One may as well believe in ghosts as medicines containing no molecules of active substances. Drink water and prosper!

Just had to write that seeing there is a seperate thread on quack medicine on these boards. I do not intend to insult anyone, but I do believe in taking a firm stance against superstition and ripping folks off.

Regards,
Bernt

I have mixed feelings about holistic medicine, but a good site to visit is http://www.quackwatch.org

Thanks for the link. Interesting site <img src="http://www.leerburg.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

 Quote:

One may as well believe in ghosts as medicines containing no molecules of active substances. Drink water and prosper!

Just had to write that seeing there is a seperate thread on quack medicine on these boards. I do not intend to insult anyone, but I do believe in taking a firm stance against superstition and ripping folks off.

Regards,
Bernt

your statements are ignorant. homeopathic medicine has been proven to work according to medical journals that publish peer reviewed research. if you are interested in learning more about this, read "the field" by lynn mctaggart.

there are logical explanations for everything, even things we haven't necessarily learned the explanation for yet.

I may be ignorant to the quack pseudoscientific theory supporting postulations of mysterious substances not measurable by modern science. But...

No, homeopathy and related fields are far away from being accepted by the scientific community. And this is from a simple reason: There is no consistent documentation of anything beyond placebo effects. One study here and there supports modest significant effects (the same is true for psi etc), but most studies indicate null effect. When evaluating therapeutic tools one can not base ones assumptions on a select few studies skewed in support of ones original hypothesis.

In fact I belive many alternative practitioners are very good at inducing placebo effects in their customers, it is only too bad this placebo effect seldom lasts long.

While Science is certainly one of my favorite topics, there are many things that are not ACCEPTED by the scientific community. Does that mean they aren't valid or don't exist? Can you PROVE this? NOPE, you can't.

Many things that are beneficial are not accepted by the majority of the scientific or medical community simply because there is NO MONEY to be made on the research or promotion of such things. Documentation of something or lack of, doesn't make it legitimate!

Bert, you are certainly entitled to your opinion but I am always concerned by individuals who are so close minded as to only see what can be backed up by tangible proof.

There are many things in this life that are not measurable by modern science, think about it.

You may travel whatever path you choose, but I would ask you be a bit more respectful of others in the future.

Bernt,

I was a microbiology major in college, and I understand what you're saying...if it works...why can't they measure it?

But remember that current medicine evolved out of homeopathy. Wonderful cures are discovered by accident. And the pharm. companies (who fund most of the extensive research) are not going to be bending over themselves trying to find a way to replace their expensive drugs with something you can grow in your own back yard. Remember that the research skewed to support biases works with them as well.

I personally tend to stick with tested science when treating myself or my family. But I'm open to learning about other things, too. Would I have thought that the bark or leaves from a Willow tree could bring down my fever? No...sounds too "new agey" for me. But that's where asprin originated from.

At any rate, if your point is to show people your point of view...you really should not come in with both guns blazing and insult them right off. They will NOT be receptive to your points.

If your point actually was to tick people off, well, it was nice knowing ya. This board will tolerate different opinions, but not nastiness.

Nice post Amber.

I have come across as arrogant, but as I see it not nasty. Who started personal labelling? Ignorant... I was labelling homeopathy as quack, but no person. Even though I am threatened of loosing my account, I can not say I am sorry for being outspoken against pseudoscience and alternative medicine.

About labelling; We should avoid the label "alternative medicine" and instead use the words: Evidence-based and belief-based interventions. The term "alternative" or "holistic" is strongly misleading. Often the word "quack" is more in line with reality.

I have seen too many desperate people with chronic disorders drained of their (and their families money) by (mostly) well meaning alternative practitioners overstretching their "competence". People can in my opinion believe what they want as long as they do not charge sick and often desperate people money for their belief based interventions. These interventions are usually strange (mystical) and have a long ritual history taken as evidence for working as prescribed.

We are also often reminded of the fact that "it has been done for thousands of years so it must work". I can think of many things that has been done for thousands of years that are plain empty non effectual rituals. Still people tend to see ritual history as strong evidence of effect which is of course plain silly. The strangeness seems to give a paradoxal legitimacy. Mystical theories (like religions) cannot be disproved or challenged with opposing evidence, hence they remain.

I have a phd in clinical psychology and in my psychiatric practice I try to stay as evidence based as possible. Sometimes however, where there is no evidence, I operate based on belief (pure theory), but even here I strive to stay as down to earth and common sense as possible. Sometimes I also have to confront patients with untreatable and even terminal diagnosis (such as brain tumors after MRI screening). It would have been very comfortable to promise these patients a prosperous future using belief based cures, but I believe embracing truth is better for the patient, as well as the only morally correct choise.

So in choosing a treatment intervention I use the following heuristic:

a) Degree of empirical evidence (not counting single cases and stories)
b) Degree of fitting in to the larger scientific framework as a whole (ie. not breaking laws of physics)
c) Degree of down to earth/or common sense-ness

Psychiatry is a field gradually seperating itself from its old pseudoscientific roots (hot and cold baths, cranial drilling, exorcism etc), and staying evidence based is a hard virtue to uphold.

I see outspokenness in a lot of other threads (against PETA for example ), and I do not feel I have breeched any ethical or local (web rule) laws.

i was quite clear in saying that your statements are ignorant--not you, not the person. and that is not a slur, we are all ignorant about many things.

if science throughout history only proceeded by way of the known and proven, we'd still be in the stone age.

those of us who have experienced healing through homeopathy know that it works, and it is not a placebo. quantum physics is beginning to provide us with rational explanations for how this is possible, and the results have been clinically reproduced. i believe the journal "nature" published them.

it's easy to dismiss things you don't understand or don't have experience with as "snake oil." but to dissuade others who might benefit from homeopathy when you yourself don't have the facts is a disservice to this board.