Little Things You Hate
- Thread starter -|Sean|-
- Start date
rabatt
Likes Bikes and Dirt
i only posted it once, then went back and edited it, then my phone spazzed out and posted it three times
ltih, iphones when they decide to fail.
It's a joke and potentially not meant to be taken 100% literally.
[video=youtube;HMGIbOGu8q0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0[/video]
Last edited:
Spike-X
Grumpy Old Sarah
Umm...you've never studied basic high school chemistry, have you?
Norco Maniac
Is back!
i will say, for the final time, that i'm not against Western medicine. i fully believe it has it's place, and will use whatever means necessary when i need to get well. i don't see that one method should be exclusive of any other.
i'm quoting the premise, Spike. i do find it interesting, along with other energetic healing methods. i'm still a fence-sitter with regards to all forms of medicine. the Russians and Americans experimented with psychic abilities in the 1950's, to harm as well as heal.
i've personally run the gamut from a (now-ex) husband who told me that Jesus would heal the glandular fever my GP told me i was too old to be ill with (at 31) and a gynae who told me i was imagining the tumour on my ovary that he later surgically removed. he tried to convince me i was in menopause and hysterical. nor did i get a hint of apology from either practitioner for getting it so wrong.
i'd rather take the placebo effect of acupuncture or homeopathy over a drug that was known to be unsafe but heavily marketed anyway, such as Vioxx. whatever happened to "first, do ye no harm" ??
in my opinion, your health is your own responsibility, it's up to the consumer, not the practitioner, to assess what is wrong and take steps to find the appropriate practitioner to deal with it, preferably with the right medicine/interventions and by also adopting a healthier lifestyle.
wombat
Lives in a hole
That's cool, I think we're all on board with that, but you also implied that you your opinions on homeopathy are based on research, yet the only support you've given so far is the premise that diluting the substance increases its surface area (!?) which makes it more potent (double !?).
This is where I think we have a distinct difference of opinion: how the hell is a consumer meant to properly assess a problem and decide upon the appropriate practitioner on their own? To do so, they'd have to have all the requisite skills and knowledge, which would essentially make them a medical professional; if everyone is that educated and knowledgable, couldn't we just do away with doctors all together, we'd all be our own doctors!
The problem I have with homeopathy is that, like mentioned before, it's essentially a scam that is promising stuff that it has no evidenced ability to deliver on. If Toyota started running ads claiming that the new Landcruiser only drank 0.5L/100km, they'd get done for misleading advertising; same goes for a dude in your LBS who says "yeah man, these new pedals are trick, they actually make you fly. Only at 6ft, but it's enough to clear the obstacles on most tracks."
They're bullshit claims, just like "This sugar pill will help cure your cold, and this one (which is basically the same thing) will also cure your asthma. That'll be $59.95 thankyou."
The only difference is that the goose that falls for Toyota's claim ends up running out of fuel and having to walk for a jerrycan, whilst the people who fall for the homeopathy spiel run the risk of endangering their own health.
Trying to absolve the indsutry of blame by saying the onus is on the consumer to figure out what is real and what is lies is weak as hell.
As for "do no harm", well yeah, I'd agree with you there, I'd just also argue that it's pretty important to do something.
brisneyland
Likes Dirt
Well the 'consumer' (patient) should be aware of what they're getting themselves in for. My issue is that many of the claims made by CAM (complementary and alternative medicine) practitioners are biologically implausible and have no significant evidentiary basis behind them - it is unfortunately very, very easy to mislead the average person with crappy studies of poor methodological quality to convince them that whatever treatment they're pushing works.
Sure, for minor ailments it's not that much of an issue but it's irresponsible in the extreme to convince people with potentially life threatening diseases that homeopathy or similar can cure it...
Significant amounts of harm can be done by doing nothing as well. I've personally had several patients 'treated' for cancer by naturopaths whose potentially curable cancers have turned into fatal ones, and this is not an uncommon story by any stretch of the imagination.
And not quite in the 'doing nothing' category, I've had patients with unstable cervical spine fractures 'treated' by chiropractors for neck pain - by manipulating their necks!!! And basilar artery stroke is a recognised complication of cervical spine manipulation by chiropractors although few of them will tell you that.
NOTHING in this world is risk free and whilst the concept of 'do no harm' is a noble one I think it's important to be cognisant of the shades of grey between black and white...
Spike-X
Grumpy Old Sarah
The premise.
Is.
BULLSHIT.
You're right, doing something that's going to have no effect whatsoever is going to be better than doing something that will end up harming you. Bit of a waste of money though, I'd think.
Yes it is. But you need to find a treatment that is actually going to work. Taking sugar pills infused with a magic potion isn't going to work. It can't. It's sugar and water. You might as well say that drinking lots of lemonade will be an effective treatment.
Dammit, now I want some lemonade!
RYDA
Likes Bikes and Dirt
Flat lemonade cures all.
Spike-X
Grumpy Old Sarah
Mattydv
Likes Bikes and Dirt
Yes, the consumer has a right to choose their own treatment, but I vehemently disagree with your implications that they will benefit from doing so. Your average Joe has not put in half a decade plus of full time study to diagnose and treat illnesses. If the consumer decides to seek treatments that do not require consent from a qualified professional (ie. GP), they very rarely have access to efficient medications that have proven effects.
Wombat has pointed out the flaw in your opinion just as well.
Good on you for accurately diagnosing your own problems, Dr's aren't always right. They are human. They operate from past experience and what signs and symptoms have represented in previous cases. But this is certainly not a reason to encourage people to look to other treatments that have no proven positive associations.
Now that being said, can you point out if I've missed something in your argument, or if I haven't, elaborate on why you see this choice as a good thing?
wombat
Lives in a hole
Yeah, I think we're making the same point.
People need to make their own decisions, but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that medical professionals, be they modern or CAM practitioners, should only be presenting concepts that are supported by the current state of the art.
There's substantial repercussions for peddling bullshit claims when selling consumer goods because it's deemed unreasonable to mislead a consumer, this field should sure as hell be no different.
3viltoast3r
Likes Bikes and Dirt
If a substance/remedy had a scientifically proven, desirable side effect, Then it would be sold in a pharmacist. Simple as that. Chinese herbs may be able to 'help', But a quick trip to the Dr will normally set you straight..
Stick to 2 fruit, 5 veg.
Stick to 2 fruit, 5 veg.
Binaural
Eats Squid
It's not even clever bullshit. It would take you 1 hour (including shopping) to put together a high school experiement that proves it conclusively false. The only experiement that most naturopaths will ever do though is to test whether people are willing to pay medicine money for water.
Anyone who promotes "alternative" medicines as a cure for anything should wear the consequences when their advice turns out to be adverse for the patient. It is a shame more of these shonks do not get fined or thrown in jail except that their "qualifications" are so flimsy they can't even be convicted of professional malpractice. Happy to claim the placebo effect, not so keen to own complications for delaying real treatment.
The mind boggles...
Last edited:
Hew
Likes Dirt
I have literally no idea what that is, man. :distrust:
Norco Maniac
Is back!
look, guys, in my opinion there's quacks on both sides of the divide. a couple of posts back i shared some of my personal far-less-than-satisfactory experiences with the medical profession. so far all i've heard from you lot is medicine=good, complementary therapies=garbage, with a lot of opinion and not a lot of fact.
they're called complementary therapies for a reason. now get over it. once upon a time surgeons were witch hunted, too.
i'm off tomorrow interstate for four days of racing and oldschool riding, catch y'all on the flipside.
they're called complementary therapies for a reason. now get over it. once upon a time surgeons were witch hunted, too.
i'm off tomorrow interstate for four days of racing and oldschool riding, catch y'all on the flipside.
brisneyland
Likes Dirt
Well hang on, it was you who bounded in to this thread claiming that conventional medicine is crap, and that you are able to discuss it in a logical fashion with research to back up your opinions.
Where are your facts? All I've seen is your opinion.