The Bird Flu is the new Boogey Man, Terrorism is soo yesterday...

[RSchewe]

Terrorism has lost it's luster for the Administration and all of it's followers. Let's see how this will be used to do what...

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. I use homeopathic medicine

to help prevent flu. It is effective, and is quite popular not only here but in Europe as well.

[Genki]

2. do tell?

which ones?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. It has a long name

because its a combination of remedies, and for the life of me I can't think of it right now. Next time I go to my doctor's office, I'll check

[Genki]

33. okay, thanks

I have used the meds on my pets for years with huge success.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

3. Homeopathic is a violent fraudulent placebo scam

Water does not have memory. Diluting duck liver by 200 successive dilutions with distilled water means that there is no chance that any molecules of duck liver will remain in the water. Water can't be "potentiated".

People can die when fraudulent scams like homeopathy prevent people from getting real treatment or vaccines.

http://www.homeowatch.org/history/oscillo.html

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. That's your own opinion

My MD uses it, and I feel she is very qualified to decide what works and what doesn't. I've used homeopathic remedies for years for different things, and from my experience they work better than antibiotics for me.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

7. It's my opinion, science backs me up. You believe in "intelligent design"?

The large Lancet review found that homeopathy was about as good as placebo, at best.

Homeopathy hasn't even been able to pass the preliminary tests for the $1.2 million dollar Randi prize.

Your anecdotal experience is not scientific, and is not generalizable to other people. I'd be curious which of the various non-scientific justifications your MD uses for homeopathy, because there are no scientific ones. Water does not "potentize", duck's liver does not have magic molecules that survive massive dilution, and "like cures like" is bogus 19th century mumbo-jumbo two centuries out of date.

Do you believe in "intelligent design", creationism, or evolution?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

9. No need to be hostile-I tried to be polite in my post

As I said in my post, you are welcome to your opinion. I also did not generalize and say that homeopathy was something everyone should do, merely that it had worked for me. I did NOT generalize it to others. As for my MD's reasons for using it-I'll have to ask and get back to you. But I am curious as to your qualifications for your opinons. Are you an MD, a chemist, a researcher?

And I don't see a link between using homeopathy and having a particular belief system in regards to evolution. As a matter of fact, people I know who use homeopathic remedies tend to believe in the latter, so what's your point?

Not only does my MD use homeopathic remedies, but so does my DC. In fact, most chiropractors I know personally feel that homeopathy works. I know that many people who feel that all this is hokum also dismiss chiropractors and osteopaths as quacks. I would be interested in knowing your opinions of them, as that would help me understand where you are coming from a bit better.

And finally, just to bring it home, you are welcome to your opinions. I will never make you take a homeopathic remedy. But why in the world should you condemn me for doing so? I doubt if we will ever meet, so you won't "catch" the flu that I haven't gotten by being near me.

[Silverhair]

10. Science does not work on "opinions".

It works on FACTS, and the repeatability of experiments, and on tests of the facts.

There is no room for opinion in science on settled matters. You can have the opinion that the moon is made of green cheese, but don't expect it to be accepted by scientists.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

11. Again, I ask for sources and for your credentials

Here is a source I have from the British Homeopathic Medical Association. If you look at the lower left hand corner, you'll see links to the studies done about homeopathy. Here's the link:

http://www.trusthomeopathy.org/

I'm at work now, and only had time to google a little bit, but I noticed that there are several other sites, which I'll look at later to see what I can find about studies done about homeopathy.

Again, I ask you to answer my questions, as I feel that I am debating a ghost-what exactly are your credentials in regards to science and scientific studies? Cite sources of studies, please, with their research perameters; just because a research study has been done does not mean that generalizations to an entire field can be made. An example of this is a recent study that appears to say that Vitamin E should not be taken; however, the study only researched one type of Vitamin E (there are 8 different kinds), and did not state whether smokers or non-smokers were subjects (smoker's needs for Vitamin E have been determined in other studies to be different than non-smokers).

[Ravenseye]

12. Plenty of Sources Against it

Homeopathy has had 200 years to present scientific evidence it works and has not. There have been a few single studies that showed a correlation and got people's hopes up but they were never able to be replicated.

A review of the reviews of homeopathic studies has been done by Terence Hines (2003: 360-362). He reviewed Taylor et al. (2000), Wagner (1997), Sampson and London (1995), Kleijen, Knipschild, and ter Riet (1991), and Hill and Doyon (1990). More than 100 studies have failed to come to any definitive positive conclusions about homeopathic potions. Ramey (2000) notes that

"Homeopathy has been the subject of at least 12 scientific reviews, including meta-analytic studies, published since the mid-1980s.... the findings are remarkably consistent:....homeopathic "remedies" are not effective."

Hines, Terence. Pseudoscience and the Paranormal (Prometheus 2003).

Taylor, M.A., Reilly, D., Llewellyn-Jones, R.H., McSharry, C., and Aitchison, T.C. (2000) "Randomised Controlled Trial of Homoeopathy Versus Placebo in Perennial Allergic Rhinitis with Overview of Four Trial Series" BMJ 321, 471-476

Wagner, M. W. 1997. "Is Homeopathy 'New Science' or 'New Age'?" Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine 1(1):7-12.

Sampson W, and W. London. "Analysis of homeopathic treatment of childhood diarrhea." Pediatrics 96:961-964, 1995.

Kleinjen J., P. Knipschild, and G. ter Reit. "Clinical trials of homeopathy." British Medical Journal. 302: 316-323, 1991.

Hill C. and F. Doyon. "Review of randomized trials of homeopathy," Review d'epidemiologie et de Sante Publique, 38(2):139-47, 1990.

Ramey, David W. "The Scientific Evidence on Homeopathy," Health Priorities, Volume 12, Number 1, 2000.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

14. But there are also sources for it

as I indicated by giving links. I don't live near a major city, and the local library will not have access to these sources. So I must reserve judgement until I have read the studies for myself and seen their perameters.

I am an office manager who has used alternative medicine ever since antiboitics nearly killed me at age 12. I kept getting tonsillitis and my doctor kept giving me antibiotics, which I took according to direction. Instead of getting better, I got steadily worse until my fever was so high I collapsed and didn't wake up for three days. I was so sick that the specialist my mother called in said I should not be moved because it was likely I would die on the way to the hospital. He recommended an alternative treatment, and I was well fairly soon-and did not have the tonsillitis happen again. I don't pretend to know everything about the various health methods, but I do trust my health care providers.

I still ask what your credentials are-and also want to know why you are presonally so vehement against homeopathy. Have you ever used it or have you had a loved one who had problems with it? What are your opinions of other forms of alternative medicine, such as chiropractic, osteopathy, use of vitamins?

[Ravenseye]

16. Your link was a homeopathic association

I can link to websites of groups who think Noah's Flood created the grand canyon. It doesn't make it more scientifically accurate. The sources I gave you from sources such as the British Medical Journal and even the Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine.

I understand that you don't necessarily have time to go read each and every journal. Simply do some googling and pay attention to who says what. It's a simple fact that the scientific studies of Homeopathy don't back it up. If you don't want to believe this, that's fine, but it's true. No matter what some people want to think, science doesn't play favorites. If someone could do a scientific study which would prove homeopathy, and it was repeatable, then people would listen to it.

Sites like the one you linked to like to take single study's out of context as proof of Homeopathy's validity. The studies they use however have never been repeated. It's like someone saying they got cold fusion to work in a laboratory, but nobody can repeat it. Then a website goes up saying that cold fusion is the future because there was a study that showed that it worked.

Believe me if someone were to get Cold Fusion to work it wouldn't be buried. Same thing for alternative remedies. The simple truth is there have been 200 years of studies on Homeopathy and it has never been supported by science. The only studies that ever showed a correlation were never able to be repeated. Hence they were discredited.

I'm sorry if you disagree with this, but science doesn't care whether we agree with it or not. It just is.

Here are some other links
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.html

http://www.newhavenadvocate.com/gbase/Lifestyle/content.html?oid=oid:83689

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

17. Thank you for the links

and, as you said, I'll believe what I believe. But I am still curious as to how you got your attitude towards homeopathy. I also asked if your opinion also includes other forms of alternative medicine.

Note, please, that I explained exactly when I lost my faith in conventional western medicine. It was quite a thing for me to do, as my grandfather, who helped raise me, was an MD and a 50 year member of the AMA. He had prejudices against chiropractic, osteopathy, and any form of what is known as alternative medicine. These, of course, were drummed into me. That is one reason I religiously took the antibiotics the doctor prescribed for me for tonsillitis-I understood the reason for taking the entire dosage.

I will check your sources when I have time.

[Ravenseye]

19. My attitude comes from my background

While I wouldn't call myself a Scientific Humanist, I was raised to respect all people, and to understand and view the world through science. When I say I was 'raised' that way I don't mean my parents had my sister and I at a chalkboard in our garage at age 5 going over math equations. It was more of an outlook on life.

My attitude towards homeopathy, and many other forms of alternative medicine, comes from the simple fact that they aren't scientifically supported. Many forms of alternative medicine I would welcome if they worked. Yet when I hear someone say "oh you should try such and such" I hear that as anecdotal evidence, which it is. It doesn't invalidate that person's experience, but it doesn't mean that their experience is repeatable. So when I hear something like that I do research, these days generally online thankfully. I spend less time in library's pouring through card catalogs or microfiche.

Sometimes the person's anecdotal story is supported by the scientific literature. At least one good study showing the results, verified. Homeopathy doesn't fit that description. It doesn't mean that someone could never have used Homeopathy and gotten better. It just means that it happened at the same rate as people taking a placebo.

One of course could argue that if there is a non-treatable illness (like say the common cold) then what is the harm of people using a placebo affect to increase their recovery time. I would say nothing. I'm not against people getting better. It just isn't because of Homeopathy.

The real danger is when Homeopathic remedies are sold for serious illnesses such as cancer and stroke, where people might forgoe so called 'traditional' remedies in favor of the 'alternative' ones, which have support.

The simple matter of it is that the very basic elements of homeopathic remedies are just highly unscientific and never have been supported. The dilutions they talk about are absurd. Water doesn't have a memory for instance.

As far as other forms of alternative medicine, many are just as unproven and rely on placebo affects. They remind me of that con scheme. At the start of the football season you send out a pick of a football game, for free, to 1,000,000 people. Half of them you pick one team, half the other team. You say you have a great success at games and you're giving them this one for free. Then then next week you do it again for the 500,000 who got the winning team. You say "Hey one more free pick for you.". And again to 250,000 people, and again to 125,000 people. Now you have over 60,000 peoiple who will swear to everyone they know that you've sent them 5 straight accurate picks, and the next week they pay money to find out your pick. It's essentially the same thing with alternative medicine. Sure, some people who use it get better, but it's still anectodal evidence, not scientific. Not repeatable.

One of my best friends, and a groomsman at my wedding, is a chiropractor. We've had discussions about it before. There seem to be some very different schools of chiropracty and some are way out there, while he is in a bit more sane group. For instance some Chiropractors don't vaccinate their children, yet he does. He doesn't do any 'cracking' and is more of a deep tissue specialist. I think for some things chiropracty has shown to be very effective. It's when people start realigning limbs to inrease immune response that I turn off. If your shoulder hurts, a chiropractor can probably make it feel better. If you're sick, go to a doctor, don't go in for a realignment or whatever.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

20. Ah!

Thank you for your response. I now understand where you are coming from. I find it interesting that my personal experience with an antibiotic which I assumed had been scientifically tested and proven to be effective in cases of tonsillitis wound up nearly killing me. I believe that though the scientific method is a good one, it is always a good idea to look carefully at results and how they are obtained.

I do not know the answer to this question, but I feel you might-for a specific remedy, such as an antibiotic, to be considered scientifically effective, does it have to have a 100% effectiveness rate? Or can there be a margin of error? I'm still trying to figure out why conventional medications haven't worked on me.

BTW, my MD is a cancer survivor. I do not believe she uses homeopathic remedies for cancer or for other serious, life threatening illnesses. She is up to date on the latest research in various fields, and has, at time, submitted her own studies (using alternative medicine but not homeopathy, at least to my knowledge) to the AHMA. She did recommend the homeopathic remedy for flu last year when the vaccine was in such short supply; I believe she feels that the remedies have their place, but again I'll have to wait until I see her again to ask for more information.

[Ravenseye]

21. I don't know of a valid medicine where there isn't a risk

Heck even things like Asprin can be harmfull to certain people. I know that some antibiotics can cause problems as well. I'm glad you are ok.

So no, there is almost never a 100% effectiveness rate for any medicine. It's about getting the highest rate and making choices. Take vaccines. Every year children die from a vaccination. Even more get seizures, and even more get very sick. Yet it's far better to vaccinate your child than not. The odds of dying from the illness you're vaccinating against are much higher than of being affected by the vaccine. So if I was talking to a mother whose child had died from vaccination, I would feel her pain, but I wouldn't accept it if she said that nobody shoudl vaccinate their children because hers died.

As far as why conventional medications haven't worked for you, i can't say. You might just be one of those really lucky ones. Or unlucky that is. Sometimes medicine just doesn't work. Heck just ask anyone who has gotten pregnant while on the pill. I know two. Nothing is 100%.

Your doctor however worries me. Any doctor who would recomend homeopathy to me would immediatley lose my business, so to speak. It's simply not supported by the scientific and medical community, and if any doctor who would go against that, I would worry about. If they wanted to do a study, I would participate in it, and support them in their work. If they were peddling it as valid medicine, I would report them to the state.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

22. Thanks!

Many people in this area call my doctor a witch and worse. As for reporting her, this has happened as well-and she was completely exhonerated by the state medical board. She is a medical doctor certified in holistic medicine, among other specialties, and has been on the board of directors of the American Holistic Medical Association. I just went to their website and found that, in their directory, they list homeopathy as one of the specialities that members may practice. Just for fun, I put in the state of Illinois, and found there were several MDs practicing homeopathy there. When I have time I might check on other states as well, but homeopathy seems to be a pretty widespread practice. You might wish to go to http://www.holisticmedicine.org/ahma/public?action=findDoctors
and use the search engine for your state to see the situation there. I mean no disrespect for your point of view; I just wanted to present you with some data to mull over.

Thank you for the information about scientific studies. I agree that one cannot generalize about medicine just because of one's own personal experience. Heaven knows, I would not ban antibiotics, for they appear to help millions each year. But, knowing my personal health history, I try to avoid them.

[Ravenseye]

24. it is fairly widespread, and I consider that a problem

one of the links I listed previously talks about how homeopathy recieved recognition (upon the creation of the FDA a number of things were grandfathered in including homeopathy, as the Senator who pushed through the FDA was actually a homeopathic doctor)

The fact that something exists, no matter how widspread, is not evidence of it's validity. It's sad to me, that these are legally allowed practices in this country, which gives them far too much legitmacy.

Holistic Medicines are in the same camp as Phrenology, based on non-science and strange ideas generally from the early 1800's. Most of these have been discarded, but some continue. There just simply IS NOT any evidence that these methods provide results above and beyond a placebo. It's not my opinion, it's the opinion of the scientific community. The American Holistic Medical Association can claim whatever they like, yet they have never scientificaly proved their own claims.

They are in the same camp as the Creationists, the Phrenologists, the Flat Worlders, and so on. Believing in something of which there is no evidence of it doing ANYTHING. Remember, it might help SOME people, but just the act of doing nothing often helps some people. It's called spontaneous remition in certain cases. Sometimes, doing nothing, the body just cures itself. That doesn't mean that we should all, at all times, never use any medicine whatsoever.

It honestly scares me when I meet intelligent people who hold onto these beliefs. I have to think that it's either a misunderstanding of what something needs to do to be proven correct, a misunderstanding of basic science, or an ignorance of the truth. Often times these groups tout their studies and use language that really sounds good.

Go to third parties. The salesman is gonna try and sell you. If you want to know more about a particular car, a smart buyer looks at independent third party reviews. The links you've listed so far are the equivalent of you saying.

"No really, it's a good car, see the salesman of the used car place says that they own a number of dealerships all across the country, and that it's really a good car."

Quit listening to the used car salesman and look up information from third parties. The alternative medicine community is very vocal and it's hard to get around that. Look at the quackwatch article I sent. Read it. Make your own decision. It's your life, it's your body. Just be aware that whatever the homeopathy people say, science is definately not on their side.

[Silverhair]

13. You are asking a different person. I am responsible only for I say.

My statement is that science is not open to "opinions". It works on facts and experiments and repeatability of those experiments.

You had said that you had a your opinion. Fine. There are still people around who have the opinion that the earth is flat. There are many people who have the opinion that evolution doesn't happen. Science does not accept their opinions.

Since I am not familiar with the claims of homeopathy, I will not comment on it.

My credentials in science are a degree in math with a minor in physics.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

26. Thank you for your reply

One other question, if you don't mind: do you think it is the responsibility of scientists to publish all the facts about studies they make? Should it be the scientist's responsibility to clarify overgeneralization of the conclusions of a study?

I ask this because a recent study on Vitamin E appeared, on the surface, to discourage people from taking it as a supplement. When one looked at the particulars of the study, one found that only one form of Vitamin E was used (there are 8 different forms), and the test population was not screened for smokers. Yet I know of doctors who took their patients off all Vitamin E simply because of the headlines.

[Silverhair]

27. Such things ARE published. Science is based on peer review.

But you do have to read them.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

28. But I didn't make myself clear

I feel that there is a gap between those doing pure scientific research and the media that reports on this research. Sometimes I feel the media distorts findings. Personally, I feel that scientists have an obligation to come out and state the facts when they have been so distorted, as a service to the general public. Many brave scientists have come out against "intelligent" design and have very handily refuted the premises of creationism. That is important, but I also think it is important that they let the public know when their studies are being misused.

[Silverhair]

29. That is a different topic.

You made a statement regarding science that "it was your opinion". I pointed out that science does not work on opinions, but on facts. Theories are tested, results published, and other scientists attempt the same experiment to see if they can get the same results. If they do, repeatedly, then a new set of facts is accepted by scientists.

What the media may or may not do does not effect what science is.

[depakid]

23. It's hopeless to discuss science with so many Americans

It gets to the point where I'm too tired to bother with it. You all go on thinking what you like- the rest of the world's already got their contingency plans in place- and have had for quite sometime.

Americans- well, they'll get what they get- perhaps what they deserve. Eventually a hurricane will hit New Orleans- that's what the scientists said- and there was plenty of modlling done that predicted what would happen when it did....

[Silverhair]

25. Yes. I about ready to give up on the effort.

I don't think I am making any headway. The scientifically literate don't need me telling them how things work, and the ignorant want to stay that way.

[Anywho6]

4. Keep 'em down and rule by fear! "Ooh, da big, scary bear!" n/t

[texpatriot2004]

8. Not to worry the Dept of Homeland Security is in charge of this

now...until the military can be confiscated for this use. Seriously, I read an article earlier today in LBN on it (the DHS, the military part is my commentary).

You are so right. Terrorism is so done. Bird flu is new, fresh...

Okay, wasn't that sicko Chertoff who waited 36 hours while Americans died in New Orleans at some avian flu meeting during this 36 hour period. Gee, could this regime be making a plan?

[ComerPerro]

15. The next big thing is so obvious: Terrorists spreading Bird Flu

[Kailassa]

30. The problem is, we all know who the Real terrorists are,

and that, if they so choose, they do have the ability to do it.

[ComerPerro]

31. Yeah, true. Creepy

[Neil Lisst]

18. You're right. It's the perfect scare scam for Team Bush.

It worries me. They can invent a scare any time.

And it's great for the pharmaceuticals, and all their investors, like the Carlyle Group.


http://www.webcomicsnation.com/neillisst/

[Javaman]

32. What's the point in doing that? He's been indicted.

[Mojorabbit]

34. Oh sure

That is why every country in the world is on full alert mode trying to detect this and nip in in the bud. It is all a * plot.
:eyes: