The Danger of Science Denial - "Alternative Medicine"-Split

Homeopathy, Chiropractic and similar "alternative" views

Discussions on astrology, homeopathy and superstition etc.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: The Danger of Science Denial

#41  Postby Dr. Nancy Malik » May 25, 2010 9:46 am

Moridin wrote:
No, double blind studies are done so that what we are testing the effectiveness or lack thereof of the drug itself, not other factors, such as psychological factors. It only tries to establish whether or not a drug has a statistically significant effect or not.



The double blind placebo trial was only invented in the 60's and medicine has been used way before then
Evidence-based scientific homeopathy is a modern nano-medicine like Conventional Allopathic Medicine (CAM)
User avatar
Dr. Nancy Malik
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Dr. Nancy Malik
Posts: 289
Age: 41
Female

Country: India
India (in)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The Danger of Science Denial

#42  Postby Dr. Nancy Malik » May 25, 2010 9:51 am

Moridin wrote:
generalsemanticist wrote:
No, profit hungry drug companies hate controlled, double-blind experiments, because then they must actually produce a drug that works in order to make money. If it does not work, it won't pass the experiments. If it does not pass the experiments, it won't get put on the market. If it is not on the market, it cannot sell. If it cannot sell, it won't make any amount of money.



I am sorry to say but I think you are not aware of lies & corrupt practices of conventional pharma industry. Have a look

http://ahrp.blogspot.com/2007/02/pharma ... rates.html
http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/ama.htm#a
http://noedb.org/library/features/25-sh ... l-industry //Shocking facts about pharma
Evidence-based scientific homeopathy is a modern nano-medicine like Conventional Allopathic Medicine (CAM)
User avatar
Dr. Nancy Malik
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Dr. Nancy Malik
Posts: 289
Age: 41
Female

Country: India
India (in)
Print view this post

Re: The Danger of Science Denial

#43  Postby Animavore » May 25, 2010 9:51 am

angelo wrote:Big placebo


:lol: Subtle (probably should've capitalised "placebo" though)
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 42986
Age: 41
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: The Danger of Science Denial

#44  Postby GenesForLife » May 25, 2010 10:00 am

Bollocks, you don't automatically validate homeopathy by pointing fingers at conventional pharma, it is a total non-sequitur.
Enough said.

Woo merchants do one of two things

1) They claim scientific legitimacy, which usually fails
2) They try to bring down alternatives to make it look like it is legitimate.

Pharma industry is also not equal to conventional medicine in any logically consistent universe, it is a small subset

Automobiles were also invented in the late 1880s, before that people used horse-drawn carriages, so horse drawn carriages are better? That just shoots right through your frankly ridiculous attempt to try and slander the pharma industry to seek legitimacy for peddling woo, never mind that the very same paper you quotemined showed you were wrong.

Regardless of what the pharma industry does, Homeopathy does not have a scientific leg to stand upon, DEAL WITH IT.
GenesForLife
 
Posts: 2920
Age: 30
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The Danger of Science Denial

#45  Postby Dr. Nancy Malik » May 25, 2010 10:02 am

generalsemanticist wrote: This is the main problem with modern medicine - it treats symptoms instead of causes. At least orthomolecular medicine attempts to form a theory about what is happening, like the theory about the breakdown of collagen in the blood vessels and the susequent increase of Lp(a) in the blood to attempt to patch the lesion..


Homeopathy is an integrative medicine. It is based on the science that the body, mind and emotions are not really separate and distinct, but are actually fully integrated.
Evidence-based scientific homeopathy is a modern nano-medicine like Conventional Allopathic Medicine (CAM)
User avatar
Dr. Nancy Malik
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Dr. Nancy Malik
Posts: 289
Age: 41
Female

Country: India
India (in)
Print view this post

Re: The Danger of Science Denial

#46  Postby GenesForLife » May 25, 2010 10:04 am

Empirical evidence please. Something actually needs to be medicine before it becomes integrative, and there is bugger all evidence for that.
GenesForLife
 
Posts: 2920
Age: 30
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The Danger of Science Denial

#47  Postby Dr. Nancy Malik » May 25, 2010 10:08 am

Moridin wrote:
No substance is intrinsically toxic. Toxicity depends on dose. Yes, all medications have risks associated with them. There is no such thing as a risk free medicine (or food item). This is an illusion. Even something basic as aspirin can cause bleeding ulcers if used regularly for a long time.

Also note that this is a tightly regulated industry, with the precautionary principle being applied frequently (such as in the case of Vioxx, silicone breast implants, thimerosal etc.)



Agreed totally that toxicity depends upon dose. But who is prescribing over dose? The conventional physicians.
http://dartmed.dartmouth.edu/fall06/htm ... _label.php
http://www.mercola.com/2005/feb/9/vioxx_celebrex.htm

You talk of precautions. In spite of precautions, just one single drug, Vioxx, killed more than 55,000 people. That comes from the sworn testimony of Dr. David Graham, a senior scientist at the FDA.
Ref: Testimony of Dr David Graham at Senate Finance Comittee Hearings
http://www.senate.gov/~finance/hearings ... dgtest.pdf
Evidence-based scientific homeopathy is a modern nano-medicine like Conventional Allopathic Medicine (CAM)
User avatar
Dr. Nancy Malik
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Dr. Nancy Malik
Posts: 289
Age: 41
Female

Country: India
India (in)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The Danger of Science Denial

#48  Postby GenesForLife » May 25, 2010 10:11 am

The effing point in all of this effing thing is that the FAILURE OF A FEW CONVENTIONAL DRUGS DOES NOT VALIDATE HOMEOPATHY AS LEGITIMATE MEDICINE, stop your discoursive malfeasance if you can and provide empirical evidence for homeopathy!
GenesForLife
 
Posts: 2920
Age: 30
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The Danger of Science Denial

#49  Postby Darkchilde » May 25, 2010 10:13 am

Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:
generalsemanticist wrote: This is the main problem with modern medicine - it treats symptoms instead of causes. At least orthomolecular medicine attempts to form a theory about what is happening, like the theory about the breakdown of collagen in the blood vessels and the susequent increase of Lp(a) in the blood to attempt to patch the lesion..


Homeopathy is an integrative medicine. It is based on the science that the body, mind and emotions are not really separate and distinct, but are actually fully integrated.


Homeopathy is total crap. There is nothing more than the placebo effect, and the placebo effect does not cure people, neither psychologically nor physically.

If someone has cancer, homeopathy can do shit about that. if I get appendicitis, I will die if I don't take it out by surgery. If I have tooth ache, I will go to the dentist. If I am depressed or similar, I will seek out professional help from a licensed psychologist.

What can homeopathy do if I have a bad tooth? NOTHING! It will not cure my symptoms or the cause of it. I will need a dentist.

What can homeopathy do for my depression? NOTHING! I will need a licensed psychologist, who will help me get to the whys and hows of my depression, and help me deal with it.

What can homeopathy do for my appendicitis? NOTHING! If I don't get surgery, it will become peritonitis and I will die from it. I will need a surgeon to remove my appendix.

Tell me one real disease that homeopathy can cure. Can it cure AIDS? Cancer? Ebola? The common cold? Homeopathy is crap, it does not cure people, it just gives them a placebo, a false hope. Placebos can be done by real medicine as well, and real medicine can find the actual cause and cure the disease.
User avatar
Darkchilde
RS Donator
 
Posts: 9015
Age: 50
Female

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The Danger of Science Denial

#50  Postby GenesForLife » May 25, 2010 10:15 am

It can cure suffering from a stinking environment, apparently, Zincam saw to that.
GenesForLife
 
Posts: 2920
Age: 30
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The Danger of Science Denial

#51  Postby Dr. Nancy Malik » May 25, 2010 10:22 am

Moridin wrote:
Modern medicine actually treats both symptoms (various painkillers) and causes (antibiotics), as well as act preventative manner (such as vaccines). Your assertion is based on no real knowledge of the field of modern medicine.



Bacteria or for the matter of fact any germ is not the cause of disease. It's the environment which plays the decisive role

Louis Pasteur on his death bed recanted the germ theory of disease and said, "If I could live my life over again, I would devote it to proving that germs seek their natural habitat---unhealthy tissue---rather than being the cause of unhealthy tissue."
Evidence-based scientific homeopathy is a modern nano-medicine like Conventional Allopathic Medicine (CAM)
User avatar
Dr. Nancy Malik
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Dr. Nancy Malik
Posts: 289
Age: 41
Female

Country: India
India (in)
Print view this post

Re: The Danger of Science Denial

#52  Postby GenesForLife » May 25, 2010 10:27 am

Bollocks. The Germ theory was verified by Koch's postulates, and still is, then again this should not get in the way of the propagation of falsehoods, should it?

To put it simply, the same bacteria/viruses cause the same diseases even in different environmental conditions, and this has been shown rigorously using Koch's Postulates for determining a direct cause and effect relationship between diseases and pathogens, and as a qualified microbiologist I can tell you you are speaking absolute tosh.

Also, since I have carried out a wide range of experiments in the laboratory, some of which included isolating potentially pathogenic species such as Klebsiella and Enterogenic E.coli , I can tell you that "unhealthy" tissue is not their "natural" habitat at all. Strike two.
GenesForLife
 
Posts: 2920
Age: 30
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The Danger of Science Denial

#53  Postby Dr. Nancy Malik » May 25, 2010 10:29 am

TMB wrote:
I don’t see the point this makes without additional context. Conventional medicine needs to show more awareness of the implications of drugs, as they overprescribe and tend not to look at the patient as a whole, or the long term effects of the drugs (not an easy thing to do).


The concept of disease in homeopathy is that disease is a total affection of mind and body, the disturbance of the whole organism. The parts of the body do not independently get sick. It is the whole person who gets sick.
Evidence-based scientific homeopathy is a modern nano-medicine like Conventional Allopathic Medicine (CAM)
User avatar
Dr. Nancy Malik
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Dr. Nancy Malik
Posts: 289
Age: 41
Female

Country: India
India (in)
Print view this post

Re: The Danger of Science Denial

#54  Postby GenesForLife » May 25, 2010 10:30 am

Stop waffling and post evidence, please. Heard of a localized infectiona and a systemic infection? For instance, take HPV infections, which manifest as warts, locally, it is the region that gets infected which is, um, infected and not the whole person getting sick, so there goes another blind assertion.
GenesForLife
 
Posts: 2920
Age: 30
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The Danger of Science Denial

#55  Postby angelo » May 25, 2010 10:33 am

Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:
generalsemanticist wrote: This is the main problem with modern medicine - it treats symptoms instead of causes. At least orthomolecular medicine attempts to form a theory about what is happening, like the theory about the breakdown of collagen in the blood vessels and the susequent increase of Lp(a) in the blood to attempt to patch the lesion..


Homeopathy is an integrative medicine. It is based on the science that the body, mind and emotions are not really separate and distinct, but are actually fully integrated.

In other words. Pure bunkum. I bet you also believe in life after death. :smile:
User avatar
angelo
 
Posts: 22483
Age: 71
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The Danger of Science Denial

#56  Postby Darkchilde » May 25, 2010 10:34 am

Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:
Moridin wrote:
Modern medicine actually treats both symptoms (various painkillers) and causes (antibiotics), as well as act preventative manner (such as vaccines). Your assertion is based on no real knowledge of the field of modern medicine.



Bacteria or for the matter of fact any germ is not the cause of disease. It's the environment which plays the decisive role

Louis Pasteur on his death bed recanted the germ theory of disease and said, "If I could live my life over again, I would devote it to proving that germs seek their natural habitat---unhealthy tissue---rather than being the cause of unhealthy tissue."


First of all, you need to provide a source for the above quote. As per the FUA:

Forum User's Agreement wrote:In the interests of transparency, the maintenance of a high standard of debate and compliance with copyright law, all quoted texts must be presented as such and attributed to a source to avoid confusion over authorship. Therefore, you must provide links to online sources or list author, title, and edition copyright when quoting from printed literature. The onus is on you to ensure that you have copyright permission to copy text from articles, in situations where fair use does not apply.


Secondly, even if he said he was wrong, the evidence is overwhelming that a number of diseases are caused by viruses and bacteria. Without antibiotics, without modern medicine a lot of people would be dead by simple diseases.
User avatar
Darkchilde
RS Donator
 
Posts: 9015
Age: 50
Female

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The Danger of Science Denial

#57  Postby Mr.Samsa » May 25, 2010 11:22 am

Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:
generalsemanticist wrote:It is truly sad to see this obsession with "double blind" studies. It seems like a futile attempt to establish a one cause => one effect model which is very simplistic. It is, however, very useful for companies with drug patents to make large amounts of money. There have been over a thousand "double blind" studies of statin drugs, for example. You will not see these studies done (by private companies) if there are no patents involved so please stop using this irrelevant argument ad nauseum. You need to look at the larger picture of health and realize that you cannot separate the brain from the body and if healing can be accomplished by any means that is what is important.


Double-blind trials are perfect for conventional medicine, because they have specific medicines for a particular diagnostic condition, hence it is apt to see how the chosen medicine fares for that condition in a trial.

In Homeopathy, we do not treat diseases based on their medical diagnosis, but remedies are chosen based on the individualizing features of each case, hence 100 patients of, say, high blood pressure, may probably need 100 different remedies, each patient receiving a remedy to suit him/her best.

If the efficacy of Homeopathy medicine needs to be analyzed, it has to be done on cases which are under Homeopathic treatment, according to the laws of Homeopathic practice where the remedies have been chosen for each patient according to their individuality.

The concept of disease in homeopathy is that disease is a total affection of mind and body, the disturbance of the whole organism


That's fine, but that just means that you can't do large scale RCTs on homeopathy (assuming we accept your logic) - it does not mean you can't run small-N statistics which are designed to test for statistical significance in highly individualized treatments or experiments. Do you have any references to studies that have done controlled ABAB designs to test the efficacy of homeopathy?

If so, then just post them as they are just as reliable at establishing causation as RCTs.
Image
Mr.Samsa
 
Posts: 11370
Age: 33

Print view this post

Re: The Danger of Science Denial

#58  Postby Mazille » May 25, 2010 12:08 pm


!
MODNOTE
Locked for a moment to sort out the woo-woo.

Edit: Done.
- Pam.
- Yes?
- Get off the Pope.
User avatar
Mazille
RS Donator
 
Posts: 19740
Age: 33
Male

Austria (at)
Print view this post

Re: The Danger of Science Denial - "Alternative Medicine"-Sp

#59  Postby GenesForLife » May 25, 2010 3:00 pm

General semanticist, double blind trials are NOT about one cause - one effect relationships in particular at all, they are an unbiased mechanism to study if any given drug, or even a cocktail of drugs, has therapeutic benefits that are statistically significant to an extent greater than a placebo, which is what Homeopathic drugs have NOT been capable of.

One-cause one effect is what is called empirical reductionism.
GenesForLife
 
Posts: 2920
Age: 30
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The Danger of Science Denial - "Alternative Medicine"-Sp

#60  Postby GenesForLife » May 25, 2010 3:03 pm

the double blinding in question is done to prevent fudging, the one who collects data will not know if the patient he is collecting data from has been given a placebo or the drug, and those details would only be known to the one who administered the drug.
GenesForLife
 
Posts: 2920
Age: 30
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Pseudoscience

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest