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 - "Alternative Medicine"-Sp

#821  Postby Dr. Nancy Malik » Jun 21, 2010 4:31 am

Shrunk wrote:Probably one of the most spectacular successes in the history of "allopathic" medicine has been the implementation of public sanitation programs. I can't think of a better example of treating a problem at its roots, and it is the kind of think that homeopathy and "alternative" medicine would have been completely incapable of producing. (Since, as we have seen here, they don't believe pathogens actually are responsible for disease.)


Homeopathic Firsts
http://www.hmc21.org/#/homeopathic-firsts/4533557722
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 - "Alternative Medicine"-Sp

#822  Postby Thommo » Jun 21, 2010 4:49 am



Haha, good one.

Homeopaths discovered evolution. :crazy:

As for some of the other slightly less outrageous claims in the list it's interesting that it claims having an advocate favour things like sanitation before they were widely implemented is supposed to give some sort of credibility to the claims of modern day homeopaths.

It's elementarily obvious that people advocated sanitation prior to it's widespread usage. The claim is meaningless, homeopaths weren't "first" to advocate sanitation, which had in fact been around in various forms for thousands of years prior to it's widespread modern day usage.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 26137

Print view this post

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

#823  Postby OHSU » Jun 21, 2010 4:54 am

I have a question about homeopathy. Of all the properties a given substance has, why is it that the only physical or chemical property retained in the homeopathic preparation the one that makes it useful as a curative?

I mean, think of all the properties substances have that can be detected via various means: color, flavor, odor, boiling point, freezing point, various nutritional properties, combustibility, etc., etc. Certainly, most of the properties a given substance may possess are not the one/ones that make it useful as a curative. (Aspirin, for example, isn't an analgesic because it's white or bitter. Most of aspirin's physical and chemical properties are completely irrelevant with regard to its analgesic effect.) How is it, then, that homeopathic preparations retain precisely the physical or chemical property that makes them useful for treating disease, while in every other way becoming indistinguishable from water?

Why isn't homeopathic gasoline combustable?
Why doesn't a homeopathic preparation of cow's milk retain the nutritional value of milk?
Why isn't a homeopahtic preparation of yellow arsenic still yellow?
Why doesn't a homeopathic preparation of vinegar taste or smell like vinegar?

The claim of homeopaths is that certain properties of the substance are retained in the water, right? Well, exactly what properties are those? Anything we can see, taste, smell, or measure with any device known to man? No? Why not?

Is the value of a substance as a curative agent not tied to its chemical and physical properties? How is it, then, that substances that are made into homeopathic preparations become chemically and physically indistinguishable from water in every single way, yet still retain the ability to cure illness? Doesn't it seem just a little bit odd that for hundreds or thousands of completely unrelated substances, the property related to treating disease is precisely the quality (and the ONLY quality) that happens to be retained when diluted in water, and that for each of the hundreds or thousands of substances in question, that special property that makes the substance curative is not otherwise detectable via any means? That seems like quite a coincidence to me.

If water retained some but not all the physical or chemical properties of diluted substances, doesn't it seem likely that different substances would behave differently? For example, doesn't it seem that certain substances would totally lose whatever property it is that makes them useful for treating disease, but they'd retain their color, while for other substances it might be smell, and others their flammability? It just seems really strange and not a little suspicious to me that all substances should lose all their properties, and become completely indistinguishable from pure water except for whatever property they have that makes them curative.

Can someone knowledgeable in homeopathy explain the chemical or physical mechanism of that to me?
Last edited by OHSU on Jun 21, 2010 5:47 am, edited 11 times in total.
User avatar
OHSU
 
Posts: 399

Print view this post

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

#824  Postby Dr. Nancy Malik » Jun 21, 2010 5:10 am

TMB wrote:
OK lets take a case history and see how it works.

Patient presents with flu symptoms, fevers, body aches, upper respiratory symptoms, fairly common, viral plus secondary bacterial infection. Conventional medicine prescribes antibiotics which addresses the secondary bacterial infection, assumed primary viral put down to random virus. Symptoms re-appear two months later, cycle is repeated and continues for two years.

Insight from a homeopathic book leads to diagnosis from an allopathic allergist who identifies an extreme allergy to house dust mites. Steps are taken to remove dust from beds etc etc, and symptoms improve significantly, however good health is not totally restored. Increased vigilance around dust mite eradication gives limited results.

Skin issues arise, upper respiratory issues are mild but chronic, other apparently unrelated reactions occur, hives appear on exposure to cold water, known as idiopathic cold urticaria. Removal of dairy from diet improves things partly, however overall health starts to decline rapidly, weight loss is 1kg per month, skin itch and eczema becomes close to unbearable.

In desperation, diet is reduced to a few basic food types and symptoms begin to resolve rapidly. Further tests show that celiac disease is probably at the core of issues spanning from somewhere between 20-50 years in the patients life. Always underweight, with unexpected bouts of un-wellness as a child and marked changes in health depending upon city lived in. Finally diet changes reveal that issues with gluten are possibly at the centre of all issues, from allergy to dust mite, intolerances to numerous food types, weight loss, general weakness and malaise.

In this case treating a bacterial infection was certainly effective with antibiotics, but only in the short-term, and damaging in the long-term. Because allopathic doctors are trained to look through keyholes with both eyes at the same time instead of opening the door, meant that over a number of years that no one allopathic doctor was able to do more that diagnose and prescribe according to their narrow definition of health. In addition this was possible only when a tentative self diagnosis had already happened. The use of an iridologist at various stages during this process allowed the patient to get an idea of the status of each major body organ and system. This meant that herbs could be taken to assist with a stressed immune system, or pancreas, or liver as it struggled to deal with the collateral damage caused by gluten, and subsequent allergies and intolerances.

Alternative practitioners were also not in a position to diagnose the person entirely, however were able to assist and diagnose related issues and once a diagnosis was made for celiac, could place symptoms and remedies in the correct context. In addition to this continual use of herbs does not have the same damaging effect as the long-term use of antibiotics.

Conventional medicine was able to diagnose specific issues like the presence of allergy to dust mite, and the presence of the celiac gene, but only when the patient presented this as the probable cause. Only the treatment prescribed by alternative medicine had any chance of treating the whole patient as opposed to symptomatically.

If you haven’t already guessed, the above is a précis of my health through my life and I have consulted with dozens of doctors from allopathic, various specialist, herbalists, homeopaths, dual practitioners, acupuncture. The major issue with conventional medicine is the reliance upon pinpoint technology to diagnose, rather than a natural ability to heal and read people. Its rather like someone reading a book on leadership, when they really just do not have the natural ability to lead. Reading about techniques can certainly help if you have the right attributes, but if you do not, it just makes you a pill pusher.

This means that treating symptoms especially if acute might be appropriate, but not when you cannot see, or lose sight of the patient overall. Alternative medicine at least recognises that there is necessarily a causation stack underlying the symptoms, masking the symptoms and getting through the days appointments is not a long term fix for many cases. There are many people with chronic and undiagnosed health issues that can be easily corrected if the correct path is taken to diagnosis and treat these.

Does this make it any clearer?


Quoting Dr. SFA, Pakistan

"Accurate Diagnosis" is mandatory for "Cure" is still a misconception as per homeopathic view in concerned.

Finding the "accurate diagnosis" and thinking that it is somehow related with the "cure" is the most widely believed phenomena among conventional doctors and scientist and also the general public is made to believe this.

They always stress for "Proper Diagnosis" and hence believing that it would be followed up by "Proper Treatment" and think that this would somehow end up in "Proper Cure" of the disease.

The idea that a correct diagnose would ultimately lead to the cure of the disease is non-factual and millions of us represent it by carrying large diagnostic documents and results after results of pathological tests with us - shuttling between the specialists every day.

Finding a problem kidney would always end-up replacing the kidney in modern medicine. Where is the CURE after the DIAGNOSIS ?

The nomenclature of diagnosis is now being used to make people believe few things.

1- You have been diagnosed with " x y z " disease and there is no known cure for it.
2- You have been diagnosed with " a b c " and you need to take these toxic medicines for life now.
3- You have been diagnosed with " p q r " and the only best method is surgery.
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 - "Alternative Medicine"-Sp

#825  Postby orpheus » Jun 21, 2010 5:17 am

Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:
TMB wrote:
OK lets take a case history and see how it works.

Patient presents with flu symptoms, fevers, body aches, upper respiratory symptoms, fairly common, viral plus secondary bacterial infection. Conventional medicine prescribes antibiotics which addresses the secondary bacterial infection, assumed primary viral put down to random virus. Symptoms re-appear two months later, cycle is repeated and continues for two years.

Insight from a homeopathic book leads to diagnosis from an allopathic allergist who identifies an extreme allergy to house dust mites. Steps are taken to remove dust from beds etc etc, and symptoms improve significantly, however good health is not totally restored. Increased vigilance around dust mite eradication gives limited results.

Skin issues arise, upper respiratory issues are mild but chronic, other apparently unrelated reactions occur, hives appear on exposure to cold water, known as idiopathic cold urticaria. Removal of dairy from diet improves things partly, however overall health starts to decline rapidly, weight loss is 1kg per month, skin itch and eczema becomes close to unbearable.

In desperation, diet is reduced to a few basic food types and symptoms begin to resolve rapidly. Further tests show that celiac disease is probably at the core of issues spanning from somewhere between 20-50 years in the patients life. Always underweight, with unexpected bouts of un-wellness as a child and marked changes in health depending upon city lived in. Finally diet changes reveal that issues with gluten are possibly at the centre of all issues, from allergy to dust mite, intolerances to numerous food types, weight loss, general weakness and malaise.

In this case treating a bacterial infection was certainly effective with antibiotics, but only in the short-term, and damaging in the long-term. Because allopathic doctors are trained to look through keyholes with both eyes at the same time instead of opening the door, meant that over a number of years that no one allopathic doctor was able to do more that diagnose and prescribe according to their narrow definition of health. In addition this was possible only when a tentative self diagnosis had already happened. The use of an iridologist at various stages during this process allowed the patient to get an idea of the status of each major body organ and system. This meant that herbs could be taken to assist with a stressed immune system, or pancreas, or liver as it struggled to deal with the collateral damage caused by gluten, and subsequent allergies and intolerances.

Alternative practitioners were also not in a position to diagnose the person entirely, however were able to assist and diagnose related issues and once a diagnosis was made for celiac, could place symptoms and remedies in the correct context. In addition to this continual use of herbs does not have the same damaging effect as the long-term use of antibiotics.

Conventional medicine was able to diagnose specific issues like the presence of allergy to dust mite, and the presence of the celiac gene, but only when the patient presented this as the probable cause. Only the treatment prescribed by alternative medicine had any chance of treating the whole patient as opposed to symptomatically.

If you haven’t already guessed, the above is a précis of my health through my life and I have consulted with dozens of doctors from allopathic, various specialist, herbalists, homeopaths, dual practitioners, acupuncture. The major issue with conventional medicine is the reliance upon pinpoint technology to diagnose, rather than a natural ability to heal and read people. Its rather like someone reading a book on leadership, when they really just do not have the natural ability to lead. Reading about techniques can certainly help if you have the right attributes, but if you do not, it just makes you a pill pusher.

This means that treating symptoms especially if acute might be appropriate, but not when you cannot see, or lose sight of the patient overall. Alternative medicine at least recognises that there is necessarily a causation stack underlying the symptoms, masking the symptoms and getting through the days appointments is not a long term fix for many cases. There are many people with chronic and undiagnosed health issues that can be easily corrected if the correct path is taken to diagnosis and treat these.

Does this make it any clearer?


Quoting Dr. SFA, Pakistan

"Accurate Diagnosis" is mandatory for "Cure" is still a misconception as per homeopathic view in concerned.

Finding the "accurate diagnosis" and thinking that it is somehow related with the "cure" is the most widely believed phenomena among conventional doctors and scientist and also the general public is made to believe this.

They always stress for "Proper Diagnosis" and hence believing that it would be followed up by "Proper Treatment" and think that this would somehow end up in "Proper Cure" of the disease.

The idea that a correct diagnose would ultimately lead to the cure of the disease is non-factual
and millions of us represent it by carrying large diagnostic documents and results after results of pathological tests with us - shuttling between the specialists every day.


(bold mine)

But haven't you been arguing that the important thing is to get to the root cause of the disease instead of treating just they symptoms? Sounds like you believe proper diagnosis is important.
Let's try for peace in 2018, shall we?
User avatar
orpheus
 
Posts: 7274
Age: 54
Male

Country: New York, USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

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

#826  Postby Dr. Nancy Malik » Jun 21, 2010 5:18 am

Shrunk wrote: Your are quite right to suggest that modern medicine's emphasis on high tech interventions and funding models that reward high-volume practices have increasingly tended to render such traditional values as anachronistic. That's a real problem and an unfortunate situation, but it is not an indictment of "allopathic"medicine as a whole, so much as of the social, political and economic conditions under which it is currently typically practiced.



Conventional doctors perceive the body as a physical and chemical entity, much like a mechanic would view a machine. Using this “mechanistic” approach, their concern is to examine these structures using a variety of technologies such as X-rays, MRI’s, CT scans, gastroscopes, colonoscopes, biochemical lab tests and the like.
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 - "Alternative Medicine"-Sp

#827  Postby orpheus » Jun 21, 2010 5:20 am

Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:
Shrunk wrote:Probably one of the most spectacular successes in the history of "allopathic" medicine has been the implementation of public sanitation programs. I can't think of a better example of treating a problem at its roots, and it is the kind of think that homeopathy and "alternative" medicine would have been completely incapable of producing. (Since, as we have seen here, they don't believe pathogens actually are responsible for disease.)


Homeopathic Firsts
http://www.hmc21.org/#/homeopathic-firsts/4533557722


From this website:


In 1792 he advocated healthy accommodation for the sick. [1] This view was not taken up widely until Florence Nightingale produced evidence confirming its importance in 1854.
In 1795 he advocated improvements in public hygiene measures. [2] Such improvements only appeared towards the end of the nineteenth century and were a major reason for reduction in mortality rates before 1914. [3]
In 1809 he was publicly opposed to the common treatment of bloodletting, and a justification published later shows that his reasons are the same as are given today. [4,5]
Hahnemann was the first to employ the scientific method to develop a medical system. He employed a combination of detailed research of past and contemporaneous medical records and toxicological reports, observation, experiment and theory-construction. His arguments about the relationship of treatment to illness were supported by references to the work and observations of others. [6,7]
Homeopathy was the first medical system to conduct scientific trials of medicines before using them to treat the sick. [8,9]
By 1831 homeopathy had become the first medical system to adopt the concept of micro-organisms in its explanation of health and disease, some 60 years before Koch saw them through a microscope. [10]
Homeopathy was the first medical system to recognise that those organisms could evolve, some 30 years before Darwin published On the Origin of Species. [11]
By 1841 Hahnemann had identified the need for healthy housing and a healthy diet, including avoidance of excess use of sugar and salt. [12] This has become an important issue today.
By 1827 Hahnemann recognised that it was insufficient to "look on matter as dead mass, for from its interior can be elicited incredible and hitherto unsuspected powers." [13] The extent of such powers is still being investigated by physicists.


What I find interesting is that the items I've highlighted in bold above are things you've been arguing against. (Scientific method, trials, micro-organisms causing disease)
Last edited by orpheus on Jun 21, 2010 5:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
Let's try for peace in 2018, shall we?
User avatar
orpheus
 
Posts: 7274
Age: 54
Male

Country: New York, USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


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

#828  Postby orpheus » Jun 21, 2010 5:21 am

Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:
Shrunk wrote: Your are quite right to suggest that modern medicine's emphasis on high tech interventions and funding models that reward high-volume practices have increasingly tended to render such traditional values as anachronistic. That's a real problem and an unfortunate situation, but it is not an indictment of "allopathic"medicine as a whole, so much as of the social, political and economic conditions under which it is currently typically practiced.



Conventional doctors perceive the body as a physical and chemical entity, much like a mechanic would view a machine. Using this “mechanistic” approach, their concern is to examine these structures using a variety of technologies such as X-rays, MRI’s, CT scans, gastroscopes, colonoscopes, biochemical lab tests and the like.


Yes. You have a problem with that?
Let's try for peace in 2018, shall we?
User avatar
orpheus
 
Posts: 7274
Age: 54
Male

Country: New York, USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

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

#829  Postby Dr. Nancy Malik » Jun 21, 2010 5:33 am

orpheus wrote:
Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:
TMB wrote:
OK lets take a case history and see how it works.

Patient presents with flu symptoms, fevers, body aches, upper respiratory symptoms, fairly common, viral plus secondary bacterial infection. Conventional medicine prescribes antibiotics which addresses the secondary bacterial infection, assumed primary viral put down to random virus. Symptoms re-appear two months later, cycle is repeated and continues for two years.

Insight from a homeopathic book leads to diagnosis from an allopathic allergist who identifies an extreme allergy to house dust mites. Steps are taken to remove dust from beds etc etc, and symptoms improve significantly, however good health is not totally restored. Increased vigilance around dust mite eradication gives limited results.

Skin issues arise, upper respiratory issues are mild but chronic, other apparently unrelated reactions occur, hives appear on exposure to cold water, known as idiopathic cold urticaria. Removal of dairy from diet improves things partly, however overall health starts to decline rapidly, weight loss is 1kg per month, skin itch and eczema becomes close to unbearable.

In desperation, diet is reduced to a few basic food types and symptoms begin to resolve rapidly. Further tests show that celiac disease is probably at the core of issues spanning from somewhere between 20-50 years in the patients life. Always underweight, with unexpected bouts of un-wellness as a child and marked changes in health depending upon city lived in. Finally diet changes reveal that issues with gluten are possibly at the centre of all issues, from allergy to dust mite, intolerances to numerous food types, weight loss, general weakness and malaise.

In this case treating a bacterial infection was certainly effective with antibiotics, but only in the short-term, and damaging in the long-term. Because allopathic doctors are trained to look through keyholes with both eyes at the same time instead of opening the door, meant that over a number of years that no one allopathic doctor was able to do more that diagnose and prescribe according to their narrow definition of health. In addition this was possible only when a tentative self diagnosis had already happened. The use of an iridologist at various stages during this process allowed the patient to get an idea of the status of each major body organ and system. This meant that herbs could be taken to assist with a stressed immune system, or pancreas, or liver as it struggled to deal with the collateral damage caused by gluten, and subsequent allergies and intolerances.

Alternative practitioners were also not in a position to diagnose the person entirely, however were able to assist and diagnose related issues and once a diagnosis was made for celiac, could place symptoms and remedies in the correct context. In addition to this continual use of herbs does not have the same damaging effect as the long-term use of antibiotics.

Conventional medicine was able to diagnose specific issues like the presence of allergy to dust mite, and the presence of the celiac gene, but only when the patient presented this as the probable cause. Only the treatment prescribed by alternative medicine had any chance of treating the whole patient as opposed to symptomatically.

If you haven’t already guessed, the above is a précis of my health through my life and I have consulted with dozens of doctors from allopathic, various specialist, herbalists, homeopaths, dual practitioners, acupuncture. The major issue with conventional medicine is the reliance upon pinpoint technology to diagnose, rather than a natural ability to heal and read people. Its rather like someone reading a book on leadership, when they really just do not have the natural ability to lead. Reading about techniques can certainly help if you have the right attributes, but if you do not, it just makes you a pill pusher.

This means that treating symptoms especially if acute might be appropriate, but not when you cannot see, or lose sight of the patient overall. Alternative medicine at least recognises that there is necessarily a causation stack underlying the symptoms, masking the symptoms and getting through the days appointments is not a long term fix for many cases. There are many people with chronic and undiagnosed health issues that can be easily corrected if the correct path is taken to diagnosis and treat these.

Does this make it any clearer?


Quoting Dr. SFA, Pakistan

"Accurate Diagnosis" is mandatory for "Cure" is still a misconception as per homeopathic view in concerned.

Finding the "accurate diagnosis" and thinking that it is somehow related with the "cure" is the most widely believed phenomena among conventional doctors and scientist and also the general public is made to believe this.

They always stress for "Proper Diagnosis" and hence believing that it would be followed up by "Proper Treatment" and think that this would somehow end up in "Proper Cure" of the disease.

The idea that a correct diagnose would ultimately lead to the cure of the disease is non-factual
and millions of us represent it by carrying large diagnostic documents and results after results of pathological tests with us - shuttling between the specialists every day.


(bold mine)

But haven't you been arguing that the important thing is to get to the root cause of the disease instead of treating just they symptoms? Sounds like you believe proper diagnosis is important.


I think I need to give an example:

Let's say a patient is suffering from arthritis. The patient explored two choices.

Conventional medicine: Physician will prescribe a drug that has been shown to treat arthritis. Plus any anti-inflammatory drug/pain killer (let's say aspirin) and give it to the patient. May be blood test to know RA factor, if any, etc. This approach is to treat the disease.

Homeopathy Medicine: Homeopath physician deals the same with the following approach

a. Joints are red, hot swollen with throbbing pain is a possible Belladonna case.

b. Pain is worse from slightest movement. Better resting. Dry mouth - a possible Bryonia case.

c. Pain is worse at first motion, better afterward, stiff joints in moving - a possible Rhus Tox case. [/b]

Note:
1. For each a, b, c, there are many homeopathy medicines. I have shown one only, for the purpose of illustration
2. Symptoms have been limited to only three a, b,c. Otherwise there are many more to be considered during case taking


A physician will go further into mind (mind symptoms)and other physical symptoms (the above three are just to make you understand).

Disease is not symptoms. It is disease in terms of symptomsIn homeopathy the physician has to go into more specific nature of a problem - many layers deep into any complaint.
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 - "Alternative Medicine"-Sp

#830  Postby OHSU » Jun 21, 2010 5:34 am

Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:Conventional doctors perceive the body as a physical and chemical entity, much like a mechanic would view a machine. Using this “mechanistic” approach, their concern is to examine these structures using a variety of technologies such as X-rays, MRI’s, CT scans, gastroscopes, colonoscopes, biochemical lab tests and the like.


And how is that a bad thing? What is the body, if not a physical and chemical entity? What is disease, if not an alteration of a chemcial or physical process in the body? How does one discover the cause of a disease if not via examination of the body's physical and chemical processes?
User avatar
OHSU
 
Posts: 399

Print view this post

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

#831  Postby orpheus » Jun 21, 2010 5:36 am

Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:
orpheus wrote:
Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:
TMB wrote:
OK lets take a case history and see how it works.

Patient presents with flu symptoms, fevers, body aches, upper respiratory symptoms, fairly common, viral plus secondary bacterial infection. Conventional medicine prescribes antibiotics which addresses the secondary bacterial infection, assumed primary viral put down to random virus. Symptoms re-appear two months later, cycle is repeated and continues for two years.

Insight from a homeopathic book leads to diagnosis from an allopathic allergist who identifies an extreme allergy to house dust mites. Steps are taken to remove dust from beds etc etc, and symptoms improve significantly, however good health is not totally restored. Increased vigilance around dust mite eradication gives limited results.

Skin issues arise, upper respiratory issues are mild but chronic, other apparently unrelated reactions occur, hives appear on exposure to cold water, known as idiopathic cold urticaria. Removal of dairy from diet improves things partly, however overall health starts to decline rapidly, weight loss is 1kg per month, skin itch and eczema becomes close to unbearable.

In desperation, diet is reduced to a few basic food types and symptoms begin to resolve rapidly. Further tests show that celiac disease is probably at the core of issues spanning from somewhere between 20-50 years in the patients life. Always underweight, with unexpected bouts of un-wellness as a child and marked changes in health depending upon city lived in. Finally diet changes reveal that issues with gluten are possibly at the centre of all issues, from allergy to dust mite, intolerances to numerous food types, weight loss, general weakness and malaise.

In this case treating a bacterial infection was certainly effective with antibiotics, but only in the short-term, and damaging in the long-term. Because allopathic doctors are trained to look through keyholes with both eyes at the same time instead of opening the door, meant that over a number of years that no one allopathic doctor was able to do more that diagnose and prescribe according to their narrow definition of health. In addition this was possible only when a tentative self diagnosis had already happened. The use of an iridologist at various stages during this process allowed the patient to get an idea of the status of each major body organ and system. This meant that herbs could be taken to assist with a stressed immune system, or pancreas, or liver as it struggled to deal with the collateral damage caused by gluten, and subsequent allergies and intolerances.

Alternative practitioners were also not in a position to diagnose the person entirely, however were able to assist and diagnose related issues and once a diagnosis was made for celiac, could place symptoms and remedies in the correct context. In addition to this continual use of herbs does not have the same damaging effect as the long-term use of antibiotics.

Conventional medicine was able to diagnose specific issues like the presence of allergy to dust mite, and the presence of the celiac gene, but only when the patient presented this as the probable cause. Only the treatment prescribed by alternative medicine had any chance of treating the whole patient as opposed to symptomatically.

If you haven’t already guessed, the above is a précis of my health through my life and I have consulted with dozens of doctors from allopathic, various specialist, herbalists, homeopaths, dual practitioners, acupuncture. The major issue with conventional medicine is the reliance upon pinpoint technology to diagnose, rather than a natural ability to heal and read people. Its rather like someone reading a book on leadership, when they really just do not have the natural ability to lead. Reading about techniques can certainly help if you have the right attributes, but if you do not, it just makes you a pill pusher.

This means that treating symptoms especially if acute might be appropriate, but not when you cannot see, or lose sight of the patient overall. Alternative medicine at least recognises that there is necessarily a causation stack underlying the symptoms, masking the symptoms and getting through the days appointments is not a long term fix for many cases. There are many people with chronic and undiagnosed health issues that can be easily corrected if the correct path is taken to diagnosis and treat these.

Does this make it any clearer?


Quoting Dr. SFA, Pakistan

"Accurate Diagnosis" is mandatory for "Cure" is still a misconception as per homeopathic view in concerned.

Finding the "accurate diagnosis" and thinking that it is somehow related with the "cure" is the most widely believed phenomena among conventional doctors and scientist and also the general public is made to believe this.

They always stress for "Proper Diagnosis" and hence believing that it would be followed up by "Proper Treatment" and think that this would somehow end up in "Proper Cure" of the disease.

The idea that a correct diagnose would ultimately lead to the cure of the disease is non-factual
and millions of us represent it by carrying large diagnostic documents and results after results of pathological tests with us - shuttling between the specialists every day.


(bold mine)

But haven't you been arguing that the important thing is to get to the root cause of the disease instead of treating just they symptoms? Sounds like you believe proper diagnosis is important.


I think I need to give an example:

Let's say a patient is suffering from arthritis. The patient explored two choices.

Conventional medicine: Physician will prescribe a drug that has been shown to treat arthritis. Plus any anti-inflammatory drug/pain killer (let's say aspirin) and give it to the patient. May be blood test to know RA factor, if any, etc. This approach is to treat the disease.

Homeopathy Medicine: Homeopath physician deals the same with the following approach

a. Joints are red, hot swollen with throbbing pain is a possible Belladonna case.

b. Pain is worse from slightest movement. Better resting. Dry mouth - a possible Bryonia case.

c. Pain is worse at first motion, better afterward, stiff joints in moving - a possible Rhus Tox case. [/b]

Note:
1. For each a, b, c, there are many homeopathy medicines. I have shown one only, for the purpose of illustration
2. Symptoms have been limited to only three a, b,c. Otherwise there are many more to be considered during case taking


A physician will go further into mind (mind symptoms)and other physical symptoms (the above three are just to make you understand).

Disease is not symptoms. It is disease in terms of symptomsIn homeopathy the physician has to go into more specific nature of a problem - many layers deep into any complaint.


So a conventional doctor treats the underlying disease. A homeopathic doctor treats the symptoms. This is what you're saying.
Let's try for peace in 2018, shall we?
User avatar
orpheus
 
Posts: 7274
Age: 54
Male

Country: New York, USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

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

#832  Postby Dr. Nancy Malik » Jun 21, 2010 5:40 am

DST70 wrote:
Agreed, but those multi–pronged strategies come embedded in a rationalist model of medicine. In rationalist models illness is categorised by disease groups, so if you have disease 'A' you'll be treated in the way that disease 'A' always gets treated, as per the results of clinical research. This makes sense under a rationalist model where common symptoms are more important than peculiar symptoms. Whether or not this is the only way of observing human health and illness is debatable.

There's also a problem if you try and "standardize" a sample group too much. The more internal homogeneity the sample group has (more common symptoms), the less representative of the wider population any successful treatment is, so the less 'real world' application it has. Striving for homogeneity in sample groups is not always desirable; assuming it in the world at large is a very debatable concept.

I'm not denying the obvious benefits and huge improvements in medical care from this approach - that would be stupid. But the question remains whether that model is enough on its own to determine the efficacy of a treatment or cure. At least it's something considered by many people, not just alternative therapists.

David


Dr.Syed Ahmed (SFA) have an example to illustrate this

1- Hot days, loose motions, water, several times a day with pains. (call it diarrhea).
2- Hot days, loose motions with severe cramps coming in waves.(call it diarrhea too).
3- Travelling man, never without watery stools that want him to rush to the utility. (diarrhea again)

Now for an effective homeopath, it never mattered to call it diarrhea or xyz. As the symptoms are varying to an extent that the remedies are changing - every condition must have been different is some respect.

Carefully selected remedy would clear the complaint quickly.
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 - "Alternative Medicine"-Sp

#833  Postby Dr. Nancy Malik » Jun 21, 2010 5:42 am

orpheus wrote:
Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:
orpheus wrote:
Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:
TMB wrote:
OK lets take a case history and see how it works.

Patient presents with flu symptoms, fevers, body aches, upper respiratory symptoms, fairly common, viral plus secondary bacterial infection. Conventional medicine prescribes antibiotics which addresses the secondary bacterial infection, assumed primary viral put down to random virus. Symptoms re-appear two months later, cycle is repeated and continues for two years.

Insight from a homeopathic book leads to diagnosis from an allopathic allergist who identifies an extreme allergy to house dust mites. Steps are taken to remove dust from beds etc etc, and symptoms improve significantly, however good health is not totally restored. Increased vigilance around dust mite eradication gives limited results.

Skin issues arise, upper respiratory issues are mild but chronic, other apparently unrelated reactions occur, hives appear on exposure to cold water, known as idiopathic cold urticaria. Removal of dairy from diet improves things partly, however overall health starts to decline rapidly, weight loss is 1kg per month, skin itch and eczema becomes close to unbearable.

In desperation, diet is reduced to a few basic food types and symptoms begin to resolve rapidly. Further tests show that celiac disease is probably at the core of issues spanning from somewhere between 20-50 years in the patients life. Always underweight, with unexpected bouts of un-wellness as a child and marked changes in health depending upon city lived in. Finally diet changes reveal that issues with gluten are possibly at the centre of all issues, from allergy to dust mite, intolerances to numerous food types, weight loss, general weakness and malaise.

In this case treating a bacterial infection was certainly effective with antibiotics, but only in the short-term, and damaging in the long-term. Because allopathic doctors are trained to look through keyholes with both eyes at the same time instead of opening the door, meant that over a number of years that no one allopathic doctor was able to do more that diagnose and prescribe according to their narrow definition of health. In addition this was possible only when a tentative self diagnosis had already happened. The use of an iridologist at various stages during this process allowed the patient to get an idea of the status of each major body organ and system. This meant that herbs could be taken to assist with a stressed immune system, or pancreas, or liver as it struggled to deal with the collateral damage caused by gluten, and subsequent allergies and intolerances.

Alternative practitioners were also not in a position to diagnose the person entirely, however were able to assist and diagnose related issues and once a diagnosis was made for celiac, could place symptoms and remedies in the correct context. In addition to this continual use of herbs does not have the same damaging effect as the long-term use of antibiotics.

Conventional medicine was able to diagnose specific issues like the presence of allergy to dust mite, and the presence of the celiac gene, but only when the patient presented this as the probable cause. Only the treatment prescribed by alternative medicine had any chance of treating the whole patient as opposed to symptomatically.

If you haven’t already guessed, the above is a précis of my health through my life and I have consulted with dozens of doctors from allopathic, various specialist, herbalists, homeopaths, dual practitioners, acupuncture. The major issue with conventional medicine is the reliance upon pinpoint technology to diagnose, rather than a natural ability to heal and read people. Its rather like someone reading a book on leadership, when they really just do not have the natural ability to lead. Reading about techniques can certainly help if you have the right attributes, but if you do not, it just makes you a pill pusher.

This means that treating symptoms especially if acute might be appropriate, but not when you cannot see, or lose sight of the patient overall. Alternative medicine at least recognises that there is necessarily a causation stack underlying the symptoms, masking the symptoms and getting through the days appointments is not a long term fix for many cases. There are many people with chronic and undiagnosed health issues that can be easily corrected if the correct path is taken to diagnosis and treat these.

Does this make it any clearer?


Quoting Dr. SFA, Pakistan

"Accurate Diagnosis" is mandatory for "Cure" is still a misconception as per homeopathic view in concerned.

Finding the "accurate diagnosis" and thinking that it is somehow related with the "cure" is the most widely believed phenomena among conventional doctors and scientist and also the general public is made to believe this.

They always stress for "Proper Diagnosis" and hence believing that it would be followed up by "Proper Treatment" and think that this would somehow end up in "Proper Cure" of the disease.

The idea that a correct diagnose would ultimately lead to the cure of the disease is non-factual
and millions of us represent it by carrying large diagnostic documents and results after results of pathological tests with us - shuttling between the specialists every day.


(bold mine)

But haven't you been arguing that the important thing is to get to the root cause of the disease instead of treating just they symptoms? Sounds like you believe proper diagnosis is important.


I think I need to give an example:

Let's say a patient is suffering from arthritis. The patient explored two choices.

Conventional medicine: Physician will prescribe a drug that has been shown to treat arthritis. Plus any anti-inflammatory drug/pain killer (let's say aspirin) and give it to the patient. May be blood test to know RA factor, if any, etc. This approach is to treat the disease.

Homeopathy Medicine: Homeopath physician deals the same with the following approach

a. Joints are red, hot swollen with throbbing pain is a possible Belladonna case.

b. Pain is worse from slightest movement. Better resting. Dry mouth - a possible Bryonia case.

c. Pain is worse at first motion, better afterward, stiff joints in moving - a possible Rhus Tox case. [/b]

Note:
1. For each a, b, c, there are many homeopathy medicines. I have shown one only, for the purpose of illustration
2. Symptoms have been limited to only three a, b,c. Otherwise there are many more to be considered during case taking


A physician will go further into mind (mind symptoms)and other physical symptoms (the above three are just to make you understand).

Disease is not symptoms. It is disease in terms of symptomsIn homeopathy the physician has to go into more specific nature of a problem - many layers deep into any complaint.


So a conventional doctor treats the underlying disease. A homeopathic doctor treats the symptoms. This is what you're saying.


The language of symptoms is the best language that asks for the remedy. The symptoms are the compass that a homeopath uses to find his way to the right remedy. Symptoms are the language of a disease — the body’s attempt to balance itself.
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 - "Alternative Medicine"-Sp

#834  Postby GenesForLife » Jun 21, 2010 5:43 am

Evidence for that?
GenesForLife
 
Posts: 2920
Age: 30
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

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

#835  Postby OHSU » Jun 21, 2010 5:52 am

Dr. Nancy Malik wrote: The language of symptoms is the best language that asks for the remedy. The symptoms are the compass that a homeopath uses to find his way to the right remedy. Symptoms are the language of a disease — the body’s attempt to balance itself.


Translation: "I'm good at asking people questions that encourage people to talk about how their symptoms, but in the end I really don't understand anatomy, physiology, pathology, or any of the other basic areas of knowledge that relate to medicine or treating disease. I 'treat' patients by asking lots of questions and listening intently to what they say. This makes them feel good. Then I give them water and charge them money for it."
User avatar
OHSU
 
Posts: 399

Print view this post

Ads by Google


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

#836  Postby Dr. Nancy Malik » Jun 21, 2010 5:56 am

natselrox wrote:
Homeopathy: Curing with Kindness

The British Medical Association recently called homeopathy "witchcraft", and a parliamentary committee recommended stopping all NHS funding for it. Yet many people, not least members of the Royal Family, swear by it.

So, what are the facts? Why is there still so much uncertainty? And why are emotions flying so high? British homeopaths are this week celebrating their annual Homeopathy Awareness Week – a good occasion to try and find some answers.

Homeopathy was developed almost single-handedly by a German physician, Samuel Hahnemann. About 200 years ago he found that when, as a healthy person, he took the anti-malaria drug quinine, he experienced some of the symptoms associated with malaria. He eventually concluded that "like cures like": any substance that provokes a symptom in a healthy person can be used to treat that same symptom when it occurs in a patient. You cut an onion and your eyes start watering; so a homeopathic preparation made from onions can be used to cure hay fever, a condition characterised by watering eyes.

But homeopaths do not use simple extracts of onions or other substances. Hahnemann also believed he had found that diluting an extract repeatedly in a special way – homeopaths call this "potentisation" – would make the remedy not less but more powerful. How on earth can this possibly work? Therefore, homeopathic remedies are so diluted that typically they no longer contain a single molecule of the onion. The theory of the "memory of water" provides the answer, according to homeopaths. It postulates that, during the dilution process, some mystical "energy" is transferred from the onion to the water. And that "energy" then triggers a healing response in our body.

This is all wishful thinking and romantic fantasy, scientists insist. The war of words is as old as homeopathy itself, but somehow misses the most important point. If homeopathic remedies make patients healthy, the debate is academic.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. So do homeopathic remedies really have any effect on patients? To find out, we need clinical trials. Today we have about 150 clinical trials of homeopathy. Typically they test the effectiveness of homeopathy by treating one group of patients with homeopathy, while a comparable, second group receives placebos, i.e. sugar pills that only look like the real thing.

These trials have generated vastly different results: some suggest homeopathy works, others fail to do so. It can thus be tempting to cherry-pick and select those data that suit our arguments. This sort of thing has fuelled more and more emotional debates. But that approach is, of course, fundamentally misguided. To get to the truth, we must firstly avoid cherry-picking and look at the totality of the studies, and secondly we have to consider the issue of their reliability. Some trials are biased, but others are not. If we do all this systematically, we are bound to arrive at rather sobering conclusions.

Many researchers across the world have reviewed the evidence and concluded that homeopathic remedies are pure placebos. Five years ago, The Lancet even announced "The Death of Homeopathy". But homeo- pathy did not die. In fact, it continues to thrive and now boasts many supporters, who say, "We are not stupid, we have experienced benefits and therefore know it works."

Homeopaths ignite the debate further by claiming that the clinical trials are artificial, inadequate research tools. They show us "real-life" studies where patients are monitored over time but are not compared to a placebo group. These observations invariably demonstrate impressive success rates after homeopathic treatments. So, we seem to be confronted with a perplexing contradiction: homeopathic remedies are placebos with no specific effects, but in "real life" they seem to work.

The solution to the conundrum is quite simple, however: the remedy does nothing and the homeopath does everything.

If you see a homeopath, you are typically asked many very detailed questions. The homeopath is interested, empathetic and you feel warmly understood. The whole encounter lasts for about an hour, and at the end you receive a prescription. The remedy is a placebo but, never mind, the consultation and the expectations it raises have important effects. This is true particularly if you are suffering from conditions such as insomnia, depression or eczema that respond well to this type of reassuring "mini-psychotherapy". No contradiction at all then. But one nagging question does remain. Does it matter what helps the patient? If it is a placebo so be it, some would say. Regardless of the negative scientific verdict, homeopathy is good for you. What really counts is that it works. Essentially this line of argument implies that, regardless of the negative scientific verdict, homeopathy is good for you.

For a whole host of reasons, I disagree with this line of argument. Honesty is one of them. If the remedy is a placebo, we cannot truthfully pretend it isn't. Such lies may be benign, but they are also unethical.

And it is essential to realise that we don't need a placebo to generate placebo-effects. If a doctor prescribes for patients suffering from insomnia, depression, eczema etc a treatment that works beyond a placebo and, if this is done in a kind and empathetic way with time and understanding, the patient will profit from the specific effects of the prescription and also the non-specific effects of the encounter, which we often call placebo-effects.

Good medicine should always employ specific therapeutic effects (which homeopathic remedies do not possess), as well as the non-specific effects of the therapeutic encounter, i.e. time, understanding, empathy and human warmth, which homeopaths have lots of. Using only one or the other is quite simply not good medicine.

So, when we celebrate Homeopathy Awareness Week, we should honour Samuel Hahnemann – not for inventing homeopathy but for reminding us how important those non-specific elements of the therapeutic encounter really are.


http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 00455.html


New low for BMA: resort to name calling http://bit.ly/9z07GJ
It's for people to choose conventional or homeopathy medicine http://bit.ly/bWiClk
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 - "Alternative Medicine"-Sp

#837  Postby GenesForLife » Jun 21, 2010 6:11 am

I couldn't see a more appropriate description, got any fucking evidence yet?
GenesForLife
 
Posts: 2920
Age: 30
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

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

#838  Postby Dr. Nancy Malik » Jun 21, 2010 6:12 am

Thommo wrote:


Haha, good one.

Homeopaths discovered evolution. :crazy:

As for some of the other slightly less outrageous claims in the list it's interesting that it claims having an advocate favour things like sanitation before they were widely implemented is supposed to give some sort of credibility to the claims of modern day homeopaths.

It's elementarily obvious that people advocated sanitation prior to it's widespread usage. The claim is meaningless, homeopaths weren't "first" to advocate sanitation, which had in fact been around in various forms for thousands of years prior to it's widespread modern day usage.


Dr. Hahnemann was the first man in history to think of testing medicines on healthy subjects to assertain their effects before administering them to the sick. His work was a precursor to the RDBPCT's of today. Homeopathy has its own clinical trials - they are called Provings. They are of far more value, and a great deal more scientific, than any Randomised Double Blind Placebo Controlled Trial.
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 - "Alternative Medicine"-Sp

#839  Postby GenesForLife » Jun 21, 2010 6:13 am

One more assertion, demonstrate why your assertion in factually correct please, I'm not holding my breath.
GenesForLife
 
Posts: 2920
Age: 30
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

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

#840  Postby Dr. Nancy Malik » Jun 21, 2010 6:17 am

orpheus wrote:
Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:
Shrunk wrote: Your are quite right to suggest that modern medicine's emphasis on high tech interventions and funding models that reward high-volume practices have increasingly tended to render such traditional values as anachronistic. That's a real problem and an unfortunate situation, but it is not an indictment of "allopathic"medicine as a whole, so much as of the social, political and economic conditions under which it is currently typically practiced.



Conventional doctors perceive the body as a physical and chemical entity, much like a mechanic would view a machine. Using this “mechanistic” approach, their concern is to examine these structures using a variety of technologies such as X-rays, MRI’s, CT scans, gastroscopes, colonoscopes, biochemical lab tests and the like.


Yes. You have a problem with that?


This “mechanistic” perception of the body has many limitations as this only allows us to view one perspective of the human body, when in fact there are many different levels that are important in diagnosing and fully understanding the aetiology of disease.
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

PreviousNext

Return to Pseudoscience

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest