15 of 15
15
Rebuttal to Skepchick’s youtube Homeophobia rant
Posted: 28 November 2011 07:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 211 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6055
Joined  2009-02-26

I see the risk of poor medical practice, in the older generation of chiropractors. But does the degree of Doctor of Chiropractic (DC) not mean anything. How does one earn such a degree? Seems to me that at least a proven knowledge of the skeletol parts of the body is required to be able to be licensed, no?

I am retired now, but when I was involved in music as bassplayer (contrabass), over the years I developed a curvature of the spine, for which I received chiropractic treatments. Perhaps I was lucky, because my chiropractor started with xrays of my spine and after “readjusting” the misalignment consulted with me at length about maintaining proper posture while playing and prescribed a back support corset to wear on the job. He did in fact relieve my chronic pain and I did not have to return but once a year for readjustment, when symptoms slowly reappeared. After retirement from music I did not experience any further back pains and have not seen a chiropractor since.
He was a young doctor and his office and procedures were clinically professional in all respects, as far as I could tell.

When I asked him once what the difference was between a chiropractor and a medical doctor, he explained that medical doctors were like sophisticated auto mechanics keeping the engine, electronics and hydraulics healthy and in tune, where chiropractors were like body shop mechanics which kept the frame adjusted to be true and straight. That seemed a very nice analogy at the time.

[ Edited: 28 November 2011 07:58 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 November 2011 10:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 212 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4081
Joined  2006-11-28

The simple fact one has a DC isn’t really worth much given the amount of nonsense taught in schools of chiropractic. As I mentioned before, my understanding at least is that it is a minority of chiropractors who are backing away from the traditional pseudoscience behind their profession ( eg THIS ARTICLE and THIS THREAD).

I once had a patient with clear symptoms of a fractured lumbar vertebrae. The patient was referred to my practice for chiropractic and I was seeing them just because the law requires a pro forma exam by a vet for a DC to treat an animal, and I didn’t yet know better. The DC wanted to adjust the neck and send the animal home with its paralyzed hind legs. When I pointed out the classic signs of a lumbar lesion and asked why he thought the problem was in the neck, he said “Ive read those anatomy and neurology books but I finally threw them out because they don’t agree with what I see in practice.” At least for this guy, going to school and getting a state license to practice as a chiropractor didn’t interfere with his magical anti-scientific thinking at all, and I havent seen much reason to think he’s unusual.

 Signature 

The SkeptVet
The SkeptVet Blog
Militant Agnostic: I don’t know, and neither do you!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 December 2011 02:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 213 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  55
Joined  2011-11-15

Was thinking, in order for Homeopaths to know what symptoms homeopathic remedies can treat, they must first conduct “provings” for each potential remedy on about a dozen healthy volunteers (called “provers”) and the “provers” record all the symptoms they get from the remedy to know what the remedy can be used to treat.  A lot of remedies have an extensive number of symptoms said to be able to treat, meaning that remedy produced a lot of different symptoms in the provers and there are hundreds of different remedies in the homeopathic medica.

So if homeopathy doesn’t work, how do you explain away the provings?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 December 2011 03:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 214 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3121
Joined  2008-04-07
suede - 06 December 2011 02:20 PM

Was thinking, in order for Homeopaths to know what symptoms homeopathic remedies can treat, they must first conduct “provings” for each potential remedy on about a dozen healthy volunteers (called “provers”) and the “provers” record all the symptoms they get from the remedy to know what the remedy can be used to treat.  A lot of remedies have an extensive number of symptoms said to be able to treat, meaning that remedy produced a lot of different symptoms in the provers and there are hundreds of different remedies in the homeopathic medica.

So if homeopathy doesn’t work, how do you explain away the provings?

If prayer doesn’t work, how do you explain away the miracles?  LOL

 Signature 

Turn off Fox News - Bad News For America
(Atheists are myth understood)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 December 2011 03:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 215 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1201
Joined  2009-05-10
suede - 06 December 2011 02:20 PM

Was thinking, in order for Homeopaths to know what symptoms homeopathic remedies can treat, they must first conduct “provings” for each potential remedy on about a dozen healthy volunteers (called “provers”) and the “provers” record all the symptoms they get from the remedy to know what the remedy can be used to treat.  A lot of remedies have an extensive number of symptoms said to be able to treat, meaning that remedy produced a lot of different symptoms in the provers and there are hundreds of different remedies in the homeopathic medica.

So if homeopathy doesn’t work, how do you explain away the provings?

Going by what you said, “proving” doesn’t sound very rigorous. First of all, you’re having the subjects also be the recorders of results. Secondly, no control group and no placebos. Thirdly, no blinds. These are all important for removing bias from such an experiment.

 Signature 

“What people do is they confuse cynicism with skepticism. Cynicism is ‘you can’t change anything, everything sucks, there’s no point to anything.’ Skepticism is, ‘well, I’m not so sure.’” -Bill Nye

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 December 2011 03:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 216 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6139
Joined  2006-12-20

Proving is completely nuts and very funny. grin

Here is an example: http://www.hominf.org/meles/badgintr.htm

Pharmacy

The remedy was made from a piece of the skin and flesh of a adult sow that had been recently killed by a car. This was tinctured in ethanol and then run up by dilution and succussion to 30c by the provers who each took one dose of the 30c.

And the irony of this:

Badgers have also been implicated in and blamed for the widespread presence of bovine tuberculosis in the UK. This has resulted in proposed culls to exterminate badgers in certain areas. There is undoubtedly a correlation between the infection rates in badgers and in cattle but there is no real evidence that the badgers infect the cattle. Given behaviour patterns and the nature of modern cattle husbandry it is more likely that badgers are being infected by cattle than vice a versa. The proving, surprisingly, revealed very little of a tubercular nature. The persecution that has come out of the tuberculosis crisis in farming has more of a resonance to a long and, unfortunately continuing, history of badger digging, badger baiting and general persecution. This feeling was to be found in the proving.

bold emphasis by me.

Who needs Mitchell and Webb.

Stephen

[ Edited: 06 December 2011 03:57 PM by StephenLawrence ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 December 2011 04:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 217 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6055
Joined  2009-02-26
suede - 06 December 2011 02:20 PM

Was thinking, in order for Homeopaths to know what symptoms homeopathic remedies can treat, they must first conduct “provings” for each potential remedy on about a dozen healthy volunteers (called “provers”) and the “provers” record all the symptoms they get from the remedy to know what the remedy can be used to treat.  A lot of remedies have an extensive number of symptoms said to be able to treat, meaning that remedy produced a lot of different symptoms in the provers and there are hundreds of different remedies in the homeopathic medica.

So if homeopathy doesn’t work, how do you explain away the provings?

Are “provers” like disease-eaters, kinda like a sin-eaters?

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 December 2011 05:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 218 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  7
Joined  2011-12-06

Rebecca Watson’s take on homeopathy is right on the money.  I read the comments by suede, and my jaw literally dropped open.  This is not an ad hominem attack, rather a rebuttal to the rebuttal. 

First off, if one proves that a “medicine” is actually nothing but pure water with no detectable particles remaining from the original active ingredient, how can it be anything but a scam?  Magic water is not medicine no matter how much you pay for it.  Yes suede, it is a very successful scam.  That is why we see so much of it on the market these days. 

Just because it has been around for over 200 years does not mean it works.  That is just an appeal to longevity I guess.

As far as herbs go, yes some of them work.  Some of them even work more than a little bit.  Let’s not forget how many pharmaceuticals have been derived from plant based sources.  Digitalis, I’m looking at you.  smile

As far as the process used to dilute homeopathic remedies, I think Rebecca was just making an analogy to describe how dilute homeopathic remedies really are.  The results end up being the same as if you would dilute the solution into the same volume of water each time.  It just takes more steps using the same volume. 

Regarding the E. coli cure, she was just stating what a homeopathically prepared solution of E. coli remedy would be.  It is basically poop diluting.  As an aside, fecal therapy is a real thing.  Solutions of stool are made from the fecal material of a healthy person and “introduced” into the bowels of someone with abnormal bowel flora.  The hope is that the “good” bacteria repopulate the guy and get rid of the bad bacteria.  Medicine is a funny thing, isn’t it.

—Guy
http://www.theinconvenienttruth.org  The Inconvenient Truth

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 December 2011 05:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 219 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6055
Joined  2009-02-26
gmccardle - 06 December 2011 05:00 PM

Rebecca Watson’s take on homeopathy is right on the money.  I read the comments by suede, and my jaw literally dropped open.  This is not an ad hominem attack, rather a rebuttal to the rebuttal. 

First off, if one proves that a “medicine” is actually nothing but pure water with no detectable particles remaining from the original active ingredient, how can it be anything but a scam?  Magic water is not medicine no matter how much you pay for it.  Yes suede, it is a very successful scam.  That is why we see so much of it on the market these days. 

Just because it has been around for over 200 years does not mean it works.  That is just an appeal to longevity I guess.

As far as herbs go, yes some of them work.  Some of them even work more than a little bit.  Let’s not forget how many pharmaceuticals have been derived from plant based sources.  Digitalis, I’m looking at you.  smile

As far as the process used to dilute homeopathic remedies, I think Rebecca was just making an analogy to describe how dilute homeopathic remedies really are.  The results end up being the same as if you would dilute the solution into the same volume of water each time.  It just takes more steps using the same volume. 

Regarding the E. coli cure, she was just stating what a homeopathically prepared solution of E. coli remedy would be.  It is basically poop diluting.  As an aside, fecal therapy is a real thing.  Solutions of stool are made from the fecal material of a healthy person and “introduced” into the bowels of someone with abnormal bowel flora.  The hope is that the “good” bacteria repopulate the guy and get rid of the bad bacteria.  Medicine is a funny thing, isn’t it.

—Guy
http://www.theinconvenienttruth.org  The Inconvenient Truth

acidophilus ?

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/lactobacillus/NS_patient-acidophilus

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 December 2011 05:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 220 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4081
Joined  2006-11-28

The explanation for provings is simple: People ingest something, write down every random experience they have, and then homeopaths pick and choose which experiences are relevant and label them as effects of the substance ingested, after which they decide that a dilution of that substance should cure the underlying cause of such symptoms. Complete unscientific nonsense all the way through.

The archetype for a proving is Hahneman’s report of ingesting cinchona bark, the source for early quinine, and having symptoms that reminded him of malaria. Since quinine itself (NOT a homeopathic dilution of it) turned out to have a beneficial effect on the symptoms of malaria, this is often cited as proof of the Law of Similars. Unfortunately, homeopathic remedies for malaria have never been shown to actually work, and it seems likely that this was a lucky coincidence that was never repeated in the thousands of subsequent proving trials (though url=http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/homeopathy-and-evidence-based-medicine-back-to-the-future-part-ii/]some have argued [/url]it actually is a consequence of Hahneman having a rare allergy to cinchona bark).

 Signature 

The SkeptVet
The SkeptVet Blog
Militant Agnostic: I don’t know, and neither do you!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 December 2011 05:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 221 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  7
Joined  2011-12-06

You know what they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day.  smile

You might like the piece I did on veterinary homeopathy a while back.  That stuff really ticks me off because the pets have no choice in the matter and deserved to be treated with real medicine. 

—Guy
The Inconvenient Truth

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 December 2011 05:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 222 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2190
Joined  2007-04-26
gmccardle - 06 December 2011 05:00 PM

Regarding the E. coli cure, she was just stating what a homeopathically prepared solution of E. coli remedy would be.  It is basically poop diluting.  As an aside, fecal therapy is a real thing.  Solutions of stool are made from the fecal material of a healthy person and “introduced” into the bowels of someone with abnormal bowel flora.  The hope is that the “good” bacteria repopulate the guy and get rid of the bad bacteria.  Medicine is a funny thing, isn’t it.

—Guy
http://www.theinconvenienttruth.org  The Inconvenient Truth

Just to clarify this though ( because suede has a tendency to grab onto things and twist the meaning around to her advantage), the use of fecal therapy is NOT an endorsement of homeopathy by the medical community. The principal is very different. As opposed to homeopathy, the preparations that are being used in this still experimental approach is to use active fecal cultures with large concentrations of viable organisms in an attempt to repopulate the bowel with flora that will create a “healthy” ecosystem. This is very different for several critical reasons.

1) We are using the actual biology of the organisms to treat the problem and not relying on some magical property of the water

2)There is a valid biological theory behind these efforts. Homeopathy provides no logical theory to explain their claims

3) This is a great lesson in how traditional medicine differs from snake oil treatments like homeopathy. Even though there is a theory with a good biological basis behind this treatment, the medical community will not accept this as standard treatment until there are well controlled studies to support its safety and efficacy. Currently it is being used only in extreme cases where other standard /proven treatments have failed. The medical community understands that even the most well thought out theories can sometimes be wrong because we may not have al the facts. I mentioned the term “healthy ecosystem” above but we don’t even have the vaguest idea what bacteria in what percentages are required for a healthy ecosystem in the bowel of a human being ( and anyone who says they do is full of bowel flora - claims about probiotics are total crap at this point). We dont even know if its the same for all people.

It is estimated that there are more than a 1,000 species of bacteria that live in our gut. Some are beneficial, Some may be harmless, some may be harmful, and some may be harmful sometimes and helpful other times but we have no idea which are which yet. Replacing someones bowel flora with that of a healthy person is a good idea in theory but there may be many pitfalls we haven’t anticipated because of our ignorance of the roles of these bacteria. If these compassionate use cases show promising results then most likely there will be controlled studies done and if they prove successful then the treatment will find a place in our tool box. Unlike homeopathy though, medical doctors wont stop there. They will continue to do research to better understand the complex interactions among all these bowel organisms so that we can further improve treatments and reduce and negative side effects. After 200 years homeopathy still has no explanation for their claimed ( but unproven) successes and they make no attempts to study it in any objective way.

[ Edited: 06 December 2011 08:22 PM by macgyver ]
 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 December 2011 06:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 223 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  7
Joined  2011-12-06

Hello, 

Yes, fecal replacement has absolutely nothing do with homeopathy.  It is used as a last ditch effort to save patients suffering from something like extreme CDT colitis.  If you were to try to treat a patient by putting plain water “imprinted” with the “memory” of E. coli it wouldn’t do a thing.  You would also probably lose your medical license as well.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 December 2011 07:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 224 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4081
Joined  2006-11-28

You might like the piece I did on veterinary homeopathy a while back

Yes, I did see that. I have written at length about Gloria Dodd as a paragon of vet quackery and the failure of regulatory oversight of veterinarians. Awful stuff.

 Signature 

The SkeptVet
The SkeptVet Blog
Militant Agnostic: I don’t know, and neither do you!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 December 2011 11:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 225 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6055
Joined  2009-02-26

Make sure you are not eating while watching this, you may just choke from laughter…. LOL  LOL  LOL

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/403957/december-08-2011/cheating-death—-chicken-pox-lollipops—-fecal-transplants

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
   
15 of 15
15