http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/2010/01/homeopathy-by-the-mindboggling-numbers.html
Quotehave just purchased a packet of Boots-brand 84 arnica homeopathic 30C Pills for £5.09, which Boots proudly claim is only 6.1p per pill. Their in-store advice tells me that arnica is good for treating "bruising and injuries", which gives the impression that this is a very cost-effective health-care option.
Unlike most medication, it didn't list the actual dose of the active ingredient that each pill contains, so I checked the British Homeopathic Association website. On their website it nonchalantly states that to make a homeopathic remedy, they start with the active ingredient and then proceed to dilute it to 1 per cent concentration. Then they dilute that new solution again, so there is now only 0.01 per cent of the original ingredients. For my 30C pills this diluting is repeated thirty times, which means that the arnica is one part in a million billion billion billion billion billion billion.
The arnica is diluted so much that there is only one molecule of it per 7 million billion billion billion billion pills.
It's hard to comprehend numbers that large. If you were to buy that many pills from Boots, it would cost more than the gross domestic product of the UK. It's more than the gross domestic product of the entire world. Since the dawn of civilisation. If every human being since the beginning of time had saved every last penny, denarius and sea-shell, we would still have not saved-up enough to purchase a single arnica molecule from Boots.
Also, the comments on that article make me fear for the future of humanity. :horrormirth:
QuoteDear Boots,
I believe the following things to be effective treatments for headache, depression, nausea, injuries, bruising, M.E. and rickets, so demand you stock them immediately:
* Kittens
* Wurlitzers
* Bacon
* Those plastic tubes that go 'wakka wakka wakka' when you shake them
* The Greatest Hits of Slade
Yours in anticipation,
Nathan aged 34 3/4.
:mittens:
Apparently people are willing to pay for the placebo effect. I suppose it's better than actually having arnica in it, since that's poisonous.
Boots is doin it wrong. Only costs about $5 for my big bottle of goldenseal at the drugstore. Cures mah sick every time, and I used to have chronic bronchitis, sinus infections, and laryngitis.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 22, 2010, 09:42:58 PM
Apparently people are willing to pay for the placebo effect. I suppose it's better than actually having arnica in it, since that's poisonous.
Details. Details.
Anyone for sending him emails demanding stronger doses of arnica?
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 22, 2010, 09:42:58 PM
Apparently people are willing to pay for the placebo effect. I suppose it's better than actually having arnica in it, since that's poisonous.
You sir, fial at toxicity.
everything is toxic.
Quote from: Regret on January 23, 2010, 01:52:09 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 22, 2010, 09:42:58 PM
Apparently people are willing to pay for the placebo effect. I suppose it's better than actually having arnica in it, since that's poisonous.
You sir, fial at toxicity.
everything is toxic.
YES! BECAUSE EVERYTHING CONTAINS TOXINS! Thats why i never eat meat, only vegetables, and i never drink water either because it has toxins, i only drink green tea.
Thats also why i give myself an enema every third day after drinking a liter of Yakult.
Quote from: Sparkley Pink Shit on January 23, 2010, 12:43:47 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 22, 2010, 09:42:58 PM
Apparently people are willing to pay for the placebo effect. I suppose it's better than actually having arnica in it, since that's poisonous.
Details. Details.
According to the wikipedia entry on arnica, "Arnica contains the toxin helenalin, which can be poisonous if large amounts of the plant are eaten, and contact with the plant can also cause skin irritation. If enough of the material is ingested, the toxin helenalin produces severe gastroenteritis, and internal bleeding of the digestive tract."
Which I think is the whole point behind homeopathy, that harmful substances like mercury or phosphorus, when diluted down to practical nonexistence, will have some effect. It's based on bogus medieval theories to a time when poison used to be used as medicine. But when you dilute it to the point where there aren't any molecules left, you can't even make a reasonable argument that it is any different than sugar pill. Also from wikipedia (homeopathy), "since water will have been in contact with millions of different substances throughout its history, critics point out that water is therefore an extreme dilution of almost any conceivable substance. By drinking water one would, according to this interpretation, receive treatment for every imaginable condition"
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 23, 2010, 03:26:49 AM
Also from wikipedia (homeopathy), "since water will have been in contact with millions of different substances throughout its history, critics point out that water is therefore an extreme dilution of almost any conceivable substance. By drinking water one would, according to this interpretation, receive treatment for every imaginable condition"
I've heard that before. It still makes me laugh , because it's absurd. Which is the point, I always assumed.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 23, 2010, 03:26:49 AM
Which I think is the whole point behind homeopathy, that harmful substances like mercury or phosphorus, when diluted down to practical nonexistence, will have some effect. It's based on bogus medieval theories to a time when poison used to be used as medicine. But when you dilute it to the point where there aren't any molecules left, you can't even make a reasonable argument that it is any different than sugar pill. Also from wikipedia (homeopathy), "since water will have been in contact with millions of different substances throughout its history, critics point out that water is therefore an extreme dilution of almost any conceivable substance. By drinking water one would, according to this interpretation, receive treatment for every imaginable condition"
LOL. Water has memory of poo and fish fucking!!!
Quote from: JohNyx on January 23, 2010, 03:18:59 AM
Quote from: Regret on January 23, 2010, 01:52:09 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 22, 2010, 09:42:58 PM
Apparently people are willing to pay for the placebo effect. I suppose it's better than actually having arnica in it, since that's poisonous.
You sir, fial at toxicity.
everything is toxic.
YES! BECAUSE EVERYTHING CONTAINS TOXINS! Thats why i never eat meat, only vegetables, and i never drink water either because it has toxins, i only drink green tea.
Thats also why i give myself an enema every third day after drinking a liter of Yakult.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQFGlBKARos
Quote from: Felix on January 23, 2010, 05:56:47 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 23, 2010, 03:18:59 AM
Quote from: Regret on January 23, 2010, 01:52:09 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 22, 2010, 09:42:58 PM
Apparently people are willing to pay for the placebo effect. I suppose it's better than actually having arnica in it, since that's poisonous.
You sir, fial at toxicity.
everything is toxic.
YES! BECAUSE EVERYTHING CONTAINS TOXINS! Thats why i never eat meat, only vegetables, and i never drink water either because it has toxins, i only drink green tea.
Thats also why i give myself an enema every third day after drinking a liter of Yakult.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQFGlBKARos
I dont get why they would use cheerleader girls for that kind of song.
Tch, nice sarcasm. :roll:
Quote from: JohNyx on January 23, 2010, 03:18:59 AM
Quote from: Regret on January 23, 2010, 01:52:09 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 22, 2010, 09:42:58 PM
Apparently people are willing to pay for the placebo effect. I suppose it's better than actually having arnica in it, since that's poisonous.
You sir, fial at toxicity.
everything is toxic.
YES! BECAUSE EVERYTHING CONTAINS TOXINS!
sarcasm didn't save you from completely missing the point here.
a toxin is "a poisonous substance produced by living cells or organisms" and has nothing to do with what Regret tried to say, which was:
toxicity is in the dosage.you can drink 6 liters of water and die from it, because water is toxic at that dosage.
one can drink a few shots of home distilled moonshine every day and not go blind because methanol is only toxic at the dosage of a raging alcoholic.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on January 22, 2010, 08:53:19 PMAlso, the comments on that article make me fear for the future of humanity. :horrormirth:
What I find even sadder is that some nonsense cooked up over 200 years ago is not only still doing the rounds, but is also burning up research time.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 23, 2010, 03:26:49 AM
Quote from: Sparkley Pink Shit on January 23, 2010, 12:43:47 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 22, 2010, 09:42:58 PM
Apparently people are willing to pay for the placebo effect. I suppose it's better than actually having arnica in it, since that's poisonous.
Details. Details.
According to the wikipedia entry on arnica, "Arnica contains the toxin helenalin, which can be poisonous if large amounts of the plant are eaten, and contact with the plant can also cause skin irritation. If enough of the material is ingested, the toxin helenalin produces severe gastroenteritis, and internal bleeding of the digestive tract."
Which I think is the whole point behind homeopathy, that harmful substances like mercury or phosphorus, when diluted down to practical nonexistence, will have some effect. It's based on bogus medieval theories to a time when poison used to be used as medicine. But when you dilute it to the point where there aren't any molecules left, you can't even make a reasonable argument that it is any different than sugar pill. Also from wikipedia (homeopathy), "since water will have been in contact with millions of different substances throughout its history, critics point out that water is therefore an extreme dilution of almost any conceivable substance. By drinking water one would, according to this interpretation, receive treatment for every imaginable condition"
I'd like to point out that this is especially true in LA, as they have found that the water there contains traces of almost every kind of prescription drug--especially mood enhancers.
Quote from: Sparkley Pink Shit on January 23, 2010, 04:32:08 PM
I'd like to point out that this is especially true in LA, as they have found that the water there contains traces of almost every kind of prescription drug--especially mood enhancers.
Oh yeah, that is something that could actually be problematic. We're talking more than homeopathic dilutions here, including low levels of estrogen from the urine of women taking birth control pills (http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/12/29/Water.ART_ART_12-29-09_A1_IUG4SLA.html?sid=101). And considering that most types of bottled water just come from municipal tap water anyway, there doesn't seem to be much way to avoid it.
that said, the homeopathic stuff seems to work better for me than going to get antibiotics or something (usually). But that's just me. Most of the prescription stuff I've been put on doesn't liek my system, so unless I have to, I tend to avoid.
Unless it's Dayquil/Nyquil. That stuff makes for fun apocalyptic dreams. :D
Quote from: Sparkley Pink Shit on January 23, 2010, 05:57:51 PM
that said, the homeopathic stuff seems to work better for me than going to get antibiotics or something (usually). But that's just me. Most of the prescription stuff I've been put on doesn't liek my system, so unless I have to, I tend to avoid.
Everybody's system is different, and it's getting out of my depth to discuss whether or not something will actually work as a particular treatment. But I think a lot of stuff thats billed as homeopathic isn't truly homeopathy in the sense that, although it may claim to have some diluted chemical or other, there are actually some active ingredients in there doing something. But I think we can all agree that without even a single molecule of a substance present other than sugar it is going to be tough claiming that there is anything going on beside placebo effect.
Quote from: Sparkley Pink Shit on January 23, 2010, 05:57:51 PM
Unless it's Dayquil/Nyquil. That stuff makes for fun apocalyptic dreams. :D
Oh yeah, Nyquil will put me right out, that stuff is great. Thankfully haven't had much occasion to take it lately. Never had much luck with Dayquil though.
yeah it's easy to label something as "organic" or "homeopathic". A lot of what's out there is just bs.
A couple of doses or either nyquil or dayquil always result in awesome dreams for me lol. :D
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 23, 2010, 05:44:11 PM
Quote from: Sparkley Pink Shit on January 23, 2010, 04:32:08 PM
I'd like to point out that this is especially true in LA, as they have found that the water there contains traces of almost every kind of prescription drug--especially mood enhancers.
Oh yeah, that is something that could actually be problematic. We're talking more than homeopathic dilutions here, including low levels of estrogen from the urine of women taking birth control pills (http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/12/29/Water.ART_ART_12-29-09_A1_IUG4SLA.html?sid=101). And considering that most types of bottled water just come from municipal tap water anyway, there doesn't seem to be much way to avoid it.
:cn:
Is it really most? The stuff that I produce at work is 100% well water that has gone through reverse osmosis then has salts added. I honestly have never looked around at the numbers to see how many have their own wells like us and how many buy it off of the city.
Stop lying Iason. We all know you accidently the WHOLE WATER SUPPLY!
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 23, 2010, 12:23:14 PM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 23, 2010, 03:18:59 AM
Quote from: Regret on January 23, 2010, 01:52:09 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 22, 2010, 09:42:58 PM
Apparently people are willing to pay for the placebo effect. I suppose it's better than actually having arnica in it, since that's poisonous.
You sir, fial at toxicity.
everything is toxic.
YES! BECAUSE EVERYTHING CONTAINS TOXINS!
sarcasm didn't save you from completely missing the point here.
a toxin is "a poisonous substance produced by living cells or organisms" and has nothing to do with what Regret tried to say, which was:
toxicity is in the dosage.
you can drink 6 liters of water and die from it, because water is toxic at that dosage.
one can drink a few shots of home distilled moonshine every day and not go blind because methanol is only toxic at the dosage of a raging alcoholic.
I see how that can be misread; i know it wasnt Regret's intention, but it reminded me a lot of some anorexics that go "vegan" and into "natural living" as an excuse for their pathology.
It also reminds me of the "second-hand smoke is a first rate killer" freaks, as if the city air isnt full of toxic particles anyhow.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on January 23, 2010, 11:27:50 PM
:cn:
Is it really most? The stuff that I produce at work is 100% well water that has gone through reverse osmosis then has salts added. I honestly have never looked around at the numbers to see how many have their own wells like us and how many buy it off of the city.
Yeah, I think it's most (http://video.yahoo.com/watch/3218588/9093037) but I wouldn't swear by it. Penn and Teller say that one third of bottled water brands don't meet NRDC standards (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfPAjUvvnIc), so it doesn't sound totally outlandish. Not that tap water is generally bad or anything.
[Ok, actually watched that news video and it says 25%, despite the title, so there you go. Still a lot.]
Quote from: JohNyx on January 23, 2010, 11:38:46 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 23, 2010, 12:23:14 PM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 23, 2010, 03:18:59 AM
Quote from: Regret on January 23, 2010, 01:52:09 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 22, 2010, 09:42:58 PM
Apparently people are willing to pay for the placebo effect. I suppose it's better than actually having arnica in it, since that's poisonous.
You sir, fial at toxicity.
everything is toxic.
YES! BECAUSE EVERYTHING CONTAINS TOXINS!
sarcasm didn't save you from completely missing the point here.
a toxin is "a poisonous substance produced by living cells or organisms" and has nothing to do with what Regret tried to say, which was:
toxicity is in the dosage.
you can drink 6 liters of water and die from it, because water is toxic at that dosage.
one can drink a few shots of home distilled moonshine every day and not go blind because methanol is only toxic at the dosage of a raging alcoholic.
I see how that can be misread; i know it wasnt Regret's intention, but it reminded me a lot of some anorexics that go "vegan" and into "natural living" as an excuse for their pathology.
:cn:
AFAIK anorexics don't go vegan to hide their pathology. People who live the vegan lifestyle take the steps needed to find nutrition/protein/etc in ways that don't involve animals. Just because someone is a vegan or vegetarian (like myself) does not mean that they stop eating. Food doesn't lose nutritional value just because it doesn't have meat, or animal products in it. I'd like to see proof that vegans are any more likely to become anorexic than non-veg(ans), because being vegetarian or vegan is not about starving yourself. It's about avoiding foods that contain animals, or animal products (i.e. milk, honey, fur, leather, eggs, etc etc), or because people want to avoid the health issues involved with eating meat (i.e. cholesterol, dr's orders, etc)
Also, because I think you lack the intelligence to know what anorexia actually is, it is an eating disorder where the person views food as a BAD thing, and therefore refuses to-or is afraid to-eat, for fear they will become fat. Thus whittling themselves down to dangerous levels. It is not simply being 'malnourished' because they don't get enough protein/veggies/fruit/fiber/etc because of poor diet planning.
Quote from: JohNyx on January 23, 2010, 11:38:46 PM
I see how that can be misread; i know it wasnt Regret's intention, but it reminded me a lot of some anorexics that go "vegan" and into "natural living" as an excuse for their pathology.
As opposed to saying "them anorexic vegans" or to sayiing "all anorexics are vegans".
So from the category of "anorexics" there is a small subset that calls themselves "vegans" with aposthropes because thats not what being vegan is about.
Quote from: JohNyx on January 24, 2010, 02:58:12 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 23, 2010, 11:38:46 PM
I see how that can be misread; i know it wasnt Regret's intention, but it reminded me a lot of some anorexics that go "vegan" and into "natural living" as an excuse for their pathology.
As opposed to saying "them anorexic vegans" or to sayiing "all anorexics are vegans".
So from the category of "anorexics" there is a small subset that calls themselves "vegans" with aposthropes because thats not what being vegan is about.
Again, do you KNOW any of themz anorecik veeekanz? If you do, you should get them to seek help. I'd like to see some proof to your statement.
SO
:cn:
or be a good little boy, and run along and play. :)
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 24, 2010, 12:47:58 AM
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on January 23, 2010, 11:27:50 PM
:cn:
Is it really most? The stuff that I produce at work is 100% well water that has gone through reverse osmosis then has salts added. I honestly have never looked around at the numbers to see how many have their own wells like us and how many buy it off of the city.
Yeah, I think it's most (http://video.yahoo.com/watch/3218588/9093037) but I wouldn't swear by it. Penn and Teller say that one third of bottled water brands don't meet NRDC standards (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfPAjUvvnIc), so it doesn't sound totally outlandish. Not that tap water is generally bad or anything.
[Ok, actually watched that news video and it says 25%, despite the title, so there you go. Still a lot.]
Thanks for the links. I'm trying not to be a bottled water apologist even though that is how I earn my paycheck at least half the time.
I will say that after going through a proper reverse osmosis treatment it (almost) doesn't matter what the source of the water. It will filter out impurities like rust, calcium carbonate, arsenic. Treatment with chlorine and ozone kills almost all of the bacteria. At that point there is no difference between bottled water and tap water other than what is added back in. Most bottled water companies add salts like NaCL and KCl. Municipal treatment plants add in fluoride :tinfoilhat: plus end up with some added minerals depending on how old the plumbing systems are. They also seem to have problems removing chlorine at times but I think that is a result of them chlorinating the system every couple of months to kill any random bacterial problems. The chlorine taste goes away if you boil the water or just let it sit in a water jug for a couple of hours.
(Where was I going with this again...)
Ah yes.. Having said all of that, as the Bullshit! video showed there is no major difference bottled water and tap water. It's just water. People have hyped bottled water as having super powers and denigrated tap water as being the worst thing you could possibly drink. And neither of those are close to the truth. If treated properly they are the same fucking thing. With bottled water you are basically just buying the bottle and the label around it. Don't listen to the sloganeering. Bottle your own.
(Offer void if in Rhode Island)
Speaking as someone who does bottle their own water: It's cheaper to buy a case (or gallon) of bottled water than it is to buy empty bottles, so the stuff is *immensely* useful in that respect.
What about spring water?
Does that go through a similar process? Does it begin with the same kind of contamination?
Alty,
Will drink any damn thing but V8.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 24, 2010, 05:22:36 AM
Speaking as someone who does bottle their own water: It's cheaper to buy a case (or gallon) of bottled water than it is to buy empty bottles, so the stuff is *immensely* useful in that respect.
Why would you need to buy more than one empty bottle? ;)
Quote from: Alty on January 24, 2010, 05:48:24 AM
What about spring water?
Does that go through a similar process? Does it begin with the same kind of contamination?
Alty,
Will drink any damn thing but V8.
I honestly have no idea. I'm not even sure what the regulations are on what can and can't be called "spring water". There might not be any regulations. :horrormirth:
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on January 23, 2010, 11:27:50 PM
Is it really most? The stuff that I produce at work is 100% well water that has gone through reverse osmosis then has salts added. I honestly have never looked around at the numbers to see how many have their own wells like us and how many buy it off of the city.
over here, once doesn't preclude the other.
some municipalities here get their tap water from the same "well"* as popular bottled water brands.
not that I care much anyway, tap water here is delicious, clean and not hard.
[* well, it looks like a big industrial pumping factory, not some idylllic mountain stream with flowers and sparkles and such. but it's water welling up from the ground, so that counts as a well, well enough. oh well. ]
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 24, 2010, 01:17:48 PM
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on January 23, 2010, 11:27:50 PM
Is it really most? The stuff that I produce at work is 100% well water that has gone through reverse osmosis then has salts added. I honestly have never looked around at the numbers to see how many have their own wells like us and how many buy it off of the city.
over here, once doesn't preclude the other.
some municipalities here get their tap water from the same "well"* as popular bottled water brands.
not that I care much anyway, tap water here is delicious, clean and not hard.
[* well, it looks like a big industrial pumping factory, not some idylllic mountain stream with flowers and sparkles and such. but it's water welling up from the ground, so that counts as a well, well enough. oh well. ]
Your explanation is all well and good, but, well, why should we believe your well is a well and not a well disguised corporate "well"?
well if you kick it, it not only gets wellts, it gets welltschmerz!
Well I guess I have to take your word for it.
Speaking of homeopathy, Mike Adams, the douchebag behind Natural Health News, just lost his shit about a worthless web award (the Shortys).
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/01/sometimes_i_think_we_break_the.php
QuoteAdams seems to have snapped. Or maybe he was this crazy all along.
He is outraged at being bumped out of the running — not only did he get outvoted, but many of the votes for him were declared invalid, since many people just got a twitter account and posted one item, his nomination. He's lashing out with accusations of conspiracy and fraud and cheating and is planning to sue the contest. He has totally lost it over this trivial affair.
Look, guy, it's an internet award. For tweeting. Take the big picture and recognize that as far as significance goes, it's like finding an especially large and fluffy bit of belly button lint.
Of course, he is a homeopath. Maybe to him, a twitter award is like an infinitely diluted Nobel Prize, and is especially potent.
:lulz:
Oh yeah, forgot to link to him throwing a shit fit:
http://www.naturalnews.com/028006_Shorty_Awards_vote_fraud.html
QuoteNaturalNews has learned that the Shorty Awards are being operated fraudulently and that the voting results are fixed to exclude candidates who the editors at the Shorty Awards don't want to win. In addition, the Shorty Awards, by refusing to police its own contests, actually encourages false and defamatory campaigning while ignoring legitimate complaints of vote fraud.
The Shorty Awards, in short, has been revealed as wholly discredited...
It wasn't really surprising to see the vaccine quacks engaging in their false accusations, of course: Lying and cheating is par for the course for the vaccine and pharmaceutical industries. Their supporters apparently reflect that same lack of ethical behavior. They will apparently do anything to win, even if it means engaging in widespread false accusations and trying to get natural health people removed from the contest altogether.
The irony is that he was disqualified because a bunch of his mindless followers were setting up dummy Twitter accounts just so they could vote for him. That, of course, is against the rules and Shortys it very clear that they will delete all dummy votes.
Adams then went further and wrote a hilarious hit piece against every single Skeptic ever.
http://www.naturalnews.com/028012_skeptics_medicine.html
I'm not going to quote that one. Go there yourself and see how hilarious it is. I would debunk it but I can't stop laughing long enough.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on January 25, 2010, 12:05:32 AM
Oh yeah, forgot to link to him throwing a shit fit:
http://www.naturalnews.com/028006_Shorty_Awards_vote_fraud.html
QuoteNaturalNews has learned that the Shorty Awards are being operated fraudulently and that the voting results are fixed to exclude candidates who the editors at the Shorty Awards don't want to win. In addition, the Shorty Awards, by refusing to police its own contests, actually encourages false and defamatory campaigning while ignoring legitimate complaints of vote fraud.
The Shorty Awards, in short, has been revealed as wholly discredited...
It wasn't really surprising to see the vaccine quacks engaging in their false accusations, of course: Lying and cheating is par for the course for the vaccine and pharmaceutical industries. Their supporters apparently reflect that same lack of ethical behavior. They will apparently do anything to win, even if it means engaging in widespread false accusations and trying to get natural health people removed from the contest altogether.
The irony is that he was disqualified because a bunch of his mindless followers were setting up dummy Twitter accounts just so they could vote for him. That, of course, is against the rules and Shortys it very clear that they will delete all dummy votes.
Adams then went further and wrote a hilarious hit piece against every single Skeptic ever.
http://www.naturalnews.com/028012_skeptics_medicine.html
I'm not going to quote that one. Go there yourself and see how hilarious it is. I would debunk it but I can't stop laughing long enough.
Oh wow!
That is beautiful.
he has eleven points and this:
Quote• Skeptics believe that there is no such thing as human consciousness. They do not believe in the mind; only in the physical brain. In fact, skeptics believe that they themselves are mindless automatons who have no free will, no soul and no consciousness whatsoever.
is the best one.
Quote• Skeptics believe that DEAD foods have exactly the same nutritional properties as LIVING foods (hilarious!).
Is he opposed to killing the cow before eating it?
I'm confused.
how does that work?
are you supposed to swallow the cow whole?
or is it ok if the cow-bit dies after youve started eating it.
so only the first bite has to be off a live cow.
Quote• Skeptics believe that DEAD foods have exactly the same nutritional properties as LIVING foods (hilarious!).
Is he opposed to killing the cow before eating it?
I'm confused.
how does that work?
are you supposed to swallow the cow whole?
or is it ok if the cow-bit dies after youve started eating it.
so only the first bite has to be off a live cow.
[/quote]
I was thinking the same thing, adn with the same example. WTF?
I'm not exactly sure what he means by "living food" vs. "dead food". It all ends up dead once it's in your body. Searching on his site didn't bring up much either. Did find this though:
QuoteCould Patrick Swayze have saved his own life with natural medicine? Absolutely. Without question. Even late-stage pancreatic cancer can be reversed (yes, reversed) with full-on naturopathic treatments involving Chinese herbal medicine, deep body detoxification that includes sweat saunas and colon cleansing, radical changes in diet from "dead" foods to "live" foods, a healthy dose of vitamin D and the daily consumption of raw anti-cancer living juices made from fresh, organic produce like cabbage, broccoli and garlic.
Yeah, that's the level of stupid you are dealing with here. He thinks that chemotherapy doesn't work and that diet will somehow cure all cancer.
Is he talking about cooked food vs raw?
I've read about that, done it too, for six months before I NEEDED bread. Then steak.
The idea is anything cooked above 109 F is dead to your body because your body would be dead at that temp. So there's nothing in cooked food that can react to your body as well as food below your temperature. blah blah enzymes. And Quantum. Lots of Quantum.
How about now? Is it working yet?
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on January 24, 2010, 06:07:16 AM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 24, 2010, 05:22:36 AM
Speaking as someone who does bottle their own water: It's cheaper to buy a case (or gallon) of bottled water than it is to buy empty bottles, so the stuff is *immensely* useful in that respect.
Why would you need to buy more than one empty bottle? ;)
I didn't want to walk to the well 3 times a day. The stuff out of my tap was contaminated for a good long while, Cooking and drinking all had to be done out of a bottle.
What the fuck? Is it just me or does the phrase "skeptics believe" seem like something of an oxymoron?
Quote from: Felix on January 25, 2010, 07:29:22 PM
What the fuck? Is it just me or does the phrase "skeptics believe" seem like something of an oxymoron?
It's a "balanced" way to say it, Felix.
Just like on the "History" channel, it's "Scientists
believe".
I just reread the article- who are these skeptics? Skeptics of what, exactly?
Plz halp I don't get it. :(
I'm assuming they are using "skeptics" as a catch all phrase for people who know actual science disagree with their claims.
A Skeptic is someone who doesn't think that water is magical:
http://www.naturalnews.com/028019_skeptics_thinking.html
QuoteOne such skeptic accused me of being a quack because he said that I believe "water is magical." Was that supposed to be an insult? I do think water is magical!
I think pregnancy is magical. Human consciousness is magical. Plant life is magical. And water is at the very top of the list of magical substances with amazing, miraculous properties, many of which have yet to be discovered.
Think about it: Water expands when it freezes (almost everything else shrinks). Water is both a solvent and a lubricant. Water is almost impervious to compression. Water can flow upwards, against gravity, into small cracks and crevices. Water is made up of two gases, each of which is a combustible fuel on its own. Do I think water is magical? You bet I do!
I also think magnetism is magical. And gravity. And quantum physics. There isn't a single scientist or skeptic alive today who truly understands magnetism or gravity. Sure, they can mathematically model it. They can describe it and observe it, but they don't understand it. Mass warps the very fabric of reality and causes two objects to magically attract each other? Seriously? That's about as magical as it gets.
:weary:
Also, Dr. Steven Novella did a really looooong blog post about this:
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=1506
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on January 25, 2010, 10:24:44 PM
A Skeptic is someone who doesn't think that water is magical:
http://www.naturalnews.com/028019_skeptics_thinking.html
QuoteOne such skeptic accused me of being a quack because he said that I believe "water is magical." Was that supposed to be an insult? I do think water is magical!
I think pregnancy is magical. Human consciousness is magical. Plant life is magical. And water is at the very top of the list of magical substances with amazing, miraculous properties, many of which have yet to be discovered.
Think about it: Water expands when it freezes (almost everything else shrinks). Water is both a solvent and a lubricant. Water is almost impervious to compression. Water can flow upwards, against gravity, into small cracks and crevices. Water is made up of two gases, each of which is a combustible fuel on its own. Do I think water is magical? You bet I do!
I also think magnetism is magical. And gravity. And quantum physics. There isn't a single scientist or skeptic alive today who truly understands magnetism or gravity. Sure, they can mathematically model it. They can describe it and observe it, but they don't understand it. Mass warps the very fabric of reality and causes two objects to magically attract each other? Seriously? That's about as magical as it gets.
:weary:
Also, Dr. Steven Novella did a really looooong blog post about this:
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=1506
Ngggggg *twitch *twitch
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8489019.stm
QuoteHomeopathy sceptics have staged a mass "overdose" of homeopathic remedies, in a bid to prove they have no effect.
Protesters ate whole bottles of tablets at branches of Boots in places such as Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow, London, Leicester, Edinburgh and Birmingham.
They have asked the pharmacy chain to stop selling the remedies, which they call "scientifically absurd".
The Society of Homeopaths called it a "stunt". Boots said it followed industry guidelines on homeopathy.
From 2005 to 2008 the NHS spent almost £12m on homeopathic treatments, according to a 2009 Freedom Of Information request by Channel 4 News.
I am conflicted on this issue. I feel like I ought to fall in line with the arguments against homeopathy but my own personal experience is that following a course of treatment at the Bristol Homeopathic Hospital [an NHS Hospital] my daughter's intractable and extremely distressing eczema healed. How do 3 year olds react to placebos? Was she 'cured' or 'fooled'?
I await the results of this mass overdose with interest and a wry smile . . .
I heard that several people drowned and one or two went into a diabetic coma. :wink:
Quote from: MMIX on January 30, 2010, 05:03:29 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8489019.stm
QuoteHomeopathy sceptics have staged a mass "overdose" of homeopathic remedies, in a bid to prove they have no effect.
Protesters ate whole bottles of tablets at branches of Boots in places such as Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow, London, Leicester, Edinburgh and Birmingham.
They have asked the pharmacy chain to stop selling the remedies, which they call "scientifically absurd".
The Society of Homeopaths called it a "stunt". Boots said it followed industry guidelines on homeopathy.
From 2005 to 2008 the NHS spent almost £12m on homeopathic treatments, according to a 2009 Freedom Of Information request by Channel 4 News.
I am conflicted on this issue. I feel like I ought to fall in line with the arguments against homeopathy but my own personal experience is that following a course of treatment at the Bristol Homeopathic Hospital [an NHS Hospital] my daughter's intractable and extremely distressing eczema healed. How do 3 year olds react to placebos? Was she 'cured' or 'fooled'?
I await the results of this mass overdose with interest and a wry smile . . .
There are, iirc, two branches of homeopathy. The stuff thats just water, and the stuff thats actually just a very dilute chemical, which falls under the class of alternative medicine that might actually work (and also might have horrible side effects, bunch of people lost their sense of smell to one).
PROTIP:
'safe and effective' is contradictory.
I'm not sure what all I want to say here, except that the only molecules that have memory are organics within living things, nucleic acids and proteins, and that these epigenetic changes are highly important in development. There are no other molecules I am aware of that "remember".
And while my sig has a quote from Loren Eisley containing both the words "magic" and "water", what it really means is that he is at awe with the ability of water to allow and augment living things, and that the diversity of life on this planet would be impossible without it. The physical, aesthetic, and spiritual qualities of water need not include pseudoscience to be majestic and wonderful.
PZ Myers on homeopathy:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/ums_open_shame_the_center_for.php
QuoteWhich always raises a question in my mind: if homeopathy is so difficult to assess using those reductionist techniques of modern science and medicine, how the hell do homeopaths know they work? That's one of the fundamental principles of science, that you can't just get by on assertions — you have to be able to explain how you know something, and homeopaths can't. They just pluck some magical association out of their butt and prescribe it...and then after the fact, they claim that it works for their patients. But if it actually works for their patients, then it would be amenable to clinical trials.
They can't claim that it works, and simultaneously that it doesn't work when examined rigorously.
Even when they're trying to argue that there is evidence for homeopathy, they always seem to begin with a lot of waffling about how science can't really examine their discipline.
Quote Homeopathy is not a modality or therapy, but an entire system of medicine, with its own paradigm of understanding health and illness. That paradigm directs the process of evaluation and treatment. Therefore, in order to accurately assess the effectiveness of the intervention, researchers need to design studies that are congruent with the way homeopathy is practiced clinically.
This means that the gold-standard, biomedical research model for drug interventions (one disease or symptom, one drug, double-blind, placebo-controlled, prospective trial) is not an ideal research process for homeopathy.
That kind of noise just enrages me. I want to grab that person by the collar and demand, "Well, then, asshole, how do you know your magic pills work?"
I know. They use wishful thinking, instead. In a description of a weak study that showed a small improvement of homeopathic remedies over placebos, they get to write "Homeopaths felt clinically had they been able to prescribe the individually matched remedy to each case, the recovery rate expected would have been as high as 90%". Well, sure, and if they'd been following my magic procedure of hopping up and down on one foot while taking their pills, I believe the recovery rate would have been 105%, therefore proving the effectiveness of monopedosaltopathy.