South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

August 19, 2019, 04:20:49 AM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Follow saskeptics on twitter.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: 1 2 [All]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

Beware the Phony Pharmacists!

 (Read 14440 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3749


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« on: October 31, 2007, 11:36:32 AM »

Dr ’Luthon64 and I think we have recently noticed a growth in the number of pharmacies, including hypermarket-like outlets such as Dischem, that stock various alternative nostrums, especially those of the homoeopathic kind.  Purported cures are on offer for both humans and animals, covering a range of common maladies from depression, headaches, indigestion, and so on.

It is debatable whether this increase is actually happening or merely the result of us noticing it more, although one specific Weleda pharmacy near us recently began offering courses in aromatherapy, crystal healing and magnetic therapy, and also sells the requisite oils, crystals and magnets.  On grocery shopping days we pass the entrance of this pharmacy.  The entrance allows a clear view of the dispensary where we frequently see the pharmacist vigorously shaking plastic bottles of what appears to be water and squirting small volumes into small brown glass bottles bearing white and green labels.  These little brown bottles are, of course, the containers the homoeopathic preparations are sold in.

At the weekend, an acquaintance of ours visited and told us about an incident she had been involved in at this pharmacy.  She had been in Cape Town on business the week before and had contracted ’flu.  She went to the pharmacy and asked for some aspirin-based off-the-shelf drug that would give her symptomatic relief.  The pharmacist at first actually refused to sell the requested item, saying that he didn’t believe in it!  Instead, he offered first a homoeopathic replacement and then some Chinese concoction of unknown composition.

Fortunately, our friend knows her stuff and insisted on her original request unless the pharmacist could meet her challenge to him: she would randomly pick three different homoeopathic cures from the pharmacy’s shelf (which held about 30 or so different ones) and put a little of each into separate beakers.  If the pharmacist could correctly identify all three, she would buy what he recommended.  That, reportedly, is when he had the good grace to shut up and give her what she had originally asked for.

’Luthon64
Logged
bluegray
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +9/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 1107



saskeptics
WWW
« Reply #1 on: October 31, 2007, 12:02:56 PM »

I have met at least two people, one trained as a pharmacist and the other as a microbiologists of some sort. Both at reputable universities too. They seemed to know their subject reasonably well, and I'm sure they know much more than me about chemistry and really what goes into the medicine we take. However, when I asked about homeopathic medicine, it seems all this knowledge go out the window. They will both use and sell these products. They simply have not bothered to look into the evidence or published studies and instead just believe what they are told. When I point out that if homeopathic medicine worked as they believe, it would go against all their training as scientists and what they know about their field, they will have any number of excuses. They are both also aware of the placebo effect.

It's dangerous that even the people who are supposed to know better and who are trusted to know their field, are often uncritical in their thinking.
I suspect it pays better too...


Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3749


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #2 on: October 31, 2007, 13:48:36 PM »

It's dangerous that even the people who are supposed to know better and who are trusted to know their field, are often uncritical in their thinking.
Agreed, though the pharmacist I wrote of was deliberately obstructive, even towards his own business interests.  If nothing else, homoeopathic preparations are usually quite harmless because of their extraordinary dilutions, although I'm aware of one in powder form that consists mostly of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) for the treatment of heartburn and indigestion.  It is labelled "Homeopathic" and supposedly, it's all the other ingredients that occur in homoeopathic dilutions with the CaCO3 powder that accounts for the preparation's effectiveness.  Conventional medical practitioners are generally well aware of CaCO3's antacid properties that require no augmentation by submicroscopic traces of activated charcoal and such.

While I understand that a pharmacy is first and foremost a business and that a greater diversity of products on sale should go towards improved profitability, I too struggle to come to terms with the idea that someone with a B.Sc. degree can so readily jettison the core principles they were taught for three or more years.

Does anyone know whether pharmacists are bound by the Hippocratic Oath?

'Luthon64
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3749


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 14, 2007, 10:19:02 AM »

On the topic of homoeopathy, here’s a scathing UK article about its spill-over into Africa.  The original posting was removed after the UK Society of Homeopaths asked that this be done.

'Luthon64
Logged
Wandapec
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +4/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 431


100% Proud Atheist/Skeptic


« Reply #4 on: May 03, 2008, 20:53:14 PM »

I studied pharmacy and qualified in '95. During our studies we were encouraged to do some hours in a pharmacy during the holidays. This was my first introduction to homeopathy. On a number of occasions with different lecturers, questions were asked as to why we did not have a course in homeopathy. On all occasions the answer was plain and simple - there is no scientific basis for the use and application of homeopathy. Pharmacy was based on the use of chemicals where the structure of the chemical has an effect on a receptor,  or chemical etc. in some part of the body that resulted in some sort of reaction.

However, when working in pharmacy as a pharmacy student or pharmacy intern, I suppose like most industries when you start out you are just a little kippie, you did what you were told! This meant that if someone came in and asked for some homeopathic remedy, instead of something that really worked, you would go over to the shelf and read the label to find something that would fix the problem. (We used to joke about the claims the bottles made all the time - the same mixture could be used for heartburn, headaches, tinitis and athletes foot! Smiley ) There is good money in homeopathic preparations and thanks to popular magazines and TV programmes the demand continues to drive supply.

We didn't have any sort of Hippocratic Oath that we had to comply to. I think there should be one though.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3749


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #5 on: May 04, 2008, 10:06:46 AM »

Okay, thanks wandapec for clearing that up.  It is much as I had surmised.  Here’s more on the Hippocratic Oath for the interested reader.  It does strike me as odd, though, that pharmacists are not expected to swear it, considering that there is an ethical (or, in some case, an unethical) side their practices, which relate to medicine.

'Luthon64
Logged
bluegray
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +9/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 1107



saskeptics
WWW
« Reply #6 on: May 05, 2008, 09:51:54 AM »

@wandapec
How informed do you think most pharmacists in SA are on the subject of homoeopathy? And if they do understand it, what are the reasons for them still selling it?
Logged
Wandapec
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +4/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 431


100% Proud Atheist/Skeptic


« Reply #7 on: May 05, 2008, 16:09:05 PM »

That's a tough one, but I would think that the answer is no. There are those pharmacists that will develop an interest in homeopathy more than likely based on some experience they have had in life e.g. every time granny gets a cold she takes X and within a week to 10 days she's better, or Uncle Bob is 70 years old and rides the Argus every year swearing that taking Y is the only reason he could manage! I think these people probably fall in the Dr. Michael Shermer's category of "Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons."! What upsets me is the fortunes we have wasted because my wife is convinced that this stuff works - I may have lost a couple of those battles but I think I am slowly winning the war!  Cool

I think with pharmacy in general, the besides the fact that there is a profit to be made it is a simple case of supply and demand, and in pharmacy's case it just happened to be in the right place at the right time i.e. Homeopathy shops didn't open up all over the place to cater for the demand.

Speaking for myself, when I did work in pharmacy, over time you get to know what to give for what problem based on what the label says on the bottle. Alternatively, you would put the customer onto the pharmacist or nursing sister that "knows" the most about those preparations. 

I once read a pharmacy magazine that had a cartoon about the "like treats like" aspect of homeopathy. A guys walks into the pharmacy with a gunshot would asking for something homeopathic - the pharmacist promptly pulls out a gun and puts another hole in him!  Smiley
Logged
Wandapec
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +4/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 431


100% Proud Atheist/Skeptic


« Reply #8 on: May 06, 2008, 17:06:07 PM »

Look what I found in a pharmacy about 2 days ago - Magic Bracelets! I think these therapies fall in line with what I mentioned earlier about supply and demand in pharmacy. Astrophysicist Miguel A. Sabadell, asks some questions about this ancient therapy, as does Bruce Flamm(Nice picture of the real affects of magnetic therapy!). It seems to be quite popular though, if you just Google "magnetic bracelets", you get a whole heap of sites pushing the therapy.

I must admit, my lower back ache suddenly disappeared as I walked past the shelf.....  Grin



Claims on packaging -
"Uses the ancient art of magnetic therapy which helps to ease stiffness & reduce arthritis pain."

  • "Base Metal: Copper"
  • "Powerful 2,000+ Gauss Magnets"
  • "Drug Free Pain Reliever"
  • "Natural Way of Improving Health"
« Last Edit: May 06, 2008, 17:10:51 PM by wandapec » Logged
ArgumentumAdHominem
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +6/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 134


This husk is no longer used


« Reply #9 on: May 06, 2008, 20:19:36 PM »

"Powerful 2,000+ Gauss Magnets"

So a 2 000 Gauss magnet is good for you?  Strange how the woo brigade also believes that the magnetic field from power lines causes brain tumours (requiring all manner of protective crystals or "chips") but they will happily use a 2 000 Gauss (0,2 Tesla or 200 000 micro Tesla) magnet at a distance of 0 metres for its curative properties Huh?.  So why then is the magnetic field from a 765 KiloVolt powerline carcinogenic?  The 765 KV line at a 10 metre distance creates a field of less than 12 micro Tesla (see Eskom report page 10).  10 meters is the peak area of the maximum magnetic field and to remain in the field you would have to hover 4 metres off the ground directly below the lines.
Logged
Dr. Nancy Malik
Medical Doctor of Homeopathy
Jr. Member
**

Skeptical ability: +0/-11
Offline Offline

Posts: 87



nancymalik dr.nancy.malik DrNancyMalik
WWW
« Reply #10 on: July 14, 2008, 05:56:46 AM »

I have met at least two people, one trained as a pharmacist and the other as a microbiologists of some sort. Both at reputable universities too. They seemed to know their subject reasonably well, and I'm sure they know much more than me about chemistry and really what goes into the medicine we take. However, when I asked about homeopathic medicine, it seems all this knowledge go out the window. They will both use and sell these products. They simply have not bothered to look into the evidence or published studies and instead just believe what they are told. When I point out that if homeopathic medicine worked as they believe, it would go against all their training as scientists and what they know about their field, they will have any number of excuses. They are both also aware of the placebo effect.

It's dangerous that even the people who are supposed to know better and who are trusted to know their field, are often uncritical in their thinking.
I suspect it pays better too...



the medical establishment is intrinsically conservative, blinkered and unreceptive to new ways of thinking.I think that the modern medical establishment needs to be a lot more open-minded and progressive
Logged
bluegray
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +9/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 1107



saskeptics
WWW
« Reply #11 on: July 14, 2008, 09:38:21 AM »

the medical establishment is intrinsically conservative, blinkered and unreceptive to new ways of thinking.I think that the modern medical establishment needs to be a lot more open-minded and progressive
That is just not true. But I suspect you are referring to things like homeopathy again. Not being receptive of treatments that have dubious pseudo scientific claims and shown not to work after being studied at length, is not being close minded, it is sensible.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3749


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #12 on: July 14, 2008, 10:40:55 AM »

the medical establishment is intrinsically conservative, blinkered and unreceptive to new ways of thinking.I think that the modern medical establishment needs to be a lot more open-minded and progressive
I wonder what you’d do if you needed a procedure like neuroplasty or some other delicate medical interference that is the product of “the medical establishment” that, according to you, “is intrinsically conservative, blinkered and unreceptive to new ways of thinking.”  A friend of ours almost died at a very young age of a middle ear infection because his parents insisted on going to a homoeopath.  Only when things got very bad did they see a conventional doctor who successfully treated the condition with antibiotics.  Our friend has noticeable hearing loss in the affected ear, which can be laid directly at the feet of the homoeopath who should have known better and recommended conventional treatment from the start instead of prescribing what is no more than distilled water.

'Luthon64
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3749


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #13 on: July 14, 2008, 13:15:48 PM »

Two other things:
  • Hahnemann’s homoeopathy goes back to the early 1800s, making it near enough 200 years old.  This age hardly qualifies it as a member of  the category of “new ways of thinking.”  If anything, it falls under the rubric of “ancient and ignorant ways of seeing sympathetic magic everywhere.”
  • If someone asked you to prepare, say, a 36C dilution of Pulsatilla, would you be able to pick your own preparation out from a bunch of inert preparations that all look alike?

'Luthon64
Logged
Dr. Nancy Malik
Medical Doctor of Homeopathy
Jr. Member
**

Skeptical ability: +0/-11
Offline Offline

Posts: 87



nancymalik dr.nancy.malik DrNancyMalik
WWW
« Reply #14 on: July 15, 2008, 09:06:31 AM »

S
the medical establishment is intrinsically conservative, blinkered and unreceptive to new ways of thinking.I think that the modern medical establishment needs to be a lot more open-minded and progressive
That is just not true. But I suspect you are referring to things like homeopathy again. Not being receptive of treatments that have dubious pseudo scientific claims and shown not to work after being studied at length, is not being close minded, it is sensible.
Since you have never have an advantage of homeopathic treatment, how do you know it does not work?
Logged
Dr. Nancy Malik
Medical Doctor of Homeopathy
Jr. Member
**

Skeptical ability: +0/-11
Offline Offline

Posts: 87



nancymalik dr.nancy.malik DrNancyMalik
WWW
« Reply #15 on: July 15, 2008, 09:09:44 AM »

the medical establishment is intrinsically conservative, blinkered and unreceptive to new ways of thinking.I think that the modern medical establishment needs to be a lot more open-minded and progressive
I wonder what you’d do if you needed a procedure like neuroplasty or some other delicate medical interference that is the product of “the medical establishment” that, according to you, “is intrinsically conservative, blinkered and unreceptive to new ways of thinking.”  A friend of ours almost died at a very young age of a middle ear infection because his parents insisted on going to a homoeopath.  Only when things got very bad did they see a conventional doctor who successfully treated the condition with antibiotics.  Our friend has noticeable hearing loss in the affected ear, which can be laid directly at the feet of the homoeopath who should have known better and recommended conventional treatment from the start instead of prescribing what is no more than distilled water.

'Luthon64

Homeopathy is not a pancaea for every ill. When surgery is the the only last option left, one has to and should resort to surgery. Homeopathy is not opposed to surgery. We say when something can be cured without undergoing surgery or something can be cured with gentler system of medicine, why to subject your body to torture and hardship. ANd when homeopathy has no answer to a patient's problem, we ourselves ask them to resort to allopathy.
Logged
Dr. Nancy Malik
Medical Doctor of Homeopathy
Jr. Member
**

Skeptical ability: +0/-11
Offline Offline

Posts: 87



nancymalik dr.nancy.malik DrNancyMalik
WWW
« Reply #16 on: July 15, 2008, 09:11:10 AM »

the medical establishment is intrinsically conservative, blinkered and unreceptive to new ways of thinking.I think that the modern medical establishment needs to be a lot more open-minded and progressive
I wonder what you’d do if you needed a procedure like neuroplasty or some other delicate medical interference that is the product of “the medical establishment” that, according to you, “is intrinsically conservative, blinkered and unreceptive to new ways of thinking.”  A friend of ours almost died at a very young age of a middle ear infection because his parents insisted on going to a homoeopath.  Only when things got very bad did they see a conventional doctor who successfully treated the condition with antibiotics.  Our friend has noticeable hearing loss in the affected ear, which can be laid directly at the feet of the homoeopath who should have known better and recommended conventional treatment from the start instead of prescribing what is no more than distilled water.

'Luthon64

With the massive way antibiotics (kills healthy as well as bad bacteria) are being prescribed today they have suppressed and in no time going to destroy the immune system. It is going to be open to new diseases that are going to be incurable
Logged
Dr. Nancy Malik
Medical Doctor of Homeopathy
Jr. Member
**

Skeptical ability: +0/-11
Offline Offline

Posts: 87



nancymalik dr.nancy.malik DrNancyMalik
WWW
« Reply #17 on: July 15, 2008, 09:12:46 AM »

Two other things:
  • Hahnemann’s homoeopathy goes back to the early 1800s, making it near enough 200 years old.  This age hardly qualifies it as a member of  the category of “new ways of thinking.”  If anything, it falls under the rubric of “ancient and ignorant ways of seeing sympathetic magic everywhere.”
  • If someone asked you to prepare, say, a 36C dilution of Pulsatilla, would you be able to pick your own preparation out from a bunch of inert preparations that all look alike?

'Luthon64

What about allopathy? It is much older than homeopathy . around 600-700 years old. That means it is not a modern medicine.
Logged
Dr. Nancy Malik
Medical Doctor of Homeopathy
Jr. Member
**

Skeptical ability: +0/-11
Offline Offline

Posts: 87



nancymalik dr.nancy.malik DrNancyMalik
WWW
« Reply #18 on: July 15, 2008, 09:22:01 AM »

Two other things:
  • If someone asked you to prepare, say, a 36C dilution of Pulsatilla, would you be able to pick your own preparation out from a bunch of inert preparations that all look alike?

'Luthon64

Very simple to do. Even you can do that. Try doing it. Then you have no option other than giving homeopathy 10 out of 10.

I need to have two things

1.  a mother tincture of it i.e Pulsitilla Q.
2. bloating paper

steps

1. I will immerse bloating paper in pulsitilla Q. It will get stained yellow.
2. The same bloating paper when imersed in various inert preparaations but the medicine i.e. pulsitilla 36C will get stain free.

This way it has to be done.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3749


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #19 on: July 15, 2008, 13:57:43 PM »

Since you have never have an advantage of homeopathic treatment, how do you know it does not work?
How can you possibly know what treatment any other forum member has received?



Homeopathy is not a pancaea for every ill.
True enough: it’s a placebo for many.



ANd when homeopathy has no answer to a patient's problem, we ourselves ask them to resort to allopathy.
That’s very honourable but unfortunately not true.  There are far too many cases of avoidable harm and even death resulting from a homoeopath or other CAM practitioner pretending to know better.



With the massive way antibiotics (kills healthy as well as bad bacteria) are being prescribed today they have suppressed and in no time going to destroy the immune system. It is going to be open to new diseases that are going to be incurable
I’m afraid this shows your knowledge of antibiotics to be quite deficient.  They don’t impair the body’s immune system; they augment it.  It is the evolutionary aspect of microorganisms that results in the deterioration of antibiotics’ efficacy over time.  The microorganisms evolve resistance to antibiotics, as for example in the case of MDR and XDR TB.  In order to address this problem, there has for several years now been an ongoing and concerted drive in the medical community to reduce the willy-nilly prescription of antibiotics and limit their use to where they are essential.  In addition, doctors will always advise their patients to complete the course of antibiotics, something many patients fail to do and so they too must share in the blame.



What about allopathy? It is much older than homeopathy . around 600-700 years old. That means it is not a modern medicine.
This must be another joke, I think.  Medical science has adapted from what it originally was – folk wisdom mixed with mysticism and superstition – into an evidence-based enterprise that has bestowed enormous benefits on humanity as a whole.  In contrast, homoeopathy is still essentially the same unfounded nonsense it was 200 years ago.



Very simple to [identify a batch of 36C Pulsatilla from preparations that look alike]



This way it has to be done.
So you claim.  By “bloating paper,” I assume you mean “blotting paper.”  Unfortunately, the laws of chemistry will thwart you because a 36C dilution will not have a single particle of Pulsatilla left in any manageable quantity of preparation, and so cannot possibly affect the paper.  If you think otherwise, you can win one million US dollars from the JREF just for demonstrating this ability.  That money would surely help spread the benefits of homoeopathy, quite apart from proving all us sceptics wrong.

'Luthon64
Logged
Dr. Nancy Malik
Medical Doctor of Homeopathy
Jr. Member
**

Skeptical ability: +0/-11
Offline Offline

Posts: 87



nancymalik dr.nancy.malik DrNancyMalik
WWW
« Reply #20 on: July 16, 2008, 19:39:22 PM »

Since you have never have an advantage of homeopathic treatment, how do you know it does not work?
How can you possibly know what treatment any other forum member has received?



Homeopathy is not a pancaea for every ill.
True enough: it’s a placebo for many.



ANd when homeopathy has no answer to a patient's problem, we ourselves ask them to resort to allopathy.
That’s very honourable but unfortunately not true.  There are far too many cases of avoidable harm and even death resulting from a homoeopath or other CAM practitioner pretending to know better.



With the massive way antibiotics (kills healthy as well as bad bacteria) are being prescribed today they have suppressed and in no time going to destroy the immune system. It is going to be open to new diseases that are going to be incurable
I’m afraid this shows your knowledge of antibiotics to be quite deficient.  They don’t impair the body’s immune system; they augment it.  It is the evolutionary aspect of microorganisms that results in the deterioration of antibiotics’ efficacy over time.  The microorganisms evolve resistance to antibiotics, as for example in the case of MDR and XDR TB.  In order to address this problem, there has for several years now been an ongoing and concerted drive in the medical community to reduce the willy-nilly prescription of antibiotics and limit their use to where they are essential.  In addition, doctors will always advise their patients to complete the course of antibiotics, something many patients fail to do and so they too must share in the blame.



What about allopathy? It is much older than homeopathy . around 600-700 years old. That means it is not a modern medicine.
This must be another joke, I think.  Medical science has adapted from what it originally was – folk wisdom mixed with mysticism and superstition – into an evidence-based enterprise that has bestowed enormous benefits on humanity as a whole.  In contrast, homoeopathy is still essentially the same unfounded nonsense it was 200 years ago.



Very simple to [identify a batch of 36C Pulsatilla from preparations that look alike]



This way it has to be done.
So you claim.  By “bloating paper,” I assume you mean “blotting paper.”  Unfortunately, the laws of chemistry will thwart you because a 36C dilution will not have a single particle of Pulsatilla left in any manageable quantity of preparation, and so cannot possibly affect the paper.  If you think otherwise, you can win one million US dollars from the JREF just for demonstrating this ability.  That money would surely help spread the benefits of homoeopathy, quite apart from proving all us sceptics wrong.

'Luthon64


Who will oppose homeopathy? Only two types of people: One who has never taken homeopathic medicine, so he does not knows its immense benefits.  And second: Who have taken but shows no sign of improvement. No medicine including homeopathy can have 100% results.

Now you know yourself in which of the two categoriers you fall in. I have no  need to know.

Placebo is equally there in allopathy.

www.deathbymodernmedicine.com

Long term use of antibiotics suppesses the immune system and has serious (bad) effects on body especiaaly kidney. Even the allopathic community itself has been fed up with its side effects, so they now have come up with probiotics (which do no harm to health bacteria)

Why don't you try for yourself using blotting paper instead of beating around the bush. That would be a proof that even if does not contain any molecue, it's still a medicine.

ANd for your kind information there is a million dollar challange to allopaths also
http://www.spontaneouscreation.org/SC/$75,000VaccineOffer.htm
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3749


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #21 on: July 16, 2008, 21:24:59 PM »

Who will oppose homeopathy? Only two types of people: One who has never taken homeopathic medicine, so he does not knows its immense benefits.
That is what clinical trials are for: to test whether, and if so, to what extent a drug or medical procedure is effective.  What you’re saying is no less absurd than that a surgeon should first have to undergo every procedure on him/herself before s/he can be judged competent to perform it.



And second: Who have taken but shows no sign of improvement.
Not true.  There is at least one more category, namely those who recognise the ludicrous and wishful pseudoscience that comprises the bulk of homoeopathy.



No medicine including homeopathy can have 100% results.
Perhaps so, but a medicine should at the very least perform at a statistically significant level above a placebo.  More than that, one should be able to demonstrate its efficacy objectively.



I have no  need to know.
Yes, that would seem a good summary of the essential difficulty here.



Placebo is equally there in allopathy.
Ignoring once again the malapropistic “allopathy,” the above is correct, and conventional medicine has recognised the placebo effect.  That is why clinical trials are usually controlled for the effect by having a sub-population that receives a placebo instead of the test drug.  A large part of homoeopathy’s problem is that the drug is the placebo, and hence its effect can’t be distinguished.



Long term use of antibiotics suppesses the immune system and has serious (bad) effects on body especiaaly kidney.
Oh, so now we’ve shifted the goalposts by the opportune introduction of “long term use.”  In that case, you are undoubtedly correct.  To put things in their proper context, I assume that you know that drinking enough water can also kill you.



Even the allopathic community itself has been fed up with its side effects, so they now have come up with probiotics (which do no harm to health bacteria)
But – and this is just in case you missed it – these probiotic agents were not developed by homoeopaths!



Why don't you try for yourself using blotting paper instead of beating around the bush. That would be a proof that even if does not contain any molecue, it's still a medicine
I have tried it, though admittedly not with Pulsatilla, on more occasions than you probably suspect, actually.  Your crude test cannot even get close to the distinguishing capabilities of spectrographic analysis, another marvel of modern science that homoeopaths are apparently oblivious to.  “Medicine” it most assuredly is not, at least not in any usual sense of that word.



ANd for your kind information there is a million dollar challange to allopaths also
http://www.spontaneouscreation.org/SC/$75,000VaccineOffer.htm
So instead of actually answering a perfectly reasonable challenge that you correctly identify a homoeopathic preparation from a batch of similar-looking counterfeits, you dodge and issue a counterchallenge.  But here’s the hook: that challenge has nothing to do with anything that would in reality support homoeopathy.  Worse, it’s quite obviously an idiotic, even a dangerous challenge.  There are substances that are safe to ingest but not inject (e.g. tap water and snake venom), and vice versa.  The challenge is for some conventional medical practitioner in the US to drink a bodyweight-calibrated amount of vaccine preparation.  Since I am not on the list of eligible participants, the point is in any case moot, so you’ve once again wasted everyone’s time.

Now, will you or will you not answer the JREF challenge to identify successfully a homoeopathic preparation from a batch of fakes?

'Luthon64
Logged
Dr. Nancy Malik
Medical Doctor of Homeopathy
Jr. Member
**

Skeptical ability: +0/-11
Offline Offline

Posts: 87



nancymalik dr.nancy.malik DrNancyMalik
WWW
« Reply #22 on: July 17, 2008, 06:41:48 AM »

I challenge you to prove that Homeopathy does not work.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3749


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #23 on: July 17, 2008, 10:55:02 AM »

I challenge you to prove that Homeopathy does not work.
Did you miss the part where it was pointed out that the onus of proof rests only on the claimant?  If science had a responsibility to disprove any and every fantastical notion that people dream up with tedious abandon and regularity, no matter how foolish, scientists would never get anything useful done because there are infinitely more ways of being wrong than there are of being right.  Thus, if you think you are right in claiming that homoeopathy works better than a placebo, it’s very much up to you to supply the evidence supporting that claim.  It’s hardly up to me or anyone else to disprove it.

Nevertheless, there is no known way that homoeopathy can work because it violates well-established laws of physics and chemistry, so there is good reason to suppose that it does not in fact work.  As pointed out elsewhere in these pages, clinical trials by independent authorities bear this out further.

So please stop skirting the issue and answer the question: will you or will you not answer the JREF challenge to your claim of being able to identify successfully a homoeopathic preparation from a batch of fakes?

'Luthon64
Logged
Dr. Nancy Malik
Medical Doctor of Homeopathy
Jr. Member
**

Skeptical ability: +0/-11
Offline Offline

Posts: 87



nancymalik dr.nancy.malik DrNancyMalik
WWW
« Reply #24 on: July 17, 2008, 20:02:01 PM »

I am not inteested in a challange by any tom, dick and harry
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3749


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #25 on: July 17, 2008, 22:15:25 PM »

I am not inteested in a challange by any tom, dick and harry
It’s not “any tom, dick and harry.”  It’s the James Randi Educational Foundation, or JREF.  But if that’s your position, all of your claims can simply be dismissed because that which is offered without evidence can also be rejected without reason.

Has it been worthwhile, your wasting everyone’s time on this unsustainable codswallop?

ETA #1: You are a very naughty person, Dr. Nancy Malik. You have not been completely honest with us, now have you?  In fact, it would be fair to say that you are deceitful, would it not?

ETA #2: Two of the three links in ETA #1 require one to be logged in at the JREF Forum.  The first is to an Admin Suspension Notice for multiple Membership Agreement breaches directed at Dr. Nancy Malik and dated 11th March 2008.  The third link is to an Admin Ban Notice for continuous Membership Agreement breaches, ignoring an official Admin warning and numerous mod actions directed at Dr. Nancy Malik and dated 19th March 2008, eight days later.  Thus, Dr. Nancy Malik, apart from having a propensity for Stuka-posting, is perfectly well aware of the JREF Challenge.  And equally well aware, no doubt, that she will fail it.

'Luthon64
« Last Edit: July 17, 2008, 23:15:58 PM by Anacoluthon64, Reason: Sheer disbelief... » Logged
Pages: 1 2 [All]   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 1.437 seconds with 23 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page June 01, 2019, 05:46:21 AM
Privacy Policy