonna make me fly, I prolly won't kill him if it doesn't in the end. If the guy sells me heroin and it turns out its "homeopathic heroin", he's one dead sucker. What a brilliant idea! Homeopathic Heroin! Then, once everyone was hooked, I could set up a series of homeopathic methadone clinics....
	__________________ Insert witty phrase or out of context post by another member here.

24th September 2007, 12:31 PM	#9
Ivor the Engineer Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: South Britain, near the middle Posts: 9,553	Originally Posted by fls <snip> ETA: I do have a little sympathy, though. I have several times almost bought homeopathic preparations because it required careful reading to notice that part. Either drug stores shouldn't carry them, or they should be in a section quite different from the conventional therapeutics. Linda I'd have thought that cheap drugs and stuff for personal use would be obtained by physicians in a similar way to how stationary for personal use is by people in other professions
	__________________ My Blog.

24th September 2007, 03:26 PM	#10
krazyKemist Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Deep inside an extinct volcano Posts: 432	Originally Posted by Dabljuh First of all, until yesterday I didn't mind homoepathy. I don't buy into the argument that people who take homeopathic "remedies" would otherwise be treated with real medication. Why ? Most people who buy homeopathy do not know there is no active substance in it, and depends on some mysterious "potentisation". Ask around. They associate it with "natural", which is another fallacy. Quote: Alternative medicine is popular for a reason, because it often does less harm overall than most pharmaceutical treatments, and I'm very skeptical of the medical establishment as a whole (as some of you may know). So I'm willing to defend homeopathy most of the time as "At least it doesn't hurt" fully aware that it's a load of crap. Alternative medicine is popular because it is equal to natural, which itself is equal to good in most people's minds. People forget that cobra venom, hemlock, botulic toxin and digitalin are all natural, and all poisonous. Most of us have had no contact with untamed nature, which we would find quite different from what we imagine it is. Quote: But then my GF bought food supplements. She thought she was buying minerals (calcium, magnesium etc) until I read the label. It was "homeopathic minerals." "Homeopathic calcium", "homeopathic magnesium". In reality this stuff doesn't contain any minerals at all. That may be there to avoid regulation and mandatory testing. It has been done in the past; some homeopathic preparations have even been found to contain actual drugs so that they, well, be effective. It may contain some things (including calcium) in unknown amounts. Quote: Ok, the label says its homeopathic in fine print in the corner, and the big letters say its Calcium Something. And it doesn't contain an actual mg/dose of the minerals statement, just a "2 pops every day" kinda advice. I'm pissed. This is fraud, dammit. It is. But can't your GF get her calcium from her food ? Isn't that more natural ? I never understood the logics of the food supplement crowd. How natural is it to eat pills instead of food in an attempt to self medicate ? Why distrust products which are tested for efficacy and safety and put trust in products which are not ? Vitamin manufacturers are not charities either. They too are in this business for profit. the Kemist
	__________________ But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake. And the Science gets done. -- GLaDOS

25th September 2007, 03:06 AM	#11
Dabljuh Muse Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 601	Originally Posted by krazyKemist Why ? Most people who buy homeopathy do not know there is no active substance in it, and depends on some mysterious "potentisation". Ask around. They associate it with "natural", which is another fallacy. Most people buy drugs because they think they work. If they believe they work because of good advertisement, or because of personal experience isn't important. Quote: Alternative medicine is popular because it is equal to natural, which itself is equal to good in most people's minds. People forget that cobra venom, hemlock, botulic toxin and digitalin are all natural, and all poisonous. Most of us have had no contact with untamed nature, which we would find quite different from what we imagine it is. Well can't really agree there. People like "Natural" medicine because they've made bad experiences with pharmaceutical (chemical) products. Its not just hippies (anarcho-primitivists) who like homeopathy. They want gentle medicine, rather than the chemical mace. And it doesn't get much more gentle than lactose pills. Quote: It is. But can't your GF get her calcium from her food ? Isn't that more natural ? I never understood the logics of the food supplement crowd. How natural is it to eat pills instead of food in an attempt to self medicate ? Why distrust products which are tested for efficacy and safety and put trust in products which are not ? Vitamin manufacturers are not charities either. They too are in this business for profit. As I said, its not about "natural", its about "gentle", hard to overdose. And homeopathic stuff has a fairly good safety record. "As long as it doesn't harm". Now the supplements. The thing is, our food isn't natural. Maybe it never was, there's folks who advertise "cavemen diets" - fruits and veggies, little meat, mostly uncooked. Stuff like that. Now its kind of ridiculous to supplement a bad diet with pills, but still. It may have some values. Those minerals probably work even better when digested from plants and animals, rather than in an elemental form, or a salt. Originally Posted by fls Yeah, that acute magnesium deficiency's a real bugger. You may consider laying off the you-know-what, though. Since you're putting it that way, you're probably talking of something sexy. Or you're telling me to quit the pancakes, I dunno. Feel free to elaborate. [edit] Ah, now I get it. I said "My eyes go crazy" - well that was a bit inaccurate. Basically the eyelids start to "vibrate". Very annoying.
Dabljuh Muse Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 601	__________________ Damn me, for I am Troll Skilled above-average and aware of it String Theory Sucks! If you're american and your position is largely reflected by the mainstream media, you are almost certainly wrong. Last edited by Dabljuh; 25th September 2007 at 03:10 AM.

25th September 2007, 03:35 AM	#12
fls Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 10,236	Originally Posted by Dabljuh Most people buy drugs because they think they work. If they believe they work because of good advertisement, or because of personal experience isn't important. Well can't really agree there. People like "Natural" medicine because they've made bad experiences with pharmaceutical (chemical) products. Its not just hippies (anarcho-primitivists) who like homeopathy. They want gentle medicine, rather than the chemical mace. And it doesn't get much more gentle than lactose pills. As I said, its not about "natural", its about "gentle", hard to overdose. And homeopathic stuff has a fairly good safety record. "As long as it doesn't harm". Exactly. So, again, you really should have no complaint with the pills your GF bought. She can think the pills work regardless of what they're actually made of, and they're likely to be gentle. Isn't that all she's asking of them? Quote: Now the supplements. The thing is, our food isn't natural. Maybe it never was, there's folks who advertise "cavemen diets" - fruits and veggies, little meat, mostly uncooked. Stuff like that. Now its kind of ridiculous to supplement a bad diet with pills, but still. It may have some values. Those minerals probably work even better when digested from plants and animals, rather than in an elemental form, or a salt. When all you're treating is an idea, does the substance really matter? Quote: Since you're putting it that way, you're probably talking of something sexy. Or you're telling me to quit the pancakes, I dunno. Feel free to elaborate. [edit] Ah, now I get it. I said "My eyes go crazy" - well that was a bit inaccurate. Basically the eyelids start to "vibrate". Very annoying. I was trying to feed you a good line. Linda
	__________________ God:a capricious creative or controlling force said to be the subject of a religion. Evidence is anything that tends to make a proposition more or less true.-Loss Leader SCAM will now be referred to as DIM (Demonstrably Ineffective Medicine) Look how nicely I'm not reminding you you're dumb.-Happy Bunny When I give an example, do not assume I am excluding every other possible example. Thank you.

25th September 2007, 03:44 AM	#13
Rasmus Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 6,138	I'll never understand homeopathy ... What about "like cures like"? Shouldn't a calcium deficiency require some homeopathic remedie other than diluted calcium? So it would actually be very important to clearly label homeopathic remedies as being homeopathic, since one would be looking for different substances, no?
Rasmus Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 6,138	__________________ "Well, the religious community could not just make it up." - JetLeg

25th September 2007, 03:52 AM	#14
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985	Labelling something "homeopathic" is simply a marketing ploy. Chances are the product is lightyears away from being anything homeopathic at all. It's just a bunch of words on the box or tube. See my sig? It's all about the dollars.
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985

25th September 2007, 07:15 AM	#15
Cuddles Decoy Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A magical land full of pink fluffy sheeps and bunnies Posts: 16,591	Originally Posted by Dabljuh but I do mind people selling something as something that's tried and true when it is in fact worthless. So that would be all alternative medicine then. It's been said before and will no doubt be said again - there is no such thing as alternative medicine. If it works, it's just medicine. If it doesn't work, it's not any kind of medicine, alternative or otherwise. Don't you feel just a litte hypocritical when you complain about selling worthless things as if they work while at the same time supporting worthless stuff that's sold as if it works?
	__________________ I am not a little teapot.

25th September 2007, 11:52 AM	#16
TX50 Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 1,555	Originally Posted by Zep Labelling something "homeopathic" is simply a marketing ploy. Chances are the product is lightyears away from being anything homeopathic at all. It's just a bunch of words on the box or tube. See my sig? It's all about the dollars. Yes. This is also common where I live currently (Netherlands). Many things are labelled "homeopathic" when they would more correctly be called "herbal" remedies, with significant active ingredients. Many of them work a treat too.
TX50 Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 1,555

25th September 2007, 11:55 AM	#17
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,432	Originally Posted by TX50 Yes. This is also common where I live currently (Netherlands). Many things are labelled "homeopathic" when they would more correctly be called "herbal" remedies, with significant active ingredients. Many of them work a treat too. Well this is often because they have real medicine in there as well that is not on the label.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

25th September 2007, 02:31 PM	#18
krazyKemist Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Deep inside an extinct volcano Posts: 432	Originally Posted by Dabljuh Well can't really agree there. People like "Natural" medicine because they've made bad experiences with pharmaceutical (chemical) products. Its not just hippies (anarcho-primitivists) who like homeopathy. They want gentle medicine, rather than the chemical mace. And it doesn't get much more gentle than lactose pills. What most people don't understand is that everything in the body involves chemical reactions, and everything that works (has a real therapeutic effect) therefore contains 'chemicals' (herbal medicine is the founder of the modern pharmaceutical industry). That is why 'natural medicine' is a fallacy. Natural does equal good and gentle in most people's mind (make your own survey). And you do not need to be a hippy for that, granted. Quote: Now the supplements. The thing is, our food isn't natural. Maybe it never was, there's folks who advertise "cavemen diets" - fruits and veggies, little meat, mostly uncooked. Stuff like that. Now its kind of ridiculous to supplement a bad diet with pills, but still. It may have some values. Those minerals probably work even better when digested from plants and animals, rather than in an elemental form, or a salt. What's 'natural' ? Isn't that something the vitamin/supplement industry wants you to believe ? They do have a lot of money to make encouraging distrust in the food supply, which is more rich and plentyful in the western world than ever. We have fresh fruits and vegetables even in the middle of winter, when our grandparents did not. Our grandparents did not take vitamin pills and we feast on them. Where's the logic ? Actually, the only people who would really need those supplements either have specific health problems, extremely unhealthy food habits or live in the third world, where they cannot afford them. There is more than one reason to eat healthy instead of going for supplements: - As you said, most vitamins and minerals, especially metals, are better absorbed, with much less problems, in food than in pills (just go on iron supplements and you'll see what I mean with problems). - For a useful/healthy amount of vitamins and minerals, the cost is much less when taking it in food. - Supplements have been known to contain harmful doses of vitamins and minerals, as well as dangerous trace compounds, being sold with little mandatory testing requirements. The food supply by comparison is submitted to mandatory testing and control in the western world. - Eating healthily is part of an effort to have a good lifestyle. If you are not even willing to make an effort to eat properly, what's the odds of you going for physical activity ? And that is why I dislike the food supplement industry. They undermine the effort to help people develop a good lifestyle, while ripping them off. the Kemist
	__________________ But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake. And the Science gets done. -- GLaDOS

25th September 2007, 02:53 PM	#19
blutoski Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 5,983	Originally Posted by Dabljuh First of all, until yesterday I didn't mind homoepathy. I don't buy into the argument that people who take homeopathic "remedies" would otherwise be treated with real medication. Alternative medicine is popular for a reason, because it often does less harm overall than most pharmaceutical treatments, and I'm very skeptical of the medical establishment as a whole (as some of you may know). So I'm willing to defend homeopathy most of the time as "At least it doesn't hurt" fully aware that it's a load of crap. But then my GF bought food supplements. She thought she was buying minerals (calcium, magnesium etc) until I read the label. It was "homeopathic minerals." "Homeopathic calcium", "homeopathic magnesium". In reality this stuff doesn't contain any minerals at all. Ok, the label says its homeopathic in fine print in the corner, and the big letters say its Calcium Something. And it doesn't contain an actual mg/dose of the minerals statement, just a "2 pops every day" kinda advice. I'm pissed. This is fraud, dammit. I think the four key complaints that I have about homeopathy are these: it is often sold as a substitute for conventional treatments that are demonstrated to work. eg: stop taking statins, start taking Strauss Heart Drops the public widely confuse 'homeopathic' with 'naturopathic,' and homeopathy exploits this - they are in the unique position to sell cheap solvent as medicine. granted: homeopathy is a type of naturopathy/herbalism, but notice that their merchandising prioritizes information about the plants that go into the mixtures, and barely mentions potentization or dilution. many homeopathic remedies are simply not homeopathic - they are undiluted many homeopathic remedies are adulterated with prescription medicines, and can interact with or negate a patient's existing regimen. eg: PC-SPES, or more recently, Axcil and Desirin
	__________________ "Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett

25th September 2007, 03:04 PM	#20
genesplicer Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Riverside county, CA Posts: 321	Don't worry, all that highly diluted "Homeopathic calcium" will work wonders to build up your highly diluted bone structure...

26th September 2007, 03:22 AM	#21
Dabljuh Muse Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 601	Originally Posted by krazyKemist What most people don't understand is that everything in the body involves chemical reactions, and everything that works (has a real therapeutic effect) therefore contains 'chemicals' (herbal medicine is the founder of the modern pharmaceutical industry). That is why 'natural medicine' is a fallacy. Natural does equal good and gentle in most people's mind (make your own survey). No need to explain it to me. But there are chemical compounds that occur in nature, and there are chemical compounds that don't. Granted, both are 'chemicals' but they do not have to necessarily be chemically produced. Saying A is chemical while B is 'natural' is really nothing more than a crutch for saying 'A is chemically produced and does not occur in nature while B does' - Only people with very little education do not understand this and take 'A is natural, B is chemical' literally. Quote: They undermine the effort to help people develop a good lifestyle, while ripping them off. Basically you are saying that supplements are a crutch.
Dabljuh Muse Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 601	__________________ Damn me, for I am Troll Skilled above-average and aware of it String Theory Sucks! If you're american and your position is largely reflected by the mainstream media, you are almost certainly wrong.

26th September 2007, 03:24 AM	#22
Dabljuh Muse Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 601	Originally Posted by blutoski I think the four key complaints that I have about homeopathy are these: it is often sold as a substitute for conventional treatments that are demonstrated to work. eg: stop taking statins, start taking Strauss Heart Drops the public widely confuse 'homeopathic' with 'naturopathic,' and homeopathy exploits this - they are in the unique position to sell cheap solvent as medicine. granted: homeopathy is a type of naturopathy/herbalism, but notice that their merchandising prioritizes information about the plants that go into the mixtures, and barely mentions potentization or dilution. many homeopathic remedies are simply not homeopathic - they are undiluted many homeopathic remedies are adulterated with prescription medicines, and can interact with or negate a patient's existing regimen. eg: PC-SPES, or more recently, Axcil and Desirin Now that's an interesting point of view. What would you do about the situation? Create legislation to make sure anything that says "homeopathic" is really "homeopathic" ?
Dabljuh Muse Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 601	__________________ Damn me, for I am Troll Skilled above-average and aware of it String Theory Sucks! If you're american and your position is largely reflected by the mainstream media, you are almost certainly wrong.

26th September 2007, 04:26 AM	#23
Cuddles Decoy Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A magical land full of pink fluffy sheeps and bunnies Posts: 16,591	Originally Posted by Dabljuh No need to explain it to me. But there are chemical compounds that occur in nature, and there are chemical compounds that don't. Granted, both are 'chemicals' but they do not have to necessarily be chemically produced. Chemicals not produced chemically? Originally Posted by Dabljuh Now that's an interesting point of view. What would you do about the situation? Create legislation to make sure anything that says "homeopathic" is really "homeopathic" ? And then ban anything that says "homeopathic" until they can prove that it actually does anything.
	__________________ I am not a little teapot.

26th September 2007, 06:53 AM	#24
Michael Redman Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: St. Paul, MN Posts: 3,063	Originally Posted by Dabljuh Only people with very little education do not understand this and take 'A is natural, B is chemical' literally. I think that most people believe there is a fundamental qualitative difference between natural and synthetic substances. Whether they understand, academically, that "chemical" is not synonymous with "man-made", they still think that, as a rule, man made "chemicals" are more dangerous than natural substances.
	__________________ The rule is perfect; in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane. - Mark Twain

26th September 2007, 07:02 AM	#25
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Shouldn't homeopathic calcium give you calcium deficiency?

26th September 2007, 07:16 AM	#26
Michael Redman Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: St. Paul, MN Posts: 3,063	Hydrofluoric acid would do the trick.
	__________________ The rule is perfect; in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane. - Mark Twain

26th September 2007, 09:06 AM	#27
krazyKemist Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Deep inside an extinct volcano Posts: 432	Originally Posted by Michael Redman Hydrofluoric acid would do the trick. With the slight disadvantage of fusing your joints together. Well not at 30C. However, somebody should tell the poor idiot who would work on the preparation of the 'remedy'. the Kemist
	__________________ But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake. And the Science gets done. -- GLaDOS

26th September 2007, 09:51 AM	#28
Rolfe Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 34,336	When we were trying to figure out if there was any homoeopathic preparation we would not be prepared to take a dose of at 6X, the only possible contenders (because of their extreme toxicity in small amounts) were botulinum toxin, pufferfish toxin and a Staph. enteritidis (I think) toxin. All very very natural. Synthetic things like nerve gases weren't even in the frame. In the end however we decided that there was in fact nothing we wouldn't be prepared to take a single 6X dose of. By the time you've thought about the concentration of the "mother tincture", and how quickly it disappears on diluting, and how small a dose would be, and how much you'd actually get if you just took a sugar pill that had been sprayed with a drop or two of the 6X preparation - well, bring on the puffer-fish, I'm cool. Rolfe.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

26th September 2007, 10:35 AM	#29
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,432	Originally Posted by Rolfe When we were trying to figure out if there was any homoeopathic preparation we would not be prepared to take a dose of at 6X, the only possible contenders (because of their extreme toxicity in small amounts) were botulinum toxin, pufferfish toxin and a Staph. enteritidis (I think) toxin. All very very natural. Synthetic things like nerve gases weren't even in the frame. Rycin has killed in very low doses. And I think that polonium 210 could be in very low consentrations and be very radioactive. It might depend on how large a dose of 6x you are talking about.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

26th September 2007, 01:20 PM	#30
Rolfe Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 34,336	I think ricin was one of the ones considered, but it was a lot less toxic than these others. It's "natural" too of course. I don't think we looked at polonium - the discussion was pre Litvinenko. Now, is polonium "natural"? Probably, as it's not a synthetic molecule. Anyway, it does depend on the dose. Only very very small quantities of the final potency are actually ingested, and it was that which made even that very "low" potency harmless. Note I specified one dose. It would be 5ml or less even of a liquid potency, but if you took a sugar pill it's a tiny amount. They only spray the pills or immerse them in the potency briefly, then allow them to dry. Rolfe.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

27th September 2007, 12:12 AM	#31
Dabljuh Muse Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 601	Originally Posted by Cuddles Chemicals not produced chemically? Assist me with the articulation here. "Chemical reactions performed industrially by man" Originally Posted by Dr Adequate Shouldn't homeopathic calcium give you calcium deficiency? If I get the homeopathic logic right, I think homeopathic calcium should cure a calcium overdose. Originally Posted by Michael Redman I think that most people believe there is a fundamental qualitative difference between natural and synthetic substances. Whether they understand, academically, that "chemical" is not synonymous with "man-made", they still think that, as a rule, man made "chemicals" are more dangerous than natural substances. Its not so wrong. Magnesium for example is a key component of chlorophyl. Your body, over millennia of evolution, knows how to break down chlorophyl and get the magnesium. If you just eat powdered magnesium, the absorption is worse by several orders of magnitude. Of course, the magnesium is just the same, but in chlorophyl, it's embedded in a protein which is broken down and itself utilized in the digestion. Simply because your body hasn't evolved to digest powdered magnesium, it has evolved to digest chlorophyll and other proteins that contain the elements it needs. [edit:Actually (funny enough) 'synthetic chlorophyll' probably doesn't cut it either because a green plant will contain a truckload of additional proteins and stuff, which the body has evolved to also use in the digestion and absorption] Originally Posted by Rolfe When we were trying to figure out if there was any homoeopathic preparation we would not be prepared to take a dose of at 6X, the only possible contenders (because of their extreme toxicity in small amounts) were botulinum toxin, pufferfish toxin and a Staph. enteritidis (I think) toxin. All very very natural. Synthetic things like nerve gases weren't even in the frame. In the end however we decided that there was in fact nothing we wouldn't be prepared to take a single 6X dose of. By the time you've thought about the concentration of the "mother tincture", and how quickly it disappears on diluting, and how small a dose would be, and how much you'd actually get if you just took a sugar pill that had been sprayed with a drop or two of the 6X preparation - well, bring on the puffer-fish, I'm cool. Rolfe. I thought the most toxic thing was Plutonium-239? Well if any homeopathic remedy says it's got plutonium in it, I'd immediatelly inform homeland security. Terrorists could buy a homeopathic remedy the size of the sun and distill it until they get a critical amount of weaponized plutonium to use it in a terrorist attack!!!1 (That is, provided of course, under the completely unsubstantiated and unrealistic assumption that the homeopathic remedies were actually produced the "homeopathic way", rather than being just lactose pills with different labels)
Dabljuh Muse Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 601	__________________ Damn me, for I am Troll Skilled above-average and aware of it String Theory Sucks! If you're american and your position is largely reflected by the mainstream media, you are almost certainly wrong. Last edited by Dabljuh; 27th September 2007 at 12:27 AM.

27th September 2007, 03:51 AM	#32
Rolfe Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 34,336	Originally Posted by Dabljuh I thought the most toxic thing was Plutonium-239? If I remember the results of that investigation correctly, no. Plutonium was one of the things we looked at, and it wasn't as toxic on a molecule-per-molecule (or weight-for-weight) basis as the toxins. As I recall. Originally Posted by Dabljuh Well if any homeopathic remedy says it's got plutonium in it, I'd immediatelly inform homeland security. No homoeopathic remedy ever says it has anything in it, for the very good reason that it probably doesn't have any of the whatever-it-is-on-the-label in it. Like I said. Large print, "Belladonna 30C". Small print, "Contents: sucrose/lactose". Rolfe. Rolfe.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

27th September 2007, 10:04 AM	#33
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885	I suspect the concentration of plutonium in many soils is higher than would be found in a homoeopathic 6X plutonium pill. The terrorists would do better to dig up their back yard.
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885

28th September 2007, 05:19 AM	#34
Deetee Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 3,790	Originally Posted by Rolfe When we were trying to figure out if there was any homoeopathic preparation we would not be prepared to take a dose of at 6X, the only possible contenders (because of their extreme toxicity in small amounts) were botulinum toxin, pufferfish toxin and a Staph. enteritidis (I think) toxin. Rolfe. Salmonella enteritidis?
Deetee Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 3,790	__________________ "Reci bobu bob a popu pop." - Tanja "Everything is physics. This does not mean that physics is everything." - Cuddles "The entire practice of homeopathy can be substituted with the advice to "take two aspirins and call me in the morning." - Linda "Homeopathy: I never knew there was so little in it." - BSM

28th September 2007, 05:26 AM	#35
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: a little toolshed Posts: 18,592	Originally Posted by Dabljuh You'd think wrong. I don't mind other people taking worthless stuff (as long as they bear me telling them all the time that <s>they're</s> the medication is worthless) but I do mind people selling something as something that's tried and true when it is in fact worthless. Dude, your reaction is all twisted up. Homeopathic medications are sold as tried and true, and are in fact worthless. Yet you say don't mind homeopathy. Perhaps you don't mind when other people get fooled, but do mind when you get fooled? ~~ Paul
	__________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny