Veterinary homoeopathy illegal?

[Prester John]

Benguin - you have some actual valid points in being skeptical against homeopathy, this post is not one of them. I don't know what this doctor practiced but it wasn't homeopathy.

Some homeopaths take dowsing for remedies quite seriously, there have even been papers about it in some of your tabloids, sorry journals. Without any sort of evidence of efficacy who's to say its not an effective method for choosing remedies ? I'm personally quite sure its at least as effective as any other method you can use for choosing homeopathic remedies.

 

[Rolfe]

The reason we loudly say to you folks "Hey, Doctor Jones MD, said so...." is because we mistakenly think that YOU will value the opinion of an MD - not because we suddenly have a change of heart. They are referenced because you are supposed to cater to your audience and if your audience is a bunch of allopaths well then, it makes sense to draw reference to other allopaths - we think it will matter to YOU guys.

Really? It certainly doesn't come over that way. When Wim starts his multiple hagiography threads naming "distinguished" veterinary surgeons who have taken leave of their senses, it looks very much as if he's saying, look, everyone, pay no attention to these real vets who don't believe in homoeopathy, because here are some even more real vets who do.

It's hardly news to me. Unlike Wim, I actually know these guys. They're professional colleagues of mine, much to my shame. I've spoken to them. I think they're barking mad. So Wim, or Sarah, or anyone else, suddenly naming them as supporters of homoeopathy isn't telling me anything I don't know, and is hardly likely to impress me.

Indeed, the second part of your post returns to the contradiction in your own attitude. You're very keen to denigrate real medicine and what doctors do, you tell anyone who will listen about all the mistakes they make and how stupid you think they are. And then you cap that by saying, look, some real doctors believe in homoeopathy! As if that was a recommendation! After just having badmouthed the entire medical profession. If you're trying to persuade the general public that doctors are useless and stupid, it doesn't then make sense to turn to some doctors as an argument from authority by virtue of their medical status.

Rolfe.

 

[Barbrae]

You're very keen to denigrate real medicine and what doctors do, you tell anyone who will listen about all the mistakes they make and how stupid you think they are. Rolfe.

Please back up this statement - cause it looks like a gross exageration - or outright lie to me.

 

[Barbrae]

Some homeopaths take dowsing for remedies quite seriously, there have even been papers about it in some of your tabloids, sorry journals. Without any sort of evidence of efficacy who's to say its not an effective method for choosing remedies ? I'm personally quite sure its at least as effective as any other method you can use for choosing homeopathic remedies.

It doesn't amtter if it is effective or not - it isn't homeopathy.

 

[geni]

It doesn't amtter if it is effective or not - it isn't homeopathy.

Define homeopathy (and if you are going to say the oragon please state which eddition).

My personal view is that the term homeopath doesn't mean much which is why I tend to use a set of subclasications (clasical, new age, dabbler, <s>insane</s> realitly challanged etc). The problem is that as soon as you define homeopathy a X then a well know/respected homeopath will be found who dosen't fit the defintion. If we stick to the ultra clasical view then most of hapthy and otherhealth fail. If we use a slightly less strick defintion then drawing the boundry lines becomes interesting.

 

[Chris Haynes]

Please back up this statement - cause it looks like a gross exageration - or outright lie to me.

From checking just a few minutes:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870586604#post1870586604

and a thread started:
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45082

Editted to add this quote from the above thread:

Oh, come on now, the fatalities from properly prescribed drugs far outweighs any from herbs, supplements. and let's not make excuses as to why that is. The numbers are outrageous.

Anyway... back to the title of the this thread... from another thread:
http://vetlab.co.uk/voodoo/pseud.html ... this is a good article.

 

[Chris Haynes]

...
....I could find 10 more allopaths ...

...allopaths well then, ... allopaths - ....

I was under the impression you did not use that pejorative.

 

[Kiwi Kid]

It doesn't amtter if it is effective or not - it isn't homeopathy.

What is homeopathy?

 

[Suezoled]

Rolfe - there is something wrong with the logic and maybe I can help you put your finger on it. The reason we loudly say to you folks "Hey, Doctor Jones MD, said so...." is because we mistakenly think that YOU will value the opinion of an MD - not because we suddenly have a change of heart. They are referenced because you are supposed to cater to your audience and if your audience is a bunch of allopaths well then, it makes sense to draw reference to other allopaths - we think it will matter to YOU guys.
Not just you guys but society as a whole - becasue society opinion of MDs is that they are gods so we mention the many who do practice homeopathy - not because of our perspective but the perspective of those we are talking to.

When hypocrisy speaks they should do well to listen to their own words.
You don't trust "allopaths" but you use their words when it's convenient. It doesn't matter what YOU think makes sense; if you go into the world making extraordinary claims, you better have some pretty extraordinary evidence that is documentable, reproducable, and measureable.

As for "society" and "MD's" are gods... welcome to the world of Skeptics. If you want to play, don't take things at face value. This is a place where you verify what you are told not by looking up stories to back up your preferred point of view, but you look up and reference information to know more about the situation or idea as a whole, regardless of how you yourself want things to be.

In another thought, that whole "society" paragraph: that's just another "woe is me we're the prosecuted innocent minority" play. It's weak, old, emotional, baseless, and tired.

 

[Prester John]

What is homeopathy?

Good question, Barb ? Sarah ? I know why don't you both write your answers independently and post them at the same time ?

 

[Kumar]

Some homeopaths take dowsing for remedies quite seriously, there have even been papers about it in some of your tabloids, sorry journals. Without any sort of evidence of efficacy who's to say its not an effective method for choosing remedies ? I'm personally quite sure its at least as effective as any other method you can use for choosing homeopathic remedies.

Anything can be possible till you/CSs are able to provide suitable measuring/testing instruments/technologies.

Others:-

How many time history will be repeated. I already mentioned. Should I repeat everytime as per your repetitions that:-

Hello all,

In consideration to the discussions held here in various topics & at
http://www.otherhealth.com/showthread.php?p=51370#post51370

It has become well indicative & conclusive that homeopathy/TRS (may be other alt. systems) can have real effects & can be observed & measured in science provided they intend to check it & provide suitable testing technologies for the same. As discussed the effects are as under:-

Observable & Experianced:- by homeopathic/TRS community, mass existing & well distributed since long. ( observable by survey of homeopathic clinics, homeopaths & patients).

Other Types:- All other type effects with least side/adverse or toxic effects than just pure chemical CMS medicines with comparatively more side/adverse or toxic effects, as discussed in above provided link. It can be called by CMS as placebo, self immunity, resistances, CPE, CE, supplements, replacements, surgery, traditionally used chemicals, diet & exercise controls, psyclogical healings, energy healings, other so called alternative systems etc.etc.(accepted as possible).

Quantum & technicals:- Photons effects(as discussed in other thread here), water memory?, magnetic..etc.(whose testing technologies are still to be provided by modern system).

Possible mode of these effects:- pH balances, body secretions & energy balances.

I think, I am quite reasonable & justified to mention only this much here in short & simple, so repetitions of similarilities & contradictions thus may be avoided, and is also requested accordingly.

Thanks & bast wishes. http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45968&perpage=20&pagenumber=3

 

[Barbrae]

From checking just a few minutes:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870586604#post1870586604

and a thread started:
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45082

Editted to add this quote from the above thread:


Anyway... back to the title of the this thread... from another thread:
http://vetlab.co.uk/voodoo/pseud.html ... this is a good article.

HC - so those threads are the evidence that I denegrate medicine and tell anyone who will listen how evil it is?? Did youread them?? Try again. Oh, while you are at it why not post the threads where I say that conventional medicine is necessary, or what about Sarah's thread? Or the thread Rolfe's addisons case? Yeah, Rolfe is right, I HATE EVIL DOCTORS - GRRRRR - EVERYONE LISTEN TO ME, LET ME GET MY BLOW HORN AND SHOUT IT FROM THE ROOFTOPS.

regarding allopathy - perhaps you missed the posts where Rolfe took back the olive branch? I specifically address this issue back there.

 

[Barbrae]

Good question, Barb ? Sarah ? I know why don't you both write your answers independently and post them at the same time ?

okay - later tonight - puppy needs to go out

 

[Rolfe]

HC - so those threads are the evidence that I denegrate medicine and tell anyone who will listen how evil it is?? Did youread them?? Try again. Oh, while you are at it why not post the threads where I say that conventional medicine is necessary, or what about Sarah's thread? Or the thread Rolfe's addisons case? Yeah, Rolfe is right, I HATE EVIL DOCTORS - GRRRRR - EVERYONE LISTEN TO ME, LET ME GET MY BLOW HORN AND SHOUT IT FROM THE ROOFTOPS.

regarding allopathy - perhaps you missed the posts where Rolfe took back the olive branch? I specifically address this issue back there.

Frankly, Barb, you are so casually and cavalierly snippy about anyone you see as the "opposite camp" that (as I've said before) I honestly don't think you realise how rude you are being. At the same time you are impossibly touchy when anyone makes any sort of snippy remark directed at you. And you chose to forget - even ignore - the fact that I fought quite hard against Bill when I thought he was attacking you unreasonably.

I realise you're not horrible, and you're not rude all the time. I realise you're capable of perfectly rational discussion, and I very much enjoy discussing with you when you're in that mood. Though I do wish you wouldn't just drop a subject when you maybe don't like the information you've been presented with, or have trouble thinking of an answer.

But I'm so tired of your ultra-sensitive "who dares say anything the least bit negative about nice little me!" attitude that I've simply given up. If you can't take what you dish out without crying foul, then too bad. I'm not going to respond.

I never intended to withdraw any olive branch. But I'm tired of treading on eggshells. If you want to have a dialogue, let's have a dialogue. If you want to moan and sulk, well, carry on.

Rolfe.

 

[Chris Haynes]

HC - so those threads are the evidence that I denegrate medicine and tell anyone who will listen how evil it is?? Did youread them?? Try again. Oh, while you are at it why not post the threads where I say that conventional medicine is necessary, or what about Sarah's thread? ,....

Yes, I did read them. Even the posts which you claim that real medicine is necesary --- including the ones where you still failed to explain how homeopathy would be useful for real medical problems like hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

I will give homeopathy its due as a way for people to get psychological help without the stigma of seeing a psychologist or psychiatrist. It has been shown that talk therapy is beneficial and sometimes better than mental health medications:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/28/earlyshow/contributors/emilysenay/main646072.shtml and:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/08/health/webmd/main641883.shtml ...

... but I am not convinced that super dilutions of water, alcohol or sugar pills have any real affect on the human body.

 

[Barbrae]

prester

Homeopathy, simply put is the healing of disease (that's a whole other discussion on what defines disease) through the natural law that like cures like. If healing through the administration of a remedy (whether the remedy be a homeopathically prepared one or not) occurs via the stimulation of the same symptoms it is intended to cure then that is homeopathy. If the remedy given is not capable of producing the same symtpoms intended to cure and amelioration of symptoms doesn't happen then it is not homeopathy.

Now, what makes a homeopath is a different story - but that's not what you asked.

how do you define conventional medicine? How do you define a medical doctor? Is it simply having an MD after your name?

 

[Barbrae]

Yes, I did read them. Even the posts which you claim that real medicine is necesary --- including the ones where you still failed to explain how homeopathy would be useful for real medical problems like hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

then if you are aware that I believe allopathy has it's place why try to back up Rolfes statement?

"You're very keen to denigrate real medicine and what doctors do, you tell anyone who will listen about all the mistakes they make and how stupid you think they are. Rolfe. "

 

[Barbrae]

Frankly, Barb, you are so casually and cavalierly snippy about anyone you see as the "opposite camp" that (as I've said before) I honestly don't think you realise how rude you are being. At the same time you are impossibly touchy when anyone makes any sort of snippy remark directed at you. And you chose to forget - even ignore - the fact that I fought quite hard against Bill when I thought he was attacking you unreasonably.

I realise you're not horrible, and you're not rude all the time. I realise you're capable of perfectly rational discussion, and I very much enjoy discussing with you when you're in that mood. Though I do wish you wouldn't just drop a subject when you maybe don't like the information you've been presented with, or have trouble thinking of an answer.

But I'm so tired of your ultra-sensitive "who dares say anything the least bit negative about nice little me!" attitude that I've simply given up. If you can't take what you dish out without crying foul, then too bad. I'm not going to respond.

I never intended to withdraw any olive branch. But I'm tired of treading on eggshells. If you want to have a dialogue, let's have a dialogue. If you want to moan and sulk, well, carry on.

Rolfe.

You misread me Rolfe - this is not sulking - it's calling you to the carpet when you make comments regarding my character or actions that are plainly false. You have a bad habit of saying whatever you wish regarding us homeopaths with little or no truth to your comments. SO care to back up how I am "very keen to denigrate real medicine and what doctors do, you tell anyone who will listen about all the mistakes they make and how stupid you think they are. Rolfe. "

or would you care to look at reality and realize that I have over and over again said I think allopathy is needed and helpful in human and animal medicine? Just for the record - I don't think allopaths are EVIL - I believe that the majority of them want to heal people. But that doesn't mean that allopaths or allopathy is perfect - there is a lot of room to change - and that should be discussed, which apparently is not allowed here because whenever any negatuive aspect of allopathy is mentioned by a "woo" we are jumped upon and guilty of "denigrating" the medical system.

 

[Chris Haynes]

Perhaps it is the impression you give with your warm bedside manner... and your continued use of a pejorative to refer to those who practice something other than homeopathy.

 

[Hellbound]

How do you define a medical doctor? Is it simply having an MD after your name?

That one's easy. Someone who has been licensed by a state medical board as able to practice medicine legally within that state. Not just an MD after the name, although being able to legally use MD does require licensing.

Sadly, there is no such regulation for homeopathy. At least with a doctor using an MD, you can be reasonably sure he atteded the college courses and residencies required to be recognized by the board. As such, he has some knowledge of the body and its systems. You also know that each doctor is trained identically and trained in scientifically based procedures...i.e.-all doctors, regardless of school, are taught that antibiotics are given for bacterial infection. All doctors are taught identical techniques for inserting chest tubes, or for resetting and splinting limbs. Doctors are all taught standards of prescription...you don't have one doctor who will proscribe 8 antibiotics at once, and another who prescribes one at a time. You don't have differences in dosage and frequency for similar conditions between doctors. They are trained in techniques and standards that are themselves reviewed by medical organizations for efficiency and safety. They are held accountable for their actions, and any mistakes due to inability, incompetence, carelessness, or maliciousness can result in their inability to practice. You can ask to see any doctors license to practice in that state. Most will have them displayed in their office.

With homeopathic practitioners, there is no regulating body. You can't be sure what your practitioner was taught, as there is no accepted definition for homeopathy...i.e.-some shake, some stir, some graft, some dowse...no standard of preparation, storage, or prescription of remedies, no standard of diagnosis, remedies given all out of sorts with classical homeopathy, etc. You can go to multiple homeopaths with the same complaint, and get completely different remedies or completely different instructions on how to take the same remedy.

Are you really sure you want to continue in this line of thought? Homeopathy really has no leg to stand on here. The best you can do is claim that even with the regulations and laws and licenses some bad doctors get through...and that's true. But many fewer bad doctors get through all this then there would if it were unregulated...as is homeopathy.