If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
You should sign up to this then http://www.alltrials.net/
I know, right? Expecting homoeopathy to meet the same standards that other medical trials are held to is just cheating.
That's a really confusing statement to make. It's true that by its nature, the stuff which goes to trial tends to be your corporate stuff. Which is why potential cancer cures that are unpatentable don't go to trial.
But it's not true that the trials are not scientific. I explained above, anyone can do an experiment and write a paper. If I write on my blog that I ate a chocolate biscuit on Mondays and plotted how I felt on Mondays I have done an experiment and wrote it up.
It may even get featured in the popular scientific magazines in a fun section. But would someone whose career lies on whether they can produce high quality research cite it as a good source? No.
This is how the scientific consensus is reached. It is a hierarchy, with better and better institutions hiring better and better academics who cite better and better articles.
The problem is any homeopathy article isn't published in a medical journal or a science journal, it's published in 'homeopathy'. The methods are often considered by their peers at different universities that they do not control for biases and have other problems.
The homeopathic substance (magic water) doesn't have any effect at all.
A fairly well ranked journal.
You could drown...
It doesn't work, it can't, water has had SO MANY THINGS in it, how does it know what to remember with it's disregard of all the rules of physics?
There are issues, there is no doubt about that and you only have to read Ben Goldacre's work to see the evidence of that. However the difference is that one is open to scientific scruitiny and peer review - usually using double blind trials etc but homeopathy isn't - or when it is, it's proven to fail the basic requirements of being better than placebo.
However, the evidence that "traditional" medicine works is all around us whilst history will show you what happens when the same analysis and criteria aren't applied. Leeches, blood letting etc.
This article is a good one >>> http://www.badscience.net/2007/11/a-kind-of-magic/
of my threads about freemasons.
Even though the freemasons and British politics goes hand in hand.
I wonder why they close the threads......hmmmm
OMG those pesky masons are everywhere. Not only everyone that disagrees with you but also all of our Mods.
It's got nothing to do with the lack of evidence or debate. Really interesting that those of us whom you criticise are willing to be open and debate, then you - who claims a conspiracy to hide the truth - doesn't actually get into that debate. Irony.
You really are a proper dick.
Yes, even you.
Sent from my whyayePad using Tapatalk
As for conspiracy theories being made up as a comforting antidote to the idea of a world without any centralised authority or direction...pure bullshit! Take a look at the agenda so-called 'conspiracy theorists' believe exists (world government, Orwellian totallitarianism, population reduction, transhumanism) and think again. What you're doing is dismissing an idea as baseless nonsense because it contradicts your preconceptions, which leaves the only alternative explanation that people must only believe in those 'theories' because they find it personally beneficial to do so.
If people think homeopathy works than that doesn't really bother me, unless it involves things like not getting children vaccinated etc. However I don't think the NHS should be funding something that is less effective than alternative treatments - where there is a treatment for a condition that is more effective than placebo otherwise available.
Well not really, I'm happy to hear all reasonable arguments for those theories, I was specifically addressing fluxed's habit of posting 'freemasons did it' in every thread for the past few days. I wasn't dismissing any idea, but merely pointing out the point of why should the notion that an all powerful secret organisation ruling the world be any more fearsome than the alternative - that nobody at all is ruling the world.
People believe in things for their own reasons, I wouldn't presume to cast a net saying everyone who believes [x] only does so because [y]. That's daft
As a broader point I actually think very healthy scepticism is a good thing, which doesn't just mean dismissing a 'conspiracy theory' but also in fact means paying attention to it. Would we trust the American political and intelligence systems -not- to do something insane? I don't think I would. Of course, that proves nothing, except that we can't take what they say at face value. Its like in court even if you don't prove they're guilty, that doesn't prove they didn't do it (only that they are innocent in the eyes of the law).
If there is the lnowledge available to cure diseases, then you'd probably be very keen for it to be treated if it was someone you loved a lot or for yourself. Its a lot easier to be impersonal about "other peoples" loved ones
Improved sanitation and food availability for the first world is a major factor in increased life expectancy. Youre welcome to just become more filthy and hungry if you are concerned by how long you personally might live.
I don't think people should not be treated, because in the end we're all entitled to the same thing even if we realistically don't get it.
But i think as medicine advances the world is gonna become very overpopulated, but just have to wait and see what happens with that.
But i suspect that's for quite a few reasons e.g. It's easy to throw money at, it's politically great (not just to politicians for example, but it's a lot easier to 'sell' cancer research to investors than say speech impediment research), and also older people increasingly are the biggest users of health services.
But going along with Alfie some sentiment, in 20 years time our hospitals will be overcrowded with elderly people taking up the vast majority of beds, chronically ill, whilst the rest of the population vies for the 10% remaining strained service to keep the productive work force labour.
It's the mind of problem that needs forward planning to combat, but that's not happening. I anticipate what will happen is the nhs will collapse under the burden, the private sector will be brought in and the old and unproductive will be left to rot by 'market forces'.