Claiming that they are healing without scientific (double blinded study) proof and seducing patients to stop taking drugs that have shown at least some evidance that they could help, is.
There are many layers to evidence based medicine. Studies are one of them. Clinical experience and patient preference are also important to take into consideration when coming up with the best treatment for someone.
When it comes to homeopathy you have to realize that a double blind placebo controlled trial is not the best way to study homeopathy. Unless you are able to find enough patients where that remedy is indicated and only study those people.
Why? Because homeopathy doesn't work by a biomedical mechanism. It works by a energetic mechanism that we don't fully understand with our materialistic worldview.
And this is a worldview issue for all the skeptics commenting here. If homeopathy works then you would likely have to change it. Which is why you ignore the millions of people who claim to have benefited from this modality and rather just read biased research done by people with the same worldview as yourself.
Homeopathy works when done properly. Deal with it.
The story is: lady with terrible water retention and side effects from chemo drugs gets obvious benefits from taking natural herbs. No-one is encouraging her to stop taking her drugs, nor did I state that, you're making a strawman argument. There's 10,000 years of evidence that herbs can heal. Please try to counter with an argument of your own based on the facts provided, rather than regurgitating 'the skeptics playbook', it's tiresome.
There is 20,000 years of evidance that chemo works better.
See, I can make up numbers, too.
There is no evidence your "magic brush" ( nice euphemism) did do any good
I'm not claiming 'evidence', I'm reporting a case study. I'm getting confused what you think this is. Do you think you are critiquing my scientific paper for inclusion in a peer-reviewed scientific journal? IT'S A CASE STUDY! Now, if you disbelieve my narrative, then there's no point in continuing the discussion. If you believe it, then either the herbs had an effect (and there is well-documented evidence that they are pharmacologically active and can help drain the lymphatic system), or they had no effect and it was just coincidence. You appear to believe the latter because 'science'. This is an irrational and illogical stance that you appear forced to take so that the case study doesn't threaten your belief-structure. I hope you can recognise this possibility.
Hello new person :)
So no herbs have any medicinal benefit, is that your contention? A fascinating and provably wrong position to take.
No clean water, poor nutrition, no aseptic techniques at childbirth account for much of this 80% infant mortality rate you quote.
Am I threatening YOUR belief structure too? I must be a dangerous man :D
Please, don't flatter yourself. You're neither threatening or dangerous. You're just another band-wagon jumper who's decided to hop on board all the anti-science nonsense that's suddenly become so popular. Do you believe the earth is flat too?
I never said no herbs have any use. But any useful herbs have been actively incorperated into modern medicine. This is what evidence-based does! It'll use anything, but it has to work.
Even if basic sanitation can account for 80% improvements in infant mortality I doubt you want to be the person explaining to the other 20% why their child is dead. So yeah, I'll stick with my support for modern medicine because for me even if it's only a 16% of children that we keep alive with all our research and learning that's still worth it.
Ahh the arrogance of youth ... & the arrogance of a medical student! (a deadly combination).
I spend my day job attempting to correct the terrible harm that your more experienced colleagues cause to children, so please spare me your 'defender of the church of science' nonsense. As people used to say in my previous career as an engineer, before some newbie gets to have an opinion: 'get some time in.'
Nice try to try & paint me as an 'anti-science'/flat-earther. As they say, play the ball, not the man. You're not a 'defender of science', I'm not opposed to 'science'. It worries me that someone that will be qualified as a doctor some day is coming across as such a religious ideologue.
You seem to have a massive misunderstanding of how science, and the world, works. You can't spout homeopathic nonsense and then claim to be 'pro-science' mate.
I may have the arrogance of youth, but at least I don't sport the decaying mind of a geriatric.
The story is: Homeopathy Can Help People With Cancer not homeopathy possibly helped a lady with severe water retention. That wouldn't make a great headline article though would it? Perhaps you may need to read further your list of logical fallacies.
Claiming that they are healing without scientific (double blinded study) proof and seducing patients to stop taking drugs that have shown at least some evidance that they could help, is.
There are many layers to evidence based medicine. Studies are one of them. Clinical experience and patient preference are also important to take into consideration when coming up with the best treatment for someone.
When it comes to homeopathy you have to realize that a double blind placebo controlled trial is not the best way to study homeopathy. Unless you are able to find enough patients where that remedy is indicated and only study those people.
Why? Because homeopathy doesn't work by a biomedical mechanism. It works by a energetic mechanism that we don't fully understand with our materialistic worldview.
And this is a worldview issue for all the skeptics commenting here. If homeopathy works then you would likely have to change it. Which is why you ignore the millions of people who claim to have benefited from this modality and rather just read biased research done by people with the same worldview as yourself.
Homeopathy works when done properly. Deal with it.
Not sure, why @aggroed resteemed this.
I thought he had a degree in chemistry.
Maybe just part of his media competency training;)
_
The story is: lady with terrible water retention and side effects from chemo drugs gets obvious benefits from taking natural herbs. No-one is encouraging her to stop taking her drugs, nor did I state that, you're making a strawman argument. There's 10,000 years of evidence that herbs can heal. Please try to counter with an argument of your own based on the facts provided, rather than regurgitating 'the skeptics playbook', it's tiresome.
There is 20,000 years of evidance that chemo works better.
See, I can make up numbers, too.
There is no evidence your "magic brush" ( nice euphemism) did do any good
I'm not claiming 'evidence', I'm reporting a case study. I'm getting confused what you think this is. Do you think you are critiquing my scientific paper for inclusion in a peer-reviewed scientific journal? IT'S A CASE STUDY! Now, if you disbelieve my narrative, then there's no point in continuing the discussion. If you believe it, then either the herbs had an effect (and there is well-documented evidence that they are pharmacologically active and can help drain the lymphatic system), or they had no effect and it was just coincidence. You appear to believe the latter because 'science'. This is an irrational and illogical stance that you appear forced to take so that the case study doesn't threaten your belief-structure. I hope you can recognise this possibility.
There's 10,000 years evidence that herbs can heal? Really where is that 'evidence'? In 10,000 years of 80% infant mortality and dying in your 30s?
Hello new person :)
So no herbs have any medicinal benefit, is that your contention? A fascinating and provably wrong position to take.
No clean water, poor nutrition, no aseptic techniques at childbirth account for much of this 80% infant mortality rate you quote.
Am I threatening YOUR belief structure too? I must be a dangerous man :D
Please, don't flatter yourself. You're neither threatening or dangerous. You're just another band-wagon jumper who's decided to hop on board all the anti-science nonsense that's suddenly become so popular. Do you believe the earth is flat too?
I never said no herbs have any use. But any useful herbs have been actively incorperated into modern medicine. This is what evidence-based does! It'll use anything, but it has to work.
Even if basic sanitation can account for 80% improvements in infant mortality I doubt you want to be the person explaining to the other 20% why their child is dead. So yeah, I'll stick with my support for modern medicine because for me even if it's only a 16% of children that we keep alive with all our research and learning that's still worth it.
Ahh the arrogance of youth ... & the arrogance of a medical student! (a deadly combination).
I spend my day job attempting to correct the terrible harm that your more experienced colleagues cause to children, so please spare me your 'defender of the church of science' nonsense. As people used to say in my previous career as an engineer, before some newbie gets to have an opinion: 'get some time in.'
Nice try to try & paint me as an 'anti-science'/flat-earther. As they say, play the ball, not the man. You're not a 'defender of science', I'm not opposed to 'science'. It worries me that someone that will be qualified as a doctor some day is coming across as such a religious ideologue.
You seem to have a massive misunderstanding of how science, and the world, works. You can't spout homeopathic nonsense and then claim to be 'pro-science' mate.
I may have the arrogance of youth, but at least I don't sport the decaying mind of a geriatric.
O.k. We are done here. Good luck in your studies & I can only hope that experience teaches you intellectual humility.
Peace.
The story is: Homeopathy Can Help People With Cancer not homeopathy possibly helped a lady with severe water retention. That wouldn't make a great headline article though would it? Perhaps you may need to read further your list of logical fallacies.
Ha, hello other new person. So YOUR complaint is that my title is just too damn catchy? :)