Well here I am creating the homeopathy survey!

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 ...).

Do you think homeopathy is:

You can select 1 option

 
 
Consult the results
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

Re: Well here I am creating the homeopathy survey!




by Obamot » 25/10/20, 11:16

This belief also applies to chemical molecules in conventional medicine, right? :? : Wink:
izentrop wrote:
Christophe wrote:You can blablablate as much as you want ...
The point is, billions of homeopathic doses have been used every year ... for decades ...
Can a product that wouldn't work at all rip off so many people for that long?

Especially in France, country of grievers ...
They have good sometimes ...
They always put mint in toothpaste. It seems to me that it's just to give an impression of freshness.
At home, nobody likes it, it stings, it's unnecessarily unpleasant. I had found the only one "without mint" because it is compatible with homeopathy.
The absorption of mint contained in most toothpastes can be discouraged during a homeopathic treatment. This is why Vademe * Laboratories have designed Homéophytol toothpaste guaranteed without mint.
In the local supermarket, we had not found it for a few months, I did not find any other "without". Since then he seems to have returned to the shelves. : Wink:

Maybe you should start by asking yourself:
1) why “it stings”?
2) how is it that you appeal to your senses that tell you not to take it when the product certification presents it as harmless and safe.
3) how do you explain that such a product could have passed through the mesh of certification since it is not suitable for you or your family?

I would point out to you in passing that almost all diseases begin with an inflammatory episode and that therefore it is not stupid to think that the body keeps a trace of it in its “memory” (and of course it is). Otherwise the defense reflexes would not exist and neither would the problem of “chronic” diseases. It is not even necessary to recall the memory with an active molecule, simple suggestion is enough (placebo effect) ... So homeopathy ...
Last edited by Obamot the 25 / 10 / 20, 11: 21, 1 edited once.
0 x
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: Well here I am creating the homeopathy survey!




by ABC2019 » 25/10/20, 11:21

Obamot wrote:. which also leads doctors to play sorcerer's apprentices by prescribing molecules that are no more useful than what can be blamed for homeopathy (according to the big pharma labs themselves) TO HAVE BEEN ABLE TO TEST THE PRINCIPLES DUE TO THE CURRENT FINANCIAL BIASING OF THE CERTIFICATION.

it is not clear your position there, you defend the right to use anything even if it is useless, or do you find intolerable to prescribe molecules whose usefulness is not proven?
if you defend homeopathy then you also defend those who sell molecules from useless labs but as believing in them makes them still useful well they are useful anyway :).
Or you find it scandalous to make money with molecules whose effectiveness is not proven, but then you must also think that homeopathy is scandalous.

Choose your camp comrade : Lol:

You are not in a position to proclaim yourself “scientific referee”Here (although you act like it does),

absolutely not on this thread since it is just a question of listing the different opinions, I am not doing any arbitration. On others yes I explain the theories I know, if you think I'm wrong, then explain why instead of throwing curses in a loop without ever substantiating them.

As for thermodynamics, we agree on the substance but not on the form,

ah well that's already it.
so don't be surprised that as long as you sow wind ...

absolutely nothing surprises me any more coming from you, seeing that I noticed that your bad faith had absolutely no limits, it is the character that you chose to play here.
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: Well here I am creating the homeopathy survey!




by ABC2019 » 25/10/20, 11:26

Christophe wrote:
pedrodelavega wrote:
Christophe wrote:You can blablablate as much as you want ...

The point is, billions of homeopathic doses have been used every year ... for decades ...

Can a product that wouldn't work at all rip off so many people for that long?

Yes it's possible.
There are plenty of examples in the same genre.


Have fun ... give us 3 examples of products sold on a very large scale and totally ineffective ...

the pangolin scales, rhino horn, bear bile. Man is capable of slaughtering and torturing thousands of animals for these totally ineffective remedies. So swallow a few granules of sugar, next ...
2 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Well here I am creating the homeopathy survey!




by Janic » 25/10/20, 11:41

by ABC2019 "25/10/20, 10:53
Janic wrote:
it is not a poll on a "definition" of homeopathy, on which it should be easy enough to get everyone to agree,
It has been 150 years that there was no acceptance by supporters of the A on the H. I doubt you will succeed!
I don't think the definition is too much of a problem, neither is that of astrology! it is on its more or less scientific character that there are problems, this is why I am doing the survey on it precisely.
Except that, once again, the patients are not treated by the more or less scientific, but by techniques which will prove to be effective or not because such a system or means which works in such an individual will prove ineffective for another. it is not specific to the pathology concerned (hence the absurdity of universal vaccines is everywhere)
and rebelotte! H would be classified among astrology or spiritualism rather than as a medicine in its own right since it is taught and practiced as such, by medical professionals. This is where your reasoning is biased from the start on this type of a priori; which cannot lead to anything positive and concrete.
but I did not say which of the propositions is correct! that said if you do a census of the different positions, it is undeniable that some people actually think that (including me and the 11 others who voted for a) probably).

Of course this is a point of view, a simple opinion; but based on highly publicized presuppositions (one wonders by whom…?) or else by personal experimentation, on lived experience? There is no indication that can be used as justification and in this case it is more than an opinion, it is a real belief without real foundation.
no one has denied that H is "taught and practiced as such, by medical professionals", we all agree with that. It just means that some think that
Everyone is free (for now) to think what they want. But again based on what?
this is not incompatible with the fact of being charlatanism (that is to say that there is of medical professionals capable of practicing and teaching quackery). You agree or disagree with that, but some definitely think so.
Of course there is, as with any system, the temptation of charlatanism, including in the most official spheres. But it is a question of proportion. If this is tiny, it cannot and should not be taken for reference at all. However, assuming 1% (+ or -) of real charlatans in A as in H, this does not concern the rest of the professionals concerned. So, unless the people who responded to your solicitation have the medical skills or the practice to judge it; these responses, whether positive or not, have no scientific value.
So start by studying what H is through real specialists in this type of therapy in order to ask real, unbiased questions.
my questions are not biased precisely because they aim to summarize the different opinions, if everyone can express themselves, it is exactly the opposite of a bias! a bias is when you refuse to listen to contrary opinions, precisely.
You fantasize once more! There is no question of refusing to listen to contrary opinions (it is the role of forums) but to know how many of them have already personally experienced this therapy before giving a precise opinion.
Precisely this type of badly put survey does not present any real interest because it does not give any information if the anti and the pro are it by lived experience or by cultural a priori spread by the media.
this is wrong, it gives information on what each other thinks.
It is one thing to think; but it does not bring anything concrete on the practical level. I can think that quantum mechanics is bullshit, but given my ignorance and my incompetence on this subject, I choose not to express myself except precisely to say bullshit, which would however be an opinion ... but without practical interest .
It is not because YOU you refuse to give your proposal that the others do not exist!
Better to be silent than to make other incompetent proposals. Only competent professionals have done this in all their literature and practice for 150 years, it suffices to refer to it
they're just not going to really be able to figure out how many people agree with them, and ultimately no one will know what their really opinion is on whether or not it is science.
It does not matter what are the biases of one or the other.
If that doesn't interest you as a question, stop polluting it and go post on other more suitable STP threads.
The joker who talks about polluting, he who shamelessly polluted the subject of H without anything, or wanting to know him!
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
pedrodelavega
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 3791
Registration: 09/03/13, 21:02
x 1311

Re: Well here I am creating the homeopathy survey!




by pedrodelavega » 25/10/20, 11:47

Christophe wrote:Have fun ... give us 3 examples of products sold on a very large scale and totally ineffective ...

Examples:
Osteopathy, chiropractic, reflexology,
Acupuncture,
Naturopathy,
The healers / magnetizer / bonesetter,

Outside the medical field:
The dowsers, water seekers,
The yellow headlights (formerly),
Astrology,
1 x
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: Well here I am creating the homeopathy survey!




by ABC2019 » 25/10/20, 12:01

Janic wrote:Of course this is a point of view, a simple opinion; but based on highly publicized presuppositions (one wonders by whom…?) or else by personal experimentation, on lived experience? There is no indication that can be used as justification and in this case it is more than an opinion, it is a real belief without real foundation.

as I told you (but that you obviously do not print) this survey is to identify opinions regardless of their validity (you realize all the same that I have included proposals that I do not share for my part not at all?) So there is no proof to request.

But as often, it is those who cry the most at not being understood who are completely locked in their own speeches, without listening to what they are told.

And as I told you just above, this thread is not to discuss whether homeopathy is valid or not but to identify the different opinions towards you. We are still waiting for your proposal if you do not agree with any of those I propose. Something tells me that we will wait a long time ...
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: Well here I am creating the homeopathy survey!




by ABC2019 » 25/10/20, 12:04

Janic wrote:The joker who talks about polluting, he who shamelessly polluted the subject of H without anything, or wanting to know him!

I did not pollute it at all since for once this thread was devoted to the value of H, and I gave my arguments on this subject. You talk about "polluting" as soon as we present arguments with which you do not agree, and even worse to which you have no answer.
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

Re: Well here I am creating the homeopathy survey!




by Obamot » 25/10/20, 12:08

ABC2019 wrote:
Obamot wrote:. which also leads doctors to play sorcerer's apprentices by prescribing molecules that are no more useful than what can be blamed for homeopathy (according to the big pharma labs themselves) TO HAVE BEEN ABLE TO TEST THE PRINCIPLES DUE TO THE CURRENT FINANCIAL BIASING OF THE CERTIFICATION.

it's not clear your position there, you defend the right to use anything even if it's useless,

3 times no. the principle: “Primum non nocere” (“first, do no harm”) applies as a fundamental rule.

ABC2019 wrote: or do you find it intolerable to prescribe molecules whose usefulness has not been proven?

Primum non nocere, period. Not proven against what? Compared to a context of evidence unfairly established through the financial cost which makes its certification impossible for marginal studies done by small labs (I know some, I speak from experience) or through a accessible and fair certification?
If a molecule has a tangible effect in relieving patients without harming them, and nothing else exists, according to all it should be applied or let the person suffer (or even die)?

ABC2019 wrote: if you defend homeopathy
I never said that, I have a more nuanced position.

ABC2019 wrote: so you also defend those who sell molecules from useless labs but as the fact of believing in them makes them still useful well they are useful anyway :).

This is your interpretation. Here I am even more nuanced. You may not “believe” in endomedicines, they exist all the same. You have probably forgotten one of the (relatively) recent and proven principle in physics, that the simple fact of thinking about the conditions in which an experiment took place, could modify / induce the result of this one.

(If you admit it but you can refute it) Should we then stop experimenting?

ABC2019 wrote: Or you find it scandalous to make money with molecules whose effectiveness is not proven, but then you must also think that homeopathy is scandalous.
I see where you are going with this, but wouldn't it be even more outrageous to deprive patients of the only treatment that relieves them, whatever the pretext (and admitting that the treatment actually relieves them)?

ABC2019 wrote:choose your camp comrade : Lol:
It's more nuanced, first I have no “camps” (tomorrow I could change my mind if I was sure I was wrong, it happens to me ...) then “do no harm” , then you have to prioritize and in this context weigh the interest “benefit / s vs risk / s”, and then all kinds of criteria come into play ... It is only in this type of context that insert what you describe, it's case by case. Which does not mean that I am questioning the whole system. The system works because neither hypnosis, nor orthomolecular medicine, nor acupuncture, nor homeopathic remedies are prohibited. Certainly it does not work well (case of hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir)

You are not in a position to proclaim yourself “scientific referee”Here (although you act like it does),

absolutely not on this thread since it is just a question of listing the different opinions, I am not doing any arbitration. On others yes I explain the theories I know, if you think I'm wrong, then explain why instead of throwing curses in a loop without ever substantiating them.
There I was, you don't seem to like it : Cheesy: other times I was but you don't know the answer. You are still a complicated guy, at best you are in the undecided group (you who like to put people in groups) we never told you?

absolutely nothing surprises me any more coming from you, seeing that I noticed that your bad faith had absolutely no limits, it is the character that you chose to play here.
There you should take a mirror ... eh ...
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

Re: Well here I am creating the homeopathy survey!




by Obamot » 25/10/20, 12:15

pedrodelavega wrote:
Christophe wrote:Have fun ... give us 3 examples of products sold on a very large scale and totally ineffective ...

Examples:
Osteopathy, chiropractic, reflexology,
Acupuncture,
Naturopathy,
The healers / magnetizer / bonesetter,

Evidence?

Proof to the contrary by taking the “worst” of your examples http://www.medecine.unige.ch/enseigneme ... sseurs.pdf
0 x
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: Well here I am creating the homeopathy survey!




by ABC2019 » 25/10/20, 12:18

Obamot wrote:
ABC2019 wrote:
Obamot wrote:. which also leads doctors to play sorcerer's apprentices by prescribing molecules that are no more useful than what can be blamed for homeopathy (according to the big pharma labs themselves) TO HAVE BEEN ABLE TO TEST THE PRINCIPLES DUE TO THE CURRENT FINANCIAL BIASING OF THE CERTIFICATION.

it's not clear your position there, you defend the right to use anything even if it's useless,

3 times no. the principle: “Primum non nocere” (“first, do no harm”) applies as a fundamental rule.

ABC2019 wrote: or do you find it intolerable to prescribe molecules whose usefulness has not been proven?

Primum non nocere, period. Not proven against what? Compared to a context of evidence unfairly established through the financial cost which makes its certification impossible for marginal studies done by small labs (I know some, I speak from experience) or through a accessible and fair certification?
If a molecule has a tangible effect

I did not understand the difference you make between a tangible effect and a proven effect, you can give an example of a tangible effect that is not proven, and then explain why we say that it is tangible?
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)

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

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 243 guests