Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
"Beware of Amateur Scientists"
Comments
-
The EU aren't banning vitamins or herbs, they just want proof of clinical benefits and safety before they go on sale.
Sorry jh79 need to get my oar in here again;)
IMO it's effectively a ban, because the cost of trials will be beyond small outlets. The fact these new laws demand clinical benefits is a ploy to me. With some of that toxic rubbish they're free to peddle? Feeding chemical rubbish to kids even (Ritalin etc). It's a ****ing disgrace.
Big Pharma is behind this 100% without a shadow of a doubt. They aim to eliminate competition pure and simple. The Eurocrats have fallen for it and/or been bought. Big Pharma CANNOT make money from herbs.
Herbal remedies have been around for millenia as am sure you know and this is condemning many to being criminals in the eyes of the law just because they choose herbs to ingest instead of paying the man for what they rightly or wrongly don't trust or want. Many of them locally grown.
The big 10 or so companies want all us sick folk to themselves. The more sickies the better for them. Typical corporate greed that's evident in the fact that they spend about twice as much on marketing and advertising than on research and development.
People should be free to choose how to medicate themselves should they not?Have to be careful with alternative medicines, anything could be present.
True, but it doesn't mean they should be effectively banned wholesale. Again, it's a persons right to choose.0 -
Sorry jh79 need to get my oar in here again;)
IMO it's effectively a ban, because the cost of trials will be beyond small outlets. The fact these new laws demand clinical benefits is a ploy to me. With some of that toxic rubbish they're free to peddle? Feeding chemical rubbish to kids even (Ritalin etc). It's a ****ing disgrace.
Big Pharma is behind this 100% without a shadow of a doubt. They aim to eliminate competition pure and simple. The Eurocrats have fallen for it and/or been bought. Big Pharma CANNOT make money from herbs.
Herbal remedies have been around for millenia as am sure you know and this is condemning many to being criminals in the eyes of the law just because they choose herbs to ingest instead of paying the man for what they rightly or wrongly don't trust or want. Many of them locally grown.
The big 10 or so companies want all us sick folk to themselves. The more sickies the better for them. Typical corporate greed that's evident in the fact that they spend about twice as much on marketing and advertising than on research and development.
People should be free to choose how to medicate themselves should they not?
True, but it doesn't mean they should be effectively banned wholesale. Again, it's a persons right to choose.
So can we take it that you similarly oppose restrictions placed on mainstream medicine, as people should be able to choose how to medicate themselves, regardless of safety or effectiveness?
If not, what distinguishes mainstream medicine from the good kind of medicine?0 -
So can we take it that you similarly oppose restrictions placed on mainstream medicine, as people should be able to choose how to medicate themselves, regardless of safety...
No you can not take it that i similarly oppose restrictions placed on mainstream medicine. Trials and tests should for me be even more stringent than they are currently due to the many known side effects that the vast majority of manufactured drugs have. I am of course not maintaining that all pharmaceuticals are "evil" as you like to phrase it sometimes.If not, what distinguishes mainstream medicine from the good kind of medicine?
What distinguishes mainstream medicine and herbal/alternative is not the crux of the matter. It's about personal choice. If something is proven to be harmful, then of course it should be banned. Again, may i remind you that i don't consider either good or bad as such in the context of the move towards limiting natural remedies and submitting them to trials for clinical benefits.0 -
So then what exactly is the issue with holding herbal medicine to the same standards as mainstream medicine?No you can not take it that i similarly oppose restrictions placed on mainstream medicine. Trials and tests should for me be even more stringent than they are currently due to the many known side effects that the vast majority of manufactured drugs have. I am of course not maintaining that all pharmaceuticals are "evil" as you like to phrase it sometimes.
What distinguishes mainstream medicine and herbal/alternative is not the crux of the matter. It's about personal choice. If something is proven to be harmful, then of course it should be banned. Again, may i remind you that i don't consider either good or bad as such in the context of the move towards limiting natural remedies and submitting them to trials for clinical benefits.
Should "not being able to afford it" be a valid excuse to bypass these standards?0 -
So then what exactly is the issue with holding herbal medicine to the same standards as mainstream medicine?
The issue for me would be that mainstream medicines manufactured chemical compositions are so complex that the standards and testing should be extremely high, higher than at present.
I take the point certainly that there should be some policing of the alternative sector. The thing that stands in it's favour is that these for the most part have been used relatively safely and for some sucessfuly for a far far longer time.
Now of course some herbs do have side-effects too and have been banned, but Chinese medicine for instance has been used by many millions. There are apparently masses of legitimate research and safety studies done already in Asian countries. For the most part, many would consider them far safer than convential medicines.Should "not being able to afford it" be a valid excuse to bypass these standards?
It all depends on the standards that will eventually come into force and how they'll be policed. If it's trials to ascertain clinical benefits as jh79 thinks will happen, then that for me is not right. The cost will be prohibitive for many smaller commodity herbs and choice will be denied.
If after an outcry, that just a more thorough approach is encouraged for the industry through as regards laballing, manufacturing, dosage etc, then would have no problem with that. They'll get it on the black market in the meantime. The alternative medicine industry is huge worldwide and will not be destroyed by this attempted corporate takeover i'd imagine.
So can you tell us do you approve of this yourself; the use of these clinical trials to test benefits before sale?
If so, why so?
Do you not approve of a persons right to choose a natural way to heal themselves with a herb that has been taken for thousands of years?0 -
So since you agree that safety testing in required and at the very very least should be as good as what you think conventional medicine undergoes, why do you oppose effectiveness testing?
Do you think that conventional medicine should similarly be excused from such testing, because of people's subjective opinions of safety and effectiveness and "the right to choose"?
Yes, because telling (or subtly imply to, but cleverly not saying) someone that something works when you can't actually show that it works is immoral.So can you tell us do you approve of this yourself; the use of these clinical trials to test benefits before sale?
If so, why so?
And you can't possibly be selling a medicine without claiming that on some level.
If you know another way for people and regulators to know whether something is effective or not, besides clinical trials, I'd love to hear it.
Well this small statement is choco-bloc of fallacies and newspeak.Do you not approve of a persons right to choose a natural way to heal themselves with a herb that has been taken for thousands of years?
First, if you're trying to frame this as a silly "right to choose" thing, then you have to apply the same arguments to conventional medicine. That is if you're being unbiased that is.
Second you're making the naturalistic fallacy. By pretending that herbs are somehow "more natural" and conventional medicine is "unnatural" is a non-argument.
By your own flawed logic, herbal medicine (i.e. preparing the herbs for consumption) itself must be "unnatural" because it's not seen in natural.
Third you're making the fallacy of tradition. Just because someone claims it's been around for thousands of years does not mean it actually works or has any merit.
Leeching for example.
It's both "natural" and had been used for thousands of years and it's even quite safe in most circumstances, but it clearly doesn't work for anything it was (and is still) claimed to.
Besides for bloodletting being used in a few very rare and specific diseases which the people who used leeching couldn't have known about, there's nothing value to leeching.
But by your argument people should be allowed to go get leeched, and for leechers to claim that leeching is effective because it's someone's personal choice.0 -
So since you agree that safety testing in required and at the very very least should be as good as what you think conventional medicine undergoes, why do you oppose effectiveness testing?
No i didn't agree that at all. Said nothing of the sort.Do you think that conventional medicine should similarly be excused from such testing, because of people's subjective opinions of safety and effectiveness and "the right to choose"?
I've already answered that above and stated a reason. No point in answering it twice.Well this small statement is choco-bloc of fallacies and newspeak.
First, if you're trying to frame this as a silly "right to choose" thing, then you have to apply the same arguments to conventional medicine. That is if you're being unbiased that is.
Of course apply it. People should have a right to choose either way. The right to choose is not silly. A herbal remedy should be available if it's safe, which the vast majority are known to be.Second you're making the naturalistic fallacy. By pretending that herbs are somehow "more natural" and conventional medicine is "unnatural" is a non-argument.
By your own flawed logic, herbal medicine (i.e. preparing the herbs for consumption) itself must be "unnatural" because it's not seen in natural.
Somehow more natural? Herbs ARE more natural and safer by-and-large than modern drugs so it's not a fallacy. It's a fact. Your logic is flawed not mine.Third you're making the fallacy of tradition. Just because someone claims it's been around for thousands of years does not mean it actually works or has any merit.
Leeching for example.
It's both "natural" and had been used for thousands of years and it's even quite safe in most circumstances, but it clearly doesn't work for anything it was (and is still) claimed to.
Besides for bloodletting being used in a few very rare and specific diseases which the people who used leeching couldn't have known about, there's nothing value to leeching.
But by your argument people should be allowed to go get leeched, and for leechers to claim that leeching is effective because it's someone's personal choice.
The fallacy of tradition or newspeak or whatever you call it was my remark that herbs have been used for thousands of years. In your rush observe all these fallacies and newspeak, you haven't answered the question, so do i take it you don't approve of a persons right to choose a natural way to heal themselves with a herb that has been taken for thousands of years unless they're clinically passed for benefits.0 -
So what you don't think that herbal medicine require testing to determine their effectiveness or safety?No i didn't agree that at all. Said nothing of the sort.
You really didn't.I've already answered that above and stated a reason. No point in answering it twice.
You explained a very very unreliable reason why they are excused from safety testing, but refused to explain why they should be excused from effectiveness testing, beyond of course the equally silly "it's too expensive" non-sense.
So as long as it's safe you can claim that the herb or drug can cure whatever you'd regardless of the evidence?Of course apply it. People should have a right to choose either way. The right to choose is not silly. A herbal remedy should be available if it's safe, which the vast majority are known to be.
When people are determining which to choose how are they to determine which stuff actually works without clinical trials?
It's a fallacy because the concept of "natural" is a nonsense buzz-word.Somehow more natural? Herbs ARE more natural and safer by-and-large than modern drugs so it's not a fallacy. It's a fact. Your logic is flawed not mine.
The herbs that do have an effect do so because of chemical and biological reactions, clinical drugs work in this exact same manor. They are simply more refined and controlled than the active substances in the herbs.
Natural doesn't mean something is better or safer. "Natural" childbirth (i.e. on the savanna where humans evolved) is a risky business. "Natural" water (i.e.un-purified) is full of filth and disease. Leeching is "natural".
In fact unless you're growing the herbs yourself in the manner in which they evolved, therefore not farmed or taken care of by fertilizers etc, then you eat the herb whole, it's not "natural".
it's a very well known fallacy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy#Appeal_to_nature
And again, there's a ton of clearly nonsense treatments that have been claimed to be used for thousands of years, this has no impact on whether they are safe or effective.The fallacy of tradition or newspeak or whatever you call it was my remark that herbs have been used for thousands of years.
Hell trepanning is the oldest know medical procedure, therefore it must be a safe and effective treatment.... right?
I didn't answer the question because is was dishonestly phrased and contained fallacies which made the question irrelevant.In your rush observe all these fallacies and newspeak, you haven't answered the question, so do i take it you don't approve of a persons right to choose a natural way to heal themselves with a herb that has been taken for thousands of years unless they're clinically passed for benefits.
However, if the medicine has been tested to determine it was safe and the seller only made claims that were backed up by well controlled clinical trials, then there'd be no issue with anyone. Even if the medicine has been shown to not work and the seller is forthright about this, then there is no problem.
I do support the "right to choose" as long as there's adequate information to make an informed choice.
Relying on appeals to nature and tradition does not equate to informed.0 -
Sorry jh79 need to get my oar in here again;)
IMO it's effectively a ban, because the cost of trials will be beyond small outlets. The fact these new laws demand clinical benefits is a ploy to me. With some of that toxic rubbish they're free to peddle? Feeding chemical rubbish to kids even (Ritalin etc). It's a ****ing disgrace.
Big Pharma is behind this 100% without a shadow of a doubt. They aim to eliminate competition pure and simple. The Eurocrats have fallen for it and/or been bought. Big Pharma CANNOT make money from herbs.
Herbal remedies have been around for millenia as am sure you know and this is condemning many to being criminals in the eyes of the law just because they choose herbs to ingest instead of paying the man for what they rightly or wrongly don't trust or want. Many of them locally grown.
The big 10 or so companies want all us sick folk to themselves. The more sickies the better for them. Typical corporate greed that's evident in the fact that they spend about twice as much on marketing and advertising than on research and development.
People should be free to choose how to medicate themselves should they not?
True, but it doesn't mean they should be effectively banned wholesale. Again, it's a persons right to choose.
So you question everything that is part of mainstream medicine, but want the alternative companies to regulate themselves? I thought CT'er question everything? Ever cross your mind that they don't want this testing because they know their products will be shown to be useless in terms of acute illness and really are just something to be taken as part of a general healthy diet?
Is not just as bad for an alternative health practitioner to take money off a sick person when they have no evidence it will work as to give Ritalin to kids. How do you know Ritalin is toxic and at least its been tested for safety? Becasue its synthetic? Everything on this planet comes from the same elements so whether its natural or synthetic isn't important, you judge everything on its own merits. There are naturally occuring poisons too. Vitamin C is carcinogenic at high doses and its natural thats why we need regualtions. Herbs and the like are a big business and could absorb the cost pretty easily its the results of the trials they are worried about.
Chemistry of natural products is a big part of univeristy research in ireland and the rest of the world , france does alot on tropical diseases/plants as a by-prodcut of their colonial past. This is bad for the alt crowd because more and more of their old wives tale are proved to be false and that is why they don't want the regulations. Very hard to sell something when its been proved to have no clinical benefit.
As a CT'er do you not think that the people who benefit from the vitamin and herb industry might lobby agaisnt these trials for all the wrong reasons ie to protect their investment, why not put them under hte same scrutiny you do with big pharma? Boots admitted selling homeopathic remedies even though they knew they didn't work saying it was up to the consumer? But if something is in a chemist you naturally assume a level of quality / effectiveness?0 -
Advertisement
-
So you question everything that is part of mainstream medicine, but want the alternative companies to regulate themselves? I thought CT'er question everything? Ever cross your mind that they don't want this testing because they know their products will be shown to be useless in terms of acute illness and really are just something to be taken as part of a general healthy diet?
Is not just as bad for an alternative health practitioner to take money off a sick person when they have no evidence it will work as to give Ritalin to kids. How do you know Ritalin is toxic and at least its been tested for safety? Becasue its synthetic? Everything on this planet comes from the same elements so whether its natural or synthetic isn't important, you judge everything on its own merits. There are naturally occuring poisons too. Vitamin C is carcinogenic at high doses and its natural thats why we need regualtions. Herbs and the like are a big business and could absorb the cost pretty easily its the results of the trials they are worried about.
Chemistry of natural products is a big part of univeristy research in ireland and the rest of the world , france does alot on tropical diseases/plants as a by-prodcut of their colonial past. This is bad for the alt crowd because more and more of their old wives tale are proved to be false and that is why they don't want the regulations. Very hard to sell something when its been proved to have no clinical benefit.
As a CT'er do you not think that the people who benefit from the vitamin and herb industry might lobby agaisnt these trials for all the wrong reasons ie to protect their investment, why not put them under hte same scrutiny you do with big pharma? Boots admitted selling homeopathic remedies even though they knew they didn't work saying it was up to the consumer? But if something is in a chemist you naturally assume a level of quality / effectiveness?
I got to the second line of your post here and read "CTer". I won't be reading any more.0 -
So what you don't think that herbal medicine require testing to determine their effectiveness or safety?
Please refer to what i said about safety or policing. No i don't think they should be banned for not passing clinical trials on effectiveness. That clear enough for you? I doubt it somehow, but won't be getting into a debate why i think their effectiveness shouldn't be rigosously tested beyond my original point that it's a persons right to choose if they want to take these remedies.You really didn't.
You explained a very very unreliable reason why they are excused from safety testing, but refused to explain why they should be excused from effectiveness testing, beyond of course the equally silly "it's too expensive" non-sense.
So i really did then by giving you one of the reasons.
Refusing to explain things is rich coming from you, considering especially when you don't bother to answer my questions on grounds of "dishonest" phrasing and instead decide to prattle on about leeches and trepanning. So by the same standards you are both dishonest AND pedantic by referring to fallacies and newspeak and the like and not taking question as put (ie the naturality of herbs in their proper context) and explaining like i asked you why you didn't approve of people's rights to choose a natural way to heal themselves.So as long as it's safe you can claim that the herb or drug can cure whatever you'd regardless of the evidence?
How it's sold or what claims are made regarding it's effectiveness by vendors are a separate issue and is not what i'm making the point about is it?
It's about peoples right to choose. You can tell us all about how you feel about this by all means but i won't be dragged into an interrogation by you on this. The fact is i couldn't be bothered.:)
If people want to come on here and give their opinions, thats their right. Just because i sometimes don't answer your barrage of questions doesn't sit well with you i know as you'd rather debate things as you put it. Any refusal to engage in debate is followed by insinuated insults it seems.When people are determining which to choose how are they to determine which stuff actually works without clinical trials?
I take it thats a rhetorical question.It's a fallacy because the concept of "natural" is a nonsense buzz-word.
The herbs that do have an effect do so because of chemical and biological reactions, clinical drugs work in this exact same manor. They are simply more refined and controlled than the active substances in the herbs.
Natural doesn't mean something is better or safer. "Natural" childbirth (i.e. on the savanna where humans evolved) is a risky business. "Natural" water (i.e.un-purified) is full of filth and disease. Leeching is "natural".
In fact unless you're growing the herbs yourself in the manner in which they evolved, therefore not farmed or taken care of by fertilizers etc, then you eat the herb whole, it's not "natural".
it's a very well known fallacy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural...peal_to_nature
Still prattling on i see and ignoring the context of natural in our discussion of herbs. Herbs are more natural than clinical drugs. That was and is my point. You can argue till the cows come home but it doesn't make it any less true. Exactly the same as when you stated GM tech is exactly the same as selective breeding.I didn't answer the question because is was dishonestly phrased and contained fallacies which made the question irrelevant.
However, if the medicine has been tested to determine it was safe and the seller only made claims that were backed up by well controlled clinical trials, then there'd be no issue with anyone. Even if the medicine has been shown to not work and the seller is forthright about this, then there is no problem.
I do support the "right to choose" as long as there's adequate information to make an informed choice.
Relying on appeals to nature and tradition does not equate to informed.
And finally after all that i get treated to your actual views on the issue. I much prefer reading those than being subjected to the courtroom antics of "show us this" and show us that", intricate explainations of fallacies, claims of dishonesty and the like. It's just a bit naff isn't it? Tis for me anyway. Do you understand why many people would get annoyed by these droning questions and observations on phrasing and technicalities without any sort of friendliness attached?0 -
I got to the second line of your post here and read "CTer". I won't be reading any more.
IMO one of the best ways to gain knowlwdge is to read what challanges you and what you might disagree with - you never know when you will learn something new.
The fact that you stop reading after seeing one word you do not like makes me think that any "research" you have done would be horribly biased - how many times have you stopped reading when encountering a word you did not like?
Ignoring is the fastest route to ignorance.0 -
Still not really an answer to the question.Please refer to what i said about safety or policing. No i don't think they should be banned for not passing clinical trials on effectiveness. That clear enough for you? I doubt it somehow, but won't be getting into a debate why i think their effectiveness shouldn't be rigosously tested beyond my original point that it's a persons right to choose if they want to take these remedies.
If you test for effectiveness and the drug or herb fails, what should happen to it?
Should people be allowed to choose a drug that doesn't work?
And what if there is no effectiveness testing, how would we know what stuff works and what doesn't?
Should conventional medicine be likewise excused from such testing?
I was hoping you'd have less silly ones.So i really did then by giving you one of the reasons.
Unfortunately relying on "conventional wisdom" to determine the safety of something is inadequate. You can claim all you like that "people use herbs safely all the time" is not conclusive enough to render every single herb safe or every single combination and preparation safe.
The is no reason at all as to why herbal medicine shouldn't be held to at least the current standards to which mainstream medicine is held.
The only reasons given are frankly excuses for people to get away with selling crap that probably doesn't actually work.
And I explained why the question didn't require an answer: it was one of those "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" questions, I did the equivalent of explaining "I've never beaten my wife or any woman, the question is a trick."Refusing to explain things is rich coming from you, considering especially when you don't bother to answer my questions on grounds of "dishonest" phrasing and instead decide to prattle on about leeches and trepanning. So by the same standards you are both dishonest AND pedantic by referring to fallacies and newspeak and the like and not taking question as put (ie the naturality of herbs in their proper context) and explaining like i asked you why you didn't approve of people's rights to choose a natural way to heal themselves.
Leeching and trepanning are examples of "natural" ways to heal yourself that have been around for thousands of years.
So if we are to rely on the same criteria that you asked in your question, you're denying peoples rights to choose these treatments.
It's very relevant and is a very simple question.How it's sold or what claims are made regarding it's effectiveness by vendors are a separate issue and is not what i'm making the point about is it?
Do you think that people should be allowed to sell a treatment as if it works if there is nothing to show that it actually does?
How about if it's been shown not to work?
If people want to write their opinions without anyone to question them and trying to get them to examine what they say, I would suggest a blog.It's about peoples right to choose. You can tell us all about how you feel about this by all means but i won't be dragged into an interrogation by you on this. The fact is i couldn't be bothered.:)
If people want to come on here and give their opinions, thats their right. Just because i sometimes don't answer your barrage of questions doesn't sit well with you i know as you'd rather debate things as you put it. Any refusal to engage in debate is followed by insinuated insults it seems.
This is a discussion board.
If people don't like questions being asked about what they write, not really my problem.
It's not.I take it thats a rhetorical question.
How do you determine what medicine works and what doesn't since you don't rely on clinical trials?
And that prattling was explaining that the notion of "natural" is a buzzword to sell stuff and has no bearing on a things safety, effectiveness or otherwise.Still prattling on i see and ignoring the context of natural in our discussion of herbs. Herbs are more natural than clinical drugs. That was and is my point. You can argue till the cows come home but it doesn't make it any less true. Exactly the same as when you stated GM tech is exactly the same as selective breeding.
But as you've stated you're too closed minded on that subject so there's no point in explaining it any further.
And any comment on my actual point or would you just prefer to analyse my debate style?And finally after all that i get treated to your actual views on the issue. I much prefer reading those than being subjected to the courtroom antics of "show us this" and show us that", intricate explainations of fallacies, claims of dishonesty and the like. It's just a bit naff isn't it? Tis for me anyway. Do you understand why many people would get annoyed by these droning questions and observations on phrasing and technicalities without any sort of friendliness attached?
Do you understand how people get annoyed when you avoid points?0 -
clever_name wrote: »IMO one of the best ways to gain knowlwdge is to read what challanges you and what you might disagree with - you never know when you will learn something new.
Couldn't agree more.clever_name wrote: »The fact that you stop reading after seeing one word you do not like makes me think that any "research" you have done would be horribly biased - how many times have you stopped reading when encountering a word you did not like?
Ignoring is the fastest route to ignorance.
You can think whatever you like, and you can draw whatever conclusions of how i research things based on my decision not to read that post. I saw the word "CTer" and made the decision that the rest of it was probably ****e. I don't need lectures on how to spend my time thanks. If i think it's worth my while to read it then i will.0 -
Still not really an answer to the question.
That your opinion.If you test for effectiveness and the drug or herb fails, what should happen to it?
Too vague. You're lumping herbs and drugs in together. Refer to my previous posts to infer my opinions on this.Should people be allowed to choose a drug that doesn't work?
Couldn't be bothered getting into that. Just to say drug companies shouldn't be allowed to peddle some of their expensive chemical soup to the public. Answer it yourself for a change instead of posing these examinations.Should conventional medicine be likewise excused from such testing?
Am beginning to think you don't even take in my replies to your questions. Have gone over this already. This is all very tedious.And I explained why the question didn't require an answer: it was one of those "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" questions, I did the equivalent of explaining "I've never beaten my wife or any woman, the question is a trick."
No it wasn't a trick. It was just a question like one of yours. When someone asks you something though, it seems you don't like to answer them either sometimes.It's very relevant and is a very simple question.
Do you think that people should be allowed to sell a treatment as if it works if there is nothing to show that it actually does?
How about if it's been shown not to work?
Refer to what i said earlier.If people want to write their opinions without anyone to question them and trying to get them to examine what they say, I would suggest a blog.
This is a discussion board.
If people don't like questions being asked about what they write, not really my problem.
Yea it's a discussion board, not a court room or tribunal. If people get the hump because they don't get answers to numerous craftily carved loaded questions suffused with weasely innuendo and lacking in charisma, then it's not my problem either.And that prattling was explaining that the notion of "natural" is a buzzword to sell stuff and has no bearing on a things safety, effectiveness or otherwise.
But as you've stated you're too closed minded on that subject so there's no point in explaining it any further.
That prattling is prattling i've heard before and it is in my view evading the context of this very discussion to make your then opaque views on it even more covered up in generalisations.And any comment on my actual point or would you just prefer to analyse my debate style?
Yet another question. It's like being in school. Ridiculous.Do you understand how people get annoyed when you avoid points?
Call it avoiding points if you like. Sometimes just couldn't be arsed or don't have time or that the questions are rhetorical bullcrap or just think the person asking them is only asking them to seem clever. I don't deliberately set out to annoy people.0 -
Advertisement
-
Ed, it's clear you're not actually interested in any sort of discussion that requires you to examine what you believe.
You're using any sort of perceived slight to avoid points and questions you can't honestly answer, and in one place just flat out avoid a question because you know your answer will show you to be biased to those people who are pretending to be "alternative".
The facts of the matter are that herbal and other alternative medicines should be held to the same standards as actual medicine.
If someone is selling treatments and making claims to their effectiveness when there is no evidence to support this (or if there is evidence against it) then they are being dishonest and immoral.
People in the herbal medicine industry are doing this and this is why they are resistant to being held to a standard.
Hence why they and their supporters imagine a global conspiracy.
You know that there's no evidence that supports the effectiveness of most herbal medicine, that's why you're refusing to answer this question:Do you think that people should be allowed to sell a treatment as if it works if there is nothing to show that it actually does?
How about if it's been shown not to work?
And seemingly you've no method of determining what works and what doesn't beyond what you've been told by the people who sell this stuff.
But I'm sure you'll find an excuse to ignore these points as well because you are far to closed minded to actually accept you might be wrong.0 -
Ed, it's clear you're not actually interested in any sort of discussion that requires you to examine what you believe.
You're using any sort of perceived slight to avoid points and questions you can't honestly answer, and in one place just flat out avoid a question because you know your answer will show you to be biased to those people who are pretending to be "alternative".
The facts of the matter are that herbal and other alternative medicines should be held to the same standards as actual medicine.
If someone is selling treatments and making claims to their effectiveness when there is no evidence to support this (or if there is evidence against it) then they are being dishonest and immoral.
People in the herbal medicine industry are doing this and this is why they are resistant to being held to a standard.
Hence why they and their supporters imagine a global conspiracy.
You know that there's no evidence that supports the effectiveness of most herbal medicine, that's why you're refusing to answer this question:
And seemingly you've no method of determining what works and what doesn't beyond what you've been told by the people who sell this stuff.
But I'm sure you'll find an excuse to ignore these points as well because you are far to closed minded to actually accept you might be wrong.
I'm not hiding my bias King Mob haha. This post by the way is a breath of fresh air compared to some of your methods and i do of courserespect your opinions if not agreeing with some of them. You do very well to hide them behind those questions though.
There are unscrupulous people in every industry, but that's not IMO to say a virtual blanket ban barring strict and expensive clinical trials on effigacy are the way forward. If that were the case then they should go around banning all sorts of things. Why not ban incence sure?:) Not much use is it? It's supposed to relax you but sure maybe it doesn't. Anyway that's being flippant.
For me it's another example of corporate greed having it's influence over common sense. Evidence aside, if people want to ingest herbs, let them do it. Thats a huge generalisation, but it's the basic right i subscribe to. Now of course we've gone over it in our usual way the pair of us. You firing smartarse questions and me be being a smartarse back at you.:pac:
It's not for me to say whether there's evidence for the effects of all herbal medicines so am refusing to get into it. It's away from my original point.
If you think i'm closed-minded thats no problem. I can take that on the chin.
I don't mind accepting when i'm wrong when i'm proven to be so.0 -
Couldn't agree more.
You can think whatever you like, and you can draw whatever conclusions of how i research things based on my decision not to read that post. I saw the word "CTer" and made the decision that the rest of it was probably ****e. I don't need lectures on how to spend my time thanks. If i think it's worth my while to read it then i will.
You agree that " one of the best ways to gain knowlwdge is to read what challanges you and what you might disagree with" and then post the above statement.
One word made you stop reading, if I did that I think it would be like living life with blinders on, but thats just me.0 -
clever_name wrote: »You agree that " one of the best ways to gain knowlwdge is to read what challanges you and what you might disagree with" and then post the above statement.
One word made you stop reading, if I did that I think it would be like living life with blinders on, but thats just me.
Yeah thats just you.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Here's one of your herbal "remedies"
http://www.troneton.com/ingredients.html It's a herbal treatment ("fully research based" for motor neuron disease.Based on their efficacy extracts from the followings herbs are combined together in specific quantities in the formula:
Rheum Rhabarbarum 41.8 mg
Indian Olibanum Tree 16.3 mg
Torchwood Tree 12.3 mg
Ginger 16.3 mg
Operculina turpelthum 142.5 mg
Scammony 38 mg
Here's another :http://www.flameton.com/ingredients.html
It's a cure for flatulence...Based on their efficacy extracts from the followings herbs are combined together in specific quantities in the formula:
Rheum Rhabarbarum 41.8 mg
Indian Olibanum Tree 16.3 mg
Torchwood Tree 12.3 mg
Ginger 16.3 mg
Operculina turpelthum 142.5 mg
Scammony 38 mg
The thing is if people want to ingest herbs, let them do it by all means, that's not the issue. The issue is selling it as a cure for something it isn't...0 -
clever_name wrote: »Well good luck with your research, Im sure you will probably find plenty of evidence to prove that everything you know is correct.
I'm also sure you will find far more things that you stop reading after encountering a nasty word:D
All the best
Listen mate. I've got a problem when the term "CTer" is used to make a point in relation to something i said.
It's like me starting off a post with something like..."All the sheep that don't believe such an such may be whatever...". Same thing for me.
I wouldn't do it coz it lumps everyone into the same offensive camp. Simples. Curiosity got the better of me and actually did read his post. It wasn't bad actually;).0 -
So don't you think you should look at this without a bias?I'm not hiding my bias King Mob haha.
But you've yet to offer a convincing or rational reason why herbal medicine should not be held to the same standards at mainstream medicine, beyond that you've fallen for marketing ploys.There are unscrupulous people in every industry, but that's not IMO to say a virtual blanket ban barring strict and expensive clinical trials on effigacy are the way forward.
If you don't think that herbal medicine needs to be tested for efficacy there is no rational, unbiased reason why this shouldn't apply to mainstream medicine.
Slight difference between something being claimed to relax someone and something being an effective treatment for a medical condition.If that were the case then they should go around banning all sorts of things. Why not ban incence sure?:) Not much use is it? It's supposed to relax you but sure maybe it doesn't. Anyway that's being flippant.
Yes and I'm all for that as well, if people want to eat herbs because they've been told it's magic, they can go nuts.Evidence aside, if people want to ingest herbs, let them do it. Thats a huge generalisation, but it's the basic right i subscribe to.
However these people have the right to proper information.
And the fact of the matter is that there are many many companies selling "herbal medicine" without either evidence for safety or efficacy and are using cheap propaganda tricks like your "right to choose" crap to convince people that they don't need to prove these things.
Hence why if these medicines can't hold up to a basic standard they shouldn't be sold.
You believe this as well, but only for mainstream medicine because the herbal medicine industry are pretending to a downtrodden alternative.0 -
So don't you think you should look at this without a bias?
But you've yet to offer a convincing or rational reason why herbal medicine should not be held to the same standards at mainstream medicine, beyond that you've fallen for marketing ploys.
If you don't think that herbal medicine needs to be tested for efficacy there is no rational, unbiased reason why this shouldn't apply to mainstream medicine.
Slight difference between something being claimed to relax someone and something being an effective treatment for a medical condition.
Yes and I'm all for that as well, if people want to eat herbs because they've been told it's magic, they can go nuts.
However these people have the right to proper information.
And the fact of the matter is that there are many many companies selling "herbal medicine" without either evidence for safety or efficacy and are using cheap propaganda tricks like your "right to choose" crap to convince people that they don't need to prove these things.
Hence why if these medicines can't hold up to a basic standard they shouldn't be sold.
You believe this as well, but only for mainstream medicine because the herbal medicine industry are pretending to a downtrodden alternative.
So why don't you slag off mainstream medicine most notably Pharma with as much vigour you reserve for the alternative medicine market? You seem to be just as biased as i am to me.0 -
So why don't you slag off mainstream medicine most notably Pharma with as much vigour you reserve for the alternative medicine market? You seem to be just as biased as i am to me.
Ah the "well so are you defence".... a mature and effective tactic.
Again, the topic we are discussing isn't the many issues within mainstream medicine, it was herbal medicine and why it shouldn't be held to a standard.
I made several points in that last post all of which you ignored because addressing them would force you to ask very uncomfortable questions about what you believe.
I would explain some of the issues I do have with mean old big pharma, but since you're not going to address the points I did made, I see little point in wasting the keystrokes.0 -
Ah the "well so are you defence".... a mature and effective tactic.
Again, the topic we are discussing isn't the many issues within mainstream medicine, it was herbal medicine and why it shouldn't be held to a standard.
I made several points in that last post all of which you ignored because addressing them would force you to ask very uncomfortable questions about what you believe.
I would explain some of the issues I do have with mean old big pharma, but since you're not going to address the points I did made, I see little point in wasting the keystrokes.
Oh here come the insults. Right on time:pac:0 -
-
FYP.Beware of Biased Scientists
Have heard about that anti-toxin health approach before. IIRC, as it differs person to person, and thus cannot be seen as a "cure" which has a one size fits all cure.espinolman wrote: »I soon recovered my health0 -
Listen the points are still there if you'd actually like to discuss them.
But you clearly don't want to discuss anything that shakes your worldview.
Same bull****e exit line you always use after your barrage of confusing bollix questioning.
And there the points will stay. I actually discussed quite a lot with you so so for you to say i didn't actually discuss anything is a dishonest attempt to imply otherwise.
Just because i don't want to "discuss" anything with you sometimes doesn't mean i have a "worldview". It just reflects my personal view of your methods.0 -
FYP.
Have heard about that anti-toxin health approach before. IIRC, as it differs person to person, and thus cannot be seen as a "cure" which has a one size fits all cure.
No , it was not an anti-toxin approach i used , it was a nutritional approach i used , i designed the nutritional programme to correct nutritional deficiencies my body may have had , the theory that the cancer i had would be then cured by the body if the body had no deficiencies and it worked .0 -
Advertisement
-
espinolman wrote: »No , it was not an anti-toxin approach i used , it was a nutritional approach i used , i designed the nutritional programme to correct nutritional deficiencies my body may have had , the theory that the cancer i had would be then cured by the body if the body had no deficiencies and it worked .
Very interesting, what kind of cancer did you have?0 -
-
How do you know Ritalin is toxic and at least its been tested for safety? Becasue its synthetic?
WTF. Are you for real? Of course it's ****ing toxic! It's an amphetimine! Prescribing Ritalin is authorised child abuse.
You say "Beware Amateur Scientists".
Think i'll start a thread entitled "Beware Professional Drug-Pushing Scientists"
0 -
WTF. Are you for real? Of course it's ****ing toxic! It's an amphetimine! Prescribing Ritalin is authorised child abuse.
You say "Beware Amateur Scientists".
Think i'll start a thread entitled "Beware Professional Drug-Pushing Scientists"
That video is
a) an objective balanced look at the pharmaceutical industry
b) made by Scientologists
I'm kinda leaning towards 'b' here a bit myself :pac:0 -
That video is
a) an objective balanced look at the pharmaceutical industry
b) made by Scientologists
I'm kinda leaning towards 'b' here a bit myself :pac:
:)Yes was wondering who would get in there with that observation.
So well done on that bit of investigative work Jonny;).
You should give it a watch though if you have time.
By the way refuting it on the grounds of who it was made by or that it's not objective is a cop out. As is some peoples mistaken beliefs that they are completely free from bias. Everyone is biased to some degree. You should admit to bias sometimes Jonny. Put your biases on the table where you can keep an eye on them. If you deny your bias as some do, they operate uncontrolled behind your back.0 -
:)Yes was wondering who would get in there with that observation.
So well done on that bit of investigative work Jonny;).
You should give it a watch though if you have time.
I watched it, a little dramatic for my tastes.
As much as I detest the compensation culture, it'll do something to keep US pharmaceuticals in check.0 -
-
-
WTF. Are you for real? Of course it's ****ing toxic! It's an amphetimine! Prescribing Ritalin is authorised child abuse.
You say "Beware Amateur Scientists".
Think i'll start a thread entitled "Beware Professional Drug-Pushing Scientists"
"Beware Amateur Scientists", you just proved it, Toxicity is dependant on concentration, a small amount of amphetimine is fine.What do you know on the chemistry of amphetamines?Because they tend to be a drug of abuse you assume it has no medical applications. LSD was thought to have major potential in mental illness at smal doses but because of amateur scientists and Daily Mail type reactionary opinions the research was shelved.
I have no opinions on Ritalin per se because i know little about it but yours is tabloid like. Vit C is toxic also if consumed in large amounts so should we ban Rubex for kids- obviously not. If you complained about Ritalin from an ethical stand point that would be fine but its the toxic thing that bothers me. Ritalin is just a chemical with certain properties to me but to you its means so much more and that is why your amateur scientist opinions can be dangerous.
"Of course its ****ing toxic", wanna flesh that out a bit, LD50 etc, major metabolites etc
Look you don't like pharma companies we get it, but you won't change anything thank f***k0 -
Advertisement
-
I am waiting for the guy who cured himself of cancer to get back to us.0
-
-
I am very skeptical of that claim.0
-
"Beware Amateur Scientists", you just proved it, Toxicity is dependant on concentration, a small amount of amphetimine is fine.What do you know on the chemistry of amphetamines?Because they tend to be a drug of abuse you assume it has no medical applications. LSD was thought to have major potential in mental illness at smal doses but because of amateur scientists and Daily Mail type reactionary opinions the research was shelved.
Thanks for the info on toxicity and your gems of wisdom like "a small amount of amphetamine is fine".
And your disappointment that us "amateur scientists" single-handedly scuppered LSD being used for mental illness.I have no opinions on Ritalin per se because i know little about it but yours is tabloid like. Vit C is toxic also if consumed in large amounts so should we ban Rubex for kids- obviously not.
So everything is toxic is it? Who'd have known?
What i was pointing out many moons ago now is that giving Ritalin to kids should be banned IMO.
Chow down on this book if you need to know all about how toxic that **** is even in small doses never mind the whopping ones doled out on prescription:
http://books.google.com/books/about/Talking_back_to_Ritalin.html?id=JORPkYnbYC4C
"....Evidence that amphetamines are toxic to brain cells has been documented for more than thirty years and the mechanism continues to be refined"Ritalin is just a chemical with certain properties to me but to you its means so much more and that is why your amateur scientist opinions can be dangerous.
I'll tell you whats dangerous mate: Giving Ritalin to toddlers."Of course its ****ing toxic", wanna flesh that out a bit, LD50 etc, major metabolites etc
Nope.Look you don't like pharma companies we get it
Wrong. I don't like some pharma companies' policies., but you won't change anything thank f***k
You certainly seem to wish so...
Seeing as you don't mind cross-thread references and the like and bringing up my personal views, i certainly wish you don't have any say in our food industry either judging by your opinions on here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=20561914210 -
espinolman wrote: »Cancer is simple to cure .
If it is simple to cure why do people still die from cancer?
Also do you mean all types of cancer?0 -
espinolman wrote: »Cancer is simple to cure .
Okay, my uncle is dying of prostrate cancer, what "simple" thing should he do to cure it?0 -
Advertisement
-
clever_name wrote: »If it is simple to cure why do people still die from cancer?
Because most people are ignorant , guillible , stupid , idiots . IMHO .clever_name wrote: »Also do you mean all types of cancer?
I do not know .0 -
Okay, my uncle is dying of prostrate cancer, what "simple" thing should he do to cure it?
I am not a doctor , i just saying what i have done personnaly myself to handle my illness .
Also , as far as i know , its against the rules of the forum to give medical advise ,and i am not giving any , anything i have stated on the forum is concerning my own experiences and should not be interpreted as medical advice .0 -
espinolman wrote: »I am not a doctor , i just saying what i have done personnaly myself to handle my illness .
Also , as far as i know , its against the rules of the forum to give medical advise ,and i am not giving any , anything i have stated on the forum is concerning my own experiences and should not be interpreted as medical advice .
Have you never been curious to find out if you do really have the cure for cancer by sharing your cure?0 -
espinolman wrote: »I am not a doctor , i just saying what i have done personnaly myself to handle my illness .
Also , as far as i know , its against the rules of the forum to give medical advise ,and i am not giving any , anything i have stated on the forum is concerning my own experiences and should not be interpreted as medical advice .
And I'd like to remind all of this rule. Anything said here should be taken as the opinion of a random person on the internet. Nobody here is an expert, and even when providing links or evidence, such evidence should be treated as a matter of discussion only, and should not be taken as medical advice.
Jonny7, I think I understand the point you are trying to make, but there are better ways to make it.0 -
clever_name wrote: »Have you never been curious to find out if you do really have the cure for cancer by sharing your cure?
I remember years later , i think the year 2000 or 2001 , i was listening to the Gerry Ryan show and a guest came on , talking about curing cancer with nutritional therapy , he was talking about how he cures cancer with food , also the guest talked about doctors in eastern europe not being allowed to learn anything about nutrition and that the pharmacetical companies were behind that , i remember he also was talking about how the irish cancer society is corrupt , because it is connected to the american cancer society .
The truth is out there .0 -
Advertisement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGm_e7tBvnQ
Advertisement