NC bill threatens to criminalize naturopaths, homeopaths, herbalists, midwives.....

[TheAppleCore]

It is not possible to disprove a hypothesis in science. One can only fail to find support for a hypothesis.

This might be veering off-topic, but I don't quite get this. I could make a hypothesis that you were twelve feet tall. Would your height measurement not disprove that assertion?

I think you have it backwards. Hypotheses are easily disproven, as demonstrated by the aforementioned example, but you'll rarely prove one with 100% certainty. This is because, generally hypotheses/theories represent extrapolations from sample measurements. Meaning, you find a pattern in a group of phenomena, wherein X always leads to Y, and after you consistently observe this pattern time after time, you assume that X->Y is a universal law. But you can never be certain of this, because you haven't observed every instance of X in the entire universe; and the X->Y theory could easily be disproven by the observation that, in one instance, X->Z.

One popular example of an easy way to disprove a theory in science is the Precambrian rabbit. Basically, we could disprove our understanding of the entire evolutionary history of mammals if we found rabbit fossils in rock hundreds of millions of years old.

 

[Khadijah]

In the Netherlands there is a debate going on about the merits of home birth.. We used to be all righteous about having a lot of home births and a low incidence of neonate death to go along with it. According to new research we are sub-par compared to other western nations and shit has hit the fan..
.

idk way ''research'' that is but the US, with virtually no home births, has a much, much infant mortality rate than u guys. si udjk wat other 'western nations' we are talking about but ppl tend to use the us as a standard however wrong that may be, and yall are doin way better than we are.

 

[SangerRainsford]

This is BS, if someone wants to see a chiropractor, go grab some oscillococcinum, or have a voodoo-witch cast a spell, more power to them. You don't sway this behavior by imposing laws on it, you sway it by encouraging research to show how wacky and pointless anything that depends upon the placebo effect truly is.
(EDIT- perhaps "wacky / pointless" are poor descriptors, as placebo effect is VERY strong and that is clearly demonstratable. However, just because someone's mind can make a sugar pill work does NOT make that a valid route, that's why I don't think I'll ever buy the "if it works, it works" line. If it works because your mind made it work, I'd like to say 'good for you', but honestly I just pity the ignorance and wish you could see the same :/)

 

[Raw Evil]

The nature of many of these unscientific practises, mean that actually they don't want to cure the sick! they want regular customers vulnerable enough to keep coming back for more, as they rely on repeat visits in order to maintain their business!
I'm sorry but thats just fucked.
And if anything it is more detrimental to the values of human rights than the freedom of choice.

I thought that was Big Pharma's job?

 

[slimvictor]

This might be veering off-topic, but I don't quite get this. I could make a hypothesis that you were twelve feet tall. Would your height measurement not disprove that assertion?

I think you have it backwards. Hypotheses are easily disproven, as demonstrated by the aforementioned example, but you'll rarely prove one with 100% certainty. This is because, generally hypotheses/theories represent extrapolations from sample measurements. Meaning, you find a pattern in a group of phenomena, wherein X always leads to Y, and after you consistently observe this pattern time after time, you assume that X->Y is a universal law. But you can never be certain of this, because you haven't observed every instance of X in the entire universe; and the X->Y theory could easily be disproven by the observation that, in one instance, X->Z.

One popular example of an easy way to disprove a theory in science is the Precambrian rabbit. Basically, we could disprove our understanding of the entire evolutionary history of mammals if we found rabbit fossils in rock hundreds of millions of years old.

I certainly understand what you are saying, but I don't think I am wrong here, or at least not completely wrong. Maybe I said it wrong, though. (In any case, this is what they taught me in grad school, assuming I remember correctly.)

Take this (more relevant) example: you believe that a certain medicine works better than placebo. So you do a study, with 100 people, and find that not a single one who took the medicine got better, whereas 6% of those who took nothing got better (i.e. placebo). Did you disprove the hypothesis? No. You failed to find evidence to support it, but maybe your sample size was too small. You are, after all, making a hypothesis about human bodies in general, that you would like to extend to all human bodies on the basis of your study of a mere 100 human bodies. So try again with 1000, 10,000, or more subjects. Still not a single person who took the medicine gets better. But you still didn't disprove your hypothesis. See what I mean?

That said, a carefully-formulated hypothesis, like the one that I am 12 feet tall, seems to be easily falsifiable. So maybe I did get it backward. Let me chew on this one for a bit.

I think you may be correct. Maybe it is impossible to prove a hypothesis... Yes, that may be it. (Wish I could remember that philosophy of science class better.)

(Still, my main points in my argument are not affected by this. )

 

[SangerRainsford]

It's possible to disprove a hypothesis in any "A or B", "YES or NO" type of exercise
/I know that's got fuck-all to do w/ your point tho ;P

...

I can't believe my eyeballs. Bluelighters are actually supporting this shit? Do you not see that this is just another instance of the government being bribed to pass a law that funnels money into the pockets of its beneficiaries? That this is just a result of pressure from those in the business of qualified medicine lobbying for reduced competition?

Even if we entertain, for just a moment, that the government is actually looking out for us, and acting in what they believe to be our best interest -- we have absolutely fuck all reason to trust THEIR judgment on what IS and IS NOT "real" medicine.

Well said - only even if they DID have our best interest in mind, and even if we had all the reason in the world to trust them, it's not right to mandate/legislate such choices.

 

[SangerRainsford]

The way people approach "natural" medicine, whatever the hell their personal definition of the term, makes no sense. The overwhelming majority of people I know have ONE type of "irregular/unpopular/not-mainstream" choice of 'therapy', whether it's homeopathy or self-medication with narcotics. They'll back their particular deviation from "the norm", but hate others'.

I can prove to you beyond any reasonable doubt that one of the most popular homeopathic remedies, "Oscillococcinum", is beyond bullshit. In fact, it doesn't even meet the definition of "homeopathic" in the eyes of most (they use a single duck liver and heart per year. Yes, that shit you put under your tongue is "duck heart/liver essence", congratulations). Will I tell them that it's hilarious knowing some dude boils duck and they buy it? Will I tell them it's impossible for them to get much more "duck essence" outta the air than they'd get from being near a pond? Will I tell them that duck essence has nothing to do with whatever they're using Oscillococcinum for? Yeah, I'll do those things. I won't take away their "medicine" though, and don't understand how people can back such policies, REGARDLESS of whether they also use 'non-traditional' stuff (mdma/pot/whatever) or not.

Restricting choices is NOT protecting you from stupid shit that doesn't work, it's protecting companies from losing your business to such options. It's the same reason big tobacco+alcohol started partnership for a drug-free america.

 

[SangerRainsford]

And just for fun, since I had to practice what I preach the other day - yes, I had to fight someone over Oscillococcinum, if that wasn't clear by now lol, here's some fun proof it's straight-retarded. Tagged for size.

NSFW:

#1 is why it doesn't work, or even meet the generic "homeopathic rules".
#2 is how they make the product, ie stewing-up what's referred to as their annual "million dollar bird". Oscillococcinum = duck liver/heart stew.

1

Oscillococcinum, a 200C product “for the relief of colds and flu-like symptoms,” involves “dilutions” that are even more far-fetched. Its “active ingredient” is prepared by incubating small amounts of a freshly killed duck’s liver and heart for 40 days. The resultant solution is then filtered, freeze-dried, rehydrated, repeatedly diluted, and impregnated into sugar granules. If a single molecule of the duck’s heart or liver were to survive the dilution, its concentration would be 1 in 100200. This huge number, which has 400 zeroes, is vastly greater than the estimated number of molecules in the universe (about one googol, which is a 1 followed by 100 zeroes). In its February 17, 1997, issue, U.S. News & World Report noted that only one duck per year is needed to manufacture the product, which had total sales of $20 million in 1996. The magazine dubbed that unlucky bird “the $20-million duck.”
Actually, the laws of chemistry state that there is a limit to the dilution that can be made without losing the original substance altogether. This limit, which is related to Avogadro’s number, corresponds to homeopathic potencies of 12C or 24X (1 part in 1024). Hahnemann himself realized that there is virtually no chance that even one molecule of original substance would remain after extreme dilutions. But he believed that the vigorous shaking or pulverizing with each step of dilution leaves behind a “spirit-like” essence—”no longer perceptible to the senses”—which cures by reviving the body’s “vital force.” Modern proponents assert that even when the last molecule is gone, a “memory” of the substance is retained. This notion is unsubstantiated.

2)

Preparation
Since 1925, Oscillococcinum has been prepared as follows. Into a one litre bottle, a mixture of pancreatic juice and glucose is poured. Next a Canard de Barbarie is decapitated and 35 grams of its liver and 15 grams of its heart are put into the bottle. Why liver? Doctor Roy writes: "The Ancients considered the liver as the seat of suffering, even more important than the heart, which is a very profound insight, because it is on the level of the liver that the pathological modifications of the blood happen, and also there the quality of the energy of our heart muscle changes in a durable manner." Maybe the French tendency to call any form of not well-being a "crise de foie" ("bilious attack") had also something to do with it. After 40 days in the sterile bottle, liver and heart autolyse (disintegrate) into a kind of goo, which is then "potentized" with the Korsakov method.

 

[rm-rf]

so many sheep, so much brainwashing by big pharma, it amazes me how many if such a prominant counter culture as drug culture is still buy into all the big lies of our society at large

why is homeopathy "bullshit" because there are some fake medications for sale? is ecstasy bullshit because there are a lot of piperizine pills?

anyone who thinks acupuncture is bullshit has never had acupuncture (from a real acupuncturist), or has never seen it work on someone with real traumatic injuries.

Natural news is a great site no doubt, but be wary of Mike Adam's biased fervor. 60% of his posts are rants about stuff he thinks sucks (though I totally agree with him on all parts). Keep reading his blogroll and a few articles up from this one linked in the OP, ull see the law was shot down. Still scary that it wsa proposed tho. Just get yourself ready, corporations already control every aspect of the political machine in this country, the FDA and USDA are just vehicles to enact policy in favor of corporate interests. Its only a matter of time until Big Pharma is able to dictate every aspect of life to you, even the drugs you someday will not be allowed to not-take

 

[SangerRainsford]

To be fair, big pharma isn't brainwashing half as bad as some of these companies - in fact, big pharma has rules that they don't.

I'm not trying to "back" either side, nothing would please me more than seeing Oxy and Duck-liver available OTC at CVS. I'm just against forcing people's decisions. If someone wants to hurt themselves through an oxy addiction, or through neglecting their illness by using snake-oil instead of proper chemicals, that is their call. Helping them is great, but I cannot see how it fits into the purview <sp?> of "state".

And homeopathy/accupuncture are bullshit because they can't get their "disciplines of practice" together. Go see 10 different accupuncturists - will they see the same thing? Rigorously test homeopathics against sugar pills, will we see anything? Hell, I'll at least back aromatherapy, although it's really just the olfactory-equivalent of mood-lighting IMO.

 

[SangerRainsford]

It's late so if the following does not work, I apologize in advance.


"Why is homeopathy bullshit?"
Let's say a homeopathic product worked, demonstratably worked. If that were the case, could we not deduce that there's a chemical agent making it happen? If that's the case, can we not simply say "x chemical does y"? If that's the case, why even try to put it in the class of homeopathy, when it's clearly a chemical causing a reaction?
Homeopathy seems to rely on nothing but pseudo-scientific implications coupled with the (undeniably present) factor of a simple phenomenon, "placebo effect".

I'd be interested in something that objectively compared homeopathy to sugar, or of a comparison of accupuncturists to see if they can 'find' the same things w/o knowing they're being compared. ((things that really show what I've asked - not anecdotal reports. Yes, trauma victims think it helps, I have that happening with a family member right now. That does not mean the product/service is doing *anything* besides exploiting the placebo mechanism. Remember how potent that phenomon truly is - pain patients administered sugar pills, but believed they took pain-pills, showed increases of *endogeneous* endorphins. Placebo effect is powerful shit. In terms many/most of us can appreciate, just think of the "set/setting" role when using many real drugs - the mind's power is undeniable in these areas))

If you have something that can show, in an objective fashion, how they work above/beyond placebo, I'm interested. Otherwise it's the same old accupuncture/aspartame/etc arguments that go nowhere and really cannot be "won" / "solved", and nobody's really ready to change their opinions. Oh, and on that note - given the thread's point - I still want there to be such choices. I don't care about the broken necks from accupuncture, if you wanna go, I would not use guns(state) to stop you. I'll tell you you're making a poor choice, but I won't vote/support legislation

 

[R.ticle One]

Homepathy really is just nonsense.. Most those homeopathic remedies you find in little 'tinctures' are just water with food coloring in them..

Right. Food coloring. I have never in my life seen a homeopathic remedy with food coloring in it. What exactly do you base this blanket statement on?

 

[Tardvark]

Right. Food coloring. I have never in my life seen a homeopathic remedy with food coloring in it. What exactly do you base this blanket statement on?

The homeopathic teething strips I gave my son were red, but the tablets were white. both were cherry flavored and sweet(tried them before I gave them to him) and had about the same ingredients list. Tried dipping his pacifier in sweet juice, same effect. But thats just my experience. Not trying to blanket. Also I remember right after we tried them the FDA had a different company recall their teething tablets for containing varying amounts of belladonna which caused several infant deaths.

 

[SangerRainsford]

Belladonna?!
Honestly, shouldn't have mattered though, regardless of the compound - homeopathics are so dilute you can take 'poison homeopathics' and there'd be jack-shit for effects. Whether they contain colors/flavors isn't relevant either.
(and since when is the FDA messing with supplements? Don't see that too often!)

 

[R.ticle One]

The homeopathic teething strips I gave my son were red, but the tablets were white. both were cherry flavored and sweet(tried them before I gave them to him) and had about the same ingredients list. Tried dipping his pacifier in sweet juice, same effect. But thats just my experience. Not trying to blanket. Also I remember right after we tried them the FDA had a different company recall their teething tablets for containing varying amounts of belladonna which caused several infant deaths.

Yikes! Well, if that's the case I humbly bow down with apologies. I would never use a homeopathic product that's colored - or sweetened/flavored.

 

[Tardvark]

Yikes! Well, if that's the case I humbly bow down with apologies. I would never use a homeopathic product that's colored - or sweetened/flavored.

Its supposed to relieve pain for teething babies, pretty much has to be sweetened to make them stop crying as my experiment proved (to me) Also just for the record, I think baby tylenol has more sugar than tylenol so theres a big pharm product with the same thing.

 

[Tardvark]

Belladonna?!
Honestly, shouldn't have mattered though, regardless of the compound - homeopathics are so dilute you can take 'poison homeopathics' and there'd be jack-shit for effects. Whether they contain colors/flavors isn't relevant either.
(and since when is the FDA messing with supplements? Don't see that too often!)

Since it caused several infant deaths due to varying ammounts of deadly nightshade, not dilute enough or parents giving too many against the directions.

 

[asecin]

science was wrong about homeopathy

interesting how science based community always called homeopathy fake, not scientifically backed up to work and a huge scam.
yet here tnx to this i understand homeopathy has always been working.

http://healthland.time.com/2010/12/27/placebos-work-even-if-you-know-theyre-fake-but-how/

try and use your fancy chemistry skills to comprehend that !

 

[fastandbulbous]

Placebos don't work. They might convince you that they work, but that isn't a clinical description of the molecular action of the drug, it's just you convincing yourself it works, hence they get a special name (that's why placebo translates from the latin as "I will please"). You can't say because a placebo effect has taken place that the drug involved works - shulgin was given sucrose and told it was morphine during his time in the US Navy - doesn't mean sucrose is an effective analgesic

 

[negrogesic]

Tough sell in this forum........there is place nearby that sells huge amounts of solely homeopathic products. Those are some very expensive sugar pills.......

The placebo effect is not evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy. Any self-respecting scientist is well aware that homeopathy is pseudoscience. Post some peer-reviewed articles from respected medical journals about the efficacy of homeopathy over placebo........good luck.....