T O P I C R E V I E W
Member # 56822
posted 08-04-2012 01:06 AM
http://www.extraordinarymedicine.org If you are at all interested in good health, check it out and see what you think. It has many quality references and sources, so why not give it a read? You may be pleasantly surprised!
Member # 44381
posted 08-04-2012 08:08 AM
While people are of course free to choose to use homeopathy if they so wish, they should be aware that it has no scientific basis at all and has never been proven to work beyond placebo, despite many controlled trials. The solutions are essentially just water.
For more information: http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.html and www.badscience.net/2007/11/the-lancet-benefits-and-risks-of-homoeopathy/ Both of these have references to studies done, and with further searching you can find studies from peer-reviewed academic journals. This may also be of interest: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathy.shtml [ 08-04-2012, 08:09 AM: Message edited by: treetops ]
Member # 56822
posted 08-04-2012 10:21 AM
Mmm, I like that second link, treetops thanks for that! I strongly encourage people to read the entire article from treetops' second link and all the comments.
And also keep an emotional eye out in particular for the profoundly antagonist tone of practically all negative comments, versus the arguably very considerate and calm responses of the positive comments. [ 08-04-2012, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: WesLuck ]
Member # 44381
posted 08-05-2012 05:22 AM
Well, in the controlled studies which show homeopathy to be ineffective, there is no 'tone', simply scientific evidence. And to be honest, my guess would be that the sometimes angry tone of comments about homeopathy is because practitioners make a lot of money out of it when it's never been proven to work, and people who don't know any better are taken in. Also there is the fact that many homeopathy practitioners tell people to avoid conventional (evidence-based) medicine in favour of homeopathy, which is pretty bad and worth getting angry about in my opinion.
Comments from anonymous randomers on the internet along the lines of 'well it worked for me' are neither here nor there; I'm sure you could find people saying that about anything, especially if they've been taken in by pseudoscience. If the best thing you can say about homeopathy is 'proponents are lovely and calm while critics are angry' then firstly it's not even true a lot of the time, and second, it doesn't say much about the scientific basis of homeopathy. You might want to look up 'tone argument', Wes, as what you're doing here is a pretty common way of derailing and distracting attention from the content of what someone's actually saying. As I say, these are comments from randomers on the internet, so really have no bearing on anything, and there is plenty of reason to be angry at the way homeopathy is peddled. Gotta say, I'm pretty uncomfortable with this non-scientific stuff being advertised on an evidence-based website for young people. I won't be engaging further in this argument; I've put my points and if you want to use homeopathy it's up to you; the facts are out there.
Member # 56822
posted 08-05-2012 09:18 AM
Advertised? I'm getting no money, or anything else, from mentioning this. Although perhaps I should have said "some people consider this political, so enter at your own risk" which would go down really well.
For the comment: "Wes, as what you're doing here is a pretty common way of derailing and distracting attention from the content of what someone's actually saying." Well, I was thinking you would provide a total rebuttal of all things homeopathy, but you didn't. The second link had a for and against in approximately equal measure. As I might have said before, I keep an open mind, and I read both sides of everything. I don't pre-judge things I haven't read. I dutifully chose a link and read it entirely, isn't that what you wanted me to do? And also, truth is not always obvious. Are you 100% sure that everything you find truth and factual now is something you'll agree was truth and factual down the track? If yes, then you are definitely wrong, as our knowledge and society has definitely changed over the years. If no, don't be so sure that any particular thing you decide will always remain the way it has been known. I consider that very logical, but you don't have to. We could even have an argument on pseudologic, but I don't particularly wish to. Also, did you know that the guy who commented on your badscience.net link, yes, the one you provided, said that a lot of the reason other homeopaths are brought into dis-repute is because there is no way currently qualified homeopaths can prevent anybody calling themselves a homeopath and setting up as a homeopath? If we remove any man AND his dog from calling themselves a homeopath, maybe we'll get a more accurate idea of any possible benefits. If there was a law saying you needed to have a recognised qualification to legally call yourself a homeopath, maybe we'd get a better idea, but the issue is obfuscated currently. I'm not saying the evidence is clear-cut based on what I've read, or the way it is organised. However there is a possibility that it is beneficial in more than a placebo way. When talking about pseudo-science, include the "that word is poison and I will not read anything that advocates it". Real scientists do NOT pre-judge. Have you read the article I linked and all of the articles you linked or are you pre-judging? I keep an open mind and read articles for and against, and make up my own mind and whether I need to change it. Do you?
Member # 90293
posted 08-05-2012 11:25 AM
A reminder that we do want to keep disagreements friendly. One way to do that is to use wording like "I believe"..." or "I have found..." rather than wording like "you don't understand..." or "your perspective is wrong....". Wes, here at Scarleteen we do focus on providing evidence-based information. This is particularly important when linking to external resources. Related to sexuality, we know there's a lot of misinformation floating around so we definitely want to minimize supporting that by linking to it; this extends to other information as well. The staff and volunteers are very conscious of the quality and content of resources we share, and do ask that users do the same. I understand you wanting to share information that you believe in and, as I think you know by now, we welcome the diversity of people's experiences. As we often say here, everybody's bodies and experiences are different. If you personally have experienced benefits from homeopathy than of course you can share those. There is a difference between saying "I believe in this because I've experienced it" and providing material that presents something as fact. As I said, we do use an evidence-based approach here. We know that alternative remedies work for a lot of people, and when they are mentioned they're presented as things that have worked for some but aren't backed up by research. Understand I am not making any statements about whether homeopathy is valid or not, only about the kinds of material we link to here and the difference between sharing something as personal experience or opinion and presenting something as fact when it hasn't been validated as such by the ways we currently validate things as fact (and granted, there are a lot of problematic things about the current ways we validate things as fact).
Member # 56822
posted 08-05-2012 11:58 AM
Sorry about that. I just don't like it when I've done a lot of good things in the past, and then I'm assumed to be a crank because of one thread. I agree it might have been better to be more neutral in my opening post, but I can't edit it now.
I did specifically put this in the "It's All About You and the world that revolves around you" for a good reason. If you want, you can edit my first post, leave the link alone but say "Please read this and the second link in treetops post below (including comments in that link) for opinions for and against the topic of homeopathy, and please make up your own mind." I think most people here would agree that's reasonably reasonable.