Homeopathy, Why people want to Believe

I'm trying to make the point that you can use scientifically researched medications which have no beneficial effect (or even adverse effect) but they are accepted on faith by virtue of the vaneer of scientific respectability. Yet when an alternative treatment has been shown to work, then the people making the claim are told they are deluded or that there was nothing wrong with them in the first place. Perhaps we need some open minded scientists who will ask -" why does this work when our present day science says it shouldn't?" instead of dismissing it with an arrogant wave of the hand.

It is the same argument with Psi and many of the other subjects discussed here.

The distinction lies in what has been shown to be effective and what has been shown to be ineffective. So it isn't a matter of asking "why does this work?", but rather, "why do people use remedies which don't actually work." Present day science already tells us why homeopathy appears to work - by the effects of expectation, chance and bias.

Linda
 
Last edited:
Anyone who thinks the pharmaceutical industry is helping us all live longer and better, might want to read this article about statins:

http://healthinsightuk.org/2013/10/...e-longer-in-fact-they-do-more-harm-than-good/

The author is a GP in the NHS, and he claims that the whole accepted wisdom about cardiovascular disease and cholesterol/saturated fats is wrong. He backs up his views in a number of places based on the actual studies that have been done. He expounds his ideas in much more detail in his book:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Great-Cholesterol-Malcolm-Kendrick/dp/1844546101

My personal experience is that statins (only prescribed as a precaution in my case) can have quite horrible side effects. Talking to other people about this problem, I have been totally amazed by the number of people who have also had problems with these drugs.

My experience has made me much more cautious of modern medicine.

David
 
Anyone who thinks the pharmaceutical industry is helping us all live longer and better, might want to read this article about statins:

http://healthinsightuk.org/2013/10/...e-longer-in-fact-they-do-more-harm-than-good/

The author is a GP in the NHS, and he claims that the whole accepted wisdom about cardiovascular disease and cholesterol/saturated fats is wrong. He backs up his views in a number of places based on the actual studies that have been done. He expounds his ideas in much more detail in his book:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Great-Cholesterol-Malcolm-Kendrick/dp/1844546101

My personal experience is that statins (only prescribed as a precaution in my case) can have quite horrible side effects. Talking to other people about this problem, I have been totally amazed by the number of people who have also had problems with these drugs.

My experience has made me much more cautious of modern medicine.

David
So how does that relate to the use of homeopathy?

Linda
 
Huh? The references for the article point to an emedicine article on Medscape outlining the side effects of radiation therapy. The emedicine articles are a mainstream source of medical information (and a good quality source, by-the-way). Rather than hiding or covering up anything, this is the information which is freely available and discussed prior to making the decision to proceed with radiation therapy.

Linda

Huh? 2 references of out 23?

As far as how open the information is or how much it's actually and realistically discussed, I have serious doubts. I mean, yeah, if you listen to pharmaceutical commercials, they do indeed list the (normally endless and quite dismal) side effects, but we all know in practice this seems to make little difference. There are probably many, many reasons why this is so. One is that the bulk of the commercial has a certain life/emotional tone and feel, whereas the side effect part is read by an auctioneer in monotone. How many people do you think realistically investigate (with a certain amount of doubt) what their doctor suggested? Also, of the times I've been prescribed drugs, I don't remember any discussion whatsoever about them. So, I think it's reasonable to assume the process with cancer is similar. Also, there's the added fact that a doctor simply wouldn't suggest that a patient do anything else, and most people don't realize there are any other options. I mean, even doing nothing is very, very likely never mentioned, to speak of.
 
Huh? 2 references of out 23?

As far as how open the information is or how much it's actually and realistically discussed, I have serious doubts. I mean, yeah, if you listen to pharmaceutical commercials, they do indeed list the (normally endless and quite dismal) side effects, but we all know in practice this seems to make little difference. There are probably many, many reasons why this is so. One is that the bulk of the commercial has a certain life/emotional tone and feel, whereas the side effect part is read by an auctioneer in monotone. How many people do you think realistically investigate (with a certain amount of doubt) what their doctor suggested? Also, of the times I've been prescribed drugs, I don't remember any discussion whatsoever about them. So, I think it's reasonable to assume the process with cancer is similar. Also, there's the added fact that a doctor simply wouldn't suggest that a patient do anything else, and most people don't realize there are any other options. I mean, even doing nothing is very, very likely never mentioned, to speak of.
Your doctor is not the person to ask about drugs and medications the pharmacist is the expert
 
He gravely misconstrued what he was reading. He should have read the summery too along with some of the other artcles.

2 out of 23 references that in all likelihood make little to zero difference in real life . . . I seriously doubt many patients doubt what their doctor suggests even enough to seek out these two articles.

Gravely misconstrued?

Once again, the initial information I suggested was a book. And the point was about the effectiveness of mainstream cancer treatment.

But let's look take some quotes from the article to see how seriously I misconstrued it:

As radiation doses were refined, the cancer establishment proclaimed a major treatment breakthrough. Yet the statistics were manipulated to cover up what was really happening to irradiated patients. For instance, patients with progression-free survival of 5 years (or less) are often listed as successes even if the same cancer later returns.1,2

Most disturbing are statistical methods that ignore lethal side effects such as radiation necrosis in the brain that kills the majority of its victims, but are not always officially tabulated as cancer deaths.3,4

Most disturbing are statistical methods that ignore lethal side effects such as radiation necrosis in the brain that kills the majority of its victims, but are not always officially tabulated as cancer deaths.3,4

The cure rate for the most common brain tumors is disturbingly low,7 but even in those fortunate enough to have their brain tumors destroyed by the radiation, a large percentage succumb shortly thereafter to radiation necrosis of the brain.8

head and neck cancer patients who received radiation therapy found that stroke rates were five times greaterthan expected.10 This elevated stroke risk was found many years after administration of radiation. The average time between radiation treatment and stroke was 10.9 years, but the increased risk of stroke persisted for 15 years after radiation therapy.

For cancer patients treated with radiation therapy that later die from a stroke, the official cause of death is stroke, even though the radiation therapy often caused the stroke. This is an example of how cancer cure statistics are misleading.

The government claims that more cancer victims are living beyond five years, but ignores the fact that the toxic therapies used to eradicate cancer can themselves cause premature death.11

And here's a good one:
oncology researchers are motivated to achieve complete responses that they can later claim to be cancer "cures." Overlooked from the statistics are horrific long-term side effects that leave patients permanently mutilated, in constant pain with loss of bodily functions, and under chronic medical care to deal with the damage inflicted by the "cancer cure."

So, pretty much the entire bulk of the article disparages the use of radiation . . . yet in typical steve001 fashion, he says I gravely misconstrued the article.

The only point above you made that has a certain validity is the one about me being against these practices for money-making-misuse reasons. Partially true. It's no secret that I believe materialistic medicine is by no means whatsoever all there is; so, for instance, I have no problem with placebo effect being just what non-materialists make it out to be. I believe that happens, probably a whole lot. But it is true that I also have problems that lie elsewhere. As I've brought up elsewhere, Weston Price shows that cancer and heart disease and diabetes were virtually non-existent in groups of people who ate as their ancestors had for hundreds of thousands of years. I suggest people return to those ways of eating to help restore their health. But no, I'm not saying that everytime and in every case this'll cure a person, nor that anyone who opts for mainstream therapies will suffer and/or die.
 
Your doctor is not the person to ask about drugs and medications the pharmacist is the expert

Do you know how many times I know of that a pharmacist in any real sense talks openly to the point of disparaging a drug? Of actually biting the hand that feeds? Never. Sure, sure, sure: they tell you not to drink alcohol with pain pills, etc., but never much more. And yet there's ample opportunity for them to do the former due to enough a steady stream of questionable drugs . . . Just a little bit of self-education, for instance, should cause one to very, very seriously question statins, yet these are prescribed left and right.
 
Anyone who thinks the pharmaceutical industry is helping us all live longer and better, might want to read this article about statins:

http://healthinsightuk.org/2013/10/...e-longer-in-fact-they-do-more-harm-than-good/

The author is a GP in the NHS, and he claims that the whole accepted wisdom about cardiovascular disease and cholesterol/saturated fats is wrong. He backs up his views in a number of places based on the actual studies that have been done. He expounds his ideas in much more detail in his book:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Great-Cholesterol-Malcolm-Kendrick/dp/1844546101

My personal experience is that statins (only prescribed as a precaution in my case) can have quite horrible side effects. Talking to other people about this problem, I have been totally amazed by the number of people who have also had problems with these drugs.

My experience has made me much more cautious of modern medicine.

David

It's weird to me that there are still people unaware of the very big problems with statins and a low-fat, low-cholesterol diet . . . and how easy it'd be for most people to get off statins with the right dietary changes. Also, it's worth knowing/noting that the industry is pushing doctors to prescribe statins even earlier (!) by starting a new category of pre-hypertension with lowered standards. It'd be a real boon for the pharmaceutical industry.

I seriously suggest reading Grain Brain. There's plenty of other information out there, but I believe, if I remember correctly, that he addresses the statin/high blood pressure problem directly. He's a neurologist with a lot of experience, by the way . . .

And concerning the dietary remedy for high blood pressure and heart problems, I remember reading somewhere that (holistic as opposed to mainstream, indoctrinated) nutritionists joke that it's easier to cure heart disease than relieve back pain.
 
Most doctors believe that most cancer treatments are barbaric. It's not some big secret.

The problem is that the currently available treatments are the only ones that are statistically more likely to save or prolong life than doing nothing, or doing anything else that's been tested.
 
And concerning the dietary remedy for high blood pressure and heart problems, I remember reading somewhere that (holistic as opposed to mainstream, indoctrinated) nutritionists joke that it's easier to cure heart disease than relieve back pain.

Back pain is nearly incurable. "Lifestyle changes" and statins actually are demonstrably effective for preventing death from cardiovascular disease.
 
Well, it's only 4 pictures, somewhat fuzzy and in black and white, and it looks to me like the one in the upper right hand corner might have acne. But either way, there are a lot of confounding factors in there (time spent in the sun? the effects of ethnicity and skin melanin on acne prevalence? prevalent pathogens? etc.)

That said, I'd be surprised if eating, say, a diet more rich in retinoids didn't decrease the prevalence of acne.
I'll assume that you're being serious by implying that I was only really meaning those four people. What I'm referencing, in reality, is the whole of indigenous peoples who still eat what their ancestors ate for hundreds of thousands of years. Do they have acne? I seriously doubt it. Do pigs, with their skins exposed, have acne? Do all the teeth of a chimp fit in it's head? Do squirrels have heart attacks?

The point here, for those that haven't followed the conversation between me and Kay, is that for any animals that eats what it evolved to eat for tens of thousands of years the chances of disease - all these modern day human problems: teeth not fitting in the head and chronic degenerative diseases - are very, very, very low. That's why we see domesticated animal with increasing diseases, too, now: the grain industry is subsidized and has control of the food pyramid . . . so we're fed grains left and right and up and down, and we're feeding them to our pets, too. Obviously, our diets have changed in many, many other ways. Certainly. But I'd say that what stands out are the huge increases in (GM) grains and in sugars, too.

The pictures being a bit fuzzy? Yeah, I guess so. But the girl in the upper right hand corner having acne? Nope, not as far as I can see.

I like this one below . . . the girl on the left is so attractive to me . . . but at any rate, the girl on the right has the crooked "my teeth don't fit in my mouth" look that I'm talking about. People like the girl on the left we don't expect to have heart issues or cancer or diabetes or acne . . . or to be overweight.

napd-seminoles.jpg


Our skulls and skeletons on the whole have shrunk. This starts to happen within two or three generations of a people moving from what I term an indigenous diet to a Western one.
 
Last edited:
Most doctors believe that most cancer treatments are barbaric.

You wouldn't really know it from the mainstream media . . . and for good reason: the TV channel at work (I don't watch TV at home) has endless pharma commercials . . . which means they foot the bill for mainstream TV, and thus we can't expect a non-western, non-pharma approach to really be heralded there.

It's not some big secret.
It kinda is . . . I mean, if you listen to people who get cancer or have had it or those around them that have had it, I almost never hear any real dissention concerning normal treatments. Do you? Every a mention of something you thinks might or might not work? Whether nutrional changes, hands on healing, or simply doing nothing? I can honestly say I can't think of one, single personal example.

The problem is that the currently available treatments are the only ones that are statistically more likely to save or prolong life than doing nothing, or doing anything else that's been tested.

You're almost certainly wrong . . . though I couldn't necessarily argue that all alternatives have had the money for the studies that'll likely be demanded (not necessarily always without good reason) here.

Though in "real life," I'm highly, highly hesitant to suggest anyone do this or that, especially with something as serious as cancer (though I have been asked on more than one occasion by those who know I'm into this stuff). But, on in this forum and in this conversation, I can say that I'd suggest considering Gerson Therapy or doing nothing. And with certain cancers I would suggest Burzynski.

Again, I can't state it enough, the Ralph Moss book provides an essential base for thinking about cancer treatment atlernatives and problems with the normal treatments. I'm not saying he's absolutely right about all of it, but I'd wager he's right about a lot of it . . . at least of the gist of it on the whole.

Just for starters, the stuff he goes into about how the industry squelches alternatives for the very reason that they seem viable makes the book worth reading. It's about like watching Gashole: it's just hard to question the 100+ MPH stuff . . . and what happens in response by the industry is exactly what you'd expect to happen: the rid themselves and the world of the alternative as best they can.
 
You wouldn't really know it from the mainstream media . . . and for good reason: the TV channel at work (I don't watch TV at home) has endless pharma commercials . . . which means they foot the bill for mainstream TV, and thus we can't expect a non-western, non-pharma approach to really be heralded there.

I think you don't hear it on TV because TV is generally just lame in every way.

It kinda is . . . I mean, if you listen to people who get cancer or have had it or those around them that have had it, I almost never hear any real dissention concerning normal treatments. Do you?

Yes, I do. The brutality of chemo is extremely common knowledge.

Every a mention of something you thinks might or might not work? Whether nutrional changes, hands on healing, or simply doing nothing? I can honestly say I can't think of one, single personal example.

Well, I heard people talk about that stuff when I hung out with crowds who believed in that stuff. Unfortunately, all the people who actually went that route with their cancer all died.

You're almost certainly wrong

No, I'm not.

uscancer0811_clip_image064.gif



though I couldn't necessarily argue that all alternatives have had the money for the studies that'll likely be demanded (not necessarily always without good reason) here.

What alternatives? Faith healing and whole foods?

But, on in this forum and in this conversation, I can say that I'd suggest considering Gerson Therapy or doing nothing.

For all cancers?

and what happens in response by the industry is exactly what you'd expect to happen: the rid themselves and the world of the alternative as best they can.

How?
 
I think you don't hear it on TV because TV is generally just lame in every way.



Yes, I do. The brutality of chemo is extremely common knowledge.



Well, I heard people talk about that stuff when I hung out with crowds who believed in that stuff. Unfortunately, all the people who actually went that route with their cancer all died.



No, I'm not.

uscancer0811_clip_image064.gif





What alternatives? Faith healing and whole foods?



For all cancers?



How?
TV being lame: yes.

As far as the brutality of chemo being common knowledge, well sure. But I've never really known that to actually change anyone's mind . . . It always seems to be like, "yeah, it's brutal, but what can you do?" (Granted I've always lived in the deep South where the status quo ways of thinking are dominant.)

And that's horrible that those people you knew died. But how many, actually? 2, 3, 4? I'm curious. And what methods did they try and how far along was it? And that would obviously have to be contrasted with how many I or others have known that died from the prevailing methods, which is something I'd have to think about to jog my memory.

Lastly, as far as more faith based things - like hands on healing, I'd say that, well, it's probably a matter of faith. In other words, yeah, I actually have faith in faith. So, in my own case, I'd be leary of someone telling me they were going to go with hands on healing methods to cure their cancer. I'd worry for them, absolutely . . . but what would probably make or break my prediction would be how convinced they were themselves that the hands on healing would work. If they seemed to really believe it'd work, I'd probably think to myself that it very well might for them. But if I thought they certainly lacked faith, I'd first want to recommend they radically change their diet to foods that chase cancer away - yes, whole foods and foods rich in vitamins, minerals, anti-oxidants, and enzymes, and pro-biotics, and away from ones that almost certainly feed it (empty carbs and sugars). If they didn't seem interested or commited enough to such a thing, I'd inwardly hope they'd try mainstream methods . . . but probably more with the thought that it'd just as likely work from placebo - faith, that is - than from anything "real."

As far as your last graph, that's great. And hopefully it fully reflects the situation as it is . . . because no one can deny that - just like lowering standards to make a pre-hypertention category to prescribe yet more drugs to - the cancer industry will change standards in whatever way they can get away with to make their statistics look better. There is no doubt that the industry isn't fairing nearly as well as it's made out to be. How much that applies here, I have no idea . . . But once again, I don't doubt that there are certain cancers where mainstream methods have improved . . . but with all such things, the risks and real details will have a way of staying hidden.


Lastly, I can't tell if you're being dismissive about the whole/traditional foods thing. I mean, if we look at numerous populations that never had cancer, surely we can say that, if we do what they did, that we'd almost certainly, drastically improve our lot. Mainstream science says that foods can lead to cancer, but won't cure it. I find this ridiculous and don't need to wait on the mainstream for-profit industry that would suffer endlessly with such a revelation to admit this . . . this is what's behind the treatment of Gerson.

EDIT: this is written quick and sloppily, right before crashing out . . . so I might modify it later.

EDIT 2: what I meant to say about the graph and your response was that it was great but that it was only one type of cancer.
 
Last edited:
Huh? 2 references of out 23?

Sorry, I meant that those were but two examples. The references for the article (other than 2 references for LEF articles) were also all from mainstream sources.

As far as how open the information is or how much it's actually and realistically discussed, I have serious doubts.

Okay, so you don't actually know whether or not your doubts are valid. I think it's a good question to ask. I just wouldn't look to a source who is profiting from alarmism for a reasonable answer.

I mean, yeah, if you listen to pharmaceutical commercials, they do indeed list the (normally endless and quite dismal) side effects, but we all know in practice this seems to make little difference.

Pharmaceutical commercials have almost nothing to do with the practice of medicine, so don't look to them for ideas.

There are probably many, many reasons why this is so. One is that the bulk of the commercial has a certain life/emotional tone and feel, whereas the side effect part is read by an auctioneer in monotone. How many people do you think realistically investigate (with a certain amount of doubt) what their doctor suggested? Also, of the times I've been prescribed drugs, I don't remember any discussion whatsoever about them. So, I think it's reasonable to assume the process with cancer is similar. Also, there's the added fact that a doctor simply wouldn't suggest that a patient do anything else, and most people don't realize there are any other options. I mean, even doing nothing is very, very likely never mentioned, to speak of.

Cancer treatment options will get more discussion than a high-blood pressure treatment, because the consequences are more severe. But the extent of discussion and how it is presented will vary like everything else. My experience has been that the options are discussed in detail, including doing nothing. But I don't know how representative that is (I'm a general internist, not an oncologist). If I wanted to find out more about this, I would probably look for surveys about patient communication and oncology to find a reasonably valid answer.

However, I'm still wondering where you are going with this - it doesn't seem to have much of anything to do with the opening post.

Linda
 
Last edited:
Your doctor is not the person to ask about drugs and medications the pharmacist is the expert
I would say, ask both. The doctor is also going to know about the drugs they prescribe. And the oncologist will know far, far more about chemotherapy drugs than a pharmacist. But the pharmacist will add valuable information when you pick up your prescriptions.

Linda
 
Do you know how many times I know of that a pharmacist in any real sense talks openly to the point of disparaging a drug?

Pharmacists do so frequently, in my experience. They are obliged to fill a prescription, but if they don't think a particular drug should be used, I have seen them speak up many times. Sometimes the doctor is called and it is discussed with them, sometimes the patient is strongly cautioned, or the pharmacist suggests that the patient talk to the doctor. On a more general note, pharmacists have a lot of input at the academic level. And some of the main sources of drug information which physicians use come from professional pharmacist organizations.

And yet there's ample opportunity for them to do the former due to enough a steady stream of questionable drugs . . . Just a little bit of self-education, for instance, should cause one to very, very seriously question statins, yet these are prescribed left and right.

Pharmacists follow evidence-based approaches, like physicians, so it is unlikely that they will make recommendations which are contradicted by the evidence or ignore it. Sources with an agenda, like alarmism, are not likely to give an unbiased overview of the available evidence. I think it's a good idea to educate yourself and ask questions. I would just recommend sources without an agenda to support.

Linda
 
I would say, ask both. The doctor is also going to know about the drugs they prescribe. And the oncologist will know far, far more about chemotherapy drugs than a pharmacist. But the pharmacist will add valuable information when you pick up your prescriptions.

Linda
A *primary care physician which is the doctor Reece is referring to I think, is a generalist, has knowledge of medications they prescribe, but their knowledge is not as extensive as the pharmacists knowledge would be. An oconlogist is a specialist and would be expected to know completely the the interactions of the medications they have at their disposal during treatments. I don't think pharmacists dispense chemotherapy drugs. Do you agree?

* In the past they were know as general practioners here in the states.
 
Pharmaceuticals and Pharmaceutical companies cannot be painted as simply "bad" or "good." The reality is much more complex than that. It is true that pharmaceutical companies are primarily motivated by profit (like every other business) and this leads them to skirt the edges of the law on a regular basis, downplaying bad studies, massaging the data favorably on positive studies, finding new uses for the drug for which there is weak evidence, etc. That is the reason we have such extensive pharmaceutical regulation and oversight in the United States.

On the other hand, the same for-profit motive has lead Big Pharma to research and develop hundreds of life saving and life improving drugs that people live and rely on every day. It is unfair to complain about the problems with Big Pharma and not acknowledge the good they have done.
 
Last edited:
And that's horrible that those people you knew died. But how many, actually? 2, 3, 4? I'm curious. And what methods did they try and how far along was it? And that would obviously have to be contrasted with how many I or others have known that died from the prevailing methods, which is something I'd have to think about to jog my memory.

Lastly, as far as more faith based things - like hands on healing, I'd say that, well, it's probably a matter of faith. In other words, yeah, I actually have faith in faith. So, in my own case, I'd be leary of someone telling me they were going to go with hands on healing methods to cure their cancer. I'd worry for them, absolutely . . . but what would probably make or break my prediction would be how convinced they were themselves that the hands on healing would work.

I can't speak for the original poster but I know one person who died from her cancer using the "treatment" of her "doctor" while refusing to go see a real doctor or go to a hospital. Her friends, her neighbors, and her rabbi all begged her to go to a real doctor even as a compliment to her "treatment" but she refused. And she died unnecessarily.

On the other hand I was quite impressed with William Bengston's paper (I just listened to that podcast) on his "hands on healing" methods and its success in curing cancer in mice. I would really like to see additional studies on larger animals, larger numbers of mice, and humans (who also use conventional medicine).
 
Back
Top