Homeopathic medications are regulated by the FDA

[Why Syzygy]

Homeopathic Pharmacists' Association Highlights the Extraordinary Safety Record of Homeopathic Medicines

SANTA ROSA, Calif., June 19 /PRNewswire/ -- The American Association of Homeopathic Pharmacists (AAHP) acknowledges the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) action to protect the public by sending a Warning Letter to Matrixx Innovations, Inc., in connection with that company's sale of Zicam intranasal zinc medications. According to the FDA, these intranasal zinc products have been associated with a number of cases of loss of smell. Matrixx now has an opportunity to respond to the FDA's concerns about the safety of its products.

However, the AAHP feels it is necessary to clarify misleading issues raised in a nationally syndicated Associated Press article, "Zicam Not Alone in Side Effect Reports," which questions the safety of homeopathic medicines in general. Consumers and healthcare professionals alike should be assured that the FDA's action in regard to certain Zicam products does not apply to this class of drugs as a whole. Rather, the FDA's advisory relates only to the nasal application of a specific zinc product.

Homeopathic medications are regulated by the FDA and have been used safely in the United States since before the passage of the 1938 federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Homeopathic medicines have an extraordinary record of safety. The FDA's Compliance Policy Guide (CPG 7132.15) "Conditions Under Which Homeopathic Drugs May be Marketed" has been an effective and workable way to regulate homeopathic drugs since 1988 and, as shown by the FDA's action on June 16, it allows the FDA to take action when action is required to protect the public.

To learn more about the regulatory process and the association's work to better the understanding and appreciation of homeopathic medicines by both professionals and consumers, visit www.homeopathicpharmacy.org.

About the AAHP

Founded in 1923, the AAHP is a not-for-profit corporation of the State Commonwealth of Virginia, representing the interests of homeopathic manufacturers, distributors, and individual pharmacists in cooperative efforts with regulatory agencies and other organizations nationally.

The AAHP functions as a trade association within the homeopathic pharmaceutical industry to represent the opinions and interests of homeopathic product manufacturers and distributors, the FDA, other regulatory agencies and other trade associations. In addition, the association promotes high standards in manufacturing and distributing, communicates regulatory changes to member companies through a regular newsletter, and promotes professional communication, education, and research within the homeopathic community.

http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/06-19-2009/0005047097&EDATE=

[LaurenG]

1. This is good to hear!

thanks for the information Syz, I didn't know the FDA regulated homeopathy.



Also, a bit off topic but I still don't understand why Zicam was/is considered a homeopathic treatment.

Homeopathy is a form of alternative medicine that treats patients with heavily diluted preparations that are thought to cause effects similar to the symptoms presented, first expounded by German physician Samuel Hahnemann in 1796. Homeopathic remedies are prepared by serial dilution with shaking by forceful striking ("succussing") after each step under the assumption that this increases the effect of the treatment; this process is referred to as "potentization". Dilution often continues until none of the original substance remains.<1>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy

[elleng]

3. I tried to reach this group,

to have them clarify and expand their statement. My e-mail bounced back.

[Why Syzygy]

4. You know..

I knew they were regulated. They are considered "over the counter" (OTC). In recent conversations, even as I mentioned that some substances are restricted in who is considered qualified to purchase, their regulation by the FDA completely slipped my mind. Happy to have a chance to clarify.

Perhaps we will see a move to limit the way they may be added to other non-homeopathic substances. The press release seems to indicate that it was due to the homeopathic ingredient in this particular case which enabled the recall. However, the FDA has the authority to recall non-regulated substances too, as we saw in the case of Tryptophan in the 80s.

The level of homeopathic preparations in these other products, usually 6X or similar, is the most minute dosage of the ingredient.

I'll also mention that the dosage schedule of products that are intended to be used daily or several times daily for extended periods of time also contradict classical homeopathic schedules of application.

[elleng]

31. I do not think zinc is included in the proper dosage;

I've read somewhere recently its MUCH HIGHER than ordinary to actually be 'homeopathic.'

[Why Syzygy]

35. I didn't even realize

the zinc IS the homeopathic ingredient (at its lowest potency/2x). I was thinking of another product claiming to be homeopathic which contains capsicum.

But look at all the other ingredients! I have a case full of homeopathic remedies and the only other ingredient on the labels are "sucrose" and "lactose"! I've also never heard of spraying a remedy into the nostril, but there may be basis for that.

Ingredients and Definitions of Same

Active

Ingredient: Zincum Gluconicum 2x
In English: Fancy name for Zinc.

Nonactive

Ingredient: Sodium Chloride
In English: Salt (makes it more tasty to the nose).

Ingredient: Purified Water
In English: Water that is pure (it's never had sex before).

Ingredient: Benzalkonium Chloride
In English: A yellow-white powder prepared in an aqueous solution
and used as a detergent, fungicide, bactericide, and
spermicide. In others words, it helps kill stuff. One
of its promising uses is in trying to kill the HIV
virus.

Ingredient: Glycerol (Glycerin)
In English: A really cool song from the rock group, "Bush."
Glycerin is a colorless,transparent, syrupy liquid that
has no smell and tastes sweet. Used in many medicines,
foods and personal care products. I believe it is used
in Zicam as a solvent.

Ingredient: Hydroxyethylcellulose
In English: This is used as a thickener, protective colloid,
binder, stabilizer,and suspending agent, particularly
in applications where a nonionic material is desired.

Ingredient: Sodium Hydroxide
In English: The main uses of sodium hydroxide are in chemical
manufacturing (pH control,acid neutralization, off-gas
scrubbing and catalyst); pulp and paper manufacturing;
in petroleum and natural gas industry (removing acidic
contaminants in oil and gas processing); manufacture of
soap and detergents and other cleaning products; and
cellulosics, such as rayon, cellophane and cellulose
ethers; cotton mercerizing and scouring. Other uses
include water treatment, food processing, flue-gas
scrubbing, mining, glass making,textile processing,
refining vegetable oils, rubber reclamation, metal
processing, aluminum processing, metal degreasing,
adhesive preparations,paint remover, disinfectant,
rubber latex stabilizer and stabilization of sodium
hypochlorite. Hey, your guess is as good as mine.

http://www.epinions.com/review/Vicks_Nyquil_Liquicaps/well-review-55BE-2D1E9F4D-3A4CAB5C-prod2

It isn't MUCH HIGHER from a hoemopathic perspective. However, note:

A 2X–3X solution in homeopathic terms is paradoxically termed “low potency.” However, it may well be the limited dilution that is pharmacologicaly active.

lhttp://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1948865

[SidDithers]

2. This is a joke, right?...

"Homeopathic medicines have an extraordinary record of safety." :rofl:

Sid

[LaurenG]

5. Sid, the UK has been using them for years.

It may sound funny to you but I would like to see further review before I would say they are not effective. Allergy "shots" or immunotherapy does work but since they are not considered homeopathy are they OK with skeptics?

Homeopathic treatment is based on the same premise.

[SidDithers]

7. Allergy "shots" and immunotherapy...

actually have something in them. Homeopathic "medicines" don't.

The only way for a homeopathic med to be unsafe would be if it were contaminated, or wasn't really homeopathic.

Sid

[LaurenG]

13. see below

[chascarrillo]

10. If you need further review before saying that a pull with no active ingredients is not effective...

...then something is seriously wrong with this country's educational system.

[LaurenG]

12. They contain few OR no active ingredients

My assumption was based on the few. I have little knowledge or experience with this subject so I will have to refrain from arguing about it since I know so little about it.

[Why Syzygy]

15. Detection

requires the use of an MRI machine. The are active on an energetic level, and MRI is the only energy detection device capable of measurement. The chemist cannot find these energetic properties because they do not use viable measurement devices! Therefore, the meme of "no active ingredients". That applies only to a chemist's lab, and is not accurate when the correct method is employed.

[SidDithers]

19. Oh my...

I'm screenshotting this post. This is the funniest thing I've read on DU in a long time.

Sid

[skepticscott]

92. And how exactly

did people preparing homeopathic remedies know that they were active before nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometers were invented?

:crazy:

[Why Syzygy]

94. Because they cured people

and that used to be good enough :crazy:

[skepticscott]

96. So you mean

that they just gave potions to people without knowing beforehand whether they were active or not, and just crossed their fingers? Is that what you consider the responsible practice of healthcare? Maybe we should have just stuck with beads and rattles.

[Why Syzygy]

98. Lame attempt

Samuel Hahnemann was a German physician who earned his Doctor of Medicine degree in 1779. At the time of his graduation, Scientific advances were beginning to be seen in the fields of chemistry, physics, physiology and anatomy. The clinical practice of medicine, however, was rife with superstition and lack of scientific rigor. The treatments of the day, such as purgatives, bleeding, blistering plasters, herbal preparations and emetics lacked a rational basis and were more harmful than effective. Hahnemann recognized this and wrote critically of current practices in several papers on topics such as Arsenic poisoning, hygiene, dietetics and psychiatric treatment. (...)

Homeopathy had a large impact on the practice of medicine. The first homeopathic hospital opened in 1832 and homeopathic medical schools opened all over Europe. Homeopathic hospitals and practitioners often had better outcomes compared to their allopathic counterparts. These improved outcomes were undoubtedly due to the harmful nature of allopathic remedies of the time compared to the non-toxic nature of homeopathic remedies. Thus the general public began to tout the benefits of homeopathy and demand better treatment from all physicians.

http://altmed.creighton.edu/Homeopathy/history.htm


The Founder of Homeopathy
Homeopathy's roots emerge from the findings, teachings and writings of Dr. Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843). Hahnemann graduated from medical school in 1779 and started his own medical practice. He soon began his first homeopathic experiments in 1790, as a result of his disillusionment with such common medical practices of the day as purging, bloodletting, and the use of toxic chemicals.

At one point, he gave up his own daily practice to begin working as a chemist while translating medical texts. It was when Hahnemann began working on a project to translate William Cullen's Materia Medica into German that he began his quest for a better way of providing healthcare using the principles of "Similars." While working on this project, he became fascinated with a species of South American tree-bark (cinchona) which was being used to treat malaria-induced fever. Hahnemann ingested the bark and discovered that it caused symptoms similar to malaria. He continued his research into "cures" and the idea of "similar suffering," and began compiling his findings. Similia similibus curentur, the Latin phrase meaning "let likes be cured by likes," is the primary principle of homeopathy. A homeopath searches for a substance that produces in a healthy person those same symptoms a patient experiences.

http://www.wholehealthnow.com/homeopathy_info/history.html
emphasis added

If the best you can do is treat me like a moron, you are wasting your time.

[skepticscott]

102. Well, if all you can do is cut and paste

to show that "allopathic" medical treatments in the 18th and 19th centuries often did more harm than good (not a shocking revelation, btw) and that giving patients nothing (i.e. homeopathic remedies) commonly did less harm, then I guess there's no other way to treat you. Showing that homeopathic remedies of that time were less harmful than the standard medical treatments is not remotely the same as showing that that they were actually effective in a positive way, or that those administering them had any way of testing that, and since that's what my last post was about, your response is pretty much irrelevant BS, though I doubt you even grasp enough of the science to realize that.

And though you also seem very skilled at making things Bold, if you were going to highlight anything of the brilliant Dr. Hahnemann's career, I would have expected it to be about all of the people he cured of malaria and other diseases with his homeopathic miracles. He did actually cure whole boatloads of people of malaria with nothing more than water that used to have cinchona in it, didn't he? Or, as the quote states, did he just "cure" them?

[chascarrillo]

28. Here's an example.

The link below is a homeopathic product used to treat constipation:

http://www.vitaminlifehealth.com/Constipation-100-Tablets/M/B0018NEMXE.htm

One of the ingredients is 100mg of a 200X solution of natrum muriaticum. 100mg sounds like a lot, but funny thing about that...

The 200X designation means that the natrum muriaticum has been diluted to equal one part in 10 a total of 200 times. This is the equivalent of one part in 10^200. (The first ingredient undiluted is one part in 10^0 = 1, first dilution is one part in 10^1 = 10, second dilution is one part in 10^2 = 100, and so on.

So, yeah, you end up with one part of natrum muriaticum in 10^200 (10 with two hundred zeros following it).

How many atoms are in 100mg of natrum muriaticum, undiluted? Using avogardo's number, you get about 4*10^21 atoms. Diluting it 200X? Divide the number of atoms by 10^200, and you have one atom of natrum muriaticum per roughly 2*10^183 atoms of an inert ingredient. That's a 2 followed by 183 zeros.

So, 1 atom of active ingredient per 2*10^183 atoms of in active ingredient. How do you like those odds?

Oh, neat fact: There are estimated to be 10^80 atoms in the observable universe.

Second neat fact: Natrum muriaticum? That's more commonly called sodium chloride, which in turn is more commonly called table salt.

[SidDithers]

30. Exactly...

I've done the same calculations with 100C dilutions, and the numbers just as stupid.

As I've already posted, with Homeopathy, there's no there there. And people who are OK with homeopathic remedies being sold to a gullible public, because they might work as a placebo, are just fine with dishonesty and trickery as a medical practice.

Good post.

Sid

Edit: fixed wording

[Why Syzygy]

34. Loren, another factor relevant (I failed to mention)

to this sub-topic, is the fact that homeopathics are regulated by the FDA as over the counter DRUGS.
The FDA, populated with scientists, does not regulate Tic Tacs as OTC. Even semi-skillful observation of this factor leads to the conclusion that homeopathics are NOT the same as sugar pills.

[Why Syzygy]

68. Lauren, I was mistaken

when I said "MRI". Please see my post below for clarification.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=62835&mesg_id=62913

[LaurenG]

84. I got ya - no problem and thanks for the interesting information

:hi:

[DeltaLitProf]

6. I'm sure they do.

They contain virtually NO active ingredient. They are sugar/calcium pills. And their makers fleece a public that often hasnt the first idea how science works.

[BuddhaGirl]

44. hmm

so I guess all the homeopathic hospitals in Europe are unsafe, huh? Homeopathy is part of the NHS in the UK, btw

[SidDithers]

45. No, they're most definately safe...

because homeopathy doesn't do anything. And if the UK wants to waste it's precious NHS dollars on homeopathy, that's up to them. I'd rather them spend money on medicine that actually has medicine in it.

Sid

[BuddhaGirl]

76. yes because whole hospitals are operated

on the premise that their treatments don't do anything :eyes:

[Orrex]

77. Uh, what?

The next time somebody has a ruptured appendix or a stab wound to the chest, I guess a glass of memorable water will do the trick.

[Why Syzygy]

80. Of course they don't use the same treatment for

every condition. And, of course you probably realize that.

[Orrex]

82. Of course I do, but snark begets snark.

To claim that hospitals' treatments don't do anything is just being snarky, meriting a snarky reply.


Just as my reply merited a snarky reply, which you delivered!

[Why Syzygy]

48. Hospitals

This piece indicates we have homeopathic hospitals in the USA, but doesn't list any.

An increasing number of hospital doctors note that homeopathy may be integrated into the system of health care.
With complementarity as the cue, homeopathic therapeutics in the hospital is justified by :
• the efficacy observed in many diseases,
• the specific answer that it may provide for a number of unresolved patient complaints when other solutions involve iatrogenic risks,
• the lack of toxicity that allows it to be associated with other treatments in paediatrics, surgery, gynaecology, obstetrics, geriatrics (in fragile, multi-medicated patients), etc. or in the treatment of heavy diseases (chemotherapy, radiotherapy, HIV/HCV, kidney failure, etc.).

Hospitals
The major interest that homeopathy induced in doctors led to the creation of homeopathic hospitals throughout the world and in particular in Europe and the USA.
The most famous hospitals in Europe are the Glasgow Homoeopathic Hospital, the Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital in England and Hôpital Saint-Jacques in Paris.
In Mexico, an estimated 120,000 consultations are held each year in official homeopathic dispensaries and hospitals.
Certain countries such as Russia, now have new homeopathy consultations in hospitals. In Russia, polyclinics with practising homeopath physicians, if necessary, refer their patients to hospital consultations. Thereby, the patients may be hospitalised and monitored by the attending homeopath physician. Besides this, specialised centres or clinics (group practices) allow patients to be monitored with a homeopathic treatment. The Moscow homeopathic centre, employing 120 homeopath physicians, celebrated its 90th anniversary in 2000.

In France, in Paris, Hôpital Saint-Jacques and the Hahnemann dispensary carry on a long tradition of homeopathic care.
Hôtel-Dieu and Hôpital Saint-Luc in Lyon, Hôpital Tenon in Paris and Hôpital Pellegrin in Bordeaux provide consultations with homeopath physicians in several specialities: gastro-enterology, paediatrics, gynaecology-obstetrics, ORL, etc...

http://www.boiron.com/en/htm/03_homeo_medecine/homeo_milieu_hospi.htm

[Celebration]

8. Everyone should welcome the true homeopathic preparations

Especially the skeptics. Why? Because to them they would maximize the placebo effect. I think it would be really cool to have a high placebo effect with an inert substance. There would seem to be no better "medication" than a high placebo effect substance, with no chance of side effects. Everyone, skeptical or not, should welcome the placebo effect.

The designation of "homeopathic" to various products is confusing at best, however.

[Why Syzygy]

9. For some

irrational reason, skeptics HATE the placebo effect. No rational explanation has been put forward for this opinion.

Ironic in a way, but I won't be able to read many skeptical opinions here due to my zero tolerance policy for being the recipient of rude behavior. And since skeptics, in general, historically have a record of a robust practice for shutting down any dissenting voice, there can be no valid rational opposition to such a policy.

[SidDithers]

11. For some unknown reason, woos are fine with dishonesty..nt

Sid

[mother earth]

14. You obviously have not ever used a homeopathic remedy and

yet are quick to call those who have "woos", as though you have some kind of superior intellect. One homeopathic remedy that is very mainstream is one used for yeast infections & has been, and continues to be, a tried and true alternative. Not only is it incredibly effective, it is cheaper than the prescriptions one would get through traditional sources.

As for terming others who do not share your one-sided opinions as "woos", that my friend, is just dismissive and ignorant.

Homeopathy is something you clearly are unfamiliar with if you can chalk it all up to "woo".

[SidDithers]

17. Are you sure you're not confusing homeopathic...

and naturopathic? Some naturopathic treatments are effective. What "homeopathic remedy" is mainstream for yeast infections?

Trust me, I'm completely familiar with homeopathy. With homeopathy, there's not there there. And woos who are OK with homeopathy being sold, because it might work as a placebo, are the ones that are fine with dishonesty.

Sid

[mother earth]

67. No, I'm not confusing naturopathic with homeopathy, I cannot

recall the name of a few that I have used that were just as effective, they are generally found in the drug store right next to the OTC mainstream cures.

I would like nothing more than for more study to be done & for ineffectives to be pulled from the marketplace, because I do agree some stuff is just garbage, but I don't lump it all in one little pkg. & dismiss it entirely, nor would I ever use the term "woo", but that's because I respect opinions of others. I may not agree, but we don't have to.

[LaurenG]

16. Is the statement, "for some unknown reason, skeptics are fine with dishonesty"

ok with you? We all all know that the statement isn't true so who does it show is dishonest here?


edit word

[SidDithers]

18. If a person has no problem with "homeopathic meds" being sold...

because they might work as a placebo, as was clearly implied by the post that I replied to, then that person accepts that dishonesty and trickery are a valid treatment option. Selling snake oil as a placebo is still selling snake oil.

Sid

[Celebration]

20. Is the goal to make people feel better, or not?

If the goal is for people to feel better, then a substance with a high placebo effect, and great side effect profile is the way to go.

I give myself placebos all the time. Am I tricking myself? Good!! If I can trick my body into feeling well, I am all for it!! One hundred percent!

[Orrex]

27. How, exactly, do you give yourself placebos?

Regardless, deception of oneself is profoundly different from deception of another.

The goal is not simply for people to feel better. The goal is to help people to feel better while treating them with respect and with honest disclosure about the nature of treatment.


We're speaking, of course, about adults in this context. When treating a child, a different level of disclosure is called for, because the child may have limited ability to comprehend the details of treatment, and the discussion must bear this in mind.

[Why Syzygy]

36. My mother and I

were not disrespecting my grandmother when we deceived her. She was in the hospital from gall bladder surgery, it was late at night, she was all doped up, but wouldn't go to sleep until she got another pain pill. The nurses said, "no". I gave her a Tic Tac and we told her it was a pain pill. She swallowed it, rolled over and went to sleep!

I was NOT DISRESPECTING MY GRANDMOTHER. I was RESPECTING her perceived need for additional attention!

Maybe you should refrain from blanket statements of what is NEEDED when someone is ill.

[SidDithers]

43. And if the hospital had given her the TicTac

but told both you and her that it was a 50X dilution of morphine, and charged your $40 for it, you'd be OK with that too?

Sid

[Orrex]

49. Then you lied to your grandmother. Apparently, as Sid noted, you are fine with dishonesty.

That's why it's a pious fraud, by the way; you told a lie because you rationalized that it was the right thing to do. That the ends justified the means.




Apparently the nurses didn't think she needed another pain pill. By lying to your grandmother, you and your mother were able to prove that the nurses were correct.

[Why Syzygy]

51. Pios fraud..

you may hold that opinion. I see it as mercy. I always find it odd when atheists/evolutionists object to "lying" (for example). Survival is the goal and if a lie accomplishes that, how can you judge and complain? On what basis? Threat to the species is the only boundary you can HONESTLY claim.

I didn't say the nurses weren't correct. I also know my grandmother needed to get some sleep.

btw, as mentioned elsewhere, there are very few skeptical posts I can read here. Yours is an exception. So, don't assume I've read them all.

[SidDithers]

52. "atheists/evolutionists"? WTF?...

does that makes you a "religionist/creationist"?

Sid

Edit: I hope you don't mind if I continue to reply to your posts, even though you're ignoring me. Others might find my replies to your posts informative and / or entertaining.

[Orrex]

57. Calling it mercy is rationalizing a lie.

Sid's point, which I now understand that you weren't able to see, is that conscious acceptance of a treatment based on an exaggeration of that treatment's effectiveness is, by definition, being okay with dishonesty.

Survival is the goal

Not true in the case you cited. Comfort was the goal. That's very different, unless the lack of a few hours sleep would have been fatal.

And if survival is the goal, what is the limit of a justifiable lie?

how can you judge and complain? On what basis? Threat to the species is the only boundary you can HONESTLY claim.

I'm not judging you; I'm judging the act, which was indisputably an act of deception, a lie.
Did you, after the fact, tell your grandmother that you'd given her candy instead of medication? Or did you maintain the deception afterward? If the former, then how did your grandmother react? If the latter, then why did you maintain it?

I'm complaining because your action after the fact demonstrates a willingness (understandable, perhaps) to make truth subordinate to comfort. That way madness lies.

Incidentally, I'm happy to admit that I'd probably have done the same thing in your shoes. Afterward, however, I wouldn't deny that I'd been dishonest about it.

[SidDithers]

59. You're nicer, and much more patient, than I...

:hi:

Sid

[Why Syzygy]

61. She barely even

remembered that we had been there. Much less that we had given her something. Remember, I mentioned she was "all doped up". Therefore, at the time she was incapable of having a rational conversation about WHY no one would help her. Now, a few years later when I visited her, and she thought I was her daughter and was reminiscing about what "I" had done as a girl, I allowed her that and then told her it was "ME". And, I really don't remember if we told her or not. She probably would have thought it was funny.

I always regret telling poignant personal stories in the presence of skeptics.
No exceptions so far.

[Orrex]

62. You're trying to have it both ways.

In a discussion of this kind, you can't offer up a story in support of your claim while saying "don't discuss my story." By bringing it into the discussion, you are declaring it eligible for discussion. If you don't want it to be discussed, then you should talk to the person who brought it up in the first place.

You seem also to misunderstand my point. I'm fine with what you did for and told your grandmother, and I admitted explicitly that I'd likely have done the same. Afterward, however, I would be honest about what I'd done and not try to justify it in terms of "survival goals" or the like. I would simply say "I told her a lie to make her feel better."

I always regret telling poignant personal stories in the presence of skeptics.
No exceptions so far.

Lumping me in with all those mean ol' skeptics is an unhelpful tactic.


Edited to remove an unhelpful tactic of my own, with apologies to W.S.

[Why Syzygy]

66. You're not above

using some of the same tactics, i.e. attempting to *shame* others into submission.
I'd have thought was beneath you ... Is a well worn implement of the skeptic's tool box.

The survival goal comment was addressed to your assertion that I was LYING and that somehow I should be ASHAMED of it on some moral basis. This is something I want to address in a different venue, preferring to keep on topic here. Even though I admit I initially veered off.


In a discussion of this kind, you can't offer up a story in support of your claim while saying "don't discuss my story." By bringing it into the discussion, you are declaring it eligible for discussion.

Agreed. That's why I regret it. The original reason was because you were using broad statements to indicate that in so doing I was DISRESPECTING my grandmother. I begged to differ on that point. Otherwise, you have pinpointed the reason for my stated regret at sharing my stories in certain company.

[Orrex]

73. You're right--that was a cheap shot, and I apologize.

Lately I'm trying to become more conscious of my use of such tactics, but it slipped by me. I have edited that post, but the earlier post is past the edit window.

The survival goal comment was addressed to your assertion that I was LYING and that somehow I should be ASHAMED of it on some moral basis.

I'm not sure I asserted that you should be ashamed of the lie, especially since I've stated at least twice that I'd have done the same thing. I believe that I argued that justifying the lie after the fact, when the situation is no longer at hand, is a compounding of the original deception.

Otherwise, you have pinpointed the reason for my stated regret at sharing my stories in certain company.

Believe me, I understand. I have one or two issues that I keep off of DU specifically because I know I'll be beaten over the head with them if I discuss them openly. That's the trade-off, alas; a compelling personal story might bolster one's argument, but even legitimate responses can be painful to endure.

[Why Syzygy]

83. I appreciate and respect

your willingness to engage in personal reflection. It requires courage.

I guess the answer is to conjure hypothetical situations so one's self esteem or emotions are not involved. It weakens the scenario by great measure, however. "My grandmother" leads with emotion.

As for implying *shame* in the original context, perhaps you're right, and it was my perception.

[Orrex]

85. Hypotheticals are also subject to exaggeration, unfortunatley

I've made that error more than a few times, by generating what I thought was a compelling example, only to have it rightly attacked for being a bad analogy, a stacked deck, etc.

[Why Syzygy]

87. Right. Therein lies the weakness. nt

[uppityperson]

101. "Comfort was the goal.That's very different, unless...would have been fatal"

"Comfort was the goal. That's very different, unless the lack of a few hours sleep would have been fatal."

Being so emotionally upset that she couldn't sleep would not have been immediately fatal, but could slow down her healing.

For the rest, I remember back when I started nursing we were supposed to use "reality orientation" on people with alzheimer's as it was not lying to them. For example, here is an old person, asking where their dead spouse is, getting very agitated about it.

"Where is Johnny? What have you done with him? Where is Johnny?..."

We were instructed to remind this 85 yr old woman that Johnny was dead, that her home had been sold, that she was living the remainder of her life in an institution.

Her response? To get more upset, very very upset since she had forgotten and now had to relive the pain of losing her Johnny. Several times a day.

Now we use distraction and outright lies (if we have to). "Johnny isn't here right now, would you like to come visit with me?"

Which is kinder to the person? The truth or the deception?

[Orrex]

104. As I've stated several times, I would almost certainly have told the same lie.

But, in telling the story afterward, I wouldn't hesitate to call the lie what it is.


Additionally, I've also stated several times that this assumes a discussion between competent parties. A child isn't generally capable of processing the advanced specifics of a medical issue, so I would tell the child what he or she was able to handle. Likewise, an adult facing significant neurological impairment may lack the capacity to handle undiluted truth, so I would also tell the adult what he or she was able to handle.


Either of those cases is very different from lying to a competent adult about the efficacy of a treatment.

[uppityperson]

107. I agree with that.

[Why Syzygy]

110. I thought about this

a little more. And I don't think we would have told her so she could "save face". Admitting I misled her just for the sake of (my) honesty would have embarrassed her. I don't do that.

Think of marriage counselors who advise an unfaithful spouse who has turned a new leaf to just let it go and get on with strengthening the marriage. You would have that spouse tell all no matter the pain and damage to the other person. That isn't every case. A friend's counselor was encouraging her to be 'completely honest', though not about an affair. My friend doesn't want to go that extreme because it would shake up other people involved and provide no benefit. I don't know if you plan to be 100% honest in any and all circumstances. Personally I think there are more important considerations.

It even seems rather arrogant to assume that YOUR honesty is more important than the lives of other people involved. Call it what you will. There was mention of a possible attempt by you to *shame* me. What other motivation would you have for suggesting I made an error in moral judgment? It looks to me like a comparison by your perceived much higher moral standards.

It's this kind of black/white, either/or thinking that compels me to juxtapose fundamentalists and skeptics. All the mental health materials I've ever seen indicate it is a most unhealthy mental process.

[uppityperson]

111. all skeptics are not fundamentalists. thank you for your concern for we skeptics mental health thoug

as all (what is the opposite of a skeptic that is not the slur of "woo"?) are not fundamentalists either.

There are mental health issues for many people, but merely being a skeptic and wanting scientific proof of a claim of health promoting does not make one mentally ill. I am sorry that you feel that way.

Unless you just meant it as an insult for the poster you are replying to?

[Why Syzygy]

112. No. It was broad brush.

I haven't seen anything else.

You almost made the exception, until you posted the thread outing a sensitive group.

Please don't mistake my comments as "concern". I have no such thing. The planet will progress. Some people will be left behind in the dinosaur dust. It just is. No point in being "concerned".

[uppityperson]

113. "thread outing a sensitive group"?

So you consider anyone who is skeptical of unproven wild claims mentally ill. Oh kay.
Since I am skeptical of unproven claims, I am mentally ill according to you.
Yet I have supported you here regarding giving gram tic tac.
Logically then, what does that say about you?

Oh dang, I did fine until I got to "logically" at which point I became mentally ill again.

[Why Syzygy]

115. No. Your words, not mine.

I know a lot of skeptical people. In fact, the completely gullible are a minority. However, there is a special breed that self identifies and sets up groups specifying the LABEL, "Skeptic". It's a way of life. They roam on other message boards, not just this one, battering people who don't belong to their club. It's an identity. See? This is more of the black/white thinking. You don't get how anyone can have beliefs you find kooky and yet engage in skepticism as well! It is all EITHER/OR. That's it!

[uppityperson]

117. "thread outing a sensitive group" is direct copy/paste from your post

Hence, they are your words.

I had no part in setting up any Skeptic group here, or elsewhere. I was unaware of it until posters bashing here in Health made claims about it, so I had to go check it out.

I am sorry that you consider anyone who is skeptical of unproven claims to be part of a larger organized group. Having that belief, I can understand why you have issues with anyone who is skeptical.

"You don't get how anyone can have beliefs you find kooky and yet engage in skepticism as well! It is all EITHER/OR. "

You certainly do not know me very well if you can type that with a straight face and believe it.

Good night. Time to get my beauty rest.

[Why Syzygy]

119. THESE words...

So you consider anyone who is skeptical of unproven wild claims mentally ill. Oh kay.
Since I am skeptical of unproven claims, I am mentally ill according to you.
Yours.

Yeah, you better get some rest. I also didn't say "part of a larger organized group". Likewise, I never claimed to have "issues with anyone who is skeptical". My post CLEARLY distinguished what the "issue" is.

MOST people are "skeptical" to some degree. They just don't have membership cards!

[uppityperson]

122. You still haven't pointed out the "thread outing a sensitive group" you claim I posted

For your arguments:
"It's this kind of black/white, either/or thinking that compels me to juxtapose fundamentalists and skeptics. All the mental health materials I've ever seen indicate it is a most unhealthy mental process."

You juxtapose fundamentalists with skeptics. You say this is an unhealthy mental health process.

Huh, I just realized what you are saying. That YOU are the one doing something that is "indicated" mentally unhealthy. Self enlightenment is good and understanding things like that is a step in getting rid of such unhealthy thoughts. Congratulations.

"However, there is a special breed that self identifies and sets up groups specifying the LABEL, "Skeptic". It's a way of life. They roam on other message boards, not just this one, battering people who don't belong to their club. It's an identity. See?"

I am glad that you realize I am not part of a group roaming message boards "specifying the label skeptic". I don't particularly believe that there is such a group, but hey, each to their own.

Off to work to spread joy and health through massages and nursing.

[Why Syzygy]

125. And I don't intend to ....

You still haven't pointed out the "thread outing a sensitive group" you claim I posted.
It turned into a flame war and got locked. If you can't figure it out, oh well.

As for what appears to be a slam against me, I don't get your point.
Not really interested in your assessment of my mental health anyway.
So, let's leave it there.

[Why Syzygy]

116. All those edits get confusing .. your edit at 12:48 ..

I'm happy you have something to contribute to the related incident with my grandmother. You noticed things I didn't.

However, I haven't a CLUE what that 'says' about me. What do YOU think it says?

[uppityperson]

118. "all those edits" are one edit.

[Why Syzygy]

120. FTR,

I never called anyone mentally ill. Maybe a rephrase would be All the mental health materials I've ever seen indicate it is a most unhealthy mental process. ... to employ in personal relationships, including the one with yourself.
*If you need references, I can find them.*

I'm sure there is a niche for folks who think using a binary thought process. The problems arise when one (or more) of them attempt to convince everyone else to use the same '1' or '0' conception.

I have a huge problem with many of the methods employed in this attempt at coercion, such as ridicule, humiliation, censorship and general brow beating. All this because a large percentage of the population uses different notations, and doesn't care to practice binary, black/white thinking. It causes problems when there is an attempt to extrapolate the method to real life.

Life is bigger than that! Besides comparing 'on'/'off', we have intuition and critical thinking skills. We have CREATIVITY built in. These are disregarded by the class of Skeptics to whom I'm referring. I know. I have tried to engage more than a few in critical analysis, and it is pointless. Binary all the way. They are playing pong while a majority of us are immersed in holograms.

Considering it in this context, the comparison to fundamentalists should be clear. They use the same binary, 'saved'/'unsaved' to describe the ENTIRE world. Spirituality, which is infinite, is reduced to "believing in Jesus", and then you're all set. Yes or no. That's all there is to it. OTOH, Skeptics (capitalized so you will note I'm not referring to anyone who uses skeptical thinking at times) demand everything be counted. If it can't be examined with NUMBERS, no matter what Base, and compared to 'Yes'/'No', whatever it is, is completely disregarded and MOCKED.

When used outside of a niche which requires that type of analysis (health and spirituality being two), Skepticism certainly can result in handicapped conceptual ability. It becomes a crusade to alter another's being-ness, which humans ought not do to one another.

This is my perception. We all have them.

[trotsky]

124. I found a picture of the kind of skeptic that WS is referring to.

[uppityperson]

127. Thank you trosky for your edifying post.

I appreciate it

[Orrex]

121. You're not reading most of what I've been writing.

By my count, I've stated at least five separate times that I'd have told the same lie. If you should be ashamed of telling it, then so should I.

With this in mind, I have no idea how you conclude that I'm assuming that MY honesty is more important than other people's lives. That's a blatantly false accusation, and it's an attempt to cast me as an immortal, egotistical villain. What possible motivation could you have for such an accusation, other than to shame me? And to what end?

I've made no comment on the morality of the issue one way or the other. I have asserted that you were dishonest, meaning that you were not honest. By your own account of the event, this is irrefutable; you passed off a piece of candy as a painkiller or a sleeping aid.

Incidentally, the analogy of marriage counselors is worth discussing elsewhere, but it's irrelevant here, because we're talking about exaggerating the benefits of an alleged medical treatment, not full disclosure of all facts in all situations.



Claiming--even obliquely--that skeptics are mentally ill is every bit as offensive as using the term "woo."

[uppityperson]

123. "obliquely". thank you, that is thetword I haven't been able to remember

[Why Syzygy]

126. Clarified.

I don't care to press the issue(s). I read your post as clarification of fuzzy communication which left unanswered questions.
Yes, it might be a worthwhile discussion. Elsewhere.

I perceive that MY communication is still misunderstood. But, again. I'm willing to leave it there.

[uppityperson]

100. In this case I agree the ends justified the means. And no, it doesn't mean the nurses didn't think

she needed another pain pill. We are regulated by what the prescription says. If it says "every 4 hours", we are limited to giving it at the closest every 4 hours, regardless of if we think someone needs more or not.

Nurses cannot say "oh I think you need one, here's another" outside of the legally prescribed limits. I have called a doctor and let her/him know that the current dosage of pain medicine is not adequate, but cannot give more than is ordered.

As far as the ends justifying the means, if an adult child chose to give his/her gram a tictac to help her relax enough to sleep, I have no problem with that in this instance.

[Orrex]

105. Saying that the ends justified the means doesn't change anything I wrote

And the bit about what nurses want vs. what regulations require is interesting but not really central. Change the phrase from "the nurses didn't think she need another pill" to "regulations prohibited the nurses from giving her another pill," and everything else remains the same.

If we say that the ends justified the means, then that's fine, but it's still a rationalization, and it's still a pious fraud.


Again, I'd have done the same thing in that situation.

[uppityperson]

108. This is the part I disagree with and why it is central.

"Apparently the nurses didn't think she needed another pain pill. By lying to your grandmother, you and your mother were able to prove that the nurses were correct."

Again, nurses are limited to giving medicine as it is ordered, the correct dose, the correct timing, the correct method of delivery (insert prescribed for correct to make it even more how it is). By lying to his grandmother, they had nothing to do about proving nurses correct.

If you change the bit you said, it reads "Regulations prohibited the nurses from giving her another pill. By lying to your grandmother, you and your mother were able to prove that the nurses were correct."

Since you are focusing on the lying, please do not use what nurses are licensed to do to back up your argument.

Since we now do different reality orientation, we've had many talks about it, and about the ethics of lying to people. How to distract without outright lying.

About homeopathic "medicine" and placebo effect, we are very much on the same wavelength.

[Orrex]

109. Hmm.

Perhaps the difference here is that, in the case of her grandmother, I don't think that the nurses' involvement is central.

The particular sentence that you quoted--and which you accurately revised in accordance with my amendment--could be removed entirely. The issue, as I see it, is whether or not she administered a placebo that she judged necessary in excess of what the nurses had already administered.

Certainly it matters for accuracy's sake whether we state that the nurses acted by choice (which they did not) or by regulation (which they did). But for determining whether or not W.S. lied to her grandmother, the nurses' involvement is incidental IMO. W.S. could as readily have said "the hospital refused to give more pain medication" or "my grandmother didn't want any more pain medication from the nurses." The deception remains the same.

And, once again (in case anyone else is reading), I would almost certainly have done the same thing.

[Why Syzygy]

114. Yeah. I don't think that matters at all.

They wouldn't do it because the doctor didn't write it. I thought everyone understood that. It wasn't their decision, and I certainly didn't intend to imply that. This was 20 years or so ago, but IIRC, she had only been out of recovery for a short time. No one is aware of the passage of time in that situation. She probably didn't even remember she had been medicated.

[LaurenG]

23. That wasn't my question and you didn't answer it.

I don't have a problem with your opinion or any opinion here. I have a problem with your statement. You really don't personally know a lot of "woos" do you?

[SidDithers]

25. Again, making money off of water...

sold as a placebo is dishonest. If you don't think that's wrong, then you're OK with dishonesty.

And I know plenty of woos.

Sid

[LaurenG]

32. Ok but you're still just avoiding the question. nt

[SidDithers]

33. Would you like me to be more specific?...

Is "Woos that believe in Homeopathy are OK with dishonesty" more accurate? Then we're only talking about a specific subset of woos.

Sid

Edit: and I don't see you chastizing the other poster for her statement about skeptics hating the placebo effect. If you're going to be outraged about generalizations, which was what I was really replying to, at least be consistent.

[LaurenG]

38. I'm not outraged and I'm asking you because you seem like an intelligent person

that may say "oh right, that was a bit over the top and a broad brush, I didn't realize how that came across" or something like that.

Not all people that you would consider woo at first glance are woo by your definition at all. They may have a different theory as to why things work but the "woo's" I know all take their families to MD's and take prescription medication just like you do. The ones I know wouldn't think of lying or trying to hurt someone. They are trying to help and would never try to convince anyone not to take their meds or to take something else instead of their meds.

I think exploring possibilities is great, in fact I adore science fiction and science, it fills me with wonder and I love that!

[SidDithers]

41. You're right, and perhaps I was nasty..

in replying to a generalization with another generalization.

That said, I believe, and the science backs me up on this one, that homeopathy is the biggest pile of crap in the alt-med outhouse.

Sid

Edit: speeling

[Orrex]

24. That's a broad brush. It's more accurate to say that skeptics hate misuse of the placebo effect.

The placebo effect is of enormous value during experimental testing, for instance. A prospective sleeping aid is administered in pill form to 50 people suffering from insomnia, while another 50 are given a sugar pill. If each group shows equal improvement in its ability to fall asleep, then the prospective sleeping aid is no more effective than placebo. Since placebo has no actual effect, then the prospective sleeping aid can't be verifiably claimed to have any actual effect, either. This kind of testing is a cornerstone of empirical research, and I would say that skeptics certainly don't hate it. It's a tremendously useful experimental tool.

However, it is unethical and very possibly fraudulent to administer a substance while knowingly exaggerating or withholding relevant facts about its real ability to ameliorate a mental or physical condition. That is the main reason why skeptics object to misuse of the placebo effect, because there is no way to administer the placebo as a treatment without exaggerating or misrepresenting its real effect.

Additionally, skeptics dislike the way all kinds of magical powers are attributed to the placebo effect, with the implied or explicit message that "the mind has great healing power," or the like. Statements to that effect are poorly supported by empirical evidence, and in almost all cases they refer to conditions that run their course in due time, such as temporary pain, ordinary headache, or the common cold.

Advocates for the placebo effect might counter that the exaggeration is justified if the patient is made to feel better. In fact, that's what's known as pious fraud, and it's still dishonest.

[Why Syzygy]

37. Nonsensical.

The only relevant point of your post is that skeptics object to any use of powers or substances which are not sanctioned by them or their approved representatives. IOW, their usual god-playing stance.

[Orrex]

46. Not at all true, and that accusation is frankly beneath you.

How is it a "god-playing stance" to require evidence in support of a claim?

[Why Syzygy]

53. You're being relativistic

It's okay for your approved methods. That's playing God. Also, in another venues, you only regard "evidence" which again meets with your (god-stance) approval.

I'm not going to get way off topic here. So. That's about it.

[Orrex]

60. I don't understand what you're getting at.

By complaining that I require evidence, are you asserting that you do not require evidence? Or are you complaining about the standard of evidence that I find acceptable?

It's hardly "playing God" to require that a claim can be supported by objective, verifiable evidence. The whole point of such a demand is to remove the possibility of "playing God." Your statement indicates either a failure to comprehend or a choice to disregard the scientific method.

[salvorhardin]

50. And for some irrational reason most woos have no frackin' idea what the placebo effect really is

Its causes, or what it can really do.

[Why Syzygy]

55. Oh goodie!

A new one goes on "ignore"! Zero tolerance for rude behavior. Calling people "woos" = RUDE!
BUHBYE

[uppityperson]

89. I'm a skeptic and the placebo effect is fine with me. Of course I'd like

to make sure that people don't pass by treatments that will work because of their belief in the placebo effect which may not work.

Rewriting that sentence, I want to see people get treatment for what ails them. Sometimes a placebo is all it takes, but sometimes it takes something that actually does something real. I do not like to see people passing up effective treatments for ineffective placebos.

[skepticscott]

93. Monumental hogwash

Here are just two of many "skeptical" evaluations of the placebo effect. Show me how these are filled with "HATE", as opposed to a balanced, rational attempt to understand and explain the placebo effect.

http://skepdic.com/placebo.html

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/09-05-20#feature

Unless of course you've continued your own robust practice of shutting down dissenting voices and put me on ignore.

[Why Syzygy]

95. I'm not familiar with

skeptics in the wild. Only those local. And I stand by my statement. You may find the evidence in their hang out. Since most are now invisible to me, I won't be able to help you with that.

btw, your skeptic-centric method of attempting to shame FAIL on me. I see you for what you are.

[skepticscott]

97. Then perhaps you should make yourself familiar

with them more generally before making such sweeping and ignorant generalizations. And that's assuming that your claim is true about ANY skeptics (since you cite not even one actual example), and that what has got your shorts in a knot isn't simply (as someone else pointed out) skeptics' objections to misuse of the placebo effect to tout and peddle remedies that can't be relied on.

And btw, when was the last time you had your voice "shut down" for dissenting with skeptics? Or do you consider having your statements challenged in any way that's not fawning and obsequiously polite, no matter how foolish and fact-challenged they are, to be "shutting down"?

[Why Syzygy]

99. My voice was shut down quite recently, in fact.

That's exactly what prompted the expanded ignore list. Bottom line is I refuse to make myself available to be insulted.

I already had the "misuse" discussion with Orrex. You are welcome to read it. I have MUCH better things to do with my time than indulge in an intense study of skeptics. I KNOW what you are!

:boring:

[skepticscott]

103. And exactly how were you

"shut down"? By having your ideas challenged and your feathers ruffled?

And I did read your discussion with Orrex (unlike you, I put no one on ignore, as I insist on reading all sides of a discussion) and I found your responses as laughably inadequate and uninformed as he did. If you don't know that skeptics are people who insist on verifiable evidence and reason to justify truth claims, then you know nothing. If you do know that and still respond as you do, then you truly are a waste of time.

[Why Syzygy]

106. Wrong.

I owe you no explanations. You clearly belong with the rest of your friends.

:hi:

[uppityperson]

128. ws was "shut down" by increasing his/her ignore list. see?

[Why Syzygy]

129. .Are you all still

debating whether or not my voice was silenced? A deleted post should leave no doubt. The shut downs of all shut downs. I guess it was a technicality where I referred to someTHING as a "lie", rather than "untrue" (per DU rules). Skeptics scampered to get that deleted, thus avoiding having to deal with the accusation of a falsehood altogether. That's a weak tactic. Censorship always is.

[skepticscott]

130. If a post of yours was deleted

it was because you violated the rules of the room. A skeptic did not lay down those rules, the site's organizers did. A skeptic did not agree to abide by those rules, you did. A skeptic did not violate those rules, you did. A skeptic did not enforce those rules when you violated them, a moderator did. So naturally, you blame....skeptics... :crazy:

And did that one instance that was entirely your fault constitute skeptics' "robust practice for shutting down any dissenting voice"? You certainly seem in good voice on this thread...why haven't all of your "dissenting" posts been deleted, if the skeptics here are so bound and determined to keep you quiet?

Rational people who demand evidence to back up claims and who challenge nonsense aren't going away, no matter how much you whine and smear and play the victim. We're here for the duration. Deal with it.

[uppityperson]

131. you just made her/him increase Ignore list again and are shutting him/her down

You bad person you. It is all your fault.





:sarcasm: just in case
Funny how she/he can't stay away

[Why Syzygy]

132. You're inviting me to leave? Again?

Stay away from my own thread? Your generosity must have collapsed in on itself.
If you don't want to participate in my OP, I completely understand.
Screen door. Butt. Etc.

[uppityperson]

133. Perhaps you do not understand the meaning of "you can always ignore me if you want"

[Why Syzygy]

134. Thanks for your permission.

UP = the gift that keeps on giving.

I think you may be picking up some bad mojo from your massage clients. Do you make sure to rinse your hands and arms
and shake it off? Your massage instructor did teach that part, right?

Oh no. That's right. You didn't have to go to massage school. You're a nurse.
Shake it off!

[uppityperson]

135. Obviously you do not understand what that means. Or what you have to do to be licensed in WA

as a massage therapist. Thank you for your post as it is very enlightening.

[eShirl]

21. aren't they mostly water?

[Celebration]

22. yeah, mostly water

Or mostly sugar, with an energetic "signature" attached. You can regard that energetic signature as being a placebo effect, and enhanced placebo effect, or a way to "trick" the body into kicking into energetic balance, depending on your point of view.

[eShirl]

26. ok, but if one disbelieves in its effectiveness, is there any chance of the placebo effect working?

I mean, doesn't it depend on your willingness to believe it's going to work?

[Why Syzygy]

39. No.

A homeopathic remedy selected according to the precise guidelines of homeopathic principles will act regardless of belief. I have successfully treated animals, who obviously have no belief or even awareness that their water contains a remedy. Likewise, I have seen adults who were skeptical yet tried a remedy anyway. They may deny that any results were due to the remedy. But the results bear the mark of being exactly the outcome they sought.

[Orrex]

29. It must be disclaimed that there is no empirical support for an "energetic 'signature'"

At least, not in the manner described by homeopathy.


Anyone who administers a substance while making claims about its "energetic signature" as it pertains to altered or improved efficacy is engaging in a dishonest practice.

[Why Syzygy]

40. As previously stated

the MRI confirms the energetic signature. You are misled.

[SidDithers]

42. Two questions that I know you won't answer...

1. How, specifically, does the MRI confirm the "energetic signature"?

2. Where are the published findings of how an MRI confirms an "energetic signature"?

Thanks in advance.

Sid

[Orrex]

47. Sid has already responded correctly. I likewise await your response.

[Why Syzygy]

54. I cannot reply to

something I cannot see! Wait or no wait.

I don't intend to give any ignore reprieves. I already know the standard. :boring:

[Orrex]

58. Then allow me to post his questions, which are mine as well:

1. How, specifically, does the MRI confirm the "energetic signature"?

2. Where are the published findings of how an MRI confirms an "energetic signature"?

[Why Syzygy]

63. oops. my boo boo .. NMR *not* MRI

LABORATORY EVIDENCE — The number one criticism of the scientific community has been the "infinitesimal" nature or the dilution principle of Homeopathy. Homeopaths do agree that once a remedy is diluted beyond 24x or 12C potencies. they are diluted beyond Avagadro's Number (6.23 x 10-23) which theoretically indicates that no molecules are present in the original substance. However, both LABORATORY AND CLINICAL RESULTS over The last 190 years have demonstrated definite effectiveness with Homeopathic remedies beyond this dilution.

A recent NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE (NMR) study showed that all twenty-three different Homeopathic Remedies and Potencies tested had DISTINCTIVE READINGS OF SUBMOLECULAR ACTIVITY, while The Placebos did not. This demonstrates That homeopathy's function is not so much chemical but energetic. As Chiropractors, you will observe dramatic clearing of sensory nerve Interference and pathological reflex activity causing chronic recurring subluxation activity and dis-ease.5

http://www.lyghtforce.com/King_bio/research.htm

5. Adam Sacks. "Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy of Homeopathic Remedies," Journal of Holistic Medicine, 5 (Fall-Winter 1983): 172-175: RB. Smith and G.W. Boericke, "Changes Caused By Succussion on N.M.R, Patterns and Bioassay of Bradykinin Triacetate (BKTA) Succussions and Dilution Journal of The American Institute of Homeopathy, 61 (November-December 1968): 197-212.

[Orrex]

64. Thank you for the citation and link. I'll look into it.

[SidDithers]

65. You do know that NMR and MRI are the same thing, right?...

I look forward to reading that paper from "The Journal of Holistic Medicine".

Sid

Edit: same thing when used as a medical imaging tool.

[Orrex]

75. I know that NRM was National Record Mart. Does that count for anything?

:crazy:

[SidDithers]

78. MRI used to be called NMRI...

but that bad word nuclear scared people into thinking they were being irradiated (where nuclear here refers to the protons in the nucleus being aligned by a magnetic field).

We didn't have NMR up here. We used to get our 45s and LPs from Sam The Record Man. But he, too, has gone out of business. :hi:

Sid

[Orrex]

79. My nuclear family went critical when I dropped out of college

Definitely not a controlled reaction.


And, amusingly, I see that you committed the NRM/NMR typo. Well done! :evilgrin:

[SidDithers]

81. Hehe, fingers flyin'...

brain on autopilot :)

Sid

[uppityperson]

90. I didn't know the MRI is also called a NMR

It makes sense though, since that is what it does. Thank you.

[SidDithers]

70. A more recent study...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15518588

High sensitivity 1H-NMR spectroscopy of homeopathic remedies made in water.
Anick DJ.

Harvard Medical School Mailman Building 123, McLean Hospital, Belmont, MA 02478, USA. [e-mail]

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of homeopathy is controversial. Homeopathic remedies are made via iterated shaking and dilution, in ethanol or in water, from a starting substance. Remedies of potency 12 C or higher are ultra-dilute (UD), i.e. contain zero molecules of the starting material. Various hypotheses have been advanced to explain how a UD remedy might be different from unprepared solvent. One such hypothesis posits that a remedy contains stable clusters, i.e. localized regions where one or more hydrogen bonds remain fixed on a long time scale. High sensitivity proton nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy has not previously been used to look for evidence of differences between UD remedies and controls. METHODS: Homeopathic remedies made in water were studied via high sensitivity proton nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. A total of 57 remedy samples representing six starting materials and spanning a variety of potencies from 6 C to 10 M were tested along with 46 controls. RESULTS: By presaturating on the water peak, signals could be reliably detected that represented H-containing species at concentrations as low as 5 microM. There were 35 positions where a discrete signal was seen in one or more of the 103 spectra, which should theoretically have been absent from the spectrum of pure water. Of these 35, fifteen were identified as machine-generated artifacts, eight were identified as trace levels of organic contaminants, and twelve were unexplained. Of the unexplained signals, six were seen in just one spectrum each. None of the artifacts or unexplained signals occurred more frequently in remedies than in controls, using a p < .05 cutoff. Some commercially prepared samples were found to contain traces of one or more of these small organic molecules: ethanol, acetate, formate, methanol, and acetone. CONCLUSION: No discrete signals suggesting a difference between remedies and controls were seen, via high sensitivity 1H-NMR spectroscopy. The results failed to support a hypothesis that remedies made in water contain long-lived non-dynamic alterations of the H-bonding pattern of the solvent.

PMID: 15518588

PMCID: PMC534805

emphasis added

Sid

Edit: full text here: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/4/15

[chascarrillo]

71. Let's see if those results can bew duplicated...

"In conclusion, published results from NMR research on homeopathy indicating differences between homeopathic solutions and control samples could not be reproduced."

- Aabel S, Fossheim S, Rise F., "Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) studies of homeopathic solutions.", Br Homeopath J. 2001 Jan;90(1):14-20.

[Why Syzygy]

69. Correcting all previous instances when I should have said "NMR" (not MRI) nt

[SidDithers]

72. NMR is spectroscopy done on things...

MRI is imaging done on people.

But they use the same scientific principle.

Sid

[Orrex]

74. Sid made an important point which I repeat here for visibility's sake

NMR and MRI function via the same underlying principle, but NMR is used to scan objects while MRI is used to scan living organisms.


I'm not being snarky in pointing this out, because it was news to me, too. I seem to recall learning about it in high school, but that was a long long time ago.

[Why Syzygy]

86. I'm not well versed

in this area of the debate. I know it works because I've used it for myself, friends and family and animals. A long time ago I asked my homeopathic practitioner about it, and she was the one who told me about the MRI/NMR.

In way of personal adventure story (I KNOW), I'll tell this. When homeopathy was first suggested to me, it was during my life as a fundie. Fundies are the pole position of skeptics. You may not agree, but many of us see one as being just as irrational as the other. Nevertheless, before I agreed for treatment, I had to satisfy myself that it wouldn't in any way interfere with my faith/belief system. This was pre-Internet, so I headed to the bookstore and scanned every book in the store related to health in any way. Indexes are fabulous. One was written by religious authors. They maintained, just as you do, that homeopathic remedies are "dishonest" and nothing more than "sugar pills". Since I was already an avid user of other naturopathic methods which receive scoffs, that view point wasn't going to deter me. If they told me it opened the door to the devil, I would have been more suspicious. One book, written by a notable homeopathic doctor, I purchased and read through, indicated that remedies would relieve us of our "passions", meaning passionate adherence to certain philosophies. That part worried me a bit because I enjoyed my "passions". But, it's true. For that reason, it bothers me that many people will dabble in homeopathy without sufficient warning that it might shift their perceptions a significant degree.

[SidDithers]

88. If you're not well versed in that part of the "debate"...

then perhaps you shouldn't have brought the topic into the debate.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=62835&mesg_id=62852

Sid

[trotsky]

91. You were once a fundie?

Well that explains a lot.

[dmallind]

56. So...water and inactive ingredients are safe! Who knew? NT