They exert some influence on the study even if seemingly indirectly. They are the wheels behind it. It is not just scientist doing pure research for the sake of research. There is an economic consideration, a commercial one. I don't believe otherwise. They cannot be the funders and the watchdogs at the same time. Anytime an organization accepts big money from somewhere there are built in conditions or objectives that may not be 'pure'.
How do we know what is true?
- Thread starter chansen
- Start date
Welcome to Wondercafe2!
A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!
But the schools themselves receive funding from the government and or corporations (US studies are considered here and their universities get corporate funding) and the government and the corporations are in cahoots (coca cola and diabetes awareness programs for vulnerable populations...a good example). There is some sinister stuff going on. I don't want to get too wrapped up in worrying about it but I am not going to accept blindly that the science we rely on is unbiased by marketing somewhere along the line , and I'm not going to discount natural therapies as unreputable either - that's my position.
ChemGal
One with keen eye
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
I'm not doing that. I don't think homeopathy as a natural therapy, it's more paranormal as sometimes they just shake one container next to another and that's good enough to transfer the water 'memory'. Bio resonance doesn't seem very natural either.
I'm reading about the history of homeopathy in Britain, has been very popular there - and it's such a cultural thing there - even the Royal Family used it, and there was a functioning Royal London Homeopathic Hospital as well as other homeopathic hospitals in UK - that are no longer supported by NHS. They lasted the latter half of the 20th Century into the 21st. Kind of sad. Thinking of the friendly and trusted family homeopath chap, "Dr. Jones", who believed in what he (or she) was doing, and his father before him - right up until 2010. 2010!!! People must've found them useful despite the science used to debunk them if they lasted that long. There must've been some benefit if they were used by so many for so long and the anecdotal evidence from practitioners and patients who don't meet scientific study criteria must be worth something. I can see if they stopped it 100 years ago...but British are educated people in a 1st world country.
Last edited:
Aargh. I see that it must've 'worked' in the sense that it gave people using it some benefit or it would've ended 100 years ago...and there is more than a scientific basis for quality of life. I also read that there was one prominent homeopath in Britain who did not believe in the mystical alchemy but he did believe the patient centred thorough counselling approach to homeopathy, because much of it's focus is on emotional feelings of wellbeing, was beneficial - but his argument didn't win either. I believe him. I remember my jolly English doctor who recommended arnica...I was very distressed about having a bloody looking eyeball, even though it wasn't serious.
ChemGal
One with keen eye
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
Why? There are numerous superstitions, old wives tales, etc. that have lasted a long time that aren't true. Homeopathy fits in good with that. The only benefit is the placebo effect, which you could do with various things, you don't need homeopathy for that.
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/43-appeal-to-tradition
Last edited:
chansen
Had a point all along
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
I'm not going to discount that people and corporations fund drug development and trials with less than altruistic intentions. I don't discount that bad science happens, where the findings are the first things written in the reports, instead of the last. But you know how you fight bad science? Good science. You don't say, "Well, those Coca Cola guys are terrible, so let's fight diabetes with 30X diluted tree bark."
What you do, Kimmio, is discount science because some of what comes under the banner of science is bad, and you don't understand it anyway, so you throw in with morons because they talk nice to you.
You're magnifying everything bad you can find about science, and ignoring anything bad you've been presented about homeopathic remedies. I think that's a perfectly religious sort of thing to do, but in the process, you're doing exactly what you tell us you hate - supporting people who come to pre-determined conclusions to support their friends, without regard for what the findings really are. If you cared about truth, you'd have found that no homeopathic remedy has been found to be any more useful to an ill person than tap water. And if it any homeopathic remedy were proven to work, its creator would publish the findings to the world and be running to the bank. We'd be talking about this person in the same breath as Banting and Best.
What you do, Kimmio, is discount science because some of what comes under the banner of science is bad, and you don't understand it anyway, so you throw in with morons because they talk nice to you.
You're magnifying everything bad you can find about science, and ignoring anything bad you've been presented about homeopathic remedies. I think that's a perfectly religious sort of thing to do, but in the process, you're doing exactly what you tell us you hate - supporting people who come to pre-determined conclusions to support their friends, without regard for what the findings really are. If you cared about truth, you'd have found that no homeopathic remedy has been found to be any more useful to an ill person than tap water. And if it any homeopathic remedy were proven to work, its creator would publish the findings to the world and be running to the bank. We'd be talking about this person in the same breath as Banting and Best.
I can see the benefit of having "Dr.Jones" the trusted family homeopath there to visit when you're feeling crumby, give you some innocuous potion...and you just feel a little better for having the visit ...IF he doesn't pretend he has all the answers and recommends that you see an MD if he thinks it's serious and beyond the realm of mind over matter well being. What about that? If you rip a whole cultural tradition out from under one's family, that's basically harmless if not beneficial for minor ailments - you're just creating upset and discouragement. I'd rather see that guy for a cold or a strained muscle than some grumpy uptight person who takes themselves too seriously.
Naturopathic uses herbal remedies. Lots of times these herbs have medicinal properties used to make drugs. It is not the same as homeopathy and I can see why you think homeopathy is stupid. I just think there's more to life, to wellbeing, than what science offers.
"Science. Killing cultural tradition one study at a time. It pays." - Kimmio
Drug ads have to be some of the most hilariously stupid ads around- showing some fabulously smiling person twirling through a tulip garden at sunset, with a catchy theme song. "May cause....and death....and.....and....loss of consciousness....and...ask your doctor about___." yeah, right - don't tell me they would bother saying that if they weren't forced to.
ChemGal
One with keen eye
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
And why do we know those risks - science. Why are they mentioned, because for the most part, the health field wants informed consent. Accuracy rates if possible. Good luck getting that from the homeopathic field.
But if they're just sugar pills then they're not going to do harm (unless the patient is unwilling to do anything else if it's serious)....but maybe they do help! They were used in UK, paid for by NHS - again- until 2010! I can't believe it's totally useless if it was used for that long by normal people. They must've found benefit from it.
@ChemGal @chansen if you were to interview all the people who used homeopathy regularly for non-life-threatening ailments - in the 10 yrs before NHS stopped funding it about how long they've used it and whether or not it helped them...if they answered positively, which they must if they were using it when there are conventional options... You mean to tell me you wouldn't believe their anecdotal evidence because the science done to date doesn't support it? That seems silly to me. They used it, they liked it - they were happy with it- it was their choice - that's its own evidence. To not believe them is as equally silly as relying on studies that we don't really know the motivation behind.
Last edited:
ChemGal
One with keen eye
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
When I mentioned accuracy rates, I meant for tests. I would guess that some type of diagnosing is done in the homeopathic field, to get a good label match for the problem. Since the real stuff contains no active ingredients, I guess the diagnosis really doesn't matter though, so maybe there are no diagnostic tools.
ChemGal
One with keen eye
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
There are tons of anecdotes that if you have sex with a virgin you will be cured of HIV/AIDS. The science doesn't support it. I'll stick to the science.