"Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
...
> There are those in Britain who are not happy with the NHS blowing
> money on homeopathy foolishness, and the main defense is that patients
> seem to like it. That's swell, I bet some of them would like bon-bons
> and pole dancers, too, so perhaps the NHS could fund that.

Especially given that on a regular basis there are groups of people who are
denied life saving drugs on grounds of cost.

The misnamed - NICE - which decides who shall be allowed life saving drugs
and which reguarly ignores doctors' recommendations.

http://www.nice.org.uk/


--
--
https://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/

On Feb 4, 5:47*am, Boron Elgar > wrote:
>
>
> There are those in Britain who are not happy with the NHS blowing
> money on homeopathy foolishness, and the main defense is that patients
> seem to like it. That's swell, I bet some of them would like bon-bons
> and pole dancers, too, so perhaps the NHS could fund that.
>

While I agree that homeopathy is stupid, and a waste of money,
I'm 100% in favor of bonbons and pole dancers.

--Bryan

On Feb 4, 5:36*am, Janet Baraclough >
wrote:
> The message >
> from "graham" > contains these words:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Arri London" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > > graham wrote:
>
> > >> "Janet Baraclough" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> > >> > The message >
> > >> > from Arri London > contains these words:
>
> > >> > *Graham wrote
>
> > >> >> > >> There is no such thing as a homeopathic doctor! *They might call
> > >> >> > >> themselves
> > >> >> > >> such but they are QUACKS!!! *If an MD dabbles in it, I wouldn't
> > >> >> > >> go
> > >> >> > >> near
> > >> >> > >> him/her as they are bloody idiots!!
> > >> >> > >> Graham
>
> > >> >> > > Would beg to differ. Our family doctor, when I were a little one,
> > >> >> > > was
> > >> >> > > equally trained in homeopathy, herbalism and 'scientific'
> > >> >> > > medicine.
> > >> >> > > That's common enough in Europe.
>
> > >> > * My NHS GP /family doctor, is also a fully trained and qualified
> > >> > homeopathic doctor. Its one of the services she offers to her patients
> > >> > who want it. After her medical training, and specialist GP training,
> > >> > she
> > >> > spent a further 2 years
> > >> > training at the Homeopathic hospital which the NHS runs in Glasgow (one
> > >> > of several the NHS provides in Britain).
>
> > >> You don't need training to hand out little bottles of distilled water and
> > >> sugar pills!!
>
> > > Actually you do. There are times when placebo would be dangerous. The
> > > training is to know when those times come up.
> > Then why is it that homeopaths are pushing their quackery as an alternative
> > to vaccination against childhood and tropical diseases as well as a
> > malarial
> > prophlaxis?
>
> * * NHS homeopathic doctors don't do that. *Learn the difference between
> complementary and alternative treatments.

Yeah, don't you know the difference between snake oil and fairy dust?
>
> * * Janet

--Bryan

Boron Elgar wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 22:00:33 -0500, "Jean B." > wrote:
>
>> Boron Elgar wrote:
>>> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 14:23:42 -0500, "Jean B." > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Boron Elgar wrote:
>>>>> Stress causes physical changes in the body. There is nothing
>>>>> "mind-body" mystical about it. Fight or flight is an excellent example
>>>>> of it in critters and in us. The body's chemistry changes based on
>>>>> what happens to it. This hasn't a thing to do with the "mind" or
>>>>> "healing." It is how the body works, that's all. This isn't mind
>>>>> control, it is chemical reactions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Boron
>>>> *I*, unfortunately, am altogether too aware of this phenomenon.
>>> What phenomenon?
>>>
>>> Boron
>> The mind-body connection, particularly in the case of stress/anxiety.
>
>
> That has nothing to do with "mind-body" other than brain is part of
> your body.

Sure it does--as I define it, anyway. If you want to get right
down to it, maybe "mind" will all turn out to be chemical and thus
it could be "body-body".
>
> If there is some sort of mind-body healing connection, why don't folks
> use their super powers to cure themselves of AIDS, TB or cancer, or
> maybe something even simpler, a run of the mill strep infection.
>
> Boron


--
Jean B.

Janet wrote on Thu, 4 Feb 2010 14:29:05 GMT:

>> There are those in Britain who are not happy with the NHS
>> blowing money on homeopathy foolishness, and the main defense
>> is that patients seem to like it. That's swell, I bet some of
>> them would like bon-bons and pole dancers, too, so perhaps
>> the NHS could fund that.

>> The reason that homeopathy is given any official
>> consideration on that side of the pond is Prince Charles,

> Misinformation.

> Homeopathy in Britain was well established by the mid
> 1800's ; the five UK homeopathic hospitals predate
> the existence of Prince Charles. His position, does not
> permit any role or influence whatever in NHS
> decision-making.

They certainly do predate Charles. The Royal Homeopathic Hospital dates
from 1850 and is part of the NHS; I've never understood how!

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 10:03:31 -0500, "James Silverton"
> wrote:

> Janet wrote on Thu, 4 Feb 2010 14:29:05 GMT:
>
>>> There are those in Britain who are not happy with the NHS
>>> blowing money on homeopathy foolishness, and the main defense
>>> is that patients seem to like it. That's swell, I bet some of
>>> them would like bon-bons and pole dancers, too, so perhaps
>>> the NHS could fund that.
>
>>> The reason that homeopathy is given any official
>>> consideration on that side of the pond is Prince Charles,
>
>> Misinformation.
>
>> Homeopathy in Britain was well established by the mid
>> 1800's ; the five UK homeopathic hospitals predate
>> the existence of Prince Charles. His position, does not
>> permit any role or influence whatever in NHS
>> decision-making.
>
>They certainly do predate Charles. The Royal Homeopathic Hospital dates
>from 1850 and is part of the NHS; I've never understood how!


His influence, while carrying no legal weight whatsoever, promotes the
idiocy and encourages its belief.

His first wife's behavior included a belief in the curative nature of
high colonics.

I know Charles didn't invent homeopathy, but his rabid backing of it
doesn't help.

Boron

On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 16:57:10 GMT, Janet Baraclough
> wrote:

>The message >
>from Boron Elgar > contains these words:
>
>> On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 10:03:31 -0500, "James Silverton"
>> > wrote:
>
>> > Janet wrote on Thu, 4 Feb 2010 14:29:05 GMT:
>> >
>> >>> There are those in Britain who are not happy with the NHS
>> >>> blowing money on homeopathy foolishness, and the main defense
>> >>> is that patients seem to like it. That's swell, I bet some of
>> >>> them would like bon-bons and pole dancers, too, so perhaps
>> >>> the NHS could fund that.
>> >
>> >>> The reason that homeopathy is given any official
>> >>> consideration on that side of the pond is Prince Charles,
>> >
>> >> Misinformation.
>> >
>> >> Homeopathy in Britain was well established by the mid
>> >> 1800's ; the five UK homeopathic hospitals predate
>> >> the existence of Prince Charles. His position, does not
>> >> permit any role or influence whatever in NHS
>> >> decision-making.
>> >
>> >They certainly do predate Charles. The Royal Homeopathic Hospital dates
>> >from 1850 and is part of the NHS; I've never understood how!
>
>
>> His influence, while carrying no legal weight whatsoever, promotes the
>> idiocy and encourages its belief.
>
> Well, no, that's not how the Prince Charles effect works here.

I beg to differ....

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+ri...th-a0211698868

CELEBRITY backing has been the making of many an alternative health
treatment.

But some of these fads are a waste of time and money and could even be
dangerous, according to doctors.

Four in five women splash out on alternative treatments used by the
rich and famous even though there is little or no evidence that they
work, research found.

Some could be putting their health at risk by choosing 'therapies'
favoured by celebrities over a visit to their GP.

Cupping, a form of acupuncture in which heated cups are placed on the
skin to stimulate blood flow and ease stress and pain, tops a list of
'health hoaxes' identified by GPs. It has been used by actress Gwyneth
Paltrow, but studies have shown that the evidence it works is far from
conclusive.

Second on the list is colonic irrigation Colonic Irrigation Definition

Colonic irrigation is also known as hydrotherapy of the colon, high
colonic, entero-lavage, or simply colonic. It is the process of
cleansing the colon by passing several gallons of water through it
with the use of special , in which a large, water-filled tube is used
to 'cleanse' the bowel. Actor Ben Affleck has tried it, but there is
no medical or scientific evidence it works, according to the NHS NHS
abbr.
National Health Service

NHS (in Britain) National Health Service Choices website.

In third place is food intolerance food intolerance Nutrition Food
sensitivity An adverse reaction to specific foods, seen in ±10% of the
population, which are often chronic and may cause severe illness; FI
is not synonymous with food allergies, which are predictable, often
severe, involve testing, which singer Geri Halliwell has tried. Kits
can cost up to [pounds sterling]275 but the results are said to be
highly variable. The others in the top ten a 4 detoxing; 5
macrobiotic diets; 6 aromatherapy; 7 reflexology Reflexology
Definition

Reflexology is a therapeutic method of relieving pain by stimulating
predefined pressure points on the feet and hands. This controlled
pressure alleviates the source of the discomfort. ; 8 vitamin B12
injections; 9 extreme yoga; 10 overnight health farm stays.

>> His first wife's behavior included a belief in the curative nature of
>> high colonics.
>
> If anything, her example put people off it.

Not quite, dearie.
>
http://www.answers.com/topic/colonic-irrigation-4

In the last quarter of the twentieth century the fashion for colonic
irrigation grew, especially among the rich and idle. As one newspaper
put it, 'Where else is there to go anyway, after the facial, the
massage, the hairdo and the shops but to a "divine woman I know" who
will clean you up and make you feel good on the inside as well?'

The fashion was greatly boosted by royal patronage. When Princess
Diana and the Duchess of York took up colonic irrigation, the
newspapers became excited. One journalist wrote that it was one of her
reader's 'favourite fantasies along with ******* mud-wrestling. The
typical colonic irrigation scheme involved a Stern Matron character
clad in five-inch stiletto boots and face-mask. I find it quite
difficult to picture our future Queen in this situation.' One reporter
went to try it and found it delightful: 'For the next half hour you
bask in the most satisfying loo-going experience of your life.' She
quoted one colonic hydrotherapist from the Well Centre, Chelsea; 'We
clean everything else. Why not our insides? It is our encrusted
intestines which make us feel lazy and bloated'.

"Janet Baraclough" > wrote in message
...
> The message >
> from "graham" > contains these words:
>
>
>> "Arri London" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> >
>> > graham wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Janet Baraclough" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > The message >
>> >> > from Arri London > contains these words:
>> >> >
>> >> > Graham wrote
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > >> There is no such thing as a homeopathic doctor! They might
>> >> >> > >> call
>> >> >> > >> themselves
>> >> >> > >> such but they are QUACKS!!! If an MD dabbles in it, I
>> >> >> > >> wouldn't
>> >> >> > >> go
>> >> >> > >> near
>> >> >> > >> him/her as they are bloody idiots!!
>> >> >> > >> Graham
>> >> >
>> >> >> > > Would beg to differ. Our family doctor, when I were a little
>> >> >> > > one,
>> >> >> > > was
>> >> >> > > equally trained in homeopathy, herbalism and 'scientific'
>> >> >> > > medicine.
>> >> >> > > That's common enough in Europe.
>> >> >
>> >> > My NHS GP /family doctor, is also a fully trained and qualified
>> >> > homeopathic doctor. Its one of the services she offers to her
>> >> > patients
>> >> > who want it. After her medical training, and specialist GP training,
>> >> > she
>> >> > spent a further 2 years
>> >> > training at the Homeopathic hospital which the NHS runs in Glasgow
>> >> > (one
>> >> > of several the NHS provides in Britain).
>> >> >
>> >> You don't need training to hand out little bottles of distilled water
>> >> and
>> >> sugar pills!!
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > Actually you do. There are times when placebo would be dangerous. The
>> > training is to know when those times come up.
>
>> Then why is it that homeopaths are pushing their quackery as an
>> alternative
>> to vaccination against childhood and tropical diseases as well as a
>> malarial
>> prophlaxis?
>
> NHS homeopathic doctors don't do that. Learn the difference between
> complementary and alternative treatments.
>
Why? When you obviously can't recognise quackery!

Boron Elgar > wrote:

>Cupping, a form of acupuncture in which heated cups are placed on the
>skin to stimulate blood flow and ease stress and pain, tops a list of
>'health hoaxes' identified by GPs. It has been used by actress Gwyneth
>Paltrow, but studies have shown that the evidence it works is far from
>conclusive.

I did not realize cupping was now regarded as therapeutic. As
opposed to simply fun. (If you are wired that way.)

Steve

On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 00:25:22 +0000 (UTC), (Steve
Pope) wrote:

>Boron Elgar > wrote:
>
>>Cupping, a form of acupuncture in which heated cups are placed on the
>>skin to stimulate blood flow and ease stress and pain, tops a list of
>>'health hoaxes' identified by GPs. It has been used by actress Gwyneth
>>Paltrow, but studies have shown that the evidence it works is far from
>>conclusive.
>
>I did not realize cupping was now regarded as therapeutic. As
>opposed to simply fun. (If you are wired that way.)
>
>Steve


Wait until you learn all about coupling - now THAT'S fun!

Boron

Victor Sack wrote:
>
> Arri London > wrote:
>
> > I *don't* believe in homeopathy or many other 'alternative' modalities.
>
> Isn't it something that shouldn't be a question of belief in the first
> place?

It does.


>
> It so happens that the cardinal principle of homeopathy, "similia
> similibus curantur" (like cures like), has also come to be one of the
> underlying principles of immunotherapy (hyposensitization) and also of
> vaccination, both provinces of modern school medicine. This is hardly
> surprising, considering the relevant historical and scientific
> background. See, for example,
> <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1297514/pdf/neh141.pdf>.


I know that of course; done enough immunology research However, in
homeopathy, the amount of 'active ingredient' often is completely
undetectible by the usual sensitive methods. In desensitisation therapy,
the 'active ingredient', that is the antigen, is *measurable*.

Perhaps you read Jacques Benveniste's article in the Journal 'Nature' in
1988 (June or July) about 'water memory'? Don't think anyone was able to
replicate his results about water retaining the memory of molecules that
were no longer in it. This relates somewhat to traditional homeopathy.

The current trend in the US for (expensive) 'structured' water sold in
bottles makes me smile. Water is structured indeed; we learnt it as
'flickering clusters' but there may be other models these days.

But it doesn't matter if I believe or if I don't believe in homeopathy.
Other people do and feel it helps them. That's all that matters.



>
> ObFood: Choucroute soup, from Elizabeth David's _French Country
> Cooking_.


I l0ve that book

>
> Victor
>
> Choucroute Soup
> (An unusual soup with a pleasant smoky flavour)
>
> 1 lb choucroute (sauerkraut) or the equivalent of tinned choucroute, 2
> medium potatoes, 2 rashes bacon, or a bacon bone, or rinds of bacon,
> pepper, salt, bayleaf, 6 juniper berries, 2 lumps sugar, 1 oz dried
> mushrooms, 1/4 lb uncooked salame sausage or 2 or 3 smoked Frankfurter
> sausages, 2 pints stock or water, 2 oz cream.
>
> Put the choucroute into a large pan; add the potatoes, peeled and cut
> up small, the dried mushrooms, the bacon, or the bacon bone or rind, the
> herbs and seasonings and the stock or water. Simmer for about 1 hour.
> Put all through a sieve. Return to the pan.
> Cut up the sausage, and cook it in the soup for 15 minutes. Before
> serving, stir in the cream and, if you like, some grated cheese as well.

Boron Elgar wrote:
>
> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 22:00:33 -0500, "Jean B." > wrote:
>
> >Boron Elgar wrote:
> >> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 14:23:42 -0500, "Jean B." > wrote:
> >>
> >>> Boron Elgar wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Stress causes physical changes in the body. There is nothing
> >>>> "mind-body" mystical about it. Fight or flight is an excellent example
> >>>> of it in critters and in us. The body's chemistry changes based on
> >>>> what happens to it. This hasn't a thing to do with the "mind" or
> >>>> "healing." It is how the body works, that's all. This isn't mind
> >>>> control, it is chemical reactions.
> >>>>
> >>>> Boron
> >>> *I*, unfortunately, am altogether too aware of this phenomenon.
> >>
> >> What phenomenon?
> >>
> >> Boron
> >
> >The mind-body connection, particularly in the case of stress/anxiety.
>
> That has nothing to do with "mind-body" other than brain is part of
> your body.

But it does. Stress, happiness, depression, love etc all set off
*biochemical* cascades that affect physiology. That's all we are talking
about, not some mystical netherworld.

>
> If there is some sort of mind-body healing connection, why don't folks
> use their super powers to cure themselves of AIDS, TB or cancer, or
> maybe something even simpler, a run of the mill strep infection.
>
> Boron

They try, that's for certain. People claim to have been cured that way.
Doctors come up against unexpected recovery from serious illness all the
time. They don't know precisely why those occur.

graham wrote:
>
> "Arri London" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > graham wrote:
> >>
> >> "Janet Baraclough" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > The message >
> >> > from Arri London > contains these words:
> >> >
> >> > Graham wrote
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> > >> There is no such thing as a homeopathic doctor! They might call
> >> >> > >> themselves
> >> >> > >> such but they are QUACKS!!! If an MD dabbles in it, I wouldn't
> >> >> > >> go
> >> >> > >> near
> >> >> > >> him/her as they are bloody idiots!!
> >> >> > >> Graham
> >> >
> >> >> > > Would beg to differ. Our family doctor, when I were a little one,
> >> >> > > was
> >> >> > > equally trained in homeopathy, herbalism and 'scientific'
> >> >> > > medicine.
> >> >> > > That's common enough in Europe.
> >> >
> >> > My NHS GP /family doctor, is also a fully trained and qualified
> >> > homeopathic doctor. Its one of the services she offers to her patients
> >> > who want it. After her medical training, and specialist GP training,
> >> > she
> >> > spent a further 2 years
> >> > training at the Homeopathic hospital which the NHS runs in Glasgow (one
> >> > of several the NHS provides in Britain).
> >> >
> >> You don't need training to hand out little bottles of distilled water and
> >> sugar pills!!
> >>
> >
> >
> > Actually you do. There are times when placebo would be dangerous. The
> > training is to know when those times come up.
>
> Then why is it that homeopaths are pushing their quackery as an alternative
> to vaccination against childhood and tropical diseases as well as a malarial
> prophlaxis?
> Graham


Can't say, cos I don't study those cases. Do they provide true clinical
evidence that it works? Why does anyone push 'quackery' instead of more
'scientific' medicine?

"Arri London" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> graham wrote:
>>
>> "Arri London" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> >
>> > graham wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Janet Baraclough" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > The message >
>> >> > from Arri London > contains these words:
>> >> >
>> >> > Graham wrote
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > >> There is no such thing as a homeopathic doctor! They might
>> >> >> > >> call
>> >> >> > >> themselves
>> >> >> > >> such but they are QUACKS!!! If an MD dabbles in it, I
>> >> >> > >> wouldn't
>> >> >> > >> go
>> >> >> > >> near
>> >> >> > >> him/her as they are bloody idiots!!
>> >> >> > >> Graham
>> >> >
>> >> >> > > Would beg to differ. Our family doctor, when I were a little
>> >> >> > > one,
>> >> >> > > was
>> >> >> > > equally trained in homeopathy, herbalism and 'scientific'
>> >> >> > > medicine.
>> >> >> > > That's common enough in Europe.
>> >> >
>> >> > My NHS GP /family doctor, is also a fully trained and qualified
>> >> > homeopathic doctor. Its one of the services she offers to her
>> >> > patients
>> >> > who want it. After her medical training, and specialist GP training,
>> >> > she
>> >> > spent a further 2 years
>> >> > training at the Homeopathic hospital which the NHS runs in Glasgow
>> >> > (one
>> >> > of several the NHS provides in Britain).
>> >> >
>> >> You don't need training to hand out little bottles of distilled water
>> >> and
>> >> sugar pills!!
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > Actually you do. There are times when placebo would be dangerous. The
>> > training is to know when those times come up.
>>
>> Then why is it that homeopaths are pushing their quackery as an
>> alternative
>> to vaccination against childhood and tropical diseases as well as a
>> malarial
>> prophlaxis?
>> Graham
>
>
> Can't say, cos I don't study those cases. Do they provide true clinical
> evidence that it works? Why does anyone push 'quackery' instead of more
> 'scientific' medicine?

It seems innate to take a different view, it seems, however illogical.
Probably why there are so many different christian sects.

"Arri London" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> graham wrote:
>>
>> "Arri London" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> >
>> > graham wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Janet Baraclough" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > The message >
>> >> > from Arri London > contains these words:
>> >> >
>> >> > Graham wrote
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > >> There is no such thing as a homeopathic doctor! They might
>> >> >> > >> call
>> >> >> > >> themselves
>> >> >> > >> such but they are QUACKS!!! If an MD dabbles in it, I
>> >> >> > >> wouldn't
>> >> >> > >> go
>> >> >> > >> near
>> >> >> > >> him/her as they are bloody idiots!!
>> >> >> > >> Graham
>> >> >
>> >> >> > > Would beg to differ. Our family doctor, when I were a little
>> >> >> > > one,
>> >> >> > > was
>> >> >> > > equally trained in homeopathy, herbalism and 'scientific'
>> >> >> > > medicine.
>> >> >> > > That's common enough in Europe.
>> >> >
>> >> > My NHS GP /family doctor, is also a fully trained and qualified
>> >> > homeopathic doctor. Its one of the services she offers to her
>> >> > patients
>> >> > who want it. After her medical training, and specialist GP training,
>> >> > she
>> >> > spent a further 2 years
>> >> > training at the Homeopathic hospital which the NHS runs in Glasgow
>> >> > (one
>> >> > of several the NHS provides in Britain).
>> >> >
>> >> You don't need training to hand out little bottles of distilled water
>> >> and
>> >> sugar pills!!
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > Actually you do. There are times when placebo would be dangerous. The
>> > training is to know when those times come up.
>>
>> Then why is it that homeopaths are pushing their quackery as an
>> alternative
>> to vaccination against childhood and tropical diseases as well as a
>> malarial
>> prophlaxis?
>> Graham
>
>
> Can't say, cos I don't study those cases. Do they provide true clinical
> evidence that it works? Why does anyone push 'quackery' instead of more
> 'scientific' medicine?

It seems innate to take a different view, it seems, however illogical.
Probably why there are so many different christian sects.

"Arri London" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> graham wrote:
>>
>> "Arri London" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> >
>> > graham wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Janet Baraclough" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > The message >
>> >> > from Arri London > contains these words:
>> >> >
>> >> > Graham wrote
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > >> There is no such thing as a homeopathic doctor! They might
>> >> >> > >> call
>> >> >> > >> themselves
>> >> >> > >> such but they are QUACKS!!! If an MD dabbles in it, I
>> >> >> > >> wouldn't
>> >> >> > >> go
>> >> >> > >> near
>> >> >> > >> him/her as they are bloody idiots!!
>> >> >> > >> Graham
>> >> >
>> >> >> > > Would beg to differ. Our family doctor, when I were a little
>> >> >> > > one,
>> >> >> > > was
>> >> >> > > equally trained in homeopathy, herbalism and 'scientific'
>> >> >> > > medicine.
>> >> >> > > That's common enough in Europe.
>> >> >
>> >> > My NHS GP /family doctor, is also a fully trained and qualified
>> >> > homeopathic doctor. Its one of the services she offers to her
>> >> > patients
>> >> > who want it. After her medical training, and specialist GP training,
>> >> > she
>> >> > spent a further 2 years
>> >> > training at the Homeopathic hospital which the NHS runs in Glasgow
>> >> > (one
>> >> > of several the NHS provides in Britain).
>> >> >
>> >> You don't need training to hand out little bottles of distilled water
>> >> and
>> >> sugar pills!!
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > Actually you do. There are times when placebo would be dangerous. The
>> > training is to know when those times come up.
>>
>> Then why is it that homeopaths are pushing their quackery as an
>> alternative
>> to vaccination against childhood and tropical diseases as well as a
>> malarial
>> prophlaxis?
>> Graham
>
>
> Can't say, cos I don't study those cases. Do they provide true clinical
> evidence that it works? Why does anyone push 'quackery' instead of more
> 'scientific' medicine?

It seems innate to take a different view, it seems, however illogical.
Probably why there are so many different christian sects.

On Feb 4, 5:38*pm, "graham" > wrote:
> "Janet Baraclough" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > The message >
> > from "graham" > contains these words:
>
> >> "Arri London" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >> > graham wrote:
>
> >> >> "Janet Baraclough" > wrote in message
> >> .. .
> >> >> > The message >
> >> >> > from Arri London > contains these words:
>
> >> >> > *Graham wrote
>
> >> >> >> > >> There is no such thing as a homeopathic doctor! *They might
> >> >> >> > >> call
> >> >> >> > >> themselves
> >> >> >> > >> such but they are QUACKS!!! *If an MD dabbles in it, I
> >> >> >> > >> wouldn't
> >> >> >> > >> go
> >> >> >> > >> near
> >> >> >> > >> him/her as they are bloody idiots!!
> >> >> >> > >> Graham
>
> >> >> >> > > Would beg to differ. Our family doctor, when I were a little
> >> >> >> > > one,
> >> >> >> > > was
> >> >> >> > > equally trained in homeopathy, herbalism and 'scientific'
> >> >> >> > > medicine.
> >> >> >> > > That's common enough in Europe.
>
> >> >> > * My NHS GP /family doctor, is also a fully trained and qualified
> >> >> > homeopathic doctor. Its one of the services she offers to her
> >> >> > patients
> >> >> > who want it. After her medical training, and specialist GP training,
> >> >> > she
> >> >> > spent a further 2 years
> >> >> > training at the Homeopathic hospital which the NHS runs in Glasgow
> >> >> > (one
> >> >> > of several the NHS provides in Britain).
>
> >> >> You don't need training to hand out little bottles of distilled water
> >> >> and
> >> >> sugar pills!!
>
> >> > Actually you do. There are times when placebo would be dangerous. The
> >> > training is to know when those times come up.
>
> >> Then why is it that homeopaths are pushing their quackery as an
> >> alternative
> >> to vaccination against childhood and tropical diseases as well as a
> >> malarial
> >> prophlaxis?
>
> > * *NHS homeopathic doctors don't do that. *Learn the difference between
> > complementary and alternative treatments.
>
> Why? *When you obviously can't recognise quackery!

Are you trying to tell Janet that the Easter Bunny doesn't really lay
eggs on or about Easter Sunday?

--Bryan

"graham" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arri London" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> graham wrote:
>>>
>>> "Arri London" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > graham wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> "Janet Baraclough" > wrote in message
>>> >> ...
>>> >> > The message >
>>> >> > from Arri London > contains these words:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Graham wrote
>>> >> >
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> > >> There is no such thing as a homeopathic doctor! They might
>>> >> >> > >> call
>>> >> >> > >> themselves
>>> >> >> > >> such but they are QUACKS!!! If an MD dabbles in it, I
>>> >> >> > >> wouldn't
>>> >> >> > >> go
>>> >> >> > >> near
>>> >> >> > >> him/her as they are bloody idiots!!
>>> >> >> > >> Graham
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> > > Would beg to differ. Our family doctor, when I were a little
>>> >> >> > > one,
>>> >> >> > > was
>>> >> >> > > equally trained in homeopathy, herbalism and 'scientific'
>>> >> >> > > medicine.
>>> >> >> > > That's common enough in Europe.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > My NHS GP /family doctor, is also a fully trained and qualified
>>> >> > homeopathic doctor. Its one of the services she offers to her
>>> >> > patients
>>> >> > who want it. After her medical training, and specialist GP
>>> >> > training,
>>> >> > she
>>> >> > spent a further 2 years
>>> >> > training at the Homeopathic hospital which the NHS runs in Glasgow
>>> >> > (one
>>> >> > of several the NHS provides in Britain).
>>> >> >
>>> >> You don't need training to hand out little bottles of distilled water
>>> >> and
>>> >> sugar pills!!
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Actually you do. There are times when placebo would be dangerous. The
>>> > training is to know when those times come up.
>>>
>>> Then why is it that homeopaths are pushing their quackery as an
>>> alternative
>>> to vaccination against childhood and tropical diseases as well as a
>>> malarial
>>> prophlaxis?
>>> Graham
>>
>>
>> Can't say, cos I don't study those cases. Do they provide true clinical
>> evidence that it works? Why does anyone push 'quackery' instead of more
>> 'scientific' medicine?
>
> It seems innate to take a different view, it seems, however illogical.
> Probably why there are so many different christian sects.

You might also look at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8474611.stm

Arri London wrote:
>
> The current trend in the US for (expensive) 'structured' water sold in
> bottles makes me smile. Water is structured indeed; we learnt it as
> 'flickering clusters' but there may be other models these days.

There is. Since about 1980, computer simulations show that
it is a interconnected network, essentially a very weak gel.
Free clusters don't exist, but some types of clusters may
exist as part of the network. We still don't know much
about water structure beyond that.

Arri London wrote:
>
> Can't say, cos I don't study those cases. Do they provide true clinical
> evidence that it works? Why does anyone push 'quackery' instead of more
> 'scientific' medicine?

Money. They do it because it's their business.
Tap water becomes "homeopathic medicine".
Chiropractors relieve non-existent "subluxations"
just by jerking your body around. Reflexologists
purport to cure people just by pressing on various
parts of the sole of your foot. None of this is
free, and the practices can be very lucrative.

On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 20:00:39 -0500, Boron Elgar wrote:

> On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 00:25:22 +0000 (UTC), (Steve
> Pope) wrote:
>
>>Boron Elgar > wrote:
>>
>>>Cupping, a form of acupuncture in which heated cups are placed on the
>>>skin to stimulate blood flow and ease stress and pain, tops a list of
>>>'health hoaxes' identified by GPs. It has been used by actress Gwyneth
>>>Paltrow, but studies have shown that the evidence it works is far from
>>>conclusive.
>>
>>I did not realize cupping was now regarded as therapeutic. As
>>opposed to simply fun. (If you are wired that way.)
>>
>>Steve
>
> Wait until you learn all about coupling - now THAT'S fun!
>
> Boron

<snort>

your pal,
blake

On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 22:10:58 -0800 (PST), Food Snob® wrote:

> On Feb 4, 5:38*pm, "graham" > wrote:
>> "Janet Baraclough" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> * *NHS homeopathic doctors don't do that. *Learn the difference between
>>> complementary and alternative treatments.
>>
>> Why? *When you obviously can't recognise quackery!
>
> Are you trying to tell Janet that the Easter Bunny doesn't really lay
> eggs on or about Easter Sunday?
>

but homeopathic medicine definitely works when you dilute cigarette smoke
down to parts per billion on a bus.

blake

On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:49:33 -0700, Arri London wrote:

> Victor Sack wrote:
>>
>> Arri London > wrote:
>>
>>> I *don't* believe in homeopathy or many other 'alternative' modalities.
>>
>> Isn't it something that shouldn't be a question of belief in the first
>> place?
>
> It does.
>
>>
>> It so happens that the cardinal principle of homeopathy, "similia
>> similibus curantur" (like cures like), has also come to be one of the
>> underlying principles of immunotherapy (hyposensitization) and also of
>> vaccination, both provinces of modern school medicine. This is hardly
>> surprising, considering the relevant historical and scientific
>> background. See, for example,
>> <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1297514/pdf/neh141.pdf>.
>
> I know that of course; done enough immunology research However, in
> homeopathy, the amount of 'active ingredient' often is completely
> undetectible by the usual sensitive methods. In desensitisation therapy,
> the 'active ingredient', that is the antigen, is *measurable*.
>
> Perhaps you read Jacques Benveniste's article in the Journal 'Nature' in
> 1988 (June or July) about 'water memory'? Don't think anyone was able to
> replicate his results about water retaining the memory of molecules that
> were no longer in it. This relates somewhat to traditional homeopathy.
>
> The current trend in the US for (expensive) 'structured' water sold in
> bottles makes me smile. Water is structured indeed; we learnt it as
> 'flickering clusters' but there may be other models these days.

the 'structured water' or 'molecular memory' thing is definitely a hoot.

> But it doesn't matter if I believe or if I don't believe in homeopathy.
> Other people do and feel it helps them. That's all that matters.

it certainly does matter if they are spending money they can't afford (or
the public's money) on it. or forgoing treatment that might *actually*
help.

your pal,
blake

blake wrote on Fri, 5 Feb 2010 16:18:02 -0500:

>> On Feb 4, 5:38 pm, "graham" > wrote:
>>> "Janet Baraclough" > wrote in
>>> message
>>>
>>>> NHS homeopathic doctors don't do that. Learn the
>>>> difference between complementary and alternative
>>>> treatments.
>>>
>>> Why? When you obviously can't recognise quackery!
>>
>> Are you trying to tell Janet that the Easter Bunny doesn't
>> really lay eggs on or about Easter Sunday?
>>
> but homeopathic medicine definitely works when you dilute
> cigarette smoke down to parts per billion on a bus.

Dilution by a billion! That's concentrated by homeopathic standards.
They aim to dilute so that there is less than one molecule around. The
Avagadro number is 6.02 x 10^26 so that's quite a dilution. 10^27 is a
billion billion billion.

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

Arri London > wrote:

> Victor Sack wrote:
> >
> > It so happens that the cardinal principle of homeopathy, "similia
> > similibus curantur" (like cures like), has also come to be one of the
> > underlying principles of immunotherapy (hyposensitization) and also of
> > vaccination, both provinces of modern school medicine. This is hardly
> > surprising, considering the relevant historical and scientific
> > background. See, for example,
> > <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1297514/pdf/neh141.pdf>.
>
> I know that of course; done enough immunology research However, in
> homeopathy, the amount of 'active ingredient' often is completely
> undetectible by the usual sensitive methods. In desensitisation therapy,
> the 'active ingredient', that is the antigen, is *measurable*.

One has to consider the historical perspective, not just the dogmatic,
ideological excesses.

The debt owed by the modern medicine to homeopathy, particularly to
Hahnemann, its founding father, is truly enormous. Mainstream medicine
used to rely on such treatments as venesection, emetics, calomel,
purgatives and also on complex drug mixtures in extremely high doses.
It was nothing if not dogmatic and had little to do with modern
medicine. Homeopathy dispensed with the torture and introduced low
doses of single, "proven" drugs. It was Hahnemann who first introduced
scientific medical experimentation and everything he did, including his
conclusions, were based on science. He could not help it if medical
science of the time - which he effectively founded - was not even in its
diapers yet. In his "Organon" he wrote that none of his conclusions
should be accepted unless "confirmed by experience." His aim was always
to find a cure with the lowest dose possible, an aim not all that
foreign to modern medical science. Again, from the "Organon": "Pure
experiment, careful observation and accurate experience can alone
determine the smallness of the doses required for homeopathic cures".

Victor

blake murphy wrote:
>
> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:49:33 -0700, Arri London wrote:
>
> > Victor Sack wrote:
> >>
> >> Arri London > wrote:
> >>
> >>> I *don't* believe in homeopathy or many other 'alternative' modalities.
> >>
> >> Isn't it something that shouldn't be a question of belief in the first
> >> place?
> >
> > It does.
> >
> >>
> >> It so happens that the cardinal principle of homeopathy, "similia
> >> similibus curantur" (like cures like), has also come to be one of the
> >> underlying principles of immunotherapy (hyposensitization) and also of
> >> vaccination, both provinces of modern school medicine. This is hardly
> >> surprising, considering the relevant historical and scientific
> >> background. See, for example,
> >> <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1297514/pdf/neh141.pdf>.
> >
> > I know that of course; done enough immunology research However, in
> > homeopathy, the amount of 'active ingredient' often is completely
> > undetectible by the usual sensitive methods. In desensitisation therapy,
> > the 'active ingredient', that is the antigen, is *measurable*.
> >
> > Perhaps you read Jacques Benveniste's article in the Journal 'Nature' in
> > 1988 (June or July) about 'water memory'? Don't think anyone was able to
> > replicate his results about water retaining the memory of molecules that
> > were no longer in it. This relates somewhat to traditional homeopathy.
> >
> > The current trend in the US for (expensive) 'structured' water sold in
> > bottles makes me smile. Water is structured indeed; we learnt it as
> > 'flickering clusters' but there may be other models these days.
>
> the 'structured water' or 'molecular memory' thing is definitely a hoot.

Even had a booklet given to me about 'structured' water by a company
that 'makes' it. They were quite serious about it. None of it made the
least sense in terms of the physics or chemistry of water.

>
> > But it doesn't matter if I believe or if I don't believe in homeopathy.
> > Other people do and feel it helps them. That's all that matters.
>
> it certainly does matter if they are spending money they can't afford (or
> the public's money) on it. or forgoing treatment that might *actually*
> help.
>

People will always spend money they might not be able to afford to get
cured or healed. And they will forgo 'standard' treatments whether for
homeopathy, iridology, or having someone wave beads and blow smoke on
them. Same goes for various religious cults that forego 'standard'
treatments. It's generally not against the law, however irresponsible it
might be.

Victor Sack wrote:
>
> Arri London > wrote:
>
> > Victor Sack wrote:
> > >
> > > It so happens that the cardinal principle of homeopathy, "similia
> > > similibus curantur" (like cures like), has also come to be one of the
> > > underlying principles of immunotherapy (hyposensitization) and also of
> > > vaccination, both provinces of modern school medicine. This is hardly
> > > surprising, considering the relevant historical and scientific
> > > background. See, for example,
> > > <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1297514/pdf/neh141.pdf>.
> >
> > I know that of course; done enough immunology research However, in
> > homeopathy, the amount of 'active ingredient' often is completely
> > undetectible by the usual sensitive methods. In desensitisation therapy,
> > the 'active ingredient', that is the antigen, is *measurable*.
>
> One has to consider the historical perspective, not just the dogmatic,
> ideological excesses.
>
> The debt owed by the modern medicine to homeopathy, particularly to
> Hahnemann, its founding father, is truly enormous. Mainstream medicine
> used to rely on such treatments as venesection, emetics, calomel,
> purgatives and also on complex drug mixtures in extremely high doses.
> It was nothing if not dogmatic and had little to do with modern
> medicine. Homeopathy dispensed with the torture and introduced low
> doses of single, "proven" drugs. It was Hahnemann who first introduced
> scientific medical experimentation and everything he did, including his
> conclusions, were based on science. He could not help it if medical
> science of the time - which he effectively founded - was not even in its
> diapers yet. In his "Organon" he wrote that none of his conclusions
> should be accepted unless "confirmed by experience." His aim was always
> to find a cure with the lowest dose possible, an aim not all that
> foreign to modern medical science. Again, from the "Organon": "Pure
> experiment, careful observation and accurate experience can alone
> determine the smallness of the doses required for homeopathic cures".
>
> Victor



I know that as well. History of medicine was a 'minor' subject of mine
while at university There is a medical school in the US, in
Philadelphia, named after Hahnemann. Not certain if they still teach
homeopathy though. The MDs I've met who graduated there didn't practise
it.

On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 18:10:46 -0700, Arri London >
wrote:

>
>
>Victor Sack wrote:

>>
>> One has to consider the historical perspective, not just the dogmatic,
>> ideological excesses.

The historical perspective is an interesting story only, and lends no
credence whatsoever to the modern quackery that is homeopathy.
>>
>> The debt owed by the modern medicine to homeopathy, particularly to
>> Hahnemann, its founding father, is truly enormous.

There is no debt owed by modern medicine to homeopathy.

> Mainstream medicine
>> used to rely on such treatments as venesection, emetics, calomel,
>> purgatives and also on complex drug mixtures in extremely high doses.
>> It was nothing if not dogmatic and had little to do with modern
>> medicine. Homeopathy dispensed with the torture and introduced low
>> doses of single, "proven" drugs.

No it did not. You are incorrect.

>> It was Hahnemann who first introduced
>> scientific medical experimentation and everything he did, including his
>> conclusions, were based on science.

This is also untrue.

>> He could not help it if medical
>> science of the time - which he effectively founded - was not even in its
>> diapers yet. In his "Organon" he wrote that none of his conclusions
>> should be accepted unless "confirmed by experience." His aim was always
>> to find a cure with the lowest dose possible, an aim not all that
>> foreign to modern medical science. Again, from the "Organon": "Pure
>> experiment, careful observation and accurate experience can alone
>> determine the smallness of the doses required for homeopathic cures".
>>
Hogwash. Quite a lot of it, too.
>
>
>I know that as well. History of medicine was a 'minor' subject of mine
>while at university There is a medical school in the US, in
>Philadelphia, named after Hahnemann. Not certain if they still teach
>homeopathy though. The MDs I've met who graduated there didn't practise
>it.

Homeopathy is quackery and Hahnemann is not on anyone's list as a
person who advanced medicine, only as someone associated with the
quackery of homeopathy. The hospital was named in 1885....you remember
those days from your study of the history of medicine, don't you?
Semmelweis was 20+ years dead and still few bought into his
theories...instead of naming a hospital after someone like Semmelweis,
they named it after Hahnemann. What a joke.

Boron

blake murphy wrote:
>
> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:49:33 -0700, Arri London wrote:
>
> > But it doesn't matter if I believe or if I don't believe in homeopathy.
> > Other people do and feel it helps them. That's all that matters.
>
> it certainly does matter if they are spending money they can't afford (or
> the public's money) on it. or forgoing treatment that might *actually*
> help.

That's the heart of a debate currently raging in the UK.
A committee of the Parliment is working on a report about
the National Health Service spending on homeopathic "medicine",
and they are angered by the false and misleading information
given to them by the British Homeopathic Association.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...entary-inquiry

It is not possible to defend homeopathy without lying.

Boron Elgar > wrote:

> >Victor Sack wrote:
>
> >> One has to consider the historical perspective, not just the dogmatic,
> >> ideological excesses.
>
> The historical perspective is an interesting story only, and lends no
> credence whatsoever to the modern quackery that is homeopathy.

You ought to pay attention to what is actually being said, not to your
imagination. If you want to argue against modern practice of
homeopathy, you'll have to find another opponent.

> >> The debt owed by the modern medicine to homeopathy, particularly to
> >> Hahnemann, its founding father, is truly enormous.
>
> There is no debt owed by modern medicine to homeopathy.

You say so; it is not the view of impartial medical historians.

> > Mainstream medicine
> >> used to rely on such treatments as venesection, emetics, calomel,
> >> purgatives and also on complex drug mixtures in extremely high doses.
> >> It was nothing if not dogmatic and had little to do with modern
> >> medicine. Homeopathy dispensed with the torture and introduced low
> >> doses of single, "proven" drugs.
>
> No it did not. You are incorrect.

You say so; it is not the view of impartial medical historians.

> >> It was Hahnemann who first introduced
> >> scientific medical experimentation and everything he did, including his
> >> conclusions, were based on science.
>
> This is also untrue.

No, it is true.

> >> He could not help it if medical
> >> science of the time - which he effectively founded - was not even in its
> >> diapers yet. In his "Organon" he wrote that none of his conclusions
> >> should be accepted unless "confirmed by experience." His aim was always
> >> to find a cure with the lowest dose possible, an aim not all that
> >> foreign to modern medical science. Again, from the "Organon": "Pure
> >> experiment, careful observation and accurate experience can alone
> >> determine the smallness of the doses required for homeopathic cures".
> >>
> Hogwash. Quite a lot of it, too.

Those are direct quotations from the "Organon". Arguing that they are
not won't get you anywhere. Shouting out slogans won't either.

I have already posted a link to a comprehensive historical overview:
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1297514/pdf/neh141.pdf>.

Here, also, is a link to _The Rise and Fall of Homeopathy_, an article
by Morris Fishbein who, among other things, was considered a number one
enemy of homeopathy: <http://www.homeowatch.org/history/fishbein.html>.

Quotation:

"Compared to the general medical practice of the age, the system of
Hahnemann, though quite fallacious, had two things in its favor: it
replaced mixtures of powerful drugs in large doses by small doses of
simple ones. Thus a widely used prescription was Rush's Thunderbolt,
developed by Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence.
It gave ten grains of jalap and ten of calomel at a single dose. A
patient who had just tried it thereafter craved weak medicine. Moreover,
homeopathy carried with it, as any new and revolutionary system always
does, a powerful appeal to the lay imagination. Professors
Meyer-Steinheg of Jena and Sudhoff of Leipzig, two of the world's
greatest medical historians, assert that the influence of Hahnemann was,
on the whole, certainly for good. He emphasized the individualization of
the patient in the handling of disease, he stopped the progress of half
a dozen or more peculiar systems of treatment based on a false
pathology, and he demonstrated the value of testing the actual virtues
of drugs by trial. It is probably true that any criticisms which might
be brought against him in the light of later and better knowledge apply
equally well against a large part of the other medicine of his time.
Moreover, we must not hold against him the vagaries and exaggerations
into which some of his disciples drifted."

By the way, this thread has to be named "Quackery in Cookery"; one has
to be consistent...

ObFood: The recent Accademia Italiana della Cucina recipe collection
mentions a very simple bread soup which used to be typical of
Friuli-Venezia Giulia. It made use of the excellent native Istrian
olive oil, which would impart a particular flavour to the soup, along
with fennel or cumin seeds. Stale bread would be boiled with water, the
oil, and seeds to make a dense, rustic soup, traditionally enriched with
egg yolks.

Victor

On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 16:50:54 -0500, James Silverton wrote:

> blake wrote on Fri, 5 Feb 2010 16:18:02 -0500:
>
>>> On Feb 4, 5:38 pm, "graham" > wrote:
>>>> "Janet Baraclough" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>>
>>>>> NHS homeopathic doctors don't do that. Learn the
>>>>> difference between complementary and alternative
>>>>> treatments.
>>>>
>>>> Why? When you obviously can't recognise quackery!
>>>
>>> Are you trying to tell Janet that the Easter Bunny doesn't
>>> really lay eggs on or about Easter Sunday?
>>>
>> but homeopathic medicine definitely works when you dilute
>> cigarette smoke down to parts per billion on a bus.
>
> Dilution by a billion! That's concentrated by homeopathic standards.
> They aim to dilute so that there is less than one molecule around. The
> Avagadro number is 6.02 x 10^26 so that's quite a dilution. 10^27 is a
> billion billion billion.

i run out of fingers to count on around about the first billion.

your pal,
blake

On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 18:03:52 -0700, Arri London wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>>
>>
>> it certainly does matter if they are spending money they can't afford (or
>> the public's money) on it. or forgoing treatment that might *actually*
>> help.
>>
>
> People will always spend money they might not be able to afford to get
> cured or healed. And they will forgo 'standard' treatments whether for
> homeopathy, iridology, or having someone wave beads and blow smoke on
> them. Same goes for various religious cults that forego 'standard'
> treatments. It's generally not against the law, however irresponsible it
> might be.

some parents have been hauled into court for leaving their kids untreated.
it's a dicey question, which i'm glad i don't have to decide. you should
be able to raise your kids the way you see fit, but you don't want a bunch
of little bodies laying around cluttering up the place, either.

your pal,
blake

On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 13:45:54 -0800, Mark Thorson wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:49:33 -0700, Arri London wrote:
>>
>>> But it doesn't matter if I believe or if I don't believe in homeopathy.
>>> Other people do and feel it helps them. That's all that matters.
>>
>> it certainly does matter if they are spending money they can't afford (or
>> the public's money) on it. or forgoing treatment that might *actually*
>> help.
>
> That's the heart of a debate currently raging in the UK.
> A committee of the Parliment is working on a report about
> the National Health Service spending on homeopathic "medicine",
> and they are angered by the false and misleading information
> given to them by the British Homeopathic Association.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...entary-inquiry
>
> It is not possible to defend homeopathy without lying.

yeah, been half-following that from cites here. it's funny, though - i
would assume such foolishness to be more endemic to america than england.

your pal,
blake

blake murphy wrote:
>
> On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 13:45:54 -0800, Mark Thorson wrote:
>
> > blake murphy wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:49:33 -0700, Arri London wrote:
> >>
> >>> But it doesn't matter if I believe or if I don't believe in homeopathy.
> >>> Other people do and feel it helps them. That's all that matters.
> >>
> >> it certainly does matter if they are spending money they can't afford (or
> >> the public's money) on it. or forgoing treatment that might *actually*
> >> help.
> >
> > That's the heart of a debate currently raging in the UK.
> > A committee of the Parliment is working on a report about
> > the National Health Service spending on homeopathic "medicine",
> > and they are angered by the false and misleading information
> > given to them by the British Homeopathic Association.
> >
> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...entary-inquiry
> >
> > It is not possible to defend homeopathy without lying.
>
> yeah, been half-following that from cites here. it's funny, though - i
> would assume such foolishness to be more endemic to america than england.

We don't have Royals promoting it.

Boron Elgar wrote:
>
> On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 18:10:46 -0700, Arri London >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Victor Sack wrote:

<snip>

> >
> >I know that as well. History of medicine was a 'minor' subject of mine
> >while at university There is a medical school in the US, in
> >Philadelphia, named after Hahnemann. Not certain if they still teach
> >homeopathy though. The MDs I've met who graduated there didn't practise
> >it.
>
> Homeopathy is quackery and Hahnemann is not on anyone's list as a
> person who advanced medicine, only as someone associated with the
> quackery of homeopathy.

Then you don't know much about the history of medicine.

The hospital was named in 1885....you remember
> those days from your study of the history of medicine, don't you?

Yes. Hospitals are quite often named after people who are dead. Hardly
makes your point.

> Semmelweis was 20+ years dead and still few bought into his
> theories...instead of naming a hospital after someone like Semmelweis,
> they named it after Hahnemann. What a joke.
>
> Boron

There is a Semmelweis Hospital in Hungary. However Semmelweis was
considered a quack in his day. As was Joseph Lister. And Edward Jenner.
And others. Surely you must have known that.

blake murphy wrote:
>
> On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 16:50:54 -0500, James Silverton wrote:
>
> > blake wrote on Fri, 5 Feb 2010 16:18:02 -0500:
> >
> >>> On Feb 4, 5:38 pm, "graham" > wrote:
> >>>> "Janet Baraclough" > wrote in
> >>>> message
> >>>>
> >>>>> NHS homeopathic doctors don't do that. Learn the
> >>>>> difference between complementary and alternative
> >>>>> treatments.
> >>>>
> >>>> Why? When you obviously can't recognise quackery!
> >>>
> >>> Are you trying to tell Janet that the Easter Bunny doesn't
> >>> really lay eggs on or about Easter Sunday?
> >>>
> >> but homeopathic medicine definitely works when you dilute
> >> cigarette smoke down to parts per billion on a bus.
> >
> > Dilution by a billion! That's concentrated by homeopathic standards.
> > They aim to dilute so that there is less than one molecule around. The
> > Avagadro number is 6.02 x 10^26 so that's quite a dilution. 10^27 is a
> > billion billion billion.
>
> i run out of fingers to count on around about the first billion.
>
> your pal,
> blake

Geez people (not blake). The Avogadro constant is *6.022 x 10^23*, not
26. Get it right if using it to make a point.

On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 13:40:23 -0800, Mark Thorson wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 13:45:54 -0800, Mark Thorson wrote:
>>
>>> blake murphy wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:49:33 -0700, Arri London wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But it doesn't matter if I believe or if I don't believe in homeopathy.
>>>>> Other people do and feel it helps them. That's all that matters.
>>>>
>>>> it certainly does matter if they are spending money they can't afford (or
>>>> the public's money) on it. or forgoing treatment that might *actually*
>>>> help.
>>>
>>> That's the heart of a debate currently raging in the UK.
>>> A committee of the Parliment is working on a report about
>>> the National Health Service spending on homeopathic "medicine",
>>> and they are angered by the false and misleading information
>>> given to them by the British Homeopathic Association.
>>>
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...entary-inquiry
>>>
>>> It is not possible to defend homeopathy without lying.
>>
>> yeah, been half-following that from cites here. it's funny, though - i
>> would assume such foolishness to be more endemic to america than england.
>
> We don't have Royals promoting it.

but we have plenty of lesser goofballs.

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 18:41:16 -0700, Arri London wrote:

> Boron Elgar wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 18:10:46 -0700, Arri London >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Victor Sack wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>
>>>I know that as well. History of medicine was a 'minor' subject of mine
>>>while at university There is a medical school in the US, in
>>>Philadelphia, named after Hahnemann. Not certain if they still teach
>>>homeopathy though. The MDs I've met who graduated there didn't practise
>>>it.
>>
>> Homeopathy is quackery and Hahnemann is not on anyone's list as a
>> person who advanced medicine, only as someone associated with the
>> quackery of homeopathy.
>
> Then you don't know much about the history of medicine.
>
> The hospital was named in 1885....you remember
>> those days from your study of the history of medicine, don't you?
>
> Yes. Hospitals are quite often named after people who are dead. Hardly
> makes your point.
>
>> Semmelweis was 20+ years dead and still few bought into his
>> theories...instead of naming a hospital after someone like Semmelweis,
>> they named it after Hahnemann. What a joke.
>>
>> Boron
>
> There is a Semmelweis Hospital in Hungary. However Semmelweis was
> considered a quack in his day. As was Joseph Lister. And Edward Jenner.
> And others. Surely you must have known that.

oh, please. lister, jenner, and semmelweis were proven to be right, and
their discoveries have saved millions of lives. homeopathic doctors have
been proven to be quacks.

blake

blake wrote on Mon, 8 Feb 2010 13:19:50 -0500:

>> Boron Elgar wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 18:10:46 -0700, Arri London >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Victor Sack wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> I know that as well. History of medicine was a 'minor'
>>>> subject of mine while at university There is a medical
>>>> school in the US, in Philadelphia, named after Hahnemann.
>>>> Not certain if they still teach homeopathy though. The MDs
>>>> I've met who graduated there didn't practise it.
>>>
>>> Homeopathy is quackery and Hahnemann is not on anyone's list
>>> as a person who advanced medicine, only as someone
>>> associated with the quackery of homeopathy.
>>
>> Then you don't know much about the history of medicine.
>>
>> The hospital was named in 1885....you remember
>>> those days from your study of the history of medicine, don't
>>> you?
>>
>> Yes. Hospitals are quite often named after people who are
>> dead. Hardly makes your point.
>>
>>> Semmelweis was 20+ years dead and still few bought into his
>>> theories...instead of naming a hospital after someone like
>>> Semmelweis, they named it after Hahnemann. What a joke.
>>>
>>> Boron
>>
>> There is a Semmelweis Hospital in Hungary. However Semmelweis
>> was considered a quack in his day. As was Joseph Lister. And
>> Edward Jenner. And others. Surely you must have known that.

> oh, please. lister, jenner, and semmelweis were proven to be
> right, and their discoveries have saved millions of lives.
> homeopathic doctors have been proven to be quacks.

Anyone, like a homeopath, who believes that water retains a "memory" of
what was once in solution is totally deluded and, if they take money
from patients, is a quack and possibly a thief. Homeopaths have had more
than 160 years to show effectiveness and have been totally unsuccessful.

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not