Yep. Where did I ever say a scam was funny? Is something achieving great success not evidence it works? Let's use your Bernie Madoff example, I think that is great evidence his system worked. I addressed this in my previous post.
I think the investors who lost a net 10 billion dollars would disagree with you. I think Bernie, now sitting in jail with a sentence of 150 years would disagree with you. I think just about anyone familiar with the case at all would disagree with you. But most importantly, by it's very definition, Bernie's Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud because of the very fact that it cannot work. That you think the size of his fraud is evidence of the success of his investment plan is quite telling as it relates to your opinion of Homeopathy... This is the third time you've dodged the question. You keep accusing people of having difficulty reading and understanding your questions. After the difficulty you display understanding and answering this question, it would seem to me that the issue you have with others is nothing more than a bit of projection on your part. Can you answer the question? How do you know that homeopaths still use succussioning to prepare their remedies?
So it is Apples & Oranges. Wish you'd make up your mind. I guess I'm a believer in innocent until proven guilty, but since none of the thousands and thousands of workers on the homeopathic assembly lines over homeopathy's existence have blown the whistle that they don't, all evidence points that they still do. If you got any evidence that they don't, post away.
What evidence is that? If two preparations are placed in front of you can you tell with certainty which has been prepared properly and which hasn't? Can anyone?
A good way to find out how homeopathy is manufactured is to visit the websites of homeopathy manufacturers. From French company Boiron British homeopathy manufacturers, Helios, say on their website: They've got a video on youtube showing the process. The other British manucturer, Ainsworths Pharmacy, uses a machine to do the succussing. They featured on a tv documentary once demonstrating it. Because they believe it is necessary, obviously. Straw man. In spite of the lack of both a scientifically plausible mechanism and robust scientific evidence that it works, homeopathy manufacturers believe in their product and they do succussioning because it is considered by members of the cult of homeopathy to be an essential ritual. This very question was put to a homeopath - Kate Chatfield - who was giving evidence to UK parliamentary committee. Here's the exchange:
Where's all the whistleblowers then? Thousands upon thousands of people must have worked the Homeopathic remedy assembly lines over Homeopathy's existence. Someone must have seen something if they cut out the succussion process.
I know they think it's essential, but making a point here to the skeptics, who by and large think Homeopathy is a scam, so if it's a scam, why would the scammers include unnecessary profit cutting labor in the process?
I don't think it's a scam. I believe the homeopaths are deluded enough to believe their crap. That said, it doesn't work.
I don't think anyone has suggested it's a deliberate scam. That's why it's a straw man - nobody has made the argument that homeopaths knowingly promote a bogus therapy. It is, in effect, a scam but not necessarily by intent.
Thousands upon thousands of people have participated in and worked for every imaginable bogus thing that humans have eve conjured up. That does not make those things useful, good or right. When I see patients who are persuing alternative therapies, I simply tell them the truth. The truth is that x therapy 'might' work. I have no way to prove that it does not. I go on to explain that I also have no way to proving that standing on your head 3x/day does not work either. It also 'might' work, until proven otherwise. I recommend standing on the head, because although both options have equal evidence (none), one is free and one is not.
Do you believe that homeopathy 'might' work for, say, cancer? Is this what you would say to someone who told they were thinking of trying it?
I'm bound to fully discuss the evidence, risks and benefits of the therapies I offer. Chemo for example is toxic poison, however taking it is still bettter than not taking in many cancers. I recommend treatment if I think it will benefit the person. I do not recommend alternative therapies that replace or compete with conventional therapies, or those that might interact with them. In some cases patients are very insistent or decline conventional therapy, and in these cases I describe the evidence for alternative therapies as in my previous post. I try to pick a silly comparative, because I want to really make the point that 'anything' 'might' work, but that I can't practice on the basis of what 'might' be.
Think this quote from the inestimable Robert Heinlein sums up the answer, and although he is talking of religion it can equally be applied to many "alternative" therapies Another appropriate quote http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_A._Heinlein
For me, homeopathy is on a par with accupuncture and the only thing that 'irks' me is that our media sometimes covers them as if they were actual medicine. Another thing that bothers me is this; why do people believe that just because something is 'ancient', meaning before the invention of the microscope and the discovery of germs for a start, that makes it better than modern, scientifically researched medicine? me
I know but remember belief can do wonderful things - saw healing stones work on a patient once - mind you the fact he was in ICU hooked to about 8 different lines and machines had NOTHING to do with his recovery - that was all due to the "healing powers" coming from the "vibrations" in the "stones"
I had a friend who was diagnosed with colon cancer and chose to treat it with crystals. He died. I read that Steve Jobs' demise was hastened by his refusal to do traditional treatment for 9 months while the cancer grew. The nutty stuff doesn't bother me unless it's someone I care about.
Dude, Jobs had one of the worst forms of cancer to get. One of the lowest survival rates with even traditional treatments. Don't make it look like he died because he first chose a different route. Odds are he would have died any route he took. The alternative route may have even added time to his life.
Whereas many colorectal cancers are treatable if caught early enough by proper doctors but Penelope Dingle died a slow, agonising and preventable death because she put all her faith in homeopathy. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdLOBRUwq10"]Tragic[/ame]
And what about all the people who died agonizing deaths from putting all their faith in chemotherapy? Oh that's right, you're just biased against altmed.
here, a lot of therapies including homeopathy are referred to as "complementary medicines" http://www.tga.gov.au/industry/cm-basics-regulation-overview.htm there are guidelines in how these therapies are administered, and the important word is COMPLEMENTARY. they can be used to COMPLEMENT mainstream medicines. some of these are included in some private health insurance - chiro virtually always is, but some funds will cover homeopathy and naturopathy as well. maybe its different in America ... wouldn't surprise me really - you lot are all so black and white about EVERYTHING!
Medibank Private: "Australias largest private health insurer, incorporating the Medibank Private and ahm health funds" "We'll pay benefits towards the items and services listed in the table below ... Consultations for myotherapy, reflexology, kinesiology, Chinese & Western herbalism, exercise physiology, shiatsu, aromatherapy, homeopathy, Bowen therapy & Alexander technique" http://www.medibank.com.au/healthcov...extras-70.aspx http://www.medibank.com.au/About-Us/...-Overview.aspx HBF: "For 70 years, HBF has been the largest health insurer in WA looking after hundreds of members every day." "What are you covered for: Complementary Therapies - Naturopathy - Homeopathy - Acupuncture - Traditional Chinese Medicine - Herbalist consultations " http://www.hbf.com.au/health-insurance/why-hbf.html http://www.hbf.com.au/health-insuran...ate-cover.html MBF: "Bupa is a leading private health insurer with a presence in every Australian state and territory. Our trusted and respected brands HBA, MBF and Mutual Community have been part of Australian life for over 60 years; and today, we proudly look after the needs of more than three million Australians." http://www.mbf.com.au/AboutMBF "The following table outlines the types of treatment covered by Extras. ... Acupuncture, Alexander technique, aromatherapy, Bowen therapy, exercise physiology, Feldenkrais, herbalist, homeopathy, iridology, kinesiology, naturopathy, reflexology, remedial massage and shiatsu." http://www.mbf.com.au/HealthInsuranc...s/Whatscovered
In Switzerland, alternative or complementary medicine isn't covered by basic health insurance (that's the mandatory part). Most private insurers offer more costly plans though that cover complementary medicine. In my humble opinion, that makes sense. Health care is costly enough even without including untested alternative treatments.
Don't talk to ME about this!! Do you realise that the !#!@#!@ ******** @#!$@! insurance companies WILL pay for "complimentary medicine" but WON'T pay for wound care products!! Why? Because having a clause saying they will pay for complimentary medicines "sells" to the young and vapid with disposable incomes - the very customer they want to attract
I have a correction to make concerning my post above. I forgot that due to our direct democracy in Switzerland, some alternative medicine will temporarily be covered again under certain circumstances, starting from 2012 until 2017, at which point the efficacy has to be shown using the usual medical standards. Although I dislike that untested treatments will be used outside of medical studies and paid for with my insurance premiums, I like that they will have to undergo rigorous testing within that timespan. Hopefully, more and more people will learn that testing stuff is very important. As someone working in R&D, I know that this is already expected for pieces of engineering. A car, for example, undergoes rigorous testing before it enters the market and if there are still flaws, the manufacturers are held accountable (one example, Toyota and its failing brakes). Maybe that kind of attitude will eventually apply to all kinds of medicine too.