Call us : 0402 082 472

If you use any criteria other than yes to science, no to non-science, you’re suddenly knee deep in making judgments about cultural practices.

Faith healing. People who use certain plants or soils/ clays to cover wounds might be doing more harm than good. If you use any criteria other than yes to science, no to non-science, you’re suddenly knee deep in making judgments about cultural practices. You can’t take an “overdose’ of a homeopic remedy because there is less of the “active principal’ in it than there is in tap water.

And those inhalers that cover the nose and mouth look pretty damn silly if you don’t know what’s going on. But a good investigator can track down the origins of the practice and maybe find a region with a source of clay that had a significant copper or silver concentration, so it acted as an antibiotic when applied to a wound. Given the nature of asthma, such a false sense of confidence could easily lead to a patient’s death, because it’s not too uncommon for asthma patients to be reasonably functional up toa certain point of lung function deterioration and then be “tipped over the edge.” In other words, it’s not good to give asthma patients a sense of feeling better if their lungs are not actually functioning better. Picking and choosing on this basis is fraught with all kinds of pitfalls.

But I would support a clear statement on them along the lines of “these products have not been shown to be any more effective than a placebo.” Originally Posted by adelady Anyone who thinks that banning homeopathic products will shift public opinion towards Allopathy has, in my opinion, a distorted view of human nature. In any culture. The idea that banging stuff on a Bible had any physical effect on water, let alone a therapeutic effect, is pure hokery. Plenty of people I know who use homeopathic cures also use proven medicine and those that don’t are the kind who wouldn’t see a Dr. go to the hospital regardless. It may give homeopathy a sort of vogue that lends itcredibility. Homeopathy= the practice of selling water, and occasionally sugar or sand, as medicine. Basically, the placebo intervention produced the illusion of improvement, which in the case of a disease like asthma, where it is function, not symptoms, that determine how sick a patient is.

But that’s their choice, being educated on the issue is pretty easy and you can’t force people to agree with facts. Many accumulate minerals that are scarce in the soil and water sources they grow in, but the concentrated material in the leaves/ stems/ roots can have valuable therapeutic properties in some circumstances. Grow the same plant in another region and the benefits are lessened or entirely absent.

The best thing that can be said of homeopathetic medicines is that they generally will not harm you, because there is no measurable trace of the “active ” material left in the dose you take. Originally Posted by SowZ37 There are plenty of practices considered ‘natural medicine’ that are cultural. First of all: I want to state that I’m a de facto atheist just as the next man. I’ll be more careful in the future. But there’s one question that keeps boggling my mind:Why do we struggle?Ever since Darwin’s “Origins of Species” and “Survival of the Fittest”, struggle (or survival) is the key phenomenon that made the species the way they are today. Can you give an example of such a practice? It’s the most respectful approach we can take.

I don’t have any discussions with people who agree with modern medicine, it’s just sort of assumed. Related Discussions:How do we stay sane?What is Biology anyway?The Universe ‘froze’ its way into existence in a Big Chill, say physicistsHow can the study of fossils be considered science?Please explain me how did universe came into existence?Category Theory PrimerMost useful animals to humankindGuilt – Why is it necessary?God is either everything , or God is nothing. Most homeopaths don’t just criticise science based medicine, they actively turn their patients away from consulting properly trained practitioners. Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum Originally Posted by SowZ37 There are plenty of practices considered ‘natural medicine’ that are cultural. As for using homeopathy to the exclusion of actual medicine, well, that’s their choice.

Also, when not used in exclusion of modern medicine but just as a supplement, who cares if it is a Placebo? Have you ever heard of a homeopath telling a client that they should also use science-based medicine as well as the sugar pills or the water? I haven’t. Same thing goes for many other “traditional” practices. Homeopathic thuggery bites the host of the next Skeptics’ Circle – Respectful InsolenceWhen you have people promoting the idea of homeopathic vaccines, we’re well into an area that I’d be willing to treat as criminal. He was absolutely right that medical practices of the time did more harm than good. You should stop doing that because it’s “yucky” or “violent” or “looks stupid” or “dangerous”.

Just look at what happened to HIV-AIDS sufferers – and transmission rates – in South Africa when the government was headed by people who promoted Anything But Science Based Medicine as public health policy. What “force” gives them this characteristic? And why is it considered necessary by it? There are few things more dangerous than surgery or more violent than CPR or yucky/dangerous than chemotherapy.

But it was all based on magical thinking. The better approach is to look at cultural practices with a scientific eye rather than an our-science-is-automatically-better eye. It is not hard to imagine a situation in which a placebo intervention falsely leads a patient to feel better, even though his pulmonary function hasn’t improved. If you are a genuine supporter of science based medicine, you should not use that word. However, what metaphysical law justifies the survival of the fittest?

In other words: why is survival of the fittest introduced in the universe? Let’s say it all started with the big bang and the chemical particles, compositions and radioactivity which were derived thereof. You’re right that it’s OK for chronic pain. However, what metaphysical law justifies the survival of the fittest?

In other words: why is survival of the fittest introduced in the universe? Let’s say it all started with the big bang and the chemical particles, compositions and radioactivity which were derived thereof. It is just as if not more likely to have the opposite effect. The ingredients of supplements and homeopathic pills are right on the bottle. It was invented out of whole cloth by this bloke Samuel Hahnemann – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . Vote!Existence It would be racist to prohibit those. Certain poultices. But there’s one question that keeps boggling my mind:Why do we struggle?Ever since Darwin’s “Origins of Species” and “Survival of the Fittest”, struggle (or survival) is the key phenomenon that made the species the way they are today.

All of these things are harmless if not done to the exclusion of actual medicine. More credulous reporting on placebo effects – Respectful Insolence There are plenty of practices considered ‘natural medicine’ that are cultural. It carries an insulting connotation against genuine science based medicine. My other points still stand, I think. It would assault cultural practices that are harmless the way most people use them. The data is there for anyone who wants to be educated. It’s life threatening for other conditions like malaria and asthma.

Basically, patients receiving the placebo acupuncture felt better, as good as those who received treatment with a real albuterol inhaler. Had there been a vaccine at the time, that should have been regarded as mass murder. So instead of just being there as chemical compositions, they started to struggle for survival. They sort of shut up about it pretty promptly when they discovered that this “secret” consisted of older women whacking pregnant women in the guts with a waddy or nulla nulla (which was primarily a war weapon). Poultices are a good example. If the discussion is based on culture, then non-westerners can quite rightly say exactly the same things about CPR and surgery and chemotherapy and asthma inhalers.
Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum Would you support the prohibition of selling homeopathic preparations by Australian pharmacists?

No. There is no “survival of the fittest”. It would be racist to prohibit those. Originally Posted byCogito Ergo Sum Ergo, are you in favor of prohibiting the sale of homeopathic preparations? No.I prefer to have extensive education/information given to everyone.Much like cigarettes have “SMOKING GIVES YOU CANCER!” written on the packaging, homeopathic products should have “THIS DOESN’T WORK!” written on them. And it doesn’t matter if it’s homeopathy or acupuncture or any other “traditional” practice. As for the placebo effect.

Then I wouldn’t consider them a religion. The only place where it is morally grey would be in the case of those unable to make an informed decision, primarily children. This is a principal that has absolutely no basis in fact. However, the pulmonary function tests did not bear that out. When we take a huge leap to the beginning of life on earth, we see that from the very start the species were competing each other.

When the practice spread to other areas, the efficacy disappeared because the particular qualities of that substance are not universal in clay/ soil . Can you give an example of such a practice? Acupuncture, for example. Similarly for plant materials. Originally Posted by skeptic Originally Posted by SowZ37 Anyone who thinks that banning homeopathic products will shift public opinion towards Allopathy Just a quick comment.The term “Allopathy” is one used by woo merchants only.

It would be racist to prohibit those. It’s all very well to say that the “secret women’s business” of Australian indigenous groups should be left to them. If we move away from using science as the yea or nay decider, we’re straight into the morass of cultural relativism. Not to mention that using such products alongside mainstream medicine is harmless, and keeping people from practicing that would be a substantially, (even if unintentionally,) racist regulation. We should not treat these matters as being cultural or racial, butas scientific. There are plenty of practices considered ‘natural medicine’ that are cultural. They certainly did conduct abortions this way, it might be “racist” to prohibit such practices among those groups or others like them, but that’s too damn bad.

Homeopathy is not a “traditional” cultural practice. So I suppose I’ve ended up using the vocabulary of the homeopaths. Originally Posted by teapot First of all: I want to state that I’m a de facto atheist just as the next man. Many “cultural practices” turn out to be based on science unknown to either the practitioners or the medical/scientific people who encounter them. It would be racist to prohibit those.

It is based on a principal that a tiny amount of a poison that produces the same effect as your current symptom will be an effective medicine to cure that symptom. There used to be some clowns who claimed that “secret” knowledge allowed the women to conduct abortions (thereby raising the dominant cultural image of the wise woman with herbs).