Homeopathic Accident and Emergency First Aid Kit

[Saint Cy of JFC]

^ definition of tldr ^

 

[UGLI baby]

^ def

Huh?

i

Totally disagree

nit

Where is the data to back this up?

ion

Show me some facts

of

Your argument is invalid

tl

I honestly dont even see what you are getting at.

dr

This is how every argument goes with you.

^

Wow. Speechless.

 

[One Brow]

I did enjoy the tone of this most recent post of yours.

Interesting. I don't see any change in tone, and didn't feel any change when writing it.

I linked three studies right off of recent publications that I have read, and I'm sure if I searched I would find many more.

I would not be surprised by that.

Nope. In this case, it's a drug that was popularized specifically by homeopathy, over years of what homeopaths considered to be "treatment"-- whether we think it's placebo or not is irrelevant; the fact that we have even considered testing this drug was due to its popularity among the circles of homeopathy.

While I have done very little research on the subject, apigenin seems to be in a variety of foods, and we have long studied the various flavonoids in foods, to my understanding. So, it seems likely we would have have discovered it, regardless.

Just to make sure to hammer my point: even if the homeopathic drops that people take are nothing but water/alcohol/whatever, the mere service of homeopaths identifying certain extracts, and pioneering their usage in medical treatment has opened the eyes of some researchers to test them out in a lab-environment. So at the absolute worst, some homeopaths are responsible for screening certain drugs and bringing them to our attention, before we can refine their treatment in methods that seem more reasonable, physiologically-helpful, and potentially less expensive. So to me, that isn't parasitic.

Instead of "even if", it should be "while". However, it seems your point is that, while the preparations they make have no value that can be determined, the sheer throw-it-against-the-wall-and-see-if-it-sticks recklessness of the method of homeopaths means that, once in a while, they have an idea that proves useful in competent hands, making a small contribution, and therefore they are not parasitic. It goes too far to say they screen drugs, because they do not administer drugs, just water. However, I acknowledge that bring drugs to the attention of scientists is a benefit, and therefore they are not fully parasitic. I'll discontinue using that term.

That's a good question, actually. I'm generally fairly respectful of others, and their privacy. But keep in mind my care for these things dwindles when I perceive people behaving in behaviours such as the ones I mentioned, and you noted.

For me, it's even more important to be polite to the people I have less respect for or care less about. Being polite to people you like is easy; being polite to the people you don't like is a mark of character.

Again, it's something that to me is fairly obvious, and if I noticed in a post of another's, I wouldn't bother bringing it up. You and I are different people, I suppose.

It was obvious to you because you wrote it. I doubt you would find it so obvious in someone else's posts, unless the sentence was uncharacteristically ungrammatical.

While this could be true (and it isn't difficult for me to take your word for it)-- understand that insulting a person's identity, his ethos, his lifestyle, and his meaning of life can be interchangeable with insulting the person period. Isolating the traits, or characteristics of people from their ideas, systems of thinking, or lifestyles is a preposterous exercise when understanding that much of who we are are direct reflections of the aforementioned characteristics that you feel no shame in insulting.

While we latch on to memberships in groups, ideas, and belief systems to give us a direction in an otherwise un-navigable world, it's a category error to confuse our identity with the models we have adopted. Were you a Christian, a Buddhist, or an atheist, you would still be essentially the same person, with the same values and priorities, the same strengths and weaknesses, the same propensities and habits, plus or minus a couple of surface issues. REligious beliefs, or the lack thereof, are only surface veneers. However, veneers can impede sight.

But of course, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't be allowed to insult a person-- because you should. However, this is where delivery is key. Syntax makes all the difference between offering someone your solemn advice with a genuine intention of helping out-- as opposed to being blunt, condescending, and narrow-minded. This goes-back to much of my mantra that I've shared to you.

Isn't interesting how it works differently with different people? This was the most direct, blunt, and frank post you have put into this thread, and I finally feel like we're having a discussion instead of a dance.

In terms of opening people's eyes to a problem, I can point to many testimonies, including my own, where invective was the impetus for actual change. I'm not saying everyone should post like I do. Soft persuasion is important; the kid glove that still does not yield matters. However, strong words also have their benefits.

I guess it goes to show that I do use evidence in my claims.

The conversation would have been shorter is you had used claims with your evidence.

But of course-- but this isn't the same as "letting yourself be the gadfly" and not being a conciliator.

The role of the gadfly is to create discomfort by exposing aspects normally hidden.

I have midterms all week, so I'm sure I won't have time to entertain you with an example that will satisfy you. But, when reading that question, I tend to split comfort in different realms-- and sometimes you'll sacrifice comfort in one regard to boost comfort in another regard. So, it's hard to measure net gains, or loss in comfort per-se. So yes-- many times, I perform behaviours that seriously compromise one aspect of my comfort, and it can be argued that it isn't sufficiently made up for with comfort in another realm.

The primary comfort we all seek is comfort with who we are, I suspect. I was very comfortable as a college undergraduate, but I knew that I didn't want to still be one when I was 30. So, I gave up that current comfort and graduated, because it didn't fit with my self-image. Later on, I started working in IT because, even though it didn't feel right for me, not earning money for my kids felt even less right; I was more comfortable in being a provider than I was in being a no-computers person.

Making sacrifices for long-term goals is not a reduction of comfort, but a choice for comfort.

 

[VINYLONE]

Many types of homeopathic preparations have been subjected to double-blind studies, they pass them as often as you would expect them randomly (the green-jelly-bean effect).

They get around it today by making unspecific claims and displaying some form of the "quack miranda" warning on their products.

Did you listen to the Migraine podcast I linked to? It's damn interesting and I think you might like it.

 

[One Brow]

Did you listen to the Migraine podcast I linked to? It's damn interesting and I think you might like it.

I'll try to make time this weekend.

 

[VINYLONE]

I'll try to make time this weekend.

Please do so...

 

[One Brow]

Please do so...

I forgot to thank you for linking to it. It was an interesting interview.

 

[One Brow]

https://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch...tyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm390002.htm

A homeopathic preparation was recalled for containing actual medicine.

 

[Harambe]

https://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch...tyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm390002.htm

A homeopathic preparation was recalled for containing actual medicine.

Oh snap.. one out of a billion homeopathic product lines may have actual medicine.

999,999,999 other product lines still mostly useless.

 

[♪alt13]

Buncha Homeopathiphobes up in this thread.

Winner