Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Hangar Talk' started by write-stuff, Feb 9, 2020.
The placebos of homeopathy seem to be working pretty well so far.
Science provides a way to understand the rules that govern how things work; it does not guarantee that the knowledge gained will always be applied effectively. Pharmacology can be a particular challenge, because even if we know HOW a pharmaceutical works, the effect on a patient is very individualized, as we are not all genetically identical. And there is also the presumption that a physician has correctly diagnosed the condition and its cause, another challenge. Many patients are treated empirically based on the most likely cause or remedy, until the correct approach is found.
It is important to remember that EVERY medicine has side effects. There are very few true silver bullets. Ideally side effects are relatively insignificant or at least tolerable, but some individuals may experience serious side effects. That's not the fault of science, but rather the luck of your genetics. All things considered, pharmaceuticals work remarkably well to control disease and alleviate suffering.
Hey, if a sugar pill makes you feel better, go for it. My concern involves medical/pharmaceutical professionals making unwarranted claims. They're usually for things that are difficult or impossible to measure. Faith healers have the same result.
Of course it has. There have been many studies. They broadly conclude that homeopathic substances have no effect beyond a placebo effect. Do a little googling.
"Conclusions: The findings of currently available Cochrane reviews of studies of homeopathy do not show that homeopathic medicines have effects beyond placebo."
As I said, as long as the homeopathic placebo works, I’m happy.
I was a pharmacist in college. What do you want to know?
I've been thinking about this idea that there's no actual science in this stuff.....
I can't say as I agree....just because it wasn't overseen by the government or some formal lab setting....
Some of this stuff has been studied for a long time....probably thousands of years in some cases. people were pretty smart even back then. they observed, they learned
I'm not so quick to discount all of it....
I used to think Chropractic was quackery. Still do for some of what they claim they can do....but I tried it once when my back went out and that experience opened my eyes. I've personally had amazing results some times...and from an engineering perspective most about it it makes plausible sense to me.
Homeopathy was "invented" back in the mid 19th century. People frequently confuse it with herbal therapies (which may or may not be effective). Homeopathy is "scientosis"; made up to sound sciency, but no science in it. The concept of "essense" is about as scientific as a Quija board.
My barber still does bloodletting.
And that confusion I believe has past the point where most of those arguing against are ****ing in the wind.
Essential oils can kill your cat. It's true, it popped up in my Facebook feed.
Running a pharmaceutical business out of one's dorm room does not qualify one as a pharmacist...
At least big pharma sells stuff that is proven to work some of the time for some people ... with homeopathy is just pure scam praying mostly on the very people desperate for any form of hope ...
Well ... I'ma here from the south, so all of our here medication is straight and not homeopathic
You and me's be exaperts in this field now
If government doesn't regulate it it can't be any good? What a bunch of sheep. And from sheep comes sheep dip.
I must have missed that post. Certainly I didn’t say that.
No need for any government regulations - just use common sense.
Now , I am all for people spending their money in ways they consider most productive for them ...but if they come to a forum and try to make a case for quackery ,well...then they should expect a healthy challenge ... that’s what a forum discussion is all about.
have you EVER had a Pharmacist tell you what works? Keep in mind, Pharmacy is a Master's Degree. Doctors are PhDs (well, MD or DO to be precise).
EDIT: The pharmacist can get a Master in Pharmaceutical Sciences (MSc), of 2 years, or a Doctorate in Pharmacology (PhD), of 4 years after finished the Bachelor, but these are Academic Degrees, needed for scientific career on investigation, but are not required to work in other professional areas.
I once had a pharmacist at Walgreens sell me on an OTC product called sambucol...and elderberry thing
She was sold on it.
Well, I think it used to be that way. Today, though, a person has to hold a Pharm D. (doctor of pharmacy; not a PhD) degree in order to qualify for the licensing exam.
There is no reasonable way to apply science to homeopathy. Homeopathic substances contain no molecules of the intended ingredient. If things worked without the active ingredient, then talcum powder, baking soda and cocaine should all work equally well and could be substituted for each other.
Which would save a lot of money!
Homeopathy makes as much sense as trying to get drunk on non-alcoholic beer.
If you believe in homeopathy you might as well just go have a drink from your faucet and tell yourself it will cure whatever you have. Think about that glass of water that comes out of your faucet. It has been circulating on this planet for millions of years. It has been part of the ocean, clouds, rain. It has circulated through countless organisms, seeped through the ground, and been exposed to just about every mineral, biologic substance and toxin on the planet. So if you believe in homeopathy, the water coming out of your faucet has the "essence" of just about everything in it already, no need to pay the "doctor" to do his magic to it. Drink up.
You should try homeopathic AvGas. It’s water, but it once came into contact with actual AvGas that has been removed. I’m sure the water remembers how to burn properly in your engine though.
yup.....Homey don't do that.
This thread is kinda funny as some are being rather pedantic on the definition of homeopathic.
Others seem to be more along the lines of; OTC, herbal, and homeopathic are all pretty much the same thing.
Kinda like saying cow pies and deer pellets don’t look the same... LOL.
but....do they taste the same?
It is the definition of "homeopathic" that creates the distinction.
Words have meanings that are agreed upon, otherwise communication would be completely impossible. These three are not the same. Thinking they are might lead one to take a sugar pill in lieu of a real medicine or supplement.
but which definition?
It seems that many are using the definition that apparently says homeopaths are using products that do not contain the natural substance (herb, mineral, or whatever...)...i.e taking sugar and calling it salt.
I really don't know what it is...so looking it up just now, from webmd
:Homeopathy is a medical system based on the belief that the body can cure itself. Those who practice it use tiny amounts of natural substances, like plants and minerals. They believe these stimulate the healing process. It was developed in the late 1700s in Germany."
it says tiny amounts....so does that mean low dosage? only trace amounts? none at all?
I'm not really taking a side here...I've never looked very deeply into the definition or into the practices...I'm definitely among those that, perhaps not knowing any better and not really caring to look, have sorta grouped it all together...homeopath, herbal, nutritional...anything using natural or less "processed" things to help heal....
Homeopathy or homœopathy is a pseudoscientific system of alternative medicine. It was created in 1796 by Samuel Hahnemann. Its practitioners, called homeopaths, believe that a substance that causes symptoms of a disease in healthy people would cure similar symptoms in sick people; this doctrine is called similia similibus curentur, or "like cures like". Homeopathic preparations are termed remedies and are made using a process called homeopathic dilution. This process involves repeatedly diluting a chosen substance, typically until nothing—that is, not even a single molecule—of the original substance is likely to remain in the product. Between the dilution iterations homeopaths practice hitting and/or violently shaking the diluent, and claim that it makes the diluent remember the original substance after its removal. The diluent is typically either distilled water, ethanol or sugar. Practitioners claim that such preparations, upon oral intake, can treat or cure disease.
There is some evidence that some bad things are good for you, under the right circumstances. But homeopathic remedies you find on the shelf in grocery stores are nothing more than water.
Here's a story about an apartment complex, and some other buildings, in Taiwan built with cobalt-60 contaminated rebar. About 10,000 residents live there for a decade or two and had cancer death rates that were about 3% of the rest of the population
I also think some people are confusing "homeopathic" with "holistic."
I always thought homieopathic meant supportive of your friends.
not that there's anything wrong with that.....
I’ll use a shovel to toss some on a plate, tell someone dumb that we removed all the molecules, and you and I can have a beer and watch them try each. LOL.
Maybe only collect the dry ones and grind them into powder for capsules if we want to start an MLM like the essential oils kids?
What we really need is to get the stuff to four stars on Amazon though. That’s where the real money is. We can buy some positive reviews in halting English from a couple places. I’ll be ready to order them.
Maybe sneak some marketing copy into the websIte that just hints that taking the capsules will deter the effects of chemtrails? That’ll hit the target demographic.
“Ancient monks ate dung as a therapeutic method! Now you too can enjoy the power of feces in capsule form! Just two tablets in the morning and two more at night and you’ll be as enlightened as ancient monks who found this secret while tending their animals! And remember, ancient monks weren’t affected by chemtrails!”
Needs work. I’ll work on a better edit. LOL.
No, that is homopathic.
Ah, but that is the point. The general social definition has morphed. While some on here still cling to the old definition; and fight the good fight.
I cannot say much, I have dine this many times. And still do on some topics...
Why aren't we talking about Naturopathy in this thread?!? They need their due consideration too.