Killed by Homeopathy(thonyc.wordpress.com)
thonyc.wordpress.com
Killed by Homeopathy
http://thonyc.wordpress.com/2012/12/08/killed-by-homeopathy/
164 comments
How is it possible for these nutbars to get influential positions overseeing the very field they are nutty in? There are a bunch of US examples as well, so I'm assuming it's a global phenomenon. It doesn't make any sense, and honestly there should be a process to prevent people who believe in magic from informing policy.
"The Iron Law of Bureaucracy"
The administrators are the ones who get power in government, not those who are dedicated to the goals of the field.
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html
The administrators are the ones who get power in government, not those who are dedicated to the goals of the field.
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html
you are assuming people get put into a position overseeing X because they are competent in X, which is, most likely, a factor with minimal influence in the complex equation that determines who does what.
I mean, by definition someone who's specialization is "being a politician" can't have it as "being an expert of medicine & healthcare".
I mean, by definition someone who's specialization is "being a politician" can't have it as "being an expert of medicine & healthcare".
I agree with your first sentence but I don't think your second sentence holds up; people who become politicians are often experts in fields, medicine and healthcare among them.
Hunt's own background, of course, is about as far away from medicine as it could be. If he has expertise in anything, it's in business management. In the eyes of a Tory government intent on dismantling our National Health Service and replacing it with a business model of healthcare provision, he would seem to have the perfect background.
Hunt's own background, of course, is about as far away from medicine as it could be. If he has expertise in anything, it's in business management. In the eyes of a Tory government intent on dismantling our National Health Service and replacing it with a business model of healthcare provision, he would seem to have the perfect background.
I am not excluding that there may be people who have knowledge of X in politics. Even the Dear Leader Berlusconi has a law degree.
But it seems self evident to me that people skills, leadership, charisma, street smarts, good looks etc are more determining factors in a politician's career, than any knowledge of a field like education, healthcare etc.
So, a good politician with zero knowledge >> a bad politician with great expertise.
For a trivial example, just check the careers of the latest "Secretary of State for Health" of the UK, I quote wikipedia:
Jeremy Hunt: After university Hunt worked for a short period of time as a management consultant, and then decided to pursue life as an English language teacher in Japan.
Andre Lansley: Before entering politics, Lansley had "a promising career in the civil service". Lansley worked for Norman Tebbit for three years as his private secretary at the Department of Trade and Industry.
Andrew Murray Burnham: He joined the Labour Party aged 14 in 1984, during the miners' strike, and was a researcher to Tessa Jowell from 1994 until the 1997 election. He joined the Transport and General Workers' Union in 1995. After the 1997 election, he was briefly a Parliamentary Officer for the NHS Confederation from August to December 1997, before taking up the post as an administrator with the Football Task Force for a year.
Alan Johnson: [he] stacked shelves at Tesco before becoming a postman at 18. He was interested in music and joined two pop music bands. Johnson joined the Union of Communication Workers, becoming a branch official. He joined the Labour Party in 1971[..]A full-time union official from 1987, he became General Secretary of the union in 1992.
I don't want go on, but trust me, I did not stop because the next in line knew something of healthcare.
But it seems self evident to me that people skills, leadership, charisma, street smarts, good looks etc are more determining factors in a politician's career, than any knowledge of a field like education, healthcare etc.
So, a good politician with zero knowledge >> a bad politician with great expertise.
For a trivial example, just check the careers of the latest "Secretary of State for Health" of the UK, I quote wikipedia:
Jeremy Hunt: After university Hunt worked for a short period of time as a management consultant, and then decided to pursue life as an English language teacher in Japan.
Andre Lansley: Before entering politics, Lansley had "a promising career in the civil service". Lansley worked for Norman Tebbit for three years as his private secretary at the Department of Trade and Industry.
Andrew Murray Burnham: He joined the Labour Party aged 14 in 1984, during the miners' strike, and was a researcher to Tessa Jowell from 1994 until the 1997 election. He joined the Transport and General Workers' Union in 1995. After the 1997 election, he was briefly a Parliamentary Officer for the NHS Confederation from August to December 1997, before taking up the post as an administrator with the Football Task Force for a year.
Alan Johnson: [he] stacked shelves at Tesco before becoming a postman at 18. He was interested in music and joined two pop music bands. Johnson joined the Union of Communication Workers, becoming a branch official. He joined the Labour Party in 1971[..]A full-time union official from 1987, he became General Secretary of the union in 1992.
I don't want go on, but trust me, I did not stop because the next in line knew something of healthcare.
[deleted]
"Mainstream" medicine has almost certainly killed vastly more people than will ever be killed by homeopathy.
The difference, of course, is that it has also kept countless people alive (to say nothing of improving quality of life for others). Homeopathy has never kept anyone alive.
The difference, of course, is that it has also kept countless people alive (to say nothing of improving quality of life for others). Homeopathy has never kept anyone alive.
>>Homeopathy has never kept anyone alive.
Sorry but I call this 'Allophic Arrogance', Which basically results out of overzealous overconfidence in something. Hating something just because its old.
Ancient systems of medicines work all the time. Despite your dislike.
Around three years, back I had a serious mal absorption problem. In 8 months, I lost a straight 30 kgs. I was around 48 kgs and life was going no where. Allopathy doctors almost killed me, the only thing the ever did was trial and error. And if that didn't work send me through rounds and rounds of tests. Net result was burning a lot of money for no sight of cure.
Then Ayurveda came to my rescue. Life has been a blessing since. My problem vanished like a whisper. In fact everything the Ayurvedic doctor has told me has come true to today's date.
I know modern medicine has advanced stuff like vaccination and surgery. Which saves many lives. And we must be appreciative of that. But that doesn't mean, we need to belittle something else.
Different things works for different people. And if it works for them, who are we to say otherwise?
Sorry but I call this 'Allophic Arrogance', Which basically results out of overzealous overconfidence in something. Hating something just because its old.
Ancient systems of medicines work all the time. Despite your dislike.
Around three years, back I had a serious mal absorption problem. In 8 months, I lost a straight 30 kgs. I was around 48 kgs and life was going no where. Allopathy doctors almost killed me, the only thing the ever did was trial and error. And if that didn't work send me through rounds and rounds of tests. Net result was burning a lot of money for no sight of cure.
Then Ayurveda came to my rescue. Life has been a blessing since. My problem vanished like a whisper. In fact everything the Ayurvedic doctor has told me has come true to today's date.
I know modern medicine has advanced stuff like vaccination and surgery. Which saves many lives. And we must be appreciative of that. But that doesn't mean, we need to belittle something else.
Different things works for different people. And if it works for them, who are we to say otherwise?
> Different things works for different people. And if it works for them, who are we to say otherwise?
The classic defense of astrology. Welcome to the world of science, of objective, dispassionate research. Welcome to modern times, where people compare their ideas to reality.
You do remember reality, yes?
The classic defense of astrology. Welcome to the world of science, of objective, dispassionate research. Welcome to modern times, where people compare their ideas to reality.
You do remember reality, yes?
Frankly speaking if an astrologer were to tell me to buy a lottery ticket with a number he tells me. And I get to become a millionaire, I wouldn't give a damn how, why should or why shouldn't astrology work(And I'm sure neither would you, nor anybody for that matter).
I have those millions and that counts.
I have those millions and that counts.
> Frankly speaking if an astrologer were to tell me to buy a lottery ticket with a number he tells me. And I get to become a millionaire, I wouldn't give a damn how, why should or why shouldn't astrology work ...
You need to learn how science works, and recognize the value of healthy skepticism in particular. There are criminal scams that work just the way you describe, and people are sometimes dumb enough not to see through them. Here's an example of a well-known scam that works again and again among the ignorant -- it's the "Miracle Man" scam:
http://arachnoid.com/randomness/index.html#Miracle_Man
> I have those millions and that counts.
You need to learn how to think -- hopefully before you get an e-mail from Nigeria.
You need to learn how science works, and recognize the value of healthy skepticism in particular. There are criminal scams that work just the way you describe, and people are sometimes dumb enough not to see through them. Here's an example of a well-known scam that works again and again among the ignorant -- it's the "Miracle Man" scam:
http://arachnoid.com/randomness/index.html#Miracle_Man
> I have those millions and that counts.
You need to learn how to think -- hopefully before you get an e-mail from Nigeria.
I know all that you say. I come from a country(India) where scams like you mention are as common as a sneeze. I know more about them from practical encounters that happen around than you can know about by reading.
But as I said for a guy suffering from chronic illness, who is told Hey nothing is wrong with you, and its all in your head, who would probably die otherwise- will rather take his chances with homeopathy or Ayurveda than sit at home and think about hundred reasons why science says otherwise. And wait for the disease to slowly kill him, while allopathy offers him no cure and only costly tests and hospital stay in return.
Heck, these system of medicines are one thing. I've even met exorcists around here. I know people who go to these people and come out sane. You can sit down and write a hundred reasons why that shouldn't work. But a person from village side in India or any other poor guy, with hardly enough money to feed his family is not likely to visit a hospital like NIMHANS in Bangalore and spend months with tests and hospital with no cure in sight. He will go to what gives him the quickest and cheapest cure.
Its difficult to explain to you because you have never been in a situation where anything and everything you will or can do can't get you out of it. Watching yourself in such misery and realizing the helplessness of your actions. That is when you start looking for miracles. Until you actually face that, anything that I say will attract a justification from you.
I sincerely hope you never get caught in such a situation, because let me tell you its a humbling experience when you learn such things the hard way.
But as I said for a guy suffering from chronic illness, who is told Hey nothing is wrong with you, and its all in your head, who would probably die otherwise- will rather take his chances with homeopathy or Ayurveda than sit at home and think about hundred reasons why science says otherwise. And wait for the disease to slowly kill him, while allopathy offers him no cure and only costly tests and hospital stay in return.
Heck, these system of medicines are one thing. I've even met exorcists around here. I know people who go to these people and come out sane. You can sit down and write a hundred reasons why that shouldn't work. But a person from village side in India or any other poor guy, with hardly enough money to feed his family is not likely to visit a hospital like NIMHANS in Bangalore and spend months with tests and hospital with no cure in sight. He will go to what gives him the quickest and cheapest cure.
Its difficult to explain to you because you have never been in a situation where anything and everything you will or can do can't get you out of it. Watching yourself in such misery and realizing the helplessness of your actions. That is when you start looking for miracles. Until you actually face that, anything that I say will attract a justification from you.
I sincerely hope you never get caught in such a situation, because let me tell you its a humbling experience when you learn such things the hard way.
The thing to ask yourself in these situations:
Which is more likely - coincidence, or that all of science is wrong? Because make no mistake, nothing less is required for exorcism or homeopathy or astrology to work.
Hint: It's the first one.
Or, to quote Minchin: 'You know what they call alternative medicine that's been proved to work? Medicine.'
Which is more likely - coincidence, or that all of science is wrong? Because make no mistake, nothing less is required for exorcism or homeopathy or astrology to work.
Hint: It's the first one.
Or, to quote Minchin: 'You know what they call alternative medicine that's been proved to work? Medicine.'
I wouldn't brag about my poor ability to understand causal relationships.
"Sorry but I call this 'Allophic Arrogance', Which basically results out of overzealous overconfidence in something. Hating something just because its old."
There are little things more arrogant than using a false modality to attack evidence-based medicine.
There are little things more arrogant than using a false modality to attack evidence-based medicine.
"Mainstream" medicine has certainly saved vastly more people than will ever be saved by homeopathy.
> Homeopathy has never kept anyone alive.
I bet there are an awful lot of dehydration survivors that would disagree with you, there.
I bet there are an awful lot of dehydration survivors that would disagree with you, there.
>> Homeopathy has never kept anyone alive.
> I bet there are an awful lot of dehydration survivors that would disagree with you, there.
But those who survived dehydration didn't survive because of homeopathy, they survived because of the accompanying water. If an astrologer pulls someone out of a burning car, does that support the scientific standing of astrology?
> I bet there are an awful lot of dehydration survivors that would disagree with you, there.
But those who survived dehydration didn't survive because of homeopathy, they survived because of the accompanying water. If an astrologer pulls someone out of a burning car, does that support the scientific standing of astrology?
Ahhh, but what if the stars foretold the burning car and directed the astrologers attention to the right time and place? ;)
There is also the problem of absolute versus relative numbers. Even discounting the number of people saved, mainstream medicine has possibly still killed more. But it has also been used on more people, hence the "mainstream" designation.
Homeopathy has never kept anyone alive.
I'm sure there are cases where it did, e.g. by virtue of offering something benign in place of something in the mainstream that might have killed.
People are comforted by the thought that modern medicine has completely transcended the barbarity of its own past, but doctors are humans and, on average, are subject to the same kinds of irrationality as everyone else is, and if you're unlucky enough to have to get up close to modern medicine and if you pay attention, you'll see the barbarism very clearly.
I'm sure there are cases where it did, e.g. by virtue of offering something benign in place of something in the mainstream that might have killed.
People are comforted by the thought that modern medicine has completely transcended the barbarity of its own past, but doctors are humans and, on average, are subject to the same kinds of irrationality as everyone else is, and if you're unlucky enough to have to get up close to modern medicine and if you pay attention, you'll see the barbarism very clearly.
I'm married to a doctor. I could not agree with this comment more.
If you're sick, modern medicine is far and away your best hope. It is not kind. It is not wise. It does not maintain the standards that practitioners would like us to believe. Nor are those practitioners as knowledgeable and wise as they would like us (and themselves) to believe.
It is still your best hope. Flaws and all, you should depend on it for your life.
If you're sick, modern medicine is far and away your best hope. It is not kind. It is not wise. It does not maintain the standards that practitioners would like us to believe. Nor are those practitioners as knowledgeable and wise as they would like us (and themselves) to believe.
It is still your best hope. Flaws and all, you should depend on it for your life.
In short, "It sucks, but it's the best there is right now".
This actually pertains to an awful lot of things in the modern world (democracy, for example). It's good to remember both sides of that sentence - if you're sick, seek modern medicine. But if you're a scientist/politician/practitioner, remember that there's a lot left to improve.
This actually pertains to an awful lot of things in the modern world (democracy, for example). It's good to remember both sides of that sentence - if you're sick, seek modern medicine. But if you're a scientist/politician/practitioner, remember that there's a lot left to improve.
Modern medicine basically works like this: you destructively remove the offending condition as down to the root cause as you can reason about, and then let the body heal itself and recover from the shock of the treatment. While this is great for many acute conditions, I can understand why people might want to choose something else first.
Really spot on. Like, how the "cure" for a fissure in anno is to open another fissure on the side.
I am sure in 50 years people will see such procedure as barbaric.
I am sure in 50 years people will see such procedure as barbaric.
You can do a bit better than just trusting it by educating yourself and seeking second or third opinions on treatment.
Medicine isn't a special case, it's just part of the human condition that we haven't fully crossed the threshold from acting like apes to acting like truly civilized people. What makes this worse is when people get all proud of how much we have accomplished, without recognizing how far we yet must go.
Medicine isn't a special case, it's just part of the human condition that we haven't fully crossed the threshold from acting like apes to acting like truly civilized people. What makes this worse is when people get all proud of how much we have accomplished, without recognizing how far we yet must go.
I'm sure there are cases where it did, e.g. by virtue of offering something benign in place of something in the mainstream that might have killed.
When homeopathy was invented about 150 years ago, it was actually safer than real medicine, but that's because real medicine was quite dangerous, and homeopathy wasn't actually any treatment, so the "doing nothing" approach (homeopathy) was safer than the current real medicine.
However real medicine has gotten a lot better.
When homeopathy was invented about 150 years ago, it was actually safer than real medicine, but that's because real medicine was quite dangerous, and homeopathy wasn't actually any treatment, so the "doing nothing" approach (homeopathy) was safer than the current real medicine.
However real medicine has gotten a lot better.
However real medicine has gotten a lot better.
It hasn't gotten better enough. Homeopathy is, in a certain sense, propaganda for modern medicine, because instead of people contrasting modern medicine with what it could and should be, they compare it to something that's obviously worse, and then they feel pleased with themselves for being so smart and become complacent about further improving modern medicine.
It hasn't gotten better enough. Homeopathy is, in a certain sense, propaganda for modern medicine, because instead of people contrasting modern medicine with what it could and should be, they compare it to something that's obviously worse, and then they feel pleased with themselves for being so smart and become complacent about further improving modern medicine.
It hasn't gotten better enough
Yes, medicine is not finished yet (we haven't cured death yet). However medicine hasn't stopped yet and keeps researching. And medicine is waaaay better than it was 50, 100 or 150 years ago.
Yes, medicine is not finished yet (we haven't cured death yet). However medicine hasn't stopped yet and keeps researching. And medicine is waaaay better than it was 50, 100 or 150 years ago.
"It hasn't gotten better enough. Homeopathy is, in a certain sense, propaganda for modern medicine"
Except that it's not, because its adherents demand revolution, not reform.
Except that it's not, because its adherents demand revolution, not reform.
I was pretty floored when I saw homeopathy cold remedies on the same shelf as actual cold medicine at a US Walgreens. I'm sure people who aren't very careful end up purchasing the homeopathic item by accident.
This bizarre experience made me wonder about the companies that formulate and produce this stuff. Do they actually go through the trouble of diluting things to ridiculous level or do they just skip the tedious part and sell inert capsules? You have to believe most people that work for these companies are con men and not actually true believers.
This bizarre experience made me wonder about the companies that formulate and produce this stuff. Do they actually go through the trouble of diluting things to ridiculous level or do they just skip the tedious part and sell inert capsules? You have to believe most people that work for these companies are con men and not actually true believers.
From a scientific perspective there may be a decent case for putting placebo cold medication next to the real stuff. If the real stuff has 50% efficacy but has side effects x, y, and z, there's something to be said for selling someone a 30% effective placebo with no real side effects. It makes us queasy, since you're effectively selling nothing, but at the same time nothing is not always nothing.
And, at the end of the day, the patient is just suffering from a cold. Medicine or no, they will get better in a week. Placebo can help alleviate discomfort and pain to some degree, because that is something the mind has some sway over. So in cases of simple illness...placebo is a somewhat valid medicine.
Now, when people start taking homeopathy for cancer or whatever, that's a different story.
EDIT: To be clear, I think it's kinda ridiculous they are allowed to sell it too. But I suppose it isn't too different from "nutritional supplements" that have ambiguous value.
Now, when people start taking homeopathy for cancer or whatever, that's a different story.
EDIT: To be clear, I think it's kinda ridiculous they are allowed to sell it too. But I suppose it isn't too different from "nutritional supplements" that have ambiguous value.
> So in cases of simple illness...placebo is a somewhat valid medicine.
Not if there is an implied but nonexistent cause-effect relationship. And especially if money changes hands. And most especially if a real treatment is passed up in favor of the placebo.
> Placebo can help alleviate discomfort and pain to some degree, because that is something the mind has some sway over.
The above sentence doesn't mean what you think it does. It starts out claiming that placebos work, then it undercuts its own premise.
The above claims about placebos only apply to real, genuine placebos, not cheap imitation placebos. :)
Not if there is an implied but nonexistent cause-effect relationship. And especially if money changes hands. And most especially if a real treatment is passed up in favor of the placebo.
> Placebo can help alleviate discomfort and pain to some degree, because that is something the mind has some sway over.
The above sentence doesn't mean what you think it does. It starts out claiming that placebos work, then it undercuts its own premise.
The above claims about placebos only apply to real, genuine placebos, not cheap imitation placebos. :)
Yeah, I see your point, especially about money exchanging hands. But if the product promises to "reduce pain and discomfort associated with the Flu", does it matter what the mechanism is if the patient ultimately feels a reduction of those symptoms?
I suppose there is a very fine grey line between that and just outright lying to someone about a product.
I suppose there is a very fine grey line between that and just outright lying to someone about a product.
> But if the product promises to "reduce pain and discomfort associated with the Flu", does it matter what the mechanism is if the patient ultimately feels a reduction of those symptoms?
Yes, because making such a promise constitutes fraud unless the active agent is the cause leading to the effect. Placebos aren't a cause, they are an illusion. I guess it would be all right if the customers could pay using imaginary money.
If I claim to have a cure for the common cold, and if I shake a dried gourd over the cold sufferer for a week, do I have the right to claim victory and collect money?
> I suppose there is a very fine grey line between that and just outright lying to someone about a product.
The line is much clearer than that. If the treatment isn't validated in objective double-blind clinical trials, it's not a medical treatment and no claims can be made for it.
I can't tell you how many advertisements I've seen that said "Clinically tested!" but without also mentioning, "The tests failed!" :)
Yes, because making such a promise constitutes fraud unless the active agent is the cause leading to the effect. Placebos aren't a cause, they are an illusion. I guess it would be all right if the customers could pay using imaginary money.
If I claim to have a cure for the common cold, and if I shake a dried gourd over the cold sufferer for a week, do I have the right to claim victory and collect money?
> I suppose there is a very fine grey line between that and just outright lying to someone about a product.
The line is much clearer than that. If the treatment isn't validated in objective double-blind clinical trials, it's not a medical treatment and no claims can be made for it.
I can't tell you how many advertisements I've seen that said "Clinically tested!" but without also mentioning, "The tests failed!" :)
> Yes, because making such a promise constitutes fraud unless the active agent is the cause leading to the effect.
Ok ok, you win. I can't argue against that =)
(My background is in biology and my girlfriend is in the medical profession, so I'm 100% on board with homeopathy being silly. I just thought it was an interesting line of conversation about the efficacy of a placebo, and ramification of selling it.)
Ok ok, you win. I can't argue against that =)
(My background is in biology and my girlfriend is in the medical profession, so I'm 100% on board with homeopathy being silly. I just thought it was an interesting line of conversation about the efficacy of a placebo, and ramification of selling it.)
And we haven't even gotten around to discussing the difference between real placebos and the phony, cut-rate kind. :)
You seem to have missed the point made that real cold medicine is only so effective anyway with some potential side effects. So for some people a placebo would actually be better.
I don't have time to look up any decent sources right now, and it's very possible that there are far more studies that disagree with this, but I'm sure there has been at least some research showing that placebos can affect more than just the most obvious things that the mind controls, e.g. pain. Obviously any placebo relies on tricking the mind, but the mind can have a subconscious effect on how your body does anything, including fighting cancer.
I enjoy a good homeopathy-bash as much as the next guy, but Boole died of an infectious disease. The rain storm he walked through, and the wet blankets he was wrapped in, had nothing to do with the bacterium that killed him. The "cold sensations cause pneumonia" folklore this article relies on is as much magical thinking as the homeopathy it invites us to smugly chortle at.
>The next time somebody tells you that homeopathy is harmless you can tell them that it killed one of the greatest mathematical minds of the nineteenth century on whose algebraic logic both the soft- and the hardware of your computer function.
Interesting, but as practiced homeopathy today is harmless (ignoring opportunity cost). It's basically the equivalent of drinking tap water.
Interesting, but as practiced homeopathy today is harmless (ignoring opportunity cost). It's basically the equivalent of drinking tap water.
It can be a hell of an opportunity cost. For example this case: http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/13310801/woman... http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/in_the_news/a1443763-Homeopath-b...
And this case: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/son-taken-away-by-mother-t...
and this case: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12153074
And this case: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/son-taken-away-by-mother-t...
and this case: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12153074
Full reference at http://whatstheharm.net/index.html
Yes, but there are now more accounts being unearthed of people foregoing or declining conventional treatments because they have become convinced that homeopathy will cure them. Promoting homeopathy, if successful, can result in more deaths.
Prescription drugs kill lots of people too. No one ever cites that as reason to skip seeing a doctor.
Not to dismiss your valid concern, the problem is that when doctor's kill someone, the death gets blamed on a disease or on the patient not taking the medication correctly, etc. But when an alternative treatment is used and death occurs, it is used to smear all alternative treatments. The climate is already biased against meaningful discussion of such things.
Not to dismiss your valid concern, the problem is that when doctor's kill someone, the death gets blamed on a disease or on the patient not taking the medication correctly, etc. But when an alternative treatment is used and death occurs, it is used to smear all alternative treatments. The climate is already biased against meaningful discussion of such things.
> Not to dismiss your valid concern, the problem is that when doctor's kill someone, the death gets blamed on a disease or on the patient not taking the medication correctly, etc.
No. We are not in the time of Benjamin Rush. You have almost certainly read the Institute of Medicine's report on medical error. We know that we commit error and that we kill patients. We admit this. We need to do better and we seek evidence for how we can do so. We welcome outside help, and there is good money to be made by those who would participate.
Anyway, surely you know what we call alternative medicine that is supported by evidence: "medicine".
No. We are not in the time of Benjamin Rush. You have almost certainly read the Institute of Medicine's report on medical error. We know that we commit error and that we kill patients. We admit this. We need to do better and we seek evidence for how we can do so. We welcome outside help, and there is good money to be made by those who would participate.
Anyway, surely you know what we call alternative medicine that is supported by evidence: "medicine".
I know "medicine" happily sentenced me to death. I declined its offer. I lived.
I also know it is nearly impossible to talk to people about that. My views and experiences are dismissed wholesale before I even open my mouth.
I also know it is nearly impossible to talk to people about that. My views and experiences are dismissed wholesale before I even open my mouth.
I'm absolutely certain that "modern medicine" doesn't have all the answers, and is woefully incomplete. I'm absolutely certain that there are things currently considered as "alternative medicine" that will turn out to be valid when practised correctly, and on suitable patients with suitable conditions. I'm absolutely certain that there are people for whom the prescribed treatment from "modern medicine" was, in fact, wrong.
I'm also absolutely certain that the vast majority of "alternative medicine" is not, in fact, better than "modern medicine." Exceptions will exist, and true scientists would use them as stepping stones to better knowledge, better practice, and better medicine. The fact that your experience indicates otherwise is a clear indication that things not only could be better, but should be better. The true failure is not that modern medicine was wrong and that you appear to have been saved by "alternative medicine", but that your success is not taken seriously, and is basically ignored, by those in whom we ultimately place our trust to find and implement cures.
That doesn't stop it being true that there are people who seek "alternative treatments" when they would be better off going with "modern medicine", and all evidence suggests that they are the vast majority of cases.
I'm also absolutely certain that the vast majority of "alternative medicine" is not, in fact, better than "modern medicine." Exceptions will exist, and true scientists would use them as stepping stones to better knowledge, better practice, and better medicine. The fact that your experience indicates otherwise is a clear indication that things not only could be better, but should be better. The true failure is not that modern medicine was wrong and that you appear to have been saved by "alternative medicine", but that your success is not taken seriously, and is basically ignored, by those in whom we ultimately place our trust to find and implement cures.
That doesn't stop it being true that there are people who seek "alternative treatments" when they would be better off going with "modern medicine", and all evidence suggests that they are the vast majority of cases.
There are really huge problems with the entire current system. That is why so many people seek alternatives. When I turned to "alternative treatments", doctors were calling me crazy and denying me treatment. Had they offered me real treatment, I would have gladly taken it. This is not a journey I desired to make. Not at all.
But the problem with this being posted here is that the entire discussion will revolve around dismissing alternative medicine and not on what is wrong with the bigger picture that I and other people would consciously choose to take our chances on unproven methods rather than accept what little was offered us. I was in constant excruciating pain. If my own experiments had resulted in sudden death, I felt that was better than the slow torturous death modern medicine offers people like me.
I know you are a mathematician. I imagine this piece hits a nerve for you. But bashing alternatives doesn't fix the real problem and will help close off avenues of escape from a larger system which is not working. That larger failure includes conflating "health care" and "medicine" when they are not the same thing but it is hardly limited to that issue.
Thank you for replying.
But the problem with this being posted here is that the entire discussion will revolve around dismissing alternative medicine and not on what is wrong with the bigger picture that I and other people would consciously choose to take our chances on unproven methods rather than accept what little was offered us. I was in constant excruciating pain. If my own experiments had resulted in sudden death, I felt that was better than the slow torturous death modern medicine offers people like me.
I know you are a mathematician. I imagine this piece hits a nerve for you. But bashing alternatives doesn't fix the real problem and will help close off avenues of escape from a larger system which is not working. That larger failure includes conflating "health care" and "medicine" when they are not the same thing but it is hardly limited to that issue.
Thank you for replying.
> Had they offered me real treatment,
I don't know what you mean by real treatment, but a doctor will offer you what he knows is best based on his education, experience, past medical history and medical tests. If that's unreal to you, well, I don't know what can the doctor do about that.
> what is wrong with the bigger picture that I and other people would consciously choose to take our chances on unproven methods rather than accept what little was offered us.
I am sorry but I am missing the bigger picture. If the doctor could help, he will. If he won't, some other doctor would. It's a service industry after all. But when doctors say they can't help you, it's because they can't. What's the bigger picture here? Modern medicine has limitations, error rates and unknowns. People acknowledge and work on them.
As another commenter pointed out, the "alternate medicine" that actually works is called "medicine". If eating some fruit is curing cancer, it will be researched and integrated in modern medicine. The pharma companies or any other researcher have no reason not to accept things that work, whether they are manufactured in a lab or found in jungles of India.
I don't know what you mean by real treatment, but a doctor will offer you what he knows is best based on his education, experience, past medical history and medical tests. If that's unreal to you, well, I don't know what can the doctor do about that.
> what is wrong with the bigger picture that I and other people would consciously choose to take our chances on unproven methods rather than accept what little was offered us.
I am sorry but I am missing the bigger picture. If the doctor could help, he will. If he won't, some other doctor would. It's a service industry after all. But when doctors say they can't help you, it's because they can't. What's the bigger picture here? Modern medicine has limitations, error rates and unknowns. People acknowledge and work on them.
As another commenter pointed out, the "alternate medicine" that actually works is called "medicine". If eating some fruit is curing cancer, it will be researched and integrated in modern medicine. The pharma companies or any other researcher have no reason not to accept things that work, whether they are manufactured in a lab or found in jungles of India.
My doctor told me outright "people like you do not get well. Symptom management is the name of the game." When I improved anyway, he expressed no curiosity. He scheduled me fewer and fewer appointments and indicated other patients were more in need of his services than I was.
It is routine that when patients with CF decline, their doctor makes zero effort to reverse the decline. Their decline is blamed on their genes. One doctor who did make real effort had a track record of helping people with CF improve. People used to travel very long distances to see him. Last I heard, he is now retired. But it is the norm in the medical community to tell people with CF, in essence, "Do not even bother to try. You are doomed anyway." even though all evidence supports the idea that this is not true.
It is routine that when patients with CF decline, their doctor makes zero effort to reverse the decline. Their decline is blamed on their genes. One doctor who did make real effort had a track record of helping people with CF improve. People used to travel very long distances to see him. Last I heard, he is now retired. But it is the norm in the medical community to tell people with CF, in essence, "Do not even bother to try. You are doomed anyway." even though all evidence supports the idea that this is not true.
> My views and experiences are dismissed wholesale before I even open my mouth.
Try describing your experience scientifically, rather than emotionally (as you are doing). See how that works. You might learn something you don't already know, as might your listeners.
The chances are very high that your story is one of coincidence rather then repeatable effect, but until you actually think about it analytically, you will never know.
Try describing your experience scientifically, rather than emotionally (as you are doing). See how that works. You might learn something you don't already know, as might your listeners.
The chances are very high that your story is one of coincidence rather then repeatable effect, but until you actually think about it analytically, you will never know.
I'm pretty sure you're talking to someone who has tried pretty much every possible avenue to get people to listen to her, failed, and is now rather bitter about how she is treated over the whole episode. Mz can speak for herself, but I suspect your advice is well-meant, but badly misplaced.
> I suspect your advice is well-meant, but badly misplaced.
The advice to post a scientific description instead of an emotional one is never misplaced.
The advice to post a scientific description instead of an emotional one is never misplaced.
His advice is great. She might not take it, but lutusp's audience is the entire internet.
I think about it analytically all the time. And I know it to be repeatable. Twelve years of steady improvement would be one helluva "coincidence".
I spent many years trying to learn to argue "correctly" in my martiage -- unemotionally, citing my sources, etc. I can do that. But it matters not how well I do it, I am still dismissed. You are dismissing me without knowing my story, and conveniently blaming me. I imagine you will never see my point, no matter how I present it.
I am working on trying to find the right presentation. But your approach is largely antithetical to mine and mine got me well. Finding a meeting ground is challenging, and most people make no attempt to meet me halfway.
Thank you for replying though.
I spent many years trying to learn to argue "correctly" in my martiage -- unemotionally, citing my sources, etc. I can do that. But it matters not how well I do it, I am still dismissed. You are dismissing me without knowing my story, and conveniently blaming me. I imagine you will never see my point, no matter how I present it.
I am working on trying to find the right presentation. But your approach is largely antithetical to mine and mine got me well. Finding a meeting ground is challenging, and most people make no attempt to meet me halfway.
Thank you for replying though.
> I spent many years trying to learn to argue "correctly" in my martiage -- unemotionally, citing my sources, etc. I can do that. But it matters not how well I do it, I am still dismissed.
You're not being dismissed because your accurate, concise description is being ignored, you're being dismissed because you haven't provided an accurate, concise description.
When I want to argue a controversial point, I link to one of my many articles on diverse topics. Example:
http://arachnoid.com/trouble_with_psychology
Where's yours? And do you think you have the right to claim unjust treatment if you haven't ever clearly explained your case?
> Finding a meeting ground is challenging, and most people make no attempt to meet me halfway.
No, and I can see why -- if someone tries to meet you halfway, you move the goal posts, then complain about how badly you've been treated.
You're not being dismissed because your accurate, concise description is being ignored, you're being dismissed because you haven't provided an accurate, concise description.
When I want to argue a controversial point, I link to one of my many articles on diverse topics. Example:
http://arachnoid.com/trouble_with_psychology
Where's yours? And do you think you have the right to claim unjust treatment if you haven't ever clearly explained your case?
> Finding a meeting ground is challenging, and most people make no attempt to meet me halfway.
No, and I can see why -- if someone tries to meet you halfway, you move the goal posts, then complain about how badly you've been treated.
I have made good faith efforts for many years which ascribed to the rules you are trying to dictate, to no avail. No matter how well I argue the latest supposed reason for dismissing me, it makes no difference. There is another excuse behind that one. You are only the latest in a very long string of people to dismiss me, then justify that dismissal as somehow my fault. It isn't anything new to me, not at all. It's a very old story in fact.
But thank you for replying.
But thank you for replying.
> I have made good faith efforts for many years which ascribed to the rules you are trying to dictate, to no avail.
Look, no offense, but you're obviously not going to win over intelligent readers with your diligent avoidance of anything substantive. You are quite obviously trying for sympathy but without providing anything concrete or testable. It's a symptom of Munchausen Syndrome.
> You are only the latest in a very long string of people to dismiss me, then justify that dismissal as somehow my fault.
It's not "somehow" your fault. It is your fault. You want sympathy but without earning it. This is why you have to keep changing forums -- people catch on too quickly.
You're a textbook case of Munchausen Syndrome -- imaginary ailments, ailment you go to great lengths to (a) complain about but (b) conceal, a marked persecution complex, the usual accompanying histrionic syndrome ("It's dangerous to try to describe my condition"), and a general inability to picture yourself realistically.
Get professional help.
Look, no offense, but you're obviously not going to win over intelligent readers with your diligent avoidance of anything substantive. You are quite obviously trying for sympathy but without providing anything concrete or testable. It's a symptom of Munchausen Syndrome.
> You are only the latest in a very long string of people to dismiss me, then justify that dismissal as somehow my fault.
It's not "somehow" your fault. It is your fault. You want sympathy but without earning it. This is why you have to keep changing forums -- people catch on too quickly.
You're a textbook case of Munchausen Syndrome -- imaginary ailments, ailment you go to great lengths to (a) complain about but (b) conceal, a marked persecution complex, the usual accompanying histrionic syndrome ("It's dangerous to try to describe my condition"), and a general inability to picture yourself realistically.
Get professional help.
And diagnosing someone with Munchausen after a few minutes of internet argument -- that's scientific? Since when?
Again, what evidence do you want? You won't answer that. You are too busy engaging in ad hominems.
Again, what evidence do you want? You won't answer that. You are too busy engaging in ad hominems.
> And diagnosing someone with Munchausen after a few minutes of internet argument -- that's scientific? Since when?
Since psychology began to masquerade as a science. Want to get better, fairer treatment? Visit a hospital instead of a computer science forum. But I suspect you've already been turned away from any number of hospitals.
You're the one who chose to post your rant on the least likely of forums, one that discusses computer science issues. So either stop complaining about your treatment by unsympathetic computer scientists, or choose another forum.
Since psychology began to masquerade as a science. Want to get better, fairer treatment? Visit a hospital instead of a computer science forum. But I suspect you've already been turned away from any number of hospitals.
You're the one who chose to post your rant on the least likely of forums, one that discusses computer science issues. So either stop complaining about your treatment by unsympathetic computer scientists, or choose another forum.
You realize that crazy coincidences happen all the time? A disease that's 99.999% fatal will routinely have survivors if the disease is common enough. A single data point doesn't mean a whole lot.
As I said elsewhere: I am not a single data point.
Further, I did not merely live. The hole in my lung closed and I have gradually but steadily reversed my symptoms over the course of more than a decade. Would you like to actually discuss it? I am pretty tired of being dismissed by people who assume I am not thorough but themselves fail to be thorough enough to read all existing remarks in the discussion before jumping up with the same tired criticisms I have heard before and addressed previously in this very discussion.
Further, I did not merely live. The hole in my lung closed and I have gradually but steadily reversed my symptoms over the course of more than a decade. Would you like to actually discuss it? I am pretty tired of being dismissed by people who assume I am not thorough but themselves fail to be thorough enough to read all existing remarks in the discussion before jumping up with the same tired criticisms I have heard before and addressed previously in this very discussion.
> I am pretty tired of being dismissed ...
By scientists in a science/technology forum that has no connection whatever to health or medicine? What did you expect?
By scientists in a science/technology forum that has no connection whatever to health or medicine? What did you expect?
Maybe people wouldn't be so ready to dismiss you if you didn't lead off with such awful arguments for your position. You give an emotional story about your own personal improvement, then complain when, what, we don't read your mind and realize there's more? If you're thorough, show it. It's completely unreasonable to start off so weakly and then complain when people call you on it.
I am trying to figure out how to show it and have been for a long time. What you seem to not understand, and likely do not wish to understand, is that showing it is quite difficult when a) everyone attacks you and b) the mental models which worked are "unproven" and do not fit easily into the mental models other people require as evidence.
People in this discussion are being very vehement about calling me crazy. There is no opening there for discussing how I view CF differently from current mental models. And to a large degree my credibility problem boils down to either you believe my story, that I have CF and got well and it is the basis for useful insights, or you do not. Most people do not. You can use whatever excuse du jour you want, but at the root of it, that is why I get dismissed: Because the entire world believes people with CF do not get well. Period. To claim otherwise automatically makes one "crazy".
I continue to try to figure out how to more effectively engage people in discussion. But most people are unwilling to engage me in discussion. Even when they are being listed for transplant and in serious decline. If the speak to me at all, it is to reiterate that belief that their decline is inevitable, everyone knows that. People are dying to prove that belief true. I understand why they feel the need to defend it, but I have tried every avenue to try to find a means to talk to people. HN is less ugly about it than most places. This is actually as good as it gets, which, unfortunately, is not very helpful in my effort to find a means to present my case effectively.
If I had come out with a phd length dissertation on what I did to get well, most likely no one would read it. I am sorry you don't get my point here. I hope you are never in the kind of position I am in currently. Presumably you don't get it because you haven't experienced anything like it.
People in this discussion are being very vehement about calling me crazy. There is no opening there for discussing how I view CF differently from current mental models. And to a large degree my credibility problem boils down to either you believe my story, that I have CF and got well and it is the basis for useful insights, or you do not. Most people do not. You can use whatever excuse du jour you want, but at the root of it, that is why I get dismissed: Because the entire world believes people with CF do not get well. Period. To claim otherwise automatically makes one "crazy".
I continue to try to figure out how to more effectively engage people in discussion. But most people are unwilling to engage me in discussion. Even when they are being listed for transplant and in serious decline. If the speak to me at all, it is to reiterate that belief that their decline is inevitable, everyone knows that. People are dying to prove that belief true. I understand why they feel the need to defend it, but I have tried every avenue to try to find a means to talk to people. HN is less ugly about it than most places. This is actually as good as it gets, which, unfortunately, is not very helpful in my effort to find a means to present my case effectively.
If I had come out with a phd length dissertation on what I did to get well, most likely no one would read it. I am sorry you don't get my point here. I hope you are never in the kind of position I am in currently. Presumably you don't get it because you haven't experienced anything like it.
> ... my credibility problem boils down to either you believe my story ...
Busted. Science nowhere depends on belief. You, on the other hand, would like this to be an issue of belief, as though it's 1500 and you're being tried for witchcraft.
> If I had come out with a phd length dissertation on what I did to get well, most likely no one would read it.
Even more likely, you're mentally ill.
> I am sorry you don't get my point here.
On the contrary -- everyone who reads your posts gets the point right away.
Busted. Science nowhere depends on belief. You, on the other hand, would like this to be an issue of belief, as though it's 1500 and you're being tried for witchcraft.
> If I had come out with a phd length dissertation on what I did to get well, most likely no one would read it.
Even more likely, you're mentally ill.
> I am sorry you don't get my point here.
On the contrary -- everyone who reads your posts gets the point right away.
Maybe showing it is difficult, but it looks to me like you're not even trying. You make very poor claims, and only present stuff that's even remotely sensible later on. For a good argument, you need to think through all of the possible objections ahead of time and then present your best case, not your worst.
Ditch the emotional language, ditch the obvious fallacies, and present a good argument. If you are still dismissed with that, then you can complain about it.
I know you say that you've done this and have still been dismissed. That does not excuse putting forth bad arguments now and then complaining about the reaction. Do your best, or don't bother.
Ditch the emotional language, ditch the obvious fallacies, and present a good argument. If you are still dismissed with that, then you can complain about it.
I know you say that you've done this and have still been dismissed. That does not excuse putting forth bad arguments now and then complaining about the reaction. Do your best, or don't bother.
> Because the entire world believes people with CF do not get well.
It really depends on what you mean. If you mean that the genetic defect(s) causing CF resolved, then that basically cannot be true.
If you mean that you have genetically confirmed CF but the progressive nature of the disease was halted due to some novel therapy, then that would be a case report worthy of publication in a high impact factor journal.
It really depends on what you mean. If you mean that the genetic defect(s) causing CF resolved, then that basically cannot be true.
If you mean that you have genetically confirmed CF but the progressive nature of the disease was halted due to some novel therapy, then that would be a case report worthy of publication in a high impact factor journal.
"Further, I did not merely live. The hole in my lung closed and I have gradually but steadily reversed my symptoms over the course of more than a decade"
Again, with enough persons, these spontaneous remissions DO happen. With a source of one person, it would certainly appear a miracle.
Again, with enough persons, these spontaneous remissions DO happen. With a source of one person, it would certainly appear a miracle.
Do you happen to have a summary of your story on the web somewhere? Not that you should feel obligated to share it, but if you have shared it before I would like to try to understand.
There isn't really a summary of my story anywhere but there is a website. I commented on that elsewhere earlier today:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4895256
There isn't a summary because I get accused of having Munchausen Syndrome -- a sick need for attention -- rather than Cystic Fibrosis. It is quite dangerous to try to tell my story. It routinely results in public attacks, and moderators typically side with my attackers. You are welcome to email me if you wish to discuss it privately.
There isn't a summary because I get accused of having Munchausen Syndrome -- a sick need for attention -- rather than Cystic Fibrosis. It is quite dangerous to try to tell my story. It routinely results in public attacks, and moderators typically side with my attackers. You are welcome to email me if you wish to discuss it privately.
> There isn't a summary because I get accused of having Munchausen Syndrome ...
And it has occurred to you that you may have Munchausen Syndrome, yes?
> It is quite dangerous to try to tell my story.
Not if you tell the truth. "Truth never damages a cause that is just" -- Gandhi
> It routinely results in public attacks, and moderators typically side with my attackers.
But with no justification or reason at all. Right?
It's obvious that you're playing this out for all it is worth, without providing any real information, portraying yourself as the innocent victim of persecution, but in a way calculated to avoid providing any actual data, or anything that might lead to a resolution.
I wonder if you realize how transparent you are, to an objective observer?
And it has occurred to you that you may have Munchausen Syndrome, yes?
> It is quite dangerous to try to tell my story.
Not if you tell the truth. "Truth never damages a cause that is just" -- Gandhi
> It routinely results in public attacks, and moderators typically side with my attackers.
But with no justification or reason at all. Right?
It's obvious that you're playing this out for all it is worth, without providing any real information, portraying yourself as the innocent victim of persecution, but in a way calculated to avoid providing any actual data, or anything that might lead to a resolution.
I wonder if you realize how transparent you are, to an objective observer?
People with Munchausen claim to be ill and manufacture fake symptoms when they are not. I was ill and am getting well, a claim most people will not accept as true.
What "real information" do you want? I linked to my website. You are the one focusing on dismissing me, personally, and have apparently not bothered to even check the website.
Here are the direct links if you need them again:
http://www.healthgazelle.com
http://www.healthgazelle.com/oldsite/archive.shtml
What "real information" do you want? I linked to my website. You are the one focusing on dismissing me, personally, and have apparently not bothered to even check the website.
Here are the direct links if you need them again:
http://www.healthgazelle.com
http://www.healthgazelle.com/oldsite/archive.shtml
Based on what I've read in this thread and your site, it seems that at the very least, you have no idea how to construct a viable argument and defend it with the scientific and medical community. Until you realize this and solve this problem, you won't make any headway.
And depending on what your idea of success is, there are people making successful challenges. They just understand the framework they need to operate in.
And depending on what your idea of success is, there are people making successful challenges. They just understand the framework they need to operate in.
> People with Munchausen claim to be ill and manufacture fake symptoms when they are not.
People with Munchausen fake medical difficulties. You're displaying all the classic symptoms. The distinction between suffering from an imaginary ailment, or slowly recovering from an imaginary ailment, makes no difference.
> You are the one focusing on dismissing me, personally, and have apparently not bothered to even check the website.
I read your comments there, and they're as uninformative as your comments here. Color me surprised.
> What "real information" do you want?
If you weren't a Munchausen sufferer, you would already know the answer to that question, and you would have already answered it -- either here or on the other forum at which you vent your dissatisfaction with reality.
People with Munchausen fake medical difficulties. You're displaying all the classic symptoms. The distinction between suffering from an imaginary ailment, or slowly recovering from an imaginary ailment, makes no difference.
> You are the one focusing on dismissing me, personally, and have apparently not bothered to even check the website.
I read your comments there, and they're as uninformative as your comments here. Color me surprised.
> What "real information" do you want?
If you weren't a Munchausen sufferer, you would already know the answer to that question, and you would have already answered it -- either here or on the other forum at which you vent your dissatisfaction with reality.
I think the reason people dismiss your posts is because your posts are always acrimoniously bitter, and usually off-topic and centered around your (unfortunate) medical history.
If people continually dismiss your stories and call you a liar...why keep sharing them? Why do you feel the need to spread the bitter resentment to every thread you comment in?
This thread is a good example: why did you need to say "I also know it is nearly impossible to talk to people about that. My views and experiences are dismissed wholesale before I even open my mouth."? It added nothing to your argument, except for dragging your medical condition into the conversation (which has since taken over this thread).
However, at the end of the day, I don't know you at all and do not presume to judge your situation. This is the internet, so don't take anything other people say too seriously. I'd like to wish you well to you and your family =)
If people continually dismiss your stories and call you a liar...why keep sharing them? Why do you feel the need to spread the bitter resentment to every thread you comment in?
This thread is a good example: why did you need to say "I also know it is nearly impossible to talk to people about that. My views and experiences are dismissed wholesale before I even open my mouth."? It added nothing to your argument, except for dragging your medical condition into the conversation (which has since taken over this thread).
However, at the end of the day, I don't know you at all and do not presume to judge your situation. This is the internet, so don't take anything other people say too seriously. I'd like to wish you well to you and your family =)
I choose to ignore the idea that asteroids can destroy our planet by fatal, apocalyptic impact. The earth has not yet been hit by an asteroid. QED, asteroid impacts are a farce.
Correlation != causation. I'm happy you have lived through your medical problems. But you are a data point of n=1, and I'm sure there are plenty of people who have ignored solid medical advice and died because of it.
Lastly, "medicine" doesn't happily sentence anyone to death. Doctors and nurses are people too. People who got into their career to help other people. Do you think they become a doctor just to write death pronouncements?
Correlation != causation. I'm happy you have lived through your medical problems. But you are a data point of n=1, and I'm sure there are plenty of people who have ignored solid medical advice and died because of it.
Lastly, "medicine" doesn't happily sentence anyone to death. Doctors and nurses are people too. People who got into their career to help other people. Do you think they become a doctor just to write death pronouncements?
First, I am not a single data point. My oldest son has the same diagnosis, my youngest son is a carrier and by living with me they were both exposed to the same germs. All three of us have gotten healthier together. Second, there are a handful of people who have listened to me and seen significant improvements. Most of them are unwilling to speak up publically. They just want to get better. They don't want to be subjected to the personal attacks I routinely endure. Third, everyone seeing better results than doctors predict for my deadly condition pretty much follow some of the same general principles I follow in some form or other, including looking to diet as a major means to address their health issues.
Last, doctor's routinely dismiss people with CF and write them off. It is a very deadly condition. Most doctor's make no real effort to get soneone with CF healthier. If you have spent no time in the CF community, let me suggest you have no idea what you are talking about.
Last, doctor's routinely dismiss people with CF and write them off. It is a very deadly condition. Most doctor's make no real effort to get soneone with CF healthier. If you have spent no time in the CF community, let me suggest you have no idea what you are talking about.
> First, I am not a single data point.
You most certainly are. Cystic Fibrosis is not a communicable disease caused by germs, it is a genetically linked ailment.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001167/
A quote: "Cystic fibrosis is a disease passed down through families that causes thick, sticky mucus to build up in the lungs, digestive tract, and other areas of the body. It is one of the most common chronic lung diseases in children and young adults. It is a life-threatening disorder."
> My oldest son has the same diagnosis, my youngest son is a carrier and by living with me they were both exposed to the same germs.
They weren't exposed to the same "germs", they were both exposed to you. This is Munchausen by Proxy.
> ... doctor's routinely dismiss people with CF and write them off.
False, absolutely false. You were dismissed, not because you have CF, but because you're mentally ill.
> ... let me suggest you have no idea what you are talking about.
Which of us tried to claim that CF is transmitted by germs?
You most certainly are. Cystic Fibrosis is not a communicable disease caused by germs, it is a genetically linked ailment.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001167/
A quote: "Cystic fibrosis is a disease passed down through families that causes thick, sticky mucus to build up in the lungs, digestive tract, and other areas of the body. It is one of the most common chronic lung diseases in children and young adults. It is a life-threatening disorder."
> My oldest son has the same diagnosis, my youngest son is a carrier and by living with me they were both exposed to the same germs.
They weren't exposed to the same "germs", they were both exposed to you. This is Munchausen by Proxy.
> ... doctor's routinely dismiss people with CF and write them off.
False, absolutely false. You were dismissed, not because you have CF, but because you're mentally ill.
> ... let me suggest you have no idea what you are talking about.
Which of us tried to claim that CF is transmitted by germs?
Mz may have been referring to the fact that CF patients often have chronically infected lungs, and share infections with each other when in close proximity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cystic_fibrosis#Chronic_infecti...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cystic_fibrosis#Chronic_infecti...
Thank you. Yes. We are vulnerable to infection and living together exposed us to the same things.
I did not say CF is transmitted by germs. But infection is what kills people with CF. In other words, germs.
You are trying awfully hard here to peg me as a lunatic. It makes me wonder what your stake in this is. It is rather bizarre. Most people stop arguing with me at some point. If you really believe me to insane, why bother talking to me?
You are trying awfully hard here to peg me as a lunatic. It makes me wonder what your stake in this is. It is rather bizarre. Most people stop arguing with me at some point. If you really believe me to insane, why bother talking to me?
> If you really believe me to insane, why bother talking to me?
If you really believe you have a medical case to make, why are you posting in a computer science forum? What's wrong with:
http://www.reddit.com/r/medicine
> Most people stop arguing with me at some point.
Yes, and I can see why -- you're inaccessible to reason.
If you really believe you have a medical case to make, why are you posting in a computer science forum? What's wrong with:
http://www.reddit.com/r/medicine
> Most people stop arguing with me at some point.
Yes, and I can see why -- you're inaccessible to reason.
> "Not to dismiss your valid concern, the problem is that when an automotive mechanic fails to fix a car, the failure gets blamed on a malfunction or on the owner not driving their car correctly, etc, But when an automotive witch-doctor blesses your car and a failure occurs, it is used to smear all automotive-blessings. The climate is already biased against meaningful discussion of automotive witchdoctors."
There is no evidence that blessing your car will prevent it from breaking down. Therefore when you car does break down after a blessing, that can be nothing but evidence that blessing a car does nothing.
On the other hand there is an abundance of evidence stating that automotive mechanics can diagnose and treat faulty cars, so when an automotive mechanic fails to do that it of course means any number of things could have gone wrong.
We only see your "bias" in situations where there was no evidence to support the treatment in the first place. It's not a bias, it is just common sense.
There is no evidence that blessing your car will prevent it from breaking down. Therefore when you car does break down after a blessing, that can be nothing but evidence that blessing a car does nothing.
On the other hand there is an abundance of evidence stating that automotive mechanics can diagnose and treat faulty cars, so when an automotive mechanic fails to do that it of course means any number of things could have gone wrong.
We only see your "bias" in situations where there was no evidence to support the treatment in the first place. It's not a bias, it is just common sense.
Funny you should say that. It reminds me that I want to write a piece titled "Your body is not a car". Unlike a car, a body can repair itself. If you get a minor cut, it closes on its own, without repair by a doctor. Not so with a car. Scratch the paint, the scratch is permanent -- unless you repair it.
There are better means to support the body's own repair system than nuking it with toxic chemicals. Attempts to discuss that tend to get dismissed as quackery. I posit you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
There are better means to support the body's own repair system than nuking it with toxic chemicals. Attempts to discuss that tend to get dismissed as quackery. I posit you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
You can fix your own body without visiting a doctor, and you can fix your own car without visiting a mechanic. Sometimes a doctor or a mechanic will fuck up, and sometimes those cases intersect with the cases where you could have fixed the problem yourself.
This is not an argument against either doctors nor mechanics.
You probably get dismissed as a quack when you suggest that all doctors do is "nuke your body with toxic chemicals". I would say that 90% of the times I have ever been to a doctor the doctor has either told me "walk it off" (read: let your body fix itself), or "here are some stitches, now walk it off". (And I am the sort of person that heavily leans towards ignoring the problem and avoiding doctor visits...)
This is not an argument against either doctors nor mechanics.
You probably get dismissed as a quack when you suggest that all doctors do is "nuke your body with toxic chemicals". I would say that 90% of the times I have ever been to a doctor the doctor has either told me "walk it off" (read: let your body fix itself), or "here are some stitches, now walk it off". (And I am the sort of person that heavily leans towards ignoring the problem and avoiding doctor visits...)
The point is the body will try to repair itself if it can. A car will not.
For very deadly conditions like I have, nuking the body is the standard practice. They do the same thing with cancer. That is a statement of fact. It shouldn't be used as a flimsy excuse to call me a quack.
For very deadly conditions like I have, nuking the body is the standard practice. They do the same thing with cancer. That is a statement of fact. It shouldn't be used as a flimsy excuse to call me a quack.
I don't see how the mechanism of the car being fixed is terribly important. Either you fix it, a mechanic fixes it, or it stays broken. Either your body fixes your body, a doctor fixes your body, or it stays broken. Arguments against doctors and mechanics, even if they were legitimate (and they are not) are not arguments in favour of magic.
I don't pretend to know anything about your situation, but in the cases of cancer we nuke the body because the evidence shows that doing that is better than a placebo. Chemotherapy is not an argument against modern medicine. It is actually a great argument for it.
Even if it were an argument against modern medicine, that would not make it an argument in favour of alternative 'medicine'.
You can slander doctors all day, but "doctors suck" does not logically imply "alternative medicine isn't bullshit"
I don't pretend to know anything about your situation, but in the cases of cancer we nuke the body because the evidence shows that doing that is better than a placebo. Chemotherapy is not an argument against modern medicine. It is actually a great argument for it.
Even if it were an argument against modern medicine, that would not make it an argument in favour of alternative 'medicine'.
You can slander doctors all day, but "doctors suck" does not logically imply "alternative medicine isn't bullshit"
Well, but it is significant. Can we back up a minute here? On the small scale, is it true that your body will generally repair a small scratch with zero "treatment" but your car will not? Can we agree on that point, before talking about doctors or mechanics?
My analogy is not perfect, but in it the actions of an immune system map to the actions of a car owner.
If you get sick, you can see a doctor, or you can try to fix it yourself (with your immune system). If your car breaks, you can see a mechanic, or you can try to fix it yourself (with your hands).
Do you think that mapping is sufficiently flawed to render conclusions I draw from it invalid?
If you get sick, you can see a doctor, or you can try to fix it yourself (with your immune system). If your car breaks, you can see a mechanic, or you can try to fix it yourself (with your hands).
Do you think that mapping is sufficiently flawed to render conclusions I draw from it invalid?
So you are not willing to grant that, on a small scale, the body heals itself? You are unwilling to concede that one point? Why? You admit your analogy is imperfect, yet you do not wish to concede that my point has any basis in rationality while calling me insane elsewhere in this discussion.
Even assuming I am insane, is there some big problem with admitting that a scratch on a person will heal by itself without any treatment but a scratch on a car will not and will remain a permanent defect? Can we agree on that much or can we not?
Even assuming I am insane, is there some big problem with admitting that a scratch on a person will heal by itself without any treatment but a scratch on a car will not and will remain a permanent defect? Can we agree on that much or can we not?
How the hell are you reading a denial of the existence of the immune system in my post? You must have some serious persecution complex issues if that is what you think I just said. You just keep digging yourself into your hole though... and yet you are confused why people don't take you seriously...
You can heal some injuries without going to a doctor, and you can fix some car difficulties without doing to a mechanic.
You read that as me denying that your body can heal yourself? What the hell? I cannot possible see how you could have so much difficulty understanding.
I don't know how anyone could be expected to have an intelligent conversation with you on this topic. You are completely closed off to it.
You can heal some injuries without going to a doctor, and you can fix some car difficulties without doing to a mechanic.
You read that as me denying that your body can heal yourself? What the hell? I cannot possible see how you could have so much difficulty understanding.
I don't know how anyone could be expected to have an intelligent conversation with you on this topic. You are completely closed off to it.
"For very deadly conditions like I have, nuking the body is the standard practice. They do the same thing with cancer. That is a statement of fact. It shouldn't be used as a flimsy excuse to call me a quack."
What makes a person is a quack is not observing when a spontaneous remission occurs, but the connections one makes to determine why that has occurred. Besides, generally, "quack" refers to the practitioners and "authorities", not the victims of quackery.
What makes a person is a quack is not observing when a spontaneous remission occurs, but the connections one makes to determine why that has occurred. Besides, generally, "quack" refers to the practitioners and "authorities", not the victims of quackery.
Any place where interested readers can learn more about your proposed alternatives?
Your arguments here makes it feel like there is a prerequisite of knowing your (comment?) history to understand what you really mean.
Your arguments here makes it feel like there is a prerequisite of knowing your (comment?) history to understand what you really mean.
My advice is not to feed this troll. She will dodge and weave, then blame people for not understanding her. She also doesn't know what she's talking about -- she insists there are no progressive genetic conditions without environmental factors. Dozens of such conditions falsify her position.
I kind of answered that elsewhere in this discussion:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4895581
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4895581
That's stepping on the jurisdiction of those people over themselves. Everyone is entitled to believe in whatever they want to and live by that. They might die but it's their death, not other people's.
Except if parents refuse to allow proper treatment for their children because of religious or other beliefs, such as being in favour of "natural remedies" rather than lifesaving medicines.
Excerpt that if such people live in a modern society, society bears the cost of such malpractice. And so it behooves other members of that society to at least argue against ineffective practices.
That reasoning would lead you to conclude seatbelts should be optional. Fundamentally, the reasoning goes like this: (a) you have an obligation to protect friends and family from their own bad decisions, and (b) there's no fundamental difference between a friend and a stranger, hence (c) some things should be enforced by law for the good of everyone.
Now that I think about it, basically they should be optional.
One reason their use could be mandatory is that in a crash the occupants might fly out of the car and kill other people if they're not using seatbelts. But I'm not sure how relevant point that would be given that the people are allowed to drive a two-tonne killing machine with very little training in the first place.
However, if we do not consider bystanders, I don't see a problem making use of seatbelts optional. It doesn't hurt to mandate that all cars must be equipped with seatbelts for the benefit of availability for everyone who wants to use seatbelts—which is most people.
Seatbelts do save lives but, again, it's not a criminal offense to commit suicide and fail. So, to think, actually, I find it quite disturbing that they are not optional. I hadn't thought about it before. It's an inevitable slippery slope in that you can't really draw the line anywhere as long as you feel obliged to protect everyone.
Could citizens be forced to eat a certain diet to make them not die of obesity, diabetes and cardiac/circulation problems too early? It's certainly ok to inform the citizens of healthier diets, so that everyone can make their own choices with the best information available. But I argue that in the end everyone is sovereign when it comes to their own life and body.
One reason their use could be mandatory is that in a crash the occupants might fly out of the car and kill other people if they're not using seatbelts. But I'm not sure how relevant point that would be given that the people are allowed to drive a two-tonne killing machine with very little training in the first place.
However, if we do not consider bystanders, I don't see a problem making use of seatbelts optional. It doesn't hurt to mandate that all cars must be equipped with seatbelts for the benefit of availability for everyone who wants to use seatbelts—which is most people.
Seatbelts do save lives but, again, it's not a criminal offense to commit suicide and fail. So, to think, actually, I find it quite disturbing that they are not optional. I hadn't thought about it before. It's an inevitable slippery slope in that you can't really draw the line anywhere as long as you feel obliged to protect everyone.
Could citizens be forced to eat a certain diet to make them not die of obesity, diabetes and cardiac/circulation problems too early? It's certainly ok to inform the citizens of healthier diets, so that everyone can make their own choices with the best information available. But I argue that in the end everyone is sovereign when it comes to their own life and body.
"Everyone is entitled to believe in whatever they want to and live by that."
No one should be entitled to sell snake oil and quackery.
No one should be entitled to sell snake oil and quackery.
Eschewing real medicine because of your belief that tap water will cure your illness is harmful. I guess that's what you meant by "opportunity cost" though.
Yes, it is.
> (ignoring opportunity cost)
Opportunity cost when having cancer could mean dying from cancer while drinking sugar water. Yes placibo effect and all, but that's rather high cost if you ask me.
Opportunity cost when having cancer could mean dying from cancer while drinking sugar water. Yes placibo effect and all, but that's rather high cost if you ask me.
Steve Jobs?
Saying that homeopathy is harmless if you ignore the opportunity cost is like saying that guns are harmless if you ignore all the damage the bullet does when it hits your body. Both are true statements that are also completely useless.
[deleted]
Terrible article.
My dad is a medical doctor. Because I spent a large amount of my life living in the same house as him does not make me a medical doctor.
If I tried to treat someone who was suffering from pneumonia, and they died because of something stupid that I did, would modern medicine be responsible?
You can hate on homeopathy all you want, but the conclusions being drawn here are utterly ridiculous, and anyone that finds themselves agreeing with this FUD suffers from a severe case of confirmation bias.
My dad is a medical doctor. Because I spent a large amount of my life living in the same house as him does not make me a medical doctor.
If I tried to treat someone who was suffering from pneumonia, and they died because of something stupid that I did, would modern medicine be responsible?
You can hate on homeopathy all you want, but the conclusions being drawn here are utterly ridiculous, and anyone that finds themselves agreeing with this FUD suffers from a severe case of confirmation bias.
Are you saying that homeopathy is effective when administered by someone who does know what they're doing?
Because the alternative conclusion is that homeopathy is never effective, and the conclusion being drawn is true.
Because the alternative conclusion is that homeopathy is never effective, and the conclusion being drawn is true.
No, please read. There are no conclusions to be drawn here.
Just because someone does something stupid does not mean anything.
There is no evidence that this woman ever studied homeopathy, or that this whole wet towel thing is even a treatment used by homeopaths.
Just because someone does something stupid does not mean anything.
There is no evidence that this woman ever studied homeopathy, or that this whole wet towel thing is even a treatment used by homeopaths.
I'm sorry if I misread that. The distinction between "homeopathy done correctly by people who have studied it" and "random stupidity as done by untrained people" can be a subtle one. Very subtle.
"or that this whole wet towel thing is even a treatment used by homeopaths."
Sympathetic magic is the basis for homeopathy. Like produces like is a fundamental essence of the practice.
Sympathetic magic is the basis for homeopathy. Like produces like is a fundamental essence of the practice.
This
Especially in the 1800's where medicine was only slightly better than doing nothing (if you were lucky and it didn't go horribly wrong)
Especially in the 1800's where medicine was only slightly better than doing nothing (if you were lucky and it didn't go horribly wrong)
So when does someone doing something stupid mean something?
It's very simple. You produce evidence or proof that two things are related.
Living in the same house as a medical doctor does not make me a medical doctor, nor does it make modern medicine responsible for my actions.
Living in the same house as a medical doctor does not make me a medical doctor, nor does it make modern medicine responsible for my actions.
The argument isn't that she was a homeopathic "doctor". The argument is that she was influenced by the ideas behind homeopathy, and because of that influence the "treatment" she administered made sense to her. Her logical reasoning had been clouded by her belief (essentially a religious belief) in homeopathy. This is akin to religious groups who refuse to allow medical treatment for their children, who subsequently die.
[deleted]
He's saying that homeopathy is not directly lethal when applied by someone who knows what they're doing.
There was a case recently where a woman was doing unlicensed "plastic surgery" by pumping rubber cement into incisions in people's butts. Her absolute incompetence can't be reasonably used as a critique against the plastic surgery industry.
There are plenty of perfectly good data points to use against homeopathy practitioners. This case is definitely not one of them.
There was a case recently where a woman was doing unlicensed "plastic surgery" by pumping rubber cement into incisions in people's butts. Her absolute incompetence can't be reasonably used as a critique against the plastic surgery industry.
There are plenty of perfectly good data points to use against homeopathy practitioners. This case is definitely not one of them.
Except homeopathy practitioners are not medical doctors and even "correctly applied" homeopathy will not cure anyone to begin with.
Drinking water (homeopathy) is not going to cure my (hypothetical) cancer, it will kill me since I (hypothetically) refuse other treatments.
Drinking water (homeopathy) is not going to cure my (hypothetical) cancer, it will kill me since I (hypothetically) refuse other treatments.
On the other hand, drinking water would not have killed Boole.
Except pneumonia is from bacteria - you don't get it, or get worse from it based on temperature or wetness. It is important to be sure you are actually on the side of science before laughing at those who aren't.
Well, body temperature has been linked to immune system performance. So wet towels can arguably worsen a pneumonia.
Homeopathy killed someone once. Allopathy killed someone once. I guess we're just screwed.
Can't be true.
Homeopathy says that the potency increases with dilution - since the blankets were very wet, they couldn't have had any effect.
Homeopathy says that the potency increases with dilution - since the blankets were very wet, they couldn't have had any effect.
Homeopathy is a gigantic scam that depends solely upon the placebo effect. But this specific case is a really stupid one to use as an indictment. It's like railing against the liquor industry because someone was beaten/stabbed to death with a liquor bottle.
I think it's more appropriate to say that the improper application of homeopathy killed him - so, not unlike the improper application of any number of legitimate medical techniques. The difference here is that the proper application of medical techniques might have helped, whereas the proper application of homeopathic techniques would have done nothing.
I think it's more appropriate to say that the improper application of homeopathy killed him - so, not unlike the improper application of any number of legitimate medical techniques. The difference here is that the proper application of medical techniques might have helped, whereas the proper application of homeopathic techniques would have done nothing.
Still, the fundamental idea of "Like cures like" is what stuck with his wife and was eventually fatal.
I'd chalk this death under "unscientific thought induced by homeopathic philosophy".
I'd chalk this death under "unscientific thought induced by homeopathic philosophy".
Oh, I agree - one of the root causes was the belief in homeopathic philosophy. My main point is that this case is a lousy talking point when campaigning against homeopathy. It's not like there's a lack of real, tangible evidence against homeopathy - people should use that to argue against it instead.
(Not like it's likely to do any good. Homeopathic believers are pretty hard to sway.)
(Not like it's likely to do any good. Homeopathic believers are pretty hard to sway.)
Or maybe "two wrongs don't make a right"
I am not a fan of homeopathy, but there is probably some underlying truth to that concept. I think it is more complicated than that, but the immune system works by identifying threats and going after them. It is a little bit like what happened in WWII in the U.S. when lots of Japanese Americans were rounded up and sent to camps because they were deemed a potential threat. I have found that strengthening the body first and then re-exposing myself is a way to get healthier. That was not a plan and most re-exposures for me were unintentional. But, having worked on strengthening my body, I have found that re-exposure triggers mop up of old problems along with new.
I have not used homeopathy nor read up on it. I don't really know exactly what they do. But my impression is they are skipping that first part, that their mental model is missing something and thus results are rather hit or miss.
I have not used homeopathy nor read up on it. I don't really know exactly what they do. But my impression is they are skipping that first part, that their mental model is missing something and thus results are rather hit or miss.
No, homeopathy is 100% a scam. The principle is that a compound (say, penicillin) has some amount of vibrational energy that is imparted into the surrounding molecules. As you continually dilute out the original "active" molecule, the "energy" of the molecule is imprinted onto the remaining solute.
Even better, the more you dilute, the more potent it becomes. You literally get to a point where there is no active molecule left...just H2O.
What you are saying (exposing your immune system to a small threat so it can safely build a response) is a valid argument. In fact, that's how vaccines work. Give your body a little bit of non-infectious virus so it can build appropriate antigens before you encounter it in real life.
I have no idea what you are saying about Japanese Americans though.
Even better, the more you dilute, the more potent it becomes. You literally get to a point where there is no active molecule left...just H2O.
What you are saying (exposing your immune system to a small threat so it can safely build a response) is a valid argument. In fact, that's how vaccines work. Give your body a little bit of non-infectious virus so it can build appropriate antigens before you encounter it in real life.
I have no idea what you are saying about Japanese Americans though.
What I mean about Japanese Americans is that they were rounded up wholesale. There was no sorting. The immune system works like that. After years of being sick, as I grew stronger, exposures resulted in wholesale roundup of both the new germs and old ones which had been quietly flying below the radar for years.
I am not a big fan of vaccines, but that's a bear I usually try to not wrestle. Still, I appreciate the acknowledgement that the principle is valid.
I am not a big fan of vaccines, but that's a bear I usually try to not wrestle. Still, I appreciate the acknowledgement that the principle is valid.
Don't forget that a particularly "strong" immune system causes allergies and auto-immune diseases.
I really dislike that mental model. I dislike the entire concept of "we don't really know what is going on, so we will claim your body is merely attacking itself for no real reason". I cannot prove it wrong, but I believe it to be wrong. For my edification, can you list some of the specific conditions which are viewed as "auto-immune disorders" caused by a "strong" immune system?
There is a list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoimmune_disease
Why is difficult to accept that a system that evolved to attack certain cells can misidentify targets, especially if the real targets have selective pressures to mimic friendly cells?
It happens all the time in other systems (friendly fire, false positives in anti-virus-software)
Why is difficult to accept that a system that evolved to attack certain cells can misidentify targets, especially if the real targets have selective pressures to mimic friendly cells?
It happens all the time in other systems (friendly fire, false positives in anti-virus-software)
They say that about my condition. It doesn't explain what is going on. If it were accurate, it should be actionable.
They say people with CF "overproduce" mucus and are "drowning in their own mucus". It isn't true. They are drowning in phlegm because they underproduce healthy mucus and become highly infected. Unlike skin, mucus membranes do not keep out infection when dry. One study found people with CF produce too little mucus, yet this crazy idea persists, even though it isn't logical and doesn't fit the facts.
They say people with CF "overproduce" mucus and are "drowning in their own mucus". It isn't true. They are drowning in phlegm because they underproduce healthy mucus and become highly infected. Unlike skin, mucus membranes do not keep out infection when dry. One study found people with CF produce too little mucus, yet this crazy idea persists, even though it isn't logical and doesn't fit the facts.
Well maybe your specific condition is more complex, but I have a pollen allergy and antihistamine alleviates the symptoms. You didn't address the general mechanism at all.
Antihistamines alleviate the symptoms. They do not resolve the underlying problem. Allergies indicate some overload on the system. Removing other (chemical/biological) stressors on the system can help. So can nutritional support for the adrenals and thyroid. And if you need nutritional support, that is a weakness in the system, not evidence of an overly strong immune system. An allergy is a reaction to an outside source. I do not see how it makes sense to call reaction to an outside source an auto-immune disease. I think that is a bad mental model for the problem and actively interferes with finding real solutions which do more than merely alleviate the symptoms.
I am sorry that I don't know how to make my case in the format you feel it needs to be made in. That is a problem space I am working on resolving. But I did not get well in order to impress anyone or prove anything. I did it to get my life back. Being good at doing something does not automatically make one good at explaining it.
I am sorry that I don't know how to make my case in the format you feel it needs to be made in. That is a problem space I am working on resolving. But I did not get well in order to impress anyone or prove anything. I did it to get my life back. Being good at doing something does not automatically make one good at explaining it.
"I dislike the entire concept of "we don't really know what is going on, so we will claim your body is merely attacking itself for no real reason". "
Likely because you have an unrealistic expectation for how the immune system actually works. One that works "too well" is not advantageous. "No real reason" is silly, because that is the job of the immune system, to attack invaders. If it misidentifies your own systems as invasive, it will attack your own systems. The mechanism is not in question, how to treat it best is.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/more-boosting/
Likely because you have an unrealistic expectation for how the immune system actually works. One that works "too well" is not advantageous. "No real reason" is silly, because that is the job of the immune system, to attack invaders. If it misidentifies your own systems as invasive, it will attack your own systems. The mechanism is not in question, how to treat it best is.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/more-boosting/
And the conclusion about how to treat it will be strongly shaped by the mental models framing the inquiry. A lot of our current mental models are actively hostile to the body. There have been articles posted to HN about the fact that most medical research is highly biased from the get go to confirm the researcher's pre-existing bias.
Thanks for replying.
Thanks for replying.
"A lot of our current mental models are actively hostile to the body."
Because plenty of the conditions are due to the body's hostility to itself, or because what may kill invaders will also injure the body.
There are rarely, if ever cure-alls that do not affect the body's normal function, and assuming that the body's function is at all times beneficial is a mistake, a flaw in your "alternate" models.
The body can generally take care of itself, but does not always, in every person and situation. We are not perfect beings and clinging to those assumptions hurts humanity more than any flaw in the dominant model.
Reform is a wonderful, necessary goal. Tossing aside evidence-based medicine to do so is utterly foolish.
Because plenty of the conditions are due to the body's hostility to itself, or because what may kill invaders will also injure the body.
There are rarely, if ever cure-alls that do not affect the body's normal function, and assuming that the body's function is at all times beneficial is a mistake, a flaw in your "alternate" models.
The body can generally take care of itself, but does not always, in every person and situation. We are not perfect beings and clinging to those assumptions hurts humanity more than any flaw in the dominant model.
Reform is a wonderful, necessary goal. Tossing aside evidence-based medicine to do so is utterly foolish.
Your mental model is that it is due to the body's hostility to itself. You do not need to defend that because that is a generally accepted model. It is still a mental model, which is distinct from reality. Yet mental models also shape reality. How we perceive or frame something influences how we address it.
I am not saying nothing ever goes wrong or that we are perfect beings. Nor am I clinging to any assumptions.
I am not saying nothing ever goes wrong or that we are perfect beings. Nor am I clinging to any assumptions.
HOMEOPATHY WORKS AND IS THE MOST ADVANCED SCIENCE OF HEALING
Bignamini M, Saruggia M, Sansonetti G. Homeopathic Treatment of Anal Fissures using Nitricum acidum Berlin Journal on Research in Homoeopathy, 1, 4/5, 286-287, December 1991. Patients using Nitricum acidum 9C once daily in a double blind placebo controlled trial found subjective relief with the medicine over the placebo
.Kleijnen et al 'Clinical trials of homeopathy' Br Med J. 1991; 302: 316-23 Kleijnen reviewed by meta-analysis controlled trials in humans for evidence of efficacy. Of 105 trials with interpretable results there was a positive trend regardless of trial quality or the variety of Homeopathy used; 81 indicated positive results, 24 showed no positive effects. Publication bias and low methodological quality inhibit definite conclusions yet the evidence is positive. Over 50% of these reports were not published in English.
Bignamini M, Saruggia M, Sansonetti G. Homeopathic Treatment of Anal Fissures using Nitricum acidum Berlin Journal on Research in Homoeopathy, 1, 4/5, 286-287, December 1991. Patients using Nitricum acidum 9C once daily in a double blind placebo controlled trial found subjective relief with the medicine over the placebo
.Kleijnen et al 'Clinical trials of homeopathy' Br Med J. 1991; 302: 316-23 Kleijnen reviewed by meta-analysis controlled trials in humans for evidence of efficacy. Of 105 trials with interpretable results there was a positive trend regardless of trial quality or the variety of Homeopathy used; 81 indicated positive results, 24 showed no positive effects. Publication bias and low methodological quality inhibit definite conclusions yet the evidence is positive. Over 50% of these reports were not published in English.
"Publication bias and low methodological quality inhibit definite conclusions yet the evidence is positive."
The selection bias inherent to meta-analyses also leads to difficulty using any of them to "prove" the existence of homeopathy.
The principles are not science. If you cherry pick studies, you might eventually find some with a positive response.
The selection bias inherent to meta-analyses also leads to difficulty using any of them to "prove" the existence of homeopathy.
The principles are not science. If you cherry pick studies, you might eventually find some with a positive response.
"...he was in all probability killed by homeopathy."
And that's where I stopped.
People do stupid things. Sometimes, someone dies. Happens with cars every day, and we blame the idiot (criminal charges, lawsuits, media coverage...) Happens with guns and the law blames the idiot while the media blames the guns. This blog author's in the group with the media blaming whatever fits the current agenda.
And that's where I stopped.
People do stupid things. Sometimes, someone dies. Happens with cars every day, and we blame the idiot (criminal charges, lawsuits, media coverage...) Happens with guns and the law blames the idiot while the media blames the guns. This blog author's in the group with the media blaming whatever fits the current agenda.
Well yes, idiocy is the cause of such deaths, but to live life just as "well, idiocy strikes again" is to live life a little more fatalistic than most of us prefer. At the very least, if we can legitimately show that homeopathy is the result of idiocy, than it becomes easier to identify the idiots who may someday harm us if we leave our healthcare in their hands.
Not afraid to say it: I have directly benefited from homeopathy. Specifically: Treated my heartburn with "Carbo Veg 30" and now it's gone. Don't care what anybody says or might think about the placebo effect - or any other argument, for that matter.
Do you actually understand what homeopathy is?
Pills with active dry ingredients are not homeopathic, no matter what the label says.
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/06/if_it_has_any_i.h...
Pills with active dry ingredients are not homeopathic, no matter what the label says.
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/06/if_it_has_any_i.h...
No I don't, but that was not my point.
It detracts significantly from your point. If the item contains active ingredients that take care of a particular condition, it's not homeopathic (no matter what the label states.)
Putting a wet blanket on someone who had gotten sick from a downpour is not homeopathy. Unless the wet blanket is, statistically speaking, less than a molecule in size.
Except that wrapping someone in wet bedsheets has nothing whatsoever to do with homeopathy. Homeopathy might be a crock but this article is ridiculous.
[deleted]
I don't support tax-funded homeopathy by any stretch (and think it is almost certainly bollocks in and of itself); however, the story about the bed sheets is not homeopathy.
Perhaps you could still claim homeopathy did the killing because the wife in the story 'misapplied' the "like cure like" conjecture; as wet bedsheets are not a diluted-herb-magic-water-solution.
I have spent more than zero energy talking with people about spending energy being anti-homeopathy. I think homeopathy is fine, and not harmful.
Every single person I know personally that believes in homeopathy also uses traditional western medicine (with far more vigour and enthusiam than myself); though I suppose if people are rejecting antibiotics and instead sprinkling magic water on themselves then it's a problem, but I would still have a hard time seeing Homeopathy itself as harmful. It's just a game.
My personal relationship to true homeopathy (diluted magic water substances) is something like this:
- Seems really unlikely to me anything is happening.
- I could sooo easily be wrong about this, I recognize revolutions in our understanding of the universe happen frequently, and the future winners are always dismissed/laughed at while the old guard remain in power positions
- The people who believe in homeopathy are also generally much, much more emotive / socially intelligent / free with love / full of what appears to be healthy energy.
This leaves me extremely skeptical; but in the end open minded enough that I don't see any benefit to spending energy demonizing the ultimately non-harmful act of diluting flowers in water and thinking its magic.
Anything anti-science is ultimately harmful if it is taught as science; and no one should have to subsidize other's childish fancies; but so long as we aren't teaching homeopathy in medical schools, or using tax money to subsidize its use; I really don't see anything wrong with its existing.
And I do see this article to essentially be propaganda; whose only primary purpose is to demonize homeopathy, and I think this betrays some sort of chip on the shoulder of the author. Maybe I am projecting because I have seen this chip so often elsewhere; I just don't understand it.
I mean, who the f really cares--and, if you really aren't humble enough to recognize that your understanding of the world is not so perfect as to absolutely eliminate the possibility of some unrecognized mechanism of 'imprinting information onto matter' through this likely quackery--then you should take a quick read of the Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
Perhaps you could still claim homeopathy did the killing because the wife in the story 'misapplied' the "like cure like" conjecture; as wet bedsheets are not a diluted-herb-magic-water-solution.
I have spent more than zero energy talking with people about spending energy being anti-homeopathy. I think homeopathy is fine, and not harmful.
Every single person I know personally that believes in homeopathy also uses traditional western medicine (with far more vigour and enthusiam than myself); though I suppose if people are rejecting antibiotics and instead sprinkling magic water on themselves then it's a problem, but I would still have a hard time seeing Homeopathy itself as harmful. It's just a game.
My personal relationship to true homeopathy (diluted magic water substances) is something like this:
- Seems really unlikely to me anything is happening.
- I could sooo easily be wrong about this, I recognize revolutions in our understanding of the universe happen frequently, and the future winners are always dismissed/laughed at while the old guard remain in power positions
- The people who believe in homeopathy are also generally much, much more emotive / socially intelligent / free with love / full of what appears to be healthy energy.
This leaves me extremely skeptical; but in the end open minded enough that I don't see any benefit to spending energy demonizing the ultimately non-harmful act of diluting flowers in water and thinking its magic.
Anything anti-science is ultimately harmful if it is taught as science; and no one should have to subsidize other's childish fancies; but so long as we aren't teaching homeopathy in medical schools, or using tax money to subsidize its use; I really don't see anything wrong with its existing.
And I do see this article to essentially be propaganda; whose only primary purpose is to demonize homeopathy, and I think this betrays some sort of chip on the shoulder of the author. Maybe I am projecting because I have seen this chip so often elsewhere; I just don't understand it.
I mean, who the f really cares--and, if you really aren't humble enough to recognize that your understanding of the world is not so perfect as to absolutely eliminate the possibility of some unrecognized mechanism of 'imprinting information onto matter' through this likely quackery--then you should take a quick read of the Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
"I think homeopathy is fine, and not harmful."
Extremely diluted water isn't harmful. Replacing real medicine with homeopathic treatments is.
Extremely diluted water isn't harmful. Replacing real medicine with homeopathic treatments is.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2012/09/10/new-br...
"Well, this is one way to save money on health care. The new British Minister of Health, Jeremy Hunt, is a firm believer in homeopathy, which treats disease using magic water solutions that contain – well, only water."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22241-hail-jeremy-hunt...
"Hail Jeremy Hunt, the new minister for magic."
"The fortunes of the UK's National Health Service (NHS) are about to be transformed with the help of the magical waters of homeopathic medicine... the UK's new health minister, Jeremy Hunt – who replaced Andrew Lansley yesterday in a government reshuffle – thinks that homeopathy works, and should be provided at public expense by the NHS."
"John Krebs, professor of zoology at the University of Oxford, said: "There is overwhelming evidence that homeopathic medicine is not effective. It would be a real blow for those who want medicine to be science-based if the secretary of state were to promote homeopathy because of his personal beliefs."