At 10:23am on January 30th, more than three hundred homeopathy sceptics nationwide will be taking part in a mass homeopathic 'overdose' in protest at Boots' continued endorsement and sale of homeopathic remedies, and to raise public awareness about the fact that homeopathic remedies have nothing in them.
10
Days22
Hours25
Minutes13
Seconds
Sceptics and consumer rights activists will publicly swallow an entire bottle of homeopathic 'pillules' to demonstrate that these 'remedies', prepared according to a long-discredited 18th century ritual, are nothing but sugar pills.
The protest will raise public awareness about the reality of homeopathy, and put further pressure on Boots to live up to its responsibilites as the 'scientist on the high street' and stop selling treatments which do not work.
I think there's a lot better and more worthy causes in this world to fight for.
Once again the anti- fanatics are as tedious as the pro- fanatics.
I think there's a lot better and more worthy causes in this world to fight for.
Once again the anti- fanatics are as tedious as the pro- fanatics.
I think there's a lot better and more worthy causes in this world to fight for.
The placebo effect is quite powerful and well documented. Yes people do benefit from seeing a doctor and are simply after a pill to take and then they "feel better". Look at how many people think antibiotics are useful why you have a cold/flu (which are caused by viruses).
But then why not market it like that! Or at least investigate each objectively and see if there is a genuine quantifiable biological effect, and it could then be developed further and benefit more people! Those that don't you could just have listed as coded placebo tablets that are given to patients, but they're told that they will have an effect and help (could even draft up a book on it so all doctors say the same placebo tablet AR53 has a given effect for a given condition).
Oh wait, thats unethical isn't it, image the uproar the press, and in turn the public who then get on board with it, would have if it was discovered that the NHS was prescribing drugs that have no quantifiable effect and act through the placebo effect!!!
Once again the anti- fanatics are as tedious as the pro- fanatics.
I think there's a lot better and more worthy causes in this world to fight for.
Are you trying to say that Holy Water doesn't work for cancer and stuff and that dinosaurs existed? Whatever next!? Crazy scientists.
I'm not knocking "alternative" medicine as I do not believe there is such a thing, medication/treatments either work or they don't, FACT.
QuoteI'm not knocking "alternative" medicine as I do not believe there is such a thing, medication/treatments either work or they don't, FACT.
Either way, in some cases, it works, FACT.
I know a few sets of parents who use homeopathic remedies on their infants and swear by themI know of loads of parents that insist on pouring bottles of calpol down their kids necks, fair enough if they are actually ill. We didn't even manage to use 1 bottle in 2 years, we're only on the 2nd bottle cos the first one went a bit manky and we threw it away. Anyway the point is; its all a load of shit.
Either way, in some cases, it works, FACT.what works and whats fact? the projected placebo effect. I think you are severely underestimating how powerfull the placebo effect is
I agree with Fiend. Even if the pills contain nothing, that doesn't mean handing out free sugar pills would have the same effect. I'm not sure its harming anyone.QuoteI'm not knocking "alternative" medicine as I do not believe there is such a thing, medication/treatments either work or they don't, FACT.
I know a few sets of parents who use homeopathic remedies on their infants and swear by them - despite being total sceptics at the start. How do you explain that? Presumably they are projecting the placebo effect onto their child? Either way, in some cases, it works, FACT. Whether or not that is backed up by a double-blind test on 1000+ folk is of no interest to a parent whose screaming child has just been magically silenced by some homeopathic magic beans. What is of interest is where you get more beans.
So where is the line officially drawn between herbal remedy and homeopathic bunkum?
Next you'll be telling us you believe in ghosts
I can't remember what belladona is used for but it's "fo real'
I can't remember what belladona is used for but it's "fo real'
Deadly nightshade, it contains atropine and hyoscine.
I claim my £5.
Delete as applicable: Nigeis a liar/ idiot/ drugged up fool/ a man who saw a ghost.thought he saw a ghost
Yeah and if you can state the three common law exceptions to the rule against hearsay I'll actually consider paying up.
:read:
QuoteI'm not knocking "alternative" medicine as I do not believe there is such a thing, medication/treatments either work or they don't, FACT.
I know a few sets of parents who use homeopathic remedies on their infants and swear by them - despite being total sceptics at the start. How do you explain that? Presumably they are projecting the placebo effect onto their child? Either way, in some cases, it works, FACT. Whether or not that is backed up by a double-blind test on 1000+ folk is of no interest to a parent whose screaming child has just been magically silenced by some homeopathic magic beans. What is of interest is where you get more beans.
Blind faith in unproven medicines VS blind faith in omnipotent SCIENCE (the accuracy of which has been proved time after time through scientific evolution :whistle:)...
Deluded belief that these things can work VS dogmatic insistence that they can't...
Hmmmm.
Feeling quite comfy on the fence :)
Feeling quite comfy on the fence :)
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Feeling quite comfy on the fence :)
Feeling quite comfy on the fence :)
How do you fly?
I know a few sets of parents who use homeopathic remedies on their infants and swear by them - despite being total sceptics at the start. How do you explain that? Presumably they are projecting the placebo effect onto their child? Either way, in some cases, it works, FACT. Whether or not that is backed up by a double-blind test on 1000+ folk is of no interest to a parent whose screaming child has just been magically silenced by some homeopathic magic beans. What is of interest is where you get more beans.What actually happens is that the kid gets better. Kids tend to do that. You are begging the very question we are asking here i.e. is the homeopathic remedy responsible for the child's getting better, and if we are being scientific about it: what is the pharmacological effect that the homeopathic remedy is having that is making the child better? Giving little Tarquin a sugar pill for his sniffly-whiffles and two days later Tarquinikins being miraculously cured ain't the apparition of the Virgin Mary at Lourdes. And as for "magically silencing" the child: if you ever see me crying, feed me sugar pills and I'll shut-up too: that's a promise
anyone who adopts an attitude that something simply can't be true because it contradicts the prevailing scientific wisdom is an arse, a poor scientist or both.
This thread has got me thinking, and I'm going to start my own branch of alternative medicine. What I'm going to do is every time my 11 month old son cries or appears to be unwell I'm going to the gold-plated 3.5mm-6mm stereo jack adapter that's sat on my desk here and rub it on one of the young 'uns unwashed bibs from the washing pile. Probably for an exact number of times, ets say a dozen. I will then leave the stereo jack hidden somewhere in his room overnight. And I'm then going to see if he gets better.
This way I will then build up a number of "first hand reports", backed up by "FACT" to corroborate the effectiveness of this treatment.
You see why this is bullshit yet?
But as I say, I've heard some interesting first hand reports, which I'm simply not prepared to dismiss entirely. I am quite prepared to believe that they are placebo or nocebo effects, although some don't fit with how I'd expect them to work (as I said, administered by cynics to infants).Are you dismissing the fact that they may be pure coincidences then?
Fiend, if you're sat on the fence why cast aspersions upon the people either side of you?Because the side leading this "debate" accuses me of "talking bollocks" - which doesn't make me that well-disposed to them. And as I said, both extremes of fanaticism are tedious, and as guilty as each other in attitudes (as a contrast, Stu posted a good post I thought).
Fiend, if you're sat on the fence why cast aspersions upon the people either side of you?Because the side leading this "debate" accuses me of "talking bollocks" - which doesn't make me that well-disposed to them. And as I said, both extremes of fanaticism are tedious, and as guilty as each other in attitudes (as a contrast, Stu posted a good post I thought).
Blind faith in unproven medicines VS blind faith in omnipotent SCIENCE (the accuracy of which has been proved time after time through scientific evolution :whistle:)...
Deluded belief that these things can work VS dogmatic insistence that they can't...
Hmmmm.
Feeling quite comfy on the fence :)
Marmite....is okay, I quite like it :devangel:
I'm curious as to what someone who's agnostic on this topic actually does?
I'm curious as to what someone who's agnostic on this topic actually does?
not give a fuck? ;D
- or
Until stronger evidence exists for the use of homeopathy in the treatment of asthma, we are unable to make recommendations about homeopathic treatment.
The researchers did not find any good quality trials and so cannot say whether it is or is not effective for treating this condition. As no information is available on how much homeopathy is used for dementia, it is difficult to say whether it is important to conduct more trials.
Overall the results of this review found no evidence of effectiveness for homeopathy for the global symptoms, core symptoms or related outcomes of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder.
Two studies with low risk of bias demonstrated benefit: one with 254 participants demonstrated benefits from calendula ointment in the prevention of radiotherapy-induced dermatitis, and another with 32 participants demonstrated benefits from Traumeel S (a complex homeopathic medicine) over placebo as a mouthwash for chemotherapy-induced stomatitis. These trials need replicating. Two other studies reported positive results, although the risk of bias was unclear, and four further studies reported negative results. The homeopathic medicines used in all eight studies did not seem to cause any serious adverse effects or interact with conventional treatment. No cancer treatments were modified or stopped because of the homeopathic interventions.
It is claimed that Oscillococcinum (or similar homeopathic medicines) can be taken either regularly over the winter months to prevent influenza or as a treatment. Trials do not show that homoeopathic Oscillococcinum can prevent influenza. However, taking homoeopathic Oscillococcinum once you have influenza might shorten the illness, but more research is needed.
The review of trials found there was not enough evidence to show the effect of a homoeopathy as a method of induction. More research is needed.
What's a more worthy cause than fighting big business taking advantage of people so desperately ill that they're prepared to buy into this snake oil crap?
It's a vile way to make money and should rightfully be fought against.
Gah, can't you lot get back to bullying Johnny Footwork ::)
Oh well, since I was asked a direct question:
Slackers: Personally I am taking conventional medicine as I often do. I have taken homoepathic medicine occasionally in the past and would do so again in addition to conventional medicine. I don't believe the lack of clear scientific proof FOR something automatically translates to conclusive proof against it. The end.
Two studies with low risk of bias demonstrated benefit: one with 254 participants demonstrated benefits from calendula ointment in the prevention of radiotherapy-induced dermatitis, and another with 32 participants demonstrated benefits from Traumeel S (a complex homeopathic medicine) over placebo as a mouthwash for chemotherapy-induced stomatitis.
No, I've been at work. Gruff, I appreciate this is an emotive topic for you and respect your opinion. My opinion differs.
I've already said I don't 'believe' in homeopathy, and I'll add to that that I've never used it and would be unlikely to. However I have said I wouldn't write it off entirely, and I certainly wouldn't support it being banned. Slackline's sources above, such as:QuoteTwo studies with low risk of bias demonstrated benefit: one with 254 participants demonstrated benefits from calendula ointment in the prevention of radiotherapy-induced dermatitis, and another with 32 participants demonstrated benefits from Traumeel S (a complex homeopathic medicine) over placebo as a mouthwash for chemotherapy-induced stomatitis.
would suggest my position is sensible. Most of the rest Slack-line quotes suggest more research; only one stated 'no evidence of effectiveness'. It would appear the professional scientists are also aligned with my position. You may think they are being diplomatic by saying 'more research needed', they arent; they are acknowledging the inadequacy of the research. True science doesn't extrapolate 'weak evidence' to 'its all bullshit', as you lot seem to.
No, I've been at work. Gruff, I appreciate this is an emotive topic for you and respect your opinion. My opinion differs.
I've already said I don't 'believe' in homeopathy, and I'll add to that that I've never used it and would be unlikely to. However I have said I wouldn't write it off entirely, and I certainly wouldn't support it being banned. Slackline's sources above, such as:QuoteTwo studies with low risk of bias demonstrated benefit: one with 254 participants demonstrated benefits from calendula ointment in the prevention of radiotherapy-induced dermatitis, and another with 32 participants demonstrated benefits from Traumeel S (a complex homeopathic medicine) over placebo as a mouthwash for chemotherapy-induced stomatitis.
would suggest my position is sensible. Most of the rest Slack-line quotes suggest more research; only one stated 'no evidence of effectiveness'. It would appear the professional scientists are also aligned with my position. You may think they are being diplomatic by saying 'more research needed', they arent; they are acknowledging the inadequacy of the research. True science doesn't extrapolate 'weak evidence' to 'its all bullshit', as you lot seem to.
What hippy-placebo-alternative would you prefer? One with ingredients?Yes. It would also have to taste good
I am in favour of requiring the claims made to be evidenced and until that time preventing the sale of the 'treatments'
I can't agree with that. Do you think religion should be prevented until evidenced?
Like marmite??What hippy-placebo-alternative would you prefer? One with ingredients?Yes. It would also have to taste good
;DLike marmite??What hippy-placebo-alternative would you prefer? One with ingredients?Yes. It would also have to taste good
I've heard some interesting first hand reports, which I'm simply not prepared to dismiss entirely. I am quite prepared to believe that they are placebo or nocebo effects, although some don't fit with how I'd expect them to work (as I said, administered by cynics to infants).
The ritual of homeopathy, such as visiting a homeopath, and all the witchcraft that go with it help to make it a more effective placebo.
Placebos work, we know that, in some cases they are the most effective treatment. Hence we need a system of handing out placebos as part of health care. I can't imagine any doctor dreaming up a better system than homeopathy.
The placebo effect is quite powerful and well documented. Yes people do benefit from seeing a doctor and are simply after a pill to take and then they "feel better". Look at how many people think antibiotics are useful why you have a cold/flu (which are caused by viruses).
But then why not market it like that! Or at least investigate each objectively and see if there is a genuine quantifiable biological effect, and it could then be developed further and benefit more people! Those that don't you could just have listed as coded placebo tablets that are given to patients, but they're told that they will have an effect and help (could even draft up a book on it so all doctors say the same placebo tablet AR53 has a given effect for a given condition).
Oh wait, thats unethical isn't it, imagine the uproar the press, and in turn the public who then get on board with it, would have if it was discovered that the NHS was prescribing drugs that have no quantifiable effect and act through the placebo effect!!!
My tuppence worth.
Fuck it, live and let live. If people need a touchstone in their life, be it religion, lucky charms, horoscopes, fervently supporting a football team, believing bouldering is the best thing in the world ever ever, or taking sugar pills in the belief that it will make them better, leave them to it. There are worse evils in the world than homeopathic medicine, which you could all spend your time fighting about.
And fretting that your hard earned taxes are being spent on it, well likewise there are many places where my tax pounds are being squandered at a much faster rate.
Whatever. Do what you like.
I, personally, am aggrieved that such hocus pocus nonsense is allowed to perpetuate because I currently* work at a clinical trials unit and am aware of the amount of regulation that governs the development of drugs and treatments and yet homeopathy continues unregulated and with unproven efficacy.
Nothing is black and white anyway
No I'm not a regulator, I'm the Boffinator
QuoteNothing is black and white anyway
You say you know that, but do you really know it?
You can't force regulation on one section of alternative medicine (by which I mean unproven medicine) because 'it sounds like bullshit', but not on another 'cos it sounds like it might work'.
Again, too much regulation restricts innovation.
Some of those old wives were pretty wise you know.
No I'm not a regulator, I'm a statistician and would like to see a body of evidence that demonstrates that something works beyond chance/randomness alone. I find the regulations that govern the work that is required to prove this to be cumbersome and tedious, but they are there for a reason and that is to protect the individuals who are involved in a study and ultimately to test whether the results could have occurred by chance alone*.
QuoteNothing is black and white anyway
You say you know that, but do you really know it?
You can't force regulation on one section of alternative medicine (by which I mean unproven medicine) because 'it sounds like bullshit', but not on another 'cos it sounds like it might work'.
Again, too much regulation restricts innovation.
Some of those old wives were pretty wise you know.
Tiger penis, bear bones and all that sort of thing aren't medicines.
Sorry to butt in here,No I'm not a regulator, I'm a statistician and would like to see a body of evidence that demonstrates that something works beyond chance/randomness alone. I find the regulations that govern the work that is required to prove this to be cumbersome and tedious, but they are there for a reason and that is to protect the individuals who are involved in a study and ultimately to test whether the results could have occurred by chance alone*.
Statistically life on Earth shouldn't exist should it?
Couldn't it be agued that statistically, Science has been incorrect 100% of thetime ever since year 0 because it's a continously evolving form of knowledge which can never reach an end point?
And yes, the "SCIENTIFIC method" has undergone revision and refinement over the years, that is integral to the objectivity of the process itself. You will end up with far more reliable understanding of the world around you than blindly "believing" something works.
Don't you mean that they're traditional quackery?
For supposed scientists folk make a lot of sweeping generalisations. Where's the rigour?
My beef with accapi is its is currently being aggressively marketed in the media I encounter daily. With a lot of pseudo-scientific bollocks as well. I've never had Homeopathy pushed on me, I am aware of it, that's all. No one has ever even suggested I try it. I 'm strongly against either being banned, or even having to prove effectiveness before being sold. Hence my dissing of accapi and defence of homeopathy - context.
Guess what Slackers, you can do both. Allowing unproven drugs on the market doesn't devalue the proven ones.i had a chronic nail bed fungal infection.i took terbinafine(lamisil) orally for about 6 months and it cured it.got rid of my athletes foot as well.
On the one hand you laugh at the fact that homeopathic cures are only water, the next you insist on regulation. Since you're king of black-or-white, either allow it may work and insist on regulation, or accept it is just water and make it freely available.
One of the several points I've made on this thread which folk have chosen to ignore is that of cures for nail fungus. The ones that have been researched and 'proven' by the medical companies are shit. Long term pill-taking, poor rates of effectiveness, high rates of subsequent reinfection and a catalogue of common side effects from liver damage to suicidal tendencies (nearly lost my dad to that). For whatever reason there isn't much ongoing research or development. Search the internet though, and you'll get a load of topical alternatives that actually work - Vicks vaporub being the lead contender. Should I wait until its sanctioned by the WHO?
Too much control restricts innovation.
It was more a flippant comment aimed at an implication that Statistiscs are the be all and end all, sorry. But what I meant was, statistically, intelligent life shouldn't exist because 'thinking' type intelligence isn't neccessary for evolutionary survival.
Quote from http://www.execulink.com/~louisew/life.htm (http://www.execulink.com/~louisew/life.htm):
'The evidence so far seems to agree with the hypothesis that given a suitable environments, we can expect life to exist on many planets in our galaxy. The Drake Equation popularized by Carl Saigon is that intelligent life such as ours occurs regularly on a small percentage of planets that produce life. This however does not convey the uniqueness of self conscious intelligent life! Nature is more likely to produce the sea horse or the platypus duck than anything like the human brain. All of these structures are unique or exceedingly rare. Normal life in the universe consists mostly of sausage shaped organisms metabolizing simple molecules or photons.
Humans are very strange creatures, there is nothing in nature that came before with abilities anything like hominids. Whereas other organisms use variations on physical themes such as swimming or more efficient digestion, Humans have been successful by thinking. This is a strange and unique ability. Yet it seems to be just a chance outcome. A creature similar to modern chimps had the need to carry stuff and throw rocks. These abilities are all that is needed to explain human anatomy. Intelligence followed much later. Try running a computer simulation that ends in intelligent life as we know it!
Let us never forget that most (80%) of life on this planet is bacteria. Statistically the strangest part of all is that life in any form has persisted for over 3.5 billion years on this planet Earth without a cataclysmic event making the planet inhospitable for all life. Or even more likely, an environmental change that destroyed all complex life forms. For life to exist liquid water is required over this entire period.
Life is common and cheap and we will find many planets just like Mars, where life existed at one period in time, but not for most, or even a significant fraction of these planets histories.
Almost completely :off: now. Basically all I was trying to say, in a rather convoluted way, is that statistics don't adequetely explain huge areas of the universe, or they just reinforce why something shouldn't work without adding anything insightful to explain how it somehow does work.
Trust in science is best gained by open discourse, and there is more than a touch of condescension to this kind of debate that is not productive for either scientists or the general public.
Apologies if my last post seemed accusatory
QuoteTrust in science is best gained by open discourse, and there is more than a touch of condescension to this kind of debate that is not productive for either scientists or the general public.
Amen to that. Especially when you talk about banning something that you're simultaneously stating is harmless.
| Word | Count |
| ban | 1 |
| banned | 5 |
| banning | 3 |
I'm not in favour of banning anything (as a general stance) but I am in favour of requiring the claims made to be evidenced and until that time preventing the sale of the 'treatments' and the support that they receive from the state.
NB - The author of the above quote you pasted made a rather ungracious typo as I suspect they are referring to Carl Sagan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan) and not "CarlHo Chi MinSaigon"
People pay a lot of money for it, and that to me is a harm
People use it instead of going to a proper doctor, that is a harm..
Belief in it degrades our collective intellectual standards, that is a harm.
Compare homeopathy with creationism, there's very little / no evidence for creationism / ID and the same arguments that you advance are used by the creationists to argue for teaching it as science.
There's not really been much talk of banning.
I am in favour of requiring the claims made to be evidenced and until that time preventing the sale of the 'treatments'
QuoteThere's not really been much talk of banning.QuoteI am in favour of requiring the claims made to be evidenced and until that time preventing the sale of the 'treatments'
Call it shorthand. The OP is trying to prevent Boots from selling it, same thing.
An Open Letter to Alliance Boots
The Boots brand is synonymous with health care in the United Kingdom. Your website speaks proudly about your role as a health care provider and your commitment to deliver exceptional patient care. For many people, you are their first resource for medical advice; and their chosen dispensary for prescription and non-prescription medicines. The British public trusts Boots.
However, in evidence given recently to the Commons Science and Technology Committee, you admitted that you do not believe homeopathy to be efficacious. Despite this, homeopathic products are offered for sale in Boots pharmacies – many of them bearing the trusted Boots brand.
Not only is this two-hundred-year-old pseudo-therapy implausible, it is scientifically absurd. The purported mechanisms of action fly in the face of our understanding of chemistry, physics, pharmacology and physiology. As you are aware, the best and most rigorous scientific research concludes that homeopathy offers no therapeutic effect beyond placebo, but you continue to sell these products regardless because "customers believe they work". Is this the standard you set for yourselves?
The majority of people do not have the time or inclination to check whether the scientific literature supports the claims of efficacy made by products such as homeopathy. We trust brands such as Boots to check the facts for us, to provide sound medical advice that is in our interest and supply only those products with a demonstrable medical benefit.
We don't expect to find products on the shelf at our local pharmacy which do not work.
Not only are these products ineffective, they can also be dangerous. Patients may delay seeking proper medical assistance because they believe homeopathy can treat their condition. Until recently, the Boots website even went so far as to tell patients that "after taking a homeopathic medicine your symptoms may become slightly worse," and that this is "a sign that the body's natural energies have started to counteract the illness". Advice such as this directly encourages patients to wait before seeking real medical attention, even when their condition deteriorates.
We call upon Boots to withdraw all homeopathic products from your shelves. You should not be involved in the sale of ineffective products, because your customers trust you to do what is right for their health. Surely you agree that your commitment to excellent patient care is better served by supplying only those products whose claims can be substantiated by rigorous scientific research? Or do you really believe that Boots should be in the business of selling placebos to the sick and the injured?
The support lent by Boots to this quack therapy contributes directly to its acceptance as a valid medical treatment by the British public, acceptance it does not warrant and support it does not deserve. Please do the right thing, and remove this bogus therapy from your shelves.
Yours sincerely,
Not sure if you've read it
JB there is no science in hompeopathy.
QuoteNot sure if you've read it
Of course I've read it. Do you think I'd get this far on this thread without investigating the OP?
I think the campaign is misguided. What a shock, a shop motivated by profit, stocking things that sell. There is a huge continuum of medicines from the proven to the unproven. Singling out Homeopathy is not going to make it or other unproven treatments go away.
as for the rest of you looking at the length and time of your posts are you all unemployed scientists
In terms of scale, climbers are a relatively small proportion of the population and unless your GCW having dry hands isn't a serious medical condition.
So should we then ban alcohol and tobacco (cigars), after all idiots still buy them despite a huge body of SCIENCE to back up there negative effects?
So should we then ban alcohol and tobacco (cigars), after all idiots still buy them despite a huge body of SCIENCE to back up there negative effects?
To me it's a simple case of mis-selling; like telling me my car will do a thousand miles to the gallon.
I don't see any reason to ban or restrict sales, but I also don't see why the trade description act couldn't be beefed up concerning the labelling on homeopathic 'remedies'.
maybe do the same with hundreds of vitamins that get flogged to all and sundry "warning the net result of taking this regularly will be having slighlty more expensive urine".
I don't see any reason to ban or restrict sales, but I also don't see why the trade description act couldn't be beefed up concerning the labelling on homeopathic 'remedies'.
Thus neutralising any placebo effect. A label saying "warning this will not help you in the slightest" isn't going to help your state of mind much.
Whats the school of thought on here from the medically astute when it comes to the herbal supplement/product Rhodiola Rosea.
I've tried some, over short and long periods, but interested to know what you guys think of it, and the results/evidence surrounding it at the moment.
Whats the school of thought on here from the medically astute when it comes to the herbal supplement/product Rhodiola Rosea.
I've tried some, over short and long periods, but interested to know what you guys think of it, and the results/evidence surrounding it at the moment.
Never heard of it, so no opinion, but if its herbal as opposed to homeopathic then it will likely have some active ingredient in it.
As to what that is, its mode of action and effectiveness (if any and how big an effect), I'd start with Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodiola_Rosea) and investigate the citations there, then move onto a wider literature search (http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=Rhodiola Rosea) (you'll find you can get some of the papers in PDF for free).
Scholar google, that is awesome, I never even knew this "alternate google" existed!
homeopathy site:ukbouldering.com
Nailed.
http://www.b3ta.com/board/9863286 (http://www.b3ta.com/board/9863286)
(http://www.b3tards.com/u/f52b8194b89ba7c084fa/homeo.jpg)
Basically if water had a memory then drinking even a bottle of evian would kill you. Remember the old saying that every glass of water in the world has
already been drunk 30 times or whatever that made-up statistic is.
Basically if water had a memory then drinking even a bottle of evian would kill you. Remember the old saying that every glass of water in the world has already been drunk 30 times or whatever that made-up statistic is.
Shit, I've just realised why evian doesn't kill you - cos its not been spanked with a leather dildo.
This is a brilliant idea (IMO)...
Homeopathy Theres Nothing in It : The 10:23 Mass Overdose Event (http://www.1023.org.uk/the-1023-overdose-event.php)
This is a brilliant idea (IMO)...
Homeopathy Theres Nothing in It : The 10:23 Mass Overdose Event (http://www.1023.org.uk/the-1023-overdose-event.php)
12 hours in and no deaths yet...
Basically if water had a memory then drinking even a bottle of evian would kill you. Remember the old saying that every glass of water in the world has
already been drunk 30 times or whatever that made-up statistic is.
I believe it's 32 times :P
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/feb/22/stop-homeopathy-funding-commons (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/feb/22/stop-homeopathy-funding-commons)
HOMEOPATHS. Save money on petrol by filling up at the water pump. Your car will remember the petrol from your previous fill.
The report could see government funding into the not-treatment being stripped back to £1 as according to homeopathic theory it will have the same effect as giving them £100 million.
Practitioners will apply for one penny of the new budget and then be advised to shake it vigorously in their bank account.
Committee member, Denys Finch-Hatton, said: "Their account will 'remember' the millions we used to give them and they can then try to buy new clinics by telling the builders about all the money that used to be there."
Mash hits nail firmly on head again. (http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/health/parliament-emitting-angry-purple-aura%2c-say-homeopaths-201002232496/)QuoteThe report could see government funding into the not-treatment being stripped back to £1 as according to homeopathic theory it will have the same effect as giving them £100 million.
Practitioners will apply for one penny of the new budget and then be advised to shake it vigorously in their bank account.
Committee member, Denys Finch-Hatton, said: "Their account will 'remember' the millions we used to give them and they can then try to buy new clinics by telling the builders about all the money that used to be there."
:lol:
Mash hits nail firmly on head again. (http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/health/parliament-emitting-angry-purple-aura%2c-say-homeopaths-201002232496/)QuoteThe report could see government funding into the not-treatment being stripped back to £1 as according to homeopathic theory it will have the same effect as giving them £100 million.
Practitioners will apply for one penny of the new budget and then be advised to shake it vigorously in their bank account.
Committee member, Denys Finch-Hatton, said: "Their account will 'remember' the millions we used to give them and they can then try to buy new clinics by telling the builders about all the money that used to be there."
:lol:
I prefer the, as ever glorious, Viz Top-Tip...
HOMEOPATHS. Save money on petrol by filling up at the water pump. Your car will remember the petrol from your previous fill
D
Yeah but no one reads what you post Jas :kiss2:I prefer the, as ever glorious, Viz Top-Tip...
HOMEOPATHS. Save money on petrol by filling up at the water pump. Your car will remember the petrol from your previous fill
D
The one I posted on the last page of this thread you mean? ;)
Meanwhile, the Third Estate (http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=40517) chuck in their two-penneth…
what a feckin twat.
It's also great that the poll she quotes is now nearly 80% "anti".
be careful, by diluting their results you are just making them stronger
Itshttp://www.homeopathyawarenessweek.org/Homeopathy Awareness Week (http://www.worldhomeopathy.org/) from today.
Itshttp://www.homeopathyawarenessweek.org/Homeopathy Awareness Week (http://www.worldhomeopathy.org/) from today.
Fixed that for you slackbot. The first link was accidentally going to some fanatical anti-homeopathy group who had been oh so very clever in registering a spoof url.
The available evidence is not compelling and fails to demonstrate that homeopathy is an effective treatment for any of the reported clinical conditions in humans.
I think its important to raise awareness of the harm homeopathy causes
QuoteI think its important to raise awareness of the harm homeopathy causes
Harm, really? I thought you said it didn't work. There are lots of people with imaginary diseases best treated with imaginary treatments.
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2923/13805182265_00d010af7f_z.jpg)
😄