The dangers of homeopathy and food alternatives

How to stay healthy and prevent risks and consequences on your health and public health. occupational disease, industrial risks (asbestos, air pollution, electromagnetic waves ...), company risk (workplace stress, overuse of drugs ...) and individual (tobacco, alcohol ...).
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660

The dangers of homeopathy and food alternatives




by Exnihiloest » 28/05/17, 16:10

"A boy of 7 years old has just died after being treated only with homeopathy for an ear infection."
http://www.femmeactuelle.fr/sante/news- ... thie-39665

No wonder, homeopathy has already been suspected of death in the United States:
http://www.ouest-france.fr/sante/medica ... sa-4558593

Indeed, homeopathic medicines are not subject to the drastic controls required for real drugs (those of allopathy). Even with these controls, there are accidents with the drugs, so when you do not even have control under the pretext that the dosage of anything, even cyanide, would be too low to present the slightest risk, problem. Because again it would be necessary to verify it, this dosage!

And when one submits homeopathic medicines really dosés homeopahtiquement tests, one realizes their inefficiency:
http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/societ ... 65953.html
This is the placebo level.

In this same order of ideas alternatives to what we know that works yet, even if it is imperfect, we mistrust food alternatives:
"their baby dies after being fed vegetable milk".
http://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2017/05 ... rents.html

Vegetarianism is fashionable. He even has his extremists, the followers of veganism. This movement motivated by moral, religious or cultural reasons (devious because it is against nature) would have us believe also, a story of a semblance of rationality, that vegetarianism would be the solution to the deplorable eating habits of our modernity and an ecological solution. making animal husbandry obsolete, as if man himself were not also the object of ecology.
Because man has always eaten meat since he left to colonize the world, which still leads us to more than 2 million years. Aside from the lack of diversity of a diet that is too meaty and the excesses of large amounts eaten, meat has never been a problem. On the contrary, it is beneficial to humans by increasing the necessary diversity of the inputs we need.

The two facts recounted here confirm that the unqualified promoters of all these incoherent alternatives are criminally limited. Unconsciousness is not an excuse.
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Re: The dangers of homeopathy and food alternatives




by Ahmed » 28/05/17, 17:42

Exnihiloest, I am very surprised that you make use of the following argument (underlined by me), in particular, because of your unconditional support for transhumanism:
This movement is motivated by moral, religious or cultural reasons (misguided, because unnatural *)


* It's about vegetarianism.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: The dangers of homeopathy and food alternatives




by Janic » 28/05/17, 19:11

"A 7-year-old boy has just died after being treated only with homeopathy for an ear infection."
http://www.femmeactuelle.fr/sante/news- ... thie-39665

No wonder, homeopathy has already been suspected of death in the United States:
http://www.ouest-france.fr/sante/medica ... sa-4558593

As usual, there is nothing worse than ignorant to look scholarly
The first case: no information about whether it was a doctor or not who followed the child. From then on it is possible to say anything to make the event cheaply. In the opposite case H is a medicine practiced by professionals graduated from the Faculty of Medicine and they have all the skills to prescribe according to the pathologies they examine. But self-medication in H as in A presents risks of errors hence the need to consult competent professionals.
For those who have the opportunity, it is interesting to visit the hospital for sick children in Paris to see that the A. not only successes, but VGs, on the contrary.
Indeed, homeopathic medicines are not subject to the drastic controls required for real drugs (those of allopathy).

The subject has already been seen and reviewed until complete wear? So repetition: the French legislation has settled this question since the H does not present No danger it is therefore not necessary to pass all the specific protocols to the A whose toxicity is recognized by the medical profession and therefore requires a number of precautions
Even with these controls accidents happen with drugs,

Only with the drugs A. not those of the H according to the French legislation. And for those who dispute it each with representatives to the legislatures to change the law (even big pharma has been put back in its place!)
so when we do not even control under the pretext that the dosage of anything, even cyanide, would be too low to present the slightest risk, we run to the problem. Because again it would be necessary to verify it, this dosage!

Oh ignorance, how much havoc do you do to weak spirits? : roll:
Repetition: homeopathy is officially recognized as non-toxic hence its minimal dilution imposed and therefore no intoxication is possible. On the other hand some products CONTAINING homeopathic products, are not H hence burrs as was the case in America (already seen again)
And when one submits homeopathic medicines really dosés homeopahtiquement tests, one realizes their inefficiency:
http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/societ ... 65953.html
This is the placebo level.

Already seen too! placebos have the same percentages of successes or failures WHATEVER THERAPY USED .
But most anti H articles come from "scientists" at the orders of "big pharma" (and therefore incompetent in matters of H) and many scandals have demonstrated the conflicts of interest that bind the two. This article of the express is characteristic of it.
In this same order of ideas alternatives to what we know that works yet, even if it is imperfect, we mistrust food alternatives:
"their baby dies after being fed on vegetable milk".
http://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2017/05 ... rents.html

Same thing, visit the hospital for sick children and there you will see many children who, although not fed on vegetable milk, are in a sad state
Otherwise the so-called "vegetable" juices are not milks and do not replace them, any more than cow's milk for a human.
These parents have fed their two previous children this way without any problem. The reason is to look elsewhere than in the product itself.
However, the couple who have already partially fed their two little girls with vegetable milk, still do not realize how this could have happened »
Vegetarianism is fashionable. He even has his extremists, the followers of veganism. This movement motivated by moral, religious or cultural reasons (devious because it is against nature) would have us believe also, a story of a semblance of rationality, that vegetarianism would be the solution to the deplorable eating habits of our modernity and an ecological solution. making animal husbandry obsolete, as if man himself were not also the object of ecology.

Big nothing, once again! First of all, find out from authorities on the subject already mentioned that is the AADDC (10.000 dieticians American and Canadian)
Because man has always eaten meat since he left to colonize the world, which still leads us to more than 2 million years.

He smokes and alcoholises and even drugs officially or not, rapes children, wars, etc.
It is a reference for that?
Aside from the lack of diversity of a diet that is too meaty and the excesses of large amounts eaten, meat has never been a problem. On the contrary, it is beneficial to humans by increasing the necessary diversity of the inputs we need.
Speech "like, it's okay three hello the damage"which made the heyday of the sector of the picole. At the same time certain countries voted the tolerance 0 at the wheel. Sects probably! : Evil:
Begins, here again, by studying this subject in depth before playing the parrot of an official discourse which changes slowly to the chagrin of the butchery industry.
The two facts recounted here confirm that the unqualified promoters of all these incoherent alternatives are criminally limited. Unconsciousness is not an excuse.

When big pharma's burr will be limited to two cases, it will be an incredible health revolution. Yes the unconsciousness, and worse the voluntary lack of consciousness that you show, is not an excuse.
1 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660

Re: The dangers of homeopathy and food alternatives




by Exnihiloest » 28/05/17, 21:40

Ahmed wrote:Exnihiloest, I am very surprised that you make use of the following argument (underlined by me), in particular, because of your unconditional support for transhumanism:
This movement is motivated by moral, religious or cultural reasons (misguided, because unnatural *)


* It's about vegetarianism.

Yes: man is an omnivore.
Would we want to force a cow to eat meat or a lion for salad, and we would have the SPA after us and we would end up in court.
But as far as humans are concerned, we believe that everything is allowed. This is the ideological posture.
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Re: The dangers of homeopathy and food alternatives




by Ahmed » 28/05/17, 21:43

I understood what you meant, but what about transhumanism?
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660

Re: The dangers of homeopathy and food alternatives




by Exnihiloest » 28/05/17, 21:45

An excellent summary on this quackery that is homeopathy:
http://archives-lepost.huffingtonpost.f ... oiron.html
1 x
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660

Re: The dangers of homeopathy and food alternatives




by Exnihiloest » 28/05/17, 22:07

Ahmed wrote:I understood what you meant, but what about transhumanism?

It has only been 2,6 million years that humans have eaten meat. His dietary change would have been triggered for the sake of survival in new environments.
Vegetarianism claims to return it to its previous situation. What, two or three generations ?! And why ? To spare animals that will no longer exist anyway since they are only raised to eat them ?! To improve production efficiency and possibly reduce pollution by eliminating this intermediary between plants and humans, what is animals ?! Because we should not eat other living things while the animals spend their time eating each other ?! A carrot is not a living being?! ... All this makes no sense.

Transhumanism is an evolution led by man, without waiting for the vagaries of environmental pressures or favorable mutations.
There we change the nature of the individual, we do not force the one who is endowed with a nature to act against his own nature.
It is nothing revolutionary. Piercing or tattoos is already transforming your body. Only the hi-tech technology evoked by transhumanism would make the difference, the change of nature becoming much more subtle than piercing or tattooing!
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Re: The dangers of homeopathy and food alternatives




by Ahmed » 28/05/17, 22:56

A carrot is not a living being?! ...

Arrrgh! The cry of the living crushed carrot by a merciless jaw! : Lol: Let's be serious, compassion for living beings concerns sentient beings, even if the limit, like any limit, remains imprecise; Of course, we can always decide that the carrot is part of it ... : roll:
... the animals spend their time eating each other ?!

There are also many examples of cooperation, intra obviously, but also extra-specific; moreover, showing more compassion than animals seems to me all to the credit of our species: why should we align ourselves with the lowest bidder on the matter? Especially since, unlike animals, this choice is physiologically possible for us.
There we change the nature of the individual, we do not force the one who is endowed with a nature to act against his own nature.

It is a purely abstract vision which postulates a society which would be a simple collection of perfectly free individuals, without the exercise of power relations between them, and who would only be distinguished by the choice or not to transform themselves. While we understand that the increase would immediately amplify the existing cleavages.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: The dangers of homeopathy and food alternatives




by Janic » 29/05/17, 08:42

Yes: man is an omnivore.

And go for an additional untruth.
Comparative anatomy, of which you use an example below, makes it possible to classify living beings according to precise biological mechanisms which are unanimously accepted by scientists in anatomy / biology.
Would we like to force a cow to eat meat or a salad lion,

this proves what is stated above. How are these different animals classified, if not by their physiological mechanisms: gripping organs, dentition, digestive and intestinal system and this cannot be the subject of fanciful interpretations. But you put forward a process cultural anti biological.
But as far as humans are concerned, we believe that everything is allowed. This is the ideological posture.

So you have an ideological posture by declassifying the human to support an inappropriate cultural food mode.
Because we should not eat other living things while the animals spend their time eating each other ?! A carrot is not a living being?! ... All this makes no sense.

You could not avoid this commonplace widely used to mock the sensitivity of some VG.
However, there is no question of raising awareness about everything. The predators of other animals or those of plants do not play in sentimentality, but obey biological mechanisms adapted to their nature.
Humans transgress these mechanisms for various cultural reasons (and sometimes survival) in particular circumstances. But the exception becomes a rule after a certain time, which does not change anything to the initial physiology.
It has only been 2,6 million years that humans have eaten meat. His dietary change would have been triggered for the sake of survival in new environments.

You invoke millions of years (school cramming), but it would be astonishing that after such a long time human physiology has not changed a bit, which would be in complete contradiction with the theory of evolution and if its physiology has not changed, it is because it is manners, culture, which we make and manners have never been a scientific reference.
Furthermore, you cannot recommend yourself at all costs of the sacrosanct science and also despise it to support the discourse of an industry which employs pseudo-scientists to support its sector.
There we change the nature of the individual, we do not force the one who is endowed with a nature to act against his own nature.

This is called an inversion of reality: it is indeed culture that wants to change the deep nature of a physiology that has been established (according to evolutionary discourse) over millions of years. Now that is acting against one's own nature. Compare our method of nutritional selection with that of other animals: can we grab and bite with full teeth in the buttocks of the hunted animal? NO!, Can we tear his flesh with our little quenottes? NO ! No more than a few million years ago in theory. In the same way can we graze grass like herbivores? NO MORE ! Because we are not designed and equipped to be able to do it. It is therefore not a question of obliging or prohibiting anything, but it is finding a better harmony with our deep nature in terms of food and no longer cultural, it is not to go back but go back to the basics of biology.

An excellent summary on this quackery that is homeopathy:
http://archives-lepost.huffingtonpost.f ... oiron.html
how much was he paid to take out this cloth of nonsense which underlines his total ignorance of the subject. And you call it an excellent synthesis! In fact the greater their ignorance and the more their synthesis becomes excellent? Well we are not soon out of the medieval pseudoscientific obscurantism!
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660

Re: The dangers of homeopathy and food alternatives




by Exnihiloest » 29/05/17, 19:30

Ahmed wrote:...
Arrrgh! The cry of the living crushed carrot by a merciless jaw! : Lol: Let's be serious, compassion for living beings concerns sentient beings, even if the limit, like any limit, remains imprecise; Of course, we can always decide that the carrot is part of it ... : roll:

I am serious, see below.

There are also many examples of cooperation, intra obviously, but also extra-specific; moreover, showing more compassion than animals seems to me all to the credit of our species: why should we align ourselves with the lowest bidder on the matter? Especially since, unlike animals, this choice is physiologically possible for us.

Compassion or sentimentality?
Empathy for animals depends on their degree of resemblance to us. So towards mammals, we sympathize. But not to the tuna that dies on the deck of a boat. Those, we do not hear them. But not sure that their suffering is less than that of a calf slaughtered properly in a slaughterhouse.
I think vegetarianism has multiple reasons. The idea of ​​refusing to eat animals out of compassion is inconsistent. Between eating pigs, and eating carrots, including snails and fried foods, there are all degrees from one to the other. Knowing in addition that the animal / plant distinction is uncertain, the threshold decided to eat / not eat one or the other can only be the result of an arbitrary and necessarily unfair choice.

... It is a purely abstract vision which postulates a society which would be a simple collection of perfectly free individuals, without the exercise of power relations between them, and who would be distinguished only by the choice or not of transform ... While we understand that the increase would immediately amplify existing cleavages.

Humanism does not postulate any of this. Ultimately it is a religion; you have faith, you get into it, you're not interested, you stay away. If the movement takes hold, then the world can be transformed, but it has also been transformed by Christianity and Islam. I know that this comparison is not flattering for humanism, so to his defense I add that it is still not the same problem: not to be supreme in sight, no dogma, no rite, just technical possibilities that you take or not or that you try.
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Health and Prevention. Pollution, causes and effects of environmental risks "

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 289 guests