The Saddest Calvin and Hobbes Sketch Ever by 6ixStringJack

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

CTS,

How's this for aspersions and attacks?

People who have no problems being dependent on medication ultimately have trust and faith in "the system" created by govt and the pharm industry. They trust ... this system, and see nothing wrong with dependence on it anymore than a child would see anything wrong with dependence on a parent.

You can't convince someone who believes NOT to believe. They will not become disillusioned unless they suffer injury or death because of the system themselves, and even then, they are likely to make excuses for it. It is the nature of faith.

They will always attack.
-----------

Yeah. We're all stupid sheep, trusting with blind faith in government and business, just waiting for our turn to be addicted. THAT'S an ad hominem attack and complete misrepresentation of everything we ALL have said.

Screw YOU and YOUR arrogance and lies.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 3:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Just out of curiosity, how do you determine which studies are and aren't well designed?

Whew, this can be a long post. But the short answer is, a well-designed study has to be as close as possible to a laboratory experiment with rigid controls. The farther the departure, the more limited the interpretation.

Medical studies are inherently limited because of ethical constraints on human experimentation. To compensate for those constraints, they need to control the hell out of their studies, and interpret results very cautiously. However, most medical researchers don't do this. They are happy with one control group (with sloppy controls to boot), and then they generalize the results liberally. It's crazy. Every graduate level scientist I know who has actually read a medical paper responds with, "Yikes!" The standard of publishing in medicine is what other scientists consider "junk science."

Medicine also uses bogus statistics invented by the pharmaceutical industry that allows for a lot of fudging, like "relative risk" and "person-years." Results based on these statistics are simply not credible.

The best medical studies are double-blind placebo controlled trials. *As long as the placebos are inert,* those tend to demonstrate that a drug is effective, which I usually don't dispute. A lot of times though, they don't use inert placebos, but use placebos that can mimic both the intended effects and the side effects of the drug.

What I find especially flawed is they then tack on uncontrolled follow-ups of side effects. They claim that the drug is safe as well as effective because the controls don't show any different effects than the study group. While the rigid controls of the study may prove it effective, there are no such controls to prove the drug safe. I think they piggy-back safety dishonestly that way.

Here is a recent example. The HPV vaccine trial gave the control group aluminum in its placebo, because the vaccine itself has aluminum. Now aluminum is known to be neurotoxic. So if a neurotoxic substance in the vaccine is also in the placebo, both groups might have neurological side effects. When both groups have the same side effects, they can claim that there was the vaccine group was no more likely to get neurological symptoms than the control group, and make it out to be safer than it might really be. The study is flawed, and the conclusions are scientifically dishonest.

The HPV vaccine group was less likely to get certain precancerous conditions. Then they extrapolate that to the vaccine can help prevent certain types of cervical cancer. The truth is, they have never followed up the subjects long enough to know if preventing certain precancerous conditions actually leads to a decreased rate in cervical cancer. The conclusions are unwarranted by the actual data.

Flawed studies, flawed conclusions. I hope that helps explain my perspective.

Quote:
Then what are you doing in RWED?

To get insulted, of course.

I have enjoyed a lot of very intelligent insights and humor here.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 3:51 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

CTS- May I point out that you then cite testimonials (possibly even fraudulent ones) as proof that alternative treatments "work"? Why is it that you hold "official" data to such a higher standard than "unofficial" data?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 4:37 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

CTS

Lets' see who is responsible for what's gone wrong.

Now, here ... the VERY first attacks came from 6-string whose opening salvo began ...
This infuriates me to no end and I'm starting to feel there is no point debating it anymore because there is simply no talking sense into anybody who is pro-mind altering drugs. You all want to be slaves to the pharmacuitical companies, who am I to stop you?.
... and went on from there
After that the very worst thing I personally called him was potentially 'oppositional' and 'predictable'.

Despite his post several discussions continued on amicably and quite on topic.

Then someone (who could that be) decided to dismiss everyone one the board who didn't agree with her very self saying things like:
People who have no problems being dependent on medication ... They will always attack. etc

That nameless person's entire and very first post was devoted to an at-large ad hominem attack on everyone who dared disagree. And then said unnamed person complained about being attacked. Hmm ...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 6:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
CTS- May I point out that you then cite testimonials (possibly even fraudulent ones) as proof that alternative treatments "work"? Why is it that you hold "official" data to such a higher standard than "unofficial" data?

If you gave me testimonials from people who talked about how Lithium and Haldol saved their lives, I'd believe them too.

I don't have problems believing anecdotal data or testimonials. Their veracity is not the problem.

The question is, do these testimonials represent the population at large? Can these results be generalized? Obviously not. I never claimed that they should be generalized to everyone and touted as fact. I thought I made it quite clear that there were definite risks involved in pursuing treatment supported only by anecdotal data.

"Official" studies, as you call them, on the other hand, do claim to be representative and generalizable to the population at large. There is where my disagreement lies. I do not believe they meet the rigorous scientific standards necessary to be as generalizable as they claim.

See, anecdotal data doesn't make that claim. It doesn't pretend to be scientific. It's more like, "I tried that restaurant, and I really like it. Maybe you'll like it too, who knows?" There's nothing wrong with replying, "Yeah, I'll give it a shot, and maybe I'll mention it to my neighbor too." You don't need science to justify word of mouth.

Testimonials are not proof that alternative treatments work for everyone. If you believe them to be true, they worked for the people in the testimonials. If you don't, well, they don't mean anything at all.

I did not cite those testimonials as "proof" of anything. I cited those testimonials to SigmaNunki as examples of alternative treatments that have been successful for some people, because he asked what they were.

If you want to call me on using the word "successful" when there hasn't been any actual proof, I'll grant you that. I can qualify more carefully, that these are examples of people whose recovery was correlated with alternative treatments, although that itself is not proof of causation. That would be more accurate. But the point is still made, that it is possible (cases exist) to recover in absence of psychoactive medication.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 7:04 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I don't have problems believing anecdotal data or testimonials. Their veracity is not the problem.

I do.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 7:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
I don't have problems believing anecdotal data or testimonials. Their veracity is not the problem.
I do.

I respect that. It is definitely a big confounder, whether a testimonial can be corroborated to begin with. Then even after that, there is no proof that the treatment CAUSED the results, and that it wasn't some other factor that coincided with the treatment. Scientifically speaking, anecdotal data is completely meaningless.

Practically speaking, I don't need scientific standards in order to give a treatment a short trial, provided there are no known toxic ingredients. (It is like not needing a scientific study to try a restaurant once.) Word of mouth is good enough for me. This goes for both alternative and conventional treatments.

Now, if YOU need official endorsement before trying treatments, that is your choice to make.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 7:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Flawed studies, flawed conclusions. I hope that helps explain my perspective.

I see, I personally think that dismissing tests because they aren't perfect isn't really the best way to go, but if the flaws are great enough then I guess it makes sense.

As for the rest of your posts...

I think you are a bit too quick to call using medication "drug dependancy", to me that means addiction or loss of life if the drug is taken away, where in the context that you are using it simply provides a means of controlling a problem that comes back if the medication is stopped, same as most alternatives.

I personally would want to go first for the treatments that are proven reliable and effective and if the side effects prove too much THEN resort to alternatives that are unproven and likely to be less reliable and effective. But I guess if you are willing to put the time an effort into alternatives first then more power to you.

Regarding your daughter, have you tried medication to see if it allows her to be brilliant and calm? I respect your opinion that meds should be a last resort but IMO you should try every option before you decide to stop trying new things.

I am also interested in your use of homeopathy given that from what I have seen (admittedly not much) there hasn't been any tests that prove it as effective and chemists and physicists both seem to be of the opinion that there is essentially nothing in the treatments but water.

All in all, I think that you are not neccesarily wrong in seeking alternatives before traditional medication. However if dependance on alternatives results in not even considering regular medication then IMHO that's a mistake. I also appreciate the fact that you aren't interested in rabidly declaring that drugs are evil and anyone who gives them to kids is evil, unlike some people here.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 8:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
I think you are a bit too quick to call using medication "drug dependancy", to me that means addiction or loss of life if the drug is taken away, where in the context that you are using it simply provides a means of controlling a problem that comes back if the medication is stopped, same as most alternatives.

Fair enough, though "substance dependence" does often apply to people on psychoactive drugs (withdrawal symptoms, increasing tolerance for the drug, etc.). Maybe it would be more accurate to say lifelong "reliance" on a drug. BTW, the alternatives I listed do NOT require the same lifelong reliance. I would be interested only in alternative *cures* as substitutes for conventional meds. According to the testimonials I've read (if you choose to believe them), a number of people appear to have been cured and do not need further treatment to maintain their symptom-free functioning.

Quote:
Regarding your daughter, have you tried medication to see if it allows her to be brilliant and calm?

No I haven't. Of all the medications out there, I am most suspicious of vaccines (because of listed ingredients) and psychoactive medication(because authorities do no know exactly why those drugs work or how, and I don't think the brain, of all organs, is a good choice for experimentation). So, last resort for these, even if it isn't for chronic use. And my daughter is functioning well enough with the stuff I am trying.

Quote:
I am also interested in your use of homeopathy given that from what I have seen (admittedly not much) there hasn't been any tests that prove it as effective and chemists and physicists both seem to be of the opinion that there is essentially nothing in the treatments but water.

That is correct. Nothing but water, which actually supports the argument that it is relatively safe. But they have measured electromagnetic fields in homeopathic remedies, and some hypothesize that it works electromagnetically, not chemically as we are accustomed in the pharm paradigm. It would work more along the same venues as acupuncture, which also has demonstrable electromagnetic fields around the points and meridians.

The problem with homeopathy is that there are 3000 remedies, and only one of them will work in any one situation. So if you pick the wrong 2999, it's not going to work. It takes a very skilled and experienced homeopath to narrow it down to 5-10 remedies that might fit, and then it is a lot of patience with trial and error. The process is not conducive to clinical trials as we know them. Most clinical trials change the application of alternative remedies to fit the conventional meds paradigm, and they don't work that way. It is no wonder the results of the few studies we have are negative.

Quote:
However if dependance on alternatives results in not even considering regular medication then IMHO that's a mistake.

Agreed. I don't see that lifelong reliance on an "alternative" treatment is significantly better than reliance on a conventional one.

Quote:
I also appreciate the fact that you aren't interested in rabidly declaring that drugs are evil and anyone who gives them to kids is evil, unlike some people here.

Believe it or not, I've been on forums that have attacked me viciously and actually kicked me off for defending the use of psychoactive drugs when one chooses to do so. So, yeah, people hate me everywhere.

I appreciate your rational conversation.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 10:11 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"But they have measured electromagnetic fields in homeopathic remedies, and some hypothesize that it works electromagnetically"

So, best not experiment with psychoactive drugs b/c no one knows how they work - eh? Just pointing out your logic is so fractured it's biting its own ass.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 10:38 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

And to disect one particular statement:

"I've been on forums that have attacked me viciously and actually kicked me off for defending the use of psychoactive drugs"

Now, this is a perfect example of triangulation.
One side supposedly says 'drugs are all powerful and good' (a straw-man argument in itself, but that is a point for another post)
The other side says drugs are totally bad (according to CTS)
Therefore, the 'reasonable' ground is to say that unproven vodoo should be given precedence over medication.

I'm curious. How many people here prefer Willard Water, holy water, or homeopathy?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 7:42 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
If you gave me testimonials from people who talked about how Lithium and Haldol saved their lives, I'd believe them too.

There are testimonials here on this very board from people who take antidpressants (such as myself) and Ritalin and who know people who are on lithium and the only thing you can say about our testimonials is that we're selling our souls to big pharma. But since personal testimony from individuals with whom you have had something of a history doesn't seem to be enough, here's a testimonial for lithium orotate as a nutritional supplement. Does this work for you?

http://nutritherapy.wordpress.com/2006/09/10/lithium-orotate-%E2%80%93
-a-unique-safe-mineral-transporter/

Quote:
"Official" studies, as you call them, on the other hand, do claim to be representative and generalizable to the population at large.

If you mean that studies always show drugs to be effective and w/o serious side effects that's clearly not the case. Official studies recognize that there ia always a subset of population for whom the treatment or drug doesn't work or for whom the treatment is especially risky- or both.

Quote:
See, anecdotal data doesn't make that claim. It doesn't pretend to be scientific. It's more like, "I tried that restaurant, and I really like it. Maybe you'll like it too, who knows?" There's nothing wrong with replying, "Yeah, I'll give it a shot, and maybe I'll mention it to my neighbor too."

If only trying alternative treatments were like trying a restaurant. Going to a restaurant is optional. Treating a serious illness is not. Trying a restaurant is unlikely to create serious consequences. Some alternatives treatments are risky, and sometimes the risk is a risk of doing nothing effective.

See, when you apply an alterantive treatment you ARE generalizing the data to a population- yourself and your family. And rather than allowing your family to choose from the entire range of options you're restricting them to the ones that YOU deem "useful" which seems to be based on a very slanted viewpoint.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 7:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Maybe it would be more accurate to say lifelong "reliance" on a drug.

Agreed.

Quote:
BTW, the alternatives I listed do NOT require the same lifelong reliance. I would be interested only in alternative *cures* as substitutes for conventional meds.

Ah, that makes your arguement make a bit more sense.

Quote:
So, last resort for these, even if it isn't for chronic use. And my daughter is functioning well enough with the stuff I am trying.

Fair enough.

Quote:
That is correct. Nothing but water, which actually supports the argument that it is relatively safe.

That would probably depend on where they got the water from...

Quote:
But they have measured electromagnetic fields in homeopathic remedies, and some hypothesize that it works electromagnetically, not chemically as we are accustomed in the pharm paradigm.

meh, I don't see it. But as long as you get the results you want...

Quote:
I appreciate your rational conversation.

Thank you. You have been quite pleasant as well.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 8:04 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Practically speaking, I don't need scientific standards in order to give a treatment a short trial, provided there are no known toxic ingredients. (It is like not needing a scientific study to try a restaurant once.) Word of mouth is good enough for me. This goes for both alternative and conventional treatments.

Do you evaluate risk based on "word of mouth"? Also, AFA short trials are concerned I have one comment: If you have to look at it sideways and squint your eyes - or you have to keep a detailed diary to see if it's "working"- IT'S NOT WORKING. When you hit on a treatment that works it should REALLY work. I don't expect anything less than near-miracles.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 8:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
... and the only thing you can say about our testimonials is that we're selling our souls to big pharma.

Did I say that?

(Tsk, tsk. You're getting as bad as Rue, Sig.)

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 8:20 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

You DO have testimonials on this board as to the effectiveness and necessity of medications that you seem to be unwilling to try or even consider.

And you have not answered my question as to why you would try (generalize) something based on a testimonial (which may be fraudulent and doesn't address risk, let alone effectiveness) whereas you are averse to trying something which has broad-based studies behind it.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 8:37 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Thank you. You have been quite pleasant as well."

Yes, CTS can be quite pleasant as long as you agree with everything she says. If you don't you are a sad believer who doesn't mind being forced to be dependent, trusts the system with its bandaid solutions, and above all has faith and excuses.

Anyone who agrees with CTS that this is you because you have the idiocy to include modern medicine as an option, please stand up and be counted.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 8:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You DO have testimonials on this board as to the effectiveness of medications that you seem to be unwilling to try or even consider.

If you go back and read my posts carefully, you'll see that I say those meds are on my list as a last resort. I'm sure you have treatments on your list that have higher priorities than others. It's just that your "last resort" treatments are probably my first, and vice versa--because of the way we weigh evidence differently and because of our different value systems. I don't have a problem with that.

Quote:
And you have not answered my question as to why you would try (generalize) something based on a testimonial (which may be fraudulent and doesn't address risk, let alone effectiveness) whereas you are averse to trying something which has broad-based studies behind it.

At some point, these arguments are just rehash, and it's time to let go and agree to disagree.

But fine. First of all, if I do generalize based on a testimonial, I don't generalize to EVERYONE (or the population at large). I "generalize" only to myself and my family, if you wish it call it "generalization" (but extrapolation would be more accurate--generalization by definition means extending the results to a large population, not a few people). That's the difference--studies claim to be generalizable to the population at large have to meet certain standards. If they don't, they are as "generalizable" as anecdotal data.

Risk is definitely a very important part of my decision making, on what comes first in my list of things to try. Generally, the less risky and less costly (and I don't mean just financial costs) ones come first, and when they fail, then I'm more willing to take greater risks with the products with "broad-based studies." Those products are more directly and quickly effective, but also carry higher risks/costs. YOU don't think so, but I do (again because of the different weights we give to the same evidence and differences in personal values).

So why would I try homeopathy instead of Ritalin first? Because homeopathy is practically pure water, with no chemically active ingredients. It is relatively innocuous, very very cheap, has a 200 year clinical history which I researched, and is founded on healing philosophies that are compatible with my personal values. If it doesn't work, well, I haven't lost that much--at most a little time. As far as gambles go, it's a freebie.

Ritalin, on the other hand, has a history of potentially dangerous side effects, including death. It is chemically active on the brain in ways that are still poorly understood, and is in my opinion, largely still experimental in safety. Without knowing if my daughter would be one to react poorly, I believe the gamble would involve a larger risk, larger cost, for the "sure" benefit. So, I place it as a last resort treatment.

There are other methods such as diet changes and occupational therapy that are also relative innocuous that would precede Ritalin in priority. Less risk, you know.

It boils down to trust, as I said originally to 6ix. There are people who trust authorities when they say something is safe, and there are people like myself who don't.

I don't know, Sig. If this and all our past conversations don't clarify my position, and you still want to accuse me of sundry hypocrisies and what not, I don't really see any point in continuing our dialogue. If you really think that poorly of me, why bother talking to me? Surely accusing people of having slanted, inconsistent views and such can't be THAT entertaining, for a busy person such as yourself?

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 8:53 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Apparently CTS didn't read my post where I said I'd tried everything else before Ritalin. But that I believe there is a quality if life issue for in-between-ers where ALL options should be considered. Because medication may actually provide the best quality of life overall.

Somehow these nuances evade her.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 9:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
If it doesn't work, well, I haven't lost that much--at most a little time. As far as gambles go, it's a freebie.

Unless the problem is an immediate serious concern. Question, let's say than in a few years your daughter becomes extremely depressed and attempts suicide, would you be willing to put her on anti-deps immediately and then later (once some other treatments have (hopefully) reduced the risk) try alternatives for a cure, or would you insist on trying alternatives like homeopathy first?

Quote:
It boils down to trust, as I said originally to 6ix. There are people who trust authorities when they say something is safe, and there are people like myself who don't.

But Big Brother only wants to protect us! I Love Big Brother!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 9:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Apparently CTS didn't read my post where I said I'd tried everything else before Ritalin. But that I believe there is a quality if life issue for in-between-ers where ALL options should be considered. Because medication may actually provide the best quality of life overall.

Somehow these nuances evade her.

Rue, if CTS was saying that her opinion should be followed by everyone then I would agree with you. But CTS isn't forcing her opinion here, and isn't saying that she knows the best way for everyone, merely that this is the way SHE wants to do things. I happen to agree with you more than CTS, but as long as she isn't trying to insist that everyone should do what she says I'm ready to let her do her own thing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 9:31 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Risk is definitely a very important part of my decision making, on what comes first in my list of things to try. Generally, the less risky and less costly (and I don't mean just financial costs) ones come first, and when they fail, then I'm more willing to take greater risks with the products with "broad-based studies."

This is part of my question: HOW do you evaluate "risk"? Let's take a look at homeopathy: It's supposed to be "safe" because it's based on nearly infinite dilutions of something in water and water is generally thought of as safe. Once diluted, there is only a statistical chance that you will find a molecule of the active ingredient in a glass of water. The idea is that these compounds leave some sort of "imprint" in the water. So- what does homeopathy say about trace contaminants in water? Don't they have homeopathic properties as well? Don't they leave some kind of "imprint" in the water, but maybe not so beneficial? Aren't you at risk of poisoning yourself homeopathically just by drinking water, or by drinking the wrong kind of water? Or does "intent" count? And just out of curiosity, how long does that "imprint" last? Does it disappear on standing? Does it disappear when exposed to EMF?Does is persist through an entire water cycle? How do you know when you're using water for dilution that you're not recycling an accumulation of other homeopathic cures from 200 years ago?Since the mechanism is unknown the risk is also unknown, right?

Quote:
It boils down to trust, as I said originally to 6ix.

The inverse of trust is suspicion. Personally I don't think either one should have a large factor in a treatment decision because that places too large of an emphasis on factors outside of risk and efficacy.

-------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 9:46 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Fredg- CTS is imposing her "thing" on her children. I suppose that's the parent's perogative but it may not be the best thing for her children.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 9:54 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I don't know, Sig. If this and all our past conversations don't clarify my position, and you still want to accuse me of sundry hypocrisies and what not,

inconsistencies, not hypocracies

Quote:
I don't really see any point in continuing our dialogue. If you really think that poorly of me, why bother talking to me? Surely accusing people of having slanted, inconsistent views and such can't be THAT entertaining, for a busy person such as yourself?

I guess I'm still trying to clarify your position.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 11:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Fredg- CTS is imposing her "thing" on her children. I suppose that's the parent's perogative but it may not be the best thing for her children.

I agree, IMO she is not doing what is in her kids best interests, but it would be hypocritical of me to say that she can't decide what is best for her kids while telling 6ix that parents should decide what medication to give to their kids. As far as I'm concerned until the question is one of life-or-death, if she wants to avoid drugs, fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 11:44 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Fredg- Pretty much the same here. I understand that parents have the right- in fact, the duty- to make decisions for their child. There is wide latitude given to parents, since they have responsibility they also have authority.

CTS- Have you figured out how homeopathy can be both safe and effective, since it operates by unknown principles?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 2:31 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Not that I want to derail the topic (And BTW- CTS, please don't get the idea that we're going to report you to CPS 'cause we're not) but I just happened to see this particular news item. It has everything you want! SEX! DRUGS! ROCK'N ROLL!

Here is the poster child for what is wrong with everything related to "alternative medicine", including "official" response to it:

---------------
CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- Antioxidant vitamins taken by tens of millions of people around the world won't lead to a longer life, according to an analysis of dozens of studies that adds to evidence questioning the value of the popular supplements. The large review of separate studies on thousands of people found no long-life benefit from vitamins A, E and C and beta carotene and selenium...

... last year, Americans spent $2.3 billion on nutritional supplements and vitamins at grocery stores, drug stores and retail outlets, excluding Wal-Mart, according to Information Resources Inc., which tracks sales.

The new study, appearing in Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association, was led by the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group at Copenhagen University Hospital in Denmark. The Cochrane organization is a respected international network of experts that does systematic reviews of scientific evidence on health interventions.

For the new report on antioxidants, the researchers first analyzed 68 studies involving 232,606 people and found no significant effect on mortality -- neither good nor bad -- linked to taking antioxidants. When they eliminated the lower-quality studies and looked only at the most trustworthy ones, they actually found a higher risk of death for people taking vitamins: 4 percent for those taking vitamin E, 7 percent for beta carotene and 16 percent for vitamin A.

Those findings are based on an analysis of 47 studies involving 180,938 people who were randomly assigned to get real vitamins or dummy pills. Some involved superdoses far exceeding the recommended daily amount of the compounds; others involved normal doses. Some experts who reviewed the research were dismissive of the increased death risk and the analysis overall, saying it pooled studies that were too diverse.

However, the study's senior author, Dr. Christian Gluud of Copenhagen University Hospital, said, "The main message is that prevention by beta carotene, vitamin A and vitamin E cannot be recommended. These three antioxidant supplements may increase mortality." Gluud said most of the studies didn't reveal why those taking supplements died, but "in all likelihood, what they died from is what people normally die from, maybe accelerated artherosclerosis, maybe cancer."

Antioxidant supplements have been tested repeatedly by many clinical trials with no consistent clear evidence for their health effects, Gluud said. "We have had this huge industry really wanting to demonstrate an intervention effect that has gone to lengths to do so," Gluud said. "Sadly enough for the industry, and for us as consumers, it has failed to do so."

Preliminary studies suggested antioxidants might block the heart-damaging effects of oxygen on arteries and the cell damage that might encourage some kinds of cancer. But some researchers now believe antioxidants work only when they are in food, or that people who eat vitamin-rich food are healthier simply because they take better care of themselves. And beta carotene supplements have been found to increase lung cancer risk in smokers.

... The complaints were echoed by Andrew Shao, a scientist at the Council for Responsible Nutrition, a supplement trade association.

"Only when they included and excluded certain trials were they able to find this alleged increase in mortality, which they themselves can't explain," Shao said. "There is plenty of data out there that show regular use of antioxidant supplements help to maintain health."

Donald Berry, chairman of the department of biostatistics at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, said the analysis persuades him antioxidants have no measurable health benefits, but he disagrees with the researchers' finding of an increase risk of dying.

"There are so many choices you can make when you're doing these analyses," he said.

Alice Lichtenstein, a professor of nutrition science and policy at Tufts University who was not involved with the research, said the study's main message is: "Rely on food to get your nutrients."
------------------

So here we have a poorly designed study done by a non-USA University, criticized by the supplement industry (not that they have a POV or anything) and by certain researchers, and defended by other researchers who may have an anti-supllement bias.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 11:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Question, let's say than in a few years your daughter becomes extremely depressed and attempts suicide, would you be willing to put her on anti-deps immediately and then later (once some other treatments have (hopefully) reduced the risk) try alternatives for a cure, or would you insist on trying alternatives like homeopathy first?

If she were suicidal, I would definitely stay away from anti-depressants.

Anti-depressant use have been known to unpredictably precede inexplicable and sudden suicides. The FDA now issues a black box warning about this. Since we don't know exactly who might react to antidepressants this way, I would only use it, again as a last resort, with extremely close and careful monitoring during the first month of use.
http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/antidepressants/SSRIlabelChange.htm

Suicidal ideation is usually a result of severe dysfunction in family and other support dynamics or some other mental health issue. If she were suicidal, I'd go straight for the root problem immediately. I'd probably put her in psychotherapy / family therapy and we as a family will do the hard work to change whatever we need to change.

When she is a bit more stable, I'd try homeopathy or other alternatives if there is chronic depression.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 1, 2007 12:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
This is part of my question: HOW do you evaluate "risk"?

I do have an underlying assumption that risk is proportional to potency. Things that are more directly effective have a higher potential of doing more direct damage. This is pretty much common sense, which is why prescription meds require a prescription and oversight by a professional. Less potent meds are sold OTC.

Before trying a new product, I do as much research as I can on risk, cost, and effectiveness. I look not just for studies, but for testimonials of both benefit and damage. My 10 year experience with ME/CFIDS has trained me to put more "faith" in the experience of patients than the published papers of the establishment (in ME/CFIDS, most papers told you to exercise when most patients would tell you "don't!"--and of course, the patients were right, in my experience). Then I put it all together with my value system and personal experiences and decide.

When deciding to use homeopathy over Ritalin, for example, I researched philosophy and history of homeopathy. I talked to people who have used it to find out what was the worst complaint and what was the best benefit. Some said it didn't work at all and wasted their money and time. Some said it worked wonders. I couldn't find anyone (in person or online) who complained of any physical damage. I was very skeptical, and was pretty much leaning towards never bothering. But our family physician, an MD, was the one who actually insisted I make an appt with the local homeopath. (This was for our son's allergies.) With very compelling firsthand experience for my son, and later for my husband and myself, I decided to try it for my daughter. Risk/benefit assessment: very low risk, unknown benefits.

To research Ritalin, I start with the PDR.
http://www.ritalindeath.com/Ritalin-PDR.htm
I read testimonials of chronic use such as the above link (ritalindeath.com). Having been a mental health professional briefly in a former life, I know kids who have used it effectively and relatively safely for short periods, so I don't really have to read the actual clinical trials. Risk/benefit assessment: unknown risk, high benefit.

Then, based on my personal value system, I try the low risk first, unknown risk last. But then I have to factor in cost. Ritalin may cost chronic use of the drug, which then increases the risks significantly. This cost of chronic reliance is a cost I do not feel is worth the benefit, and I would rather search for a solution with lower costs. This puts Ritalin down further on the list.

I don't know if this is what you're looking for. If you are asking if I too use "faith" in my risk assessments, the answer is "Sure, I do." I just have faith in different things. My post about your faith in govt authority wasn't intended to be negative or condescending, as in "you're superstitious and I'm not." It was to point out that you have faith in govt and I don't. I have faith in other things. Remember I am a person of faith, so I don't see faith as a bad thing. I think we all have faith in some things more than others, whether we admit it or not.

Quote:
So- what does homeopathy say about trace contaminants in water? Don't they have homeopathic properties as well?

Homeopathic remedies are prepared in a very specific way that doesn't occur naturally. It is not just a matter of dilution, but also a matter of "succussions" (physically banging the dilution) in a systematic method developed by trial and error by Samuel Hahnemann, MD.

You see, he found that substances that mimic the symptoms of malaria in a healthy person can also cure malaria in a sick person. But the dilemma was how to administer the substance to cure malaria, without causing the symptoms of malaria. He started with simply diluting the substance, but of course, the more he diluted the solution, the less potent it was. If it had no side effects, it had no curative powers either. Then he discovered that succussions somehow retained the potency of the substance even through extreme dilutions. In fact, the more dilute and the more succussed the remedy, the more potent it is. It has been documented that measurable effects of a substance decrease as it gets diluted (as expected), then starts to climb up again as dilution increases. I'm sorry I don't have a reference for this study, as I read a summary of the study in some MD's book. I'll find it eventually.

Here is a link from a homeopathic lab so you can see their succussion device.
http://www.hahnemannlabs.com/preparation.html
Homeopathic remedies are licensed and approved by the FDA for OTC use.

So anyway, remedies have to be specifically prepared and doesn't just occur when substances are diluted naturally.

The remedies come in little sugar globules. You dissolve them in a bottle of water of your choosing at the time of use, then keep the bottle with a little alcohol preservative in the fridge (to keep bacteria from growing in a sitting bottle of water). My homeopath tells me to make new bottles every six months or so, but it rarely takes that long for a remedy to work (or not work). We also succuss the bottle ourselves right before each dose, which increases potency as well.

Quote:
Does it disappear when exposed to EMF?

That is actually a very good question. Most homeopaths don't consider this, but I have subjectively noticed a difference in effect between using remedies in the States and South America. It seems to work better away from overexposure to EMR. I suspect EMR interference, and speculate that may be one reason (of many) why studies in developed countries are inconsistent, and why homeopathy is much more popular (read: effective) in underdeveloped countries. In Latin America, for example, homeopathic pharmacies can be found on busy commercial streets in major cities--a significant percentage of the population (as much as 10%) use them.

Quote:
Since the mechanism is unknown the risk is also unknown, right?

That is right, scientifically speaking. But no scientific studies have been done with eating an apple a day, so the risks of apple-eating is also scientifically unknown. At some point, the cumulative experience of generations past come into the equation. Not scientific, but it's something. We have 200 years of clinical experience with remedies that have not demonstrated any known chronic or permanent risks.

Also, all clinical treatments are essentially experimental to some degree and carry unknown risks. That is, we never know for sure how any one individual is going to react to any substance, no matter how well studied it is.

So here we have homeopathic remedies that have no history of significant risk vs. chemical drugs that have documented links with certain side effects. Sure, there is some experimentation involved with homeopathy, which is unavoidable with any clinical treatment, but given its 200 year record, I'm willing to give informed consent for this experimentation.

Please note that I disagree with alternative practitioners who claim homeopathy is completely risk-free (aside from losing time and money). Anything that has the power to heal has the power to do damage. It definitely can cause transient new symptoms. Even beyond losing time and money, one is taking risks for yet unknown long-term damage from whatever mechanism it operates by. I don't think it is likely, but it cannot be dismissed. But relatively speaking, it presents less risk then chemical medication, as *I* assess risk.

Quote:
The inverse of trust is suspicion. Personally I don't think either one should have a large factor in a treatment decision because that places too large of an emphasis on factors outside of risk and efficacy.

I don't think either trust or suspicion can be avoided because those are the factors that weigh how we evaluate evidence of risk and efficacy.

I trust the 200 years of homeopathic clinical experience and put homeopathy at the top of the list. You suspect that same "evidence" and put homeopathy at the bottom of your list. I suspect the safety conclusions of clinical trials for effectiveness and put meds at the bottom of my list. You trust those same conclusions and put meds at the top of your list. You see? Trust and suspicion affects risk assessment itself.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 1, 2007 1:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Fredg- CTS is imposing her "thing" on her children. I suppose that's the parent's perogative but it may not be the best thing for her children.

Don't we all impose our "things" on our children?

I'm sure you don't ask your kids if they want to get the MMR shot or not. You just tell them they're going to do it.

We all love our kids and do what we think is best. We care enough to be concerned when we think other parents are not doing what we think is best. But until a certain threshold is crossed, we respect the boundaries of parental autonomy, even if other people's practices make us uncomfortable.

The problem is, that threshold is different for different folks. I'm sure there are people whose thresholds are stampeded by my giving birth at home, not vaccinating, and using alternative medicine.

I try to give others the benefit of the doubt and the respect for parental autonomy that I want to receive myself.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 1, 2007 1:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So here we have a poorly designed study done by a non-USA University, criticized by the supplement industry (not that they have a POV or anything) and by certain researchers, and defended by other researchers who may have an anti-supllement bias.

Good studies on humans are really hard to come by.

I don't take a lot of supplements. As a rule, I like what that guy said, "get your nutrients from your food." I do supplement occasionally with EPA's and other oils and extra vitamin C. And of course, prenatal vitamins. But I don't bother with Vit E, A, and stuff like this. It's all a crapshoot.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 1, 2007 4:23 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I don't know if this is what you're looking for. If you are asking if I too use "faith" in my risk assessments, the answer is "Sure, I do." I just have faith in different things. My post about your faith in govt authority wasn't intended to be negative or condescending, as in "you're superstitious and I'm not." It was to point out that you have faith in govt

You are truly misunderstanding me. Just ask Geezer, Auraptor, Finn, or Hero if I have "faith" in government! Hell, I don't even have "faith" in technology! I understand that science is limited by our imagination, and guided by our prejudices. Why do you put people in boxes?

Quote:
I have faith in other things. Remember I am a person of faith, so I don't see faith as a bad thing.

I think this is where we differ. At one point, I questioned whether the universe existed. My decision to move forward as if it did was a decision based on an assumption because, philosophically, you can't prove that it does.

Quote:
Homeopathic remedies are licensed and approved by the FDA for OTC use.

Are you citing the government to prove your point? I have no faith in FDA oversight of supplements and alternative medicine since their regulations in that arena are extremely weak.

AFA succussion- nonetheless, when a bottle of water is succussed, you are also increasing the potency of whatever ELSE happens to be in the water. N'est pas?

I place homeopathy near the bottom of my list because of it's hit-and-miss (at best) effectiveness. For issues that don't need treatment right away, fine. But playing around with treatments that require such lengthy experimentation may delay implementing an effective cure when time is of the essence. Like praying over a child with a burst appendix.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 1, 2007 9:27 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

One of the strongest arguments for acupuncture is that it works on animals. For example, operations have been done on animals using acupuncture. And animals would express that type of pain very clearly if they were feeling it. (They do instinctively hide chronic pain and illness.) OTOH 'dummy' acupuncture (in non-conventional spots) also works. So while I tend to think acupuncture works, I don't buy into the chi/ meridians philosophy behind it.

If homeopathy were shown to work on animals in some unambiguous way, similarly to acupuncture, I think that would be a strong argument in its favor. Such studies which you would think are easily funded - and much more ethical than experimenting on humans - would, you suspect, be the FIRST thing to do. But these studies haven't been done.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 1, 2007 9:42 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Ok, that's enough.

What part of someone doing what they feel is right offends you to the point where you feel the pressing need to lay siege to it ?

I've overlooked a lot Rue, cause most of the time you make decent points, but this has gotten ludicrous, no matter how CTS tries to state her own, personal conclusions which she's not demanding anyone share, or even necessarily agree with, you just keep right on doing your all-fired best to ram your viewpoint down her throat.

Stop it.

I could care less what someone believes as long as they do not feel the need to inflict it upon me, and people do what they feel indivually is right, whether or not the rest of the world agrees with them.

What you are doing here, although worded better, is no better than SixStrings unfortunate and unwarranted bashing of TWG, ain't no reason nor cause for it, and it's time to just agree to disagree.

Neither one of you is gonna convince the other, because both alternative and conventional medicine have some pretty serious flaws, which have been thrashed over on this issue many many times with no respite in sight.

"Praying over a child with a burst appendix" is to my mind not one whit better than medicating them for a real world problem (See Above) that no one wants to address or deal with, or trying to exorcise a case of epilepsy, people do what they do, it's not for us to live or run other folks lives for them.

I think both cases have been stated as completely as possible, and at this point it's naught but thinly veiled hostility making the arguments, and if people not living life the way YOU think they should offends you to this point...

I dunno what to say... that mindset scares me more than anything else I've seen in this thread, because it's a very slippery slope in that respect.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 1, 2007 10:01 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

FremD

To what are you referring?

When I address CTS I write her name at the top - and yes, I tell her what I think. When I address a topic I generally don't write a name at the top.

My last post I thought was topical. All I did was point out that while there was good evidence for accupuncture, there was no such evidence for homeopathy. Is pointing out facts 'bashing'? When did that happen?

added: Oh, I see. The 'praying over a child ...' wasn't my post.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 1, 2007 10:04 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Frem, I feel a bit "bashed" by CTS myself. HER hostility is out there for everyone to see. She's injected snark and ad hominem where it has no business belonging and I've had to take deep breaths not to respond in kind, and by-and-large I think I've succeeded despite provocation. She has mischaracterized me in so many ways I don't know where to start...

Now, if YOU need official endorsement before trying treatments, that is your choice to make (No, I don't)

...you still want to accuse me of sundry hypocrisies... (I didn't)

.. It was to point out that you have faith in govt (I don't, as I think you and everyone else on the board realizes)

AFA praying over a child with a burst appendix... that was just an example of the far end of the spectrum. At that point, someone SHOULD interfere because the child has rights beyond being the parent's property.

Mostly, if you read my posts, I ask CTS questions like: How does homeopathy work? How do you evaluate risk? Is that "bashing"? If it is, then I wish to be "bashed" in that fashion.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 1, 2007 10:13 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I was going to post that myself. Frem, my problem with CTS is that she lies and manipulates.

Her VERY FIRST post on this thread was an at-length ad hominem attack on anyone who doesn't think the way she does. She ended the post saying "THEY will always attack". (In fact, the FIRST ad hominem attack was posted by 6-string.) I don't know why YOU have no problem with 6-string's and CTS's unprovoked ad hominem attacks but have such a grotch when people merely respond in kind.

I have no problem with what she believes. (Well, I do to the extent she is endangering the life of her son who has a life-threatening illness which she claims to not be medically treating.) I DO have a problem with her lies and manipulations.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 1, 2007 10:33 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I also wanted to point out that SignyM has a child with an extremely rare neurological problem - one for which there is no known cause and no known cure - and which always ends up with 'basket case' results (unable to speak, walk, feed themselves).

SignyM has been pushing from the very first for treatment - ALL of which is experimental - with skeptical doctors and institutions, been in international contact with researchers, and traveled all over the US for care.

For CTS to say: "Now, if YOU need official endorsement before trying treatments, that is your choice to make" is an ad hominem attack of the worst kind, made out of complete ignorance and sheer viciousness.

And KUDOS to SignyM for not responding to those attacks and TRYING to keep the thread topical.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 1, 2007 10:47 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Yeah, I kind of ground on that for a while. It really pissed me off.

Frem ... FYI we've tried brushing therapy, bovine colostrum, immunoglobulin, the ketogenic diet, antivirals, various supplements and vitamins, LOTS of TLC, as well as anticonvulsants and immune suppressants. All in all we've tried about two-dozen things. The therapy that worked (steroids) was communicated to me by another parent by email. A testimonial if you will, and I had to push HARD to get a doctor's response. I've learned a lot along the way, things that no doctor or study will ever teach you.

And Rue, I'm glad you brought up CTS' son. There is more at stake than a brilliant but distractable daughter. Like all complicated children being treated by non-mainstream means I continue to think of him, and I continue to hope he's doing well.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 1, 2007 3:06 PM

FREMDFIRMA

All i'm sayin is that this discussion's gone off the deep end and is headed towards the pit.

So I felt the need to put up warning signs.

I can be pretty hostile* myself if my buttons are pushed, and there's been a lot of button pushin from everyone around here the past few, it's just getting nuts.

All I can do is say that, while hoping that everyone finds a solution to their own problems that works for them, really.

-Frem

*PS - If I've no intent to be neutral or reasonable about a topic, you'll note I usually mention that up front.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 1, 2007 3:32 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Let me reply with a bit of truth - 6-string and CTS took it in that direction.

I don't take well to insults and don't mind replying in kind. SignyM has been a saint. If you have a problem with this thread, take it up with the perpetrators.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 1, 2007 4:44 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
All I can do is say that, while hoping that everyone finds a solution to their own problems that works for them, really.

It seems to me that a parent's duty is to do what is best for their child, and that a large part of figuring out what is best for the child is HOW THE CHILD IS DOING. That means throwing philosophy aside and taking a realistic look at what works and what doesn't especially when dealing with serious progressive issues.

In my experience- and believe me, I've had a shitload- I've learned to look in many different places for help. Sometimes it's a do-it-yourself effort. Sometimes it's a dangerous Rx. You try something. You give it your best for whatever time is required for the treatment to work. You keep an eagle-eye out for serious side effects. You have a fallback plan for how to stop in a hurry. But if it doesn't work... and I mean REALLY work... you move on to the next thing on your list because you don't fall in love with something just because it fits your philosophy.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 1, 2007 4:53 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Fine, forget it, ain't no point in reason anymore, then.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 1, 2007 5:26 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

UH, Frem,

I don't think you're giving SignyM enough credit.

When your little child walks into a corner and stands there staring with a glazed look b/c they can't figure out how to get out - they are in deep, deep shit. When I said that the problem SigyM's child had - and has - results in 'basket cases' it was a factual description. Along with unremitting seizures and other fun symptoms the child was becoming a vegetable week by week.

I don't know if you can imagine what it's like to watch your child look at you with confusion and fear as they grow more and more confused each day. To watch whatever makes them a person disappear.

Since I know SignyM personally, I can say I have watched the endless struggle with the doctors and insurance comnpanies and researchers to get the necessary help. Even though it was ALL experimental.

It was, and is, far beyond a do-it-yourself situation addressable with potions and nostrums.

And I hope whatever ire you have to me doesn't transfer to SignyM, b/c of all posters on this board, SignyM's the one who deserves it least.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 1, 2007 5:29 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Frem, what did I do or say that was so unreasonable? I speak from experience. So does CTS. I detailed ny experience, and I didn't use ad hominems or name-calling. But it seems like you're allowing CTS far more latitude than you're allowing me, and that just doesn't seem fair. So show me- in detail- where I went wrong in your book.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 1, 2007 5:47 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Whenever you're ready Frem.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 1, 2007 6:20 PM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 2, 2007 4:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You are truly misunderstanding me.

I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Quote:
Are you citing the government to prove your point? I have no faith in FDA oversight of supplements and alternative medicine since their regulations in that arena are extremely weak.

Oh no. I have no faith in the FDA either, remember? I had assumed YOU had faith in the FDA. But since your "faith" in the FDA is limited to prescription medication (and forgive me again if I am interpreting your position incorrectly), forget that I mentioned the FDA re homeopathy.

Quote:
AFA succussion- nonetheless, when a bottle of water is succussed, you are also increasing the potency of whatever ELSE happens to be in the water. N'est pas?

That's a good question. Of course, they use water that is as pure as possible to begin with. But whatever contaminant that was in the water initially would be diluted tens of thousands times more than the intended substance. At some point, the assumption is that even succussions can't retain the potencies of that much dilution.

Quote:
I place homeopathy near the bottom of my list because of it's hit-and-miss (at best) effectiveness. For issues that don't need treatment right away, fine. But playing around with treatments that require such lengthy experimentation may delay implementing an effective cure when time is of the essence. Like praying over a child with a burst appendix.

Actually, this would apply to my child who was not thriving. He was very sick, vomiting after every feeding, reflux, breaking out, diarrhea, and most importantly, not getting the nutrients he needed because of malabsorption. When our family physician recommended homeopathy, I was definitely hesitant. But she was persistent, so I figured, if something doesn't happen SOON, I can always move onto something else. We tried one remedy a week for 3 weeks. The remedies in the first two weeks improved his condition, but he would relapse and improve in a cycle. The remedy in the 3rd week did nothing all week. Then suddenly at the end of that week, his vomiting stopped. Just stopped like the faucet was turned off. And he never vomited on a regular basis ever again. It cured his vomiting. That was when I decided that homeopathy might be worth pursuing.

See, it isn't necessarily hit-or-miss, all or nothing. It's more like hit-or-near hit, all or almost all. If you have a skilled homeopath, the remedies that are close to the "right" one can give you improvement--just won't give you the cure. The "right" remedy can show steady improvement almost immediately, followed by a complete cure if you take it over time (depending on how chronic the disease is). A remedy that is close to the right one can give you steady improvement in some of your symptoms, or even a cure for some of your symptoms. The near hits just won't cure ALL of them permanently (which is the holy grail of homeopathy). They aren't completely useless though.

One friend had recurrent painful urinary tract infections. The first time she tried homeopathy, her pain disappeared in 10 minutes and the infection never came back. So, when it's a "hit," when you find that holy grail, it is really spectacular.

I don't mind messing around with near hits for a year or two while looking for THE HIT. You still get symptom relief with the near hits. To me, it is better than relying on drugs for symptom relief indefinitely.

Anyway, I've been using homeopathy with my son for 2 years. He is steadily approaching being cured. He started off with intolerance to all foods and an intractable inability to gain weight (fell SO way off the charts). He is now near 10th percentile, and is eating almost everything except for beef, eggs, and milk, with no other symptoms. He hasn't had any GI symptoms in over a year. I compare this to his peers on physician-prescribed formula, some of whom weigh more, but some of whom stay at 3rd percentile or below (even on formula). Many of them are also on steroids and antacids indefinitely. And most of them can't eat anything, and those who can eat a handful of foods are ecstatic.

I think homeopathy, when using a skilled homeopathic advisor, is effective at least in symptom relief, if not in a cure. It does take a lot of persistence and patience, because the near-hits don't relieve all the symptoms, all the way. So one still has to put up with some amount of discomfort/suffering. I do not blame people who decide they would rather relieve all the symptoms, all the way, right now, even if it means chronic reliance on drugs. Late at night, when my son was still suffering even after some improvement, I would cry and ask myself if that is the route I should have taken. So I do not begrudge any parent who chooses to take whatever immediate relief they can and who chooses not to take the longer and more uncertain route.

Just to be clear, I am not trying to persuade you to embrace homeopathy. I understood that you wanted to understand my position better, so I am trying to explain how I became convinced that the benefits of homeopathy are worth the risks.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 2, 2007 4:57 AM