Discussions about Holistic Health and Alternative Medicine.
Talking to skeptics, I discovered that they are alarmingly obsessed with Homeopathic medicine. Yes, homeopathy .. that gentle Victorian folk medicine from long ago.
Gee .. I don't know anyone who has ever tried homeopathic treatments. Don't know any homeopathic practioneers, clinics, storefronts. I'm sure they exist in a big city like NYC, but I've never seen one. I've never seen a news story where homeopathy was an issue, a headline, byline, punchline. And I've been reading newspapers for a long time. I've never heard of a legal case involving homeopathy. Never heard of anyone complaining about homeopathic fraud or abuse. Never heard of anyone disatisfied or felt scammed by it. Never heard of anyone who died or got sick because of homeopathy. Am I missing something?
If skeptics were actually concerned about medical fraud and abuse, or about improving healthcare, wouldn't Pharmaceutical drug abuse be a better place to look? Since more people take pharaceutical cures than homeopathic cures on a magnitude of billions and billions.
Billion$ spent on research and testing of new pharm drugs.
Billion$ spent on marketing and advertising pharm products.
Billion$ spent on lawyers fees defending the products in court.
Billion$ spent on insurance fees covering their asses.
Billion$ spent on settlements, when their expensive lawyers fail.
And Billion$ made from selling dangerous or worthless products. Drugs that barely test better than placebos. Drugs that do the opposite of what they're intended. Drugs that have dangerous side effects. If you wanted to find fraud and abuse .. if you want to be alarmed by dangerous medical practices .. just open a newspaper and randomly pick a drug. Where's the outrage by skeptics at these drugs, drug companies, and medical practices? Targetting children with drugs? Dangerous treatments for superflous conditions? Bribery, dishonesty and disinformation? The list goes on ... There is no comparison to homeopathy. The difference between pharmaceutical abuses and homeopathic ones is like a mountain to a molehill.
What is causing this type of irrational obsession? Are skeptics on drugs? Are they addicted to pharmaceuticals? Is that why they refuse to criticize the obvious fraud and abuse of pharm companies? Because they love their crazy drugs more than their credibility?
I've seen this type of disproportionate reaction to imagined problems before. It's called delusional psychosis. Skeptics are crazed. Obsessed. Delusional. Paranoid. Do they honestly believe that homeopathic medicine is a threat, a problem, a scandal? I'm not defending homeopathy. I don't know much about it. VERY FEW PEOPLE DO! Snakes are not crawling on my skin. Homeopaths are not stalking me. Imaginary problems are under control. Everything is fine .. except skeptics.
Skeptics are like Jehovah's Witnesses --- "Hi, can I interest you in some skeptic literature about the evils of homeopathic medicine?" No! Get a grip, skeptic fruitcakes.
It's a fairly hot topic here among the resident skeptics.
Homeopathy is all over the internet. As a matter of fact I happened to notice that Zicam is advertised as a homeopathic product. This is directly from their website: Zicam Cold Remedy is an over-the-counter homeopathic medicine that actually reduces the duration and severity of the common cold when taken at the first sign of cold symptoms.
I believe it's when people seek out homeopathic treatment instead of modern medical treatments.
Now first of all, no name calling there Keving. It's not ALL skeptics that feel this way.
It's a matter of perspective. You can find anything online if you were looking for it. You can find women who crush rodents with their high heels, but it's not a real world problem. Not something I would worry about.
I didn't mention any names. Skeptics is group term.
Then why all your hoopla against skeptics who claim it's poohockey? If it's a non-issue in your book, why feel so strongly against those who claim it's garbage? I agree that Big Pharma needs a good kick in the pants as they've been allowed to get away with murder (literally).
Group term or not, it's not good forum protocol and it makes for nasty rebuttal.
Now if you want to debate the tactics that skeptic use, we have the perfect place for that, right here: viewforum.php?f=4
Not to mention, if you haven't had a chance to read Winston Wu's Treatise "Debunking the Arguments of PseudoSkeptics and Debunkers", you can check out his thoughts on this subject: http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Contents.htm
I read a lot of science and interact with other people who do. Skeptics are hard to avoid.
If you were offended by my calling skeptics "fruitcakes", a colloquialism, short for "nutty as a fruitcake", it wasn't a debate point or targetted insult, but a general opinion, to which we celebrate, fight and defend in free countries.
I read that months ago. Speaking of good protocol, I've seen what the critics of Winston Wu have done. Even buying a website to insult and intrude on his personal life, which is pretty low. And who would do such a thing?
Yes. Defended by the governments of those countries and to death of many who who believe in these rights. This forum has very few written rules and I find that once a member gets into name calling of any type, it always starts a flame war and flame wars rarely get back to civilized for continued debate. It's a turn off for those who want to discuss issues in a pleasant environment, so we wind up losing members. It also makes more work for me and more work makes me testy.
Now there is a perfect example of 'Freedom of Speech' from a global level. From a Forum level, not so much.
As far a who would do such a thing? What can I say? It takes all kinds. Usually for something of that nature to spawn such attention it's hate based. At least that's my two cents.
I just think you're being over cautious with protocol. I'm an adult .. probably older than you.
But since I still need to rant ... If anything, homeopathy stands to gain by the attention that skeptics have given it. Even if skeptic groups did have some funding or bribe connection to pharmaceutical companies, why would they single out homeopathy for greater scrutiny? No one is complaining about homeopathy. Why not Shamwows? Shamwows are claiming a scientific advantage. Shamwows are seen on TV and have sold millions. Shamwows even have the word 'sham' in their name. Thousands of people have complained about the product, feel ripped-off by the product. A defender of science would surely have something to say about Shamwows, but no .. homeopathy is a fraud, shamwows are OK.
It's not a matter of being over cautious, it's a rule of this forum. As far as being older than me.... I doubt it but even if you are, that has no bearing on forum rules and protocol.
Homeopathy isn't even FDA approved or regulated so why would it be considered under greater scrutiny? Who's scrutiny? The FDA or skeptic forums on the Internet?
What is to complain about regarding homeopathy? Those who use it seem to think it works and those against it says it doesn't work.
I'm curious as to where you get your fact on complaints about Shamwow. Where did you find a connection to science and Shamwow? It's an engineered shammy or chamois cloth advertised by infomercials. It absorbs liquid. Not exactly science considering Vince is no Einstein.
Honestly, I don't know why you are overanalyzing my criticism of skeptic priorities.
If skeptics are going to go around debunking stuff like annoying little debunking robots, debunk stuff that people have heard about, that they use, that's relevant to their life.
Hey kids, let's debunk victorian folk medicine, because .. yeah, it's such a big problem.
I'm pretty sure homeopathy isn't a big problem. Trust me on this.
Allow me to explore homeopathy for a moment. A medical form that's been in existance for well over a century. At the height of it's popularity, homeopathy was regarded as a minor form of treatment.
In worst case scenerios, homeopathic treatments have been found to be HARMLESS. At best, they may produce good. As such, homeopathic medicine abides with the Hippocratic Oath and ethical principles of medicine. It can be regarded as a legitimate form of medicine and should be allowed the same protections as any respectable medical practice.
In the rare event that a homeopathic treatment produces harm, it should be held to the same legal and ethical standards that apply to all medicine. Undoubtedbly, many modern medicines fall below the establishing ethics principles and standards required of good medicine, and any medicine that does so, should be stopped. The skeptic argument that homeopathy should be held to a higher level of scrutiny is unfounded and irrational.
It appears that skeptics are intent on delegitimizing homeopathy as a form of treatment. The only sane, rational purpose for doing so that I can think of, would be for competitive reasons. Homeopathy represents a threat to a competing form of medicine.
Here's a short list of other pointless things for skeptics to debunk:
Angora sweaters. Angora sweaters make the claim that they are warm and fuzzy, but where is the science that supports these assertions?
Deipnosophists. Are they eloquent table speakers or just gastronomes? I'm pretty sure these deipnosophists are up to no good and need a good debunking.
Dactylic pentameter. Do we really need poetry written in dactylic pentameter? Isn't iambic pentameter good enough for everyone? We need to debunk this dactylic pentameter nonsense!
Pythagorean tuning. No one uses this antique form of musical tuning anymore. Name one pop song written in pythagorean tuning. We need to debunk the practice of pythagorean tuning because it's fraudulent!
I don't know a darned thing about deipnosophists, dactylic pentameter or phythagorean tuning but I know plenty about angora. I raised angora rabbits for many years. Not only is the breed warm and fuzzy in their personality, their hair makes one of the best warm and fuzzy pieces of clothing you will find. I personally learned how to properly spin the angora hair into yarn and of course I knit and crochet. Now as for the science, it helps to put a second or third type of fur into the mix for better strength as angora is very soft (and fuzzy). Nuff' said.
Now as to your comparison, it's weak. Skeptics claim that homeopathy can kill when they replace modern medical science. The above four examples don't seem to me to be of the deadly variety. I would think that comparing the deaths from bad Big Pharma drugs to homeopathy would be a better comparison.
We both know that this is anecdotal evidence, and my saying that it's anecdotal evidence proves that this story never happened and you don't exist. Warmth and fuzziness are magical properties. Only the Invisible Pink Unicorn is warm and fuzzy.
Skeptics are alarmists. Oh, and btw, false alarms are fraud.
To answer your last reply:
Angora sweaters + Deipnosophists = mysterious entities worthy of greater scrutiny.
Dactylic pentameter + Pythagorean tuning = alternative, antique or lesser used methods that are perfectly legitimate.
Homeopathy has been around for a long time. It's been scrutinized, peer-reviewed and regulated by many professionals over time. But now, a group of pseudo-scientists have discovered how lethal it is.
To paraphrase skeptics; extraodinary claims require extraodinary counter-claims. Haha!
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests