The degree is legit, I can vouch for that, the Govt.of.India does approve it.

I have always wanted to help people and be kind to them in their distress. So, being a physician was the best option I had.

How you learned: I did extensive education, specialized degree and training, by doing Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery (BHMS) (a regular full-time 5.5 years of medical degree course) from prestigious ‘Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital’, Chandigarh. I passed out in January 2003 with flying colours and stood 3rd in the final BHMS exam.

From her interview at http://www.nostupidanswers.com/2010/01/ ... ompassion/

GenesForLife wrote:The degree is legit, I can vouch for that, the Govt.of.India does approve it.

Yeah, I realize that. The problem is that too many people, including the degree holder herself, will assume this degree means one has so much as a clue about medicine.

to the extent of making potentially libellous accusations against conventional medicine and to declare on a whim the whole science of immunology, microbiology, physiology so on and so forth wrong.

GenesForLife wrote:to the extent of making potentially libellous accusations against conventional medicine and to declare on a whim the whole science of immunology, microbiology, physiology so on and so forth wrong.

Yeah, I wonder why that is? I'm not making any such accusations against homeopathy. I think Malik and her colleagues, for the most part, honestly believe their water treatments work. My point is just that there is no scientific evidence that they do, and she has basically agreed, saying that each "treatment" is so individualized that controlled efficacy trials are impossible. ( I don't see why that should be the case, but never mind). I don't see why homeopaths have to run down "conventional" (ie scientifically supported) medicine when promoting their own practices. If their treatments were so effective, they should stand on their own merits.

Precisely, much the same with the ID brigade, if they had something scientifically valid then they wouldn't have to resort to try and run down evolutionary biology.

I found this interesting quote in a comment here.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... rug-deaths

When we will realize that the "science" of medicine defined efficacy of treatment by the elimination or reduction in specific symptoms, even if these symptoms are themselves defenses of the body. This "efficacy" is akin to unscrewing a warning light in your car and asserted that you've a "scientifically proven" method of treating cars that are sick.

This resonates with me. You are correct when you say double blind studies verify efficacy of drugs however, this should not be confused with good heathcare. People involved in AM are much more interested in healthcare, not merely getting rid of symptoms with toxic drugs.

generalsemanticist wrote:I found this interesting quote in a comment here.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... rug-deaths

When we will realize that the "science" of medicine defined efficacy of treatment by the elimination or reduction in specific symptoms, even if these symptoms are themselves defenses of the body. This "efficacy" is akin to unscrewing a warning light in your car and asserted that you've a "scientifically proven" method of treating cars that are sick.

Whereas "alternative medicine" is akin to waving your hands over the car, proclaiming it cured, and giving the owner a bill.

generalsemanticist wrote:I found this interesting quote in a comment here.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... rug-deaths

When we will realize that the "science" of medicine defined efficacy of treatment by the elimination or reduction in specific symptoms, even if these symptoms are themselves defenses of the body. This "efficacy" is akin to unscrewing a warning light in your car and asserted that you've a "scientifically proven" method of treating cars that are sick.

This resonates with me. You are correct when you say double blind studies verify efficacy of drugs however, this should not be confused with good heathcare. People involved in AM are much more interested in healthcare, not merely getting rid of symptoms with toxic drugs.

The reason that symptoms such as fever are treated is that high fever can result in, among other things, brain damage.
And there is more fail than anything I've seen in that quote, for instance, anaphylactic shock is a symptom caused by the body's normal immune defense to an allergen, let's not treat the symptom, ey?

Drugs such as antibiotics, antiretroviral drugs and several anticancer drugs deal not with symptoms, but the cause of the disease, so that eejit who made the quote has no clue about what she is commenting on.

generalsemanticist wrote:I found this interesting quote in a comment here.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... rug-deaths

When we will realize that the "science" of medicine defined efficacy of treatment by the elimination or reduction in specific symptoms, even if these symptoms are themselves defenses of the body. This "efficacy" is akin to unscrewing a warning light in your car and asserted that you've a "scientifically proven" method of treating cars that are sick.

This resonates with me. You are correct when you say double blind studies verify efficacy of drugs however, this should not be confused with good heathcare. People involved in AM are much more interested in healthcare, not merely getting rid of symptoms with toxic drugs.

1. There is no such thing as a toxic substance; toxicity is dose-dependent.
2. Just treating the symptoms is a bad idea, that is why we make drugs that treat causes, such as pathogens.

Really? What pathogen does statin drugs treat??

What pathogenic diseases are statins prescribed for? <facepalm>

Statins also treat one of the causes of atherosclerosis, in the sense they block an enzyme called HMG-CoA reductase , which reduces blood cholesterol, therefore lowering the risk of plaque buildup in the coronary artery, now, what symptom do statins treat? they treat a cause.

GenesForLife wrote:
Drugs such as antibiotics, antiretroviral drugs and several anticancer drugs deal not with symptoms, but the cause of the disease, so that eejit who made the quote has no clue about what she is commenting on.

What about research into why people get cancer and preventing it? What IS the real cause of cancer? Are you saying that the cause of cancer is cancer cells??

GenesForLife wrote:What pathogenic diseases are statins prescribed for? <facepalm>

Statins also treat one of the causes of atherosclerosis, in the sense they block an enzyme called HMG-CoA reductase , which reduces blood cholesterol, therefore lowering the risk of plaque buildup in the coronary artery, now, what symptom do statins treat? they treat a cause.

You do not know the cause of atherosclerosis. This is the logic;

1. your chloresterol readings are high
2. this drug has been proven to lower it
3. take this drug

But doctor, why is my chloresterol reading high?
Don't ask questions, just take the drug.

generalsemanticist wrote:

GenesForLife wrote:What pathogenic diseases are statins prescribed for? <facepalm>

Statins also treat one of the causes of atherosclerosis, in the sense they block an enzyme called HMG-CoA reductase , which reduces blood cholesterol, therefore lowering the risk of plaque buildup in the coronary artery, now, what symptom do statins treat? they treat a cause.

You do not know the cause of atherosclerosis. This is the logic;

1. your chloresterol readings are high
2. this drug has been proven to lower it
3. take this drug

But doctor, why is my chloresterol reading high?
Don't ask questions, just take the drug.

Is there one cause of high cholesterol?

Is it you position that the doctor probably doesn't also provide advice on how to possibly lower it without drugs?

the cause of cancer is cancer cells, the cause of normal cells turning cancerous include everything from occupational and environmental hazards such as carcinogens to environmentally unrelated mechanisms like DNA damage due to cell senesence, errors in DNA replication resulting in chromosomal abnormalities (as in the case of Chronic Myelogenous Leukaemia) and point mutations that can happen because of the natural flaws in the DNA replication and repair systems, and also bodily mechanisms that cannot deal with toxic products of natural metabolic processes and reactions which produce free radicals.

There are also several genetic factors that can predispose one to cancer, but all of these increase the risk of cancer, for cancer to be caused we still need malignant, cancerous cells. Just to give you an idea of how many different routes are taken in the progression of cancer once a cell goes wonky...



That is just a thumbnail, mind.

Coming back to it, cholestrol readings are obviously going to be high in cases of obesity.

But, herein comes the crunch...

1. It could be a lifestyle choice responsible for it.
2. Genetic factors, such as this, for instance http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20480398

There has never been any denial on the part of scientists of the fact that obesity is a major predisposition to atherosclerosis, all the drug companies are doing is offering a drug for those who are unwilling to change their lifestyles , either due to environmental factors, or due to genetic predisposition and defective metabolism, which cannot be dealt with directly.

I do not see the problem.

generalsemanticist wrote:

GenesForLife wrote:What pathogenic diseases are statins prescribed for? <facepalm>

Statins also treat one of the causes of atherosclerosis, in the sense they block an enzyme called HMG-CoA reductase , which reduces blood cholesterol, therefore lowering the risk of plaque buildup in the coronary artery, now, what symptom do statins treat? they treat a cause.

You do not know the cause of atherosclerosis. This is the logic;

1. your chloresterol readings are high
2. this drug has been proven to lower it
3. take this drug

But doctor, why is my chloresterol reading high?
Don't ask questions, just take the drug.

I have high cholesterol. I worked with my doctor for over a year trying various interventions such as exercise and diet (under direction of a dietician) to lower it, to no avail. We already knew I was genetically predisposed, which my MD discerned by taking a detailed family history, so it seems this was overwhelming any of the other interventions we were trying. It was only after this that I've finally been started on statin drugs. If it is effective, it will statistically lower my chances of dying of a cardiac event in the next ten years.

My perception of advocates of alternative medicine is that they ignore reality and prefer to live in a fantasy world where a long and healthy life is easily guaranteed, and is only prevented by powerful evil organizations conspiring to profit from illness. Your doing a great job of confirming this.

generalsemanticist wrote:

GenesForLife wrote:
Drugs such as antibiotics, antiretroviral drugs and several anticancer drugs deal not with symptoms, but the cause of the disease, so that eejit who made the quote has no clue about what she is commenting on.

What about research into why people get cancer and preventing it? What IS the real cause of cancer? Are you saying that the cause of cancer is cancer cells??

Are you saying no one is researching the causes of cancer? When was the last breakthrough in cancer research produced by a homeopath or naturopath?

Would you suggest that, until we know with certainty the cause of every single cause of cancer, we should just let people die untreated?

Shrunk wrote:

generalsemanticist wrote:

GenesForLife wrote:
Drugs such as antibiotics, antiretroviral drugs and several anticancer drugs deal not with symptoms, but the cause of the disease, so that eejit who made the quote has no clue about what she is commenting on.

What about research into why people get cancer and preventing it? What IS the real cause of cancer? Are you saying that the cause of cancer is cancer cells??

Are you saying no one is researching the causes of cancer? When was the last breakthrough in cancer research produced by a homeopath or naturopath?

Would you suggest that, until we know with certainty the cause of every single cause of cancer, we should just let people die untreated?

It strikes me that you guys are arguing past each other. Homeopathy and Naturopathy are strategic methods that work in the long term, if indeed they work at all. Practitioners of these medicines dot not promise results tomorrow, although in some cases things can happen rather quickly. Alopathic medicine typically acts quickly, saw off a guys leg, replace a kidney, remove a tumor, flush the blood, repair a broken bone or cut flesh. One doesn't really compete very well with the other owing to their fundamental temporal differences. In alopathy, drugs are the preferred method of treating organic issues. All drugs have side effects (listen to the ads). But they usually work quickly. The Homeopath or Naturopath is limited to a much slower acting set of tools in their toolboxes. Their treatments take longer.

One of our more noted rebel MDs is Dr. Andrew Weill, who teaches at the University of Arizona and operates a large clinic. He started out a Harvard with Timothy Leary and after LSD had a life in which he was known as "Babba Ram Dass" and was a noted guru type. After 20 years of that he quit it and moved to Arizona and started his clinic and became Dr. Andrew Weill. In the course of things he built some major facilities at the UA school of medicine, started some new schools, wrote a number of best selling books on medicine and health, and is in high demand today as a speaker and as a practitioner.

I think Weill is among the best doctors we have practicing today. He is trained and educated in allopathic medicine and learned in other medical ways and in nutrition. He's the great blend East and West and modern "counter" medicine as known in the West. And that I think is what makes for the best kind of doctor. On top of that he's one of the nicest people you'd ever meet.

If ya'll haven't read Andrew Weill, you should.

FACT-MAN-2 wrote: It strikes me that you guys are arguing past each other. Homeopathy and Naturopathy are strategic methods that work in the long term, if indeed they work at all.

All evidence we have demonstrates that homeopathy and naturopathy are no more effective than placebo, no matter how much time you give it to work.

Practitioners of these medicines dot not promise results tomorrow, although in some cases things can happen rather quickly.

Well, we had a homeopath in this very thread suggest that homeopathy can be used to treat acute appencitis. That's not generally a condition that can wait even as long as tomorrow.

Alopathic medicine typically acts quickly, saw off a guys leg, replace a kidney, remove a tumor, flush the blood, repair a broken bone or cut flesh. One doesn't really compete very well with the other owing to their fundamental temporal differences.

Assuming you just pretend that chronic conditions such as diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, hypertension, or schizophrenia just don't exist.

In alopathy, drugs are the preferred method of treating organic issues. All drugs have side effects (listen to the ads). But they usually work quickly. The Homeopath or Naturopath is limited to a much slower acting set of tools in their toolboxes. Their treatments take longer.

It seems they take so long to work that it's impossible to even detect that they are working at all.

One of our more noted rebel MDs is Dr. Andrew Weill, who teaches at the University of Arizona and operates a large clinic. He started out a Harvard with Timothy Leary and after LSD had a life in which he was known as "Babba Ram Dass" and was a noted guru type. After 20 years of that he quit it and moved to Arizona and started his clinic and became Dr. Andrew Weill. In the course of things he built some major facilities at the UA school of medicine, started some new schools, wrote a number of best selling books on medicine and health, and is in high demand today as a speaker and as a practitioner.

I think Weill is among the best doctors we have practicing today. He is trained and educated in allopathic medicine and learned in other medical ways and in nutrition. He's the great blend East and West and modern "counter" medicine as known in the West. And that I think is what makes for the best kind of doctor. On top of that he's one of the nicest people you'd ever meet.

If ya'll haven't read Andrew Weill, you should.

I'll give Dr. Weill this: He's a genius at self-marketing.