Homeopathy is stronger than antidepresants/antipsychotics

Post Reply New Topic

I am glad to see my opinion that this is not a PPR topic is moot. It should be in the Science section.

They are not policing their own members. How dare you suggest that my opinion is bad based on no evidence when in another vaccine thread you consistently stated your view on pharmaceuticals in drinking water had no evidence at all but should be listened to.



And that is an ad hominem. How dare you call me narrow-minded. Apparently you believe we should not have a discussion on this and let people do what they want and risk dying.



Can you actually give documentation to what you say is true?



It might be used to start research, but it is not evidence that it works. That is why they run experiments and epidemiological studies.



This is not a matter of opinions. It has everything to do with this conversation because PEOPLE DIE FROM THIS. I am going to repeat, PEOPLE DIE FROM THIS. Am I seriously supposed to let people take homeopathy without trying to tell them how shaky the grounds and evidence are for this? I get that impression, and I just want to ask how much documentation I need to show before you "allow" me to let them know. Being misled and lying are not the same thing. You completely twisted my argument branding me as some person who does not care about others' health and well-being as some Big Pharma eunuch.

One last thing: you claim homeopathy works. The question I have is, on what exactly?

Last edited by HerrGrimm on 12 Jun 2011, 11:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

You should have just locked it.

I can fill it with obscenity if that would help.

I can always explode in ad hominem attacks against anything. How long should mine be combined with your vulgar language?

@HerrGrimm -Okay - I am not revisiting two month old thread - especially when I did provide the links that you claim I did not provide.

I did not attack your opinion. I did not understand the point you were making with linking the video. They do not police their members - without a complaint. That is how MOST organizations operate. I still do not see your point.

Do not try and personalize my comment - you are only include in the broadest sense - because you are human. That was not intended or written as a personal dig.

If you care to learn about Ephedra - google works well. The CDC is a good resource for reported effects. The FDA has plenty of documentation as well. If you doubt that ephedra is actually a plant name Ephedra sinica commonly known as Ma Huang in its native China, that has been in use as a medicinal plant for thousands of years - I can't help you there. It is extremely well documented. My comments involve the plant - not the extract or derivitives isolated from the whole herb.

The discussion - as originally posted by the OP was regarding his use of homeopathy and the relief he got for comorbid symptoms. My comments are all framed by this point of reference. I'm not talking about homeopathy and malaria prevention or any other broader topic - only in how homeopathy does or does not work in regards to autism co morbids. In that respect - no - people are NOT dying from homeopathy.

If you wish to argue a broader topic - outside what the OP originally stated - I'm out of this conversation. I have no interest in defending the world of homeopathy against a bunch of internet links.

And I never said homeopathy definitely works. I said if it works for someone why would you try to take that away from them. I've posed that question several times and no one has yet answered that. I clearly stated the possible placebo effect, or a possible effect that science does not yet understand. I even touched on the possible spiritual beliefs sometimes associated with homeopathy. NONE of that was acknowledged or addressed and all of it was an essential component of my opinion. I did not pass a broad sweeping endorsement of homeopathy. Do not put words in my mouth - especially when you have no desire to even read my words to attempt to understand my postion.

These "homeopathic" alternative medicines generally have not gone through extensive enough testing to prove their positive effects, and there may be many undiscovered negative effects.

Placebo.

I fear in my skeptical pessimist heart that people think PPR is the home for any topic with flame potential. If there were a Linguistic forum and I started slinging mutual mud with a rabid Chomskyite, THAT might get moved here!

Actually, I do hear people lambasting reiki, more so than even homeopathy. God forbid if a reiki practicioner uses crystals as well. It wasn't so long ago that meditation and yoga were consdier arts of the devil and laughed at as any sort of healing art. So, these practices are now acceptable becasue they stripped the spirtual language from the core practice. Eliminate 'chi' and 'balancing your chakras' - as long as we replace that with scientific jargon it is now acceptable as a healing practice?

There are plenty traditional homeopaths practicing their traditional art - the media only picks up on sensational stories and usually those are frauds and charlatans making lots of fuss in order to make money. It is a practice that deals with 'plant essences' - you can't convince me that it is anything but spiritually based - not religious, but spiritual. It would be like trying to argue the existence of Valhalla with a believer in Asatru. They beleive that 'plant essences' are a real phenomenon as a matter of faith. Science has a poor track record of going toe-to-toe with faith.



So let's not treat pain unless we can verify it, on site, with a gaping wound or xray... Of course I realize doctors are looking to prevent a problem but, in our local case, they have gone too far in the other direction. You cannot get pain killers without an xray or an obviously protruding broken bone... you need to go to a specialist for pain meds because the GP's will not assume the risk. It's not avbout patients - its about the risk of getting sued. They actually have stated quotas for pain killer prescripts on their practice insurance. If they write too many, their rates go up...



He found something that worked for him and several people suceeded in talking him out of it. I'm not sure what the net gain is in that.



Now I understand - we are calling opinions pseudoscience. Thank you for clearing that up. Also, by pinning that comment onto my previous comment, it also comes across as fairly hostile. I do not appreciate your desire to 'destroy' me over voicing my opinion.

This is your entire quote. I bolded the words YOU SAID in emphasis. You stated that it worked. What does it work against? In order for you to make that statement, you must know what homeopathy helped "beneficially".

WAIT A MINUTE - this is PPR...and you said that I was on the brink of scientific censorship because of my concern for people expressing their "opinion" of using homeopathy...THAT IS A SIG LINE RIGHT THERE! What do you think, how about "Science Censor"? I will leave it up to the people who posted here; I am having a hard time fitting all the good ones in with the character limit.

I think TallyMan knew something like this was going to happen. I apologize for me having this thread moved to PPR for my personal gain.

What means it , HerrGrimm, [homeopathy helped "beneficially"]? Your words or quoted? Does not make English to me without help.

Me, I said my say, I am not fighting.

I DO have a left shoulder I can raise and lower and use without pain - have had it some years now - which was nothing but pain that nothing touched or helped for years - pills, chiropractic. Which vanished precisely after [expecting nothing at all and not even THINKING about that] I took the first homeopathic dose.

But if you want that question answered, try here [http://hpathy.com/homeopathy-clinical-cases/] There are other sites but that will do to answer you.

"Beneficially" is in quotations because I think homeopathy is garbage science that unneccesarily harms people and puts people at risk. I am sorry for confusing you about that.

Second, I would like to say THANK YOU for at least giving me something.

Yes, I am looking at one article, and I want to know from you before I say anything if there is anything on the page that is a false positive or something that should not be believed. I do not want to say anything extraneous to this debate.

Now you are making me work.

I will look at a couple closely. Bear in mind that while [how could I help it?] I have read up a decent layman's knowledge and can have a decent discussioin with a qualified Classical homeopath I am NOT a qualified let alone certified homeopath, so IU might misread great versus lousy practice. Please hold the line.

Let's see... the OP JohnyJohn and, it would seem, Philologos... homeopathic remedies exist for many symptoms. BUT, since you do not accept antecdotal evidence, it's a moot point. Unless of course, someone with a PhD posted an article online stating that these folks actually did experience what they said they experienced and signed off on it. Then, it would be a different story...



This post WAS in the correct location. It was discussing the use of a homeopathic remedy for a comorbid in autism. I'm not sure how someone got it moved without even consulting the OP who seems to have dropped out of the conversation. In fact I did not say it was 'scientific censorship' - and before you quote and bold my own words and STILL take them out of context again -

If you are trying to say the OP is lying or that he somehow shouldn't share his experience because you want scientific proof to back up his personal claim then I'd say that's in censorship territory and that it has no place in this conversation. You can disagree all you like but I'm afraid you have no juristiction over anothers opinion.

I claimed that you are censoring the OP's opinion because he didn't provide a scientific link to back it up.



Personal gain? WHAT? My only concern here has been that the OP found some relief and everyone talked him out of it. Is ANYONE here even talking about that? That is a fairly important point... Why would someone want to hijack anothers thread to prove some scientific point when that wasn't the purpose of the thread or the intent of the OP? Sorry, I'm totally lost and bowing out. I have no interest in link wars.

Okay, I am back. I would recommend starting with some of the cases label;led as from David Johnson. He has a few up, I know his work - he is cautious, thorough, low on hype and high on clarity.

As for caveats - I do not doubt there are others, but this - from Mrs Ullman who is much published and very well known and OUGHT to know better:

"Homeopathic medicines do not cause any of the side effects of conventional medicine,"

You keep hearing that alleged. It is wrong, it is stupid, the serious literature warns you about it.

Talk about having your cake and eating it. Either Hahnemann is right and potentized remedies are serious and active, or the critics are right and they are nothing. Can't have it both ways. If, Ms Homeopath, you say this is strong medicine,, HOW can you say it has no side effects? Either you are ignoring the facts, or you are cheating. Yes, they are DIFFERENTside effects - but that is not how you are heard.

If you hear a homeopath say that to you, tell him he is an idiot for me.

The texts warn you - do NOT give such and such a remedy to people with THIS condition - it can kill them [sugar pill or no].

Anyway, try David He is a good sample of what thye reall and serious homeopath sounds like. Also trained in standard medicine as Physician's assistant.

No. It has to be reproducible at the very least by OTHER of these "Ph.Ds" you say. One article will not cut it. And it is a moot point because for some reason you believe anecdotal evidence actually means something in scientific EDIT: evaluations. (changed word for clarity)



I did not read it until now in the PPR forum. See below.





It is a running joke not to be taken seriously on the PPR Forum.

I am very sorry, but what do you want me to do? Have someone else try it and get hurt?

Last edited by HerrGrimm on 12 Jun 2011, 3:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.

draelynn -

you think a PhD conveys authority? As one who lived with them, earned one, saw them earned, worked with them, supervised them - think again.

The man's the gold, the degree is a piece of paper. AND worth less every year.

I think somehow concern for the OP ran afoul of a scientific debate that wasn't in the original post. And, again, the 'science' inaccuracy parts of my post were attacked while the 'concern' part was duly ignored. The science concerns you - the OP concerns me - which, is what this original post was all about.

Different worlds gentlemen. Different POV's, different interpretations of the same subject. In essence, different languages. And since this thread was moved into your playground - I'm out. The OP is no longer the subject.