The dangers of homeopathy and food alternatives

[izentrop]

The “memory of water”, the theory of dynamization by shaking and significant dilutions prove to be non-credible: a drop of water in an Olympic swimming pool, or even in the whole of the oceans, would convey a significant power of action and meaningful? This questions. If this were the case, should we not avoid drinking tap water, which has passed
by different treatment plants? But human nature is not only right ...

In fact, the advocacy for homeopathy is very weak on the scientific level: it is based on studies of low value or not replicated and on meta-analyzes with poor methodologies ...

Regarding the financial aspect, it is often put forward the relatively low collective expenditure generated by homeopathy for the community - 0,4% of health insurance expenditure, 128,6 million euros in 2016. But d other comparisons could be made. The sums saved would allow the creation of several thousand permanent jobs, for example in establishments for dependent persons (more than 4) or in emergency services.

In fact it is not a question of reimbursement, but of the return or not of all products claiming to be medicated to the common law: to be reimbursed you need a scientifically solid and substantiated file. The term "defunding" was retained, but it would have been more appropriate to have preferred it to "return to a normal evaluation without a rightful remedy" ... https://www.afis.org/L-homeopathie-dere ... oi-commune

[Janic]

@Pedro

While you peel the first, I put the second:

As the two complement each other, I will start with this one more subtle than the previous one and even surprise you, I find it well done (for this kind of speech). But as the popular saying goes: " lying is 90% truth and 10% error ", Which is his case or, to use another maxim" we see the straw in the eye of his neighbor, but not the beam in his »
Roughly speaking, the placebo effect is not linked to the product, but to the belief that this product may have contextuality, and this is largely true. But on the one hand it does not always work and on the other hand it challenges the A drugs at the same time. Indeed, not all medics are money pumps (contextually who do not care about the patient) and the others, who are attentive to their patients, would only be "ironers" in this case if they are attentive to their customers.
Certainly there is all the tintouin of protocols, lab tests, etc ... which only indicate other placebos effects once put on the market, hence the question of prescribers on the effect produced on the patient and not on the product itself.
However, what troubles and disturbs, precisely, the pro A and therefore this character, is that H and other modes of care, called parallel, cannot go through these allopathic protocols in question since not adapted to the product, to the context, to the system specific to them. Or, to take a previous example, it's like asking the "authorized" opinion of an airplane manufacturer on the reliability of a submarine to fly: that is silly reasoning! Otherwise, it's also like wanting to fit a square peg into a round hole and it doesn't work anymore.

What is the purpose of these videos? First, to persuade oneself that he is right (intellectual placebo), then to maintain in others this falsely argued superstition and mainly in those who do not know, or cannot, study these subjects by themselves and who are content with these blabla in question and its goal is, possibly, to attract new members who will repeat these speeches without trying to verify them for themselves. How do we verify something? by yes say or by practice? That is to say that just like people take a conventional medicine and feel better, not differently or worse, AFTER using it, H does not work differently and it is by use and not by speeches that are controlled and verified by this or that element.
So your curious character, who takes himself for a film actor like other zozos of the same genre, gets lost in considerations where the confusion of genres reigns under the appearance of false logic and evidence.
For example on the placebo effect on babies: " for example we hear around the placebo affirmative and yet false statements: it treats babies so it is not a placebo! Babies obviously react to the care they are given. If you give your baby a medicine that you think is effective, your behavior changes, you are reassured that you have taken care and therefore you influence it, which can make it calmer. If the baby is calmer you infer that it is because the medicine has worked The other examples being of the same barrel, even worse.
So we see, in this example, that he shoots himself in the foot, since the effect will be the same regardless of the type of medication used, which emerges from the same example given. Does this call into question, therefore, the drug H or any form of drug? Any form of medication of course !
So his reasoning is correct, but it therefore includes these drugs which he defends and claims to be effective following the protocols and all the blah that accompanies them.
Just one more comment on its wording above. " we hear around the placebo affirmative and yet false statements »What is wrong? Placebos statements? On baby care? We see how this kind of formula can be ambiguous since it implies, a priori, after its introduction ((therefore seeking to influence) that it is and can only be H and not the placebo itself and its effect (which is the same whatever the means used) and therefore its beautiful demonstrations made a masterful flop which he does not even realize.

[Janic]

In fact it is not a question of reimbursement, but of the return or not of all products claiming to be medicated to the common law: to be reimbursed you need a scientifically solid and substantiated file. The term "reimbursement" was retained, but it would have been more appropriate to have preferred " return to normal evaluation without right "... https://www.afis.org/L-homeopathie-dere ... oi-commune

there at least they do not pretend by clearly stating that BP wants to get rid of any competition as weak as it is, not because of the price (ridiculous of the H), nor of its observed results, but to ensure their hegemony all over the world (France being only one gateway among others) and BP can count on its "sects" of influence.

return to normal evaluation without right

to be coherent on this subject, they would also have to justify why vaccines have a pass, to which BP and its influencers are careful not to respond!

[pedrodelavega]

Roughly speaking, the placebo effect is not linked to the product, but to the belief that this product may have contextuality, and this is largely true. But on the one hand it does not always work and on the other hand it challenges the A drugs at the same time.

This is why the drugs are tested against placebo (or against a similar drug that has already been tested against placebo, ethics requires).

It is by use and not by speeches that this or that element is checked and verified.

No:
"Can we not be satisfied with the bare experience?
No, that is impossible; that would be to ignore completely the true character of science. The scientist must order; science is done with facts like a house with stones; but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house. "

[Janic]

janic wrote: Roughly speaking, the placebo effect is not linked to the product, but to the belief that this product can have contextuality and this is largely true. But on the one hand it does not always work and on the other hand it challenges the A drugs at the same time.

That's why the drugs are tested against placebo

It is not the drugs that are tested, but the reactions of individuals to these drugs which range from total ineffectiveness to fatal risks according to the consumers of these products to which must be added the placebo effect (which should not be confused with taking a placebo!)
As for the drugs H, they cannot be tested in the A way since (even if some are used in this way there) to each individual presenting particular “pathological” signs corresponds ONE remedy which cannot give a result in the A way, it is that is to say a drug for the same pathology, for a whole group. Until this basic nuance is understood, all the talk on this subject will be in vain

(or against a similar drug that has already been tested against placebo, ethics requires).

Don't talk about ethics when this term is rightly flouted, mocked. [*] Your tests only concern and can only concern A. products that compare between them. Whereas, in this "logic" it would also be necessary to compare the H drugs with each other to know if such a similar H drug would have been tested against placebo since there is a priori denial that it could not be so, by A obviously. Hence the example which shows that we cannot compare aviation and marine technologies as their respective criteria are so far apart.
Now, and that's where you don't want to understand, that the aircraft manufacturers are right when they say submarines don't fly and that the submariners are also right when they say planes don't dive underwater. But they, unlike BP, respect their differences in technology and recognize their specificities.

janic wrote: it is by use and not by speeches that this or that element is checked and verified.

No:

"Can we not be satisfied with the bare experience?

No, that is impossible; that would be to ignore completely the true character of science. The scientist must order; science is done with facts like a house with stones; but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house. "

If I put these words in signature it is not without reason.

"Can we not be satisfied with the bare experience?

No! not no, but yes and no depending on how you approach the subject.
So does science precede or follow experience?
If every living thing had to wait for Madame Science to describe what air is made of before starting to breathe, there wouldn't even have been these scientists to talk about it. And since the dawn of life, experience has always taken precedence over knowledge. don't scientists, themselves, proceed by successive experiments commonly called a pifometer?

No, this is impossible; it would be to completely ignore the true character of science.
or delude yourself on the role of science, seen by some scientists.
Hence the usefulness of the second part of the formulation
Now that doesn't negate the usefulness of knowledge ALSO to avoid repeating the errors that experience does not always avoid. So we know, better and better the components of poisonous mushrooms (or other products of course), but experience has allowed to separate, for human consumption, mortals, consumables and always without Madame science who does confirm or deny achievements.

[*] for example vaccines, classified as drugs, which do not precisely meet the criteria of other drugs, such as on carcinogenesis and other aspects.

[thibr]

how much is the gram of homeopathic sugar sold?

[izentrop]

how much is the gram of homeopathic sugar sold?

Cheap and it is not the price that is inconvenient, it is justice. Since 1988 we reimbursed drugs that had not proven themselves.

No matter how there is no longer any need to discuss it, The Minister of Health has decided. Homeopathy will be totally defunded http://www.leparisien.fr/societe/sante/ ... 113272.php

Justice is restored.

[Janic]

@thibr

how much is the gram of homeopathic sugar sold?

homeopathic sugar would not even be perceived visually without devices, so this formula is unsuitable.
On the other hand, “sugar [*]” soaked in homeo product corresponds to all the manufacturing processes of any product, as ethanol can be from beet.

- [*] although it is not precisely sugar but more generally lactose.

Not expensive and it is not the price which is inconvenient, it is justice.

Ouarf! justice in relation to what?

Since 1988 we reimbursed drugs that had not proven themselves.

What evidence? In “Newtonian” physics everything had to be able to prove itself, then quantum physics arrived, just not obeying the usual rules defined for ordinary physics and therefore without evidence.

No matter how there is no longer any need to discuss it,

On the contrary, a minister is not an incarnate god, but a politician who will be debunked by her opponents in the following elections and whose laws in question can be overturned directly or by legal recourse.

The Minister of Health has made a decision. Homeopathy will be totally defunded

Unless, as for the 80 km, the millions of individuals who use the H, resent (already 1,220 million contested) and they are 7 million to use it regularly or occasionally.

Justice is restored

Weird notion that this one. It's up to real justice, if there is recourse, to decide! And the question is not really about reimbursement, but about the desire to see this competing medicine disappear.
On "it's in the air" today, an emergency doctor (not a homeopath) is worried that if H is no longer taught and practiced by real qualified and therefore competent doctors, than this H passes into the hands of non-professional graduates, especially since financially the difference for the SS will probably be absorbed by prescriptions for chemical drugs, more expensive, with known side effects (which must also be treated) and problems which do not occur not in H.
Clearly, it is very likely that the argument used that this realized economy goes to other more urgent and important sectors, will be defeated by reality. We'll see what happens soon!

[Exnihiloest]

I take this opportunity to express all my satisfaction with the total reimbursement of homeopathy.
For once a measure goes against ambient obscurantism, we are not going to sulk our pleasure.

(to celebrate the event I would have preferred the glass of champagne, but not found!)

[Janic]

I take this opportunity to express all my satisfaction with the total reimbursement of homeopathy.
For once a measure goes against ambient obscurantism, we are not going to sulk our pleasure.

as for obscurantism, you must feel targeted in the first place, then!