|
U-Know! Forum » Homeopathic overdose protest in Boots |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Squid Tempest 8761 posts |
Jan 29, 2010, 15:04
|
||
|
handofdave wrote: pooley wrote: And that sense of desperation is exactly what these snake oil peddlers rely on. Giving the sick water. My dad was ill with cancer (the type you dont get better from) some well meaning idiot said take vitamin c, cress and bannanas!!! There is evidence that suggests that large doses of vitamin D can prevent or even roll back tumors. I think western medicine can be a bit snake-oily itself, to be frank... it's compromised by big money. Consumers are led to believe that they have to fork out huge sums to see specialists and purchase pharmaceuticals by the industry, when in many cases (I'm not talking about critical cases, obviously) the patient can heal themselves with some common sense steps... better nutrition, exercise, a better mental attitude, etc. You've put me in mind of a parallel example - beauty products - "Makes you look ten years younger - contains hypnoglycobenzide crystals for softer skin and wrinkle removal" cue pseudo-scientific animation. A far greater snake-oily field than alternative medicine, and a much bigger business to boot (or should that be "to Boots"?).
|
|||
pooley 501 posts |
Jan 29, 2010, 18:11
|
||
|
Squid Tempest wrote: handofdave wrote: pooley wrote: And that sense of desperation is exactly what these snake oil peddlers rely on. Giving the sick water. My dad was ill with cancer (the type you dont get better from) some well meaning idiot said take vitamin c, cress and bannanas!!! There is evidence that suggests that large doses of vitamin D can prevent or even roll back tumors. I think western medicine can be a bit snake-oily itself, to be frank... it's compromised by big money. Consumers are led to believe that they have to fork out huge sums to see specialists and purchase pharmaceuticals by the industry, when in many cases (I'm not talking about critical cases, obviously) the patient can heal themselves with some common sense steps... better nutrition, exercise, a better mental attitude, etc. You've put me in mind of a parallel example - beauty products - "Makes you look ten years younger - contains hypnoglycobenzide crystals for softer skin and wrinkle removal" cue pseudo-scientific animation. A far greater snake-oily field than alternative medicine, and a much bigger business to boot (or should that be "to Boots"?). But, as said somewhere else, not in with the medicines. By all means, let people waste their cash on this rubbish if they choose, but don't claim it has any medicinal qualities
|
|||
|
dave clarkson 2988 posts |
Edited Jan 29, 2010, 20:40
Jan 29, 2010, 20:03
|
||
|
" but having them in the pharmacy making unfounded claims for their medical effectiveness is misleading and dangerous." ...they've never made claims for or against their effectiveness. They're just as much in the dark about the effectiveness as you or I. That's not to say they can't supply them upon the data they do have about them to people who want them and believe they work for themselves. Surely it's your GP who should be responsible for giving the advice you need. If that's ineffective then that's a problem. "Paul Bennett, Boots' Professional Standards Director and Superintendent Pharmacist, gave evidence to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee on 25 November." I'm not here to defend Mr bennett but where did he use the word 'useless'? "Would that make it OK for a pharmacy to sell cola for post-sex vaginal douching as a contraceptive? After all, some people think it works. Would Boots sell paper condoms?" Pepsi or Rola Cola? Pharmacists are not your doctor -they prepare what your GP prescribes. Don't forget that pharmacies will also give people GSK's Seroxat (Paroxetine) if prescribed by the GP - one of the most controversial drugs in recent years and one which has been known to lead to suicides in some instances but also has had countless claims of ineffectiveness. This drug was approved by the FDA in 1992. Is this another grey area? Who's ultimately responsible? 8)
|
|||
|
Squid Tempest 8761 posts |
Jan 29, 2010, 21:56
|
||
|
Merrick wrote: Squid, I don't doubt that homeopathy's worked for your friend. Squid Tempest wrote: Apparently for her it really works, and in ways that it is hard to fit in with the placebo effect. real, physical differences. I think you misunderstand what the placebo effect is. It *does* deliver real, physical differences. It really medically works for some people. Ben Goldacre's excellent article on placebo says there was even a study where people were told they were getting a placebo with no actual medicine in and some of them responded. http://www.badscience.net/2008/03/all-bow-before-the-might-of-the-placebo-effect-it-is-the-coolest-strangest-thing-in-medicine/ Squid Tempest wrote: Could it possibly be that there is something going on here that science has yet to suss out? If it actually worked as actual medicine, tests would show that. WE don't need science to show *how* it works - there is a lot of mystery and much that we don't yet know - but trials do need to show that something *does* work. And the extensive trials of homeopathy show that it does not, beyond placebo. And another thing. If it was purely a placebo, why didn't conventional medicine provide a placebo effect? For my friend it was the conventional medicine that had no effect, and for whom homeopathic remedies actually worked. Convenient to use the word "placebo" where it backs up the required argument, isn't it? Can't quite believe I'm defending homeopathy - I can see no conceivable mechanism by which it works. I am only going on the experience of (a very trusted) friend. That friend was very convincing about it though - it turned her health around, in an obvious and quantifiable fashion. Very difficult evidence for me to deny.
|
|||
|
Squid Tempest 8761 posts |
Jan 29, 2010, 21:58
|
||
|
pooley wrote: Squid Tempest wrote: handofdave wrote: pooley wrote: And that sense of desperation is exactly what these snake oil peddlers rely on. Giving the sick water. My dad was ill with cancer (the type you dont get better from) some well meaning idiot said take vitamin c, cress and bannanas!!! There is evidence that suggests that large doses of vitamin D can prevent or even roll back tumors. I think western medicine can be a bit snake-oily itself, to be frank... it's compromised by big money. Consumers are led to believe that they have to fork out huge sums to see specialists and purchase pharmaceuticals by the industry, when in many cases (I'm not talking about critical cases, obviously) the patient can heal themselves with some common sense steps... better nutrition, exercise, a better mental attitude, etc. You've put me in mind of a parallel example - beauty products - "Makes you look ten years younger - contains hypnoglycobenzide crystals for softer skin and wrinkle removal" cue pseudo-scientific animation. A far greater snake-oily field than alternative medicine, and a much bigger business to boot (or should that be "to Boots"?). But, as said somewhere else, not in with the medicines. By all means, let people waste their cash on this rubbish if they choose, but don't claim it has any medicinal qualities No need to be so aggresive about your arguments Pooley, it makes them less convincing, and somewhat dodge-like ;-) You call it "rubbish", but I reckon you wouldn't do that to my friend if she were to tell you her story face-to-face.
|
|||
landells 680 posts |
Jan 30, 2010, 00:03
|
||
|
Protesting against homeopathy?!? It strikes me as a bit too much like The Wild One: What you rebelling against? Whaddya got? Well this week we've got homeopathy... Admittedly, Simon Singh does make some intersting points but I don't think anyone who visits an actual homeopath and takes their advice about immunization and malaria is likely to go "Oh Boots have stopped selling tincture of sponglewort so I guess homeopathy must be bad." If homeopaths are giving medical advice that they are not qualified to give then that should be addressed but I can't see the planned protest doing much more than making some shoppers tell their friends that they saw a nutter in Boots swallowing some herbal drugs
|
|||
|
dave clarkson 2988 posts |
Edited Jan 30, 2010, 01:19
Jan 30, 2010, 00:47
|
||
|
If it was a genuine concern for the ill, the focus would be on the contradiction of seriously toxic drugs prescribed and approved by the MHRA/ FDA (and sold in all pharmacies) against statistics post clinical trials showing controversial evidence against. The skeptics website does suggest a level of absolution and conclusion and is rather skeptical itself in its aims as well as sounding thick in parts too. 8)
|
|||
Ziggypop 300 posts |
Edited Jan 30, 2010, 03:42
Jan 30, 2010, 03:26
|
||
|
You guys what we gonna do about ya... Stop being Homeaphobic... It's sick the price of medicine... Check this out- http://www.miraclemineral.org/
|
|||
|
keith a 9573 posts |
Jan 31, 2010, 20:05
|
||
|
landells wrote: Protesting against homeopathy?!? It strikes me as a bit too much like The Wild One: What you rebelling against? Whaddya got? Well this week we've got homeopathy... Ha!
|
|||
|
keith a 9573 posts |
Jan 31, 2010, 20:09
|
||
|
dave clarkson wrote: "Paul Bennett, Boots' Professional Standards Director and Superintendent Pharmacist, gave evidence to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee on 25 November." I'm not here to defend Mr bennett but where did he use the word 'useless'? Yeah, I read that, too and I found nothing of the sort. That's the second statement that I've read from Merrick this past week or so that appears mis-leading.
|
| Pages: 9 – [ Previous | 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
