|
We're not comparing modern drugs and homeopathy, we're saying how Homeopathy doesn't actually do anything besides the placebo effect.
I would admit that vitamins and such in "herbal remedy" form are decent for you (if you want to pay a little more than just the standard no name pill which does the same thing). And your personal recollection of your children's ear infection rate is heavily based upon your own brain seeing patterns that may not be there. However if you preformed a double blind test on your own children, and the children of others (if you somehow got permission from parents, or just did it anyway, FOR SCIENCE!) and shown that this is true, that would be neat.
I've only gotten one ear infection in my life, and I have never taken herbal/homeopathic medicine. These types of things are highly dependent on personal hygiene, education/oversight by the parent, and environment the child is in, so it's very very hard to relate this situation to the proof that homeopathy works.
|
On April 28 2011 23:26 Body_Shield wrote:
We're not comparing modern drugs and homeopathy, we're saying how Homeopathy doesn't actually do anything besides the placebo effect.
This is only true for the commonly marketed high dilution products that are 12C (24X) or above. A less diluted version such as 3X or 6X would be more than a placebo.
Making an argument based on a historic figure's recommendations practicing in the late 1700's compared to some modern practices that follow a more pathological approach is typical for those not well versed in debate. Find the extreme to debunk the idea. Ignore the moderate and more rational pieces of information because un-polarized you would have to actually have to learn something to speak intelligently about it.
The truly interesting fact then, is that it takes several days for an ear infection to clear up on anti-biotic. It takes several days for it to clear up treated homeopathicly. It also takes several days to clear up if untreated.
Societies perception is:
Anti-biotics are the best practice and effective
Homeopathy is a farce
Watchful waiting is plain stupid
Yet the end result is the same. The body heals the ear infection. The level of chemical exposure, is then ultimately at your discretion.
|
There was a lady who took a homeopathic nose spray and completely lost her sense of smell for several months. Apparently not only did it make food taste like nothing, but she eventually started hallucinating the worst smells ever, far worse then anything she ever smelled.
They way I see it is if people want to waste their money and endanger their lives, and the lives of their children, go for it. Of course they wont be allowed into most colleges with out getting a meningitis vaccine and I dont think they should be allowed into public schools and such with out getting vaccines for common communicable stuff
Source: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127905543
|
On April 29 2011 00:24 Eeryck wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 23:26 Body_Shield wrote:
We're not comparing modern drugs and homeopathy, we're saying how Homeopathy doesn't actually do anything besides the placebo effect.
This is only true for the commonly marketed high dilution products that are 12C (24X) or above. A less diluted version such as 3X or 6X would be more than a placebo. Making an argument based on a historic figure's recommendations practicing in the late 1700's compared to some modern practices that follow a more pathological approach is typical for those not well versed in debate. Find the extreme to debunk the idea. Ignore the moderate and more rational pieces of information because un-polarized you would have to actually have to learn something to speak intelligently about it. The truly interesting fact then, is that it takes several days for an ear infection to clear up on anti-biotic. It takes several days for it to clear up treated homeopathicly. It also takes several days to clear up if untreated. Societies perception is: Anti-biotics are the best practice and effective Homeopathy is a farce Watchful waiting is plain stupid Yet the end result is the same. The body heals the ear infection. The level of chemical exposure, is then ultimately at your discretion.
Did you miss the part of homeopathy that says "the more dilute it is, the more powerful it is"? The 3x mixture you've suggested is considered by homeopaths to be a poor treatment, while a one-part-in-ten-million-or-more (plus shaking) would be the best treatment.
There are other problems with your thinking, here. In homeopathy, the cause of ailments is used as the cure. Remember? "Like cures like." So if you really recommended a 2 parts water 1 part cure for poison... you'd be giving them more poison. This means that your less-dilute answer above about it being "more than a placebo" is still wrong... worse than a placebo, it would make you sicker. The only thing protecting homeopathic remedy users from the harmful effects of ingesting more of the symptom-causer of the symptom they wish to be rid of is the asinine idea of using more dilution to increase a (non-existent) medicinal effect.
Don't get tripped up in the line of thinking that others around you are blindly believing in trends. Their ability to debate with you doesn't change the relevant facts. Antibiotics kill germs, period. Homeopathic remedies attempt to combat illness with ailment causes + water + vibration, period.
As James Randi astutely pointed out, the practice hails from an era in which the practice of science was like the practice of art, you just tried whatever you creative thing you could think of and hoped it worked, because there was no good way to tell. We don't have that problem anymore, we can check these things, and we have, and there's no need to play pretend.
And just for the record, untreated infections can clear up, yes, and they can also cause serious damage. Biology is not perfect, our bodies are not perfect - our biology fails us all the time (see: cancer, allergies)
|
On April 28 2011 23:06 Eeryck wrote:
Empirically, I have to disagree with this. Herbal and Homeopathic remedies are far superior to supposed "modern medicine." My children's rate of ear infection is substantially lower than that of their peers and they have never been treated with anti-biotic. As well as their general susceptibility and duration of cold.
The human body in and of itself is pretty amazing and needs only very minimal support to heal efficiently.
Pumping it full of anti-biotic, steroids, narcotics and amphetamines under the guise of prescription medicine should not be considered the path to good health.
The fact that our medical community further takes the approach when confronted with information about side affects that "we never saw this prior to xyz treatment because we have changed how we diagnose abc ailment and the burden of proof that we are not the cause is not on us". I am surprised any rational person would accept this explanation. Fear is a strong motivator, I suppose.
So that leaves me with relying on me. Preparing my own tinctures and relying on good health practices. The only health industry that is failing people at a rate faster than the homeopathic solutions is the pharmaceutical companies. As far as I know death is still the ultimate end result.
Do you even know what antibiotics are meant to be used against? They're used for diseases caused by bacteria. An ear infection isn't always caused bacteria. However, doctors just hand it out like candy since a lot of diseases are caused by bacteria and patients are rarely satisfied, if they're told to just wait it out. This does not mean antibiotics are bad, it means your doctors are greedy. Blame your shitty medical system, not modern medicine.
Your anecdotal evidence only sounds like something you use to lie to yourself that you and your children are superior to others, because they don't use the witchcraft that is modern medicine. Maybe someday, when your children suffer because you decided to refuse medicine , you will understand.
|
I like the list of "things that work"... real thing #1 real thing #2 real thing #3, fake thing I am imposing #4.
|
On April 29 2011 00:24 Eeryck wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 23:26 Body_Shield wrote:
We're not comparing modern drugs and homeopathy, we're saying how Homeopathy doesn't actually do anything besides the placebo effect.
This is only true for the commonly marketed high dilution products that are 12C (24X) or above. A less diluted version such as 3X or 6X would be more than a placebo. Making an argument based on a historic figure's recommendations practicing in the late 1700's compared to some modern practices that follow a more pathological approach is typical for those not well versed in debate. Find the extreme to debunk the idea. Ignore the moderate and more rational pieces of information because un-polarized you would have to actually have to learn something to speak intelligently about it. The truly interesting fact then, is that it takes several days for an ear infection to clear up on anti-biotic. It takes several days for it to clear up treated homeopathicly. It also takes several days to clear up if untreated. Societies perception is: Anti-biotics are the best practice and effective Homeopathy is a farce Watchful waiting is plain stupid Yet the end result is the same. The body heals the ear infection. The level of chemical exposure, is then ultimately at your discretion.
I have some questions
1) The principle of homeopathy is that the more dilute a solution is, the more effective it is. How can you then say the less dilute solutions contain some sort of active ingredient. It is completely contrary to the core of homeopathy
2) You state that arguments around the pointlessness of homeopathy are based around outdated practices and that modern homeopathy has a more pathological approach. However this is not consistent with the fact that Water Memory was proposed as the reason homeopathy works in 1988 and is still stands.
3) Further to 2, while you argue the there is a more pathological approach, there does not exist research documenting biological plausibility and mechanisms of action of homeopathic tinctures, as exists for modern medical treatments.
4) You state that there are "moderate and more rational pieces of information" I would be interested in seeing these. Do they include peer reviewed double blinded studies, or the details outlined in point 3?
5) You say taking antibiotics are chemical exposure. Yet the most well known and highly common anti biotic is sourced from a fungus called 'Penicillium'. Is a plant extract not natural?
As a further note - Your 'evidence' of an ear infection is hardly fact. What is several days? How did you gather this data? What were the sample groups ears infected with?
Homeopathy doesn't work, such as Gloria Thomas, a child who died of eczema and an eye infection while being treated with homeopathy.
These diseases are easily treatable with modern medicine. Yet this poor girl died.
|
Russian Federation3632 Posts
Did you miss the part of homeopathy that says "the more dilute it is, the more powerful it is"? The 3x mixture you've suggested is considered by homeopaths to be a poor treatment, while a one-part-in-ten-million-or-more (plus shaking) would be the best treatment.
On an amusing note, there are some chemical reactions which actually accelerate with decreased catalyst loadings. Though the mechanism by which it does so has been carefully investigated ... unlike with certain 'medicine' practices.
All I've drawn from this discussion is that the placebo effect can be very powerful.
(PS pleasantly surprised to see that there's fairly little religion-bashing in this thread.)
|
Alternative medicine just means nobody has any idea why or how it works (if it even does). It's just theism.
|
On April 29 2011 14:32 kinetic_skink wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 00:24 Eeryck wrote:On April 28 2011 23:26 Body_Shield wrote:
We're not comparing modern drugs and homeopathy, we're saying how Homeopathy doesn't actually do anything besides the placebo effect.
This is only true for the commonly marketed high dilution products that are 12C (24X) or above. A less diluted version such as 3X or 6X would be more than a placebo. Making an argument based on a historic figure's recommendations practicing in the late 1700's compared to some modern practices that follow a more pathological approach is typical for those not well versed in debate. Find the extreme to debunk the idea. Ignore the moderate and more rational pieces of information because un-polarized you would have to actually have to learn something to speak intelligently about it. The truly interesting fact then, is that it takes several days for an ear infection to clear up on anti-biotic. It takes several days for it to clear up treated homeopathicly. It also takes several days to clear up if untreated. Societies perception is: Anti-biotics are the best practice and effective Homeopathy is a farce Watchful waiting is plain stupid Yet the end result is the same. The body heals the ear infection. The level of chemical exposure, is then ultimately at your discretion. I have some questions 1) The principle of homeopathy is that the more dilute a solution is, the more effective it is. How can you then say the less dilute solutions contain some sort of active ingredient. It is completely contrary to the core of homeopathy 2) You state that arguments around the pointlessness of homeopathy are based around outdated practices and that modern homeopathy has a more pathological approach. However this is not consistent with the fact that Water Memory was proposed as the reason homeopathy works in 1988 and is still stands. 3) Further to 2, while you argue the there is a more pathological approach, there does not exist research documenting biological plausibility and mechanisms of action of homeopathic tinctures, as exists for modern medical treatments. 4) You state that there are "moderate and more rational pieces of information" I would be interested in seeing these. Do they include peer reviewed double blinded studies, or the details outlined in point 3? 5) You say taking antibiotics are chemical exposure. Yet the most well known and highly common anti biotic is sourced from a fungus called 'Penicillium'. Is a plant extract not natural? As a further note - Your 'evidence' of an ear infection is hardly fact. What is several days? How did you gather this data? What were the sample groups ears infected with? Homeopathy doesn't work, such as Gloria Thomas, a child who died of eczema and an eye infection while being treated with homeopathy. These diseases are easily treatable with modern medicine. Yet this poor girl died.
Omg I just googled Gloria Thomas and that is absolutely AWFUL... I sincerely hope her parents are doing time... wtffff
edit: did more googling, the father is doing a minimum of 6 years and the mother is doing a minimum of 4... Seems like the justice system in Australia is better than most.
|
On April 29 2011 14:32 kinetic_skink wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 00:24 Eeryck wrote:
This is only true for the commonly marketed high dilution products that are 12C (24X) or above. A less diluted version such as 3X or 6X would be more than a placebo.
Making an argument based on a historic figure's recommendations practicing in the late 1700's compared to some modern practices that follow a more pathological approach is typical for those not well versed in debate. Find the extreme to debunk the idea. Ignore the moderate and more rational pieces of information because un-polarized you would have to actually have to learn something to speak intelligently about it.
The truly interesting fact then, is that it takes several days for an ear infection to clear up on anti-biotic. It takes several days for it to clear up treated homeopathicly. It also takes several days to clear up if untreated.
Societies perception is:
Anti-biotics are the best practice and effective
Homeopathy is a farce
Watchful waiting is plain stupid
Yet the end result is the same. The body heals the ear infection. The level of chemical exposure, is then ultimately at your discretion.
I have some questions 1) The principle of homeopathy is that the more dilute a solution is, the more effective it is. How can you then say the less dilute solutions contain some sort of active ingredient. It is completely contrary to the core of homeopathy 2) You state that arguments around the pointlessness of homeopathy are based around outdated practices and that modern homeopathy has a more pathological approach. However this is not consistent with the fact that Water Memory was proposed as the reason homeopathy works in 1988 and is still stands. 3) Further to 2, while you argue the there is a more pathological approach, there does not exist research documenting biological plausibility and mechanisms of action of homeopathic tinctures, as exists for modern medical treatments. 4) You state that there are "moderate and more rational pieces of information" I would be interested in seeing these.
Honestly, I should have left this whole discussion alone. What I actually practice is de-medicalization. With a more complete approach to health that includes diet, vitamins, and herbal/botanical supplements (regardless of their proven effectiveness, given the complexity of life you will never prove/disprove this even with a very complex regression analysis). This ensures when I do finally make it to a doctor for myself or family, I have a true bacterial problem that requires an anti-biotic and is something the medical community may have a "reasonable" chance and treating successfully.
Unfortunately for me and the point I was attempting to make is that some homeopathic remedies are in kind to some herbal supplements (albeit the homeopaths promote the more dilute or non-existent dosage).
I was making an argument for a lack of semantic understanding of the word homeopathy. I was allowing it to be more all encompassing than it is. A clarification I am happy to have.
Regarding the more pathological approach the use of anti-microbial supplements such as golden seal or echinacea as a first line of defense is what I was getting at. (The scientific community at large has not effective proven or disproven their effectiveness. Even though they have tried) Again, this level of semantics is my error, as I had lumped this in with homeopathic remedies. My own experience has allowed me to experience a reduced rate of medicalization for my family and now also a reduced rate of occurrence. This is not perceived (it is a realitively small sample though) because when you have zero rate of anti-biotic useage and everyone else has some that equals a difference. Perhaps I have won the health lottery and none of the infections were bacterial (something they don't test for).
On April 29 2011 14:32 kinetic_skink wrote:
Do they include peer reviewed double blinded studies, or the details outlined in point 3?
In all honesty I wish even modern medicine was held to this standard. Which they are not. The amount of "Science for profit" that goes on these days is exactly my problem with modern medicine and the practice of it.
If modern medicine did include this there would never be the misteps by the medical community of recommending and endorsing smoking. Or the current epidemic of failing to evaluate fructose consumption when dealing with the majority of health issues plaguing the worlds population today.
Perhaps, they would even consider limiting the amount of narcotics giving to newborns during the birthing process. (Epidural anyone)
There would also be less rush to market on new treatments meeting only the base minimal FDA requirements or bypassing them through "Science for profit"
On April 29 2011 14:32 kinetic_skink wrote:
5) You say taking antibiotics are chemical exposure. Yet the most well known and highly common anti biotic is sourced from a fungus called 'Penicillium'. Is a plant extract not natural?
It is not a function of natural, it is a function of processing. We now are on to highly genetically modified and mutated solutions, via radiation, or chemical addition that still have a natural derivative. I am still ok with the use of this if you have proof that there is a bacterial infection. Proof being the thing that is seldom there. Worry of litigation has lead to a prescribe first mentality.
Furthermore, if you bring your child in several times for an ear infection, the doctor will move on to prescribing steroids. Of course they don't tell you exactly that, but it is what you get. They still have not even determined if the infection was bacterial and necessary or able to be treated effectively. Yet they go right on prescribing because "standard of care" has gotten in the way of reasonable treatment due to fear of litigation or losing a profit for your business because your patient will go to a more prescription happy doctor.
On April 29 2011 14:32 kinetic_skink wrote:
As a further note - Your 'evidence' of an ear infection is hardly fact. What is several days? How did you gather this data? What were the sample groups ears infected with?
I hung this one out there very much on purpose. Because even modern medicine is coming around the the fact that these are typically overly treated with antibiotic. A little research with show that this is finally changing to a more "watchful waiting" approach by the medical community. (At least the more progressive and reasonable portion of the medical community) My own limited experience happens to strongly support this. However, the vast majority of society will still overly medicalize this.
On April 29 2011 14:32 kinetic_skink wrote:
Homeopathy doesn't work, such as Gloria Thomas, a child who died of eczema and an eye infection while being treated with homeopathy.
These diseases are easily treatable with modern medicine. Yet this poor girl died.
By this logic, vaccines don't work because they have killed people. Or have you noticed the disclaimers on some pharmaceuticals "may cause death" In fact, this logic was also applied to abortion when arguing against it that "my mother had a coat hanger abortion and died". It is an appeal the emotion.
In closing, I was wrong to support homeopathy as effective. It was a error of language on my part. However, due to the fact that in today's day and age any delay in treatment is considered "alternative medicine" I had a bit of a jerk knee reaction.
|
Russian Federation3632 Posts
There would also be less rush to market on new treatments meeting only the base minimal FDA requirements or bypassing them through "Science for profit"
Are you kidding me? FDA regulations are highly stringent, such that its very difficult for any promising drug candidate to go to trial. You have to demonstrate both 'safety' and 'efficacy' throughout the animal/human trial phases -- no easy task. Also, that "science for profit" thing is what drives all pharmaceutical research -- people aren't going to drop $880 million on research and development for nothing.
While I'm sympathetic to your argument that drugs are over-prescribed in American culture, saying something like that makes you seem like you don't know what you're talking about.
|
On April 28 2011 14:03 Dhalphir wrote:
Homeopathy is not just worthless, its DANGEROUS. It is sold and marketed as medicine, when all it is is water. People buy it in good faith expecting it to help them and it is NOT medicine.
For most minor illnesses the best thing you can do is drink a lot of water. The only difference is that this is expensive placebo advanced water ;o Actually, pretty much anytime you are sick your body benefits from drinking a lot of water, minor or serious (though in the case of a serious issue, you'd want to supplement the water with actual medicine). So I don't know if I'd call it dangerous... If nothing else, it gets people who are too stupid to drink water when they're sick to drink water.
|
On April 30 2011 04:16 Eeryck wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 14:32 kinetic_skink wrote:On April 29 2011 00:24 Eeryck wrote:
This is only true for the commonly marketed high dilution products that are 12C (24X) or above. A less diluted version such as 3X or 6X would be more than a placebo.
Making an argument based on a historic figure's recommendations practicing in the late 1700's compared to some modern practices that follow a more pathological approach is typical for those not well versed in debate. Find the extreme to debunk the idea. Ignore the moderate and more rational pieces of information because un-polarized you would have to actually have to learn something to speak intelligently about it.
The truly interesting fact then, is that it takes several days for an ear infection to clear up on anti-biotic. It takes several days for it to clear up treated homeopathicly. It also takes several days to clear up if untreated.
Societies perception is:
Anti-biotics are the best practice and effective
Homeopathy is a farce
Watchful waiting is plain stupid
Yet the end result is the same. The body heals the ear infection. The level of chemical exposure, is then ultimately at your discretion.
I have some questions 1) The principle of homeopathy is that the more dilute a solution is, the more effective it is. How can you then say the less dilute solutions contain some sort of active ingredient. It is completely contrary to the core of homeopathy 2) You state that arguments around the pointlessness of homeopathy are based around outdated practices and that modern homeopathy has a more pathological approach. However this is not consistent with the fact that Water Memory was proposed as the reason homeopathy works in 1988 and is still stands. 3) Further to 2, while you argue the there is a more pathological approach, there does not exist research documenting biological plausibility and mechanisms of action of homeopathic tinctures, as exists for modern medical treatments. 4) You state that there are "moderate and more rational pieces of information" I would be interested in seeing these. Honestly, I should have left this whole discussion alone. What I actually practice is de-medicalization. With a more complete approach to health that includes diet, vitamins, and herbal/botanical supplements (regardless of their proven effectiveness, given the complexity of life you will never prove/disprove this even with a very complex regression analysis). This ensures when I do finally make it to a doctor for myself or family, I have a true bacterial problem that requires an anti-biotic and is something the medical community may have a "reasonable" chance and treating successfully. Unfortunately for me and the point I was attempting to make is that some homeopathic remedies are in kind to some herbal supplements (albeit the homeopaths promote the more dilute or non-existent dosage). I was making an argument for a lack of semantic understanding of the word homeopathy. I was allowing it to be more all encompassing than it is. A clarification I am happy to have.Regarding the more pathological approach the use of anti-microbial supplements such as golden seal or echinacea as a first line of defense is what I was getting at. (The scientific community at large has not effective proven or disproven their effectiveness. Even though they have tried) Again, this level of semantics is my error, as I had lumped this in with homeopathic remedies. My own experience has allowed me to experience a reduced rate of medicalization for my family and now also a reduced rate of occurrence. This is not perceived (it is a realitively small sample though) because when you have zero rate of anti-biotic useage and everyone else has some that equals a difference. Perhaps I have won the health lottery and none of the infections were bacterial (something they don't test for). Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 14:32 kinetic_skink wrote:
Do they include peer reviewed double blinded studies, or the details outlined in point 3?
In all honesty I wish even modern medicine was held to this standard. Which they are not. The amount of "Science for profit" that goes on these days is exactly my problem with modern medicine and the practice of it. If modern medicine did include this there would never be the misteps by the medical community of recommending and endorsing smoking. Or the current epidemic of failing to evaluate fructose consumption when dealing with the majority of health issues plaguing the worlds population today. Perhaps, they would even consider limiting the amount of narcotics giving to newborns during the birthing process. (Epidural anyone) There would also be less rush to market on new treatments meeting only the base minimal FDA requirements or bypassing them through "Science for profit" Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 14:32 kinetic_skink wrote:
5) You say taking antibiotics are chemical exposure. Yet the most well known and highly common anti biotic is sourced from a fungus called 'Penicillium'. Is a plant extract not natural?
It is not a function of natural, it is a function of processing. We now are on to highly genetically modified and mutated solutions, via radiation, or chemical addition that still have a natural derivative. I am still ok with the use of this if you have proof that there is a bacterial infection. Proof being the thing that is seldom there. Worry of litigation has lead to a prescribe first mentality. Furthermore, if you bring your child in several times for an ear infection, the doctor will move on to prescribing steroids. Of course they don't tell you exactly that, but it is what you get. They still have not even determined if the infection was bacterial and necessary or able to be treated effectively. Yet they go right on prescribing because "standard of care" has gotten in the way of reasonable treatment due to fear of litigation or losing a profit for your business because your patient will go to a more prescription happy doctor. Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 14:32 kinetic_skink wrote:
As a further note - Your 'evidence' of an ear infection is hardly fact. What is several days? How did you gather this data? What were the sample groups ears infected with?
I hung this one out there very much on purpose. Because even modern medicine is coming around the the fact that these are typically overly treated with antibiotic. A little research with show that this is finally changing to a more "watchful waiting" approach by the medical community. (At least the more progressive and reasonable portion of the medical community) My own limited experience happens to strongly support this. However, the vast majority of society will still overly medicalize this. Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 14:32 kinetic_skink wrote:
Homeopathy doesn't work, such as Gloria Thomas, a child who died of eczema and an eye infection while being treated with homeopathy.
These diseases are easily treatable with modern medicine. Yet this poor girl died. By this logic, vaccines don't work because they have killed people. Or have you noticed the disclaimers on some pharmaceuticals "may cause death" In fact, this logic was also applied to abortion when arguing against it that "my mother had a coat hanger abortion and died". It is an appeal the emotion. In closing, I was wrong to support homeopathy as effective. It was a error of language on my part. However, due to the fact that in today's day and age any delay in treatment is considered "alternative medicine" I had a bit of a jerk knee reaction.
1) "With a more complete approach to health that includes diet, vitamins, and herbal/botanical supplements (regardless of their proven effectiveness, given the complexity of life you will never prove/disprove this even with a very complex regression analysis)."
This statement makes little sense? A complex regression analysis?
2) "Unfortunately for me and the point I was attempting to make is that some homeopathic remedies are in kind to some herbal supplements (albeit the homeopaths promote the more dilute or non-existent dosage)."
If it is similar the a herbal supplement then it isn't a homeopathic remedy
3) "My own experience has allowed me to experience a reduced rate of medicalization for my family and now also a reduced rate of occurrence."
Not valid - Since you can not compare to what would have happened otherwise over the same period. Anecdotal evidence is not valid evidence.
4) "In all honesty I wish even modern medicine was held to this standard. Which they are not. The amount of "Science for profit" that goes on these days is exactly my problem with modern medicine and the practice of it."
All modern medicine is held to this standard. Only alternative medicine is not.
5) "If modern medicine did include this there would never be the misteps by the medical community of recommending and endorsing smoking. Or the current epidemic of failing to evaluate fructose consumption when dealing with the majority of health issues plaguing the worlds population today."
They was no recommendation of smoking in my lifetime in Australia. I can find no evidence of it occurring in America either. Even if it did, one of the great things about modern medicine is that it learns and adapts based on the most recent knowledge.
I have no idea why you are trying to blame the medical community for sugar consumption. Though I suspect you mean sucrose, the sugar in lollies and drinks etc (Still wouldn't make sense)
6) "Perhaps, they would even consider limiting the amount of narcotics giving to newborns during the birthing process. (Epidural anyone)"
Epidurals aren't narcotics
7) "It is not a function of natural, it is a function of processing. We now are on to highly genetically modified and mutated solutions, via radiation, or chemical addition that still have a natural derivative. I am still ok with the use of this if you have proof that there is a bacterial infection. Proof being the thing that is seldom there. Worry of litigation has lead to a prescribe first mentality. "
Unfortunately many 'nature' is best proponents can't help but pull out wrong arguments like this one.
- Medical compounds are not alive, so there for have no genetics to be modified or mutated
- Radiation use is limited to preparing radioactive compounds, or killing viral preparations in vaccines.
- Chemical addition is simply a straw man argument. Chemistry is used to prepare specific active ingredients. Active ingredients which will be known to work on specific bodily function right down to the molecular level.
Over-prescription is a concern - So find a good doctor. Mind due the biggest problems are in the animal industry (Who use far more anti bacterial medications than medicine), countries in which the drugs are available over the counter without prescription, and people who do no finish the full course.
8) "By this logic, vaccines don't work because they have killed people. Or have you noticed the disclaimers on some pharmaceuticals "may cause death" In fact, this logic was also applied to abortion when arguing against it that "my mother had a coat hanger abortion and died". It is an appeal the emotion."
Actually the logic is not similar at all. Homeopathy is proven not to work, and this child died due to lack of proper treatment
Vaccines are proven to work, with the benefits far outweighing the risks.
EDIT: You mentioned echinacea and golden seal. I am going to do another blog post in the future to address herbal remedies such as these.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
