Martha Bidlack: living proof!

[Skeptic]

First of all, I would like to offer Hal and Martha my hopes for full recovery--which, it seems, is going to be the case. Good luck.

Second, quoting Linda:

Martha, his wife, had been admitted to the ICU with a massive infection resulting in renal failure last Friday. Thanks to antibiotics she is recovering and has been moved from the ICU to a regular room and should be home soon.

Martha is recovering from Renal failure. In the "old days", Renal failure was a death sentence--you can't live without your kidneys, at least not for long. Why is she recovering? Surprise, surprise: due to modern medicine! Due to antbiotics and the Intensive Care Unit's resources!

Did you ever notice that acupuncture, chiropractic spine manipulation, homeopathy, and the rest of that nonsensical crap NEVER seems to work in cases of renal failure, broken bones, anthrax, and so on? Ever noticed that the ONLY "medical" achievement these "therapies" can actually achieve is to make already-healthy people feel vaguely more "natural" and "well" for a few days?

Can anybody say, "placebo effect"???

What would have been Martha's chances if (which God forbid) she and Hal were not skeptics who understand that modern medicine works, but "new age" (actually, stone age) people who shun "unnatural" things like the ICU and antibiotics, and were to rely on prayer, homeopthy, theraputic touch, and the rest? I think we all know the answer.

"Sure, it's irrational, but what HARM does 'alternative medicine' do?"--I think Martha is the answer to that. What damage does "alternative" medicine do? It kills you, that's what!

 

[Sundog]

I can't help but think Hal would probably rather we stay out of his private life right now.

 

[Diamond]

"Sure, it's irrational, but what HARM does 'alternative medicine' do?"--I think Martha is the answer to that. What damage does "alternative" medicine do? It kills you, that's what!

This always gets me. There is no "alternative medicine". There is medicine and there is quackery. Medecine gets tested and refined and controlled and tested again.

Quackery is bought by people who beguile themselves into a fantasy world. Sometimes those people are very ill and desperate.

Quackery never works. Only the body can ultimately heal itself, and only by understanding the real human body without the chakras and energy flows and auras nonsense, can modern medicine help the body heal itself.

 

[shanek]

Did you ever notice that acupuncture, chiropractic spine manipulation, homeopathy, and the rest of that nonsensical crap NEVER seems to work in cases of renal failure, broken bones, anthrax, and so on?

Well, neither does brain surgery, for example. Everything has its place, and no one should decry against any form of treatment just because it doesn't treat what the practitioners don't even claim it treats.

Acupuncture and chiropractic have been shown to have a certain benefit in pain management. They may also have other benefits we haven't discovered yet. While I don't see any benefit to homeopathy, for all we know tomorrow evidence could turn up that shows it has some sort of benefit in a way we haven't tried yet.

Doctors stopped using leeches long ago, and that remedy fell into scorn and derision for a long time, only to be resurrected again when it found there were benefits to leeches after all. And many doctors today debride wounds by pouring maggots into them.

Of course, the true difference you're getting at is that the current treatment for renal failure has been shown to be effective due to scientific examination and testing. That is also what showed us the benefits I mentioned with chiropractic, acupuncture, leeches, and maggots. However foolhardy it may be to rely on untested techniques (unless, of course, there's no known effective technique and your situation is desperate), I think it would be just as foolhardy to turn a bigoted back towards certain things just because you associate them with "new age" or other groups or ideas. You never know what possible cures and breakthroughs you may be passing up.

After all, who would have thought to look for medicine in bread mold in the first place?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I can't help but think Hal would probably rather we stay out of his private life right now.

I would agree, except that I can't help but think the Bidlack's would agree with both the sentiment of Skeptic's post and the sentiment with which it was posted.

Doctors stopped using leeches long ago, and that remedy fell into scorn and derision for a long time, only to be resurrected again when it found there were benefits to leeches after all. And many doctors today debride wounds by pouring maggots into them.

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/77/77rtheodoric.phtml

Hunchback: [ pulls Drunkard forward in a cart ] Is this Theodoric, Barber of York?

Theodoric of York: Say, don't I know you?

Hunchback: Sure, you worked on my back.

Theodoric of York: What's wrong with your friend here?

Hunchback: He broke his legs.

Drunkard: I was at the festival of the vernal equinox, and I guess I had a little too much mead.. and I darted out in front of an oxcart. It all happened so fast. They couldn't stop in time.

Theodoric of York: Well, you'll a lot better after a good bleeding.

Drunkard: But I'm bleeding already!

Theodoric of York: Say, whos the barber here?

The reason the "remedy" of leeches went out of style was that at the time of their "prescription" medicine consisted largely of balancing humors and had no concept of things microbiology, anti-coagulants, topical anesthesia or how the circulatory system worked. With that information availible to them, leeches were returned to the pharmacy, but in a capacity very different from they served before.

I'm not suggesting that old remedies are bad, I'm just saying we should find what's effective and what just serves as a placebo.

 

[shanek]

The reason the "remedy" of leeches went out of style was that at the time of their "prescription" medicine consisted largely of balancing humors and had no concept of things microbiology, anti-coagulants, topical anesthesia or how the circulatory system worked. With that information availible to them, leeches were returned to the pharmacy, but in a capacity very different from they served before.

I'm not suggesting that old remedies are bad, I'm just saying we should find what's effective and what just serves as a placebo.

Of course. I'm merely saying don't turn a bigoted eye to what has been dismissed before. Leeches were abandoned not because they were useless, but because the way they were being used gave no benefits and may even have made things worse. Now the little guys are helping people.

Scientists are human, too, and have to be just as careful of bigotry as anyone else. When the early works tarted being done with the structure of chemical elements in the 19th Century, the work was repressed or held back because it smacked of alchemy. Only in the last ten years have physicists started openly discussing the possibility of time travel, because before it would have meant exposing yourself to ridicule. These things all get in the way of scientific debate, which is absolutely crucial if we are to move forward.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Re: Re: Martha Bidlack: living proof!

shanek:

Well, neither does brain surgery, for example. Everything has its place, and no one should decry against any form of treatment just because it doesn't treat what the practitioners don't even claim it treats.

Acupuncture and chiropractic have been shown to have a certain benefit in pain management.

Any links?

They may also have other benefits we haven't discovered yet.

And Libertarianism may be all its made out to be.

While I don't see any benefit to homeopathy, for all we know tomorrow evidence could turn up that shows it has some sort of benefit in a way we haven't tried yet.

WHAT? Are you joking? Homeopathy has been debunked beyond any reasonable doubt. It is ridiculous in every sense of the word.

Doctors stopped using leeches long ago, and that remedy fell into scorn and derision for a long time, only to be resurrected again when it found there were benefits to leeches after all. And many doctors today debride wounds by pouring maggots into them.

So humping what? The deceases they were used for, the reasons for giving them up and the reason they are now used for something completely different, have nothing to do with each other.

Of course, the true difference you're getting at is that the current treatment for renal failure has been shown to be effective due to scientific examination and testing. That is also what showed us the benefits I mentioned with chiropractic, acupuncture, leeches, and maggots. However foolhardy it may be to rely on untested techniques (unless, of course, there's no known effective technique and your situation is desperate), I think it would be just as foolhardy to turn a bigoted back towards certain things just because you associate them with "new age" or other groups or ideas. You never know what possible cures and breakthroughs you may be passing up.

I totally agree with the last part of your statement. One should keep an open mind. But....HOMEOPATHY? Shanek, that is totally undefensible.

After all, who would have thought to look for medicine in bread mold in the first place?

Scientists. You know, the people who through empirical testing can tell ◊◊◊◊ from facts.

 

[Dr. Imago]

I can't help but think Hal would probably rather we stay out of his private life right now.

I agree. Although Linda and Hal have chosen to share some choice information with our JREF family, we should respect Hal's and his wife's greater privacy. Suffice it to say that the reference of this thread is not the only battle that Mrs. Bidlack is fighting right now, and I'm sure that Hal would appreciate keeping any direct discussions or references to her current health at a minimum.

Therefore, out of respect for the Bidlack family's privacy, please start a new thread if you wish to discuss the more philosophical aspects of modern medical care. While I obviously cannot speak for Hal, I'm sure he would appreciate that, although he probably will not say anything publicly.

-TT

 

[exarch]

Re: Re: Re: Martha Bidlack: living proof!

While I don't see any benefit to homeopathy, for all we know tomorrow evidence could turn up that shows it has some sort of benefit in a way we haven't tried yet.

WHAT? Are you joking? Homeopathy has been debunked beyond any reasonable doubt. It is ridiculous in every sense of the word.

Isn't that what Shanek just said? I think it's extremely closed-minded to just assume because something hasn't succeeded in living up to its claims, there aren't any other (unclaimed) area's where it can perform but which haven't been been explored just yet.
For example, how can we know if homeopathy might not somehow be usefull in treating nausea from prolonged exposure to a weightless or low gravity environment if we haven't tried it, or even know what other discomforts might turn up once people start living on the Moon or Mars.

Just like leeches were used in a completely ridiculous way in the past doesn't mean that the use of leeches themselves is ridiculous.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Martha Bidlack: living proof!

exarch:

Isn't that what Shanek just said?

No. Shanek held forth that perhaps homeopathy could at some time in the future be shown to have some effect on something. Which is ridiculous.

I think it's extremely closed-minded to just assume because something hasn't succeeded in living up to its claims, there aren't any other (unclaimed) area's where it can perform but which haven't been been explored just yet.

You don't seem to understand what homeopathy is.

For example, how can we know if homeopathy might not somehow be usefull in treating nausea from prolonged exposure to a weightless or low gravity environment if we haven't tried it, or even know what other discomforts might turn up once people start living on the Moon or Mars.

We know it to the same degree of certainty that we know that bringing a rabbit's foot to Mars for good luck is just a waste of propelant.

Just like leeches were used in a completely ridiculous way in the past doesn't mean that the use of leeches themselves is ridiculous.

The use of leeches isn't inherently ridiculous. Homeopathy is.

 

[exarch]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Martha Bidlack: living proof!

No. Shanek held forth that perhaps homeopathy could at some time in the future be shown to have some effect on something. Which is ridiculous.

Until someone finds a use for it, we will never know, will we? Just like we won't now if God really exists until someone actually proves beyond any doubt whether or not he exists.

You don't seem to understand what homeopathy is.

Homeopathy is the practice of diluting substances with water to the point where there is hardly any trace of the original substance left. The current claim is that the more diluted the substance is, the more powerful the cure. That claim is indeed ridiculous, but the idea of diluting a substance until it reaches a point where it is no longer harmfull, but some of it is still present in the solution is not ridiculous, and simply because we have no use for it yet doesn't mean it is bogus or couldn't have some use in the future. There's being a sceptic, and then there's being a disbeliever. Your attitide is just as harmful to science as those people who do believe homeopathy works, because you'll just throw out the bread molds, the leeches and the maggots simply because their current application is nonsense.

 

[Chaos]

Just for clarification: what do you mean by the term "homeopathy"?

A doctor once explained to me that the principle of homeopathy is to use a substance that causes the same effect as an illness, though in a very small, harmless dose, to "fool" the immune system that the illness is much worse than it actually is, so that it works harder.

That appeared rather sound to me, and it seemed to work with the angina I used to have every several months. I didn´t bother to double-check, though, as I was glad be rid of the angina.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Martha Bidlack: living proof!

exarch:

Until someone finds a use for it, we will never know, will we? Just like we won't now if God really exists until someone actually proves beyond any doubt whether or not he exists.

There is already many uses for it. You can water your plants with it, cook spaghetti in in it, flush you toilet with it. It is afterall very pure water.

Homeopathy is the practice of diluting substances with water to the point where there is hardly any trace of the original substance left. The current claim is that the more diluted the substance is, the more powerful the cure. That claim is indeed ridiculous, but the idea of diluting a substance until it reaches a point where it is no longer harmfull, but some of it is still present in the solution is not ridiculous, and simply because we have no use for it yet doesn't mean it is bogus or couldn't have some use in the future.

Hold on. If your claim is that we might possibly find a use for a diluted solution of some substance in the future, then I totally agree. This is obvious. Heck, a diluted solution of HCl does wonders for my toilet bowl. What does that have to do with homeopathy?

There's being a sceptic, and then there's being a disbeliever. Your attitide is just as harmful to science as those people who do believe homeopathy works, because you'll just throw out the bread molds, the leeches and the maggots simply because their current application is nonsense.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Homeopathy is bunk, empirically and theoretically.

[Edited to add: Just found this link on homeopathy. Read and enjoy.]

 

[exarch]

I think we're disagreeing on what exactly homeopathy is.

It could be I'm thinking of something else here, and judging from the link you gave me, I am.

Like I said, giving a person water, no matter what substance it has been in contact with at some point, is going to have nothing but a placebo effect.
I'm thinking of solutions where not all of the original substance has been diluted out of the mixture. While pure snake venom will very likely kill a person, a diluted version may trigger a response in the body that could somehow help the healing process or supply certain chemicals the body needs.
Mere water however will serve no other purpose except (re)hydrating the recipient of the treatment, no matter what woowoo-explanation you come up with.

 

[Zep]

Gentlefolk, please! Cease and desist.

Can we move this to another thread? The title of this one is not really applicable to this conversation.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by exarch:
I'm thinking of solutions where not all of the original substance has been diluted out of the mixture. While pure snake venom will very likely kill a person, a diluted version may trigger a response in the body that could somehow help the healing process or supply certain chemicals the body needs.

Remember that homeopathy uses infintisimal dilutions, to such a degree that the final homepathic solution contains none of the original substance at all.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Of course. I'm merely saying don't turn a bigoted eye to what has been dismissed before.

I'm sorry Shane, I know we've had our disagreements in the past and a couple that are ongoing, but I wasn't trying to provide a counterpoint to you, I just was trying to point out a point of fact.

 

[hal bidlack]

This thread has been reported, and so I have read it.

I do not find that this thread violates any rules of the forum.

On a personal note, I would rather this be discussed without my wife's name prominately featured, but I do not see how I can compel that within the rules.

FYI, she is still hospitalized, with a new infection, so the battle is ongoing.

hal

 

[Sundog]

On a personal note, I would rather this be discussed without my wife's name prominately featured, but I do not see how I can compel that within the rules.

Apparently some people's sense of what's appropriate is a little off.

Our continued best wishes, Hal.

 

[Psi Baba]

On a personal note, I would rather this be discussed without my wife's name prominately featured, but I do not see how I can compel that within the rules.

Perhaps Skeptic wouldn't mind if you changed the title of the thread. I don't think any of the other posters would object either.