The homeopathy debate...posts moved from the alzheimers thread

Thorntree

With friends and neighbours I have observed that soporifics (sleeping tablets) mimic the symptoms of Alzheimers.

As do severe anemias, B12 deficiency, etc., malnutrition, and some non specific dissociation disorders - not to mention a hangover!

Alz also appears to be seriously overdiagnosed. It's easier to stick a label on an elderly patient and ship them off than do the diagnostic work that will give a pseudo Alzheimers patience the chance to live productive lives.

B12 deficiency often appears in the elderly as nutritional absorption rates decline with age. It is the cause of megaloblastic anemia with sclerosis, etc. in young persons born without "intrinsic factor," and similar neurological symptoms in the elderly. B12 and b6 are often prescribed for Korsakow's syndrome - short term memory loss related to drugs or alcohol.

Unresolved grief or tragedy can trigger Alzheimer like symptoms and of course, and in the case of a dear octogenarian friend living alone, her Wednesday night "party" time would lead to Thursday hangovers. She wouldn't cook a proper meal for herself and Friday was out "looking for her keys." At the week-ends her daughters would take her in, feed her well, and she'd be ready for the next Wednesday's party day.
Neighbours started to mention it, the landlord, who wanted her apartment, had his agents call her family, said she was "confused." They took her to a new doctor on a Thursday. That was it: alzheimers. No further investigation in lifestyle, etc. (About a year prior to her diagnosis she had started a course of Ambien, but stopped after a few months)

Other friends became short-term memory loss zombies after a few weeks on Ambien.
Take your parent to see a qualified, Classical Homeopath. They should be able to sort through the symptoms.
If it's bona fide Alzheimers: food with high nutritional value, ask your doc about a B12 shot and keep the mind and memory stimulated. Caretakers, take good care of yourself.

sam34

Thorntree wrote: »

With friends and neighbours I have observed that soporifics (sleeping tablets) mimic the symptoms of Alzheimers.

As do severe anemias, B12 deficiency, etc., malnutrition, and some non specific dissociation disorders - not to mention a hangover!

Alz also appears to be seriously overdiagnosed. It's easier to stick a label on an elderly patient and ship them off than do the diagnostic work that will give a pseudo Alzheimers patience the chance to live productive lives.

B12 deficiency often appears in the elderly as nutritional absorption rates decline with age. It is the cause of megaloblastic anemia with sclerosis, etc. in young persons born without "intrinsic factor," and similar neurological symptoms in the elderly. B12 and b6 are often prescribed for Korsakow's syndrome - short term memory loss related to drugs or alcohol.

Unresolved grief or tragedy can trigger Alzheimer like symptoms and of course, and in the case of a dear octogenarian friend living alone, her Wednesday night "party" time would lead to Thursday hangovers. She wouldn't cook a proper meal for herself and Friday was out "looking for her keys." At the week-ends her daughters would take her in, feed her well, and she'd be ready for the next Wednesday's party day.
Neighbours started to mention it, the landlord, who wanted her apartment, had his agents call her family, said she was "confused." They took her to a new doctor on a Thursday. That was it: alzheimers. No further investigation in lifestyle, etc. (About a year prior to her diagnosis she had started a course of Ambien, but stopped after a few months)

Other friends became short-term memory loss zombies after a few weeks on Ambien.
Take your parent to see a qualified, Classical Homeopath. They should be able to sort through the symptoms.
If it's bona fide Alzheimers: food with high nutritional value, ask your doc about a B12 shot and keep the mind and memory stimulated. Caretakers, take good care of yourself.

sigh. where do i start?

sleeping tablets, unresolved grief etc do not mimic alzheimers.
sleeping tablets, as with all benzos, may cause confusion, particularly in the elderly, but there is much more to a diagnosis of alzheimers than confusion and short term memory problems.

there are some certain medical conditions that can give rise to what is called a "pseudo-dementia". depression is one of the more common ones. a gp or psychiatrist will be able to take an appropriate history and do a mental state exam to rule out depression.

other causes include hypothyroidism, vitamin B12 deficiency and folate deficiency. bloods will rule out these.
however, if someone has a normal b12 and folate, there is no robust evidence to suggest that taking extra will be of any benefit.

the diagnosis of alzheimer's is not one that is made lightly and certainly is not the easy option.

it is based on 5 things:
A: history from the patient
B: mental state exam
C: physical examination to rule out other causes
cognitive examination
E: collateral history

at the very least, what is required is a history of PROGRESIVE decline (ie not a "hangover" like you suggest :rolleyes: ), and a decline in a number of functional areas, as well as cognitive assessment.

If a family menber of mine had symptoms of alzheimers, i sure wouldnt be taking them to a homeopath to "sort through" the symptoms. i owuld be taking them to a gp, and a psychiatrist or geriatrician.

there are some meds out there that have been shown to slow down the rate of decline in some patients.... these can be discussed with a doctor.

Thorntree

Of course other factors can be ruled out with labs.
That's the problem. They're often not considered, especially in Ireland where standards are abominably low, diagnoses are made on the basis of personal opinion - happens a bit in other countries, but on a more limited level.

And yes, soporifics do mimic Alzheimers. Medicine is run by the Pharmaceutical industry, and it's significant that the most widely medicated generation is now manifesting cancer and dementia on an unprecedented scale.

This is not entirely due to improved diagnostic methods.

The following may be tangential, ie, related to children, but it opens a window on Pharmatech's relationship with Medicine.

Anyone who can should read "Child Psychiatry is sick with hidden conflicts of interest" by Dr. Leonard Sax, NY Daily News, Dec 14, 08
www.nydailynews.com

As for not seeing a Homeopath, that's your right.
It's also your loss.

Know whereof I speak

sam34

Thorntree wrote: »

Of course other factors can be ruled out with labs.
That's the problem. They're often not considered, especially in Ireland where standards are abominably low, diagnoses are made on the basis of personal opinion - happens a bit in other countries, but on a more limited level.

And yes, soporifics do mimic Alzheimers. Medicine is run by the Pharmaceutical industry, and it's significant that the most widely medicated generation is now manifesting cancer and dementia on an unprecedented scale.

This is not entirely due to improved diagnostic methods.

The following may be tangential, ie, related to children, but it opens a window on Pharmatech's relationship with Medicine.

Anyone who can should read "Child Psychiatry is sick with hidden conflicts of interest" by Dr. Leonard Sax, NY Daily News, Dec 14, 08
www.nydailynews.com

As for not seeing a Homeopath, that's your right.
It's also your loss.

Know whereof I speak

what a load of propaganda!

firstly, it's not true to state that lab tests are "often not considered" in this country.

thats completely inaccurate.

basic blood tests are part of any initial work-up in someone who is suspected of having alzheimers or cognitive impairment.we're not talking about very complicated tests here, we're talking about a sodium level, renal function, thyroid function, b12, folate etc. simple, basic investigations.

secondly, diagnoses are not made on the basis of "personal opinion".

diagnoses are based on a combination of factors, as i outlined in an earlier post. it's a combination of standardised, objective cognitive testing, history taking, mental state examination, bloods and sometimes radiological investigation. all these factors are then pieced together and a diagnosis is confirmed or ruled out. it involves a fair bit more than "personal opinion" :rolleyes:

thirdly, "soporifics" do not "mimic alzheimers". benzodiazepines can cause/exacerbate confusion, certainly, in some people. However, there is more to alzheimer's than confusion. the benzos certainly do not mimic the global deterioration in cognition and functional decline that is seen in alzheimers.


fourthly, with regard to your point that "medicine is run by the pharmaceutical industry.... the most widely medicated generation is now manifesting cancer and dementia on an unprecedented level"..... WTF???

you very quickly dismissed improved diagnostic skills as a potential confounder here. but you cant just simply dismiss this. medical science has advanced so much that it is easier to diagnose conditions nowadays, that previously may have gone undiagnosed.

anyway, arent you contradicting yourself- you previously claimed that alzheimers is over-diagnosed because thats the easy option for doctors. :rolleyes:
make up your mind- is it over-diagnosed or is the incidence of it rising to "unprecedented levels"?

furthermore, the population is aging. thats thanks to better nutrition, medical care and public health measures. as the population ages, so will the rates of dementia. it is an age related disorder after all! the rates rise quite dramatically with every 5 years of age after 65.

i didnt read the article you referenced... i prefer my scientific information to come from something more reliable than "nydailynews.com" :rolleyes:

Thorntree

To Sam34,
You know rolleyes, that Alzheimers can both be on the rise and be overdiagnosed. d'uh. The two are not mutually exclusive

My post says it all. If "WTF" is your idea of scientific discourse, then of course you will eschew the published opinion of a medical expert and public expose of such characters as Dr JB, chief of pediatric psychopharmacologyat Mass. General Hosp.

Better nutrition, preventive health care, etc, all have their roots in Homeopathic medicine along with genetics, immunology, environmental medicine, etc.

I stand by my statement, that especially in Ireland, diagnoses are too often based on "personal opinion," conditioned by gossip or inference, made with limited diagnostic tools - stingy bureaucrats - and are consequently faulty.

BTW. I was referring to zolpidems not benzos.

sam34

Thorntree wrote: »

To Sam34,
You know rolleyes, that Alzheimers can both be on the rise and be overdiagnosed. d'uh. The two are not mutually exclusive

My post says it all. If "WTF" is your idea of scientific discourse, then of course you will eschew the published opinion of a medical expert and public expose of such characters as Dr JB, chief of pediatric psychopharmacologyat Mass. General Hosp.

Better nutrition, preventive health care, etc, all have their roots in Homeopathic medicine along with genetics, immunology, environmental medicine, etc.

I stand by my statement, that especially in Ireland, diagnoses are too often based on "personal opinion," conditioned by gossip or inference, made with limited diagnostic tools - stingy bureaucrats - and are consequently faulty.

BTW. I was referring to zolpidems not benzos.

it aint terribly difficult get published in the newspapers/popular media, particularly when your topic is an emotive one. lots of people do it. it's a lot more difficult get published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

the "medical expert" you refer to has essentially written an expose of certain medics. fair enough. however it;s not an indictment of the whole profession. there are unscrupulous people in every walk of life.
he did not give any evidence nor opinion on whether the drugs are harmful.
it's a sensationalist emotive piece of writing, certainly not "scientific discourse".

and now you've gone from accusing doctors of using mere "personal opinion" to make a diagnosis to claiming they use "gossip and inference". maybe you're referring to a collateral history, i dont know.but as i ahve already previously pointed out, there are OBJECTIVE STANDARDISED tests used to make a diagnosis. these are clinical tests that are administered at the bedside/in the clinic and thus do not require funding from "stingy bureaucrats".

you speak of limited diagnostic tools- im unsure what you are getting at. it's not like there is one diagnostic tool out there that gives a definitive diagnosis but is being withheld because of cost or other factors. the diagnosis is made based on clinical history taking, cognitive assessment, and physical investigations.

AtomicHorror

Thorntree wrote: »

As for not seeing a Homeopath, that's your right.
It's also your loss.

Far from having a basis in evidence, homeopathy has been shown to be entirely ineffective in every randomised controlled trial yet performed for any condition. It performs no better than placebo in terms of efficacy. We can be fairly confident that any perceived efficacy is actually merely placebo effect.

SomeDose

A couple of points about the meds mentioned above:

Thorntree wrote: »

BTW. I was referring to zolpidems not benzos.

BTW Zolpidem is not a class of drug, it is a single drug within the class of non-benzodiazepine hypnotics. As an aside, are you speaking from a US perspective? It's just that the term "soporifics" and trade name Ambien are pretty much unheard of in Irish/UK/Euro healthcare circles.

With friends and neighbours I have observed that soporifics (sleeping tablets) mimic the symptoms of Alzheimers.

If you're not referring to benzos then, does that mean these alzheimer-like effects are seen with "zolpidems" and not benzos? Because if you can distinguish the specific side-effect profiles between these 2 classes of drugs solely by observation of patients then I'm impressed, that's quite a talent you have. For what it's worth, both classes act at the same receptor types (BZD / GABA), and in fact the "zolpidems" to which you refer have short half-lives and are actually preferred in the elderly due to their reduced tendency to cause drowsiness and "hangover" symptoms during the daytime. Short-term amnesia and confusion are recognised side-effects, but I see many such patients treated with these drugs on a daily basis and not once have I come across these symptoms been mistaken for or diagnosed as clinical AD.

And as far as I'm aware, Sam34 actually is a medical expert. Unlike a "qualified" homoeopath.

sam34

Thorntree wrote: »

As for not seeing a Homeopath, that's your right.
It's also your loss.

Know whereof I speak

yes you're right in one respect: it is my right not to see a homeopath.
it is also my right to see a qualified medical expert for a condition.
but, imo, you are wrong - far from it being my "loss" not to see a homeopath, i consider it my good fortune not to have to.

sam34

Thorntree wrote: »

BTW. I was referring to zolpidems not benzos.

there is no evidence to suggest that "zolpidems" can "mimic" alzheimers disease.

BTW, anecdotal case histories are not considered evidence.

tallaght01

Hi guys.

I've moved the homeopathy debate posts from the other thread. Jut thought it might be distracting from what the OP is looking for.

Hope that's ok with everyone.

eth0_

OP - you've obviously never been around someone with advanced alzheimers if you think it's similar to the cumulative effects of using benzo's/sleeping tablets for a few weeks!

I'm not even going to begin to explain the differences in symptoms because your claim is so ridiculous.

And why is a thread about homeopathy on the medical board? It's not medicine, it's not science, it's just snake oil.

tallaght01

eth0_ wrote: »

And why is a thread about homeopathy on the medical board? It's not medicine, it's not science, it's just snake oil.

Advocates for homeopathy, or any alternative medicine are welcome in the forum, particulaly if they can provide references to studies that back up their claims.

We might be waiting a while in this case, though :P

sam34

tallaght01 wrote: »

Advocates for homeopathy, or any alternative medicine are welcome in the forum, particulaly if they can provide references to studies that back up their claims.

We might be waiting a while in this case, though :P

don't hold your breath!

ZorbaTehZ

I agree with Etho, what is the point in having this debate, it has been done to death so many times, this forum is under the scientific category after all, keep all the other pseudo-scientific bs for the paranormal forum or whatever.

eth0_

Anyone who would advocate homeopathy for something like alzheimers should be ashamed of themselves.

And yeah, we will be waiting til hell freezes over for proof that homeopathy works ;-)

AtomicHorror

I just wanted to pick out another point from Thorntree's post which made me smile:

Thorntree wrote:

Medicine is run by the Pharmaceutical industry, and it's significant that the most widely medicated generation is now manifesting cancer and dementia on an unprecedented scale.

I hope you do understand that many of the "alternative" medicine companies are, in fact, also "run by the Pharmaceutical industry"? The alternative is actually something of an illusion partially created by the pharmaceuticals companies who are, most of us will admit, every bit as evil as the conspiracy theories suggest. Just not for the reasons you think.

As to the reasons for the trends towards cancer etc. well, we've plucked the low hanging fruit. TB, smallpox, polio and the like. Inevitably, most people are now dying of the diseases that were always there in the background, but rather masked by the fact that pretty much nobody lived long enough to get them. These are often tough diseases to take down, which is perhaps why so many people feel like someone has to DO something about that. But homeopathy is not something. In fact, it's a rather expensive nothing at all.

Alun

AtomicHorror wrote: »

But homeopathy is not something. In fact, it's a rather expensive nothing at all.

Sums it up nicely.

Whilst some alternative medicines have either some basis in scientific fact (herbal remedies) or (to my mind anyway) have some possible as yet unresearched grounding in fact, despite the rather misleading flowery language used by its practitioners to describe them, such as acupuncture, homeopathy is clearly nonsense.

For a start, all this stuff about water having a memory is patently nonsense .. I mean, even if it's true then you can easily show that all water, every single molecule of it in the world, has a memory of something, so it's impossible to create 'pure' water without a memory of anything to use to make these dilute solutions.

RobFowl

Homeopathy is based on the "theory" that if you dilute some thing down so far that it becomes non detectable then it will prevent symptoms caused by high dose of the original substance.

I anyone buy's that sort of logic then they deserve to be fleeced.

It is unproven, has no scientific merit of note and in a world where evidence based medicine is seen as the Gold standard has no place or role at all.

406C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

As to the reasons for the trends towards cancer etc. well, we've plucked the low hanging fruit. TB, smallpox, polio and the like. Inevitably, most people are now dying of the diseases that were always there in the background, but rather masked by the fact that pretty much nobody lived long enough to get them.

Not wading in for homeopathy here nor its use for alzheimers but sorry Atomic but do you really believe this?

tallaght01

406C wrote: »

Not wading in for homeopathy here nor its use for alzheimers but sorry Atomic but do you really believe this?

I certainly do.

The spectrum of disease within a population changes over time. There may be an element of our lifestyle causing more cancer, but by and large we're healthier than ever.

The incidence of diseases of old age will increase as the population gets older.

The incidence of infectious disease will lessen as conditions in society improve.

John

406C wrote: »

Not wading in for homeopathy here nor its use for alzheimers but sorry Atomic but do you really believe this?

If you look at less developed countries there are much lower incidence rates of Alzheimer's precisely because life expectancy is lower due to the kind of diseases that we can treat (but don't in these countries due to political/monetary reasons, a whole different thread there). Things are set to change as these populations get older so Atomic's statement is very much valid.

406C

John wrote: »

If you look at less developed countries there are much lower incidence rates of Alzheimer's precisely because life expectancy is lower due to the kind of diseases that we can treat (but don't in these countries due to political/monetary reasons, a whole different thread there). Things are set to change as these populations get older so Atomic's statement is very much valid.

I dont think so - dare I ask for proof?

John

Just from looking at one review, it appears the situation is more complicated than I thought. However, from the July 2008 issue of The Lancet: Neurology journal there are a few interesting tidbits of information:

Kalaria et al. wrote:

...countries in Latin America, such as Venezuela and Argentina, bear a higher burden of over 5% prevalence of dementia. By contrast, a systematic analysis of six Indian studies suggests low prevalence (2–3%) of all dementias, with marginally fewer cases in urban compared with rural areas and in the northern versus southern states. Pooled analysis of 25 Chinese studies by Dong and colleagues,30 comprising a total population of more than 76 000, suggested that the overall prevalence of dementia was 3·1%, indicating a significant rise from 1980 to 2004.

...In the Yoruba (Niger-Kordofanian people) of Nigeria, dementia prevalence was low (2·3%) compared with an African American population in Indiana, USA (8·2%). Among Arabs living in Wadi Ara, a community south of Haifa in Israel, the crude prevalence estimate for all dementias was 21% in those aged over 60 years. Consanguinity among families was suggested as a reason for this high prevalence.

...Prevalence of dementia according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th edition) varied widely, from less than 1% in the least developed countries, such as India and rural Peru, to 6·4% in Cuba. The 10/66 study also found that informants in the least developed countries were less likely to report cognitive decline and social impairment, suggesting possible underestimation of prevalence estimates in some locations.

...increasing age is the most consistent risk factor for dementia worldwide

AtomicHorror

406C wrote: »

Not wading in for homeopathy here nor its use for alzheimers but sorry Atomic but do you really believe this?

Yes. The rise of some cancers is real, no doubt. Some cancers are clearly the result of our modern life. Lung cancer is by and large caused by smoking and other inhaled carcinogens and that was well-established in the early days of the evidence-based revolution in medicine.

But that "simple cause-and-effect" story captured the imagination of the public (and the media) and led them to believe that all cancers, or indeed all of the modern "rising" illnesses/conditions such as heart disease and autism (not a disease), would have similar, simple, underlying causes. Your processed food, the water the government gives you, vaccines from the Evil Corporations, your artificial lighting, mobile phone masts... except that the evidence says that, well, that's all crap. It's not clear at all that many of these things actually are on the rise in any real sense. People are healthier than ever. They're living longer than ever. But something still has to kill them. And typically that something is cancer or vascular disease. They come hand in hand with the longer life.

406C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Yes. The rise of some cancers is real, no doubt. Some cancers are clearly the result of our modern life. Lung cancer is by and large caused by smoking and other inhaled carcinogens and that was well-established in the early days of the evidence-based revolution in medicine.

But that "simple cause-and-effect" story captured the imagination of the public (and the media) and led them to believe that all cancers, or indeed all of the modern "rising" illnesses/conditions such as heart disease and autism (not a disease), would have similar, simple, underlying causes. Your processed food, the water the government gives you, vaccines from the Evil Corporations, your artificial lighting, mobile phone masts... except that the evidence says that, well, that's all crap. It's not clear at all that many of these things actually are on the rise in any real sense. People are healthier than ever. They're living longer than ever. But something still has to kill them. And typically that something is cancer or vascular disease. They come hand in hand with the longer life.

I would agree with older age comes an increase in dementia statistics etc but people are not healthier than ever. We are seeing a rise in ill health never seen before; asthma, allergies, neurological disorders, and the incidence of cancer is now almost 1 in 2. We are even seeing heart disease in our children.

There are causes and yes some of the very things you mentioned are amongst them: Processed food is causative of obesity and malnutrition, fluoridated water has been linked to many problems including increased fractures in the elderly, mobile phone masts have been linked to leukaemia, alzheimer’s has being linked to tea drinking and even the flu vaccine.

To dismiss these as ‘crap’ and claim there is evidence to prove conclusively otherwise is disingenuous.

To try and play me off as paranoid or believing there is a conspiracy is insulting to say the least.

Would you consider a person knowingly eating only processed food, drinking Irish tap water, living in a house with a mobile phone mast next door, playing a playstation all day, smoking, drinking and using prescriptive and non prescriptive drugs to be leading a healthy lifestyle?

Of course not.

The rise in cancer and CV disease is real and is not the product of a greying population.

AtomicHorror

406C wrote: »

I would agree with older age comes an increase in dementia statistics etc but people are not healthier than ever. We are seeing a rise in ill health never seen before; asthma, allergies, neurological disorders, and the incidence of cancer is now almost 1 in 2. We are even seeing heart disease in our children.

I think it's pretty difficult to make that assertion. We didn't really know much about asthma, cancer and neurological disorders 100 years ago. These were things that would have been masked by general poor public health and shorter lifespans. We are unquestionably healthier than the days when TB was an actual death sentence.

406C wrote: »

There are causes and yes some of the very things you mentioned are amongst them: Processed food is causative of obesity and malnutrition, fluoridated water has been linked to many problems including increased fractures in the elderly, mobile phone masts have been linked to leukaemia, alzheimer’s has being linked to tea drinking and even the flu vaccine.

As far as I'm aware, none of these things have been be shown to have causality on the conditions you're talking about. Certainly some diets and lifestyles are contributing to ill-health, but I think this is not a general problem with "processed food". The data is not clear on the influence of any of these risk factors and for some reason, most of the data showing positive results seems to come from people also selling the cure. For example the mobile phone masts issue is one often touted in the papers as having support from "experts" who, when we look closely, are often non-qualified scientists who sell magnet healing kits that can protect you from mobile phone masts

406C wrote: »

To dismiss these as ‘crap’ and claim there is evidence to prove conclusively otherwise is disingenuous.

Well then where are the meta-analyses? I can't find them. I'm not being dishonest, I just can't find the evidence to back up what you're claiming here.

406C wrote: »

To try and play me off as paranoid or believing there is a conspiracy is insulting to say the least.

When did I do this? When I made reference to "your" in my previous statement that was not directed specifically at you.

406C wrote: »

Would you consider a person knowingly eating only processed food, drinking Irish tap water, living in a house with a mobile phone mast next door, playing a playstation all day, smoking, drinking and using prescriptive and non prescriptive drugs to be leading a healthy lifestyle?

Of course not.

That's a whole load of stuff in combination. Not a single risk factor with a single associated disease, the simple story that I was dismissing. Certainly some of the elements of that lifestyle are unhealthy alone or in combination. Take out the smoking, drinking and recreational drugs and add some daily exercise and you have a person no more likely to get cancer than anyone else.

406C wrote: »

The rise in cancer and CV disease is real and is not the product of a greying population.

Then by all means provide some evidence on that.

tallaght01

406C wrote: »

I would agree with older age comes an increase in dementia statistics etc but people are not healthier than ever. We are seeing a rise in ill health never seen before; asthma, allergies, neurological disorders, and the incidence of cancer is now almost 1 in 2. We are even seeing heart disease in our children.

There are causes and yes some of the very things you mentioned are amongst them: Processed food is causative of obesity and malnutrition, fluoridated water has been linked to many problems including increased fractures in the elderly, mobile phone masts have been linked to leukaemia, alzheimer’s has being linked to tea drinking and even the flu vaccine.

To dismiss these as ‘crap’ and claim there is evidence to prove conclusively otherwise is disingenuous.

To try and play me off as paranoid or believing there is a conspiracy is insulting to say the least.

Would you consider a person knowingly eating only processed food, drinking Irish tap water, living in a house with a mobile phone mast next door, playing a playstation all day, smoking, drinking and using prescriptive and non prescriptive drugs to be leading a healthy lifestyle?

Of course not.

The rise in cancer and CV disease is real and is not the product of a greying population.

As a public health trainee, I'm really interested in this kind of thing.

But I'd love to see evidence of above.

In particular with reagard to mobile phone masts and fluoridation of water.

If you could also link your alzheimers and tea drinking/flu vaccine paper, too, that would be magic.

It's also difficult to see how you wouldn't naturally expect to see a rise in CV dosease and cancer when:

A) our population is ageing
infectious diseases don't kill us so oung like they used to
C) our treatment of most childhood diseases and cancers of the young have progressed so much.

But I'll be interested to read the papers.

sam34

406C wrote: »

alzheimer’s has being linked to tea drinking and even the flu vaccine.QUOTE]


what??

there has never been reliable validated proof of any causal link between alzheimer's and tea drinking, or the flu vaccine.

there will, of course, be scare stories and sensational articles in the popular media every now and again, but the scientific evidence is lacking.

ZorbaTehZ

406C wrote: »

There are causes and yes some of the very things you mentioned are amongst them: Processed food is causative of obesity and malnutrition, fluoridated water has been linked to many problems including increased fractures in the elderly, mobile phone masts have been linked to leukaemia, alzheimer’s has being linked to tea drinking and even the flu vaccine.

/facepalm

I think everyone should just ignore this tbh.

Edit: wrong quote!

Wibbs

406C wrote: »

alzheimer’s has being linked to tea drinking

Then again and here's the problem I read another study that showed the complete opposite, that tea drinking seemed to reduce the risk, especially green tea(apparently black tea has the good stuff in it too, but most add milk which binds to most of the good stuff). Usually it's the fluride in tea that's blamed for the bad effect. Same with the fluoride in water. TBH I personally would be more concerned with chlorination as a problem. Interesting book I read a few years back where this heart specialist and surgeon experimented with chickens and different levels of chlorination, including human dosage equivalents and saw a strong link to CV disease. I have it around here somewhere I'll try to dig it out. AFAIR he was as surgeon in the Korean war and noted that the men who were naturally healthy young men, showed excessive plaque in the CV system and he suspected the use by the US military of chlorination to sterilse the local water. It was at much higher levels than in civilian water systems but he wondered if the lower levels may have an effect. It impressed me because of the experimentation involved.

To dismiss these as ‘crap’ and claim there is evidence to prove conclusively otherwise is disingenuous.

I agree it's more complex, but the jury is still out on many of these theories. Take anti oxidants. The big stick of many alternative types and life extension types. A diet high in these substances adds healthy years to peoples lives compared to a diet without. That said in pretty much every study that looked at supplementation found no protective effect and in the case of beta carotene supplementation increased the risk of death, specifically lung cancer rates in smokers in the study(AFAIR it was a long term Swedish study that was actually halted halfway through because of the serious increase of lung cancers). Some anti oxidants have a positive effect. One combination whose name escapes is a goodie. It's not one of the usual suspects though. Aspirin has an anti oxidant effect and is a blood thinner and reduces inflammation, all good stuff. I would reckon it's one of wonder drugs so far discovered, though again, it can cause serious side effects in anything but very small doses taken long term and under medical supervision.

To try and play me off as paranoid or believing there is a conspiracy is insulting to say the least.

Again it's more complex than that. Do I believe some of the drug companies don't research more in certain areas? Yes, for different reasons. Sometimes it's not profitable to do so, or the work involved wouldn't be worth the value at the end. Do I believe that drug companies operate in a commercial setting? Yes of course they do. This can cause issue, but even so the balance sheet is pretty good IMHO. The drugs and therapies we have today are in many cases downright amazing. I thank the researchers in the drug companies for that.

Do I believe some doctors(esp GPs) sometimes wrongly or over prescribe drugs(anti biotics are a good example)? Yes I do, sometimes because of a screwup(we all do that), or it's the accepted thing to do(medicine like anything else has some "fashions" too)sometimes because of such a high work load their info on treatments comes many times from drug reps. Sometimes they take a pateint on that maybe should go to a consultant. Maybe they have to do so as there are no consultants available and they're the first line or last line of defence.

I also blame the patients too. Nowadays too many want a quick fix. A pill for every ill("Hey doc gimme antibiotics I have a virus" merchants). Many of the chronic diseases the average GP sees are down to individual lifestyle choice and many of them if cuaght early can be changed be a change of lifestyle, but no, that's too hard for many, so the doctor and the medical profession get it in the necy too often, just because too many are lazy gits.

Do I think it's a conspiracy? Nope. For one good reason. A doctor is like every one else. They're not apart from everyone else. Every doctor out there has a loved one or loved ones suffering because of a medical condition. If they thought wheatgrass enemas would cure their loved one(or themselves) of those conditions they would be only too happy to break out the tubing. I've seen a distant relative of mine watch his wife die from cancer and he was an oncologist. He would have done anything to save her, or the patients he sees on a daily basis, if he thought there was a shred of hope.

Would you consider a person knowingly eating only processed food, drinking Irish tap water, living in a house with a mobile phone mast next door, playing a playstation all day, smoking, drinking and using prescriptive and non prescriptive drugs to be leading a healthy lifestyle?

OK, but that's being exceptionally extreme. Smoking bad. I would say bad diet bad. I would say lack of sunlight(vit D) and exercise bad. I would say drugs bad, but of course that depends on which drugs. I would say the social isolation suggested to be bad too. Unless they've got some genetic protection going on they will live a shorter less healthy life. No mistake.

The rise in cancer and CV disease is real and is not the product of a greying population.

I would agree at least partially. The rise in CV disease is simply down to a more sedentary lifestyle and bad diet and more of it. I would say the rise in cancers is mostly down to what others have said, an older population. Then again a shíte diet and a sedentary lifestyle has a huge part to play. I don't think anyone hereabouts would even begin to suggest otherwise. It's a given.

The one area I would disagree with some on is the rise of asthma and allergies. There are enough surveys that suggest this and suggest it strongly. Why? The usual suspects of an overly clean environment and environmental pollution has a large part to play. Yes there are genes that are involved(that originally protected against parasites I gather) but the rise has more to do with environmental pressures IMHO. You don't have to go that far back to observe a change. When I was a kid, I knew one kid with asthma in my entire year in school. He had an inhaler, but I didn't see another inhaler until I was around 18. Out of 100 kids now how many would have inhalers? I would think that yes there are people and always were people who had a genetic propensity to develop asthma. Except for those with a very strong propensity, the rest didn't to the same degree as today, because of different environmental pressures.

As for alternative treatments for asthma, I do know of someone who tried the Buteyko therapy. Someone with quite bad asthma(once twice a day inhaler use, hospitaised twice). They tried this, stuck with it and now only use the inhaler very rarely. usually after strong exposure to cat dander as a trigger. I must say I was very impressed with that and how really quickly it helped. We're talking a week before result was seen. Not easy though.

In the end I would say that yes the medical profession can get it wrong. Sometimes in a big way, but they do change over time and get it more and more right. Do I think there are mainstream therapies that are not effective now? Yep I would have to say I do. God knows which ones, that will become clear with time and the medical profession will change accordingly, of that I have no doubt. Do I think there are some alternative therapies that could be effective and are being ignored? Yep again, but sooner or later they will be brought into the mainstream too. Do I think homeopathy is one of them? I have to say no and it's not because it's sounds "wrong". Too many studies have shown time and time again it's lack of efficacy beyond placebo(which is a biggy anyway). Sometimes even scoring lower than placebo.

eth0_

406C wrote: »

the incidence of cancer is now almost 1 in 2. We are even seeing heart disease in our children.

Eh...WHAT? 1 in 2 have cancer? Where did you pull that statistic from?

And as for children with heart disease, you're contradicting your own argument there - of course many 'new' incidences of disease are a result of our environment, heart disease in kids is a case in point. Parents happily feed their kids utter crap, they get fat, they get heart disease in extreme cases. It's not rocket science.

AtomicHorror

Wibbs wrote: »

Then again and here's the problem I read another study that showed the complete opposite, that tea drinking seemed to reduce the risk, especially green tea(apparently black tea has the good stuff in it too, but most add milk which binds to most of the good stuff).

Which is why we have systematic reviews. Small studies are prone to variation by chance, so we combine like with like and see what's actually happening, if anything.

DrIndy

The problem with population based studies on diet and exercise as well as other reversible risk factors is maintaining the strict criteria to limit error.

Huge populations are needed to prove or disprove certain agents are causative of ill health. Does processed cheese cause cancer? How much cheese is needed? This hypothesis could of course be tested by finding out how much processed cheese someone eats and then compare that to morbidity and mortality statistics.

HOWEVER! How much alcohol do they drink, smoke? Drugs? Other foods? Genetic variables? Treatment for high cholesterol/blood pressure?

Factoring in all these thousands of variables into coming the conclusion that processed cheese causes cancer is next to impossible - especially when you need to find which brand is the culprit.

Hence every now and then a populations based study of risk factors is published - finding a causal link to a random condition. These are usually published in small journals because the bigger ones are much more rigorous. Someone subtly highlights them to the media and then low and behold - there is some high drama.

This then sticks in peoples minds - irregardless of a further 5 trials completely disproving the first one - because they are not discussed and the mass hysteria continues.

Look at the MMR and Autism. Need i say more?

Wibbs

It really is a researchers minefield isn't it? Unless it's something really obvious like asbestos it must be a nightmare to pin down with the amount of co factors. Like the whole anti oxidant debate. People who have diets high in those live longer, while the studies on supplementation show a neutral or even negative effect. Is it purely the diet? Are those groups on such a diet wealthier so have better access to healthcare and are more intellectually stimulated and that's what aids longevity as much as the diet?

Then doctors and dieticians have to sit through all of that often contradictory info and try to figure out what's good advice for the general population? I don't envy you with that one.

Of course then the weird beards can jump in and claim the newest snake oil works just as well.

AtomicHorror

Wibbs wrote: »

It really is a researchers minefield isn't it? Unless it's something really obvious like asbestos it must be a nightmare to pin down with the amount of co factors.

But asbestos and smoking captured the public imagination so much- just as vaccines and antibiotics once did. Now they expect it all to be just as simple. Or at least the papers want to feed them that. Let's face it, the incremental nature of science does not make for a good story every week. Constant new "breakthroughs", whether they contradict each other or not, fill print space and sell papers.

Wibbs wrote: »

Like the whole anti oxidant debate. People who have diets high in those live longer, while the studies on supplementation show a neutral or even negative effect. Is it purely the diet? Are those groups on such a diet wealthier so have better access to healthcare and are more intellectually stimulated and that's what aids longevity as much as the diet?

Yes, and as much as the "free radicals cause cancer" mechanism that justifies the antioxidant story makes for convincing reading in the Daily Mail, we could as easily argue that excessive antioxidant intake will inhibit the pathogen-killing function of our macrophages and the general functioning of our mitochondria.

"Antioxidants damage our immune systems". A credulous tabloid headline waiting for the day they get tired of the current pseudo-paradigm.

2Scoops

DrIndy wrote: »

Huge populations are needed to prove or disprove certain agents are causative of ill health. Does processed cheese cause cancer? How much cheese is needed? This hypothesis could of course be tested by finding out how much processed cheese someone eats and then compare that to morbidity and mortality statistics.

HOWEVER! How much alcohol do they drink, smoke? Drugs? Other foods? Genetic variables? Treatment for high cholesterol/blood pressure?

Factoring in all these thousands of variables into coming the conclusion that processed cheese causes cancer is next to impossible - especially when you need to find which brand is the culprit.

All that and, at the end of the day, even positive findings in a population study can't prove causation.

DrIndy

2Scoops wrote: »

All that and, at the end of the day, even positive findings in a population study can't prove causation.

Very true - however every now and then a strong trial does come out which is rigorous and subsequent trials mostly prove the conclusion - but they are the minority.

Folic acid and spina bifida for example.

Peanut

Alun wrote: »

...
For a start, all this stuff about water having a memory is patently nonsense .. I mean, even if it's true then you can easily show that all water, every single molecule of it in the world, has a memory of something, so it's impossible to create 'pure' water without a memory of anything to use to make these dilute solutions.

Not necessarily true - it depends on the process that may create and maintain a 'memory' in any given case.

For highly dilute Homeopathic solutions to retain selective "memory" of a substance over another one, something unusual must happen in the sucussion or agitation stage of preparation which creates a new state in the solution which is dependent on substance dilution information from the previous stage.

AtomicHorror

Peanut wrote: »

Not necessarily true - it depends on the process that may create and maintain a 'memory' in any given case.

For highly dilute Homeopathic solutions to retain selective "memory" of a substance over another one, something unusual must happen in the sucussion or agitation stage of preparation which creates a new state in the solution which is dependent on substance dilution information from the previous stage.

Which be be all well and good if any of it could be demonstrated. How do you know that any of what you're describing actually happens? What is the evidence that supports this? How do you know that this translates to an effective treatment? What evidence supports that?

eth0_

Peanut wrote: »

Not necessarily true - it depends on the process that may create and maintain a 'memory' in any given case.

For highly dilute Homeopathic solutions to retain selective "memory" of a substance over another one, something unusual must happen in the sucussion or agitation stage of preparation which creates a new state in the solution which is dependent on substance dilution information from the previous stage.

What homeopathic treatment works for delusions? Because I suggest you should take some yourself

Homeopathy is nothing but a scam that exploits vulnerable people. There is NO evidence whatsoever to prove that it works.

ZorbaTehZ

Peanut wrote: »

For highly dilute Homeopathic solutions to retain selective "memory" of a substance over another one, something unusual must happen

This comment made me lol.
Any chance you might enlighten us as to what this "unusual" thing is?

DrIndy

eth0_ wrote: »

What homeopathic treatment works for delusions? Because I suggest you should take some yourself

Homeopathy is nothing but a scam that exploits vulnerable people. There is NO evidence whatsoever to prove that it works.

Quantum mechanics might explain this - however the heisenberg principle means as soon as you examine the homeopathic solution, the active compound disappears.

Peanut

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Which be be all well and good if any of it could be demonstrated. How do you know that any of what you're describing actually happens? What is the evidence that supports this? How do you know that this translates to an effective treatment? What evidence supports that?

I'm not claiming it happens - read my post - I'm saying this is what is needed to avoid the situation Alun describes.

ZorbaTehZ wrote:

This comment made me lol.
Any chance you might enlighten us as to what this "unusual" thing is?

etc.

I think you understand that we are talking in abstractions here.

I don't for a minute claim that this is what is indeed happening - merely that in order to answer the valid question that Alun poses, any theory of how Homeopathic dilutions may operate must involve -

a) Dilution information being present in the solution, and,
b) This information being used during the agitation phase in order to selectively distinguish between the original, intended substance, and other dissolved substances present.

The point is that Alun's original argument ~ why is it that every drop of water doesn't also have "homeopathic" qualities ~ ..would be valid as long as there is no additional action taking place which allows us to differentiate between dissolved substances.

The primary difference between Alun's scenario and that of homeopathic preparation is the step by step dilution process.

Since a step-wise process without doing anything "between the steps" is analogous to simple dilution, this suggests that the agitation phase at each step must be an essential requirement where some sort of differentiating process takes place.


Is it reasonable to be skeptical given that there has been no suggestion of what this action might be? Of course it is.

Does it mean that we can't speculate about it? I would hope not.

ZorbaTehZ

Peanut wrote: »

I don't for a minute claim that this is what is indeed happening - merely that in order to answer the valid question that Alun poses, any theory of how Homeopathic dilutions may operate must involve -

a) Dilution information being present in the solution, and,
b) This information being used during the agitation phase in order to selectively distinguish between the original, intended substance, and other dissolved substances present.

And why is it that it "must involve" these two ideas? Or is this just more "speculation"?

AtomicHorror

Peanut wrote: »

I'm not claiming it happens - read my post - I'm saying this is what is needed to avoid the situation Alun describes.

Then the question is whether any such process is commonly claimed to be carried out during the preparation of homeopathic remedies. Is it? Otherwise we're speculating needlessly.

Peanut

ZorbaTehZ wrote:

And why is it that it "must involve" these two ideas? Or is this just more "speculation"?

Good question. Both of these would appear to be necessary in order to selectively differentiate between dissolved substances. (Will follow up later)

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Then the question is whether any such process is commonly claimed to be carried out during the preparation of homeopathic remedies. Is it? Otherwise we're speculating needlessly.

Yes, I think that that claim is there. Contrary to what many skeptics believe, very few Homeopaths would suggest that the purported medicinal action is due to the presence of the original substance in the highly diluted solutions.

The implication from this is that any effect must be due to novel changes in the solution, as the remedy is prepared. Since a simple dilution process would be no different to existing dilution processes in the environment, the only remaining place for such a process to occur is during the agitation phase between dilutions.


Why bother speculating about this anyway?
It has implications on how trials are evaluated, and whether we can label a trial as actually testing "Homeopathy", when it may be testing nothing of the sort.

AtomicHorror

Peanut wrote: »

Good question. Both of these would appear to be necessary in order to selectively differentiate between dissolved substances. (Will follow up later)



Yes, I think that that claim is there. Contrary to what many skeptics believe, very few Homeopaths would suggest that the purported medicinal action is due to the presence of the original substance in the highly diluted solutions.

The implication from this is that any effect must be due to novel changes in the solution, as the remedy is prepared. Since a simple dilution process would be no different to existing dilution processes in the environment, the only remaining place for such a process to occur is during the agitation phase between dilutions.


Why bother speculating about this anyway?
It has implications on how trials are evaluated, and whether we can label a trial as actually testing "Homeopathy", when it may be testing nothing of the sort.

Such trials have been done. With the cooperation of homeopaths. Put the numbers together and you get exactly nothing. It doesn't work.