Killed by Homeopathy
thonyc.wordpress.com
thonyc.wordpress.com
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2012/09/10/new-br...
"Well, this is one way to save money on health care. The new British Minister of Health, Jeremy Hunt, is a firm believer in homeopathy, which treats disease using magic water solutions that contain – well, only water."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22241-hail-jeremy-hunt...
"Hail Jeremy Hunt, the new minister for magic."
"The fortunes of the UK's National Health Service (NHS) are about to be transformed with the help of the magical waters of homeopathic medicine... the UK's new health minister, Jeremy Hunt – who replaced Andrew Lansley yesterday in a government reshuffle – thinks that homeopathy works, and should be provided at public expense by the NHS."
"John Krebs, professor of zoology at the University of Oxford, said: "There is overwhelming evidence that homeopathic medicine is not effective. It would be a real blow for those who want medicine to be science-based if the secretary of state were to promote homeopathy because of his personal beliefs."
I mean, by definition someone who's specialization is "being a politician" can't have it as "being an expert of medicine & healthcare".
Hunt's own background, of course, is about as far away from medicine as it could be. If he has expertise in anything, it's in business management. In the eyes of a Tory government intent on dismantling our National Health Service and replacing it with a business model of healthcare provision, he would seem to have the perfect background.
But it seems self evident to me that people skills, leadership, charisma, street smarts, good looks etc are more determining factors in a politician's career, than any knowledge of a field like education, healthcare etc.
So, a good politician with zero knowledge >> a bad politician with great expertise.
For a trivial example, just check the careers of the latest "Secretary of State for Health" of the UK, I quote wikipedia:
Jeremy Hunt: After university Hunt worked for a short period of time as a management consultant, and then decided to pursue life as an English language teacher in Japan.
Andre Lansley: Before entering politics, Lansley had "a promising career in the civil service". Lansley worked for Norman Tebbit for three years as his private secretary at the Department of Trade and Industry.
Andrew Murray Burnham: He joined the Labour Party aged 14 in 1984, during the miners' strike, and was a researcher to Tessa Jowell from 1994 until the 1997 election. He joined the Transport and General Workers' Union in 1995. After the 1997 election, he was briefly a Parliamentary Officer for the NHS Confederation from August to December 1997, before taking up the post as an administrator with the Football Task Force for a year.
Alan Johnson: [he] stacked shelves at Tesco before becoming a postman at 18. He was interested in music and joined two pop music bands. Johnson joined the Union of Communication Workers, becoming a branch official. He joined the Labour Party in 1971[..]A full-time union official from 1987, he became General Secretary of the union in 1992.
I don't want go on, but trust me, I did not stop because the next in line knew something of healthcare.
The administrators are the ones who get power in government, not those who are dedicated to the goals of the field.
The difference, of course, is that it has also kept countless people alive (to say nothing of improving quality of life for others). Homeopathy has never kept anyone alive.
I'm sure there are cases where it did, e.g. by virtue of offering something benign in place of something in the mainstream that might have killed.
People are comforted by the thought that modern medicine has completely transcended the barbarity of its own past, but doctors are humans and, on average, are subject to the same kinds of irrationality as everyone else is, and if you're unlucky enough to have to get up close to modern medicine and if you pay attention, you'll see the barbarism very clearly.
When homeopathy was invented about 150 years ago, it was actually safer than real medicine, but that's because real medicine was quite dangerous, and homeopathy wasn't actually any treatment, so the "doing nothing" approach (homeopathy) was safer than the current real medicine.
However real medicine has gotten a lot better.
It hasn't gotten better enough. Homeopathy is, in a certain sense, propaganda for modern medicine, because instead of people contrasting modern medicine with what it could and should be, they compare it to something that's obviously worse, and then they feel pleased with themselves for being so smart and become complacent about further improving modern medicine.
Yes, medicine is not finished yet (we haven't cured death yet). However medicine hasn't stopped yet and keeps researching. And medicine is waaaay better than it was 50, 100 or 150 years ago.
Except that it's not, because its adherents demand revolution, not reform.
If you're sick, modern medicine is far and away your best hope. It is not kind. It is not wise. It does not maintain the standards that practitioners would like us to believe. Nor are those practitioners as knowledgeable and wise as they would like us (and themselves) to believe.
It is still your best hope. Flaws and all, you should depend on it for your life.
This actually pertains to an awful lot of things in the modern world (democracy, for example). It's good to remember both sides of that sentence - if you're sick, seek modern medicine. But if you're a scientist/politician/practitioner, remember that there's a lot left to improve.
Medicine isn't a special case, it's just part of the human condition that we haven't fully crossed the threshold from acting like apes to acting like truly civilized people. What makes this worse is when people get all proud of how much we have accomplished, without recognizing how far we yet must go.
I am sure in 50 years people will see such procedure as barbaric.
I bet there are an awful lot of dehydration survivors that would disagree with you, there.
> I bet there are an awful lot of dehydration survivors that would disagree with you, there.
But those who survived dehydration didn't survive because of homeopathy, they survived because of the accompanying water. If an astrologer pulls someone out of a burning car, does that support the scientific standing of astrology?
Sorry but I call this 'Allophic Arrogance', Which basically results out of overzealous overconfidence in something. Hating something just because its old.
Ancient systems of medicines work all the time. Despite your dislike.
Around three years, back I had a serious mal absorption problem. In 8 months, I lost a straight 30 kgs. I was around 48 kgs and life was going no where. Allopathy doctors almost killed me, the only thing the ever did was trial and error. And if that didn't work send me through rounds and rounds of tests. Net result was burning a lot of money for no sight of cure.
Then Ayurveda came to my rescue. Life has been a blessing since. My problem vanished like a whisper. In fact everything the Ayurvedic doctor has told me has come true to today's date.
I know modern medicine has advanced stuff like vaccination and surgery. Which saves many lives. And we must be appreciative of that. But that doesn't mean, we need to belittle something else.
Different things works for different people. And if it works for them, who are we to say otherwise?
The classic defense of astrology. Welcome to the world of science, of objective, dispassionate research. Welcome to modern times, where people compare their ideas to reality.
You do remember reality, yes?
I have those millions and that counts.
You need to learn how science works, and recognize the value of healthy skepticism in particular. There are criminal scams that work just the way you describe, and people are sometimes dumb enough not to see through them. Here's an example of a well-known scam that works again and again among the ignorant -- it's the "Miracle Man" scam:
http://arachnoid.com/randomness/index.html#Miracle_Man
> I have those millions and that counts.
You need to learn how to think -- hopefully before you get an e-mail from Nigeria.
But as I said for a guy suffering from chronic illness, who is told Hey nothing is wrong with you, and its all in your head, who would probably die otherwise- will rather take his chances with homeopathy or Ayurveda than sit at home and think about hundred reasons why science says otherwise. And wait for the disease to slowly kill him, while allopathy offers him no cure and only costly tests and hospital stay in return.
Heck, these system of medicines are one thing. I've even met exorcists around here. I know people who go to these people and come out sane. You can sit down and write a hundred reasons why that shouldn't work. But a person from village side in India or any other poor guy, with hardly enough money to feed his family is not likely to visit a hospital like NIMHANS in Bangalore and spend months with tests and hospital with no cure in sight. He will go to what gives him the quickest and cheapest cure.
Its difficult to explain to you because you have never been in a situation where anything and everything you will or can do can't get you out of it. Watching yourself in such misery and realizing the helplessness of your actions. That is when you start looking for miracles. Until you actually face that, anything that I say will attract a justification from you.
I sincerely hope you never get caught in such a situation, because let me tell you its a humbling experience when you learn such things the hard way.
Which is more likely - coincidence, or that all of science is wrong? Because make no mistake, nothing less is required for exorcism or homeopathy or astrology to work.
Hint: It's the first one.
Or, to quote Minchin: 'You know what they call alternative medicine that's been proved to work? Medicine.'
There are little things more arrogant than using a false modality to attack evidence-based medicine.
This bizarre experience made me wonder about the companies that formulate and produce this stuff. Do they actually go through the trouble of diluting things to ridiculous level or do they just skip the tedious part and sell inert capsules? You have to believe most people that work for these companies are con men and not actually true believers.
Now, when people start taking homeopathy for cancer or whatever, that's a different story.
EDIT: To be clear, I think it's kinda ridiculous they are allowed to sell it too. But I suppose it isn't too different from "nutritional supplements" that have ambiguous value.
Not if there is an implied but nonexistent cause-effect relationship. And especially if money changes hands. And most especially if a real treatment is passed up in favor of the placebo.
> Placebo can help alleviate discomfort and pain to some degree, because that is something the mind has some sway over.
The above sentence doesn't mean what you think it does. It starts out claiming that placebos work, then it undercuts its own premise.
The above claims about placebos only apply to real, genuine placebos, not cheap imitation placebos. :)
I suppose there is a very fine grey line between that and just outright lying to someone about a product.
Yes, because making such a promise constitutes fraud unless the active agent is the cause leading to the effect. Placebos aren't a cause, they are an illusion. I guess it would be all right if the customers could pay using imaginary money.
If I claim to have a cure for the common cold, and if I shake a dried gourd over the cold sufferer for a week, do I have the right to claim victory and collect money?
> I suppose there is a very fine grey line between that and just outright lying to someone about a product.
The line is much clearer than that. If the treatment isn't validated in objective double-blind clinical trials, it's not a medical treatment and no claims can be made for it.
I can't tell you how many advertisements I've seen that said "Clinically tested!" but without also mentioning, "The tests failed!" :)
Ok ok, you win. I can't argue against that =)
(My background is in biology and my girlfriend is in the medical profession, so I'm 100% on board with homeopathy being silly. I just thought it was an interesting line of conversation about the efficacy of a placebo, and ramification of selling it.)
Interesting, but as practiced homeopathy today is harmless (ignoring opportunity cost). It's basically the equivalent of drinking tap water.
One reason their use could be mandatory is that in a crash the occupants might fly out of the car and kill other people if they're not using seatbelts. But I'm not sure how relevant point that would be given that the people are allowed to drive a two-tonne killing machine with very little training in the first place.
However, if we do not consider bystanders, I don't see a problem making use of seatbelts optional. It doesn't hurt to mandate that all cars must be equipped with seatbelts for the benefit of availability for everyone who wants to use seatbelts—which is most people.
Seatbelts do save lives but, again, it's not a criminal offense to commit suicide and fail. So, to think, actually, I find it quite disturbing that they are not optional. I hadn't thought about it before. It's an inevitable slippery slope in that you can't really draw the line anywhere as long as you feel obliged to protect everyone.
Could citizens be forced to eat a certain diet to make them not die of obesity, diabetes and cardiac/circulation problems too early? It's certainly ok to inform the citizens of healthier diets, so that everyone can make their own choices with the best information available. But I argue that in the end everyone is sovereign when it comes to their own life and body.
No one should be entitled to sell snake oil and quackery.
Not to dismiss your valid concern, the problem is that when doctor's kill someone, the death gets blamed on a disease or on the patient not taking the medication correctly, etc. But when an alternative treatment is used and death occurs, it is used to smear all alternative treatments. The climate is already biased against meaningful discussion of such things.
There is no evidence that blessing your car will prevent it from breaking down. Therefore when you car does break down after a blessing, that can be nothing but evidence that blessing a car does nothing.
On the other hand there is an abundance of evidence stating that automotive mechanics can diagnose and treat faulty cars, so when an automotive mechanic fails to do that it of course means any number of things could have gone wrong.
We only see your "bias" in situations where there was no evidence to support the treatment in the first place. It's not a bias, it is just common sense.
There are better means to support the body's own repair system than nuking it with toxic chemicals. Attempts to discuss that tend to get dismissed as quackery. I posit you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Your arguments here makes it feel like there is a prerequisite of knowing your (comment?) history to understand what you really mean.
This is not an argument against either doctors nor mechanics.
You probably get dismissed as a quack when you suggest that all doctors do is "nuke your body with toxic chemicals". I would say that 90% of the times I have ever been to a doctor the doctor has either told me "walk it off" (read: let your body fix itself), or "here are some stitches, now walk it off". (And I am the sort of person that heavily leans towards ignoring the problem and avoiding doctor visits...)
For very deadly conditions like I have, nuking the body is the standard practice. They do the same thing with cancer. That is a statement of fact. It shouldn't be used as a flimsy excuse to call me a quack.
I don't pretend to know anything about your situation, but in the cases of cancer we nuke the body because the evidence shows that doing that is better than a placebo. Chemotherapy is not an argument against modern medicine. It is actually a great argument for it.
Even if it were an argument against modern medicine, that would not make it an argument in favour of alternative 'medicine'.
You can slander doctors all day, but "doctors suck" does not logically imply "alternative medicine isn't bullshit"
If you get sick, you can see a doctor, or you can try to fix it yourself (with your immune system). If your car breaks, you can see a mechanic, or you can try to fix it yourself (with your hands).
Do you think that mapping is sufficiently flawed to render conclusions I draw from it invalid?
Even assuming I am insane, is there some big problem with admitting that a scratch on a person will heal by itself without any treatment but a scratch on a car will not and will remain a permanent defect? Can we agree on that much or can we not?
You can heal some injuries without going to a doctor, and you can fix some car difficulties without doing to a mechanic.
You read that as me denying that your body can heal yourself? What the hell? I cannot possible see how you could have so much difficulty understanding.
I don't know how anyone could be expected to have an intelligent conversation with you on this topic. You are completely closed off to it.
If your car has a damaged part, they replace it. With CF, they often outright replace the damaged lungs -- as if the body is like a car and needs a replacement part because it can't grow its own.
They nuke the body with poison, then stand back and wait for your lungs to fall below a certain level of functionality. You can put a different type of gas in your car, it will never heal, not even a scratch. You can put different food in your body and see big, big changes. Doctors acknowledge this when they blame obesity, heart disease, etc on your diet and lifestyle. They turn around and dismiss it when it comes to healing.
I am sorry you are so flustered. We should probably drop it if it upsets you so much.
What makes a person is a quack is not observing when a spontaneous remission occurs, but the connections one makes to determine why that has occurred. Besides, generally, "quack" refers to the practitioners and "authorities", not the victims of quackery.
No. We are not in the time of Benjamin Rush. You have almost certainly read the Institute of Medicine's report on medical error. We know that we commit error and that we kill patients. We admit this. We need to do better and we seek evidence for how we can do so. We welcome outside help, and there is good money to be made by those who would participate.
Anyway, surely you know what we call alternative medicine that is supported by evidence: "medicine".
I also know it is nearly impossible to talk to people about that. My views and experiences are dismissed wholesale before I even open my mouth.
Try describing your experience scientifically, rather than emotionally (as you are doing). See how that works. You might learn something you don't already know, as might your listeners.
The chances are very high that your story is one of coincidence rather then repeatable effect, but until you actually think about it analytically, you will never know.
The advice to post a scientific description instead of an emotional one is never misplaced.
I spent many years trying to learn to argue "correctly" in my martiage -- unemotionally, citing my sources, etc. I can do that. But it matters not how well I do it, I am still dismissed. You are dismissing me without knowing my story, and conveniently blaming me. I imagine you will never see my point, no matter how I present it.
I am working on trying to find the right presentation. But your approach is largely antithetical to mine and mine got me well. Finding a meeting ground is challenging, and most people make no attempt to meet me halfway.
Thank you for replying though.
There isn't a summary because I get accused of having Munchausen Syndrome -- a sick need for attention -- rather than Cystic Fibrosis. It is quite dangerous to try to tell my story. It routinely results in public attacks, and moderators typically side with my attackers. You are welcome to email me if you wish to discuss it privately.
And it has occurred to you that you may have Munchausen Syndrome, yes?
> It is quite dangerous to try to tell my story.
Not if you tell the truth. "Truth never damages a cause that is just" -- Gandhi
> It routinely results in public attacks, and moderators typically side with my attackers.
But with no justification or reason at all. Right?
It's obvious that you're playing this out for all it is worth, without providing any real information, portraying yourself as the innocent victim of persecution, but in a way calculated to avoid providing any actual data, or anything that might lead to a resolution.
I wonder if you realize how transparent you are, to an objective observer?
What "real information" do you want? I linked to my website. You are the one focusing on dismissing me, personally, and have apparently not bothered to even check the website.
Here are the direct links if you need them again:
People with Munchausen fake medical difficulties. You're displaying all the classic symptoms. The distinction between suffering from an imaginary ailment, or slowly recovering from an imaginary ailment, makes no difference.
> You are the one focusing on dismissing me, personally, and have apparently not bothered to even check the website.
I read your comments there, and they're as uninformative as your comments here. Color me surprised.
> What "real information" do you want?
If you weren't a Munchausen sufferer, you would already know the answer to that question, and you would have already answered it -- either here or on the other forum at which you vent your dissatisfaction with reality.
What discussion is that? If you had any idea what a discussion consisted of, you would be well underway by now. And you would have avoided trying to connect CF with "germs", even among computer people, people you obviously chose in the forlorn hope of sympathy from ignoramuses.
If people continually dismiss your stories and call you a liar...why keep sharing them? Why do you feel the need to spread the bitter resentment to every thread you comment in?
This thread is a good example: why did you need to say "I also know it is nearly impossible to talk to people about that. My views and experiences are dismissed wholesale before I even open my mouth."? It added nothing to your argument, except for dragging your medical condition into the conversation (which has since taken over this thread).
However, at the end of the day, I don't know you at all and do not presume to judge your situation. This is the internet, so don't take anything other people say too seriously. I'd like to wish you well to you and your family =)
You have done no such thing. You haven't defended yourself, you have only complained about unfair treatment, just as though you were as mentally ill as we are beginning to suspect you are.
And your choice of forums can only add to the presumption: "Hello, computer nerds, here's my personal story about evil, uncaring doctors".
> All of which you are free to stop doing if it bothers you so much that I feel I have a right to defend myself when so treated.
And you have the right to stop posting, whenever you want.
To my point though: if your posts have become increasingly bitter as people stop listening to you...why keep posting at all? That was my point.
I'm a diehard Windows Phone 7 fan, but people on HN decidedly do not like WP7. I tried to defend it for a long time but simply stopped, because no one listened to me or cared. I don't go into iOS/Android threads and post bitter comments about WP7. It isn't productive.
So that's a silly analogy (obviously, phone operating systems != life threatening disease), but the substance of my point is the same.
Obviously false -- you've done exactly the opposite.
Your rant reminds me of the girl in "Five Easy Pieces" who, while riffing endlessly about something perpetual and tiresome, interrupts herself periodically to say, "But i don't want to talk about it."
> Being suffocated by having zero outlet is ...
Obviously false. You have any number of outlets for your rant, including this one.
> It has basically left me no outlet for discussing it at all ...
You're leaving out the option of writing a comprehensive scientific article that replaces emotion with reason and tries to change the world instead of complaining about it. An article like this:
http://arachnoid.com/trouble_with_psychology
> I wish it were not so.
It is not so. Get over yourself.
And depending on what your idea of success is, there are people making successful challenges. They just understand the framework they need to operate in.
But thank you for replying.
You're not being dismissed because your accurate, concise description is being ignored, you're being dismissed because you haven't provided an accurate, concise description.
When I want to argue a controversial point, I link to one of my many articles on diverse topics. Example:
http://arachnoid.com/trouble_with_psychology
Where's yours? And do you think you have the right to claim unjust treatment if you haven't ever clearly explained your case?
> Finding a meeting ground is challenging, and most people make no attempt to meet me halfway.
No, and I can see why -- if someone tries to meet you halfway, you move the goal posts, then complain about how badly you've been treated.
But thank you for replying.
Look, no offense, but you're obviously not going to win over intelligent readers with your diligent avoidance of anything substantive. You are quite obviously trying for sympathy but without providing anything concrete or testable. It's a symptom of Munchausen Syndrome.
> You are only the latest in a very long string of people to dismiss me, then justify that dismissal as somehow my fault.
It's not "somehow" your fault. It is your fault. You want sympathy but without earning it. This is why you have to keep changing forums -- people catch on too quickly.
You're a textbook case of Munchausen Syndrome -- imaginary ailments, ailment you go to great lengths to (a) complain about but (b) conceal, a marked persecution complex, the usual accompanying histrionic syndrome ("It's dangerous to try to describe my condition"), and a general inability to picture yourself realistically.
Get professional help.
Again, what evidence do you want? You won't answer that. You are too busy engaging in ad hominems.
Since psychology began to masquerade as a science. Want to get better, fairer treatment? Visit a hospital instead of a computer science forum. But I suspect you've already been turned away from any number of hospitals.
You're the one who chose to post your rant on the least likely of forums, one that discusses computer science issues. So either stop complaining about your treatment by unsympathetic computer scientists, or choose another forum.
Seriously, why does my supposed "mental illness" have you so wrapped around the axle? Such a strong, persistent negative response is the sort of thing I usually see from people with CF or with a child with CF who feel personally threatened by my views.
Anyway, I am about to go to lunch. I will be gone for a bit.
Catch you later.
Ah, yes, that would explain why you immediately asked about computer programming, instead of commencing your rant about your unfair treatment by doctors.
As to the legitimate topic, for analysis work and to avoid a lot of unnecessary minutiae, and to maximize your productivity, I recommend Python. There is lots online about Python, including a great number of analytical/scientific/technical libraries. There is even a free partial stand-in for Mathematica called "Sage" that can help you do some very sophisticated work in analysis, mostly written in Python:
My free Sage tutorial:
> ... who feel personally threatened by my views.
You very clearly have no idea how you come across.
Unfortunately, it didn't do much for me. Getting well took longer and was more arduous than I anticipated.
I have no doubt I am not at my best right now. But it takes two to communicate effectively and you have so far taken zero responsibility for your repeated ad hominems.
I am about to log off. I will check the links you posted some other time.
False. One will do nicely. But you're not it.
Your inability to comment on the computer science links I provided hasn't escaped my attention or that of anyone else.
Further, I did not merely live. The hole in my lung closed and I have gradually but steadily reversed my symptoms over the course of more than a decade. Would you like to actually discuss it? I am pretty tired of being dismissed by people who assume I am not thorough but themselves fail to be thorough enough to read all existing remarks in the discussion before jumping up with the same tired criticisms I have heard before and addressed previously in this very discussion.
By scientists in a science/technology forum that has no connection whatever to health or medicine? What did you expect?
People in this discussion are being very vehement about calling me crazy. There is no opening there for discussing how I view CF differently from current mental models. And to a large degree my credibility problem boils down to either you believe my story, that I have CF and got well and it is the basis for useful insights, or you do not. Most people do not. You can use whatever excuse du jour you want, but at the root of it, that is why I get dismissed: Because the entire world believes people with CF do not get well. Period. To claim otherwise automatically makes one "crazy".
I continue to try to figure out how to more effectively engage people in discussion. But most people are unwilling to engage me in discussion. Even when they are being listed for transplant and in serious decline. If the speak to me at all, it is to reiterate that belief that their decline is inevitable, everyone knows that. People are dying to prove that belief true. I understand why they feel the need to defend it, but I have tried every avenue to try to find a means to talk to people. HN is less ugly about it than most places. This is actually as good as it gets, which, unfortunately, is not very helpful in my effort to find a means to present my case effectively.
If I had come out with a phd length dissertation on what I did to get well, most likely no one would read it. I am sorry you don't get my point here. I hope you are never in the kind of position I am in currently. Presumably you don't get it because you haven't experienced anything like it.
Busted. Science nowhere depends on belief. You, on the other hand, would like this to be an issue of belief, as though it's 1500 and you're being tried for witchcraft.
> If I had come out with a phd length dissertation on what I did to get well, most likely no one would read it.
Even more likely, you're mentally ill.
> I am sorry you don't get my point here.
On the contrary -- everyone who reads your posts gets the point right away.
It really depends on what you mean. If you mean that the genetic defect(s) causing CF resolved, then that basically cannot be true.
If you mean that you have genetically confirmed CF but the progressive nature of the disease was halted due to some novel therapy, then that would be a case report worthy of publication in a high impact factor journal.
Unfortunately, no, no publication is interested.
Are you intent on advertising your ignorance? Of course purely genetic ailments are progressive.
http://lifestyle.iloveindia.com/lounge/genetic-diseases-2505...
Appearance of the word "progressive" in the above list: eight. Time required: ten seconds.
More examples:
http://www.steadyhealth.com/articles/Huntington_s_Disease__P...
http://news.softpedia.com/newsTag/progressive+genetic+disord...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15946126 (title: Progressive familial intrahepatic cholestasis: genetic disorders of biliary transporters)
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/adrenoleukod...
http://www.medicalhomeportal.org/issue/slowly-progressive-di... (links between "progressive" and "genetic": seven)
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/muscular+dystrophy
A quote from the above: "Any of a group of progressive muscle disorders caused by a defect in one or more genes that control muscle function and characterized by gradual irreversible wasting of skeletal muscle."
> A progressive condition is a combination of genes and environmental factors ...
I am now going to ask you to stop posting these lies in this public forum. Your mental illness should be a private matter, not an excuse to mislead people who are, or who might become, as ignorant as you are.
> Unfortunately, no, no publication is interested.
That is because you are a ignoramus, unqualified to offer advice to anyone on anything.
Ditch the emotional language, ditch the obvious fallacies, and present a good argument. If you are still dismissed with that, then you can complain about it.
I know you say that you've done this and have still been dismissed. That does not excuse putting forth bad arguments now and then complaining about the reaction. Do your best, or don't bother.
Again, with enough persons, these spontaneous remissions DO happen. With a source of one person, it would certainly appear a miracle.
Correlation != causation. I'm happy you have lived through your medical problems. But you are a data point of n=1, and I'm sure there are plenty of people who have ignored solid medical advice and died because of it.
Lastly, "medicine" doesn't happily sentence anyone to death. Doctors and nurses are people too. People who got into their career to help other people. Do you think they become a doctor just to write death pronouncements?
Last, doctor's routinely dismiss people with CF and write them off. It is a very deadly condition. Most doctor's make no real effort to get soneone with CF healthier. If you have spent no time in the CF community, let me suggest you have no idea what you are talking about.
You most certainly are. Cystic Fibrosis is not a communicable disease caused by germs, it is a genetically linked ailment.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001167/
A quote: "Cystic fibrosis is a disease passed down through families that causes thick, sticky mucus to build up in the lungs, digestive tract, and other areas of the body. It is one of the most common chronic lung diseases in children and young adults. It is a life-threatening disorder."
> My oldest son has the same diagnosis, my youngest son is a carrier and by living with me they were both exposed to the same germs.
They weren't exposed to the same "germs", they were both exposed to you. This is Munchausen by Proxy.
> ... doctor's routinely dismiss people with CF and write them off.
False, absolutely false. You were dismissed, not because you have CF, but because you're mentally ill.
> ... let me suggest you have no idea what you are talking about.
Which of us tried to claim that CF is transmitted by germs?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cystic_fibrosis#Chronic_infecti...
You are trying awfully hard here to peg me as a lunatic. It makes me wonder what your stake in this is. It is rather bizarre. Most people stop arguing with me at some point. If you really believe me to insane, why bother talking to me?
If you really believe you have a medical case to make, why are you posting in a computer science forum? What's wrong with:
http://www.reddit.com/r/medicine
> Most people stop arguing with me at some point.
Yes, and I can see why -- you're inaccessible to reason.
I'm also absolutely certain that the vast majority of "alternative medicine" is not, in fact, better than "modern medicine." Exceptions will exist, and true scientists would use them as stepping stones to better knowledge, better practice, and better medicine. The fact that your experience indicates otherwise is a clear indication that things not only could be better, but should be better. The true failure is not that modern medicine was wrong and that you appear to have been saved by "alternative medicine", but that your success is not taken seriously, and is basically ignored, by those in whom we ultimately place our trust to find and implement cures.
That doesn't stop it being true that there are people who seek "alternative treatments" when they would be better off going with "modern medicine", and all evidence suggests that they are the vast majority of cases.
But the problem with this being posted here is that the entire discussion will revolve around dismissing alternative medicine and not on what is wrong with the bigger picture that I and other people would consciously choose to take our chances on unproven methods rather than accept what little was offered us. I was in constant excruciating pain. If my own experiments had resulted in sudden death, I felt that was better than the slow torturous death modern medicine offers people like me.
I know you are a mathematician. I imagine this piece hits a nerve for you. But bashing alternatives doesn't fix the real problem and will help close off avenues of escape from a larger system which is not working. That larger failure includes conflating "health care" and "medicine" when they are not the same thing but it is hardly limited to that issue.
Thank you for replying.
I don't know what you mean by real treatment, but a doctor will offer you what he knows is best based on his education, experience, past medical history and medical tests. If that's unreal to you, well, I don't know what can the doctor do about that.
> what is wrong with the bigger picture that I and other people would consciously choose to take our chances on unproven methods rather than accept what little was offered us.
I am sorry but I am missing the bigger picture. If the doctor could help, he will. If he won't, some other doctor would. It's a service industry after all. But when doctors say they can't help you, it's because they can't. What's the bigger picture here? Modern medicine has limitations, error rates and unknowns. People acknowledge and work on them.
As another commenter pointed out, the "alternate medicine" that actually works is called "medicine". If eating some fruit is curing cancer, it will be researched and integrated in modern medicine. The pharma companies or any other researcher have no reason not to accept things that work, whether they are manufactured in a lab or found in jungles of India.
It is routine that when patients with CF decline, their doctor makes zero effort to reverse the decline. Their decline is blamed on their genes. One doctor who did make real effort had a track record of helping people with CF improve. People used to travel very long distances to see him. Last I heard, he is now retired. But it is the norm in the medical community to tell people with CF, in essence, "Do not even bother to try. You are doomed anyway." even though all evidence supports the idea that this is not true.
And this case: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/son-taken-away-by-mother-t...
and this case: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12153074
Opportunity cost when having cancer could mean dying from cancer while drinking sugar water. Yes placibo effect and all, but that's rather high cost if you ask me.
My dad is a medical doctor. Because I spent a large amount of my life living in the same house as him does not make me a medical doctor.
If I tried to treat someone who was suffering from pneumonia, and they died because of something stupid that I did, would modern medicine be responsible?
You can hate on homeopathy all you want, but the conclusions being drawn here are utterly ridiculous, and anyone that finds themselves agreeing with this FUD suffers from a severe case of confirmation bias.
Because the alternative conclusion is that homeopathy is never effective, and the conclusion being drawn is true.
Just because someone does something stupid does not mean anything.
There is no evidence that this woman ever studied homeopathy, or that this whole wet towel thing is even a treatment used by homeopaths.
Living in the same house as a medical doctor does not make me a medical doctor, nor does it make modern medicine responsible for my actions.
Especially in the 1800's where medicine was only slightly better than doing nothing (if you were lucky and it didn't go horribly wrong)
Sympathetic magic is the basis for homeopathy. Like produces like is a fundamental essence of the practice.
There was a case recently where a woman was doing unlicensed "plastic surgery" by pumping rubber cement into incisions in people's butts. Her absolute incompetence can't be reasonably used as a critique against the plastic surgery industry.
There are plenty of perfectly good data points to use against homeopathy practitioners. This case is definitely not one of them.
Drinking water (homeopathy) is not going to cure my (hypothetical) cancer, it will kill me since I (hypothetically) refuse other treatments.
Homeopathy says that the potency increases with dilution - since the blankets were very wet, they couldn't have had any effect.
I think it's more appropriate to say that the improper application of homeopathy killed him - so, not unlike the improper application of any number of legitimate medical techniques. The difference here is that the proper application of medical techniques might have helped, whereas the proper application of homeopathic techniques would have done nothing.
I'd chalk this death under "unscientific thought induced by homeopathic philosophy".
(Not like it's likely to do any good. Homeopathic believers are pretty hard to sway.)
I have not used homeopathy nor read up on it. I don't really know exactly what they do. But my impression is they are skipping that first part, that their mental model is missing something and thus results are rather hit or miss.
Even better, the more you dilute, the more potent it becomes. You literally get to a point where there is no active molecule left...just H2O.
What you are saying (exposing your immune system to a small threat so it can safely build a response) is a valid argument. In fact, that's how vaccines work. Give your body a little bit of non-infectious virus so it can build appropriate antigens before you encounter it in real life.
I have no idea what you are saying about Japanese Americans though.
I am not a big fan of vaccines, but that's a bear I usually try to not wrestle. Still, I appreciate the acknowledgement that the principle is valid.
Why is difficult to accept that a system that evolved to attack certain cells can misidentify targets, especially if the real targets have selective pressures to mimic friendly cells?
It happens all the time in other systems (friendly fire, false positives in anti-virus-software)
They say people with CF "overproduce" mucus and are "drowning in their own mucus". It isn't true. They are drowning in phlegm because they underproduce healthy mucus and become highly infected. Unlike skin, mucus membranes do not keep out infection when dry. One study found people with CF produce too little mucus, yet this crazy idea persists, even though it isn't logical and doesn't fit the facts.
I am sorry that I don't know how to make my case in the format you feel it needs to be made in. That is a problem space I am working on resolving. But I did not get well in order to impress anyone or prove anything. I did it to get my life back. Being good at doing something does not automatically make one good at explaining it.
The proper treatment of the root cause is allergen immunotherapy, which completely consistent with the false-target hypothesis. I'm just too lazy to do it and I'm fine with treating the symptoms or suffering through them for a few weeks a year.
Likely because you have an unrealistic expectation for how the immune system actually works. One that works "too well" is not advantageous. "No real reason" is silly, because that is the job of the immune system, to attack invaders. If it misidentifies your own systems as invasive, it will attack your own systems. The mechanism is not in question, how to treat it best is.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/more-boosting/
Thanks for replying.
Because plenty of the conditions are due to the body's hostility to itself, or because what may kill invaders will also injure the body.
There are rarely, if ever cure-alls that do not affect the body's normal function, and assuming that the body's function is at all times beneficial is a mistake, a flaw in your "alternate" models.
The body can generally take care of itself, but does not always, in every person and situation. We are not perfect beings and clinging to those assumptions hurts humanity more than any flaw in the dominant model.
Reform is a wonderful, necessary goal. Tossing aside evidence-based medicine to do so is utterly foolish.
I am not saying nothing ever goes wrong or that we are perfect beings. Nor am I clinging to any assumptions.
" I have found that strengthening the body first and then re-exposing myself is a way to get healthier."
This is certainly a falsifiable assumption.
You are unsatisfied with the "assumptions" of medical science's model, so you are offering your own interpretation of reality. Why should your assumptions about behavior and causal relationships be judged any less harshly than you judge the dominant model?
I realize that is not your problem to solve. But when you accuse me of not even trying, the only meaningful reply I have is that I can find no path forward since I am constantly attacked and shut out. For now, I remain at an impasse, unable to develop the site in a manner satisfactory to those who feel it is inadequate and feel that is sufficient justification for ugly ad hominems.
Your willingness to talk to me about this is essentially a first. Most people either wish to paint me as a potential savior, who can magically get them well without this communication process, or evil and insane. I want neither role. So I have intentionally stepped away from situations where I was given no other option. I believe it is far better to not share the information than to have people trying things on personal faith in me with no understanding of the process involved. I view that as deadly dangerous. Educating people is hard work. It is impossible work when they want salvation rather than education -- when they want me to tell them what to do, not how to think and problem solve on their own.
So thank you for taking the time to talk to me.
My point is, as an individual point of data, you are unable prove that what you did had anything to do with the end result.
"I remain at an impasse, unable to develop the site in a manner satisfactory to those who feel it is inadequate and feel that is sufficient justification for ugly ad hominems."
Well, without proper research methods and controls being employed, it is tough to extrapolate the experience to others.
"Most people either wish to paint me as a potential savior, who can magically get them well without this communication process"
Could it be possible that you are fitting into this mold, where your condition is varying as your expectations shift?
I am not looking to extrapolate the experience to others. I am trying to figure out how to share my best understanding. What I have done is not "unique". I have, at best, gone farther, faster than others. A lot of people are pursuing alternative treatments and better nutrition to help themselves. Most people are far less open about that fact. It gets seriously bashed on CF lists.
The climate used to be a lot more rejecting of anything proactive and filled with a lot of prayer requests on the assumption that no human could really do much, not even doctors. The one thing I have managed to do so far is to change the discussion from "My child needs surgery. Please pray for us." to "My child needs surgery. Please tell me your experiences with this specific surgery. Did it help? Do you regret it? Were there complications? What is the best way to prepare for this?"
I do not really know what you mean by your last question. I have gotten off multiple drugs. I no longer have constant excruciating pain. I no longer dehydrate so readily. I am more resilient to both heat and cold. My skin does not tear as readily. My blood sugar is more stable. And on and on. There are significant physical changes. Those are not the result of some kind of magical thinking. They are the result of sustained effort to resolve the underlying problem.
Bignamini M, Saruggia M, Sansonetti G. Homeopathic Treatment of Anal Fissures using Nitricum acidum Berlin Journal on Research in Homoeopathy, 1, 4/5, 286-287, December 1991. Patients using Nitricum acidum 9C once daily in a double blind placebo controlled trial found subjective relief with the medicine over the placebo
.Kleijnen et al 'Clinical trials of homeopathy' Br Med J. 1991; 302: 316-23 Kleijnen reviewed by meta-analysis controlled trials in humans for evidence of efficacy. Of 105 trials with interpretable results there was a positive trend regardless of trial quality or the variety of Homeopathy used; 81 indicated positive results, 24 showed no positive effects. Publication bias and low methodological quality inhibit definite conclusions yet the evidence is positive. Over 50% of these reports were not published in English.
The selection bias inherent to meta-analyses also leads to difficulty using any of them to "prove" the existence of homeopathy.
The principles are not science. If you cherry pick studies, you might eventually find some with a positive response.
And that's where I stopped.
People do stupid things. Sometimes, someone dies. Happens with cars every day, and we blame the idiot (criminal charges, lawsuits, media coverage...) Happens with guns and the law blames the idiot while the media blames the guns. This blog author's in the group with the media blaming whatever fits the current agenda.
Pills with active dry ingredients are not homeopathic, no matter what the label says.
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/06/if_it_has_any_i.h...
Perhaps you could still claim homeopathy did the killing because the wife in the story 'misapplied' the "like cure like" conjecture; as wet bedsheets are not a diluted-herb-magic-water-solution.
I have spent more than zero energy talking with people about spending energy being anti-homeopathy. I think homeopathy is fine, and not harmful.
Every single person I know personally that believes in homeopathy also uses traditional western medicine (with far more vigour and enthusiam than myself); though I suppose if people are rejecting antibiotics and instead sprinkling magic water on themselves then it's a problem, but I would still have a hard time seeing Homeopathy itself as harmful. It's just a game.
My personal relationship to true homeopathy (diluted magic water substances) is something like this:
- Seems really unlikely to me anything is happening.
- I could sooo easily be wrong about this, I recognize revolutions in our understanding of the universe happen frequently, and the future winners are always dismissed/laughed at while the old guard remain in power positions
- The people who believe in homeopathy are also generally much, much more emotive / socially intelligent / free with love / full of what appears to be healthy energy.
This leaves me extremely skeptical; but in the end open minded enough that I don't see any benefit to spending energy demonizing the ultimately non-harmful act of diluting flowers in water and thinking its magic.
Anything anti-science is ultimately harmful if it is taught as science; and no one should have to subsidize other's childish fancies; but so long as we aren't teaching homeopathy in medical schools, or using tax money to subsidize its use; I really don't see anything wrong with its existing.
And I do see this article to essentially be propaganda; whose only primary purpose is to demonize homeopathy, and I think this betrays some sort of chip on the shoulder of the author. Maybe I am projecting because I have seen this chip so often elsewhere; I just don't understand it.
I mean, who the f really cares--and, if you really aren't humble enough to recognize that your understanding of the world is not so perfect as to absolutely eliminate the possibility of some unrecognized mechanism of 'imprinting information onto matter' through this likely quackery--then you should take a quick read of the Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
Extremely diluted water isn't harmful. Replacing real medicine with homeopathic treatments is.