How nice it must be to be able to see the world as black or white with no shades in between. So "The System" is evil. Excuse me? I never thought about my local drugstore as having a personality.

And, you didn't answer my question. Has some good come out of "The System"?

"good"? is any particular medical result necessarily good or bad, or are they also characterized by intermediate shades of gray - mixed results? i would suggest the latter.

and i would suggest that the benefits of conventional medical treatment include a good ability of conventional med to "cure" acute conditions rapidly, and palliate ("treat") chronic conditions more or less effectively.

of course, i would stipulate, "with usually unremarked and often disastrous side effects, or long-term effects to compromise general quality of health ... by-products, in essence, of "suppression." and contributing directly to the emergence and proliferation of terrible degenerative diseases, autism, medical interventions as the 4th leading cause of death....

by contrast, a strength of homeopathy is to actually cure, and to create a more healthful foundation. but treatment takes a long time. and is not as consistently reliable in acute and especially emergency situations.

cost-benefit, in short, from this pov, clearly favors homeopathy ... except in acute or emergency care. or conditions not responsive to homeopathy ... which is another question altogether.

__________________
"The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.

All, of course, provided homeopathy works as advertized. For which we still lack evidence.

Hans

__________________
<i>You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.</i>

rewriting the dictionary, again? we have plenty of 'evidence.' unless you restrict the definition to the modern, number-driven variety, as in 'evidence-based medicine.' which, of course, is quite ok, as long as you are clear enough in your communications as to specify what you actually mean.

__________________
"The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.

I love paranoia/unsubstantiated conspiracy theory threads. Especially those where people start hedging their bets abut the definition of words.

What if I was to say that homeopaths aren't in it for the good of mankind? They just like selling something that costs nothing in terms of research or investment, and can actually be just put together by one man, a collection of little bottles and a household tap, should he so desire. Any mark-up above cost is pure profit, and there's potential for a lot of that, so why should they care whether it helps people or not?
All homeopaths are fraudulent criminals, blah blah... isn't that what you're saying about "big pharma"? Is it different when I say it?

another fly-by comment from the throne? or was that a blue bird flying overhead?

why not offer, instead, a balanced appraisal of the system? how bad is the problem? or, better, how many "reasonable" scenarios might be created? you know - along the lines of the bell curve.

that fact is, mr sitting-in-judgement, that we really don't know the extent of the problem. but we do know there is a problem. if you feel someone's estimation of the problem was exaggerated, even wildly exaggerated, offer an opinion on a more reasonable appraisal. maybe even offer some "evidence," you know, research, documentation.

o, yes, sorry if you don't like being asked to be precise or honest in your use of terminology. you know, it's not hedging to check the dictionary, or to object to an unwarranted and inaccurate application of a specialized definition of terminology, in place of correct usage.

literacy is as important as numeracy. and discussion is as important as fanciful creation of extreme scenarios, as though your "illustrative" analogy to an "imaginary" pan of homeopathic ethics had any relevance to the question of pharma corruption.

__________________
"The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.

You have no evidence, except anecdotes. I have, I think now dozens of times, challenged you to provide some of the clinical evidence you keep referring to. You have never provided any. I have challenged you to provide information based on your clinical database. You haven't provided any.

Let's face it, Neil: All you have is hearsay.

Oh, on definitions: Yes, in medicine, I prefer what we call "evidence based medicine", but I might settle for somewhat less, at least as basis for a reasonable discussion, but you don't even have that.

Hans

__________________
<i>You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.</i>

quote MRC_Hans: You have no evidence, except anecdotes. you can rewrite this definition all you want, too, but the rest of the world, including webster's, knows the difference between a professional case study, or vignette, or note, or observation, and an informal anecdote. pity you never learned the english language. I have, I think now dozens of times, challenged you to provide some of the clinical evidence you keep referring to. You have never provided any.i have provided it every time, and moreso. I have challenged you to provide information based on your clinical database. what 'clinical database?' who is talking about a database, as though statistical data was synonymous with 'evidence' or the 'clinical record?' statistics is a sub-rubric under the broader rubric, 'evidence.' 'clinical evidence' and 'observational evidence' are also subrubrics, of equal value. in homeopathy, we have the materia medica, a vast compilation, the format and original elaboration of which were the achievement of hahnemann; in evolution, we have voyage of the beagle and the origin of species; in psychology, we have the interpretation of dreams. vast, incredibly lucid records of enormous scope and observational power, which you can't even comprehend and won't even try to measure except one digit at a time. You haven't provided any. you are so sad - you haven't even a clue.

Let's face it, Neil: All you have is hearsay. observation is a first-person account, which is the stuff of clinical observation, systematization, and analysis. you don't even have that - you can't even tell the difference between the effects of beer, and the effects of sugar, as you have admitted many times. who has 'nothing,' hans? i'll tell you who - vous.

Oh, on definitions: Yes, in medicine, I prefer what we call "evidence based medicine", your 'preference' for evidence based medicine - which i'm glad you at least confess that this is at the basis for your so-called pov - is no basis for deciding what the rest of the world calls 'evidence.' clue: it is not "numbers," except in specific circumstances when specifically justified. but I might settle for somewhat less, at least as basis for a reasonable discussion, but you don't even have that. right - a discussion requires a second party, and you don't qualify.

Hans

__________________
"The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.

Here is a link:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...medid=11943072

__________________
Dr.S.K.Pattnaik,HMD,M.D(Alt.Med),Ph.D
Chairman,Indian Council for Holistic Health Care
http://holihealcouncil.forumup.in/
http://artofhealing.freeforums.org/
http://ichhc.tripod.com/

drskp -

awesome. thank you. i should very much like to see this nitpicked by our erudite skeptical friends.

bach

__________________
"The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.