Going to holistic/Naturopath doctor....is it wrong?

[razeontherock]

How is pointing out that homeopathy is about magic water and that it is not supported by the evidence rude?

Because you have NO IDEA what the young man is interested in, that's why. (Like a NJ cop, shoot first, ask questions later. It's rude)

 

[razeontherock]

In anyone's experience. No one has ever shown it to actually work.

"It" is a rather ill-defined term, and therefore useless. Don't you think?

 

[Tomk80]

Re-phrase: it doesn't actually work in your experience

No, it doesn't actually work as in any reproducable experience of anyone in the world. Just saying "in your experience" understates the massive failure of homeopathy to show that it works in any setting and through any mechanism.

 

[IanCG]

"It" is a rather ill-defined term, and therefore useless. Don't you think?

Only if you don't keep up with the conversation. The "it" is homeopathy.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Re-phrase: it doesn't actually work in the experience of the combined medical literature of the entire world

FTFY.

"It" is a rather ill-defined term, and therefore useless. Don't you think?

Well, in the context of the current discussion "it" could either mean homeopathy, which is the focus of the subsequent exchange with PJD. Or, it could mean the subject of the OP, which is reiki, kinesiology, and energy healing (among other unspecified modalities).

I would back my claims for each of those.

 

[razeontherock]

Only if you don't keep up with the conversation. The "it" is homeopathy.

No, not at all. Homeopathy is rather a strawman in this conversation, undertaken by all who wish to attack the OP, who has understandably fled. Not once did anyone ask him what he meant by the term, nor find out about any of the rest of it.

I agree, and previously posted, that homeopathy (as I understand it) is bogus. Why are you unable to deal with the actual issue?

 

[razeontherock]

FTFY.

I'll thank you not to distort my words. And btw? You're 100% WRONG.

Well, in the context of the current discussion "it" could either mean homeopathy, which is the focus of the subsequent exchange with PJD. Or, it could mean the subject of the OP, which is reiki, kinesiology, and energy healing (among other unspecified modalities).

I would back my claims for each of those.

Again, you are entirely, 100%, WRONG. You have skipped many other areas, some of which terms I'm unfamiliar with. In the process you have also skipped the very basis of ALL pharmaceuticals, which are plant extracts. This counts as intellectual dishonesty, to an embarrassing degree!

 

[IanCG]

No, not at all. Homeopathy is rather a strawman in this conversation, undertaken by all who wish to attack the OP, who has understandably fled. Not once did anyone ask him what he meant by the term, nor find out about any of the rest of it.

I agree, and previously posted, that homeopathy (as I understand it) is bogus. Why are you unable to deal with the actual issue?

You're just upset that no one asked what he defined homeopathy as?

Talk about looking for things to be mad about. Why would anyone ask that? Homeopathy has a definition, and it's pure quackery.

And really, I have no idea what you mean by "not dealing with the actual issue". The issue is homeopathy is quack medicine, quack medicine doesn't work, and people die because they believe it works. All you're doing is puffing yourself up as some big defender of the oppressed when really you're just being very annoying.

 

[IanCG]

Also, the current discussion has nothing really to do with the OP, as that discussion was long since dead until someone else came and necro'd the thread.

 

[razeontherock]

You're just upset that no one asked what he defined homeopathy as?

Talk about looking for things to be mad about. Why would anyone ask that? Homeopathy has a definition, and it's pure quackery.

And really, I have no idea what you mean by "not dealing with the actual issue". The issue is homeopathy is quack medicine, quack medicine doesn't work, and people die because they believe it works. All you're doing is puffing yourself up as some big defender of the oppressed when really you're just being very annoying.

Talk about intellectual dishonesty! READ. Homeopathy is only one thing mentioned. Why reduce the convo to that and only that? (Besides, he might not even be using the term as you are)

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

I'll thank you not to distort my words. And btw? You're 100% WRONG.



Again, you are entirely, 100%, WRONG. You have skipped many other areas, some of which terms I'm unfamiliar with. In the process you have also skipped the very basis of ALL pharmaceuticals, which are plant extracts. This counts as intellectual dishonesty, to an embarrassing degree!

If you're done being butthurt, maybe you'll read some of the following:

In 2002, the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination conducted a review of available data from trials in homeopathy. It concludes there is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of homeopathy as a treatment. ... Furthermore the only professor in complementary medicine in the UK, Professor [Edzard] Ernst, has written extensively attacking homeopathy and supporting the termination of homeopathy services in the NHS. ... Any therapy must include an acceptable safety profile if it is to be accepted in the NHS. A systematic review by Dantas et al. shows that homeopathy has a good safety profile with limited adverse effects. However, Professor Ernst argues that homeopathy is unsafe as it contributes to poor medical practice. He points out in his blog that some homeopaths dissuade people from immunizing their children. He also criticises advice given by some non-medical homeopaths to avoid antiviral drugs in the recent swine flu epidemic. To what extent homeopathy contributes to unsafe medical practice remains unclear, but if homeopaths solely concentrate on homeopathy and ignore conventional medicine, this would clearly pose a risk to patient.

In conclusion, the most reliable evidence — that produced by Cochrane reviews — fails to demonstrate that homeopathic medicines have effects beyond placebo.

Precisely because of the evidential weakness of case studies, the scientific community has long since recognized the value of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Because of the way RCTs are structured, if the patients who received the target treatment fare significantly better than those in the control group, then this cannot be explained by regression towards the mean, biased reporting or memory, or the placebo effect. This is not to say that RCTs provide proof of the effectiveness of a given intervention. There might be design flaws in a particular study, leading to a false positive result; there could be reporting errors, or even outright fraud. Such factors could explain a positive result. Finally, it still might be true that a given positive result was just a chance fluke: the people who were poised to improve regardless of treatment just happened to be overrepresented in the treatment group. Citing chance in this way is tantamount to leaving the positive result as an unexplained mystery, for citing chance is really just another way of saying that we don't have an explanation. However, sometimes this can be exactly the right thing to say. Even if one were testing an utterly worthless medication against a placebo, in one out of 20 trials one would expect a result that would be expected to occur again only if the same trial was repeated 20 times, that is, one with a P < 0.05. Moreover, because of publication bias or the ‘filedrawer effect’, a large number of studies with negative results might remain unpublished, leaving only those studies which attained a positive result purely by chance. So, while citing chance is to leave a particular positive result as an unexplained mystery, it may not be leaving an incredibly large or puzzling mystery.

There have been a number of RCTs testing homeopathic remedies. Some have yielded apparently positive results, while many others have failed to show that homeopathic remedies do better than placebos. In a meta-analysis published in Lancet in 2005, the authors concluded that ‘when analyses were restricted to large trials of higher quality there was no convincing evidence that homeopathy was superior to placebo’.

Once you've responded to these satisfactorily maybe we can move onto Reiki.

 

[razeontherock]

Also, the current discussion has nothing really to do with the OP, as that discussion was long since dead until someone else came and necro'd the thread.

I stand corrected. Here is the zombie alert post, made yesterday:

Yo.
What's up?

Holistic, huh?
Holistic, Homeopathy and Naturopathy are not all the same fields.

I'm very interested in pursuing a degree in Homeopathy.
I have been comparing it to clinical/pharmaceutical medicine;
I am 100% convinced Homeopathy/Naturopathy are far more reliable.

I will be going at a degree in a couple years time.
In the mean time I plan on creating my own self-sustainable green garden,
And grow my own food 100% naturally.
Totally into health, and healing the body through healthy foods.
IMO - everybody should get involved in it.
Prevents cancer, prevents disease, and in the event of a crisis
Prevents death.
Homeopathy also has a lot to do with survival skills.

Notice how you are not at all engaging the topic, but merely picking on one tiny element? If all you have to say is homeopathy is bogus - well I already said that. You have failed to address any of the rest of it.

 

[IanCG]

Talk about intellectual dishonesty! READ. Homeopathy is only one thing mentioned. Why reduce the convo to that and only that? (Besides, he might not even be using the term as you are)

Because homeopathy is something I know about, so I decided to talk about that particular thing. And if he isn't using the term as it is defined (and I don't know too many different things one can mean by "homeopathy") that is his fault for using it wrong, not mine.

What you're doing is being a Urban Dictionary: Tone troll

 

[razeontherock]

Once you've responded to these satisfactorily maybe we can move onto Reiki.

Entirely void of intellectual honesty. I don't think you can move on to any actual issue quickly enough for my tastes

 

[razeontherock]

Because homeopathy is something I know about, so I decided to talk about that particular thing. And if he isn't using the term as it is defined (and I don't know too many different things one can mean by "homeopathy") that is his fault for using it wrong, not mine.

Oh boo-hoo!! People use the same words to refer to different things all the time. You have no idea what he was on about, and drove him off by being a jerk.

 

[IanCG]

I stand corrected. Here is the zombie alert post, made yesterday:



Notice how you are not at all engaging the topic, but merely picking on one tiny element? If all you have to say is homeopathy is bogus - well I already said that. You have failed to address any of the rest of it.

I'm very interested in pursuing a degree in Homeopathy.
I have been comparing it to clinical/pharmaceutical medicine;
I am 100% convinced Homeopathy/Naturopathy are far more reliable.

One tiny element huh?

And you act like I'm somehow obligated to respond to each and every bit of someone's post. I don't CARE about organic food and eating healthy or whatever, so I didn't respond to it. I DO care about someone saying homeopathy is far more reliable than medicine, because it is demonstrably, certifiably wrong.

If you wanted me to address organic food or something, than say so, instead of parading about how mean and awful we're being to him for telling him homeopathy doesn't work. All you've done is make excuses for his bad choice in medicine/words and chastise us for not reading or making intellectually fallacious arguments, which I in fact have not done.

Now, are you going to discuss anything pertinent to this thread or keep harping on us about our ability to read and hold a conversation?

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Entirely void of intellectual honesty. I don't think you can move on to any actual issue quickly enough for my tastes

Then move on to the evidence. Be quick, now.

 

[IanCG]

Oh boo-hoo!! People use the same words to refer to different things all the time. You have no idea what he was on about, and drove him off by being a jerk.

Oh boo-hoo! People get ridiculed for doing silly things all the time. You have nothing to add to the conversation, and you're driving me off by being a tone-troll.

 

[IanCG]

Entirely void of intellectual honesty. I don't think you can move on to any actual issue quickly enough for my tastes

If you're going to keep saying that phrase, try showing where and how anyone was intellectually dishonest.

 

[razeontherock]

Now, are you going to discuss anything pertinent to this thread or keep harping on us about our ability to read and hold a conversation?

If all you can do is pretend that homeopathy is the whole subject here - the latter