How do we know what is true?

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
There is some suggestion that homeopathy works on the same principles as nanotechnology (there is nothing new under the sun - and there is a lot more $$ put into nanotechnology research - so, if that's true, nanotechnology will get the last word - one has to question all angles - the business competition angle too - somebody should do a study about how powerful marketing and 'debunkers' paid by well funded industries can influence people's opinions on what works and how the research is done). According to this...David Beckham and the Queen use homeopathy - and I have to say that Her Majesty does exceptionally well - and so does Beckham. But the NHS discontinued endorsing it in 2010.

http://www.mydigitalfc.com/leisure-writing/homeopathy-nanotechnology-216
 
Hermann said:
Yes, naturopathy is popular in Germany, and some of it is even covered by their government subsidized medicare.

I had good experience with naturopathic treatment here in Canada, but had to pay for it out of pocket. My naturopath diagnosed an ailing liver, just by feeling the "five Chinese pulses," years before I was officially diagnosed with Hep C.
Click to expand...

Too bad it wasn't covered.
 
Kimmio said:
There is some suggestion that homeopathy works on the same principles as nanotechnology (and there is a lot more $$ put into nanotechnology research - so, if that's true, nanotechnology will get the last word - one has to question all angles - the business competition angle too - somebody should do a study about how powerful marketing and 'debunkers' paid by well funded industries can influence people's opinions and the education they receive on what works and how the research is done). According to this...David Beckham and the Queen use homeopathy - and I have to say that Her Majesty does exceptionally well - and so does Beckham. But the NHS discontinued endorsing it in 2010.

http://www.mydigitalfc.com/leisure-writing/homeopathy-nanotechnology-216
Click to expand...
 
Kimmio said:
There is some suggestion that homeopathy works on the same principles as nanotechnology (there is nothing new under the sun - and there is a lot more $$ put into nanotechnology research - so, if that's true, nanotechnology will get the last word - one has to question all angles - the business competition angle too - somebody should do a study about how powerful marketing and 'debunkers' paid by well funded industries can influence people's opinions on what works and how the research is done). According to this...David Beckham and the Queen use homeopathy - and I have to say that Her Majesty does exceptionally well - and so does Beckham. But the NHS discontinued endorsing it in 2010.

http://www.mydigitalfc.com/leisure-writing/homeopathy-nanotechnology-216
Click to expand...

How do you dilute something to a length? *facepalm*
The research, published in the journal Homeopathy, states that even when diluted to a nanometre or one-billionth of a metre, homeopathic pills containing naturally occurring metals like gold, copper and iron retain their potency.
Click to expand...
 
ChemGal said:
How do you dilute something to a length? *facepalm*
Click to expand...
I don't know, chemgal. But it's worked for a lot of people. I guess there are some people who are willing to use relatively untested-in-labs treatments just because of the experience of it working for others and they're willing to believe in it. And, homeopathy has been used and trusted in Britain for a long time and it's discontinuation in their healthcare system is recent - the Queen Mother was the Head Chair (or some such title) of the homeopathic association in Britain (and there is growing resentment in political circles about the Royal family - any coincidence?) In India- natural treatments are widely used and studies have made it into reputable journals - but I suppose since they are coming from Indian doctors in non-Western Universities, that are not being at least partially funded by pharmaceutical companies - could there be a financially motivated bias to how we view research? I know you don't appreciate anecdotal evidence. I'd rather hear it from the horse's mouth as to whether it works, in many cases - from people who it works for (talking to real people I know)- than a study done from a lab. There is nothing new under the sun - and I don't even think we should discount placebo since we only use such a small portion of our brains, and as far as physics is concerned, it is a vastly uncharted field. So if they work, as with conventional medicine, there is a natural process taking place somehow and maybe science isn't looking in the right place for the explanation. That said, decisions to use alternative therapies should be used by adults, for adults, who can think for themselves.
 
Kimmio, the statement about nanotechnology is totally ridiculous. I could say that testing how long it takes for me to sing a song is related to astronomy because I choose to measure it in light years.

Except light years is a measure of distance, not time.
A nanometre is a measure of length, not concentration. It makes zero sense.

Please tell me how the statement I quoted works 'for a lot of people'.
 
The idea that tiny nearly undetectable particles influences some sort of healing process...maybe...the particle combined with the endorphins or whatever other chemicals/ hormones are released in the body when a person feels reassured about being treated (essentially what a placebo does) influences healing. We have to look at the WHOLE person...their likes, dislikes, lifestyles, how ALL of those factors influence an INDIVIDUAL's healing, not just looking at people like material objects.
 
So are we talking about particle size or concentration now? How do you measure a 3D object by a 1 dimensional length? Many particles are in the nm range, that doesn't mean it has anything to do with homeopathy.
 
It works for a lot of people because they've used it and it works for them. That simple. It doesn't mean it will work for everyone...there are many options now...but what is the motivation behind setting out to disprove something that people find helpful? What is that science motivated by?
 
Last edited:
That doesn't mean the principle behind it is correct. You're not arguing the point I made. How are people using a length in treating themselves? They aren't!
 
There seems to be quite a bit of this type of talk as well. Take a non-scientifically sound concept, take a sciency buzz word and combine the two together. Usually though, this involves complex science concepts like quantum mechanics, tunneling etc.
This one just seems really bizarre, as most people can grasp the concept of length, and length is not a dose measurement, as it's not a concentration, or a mass or something else to measure a dose.
 
ChemGal said:
That doesn't mean the principle behind it is correct. You're not arguing the point I made. How are people using a length in treating themselves? They aren't!
Click to expand...
I can't argue that because I don't understand it. You'd have to argue with a homeopath...that'd be interesting. See if you can meet some. ;)

I just think that if something works for someone's healing, even if it defies current scientific explanation....why debunk it? That, I think is motivated by money, and power, at the root. Not you in particular, but what motivates business and influences how we think. I am interested in the science behind that!
 
I've never even heard this one before, I doubt all homeopaths with argue that point because it's totally ridiculous.

It is important to know if something truly works are not, because there are health consequences. That's part of science when it comes to health issues and medications.
I good example was an asthma treatment, I can't remember if it was just a placebo or what. When people took it, their signs (what is measured) did not improve. Their symptoms (what the individuals reported) did. That is incredibly dangerous, as it leads people to reducing other meds, not taking the symptoms they do notice as seriously, etc. and can lead to someone dying from an asthma attack that would be treated otherwise.

I think this must be it:
http://www.nih.gov/researchmatters/july2011/07252011asthma.htm
 
Yes, and there have been many highly marketed, approved, drugs that have had to be discontinued because of dangerous side effects too. Nothing is without risk. I would be perfectly comfortable going to a trained homeopath, as well as a naturopath, and an MD, and I'd be especially happy they were cooperative and allowed room to consider what was working best for me...as well as massage therapy...bring it on! (but it's not covered)... I would honestly trust a naturopath's judgement - especially around here I could easily have one recommended. They have several years training. They do allergy tests too before prescribing actual treatments.
 
Science works to look for those dangerous side effects though, I don't see that in the homeopathic field.
 
But...if whatshisname that Inanna posted about took a whole bottle with no effect (don't try it at home) because they're essentially sugar pills with no detectable active substance...then, unless you're diabetic, why do you care if you think people are wasting time/ money on something...if they can see results from it? I am not afraid of it. I could have a worse reaction from an insect bite or sting. I just never know - often I welt up. I am more afraid of them but it won't stop me from going to the park.
 
I think most homeopaths would send you to emerg if you happened to have a reaction to something they gave you. They're not stupid. I haven't heard of many people having one at prescribed doses.
 
Kimmio said:
But...if whatshisname that Inanna posted about took a whole bottle with no effect (don't try it at home) because they're essentially sugar pills with no detectable active substance...then, unless you're diabetic, why do you care if you think people are wasting time/ money on something...if they can see results from it? I am not afraid of it. I could have a worse reaction from an insect bite or sting. I just never know - often I welt up. I am more afraid of them but it won't stop me from going to the park.
Click to expand...
Why does it bother me that there are people who are working in the medical field giving people medications that don't work? Because it delays getting treatment that does work. This is shown for HAE. People are treated with medications that might not do any harm, but it wastes time and they are harmed because they aren't getting the treatments that do work during that timeframe.

I think the asthma study was also a good example of what the concern is. If people see themselves as doing better, they can back off on their meds and have a harmful attack because of it.
 
One thing I've noticed...and this is my bias...a lot of unhealthy looking doctors vs. healthy looking naturopaths (my husband's friend is one - she has many years of education) and people into natural therapies and healthy food.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top