I have tried using homeopathic medicines on myself for various things and they have never worked. I wanted them too, but they just didn't. Matter of fact, I usually had weird side-effects such as headache, rash, itching, skin burning,nausea, etc.,etc.,etc. Have tried Melatonin at various times for insomnia and each time had the most horrible nightmares ever! I have friends that swear by it and I'm glad it works for them.

So while I will remain open-minded at the prospect that holistic healing is not without merrit and could work for some, I prefer modern meds for me and mine.

As Amber said most modern medications derived from nature anyway. Can't call it quackery though.

Debbie

That was a very well written post, and I think it stated your opinons in a much less agressive way. It's fine to be passionate about what you believe in.

While you didn't label any particular person in your original post, you did attack something that many feel strongly about. Personally, I tend to lean towards the scientific side of things as well, and can appreciate your points--but I even so I thought your original post was dismissive and antagonistic. As a psychiatrist, I would think that you would know that you are rarely going to convince anyone of anything if you come across sounding like a zealot who's only open to lecturing and not discussing.

And as a psychiatrist, you of all people ought to know about the connotations of the word "quack." I'm sure you'd be offended if we applied the word to you OR your profession.

And again, as to labelling...I don't know if you practice hypnosis but that is under often under the umbrella of "hollistic" or "alternative" therapy. I don't consider this to be "quack" science. In fact, the American Medical Association approved it as a valid treatment tool in 1958. It might not be appropriate to treat someone with it in every case but it often has practical applications. Does it always have longevity in results? No, not always. But then again, neither do antibiotics.

I realize I'm sounding like I'm taking the side of hollistic medicine and that's not what I'm doing. What I'm doing is taking the side of everyone's right to their opinions.

It is my experience so far on this board that people welcome debate and differences of opinions, as long as they are respectful. They don't tolerate attacks or insulting comments. Your original post did sound insulting to a large group of people on what is a very general subject.

I hope you understand where I'm coming from.. Hopefully you came to this board for something dog-related and in that case, I would think you wouldn't want to alienate the group that can give you such incredible advice.

Bernt, I think you cleared up just about everything by explaining that you are a clinical psychologist. It so happens that my brother is the same and my x-wife married one. hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

You have stretched the issue a tad far here. Brain tumors and MRI's are not in the same category and feeding a raw diet and not vaccinating your dog.

I will grant you the fact that there are a lot of quacks out there on the homeopathic stump. But there are also some Vets who are very very good at what they do in this field. I have seen the results of their work and I was a skeptic going into it.

The fact is simple - we are right and you don't have enough experience yet to know that you are wrong.

I base my statements on the experience of owning and breeding dogs for 45 years. I see the difference between a all-natural diet. One would have to be a bleeding fool to think that science diet could be better than the photos of what we feed our dogs here at Leerburg.

The same goes with vaccinations. I used to start giving Parvo shots at 3 and 4 weeks of age and then DHL & Parvo later with yearly vaccinations and lymes and yadha yahda yahda - BECAUSE I FELT LIKE I WANTED TO DO THE BEST THINGS POSSIBLE FOR MY DOGS.

I was wrong and I saw it in the health issues of my dogs and their ability to breed (or not breed).

The flaw in thinking for people like yourself has been stated before - who funds projects to prove that the raw diet is better, who funds projects to proven that vaccines are not needed? Universities should do it and some are - but when you have Purina and science diet trying to SAVE THEIR BACON (which they are now because the raw diet is starting to hurt the bottom line) well - what can I say.

So Bernt - I have you in the category of "EVERYONE HAS AN OPINION ON HOW TO RAISE AND TRAIN DOGS - BUT VERY FEW HAVE THE EXPERIENCE TO OFFER SOUND ADVICE".

If you want to come here to learn thats fine - but you will not come here and spout scientific BS and pass out theory that I know FROM MY EXPERIENCE to be wrong.

Go breed 300 litters and then come back and I may listen to you.

I do not share the confidence that one can extract truths about the world solely based on personal experience.

But I am very humble in regards to dog training and the wealth of expertise there seems to be on these forums. I have downloaded Ed's free lectures and it all makes perfect sense to me.

Even though I specialized in biological and cognitive- behavioral psychology I understand that I only have a wider framework of knowledge that MAY make it easier for me to digest the spesific training methods you experts advocate.

I had a laugh reading Ed's clearing up after reading about my profession

About raw feeding. I have no knowledge about that.

About scientific BS: It is not BS! And I know this from long experience as a scientist. So I am right and you are wrong! Got you back ! No seriously. I can understand I came across as antogonistic, and I did intend to poke all alternative believers a little. I do the same with regards to religion which I view as inherently dangerous as it encourages non-reason (similar to belief based medicine). I am an anti-theist (actively oppose religion), and have the same sentiment to mystical unproven cures.

When people make statements about something in the world they are making scientific statements and are open to scientific critique. If they make statements about inner experiences they are not. So I will not attack peoples subjective experiences (unless they are deluded in a way that is harmful for them or others).

Hypnosis: I employ hypnosis occationally. Usually when I find no other option. Hypnosis is well researched as a phonomenon (positron emission tomography studies etc), but there is little documentation of treatment effects above placebo (supportive converstaions). So inducing trance I do feel half-quack myself

Ok after all my ranting. Heree comes my point: We should be more sceptical. That is perhaps a more acceptable way of stating my opinion.

And I do not wish to make enemies. We should agree to disagree.

Regards, Bernt

Bernt - we can agree to disagree as long as you are done with your triage.

I have kicked a number of self confessed scientists off this board (with PHD's) because they talked out their ass about things they had little to no experience with IE VACCINATIONS and dog training !!!

So lets let this die a natural death. You keep your scientific opinion to your web board and I will recommend that people don't vaccinate their dogs and feed a raw diet on my web board.

"Alternative believers"?

"Alternative" is an awfully big term, isn't it? I'd be hard-pressed to say that people who find value in any alternative medical theory/practice are all "believers". Doesn't that imply that no alternative medicine theory is empirally based?

I wouldn't want to make a sweeping generalization like that. I'd be afraid that it would be construed as including supplementation, managing blood pressure and/or blood sugar with lifestyle changes, and a whole bunch of complementary, integrative, and innovative therapies. I wouldn't want to sweep vitamin therapy, for example, in under the term of "mystical unproven" cures, even though there was certainly a time when people didn't understand the relationship between Vitamin C and scurvy and a time when vitamin therapy was considered to be pretty darned "mystical."

I was thinking of how psychology was once regarded as black magic, and how "invisible bugs" that could kill people were obviously a laughable invention. "Germs"? Yeah, right.

Skeptical is good. If we are careful, we'll develop our healthy skepticism while avoiding closed-mindedness...... and especially avoiding terms (like "alternative") that are so broad that they're close to meaningless.

Just pokin' you back, and reminding you that this is a dog forum; discussion of alternative veterinary medicine probably fits right in here, but I can't see how anti-theism does.

Sorry, Ed -- I was typing while you were posting.

Having needles stuck in various parts of your body seemed crazy to me, until I tried it one day when my arthritis was especially painful... To my surprise it provided almost immediate, but temporary relief.

MRI scans have since shown that acupuncture results in stimulation of different parts of the brain, which , presumably, release endorphins.
I don't think they've 'figgered' exactly HOW it works, but it clearly DOES.

Not long ago the 'Western' medical profession was completely dismissing acupuncture as 'quackery'.....

What's next?
I am as sceptical as most, I think, but not, I hope,
closed-minded.

(Sorry from me, too, Ed, I didn't mean to continue the discussion against your advice!)

About acupuncture, with proper placebo control (setting needles at random locations) the studies I have seen show no difference in comparison to treatment group (setting needles at the "proper" locations) in regards to analgesia (pain reduction). Around half of the effect of anti-depressants (and many other drugs)is placebo. So that something works does not neccesarily mean it works as a result of anyting beyond expectation/hope/belief.I often use placebo theory conciously when trying to maximise the effect of medication (increasing belief in effect).

Any stimulation of body parts produce activity in different spesific parts of the brain. This can be mesured with PET or fMRI. It does not mean anything beyond that the needles are registered by spesific brain parts. I am unfamiliar with these studies. Perhaps they document spesific increases in activity of thalamic or prefrontal areas associated with pain processing. If so they are interesting...after one has documented effect sizes beyond placebo. And acupuncture is not acupuncture. There is a difference between medical accupuncture where one uses neurology as a guide to setting needles (and often using electric currents as well) and traditional accupuncture (the most common version by far) where one uses ancient mysterious energy maps as a guide. Most studies I am aware of are based on medical accupuncture.

I understand this debate is not wanted on Ed's forum. I will end my posts on the matter with this one. I do find it strange however that one may not discuss non-evidence based medicine when there is a whole forum allocated to the issue. Censoring opinions one does not agree with seems very un-american to a foreigner like me. Even if one owns the forums.

From now on I will stay strictly dog (Malinois) related, absorb information and keep my uninformed opinions to myself. No hard feelings I hope.

Pst: I have some pictures of my 12 week old malinois puppy on the Malinois forums. I love the little bugger to death (even if he has chewed me to bits)!