Homeopathy

[lI1|1!]

take and call me in the morning.

[tvashtarkatena]

To me it's fairly clear that an absence of willpower and/or poor impulse control is behind most unhealthy behaviors that we have absolute control over. These include what and how much we eat, what drugs we put into our bodies and when, etc.

 

The real question, as far as I am concerned, is to what extent an absence of "willpower" or impulse control is hard-wired into us, and whether or not it's possible to overcome any inborn deficits in this area. I don't think that we have any answers that apply equally well to each and every individual, but I think that as a society we have to assume that people are responsible for their actions (unless there is a clear reason to conclude otherwise on account of profound retardation, insanity, dementia, etc), and that sane people can learn to overcome any deficits that they were born with in these areas - but that some people will require infinitely more help to do so.

 

Insisting that people are responsible for their actions doesn't preclude helping people who are struggling to control a given behavior. However, it's hard to imagine a scenario where cultivating an element of self-control isn't part of the help that they provide, even if that's as simple as taking their medications once a day.

 

Having said all of that - in a former job I worked with a woman who just could not seem to control her weight. She was probably one of my favorite people in the office, since as a former opera singer she brought an element of class, grace, and cultivation to the cube-farm that most of the other denizens couldn't come anywhere near. As time went on she started missing more and more work, as the health problems associated with her weight became compound and overlapping. I think that she was on permanent disability by the time I left, and the watching as a helpless bystander while she literally ate herself to death was very sad.

 

A girl that I grew up with had the opposite problem. Between 9th and 10th grade she went from fit and althetic to skeletal, and never seemed to get better. I was one of many people who went to the school nurse urge some kind of intervention, most of her friends tried to intervene as well, but there wasn't much that anyone outside of her family could do. I'd often see her hunched over on an excerise bike when I was visiting from college and hitting the gym at the local YMCA, and she'd still there two hours later when I was leaving. Whatever she was suffering from, it clearly wasn't a lack of willpower or discipline. A friend of mine passed along word that she died a few years ago.

 

Both were in dire need of, and deserving of help. It seems to me that any effective help would require showing them how to take the steps necessary to overcome whatever problems they had - inborn or otherwise - that were making it extremely difficult for them to eat properly and maintain the kind of weight they'd need to to survive.

 

Despite your copious opinions, you apparently don't know shit about addiction. Thats OK. It's only been characterized as a disease state with a strong genetic component by the AMA for more than 25 years. How were you to know?

 

Classic JayB. Always the last kid to get the memo.

[JayB]

To me it's fairly clear that an absence of willpower and/or poor impulse control is behind most unhealthy behaviors that we have absolute control over. These include what and how much we eat, what drugs we put into our bodies and when, etc.

 

The real question, as far as I am concerned, is to what extent an absence of "willpower" or impulse control is hard-wired into us, and whether or not it's possible to overcome any inborn deficits in this area. I don't think that we have any answers that apply equally well to each and every individual, but I think that as a society we have to assume that people are responsible for their actions (unless there is a clear reason to conclude otherwise on account of profound retardation, insanity, dementia, etc), and that sane people can learn to overcome any deficits that they were born with in these areas - but that some people will require infinitely more help to do so.

 

Insisting that people are responsible for their actions doesn't preclude helping people who are struggling to control a given behavior. However, it's hard to imagine a scenario where cultivating an element of self-control isn't part of the help that they provide, even if that's as simple as taking their medications once a day.

 

Having said all of that - in a former job I worked with a woman who just could not seem to control her weight. She was probably one of my favorite people in the office, since as a former opera singer she brought an element of class, grace, and cultivation to the cube-farm that most of the other denizens couldn't come anywhere near. As time went on she started missing more and more work, as the health problems associated with her weight became compound and overlapping. I think that she was on permanent disability by the time I left, and the watching as a helpless bystander while she literally ate herself to death was very sad.

 

A girl that I grew up with had the opposite problem. Between 9th and 10th grade she went from fit and althetic to skeletal, and never seemed to get better. I was one of many people who went to the school nurse urge some kind of intervention, most of her friends tried to intervene as well, but there wasn't much that anyone outside of her family could do. I'd often see her hunched over on an excerise bike when I was visiting from college and hitting the gym at the local YMCA, and she'd still there two hours later when I was leaving. Whatever she was suffering from, it clearly wasn't a lack of willpower or discipline. A friend of mine passed along word that she died a few years ago.

 

Both were in dire need of, and deserving of help. It seems to me that any effective help would require showing them how to take the steps necessary to overcome whatever problems they had - inborn or otherwise - that were making it extremely difficult for them to eat properly and maintain the kind of weight they'd need to to survive.

 

Despite your copious opinions, you apparently don't know shit about addiction. Thats OK. It's only been characterized as a disease state with a strong genetic component by the AMA for more than 25 years. How were you to know?

 

Classic JayB. Always the last kid to get the memo.

 

Calling addiction a "disease state" and recognizing that it has a genetic component doesn't preclude the addict having any role or agency in his or her recovery though, does it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

To me it's fairly clear that an absence of willpower and/or poor impulse control is behind most unhealthy behaviors that we have absolute control over. These include what and how much we eat, what drugs we put into our bodies and when, etc.

 

 

 

 

This statement, which flies in the face of a generation of medical knowledge on the subject, is dead wrong. An addict does not have absolute control over addictive behaviors, any more than prey being chased by a predator has control over the flight response or a trauma victim has control over the pain of injury. This is why addicts inevitably self destruct. Most addicts at the latter stages of their disease progression desperately want to stop, but they cannot. For the lucky few who are able to actually recover, what starts that process is usually some serious consequence, such as incarceration (which often involves medical detox) that forceably separates them from the drug of choice, then puts them on a path of gradual behavior modification, self awareness training, and group support.

 

Look, you're a smart guy, but you can't know everything. You don't know much about this subject; that's pretty obvious, and that's fine. But to continue to put forth atavistic opinions that were formulated in the 19th century is just ignorant.

Edited January 17, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[JayB]

To me it's fairly clear that an absence of willpower and/or poor impulse control is behind most unhealthy behaviors that we have absolute control over. These include what and how much we eat, what drugs we put into our bodies and when, etc.

 

 

 

 

I also said - right below this - that it's not clear how much impulse control, etc - that we are responsible for, and how much is inborn. It does seem clear that denying the addict any role or agency in quitting - however they became addicted - is retarded.

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

To me it's fairly clear that an absence of willpower and/or poor impulse control is behind most unhealthy behaviors that we have absolute control over. These include what and how much we eat, what drugs we put into our bodies and when, etc.

 

I also said - right below this - that it's not clear how much impulse control, etc - that we are responsible for, and how much is inborn. It does seem clear that denying the addict any role or agency in quitting - however they became addicted - is retarded.

 

 

 

 

 

You're practically sprinting backwards from your original statement, so I'll accept that as a retraction. I can work with that.

 

Yes, addicts have a role in their recovery. And we can also agree that the sky is, occasionally, blue.

 

Good on ya.

 

Edited January 17, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[billbob]

I'm a sex addict, can't seem to stop doing it! I have no control over it, it's like every other night or so (not as young as I used to be) I want to have more sex. My girlfriend is the enabler, always trying to get more (yep, she's way younger than me). There have been times when I desperately wanted to stop the cycle of addiction but have not found the willpower, like somehow I'm hardwired for it.

 

Seriously, having been thru AA and NA programs in the past for good reasons, yet still continuing to drink and smoke (Much more moderately these days) while not yet self-destructing or becoming incarcerated, I might add to the above commentaries in that there are a wide range of personalities to consider when making rather general statements on addictions. Do we addicts function on different levels? Are there truly "functional" addicts? Does an Irish heritage preclude any reasonable chance of not becoming what some people consider an alcoholic? Does a desire to consume 2-3 beers every day mean I'm (still) an addict and will I be a addict if that drops to 1 beer every day? Can this disease be managed over a lifetime such that it does not result in problematic behaviours?

[JayB]

"This is why addicts inevitably self destruct. Most addicts at the latter stages of their disease progression desperately want to stop, but they cannot. For the lucky few who are able to actually recover, what starts that process is usually some serious consequence, such as incarceration (which often involves medical detox) that forceably separates them from the drug of choice, then puts them on a path of gradual behavior modification, self awareness training, and group support."

 

There are literally millions of people walking the streets who have quite smoking, for example - who quit cold turkey. How well you think that this narrative matches their experience?

[JayB]

To me it's fairly clear that an absence of willpower and/or poor impulse control is behind most unhealthy behaviors that we have absolute control over. These include what and how much we eat, what drugs we put into our bodies and when, etc.

 

I also said - right below this - that it's not clear how much impulse control, etc - that we are responsible for, and how much is inborn. It does seem clear that denying the addict any role or agency in quitting - however they became addicted - is retarded.

 

 

 

 

 

You're practically sprinting backwards from your original statement, so I'll accept that as a retraction. I can work with that.

 

Yes, addicts have a role in their recovery. And we can also agree that the sky is, occasionally, blue.

 

Good on ya.

 

This:

 

"The real question, as far as I am concerned, is to what extent an absence of "willpower" or impulse control is hard-wired into us, and whether or not it's possible to overcome any inborn deficits in this area. I don't think that we have any answers that apply equally well to each and every individual, but I think that as a society we have to assume that people are responsible for their actions (unless there is a clear reason to conclude otherwise on account of profound retardation, insanity, dementia, etc), and that sane people can learn to overcome any deficits that they were born with in these areas - but that some people will require infinitely more help to do so."

 

Was part of my original statement, but...whatever. Hopefully any addict that happens to read this will be sure to consult their homeopath before attempting any mode of addiction cessation....

[tvashtarkatena]

Good question. The primary (but not only) medical symptom of alcohol addiction is an noticeably increased tolerance over time. People without a genetic predisposition for alcoholism don't exhibit an increase in tolerance. 3 beers get's em drunk at age 20, 3 beers get's em drunk at age 40. An increased frequency of drinking until blackout is another common medical symptom.

 

A non-medical symptom of drug abuse in general is unacceptable consequences: the loss of well being, health, money, home, relationships, job, and, in the case of incarceration, freedom.

 

If neither one of the above applies to you, i.e., you're living the life you want to live, then there's little incentive not to keep doing what you're doing.

Edited January 17, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

"This is why addicts inevitably self destruct. Most addicts at the latter stages of their disease progression desperately want to stop, but they cannot. For the lucky few who are able to actually recover, what starts that process is usually some serious consequence, such as incarceration (which often involves medical detox) that forceably separates them from the drug of choice, then puts them on a path of gradual behavior modification, self awareness training, and group support."

 

There are literally millions of people walking the streets who have quite smoking, for example - who quit cold turkey. How well you think that this narrative matches their experience?

 

Smoking is a different ballgame in several important ways. For starters, unacceptable consequences and self destruction (heart disease/cancer) don't come until very late life. Contrast this with a crack, meth, or heroine addiction, which can completely destroy or end a person's life within a couple of years. Second, while it's difficult to quit smoking, it's nothing compared to the life threatening physiological and psychological agony of getting off the harder drugs, or alcohol for that matter. No one dies or kills themselves from not having a cigarette. Addicts denied their drug do so all the time. This is, in part, because the harder drugs (including alcohol) rewire the addicts nervous system by creating new receptors and depleting neurotransmitter production in fundamental ways that nicotene does not.

 

Remember, I'm talking about hard core addicts, here. People who drink a fifth of liquor or 15 beers A DAY, and black out EVERY NIGHT, for example.

Edited January 17, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[sk]

you guys get so off track...

 

i have tried many kinds of homeapthay and "natural" herbal medicines. sometimes it helps a bit some times it doesn't. the teething tablets worked really good on my kiddos. and i tated them, they arn't icky or anything. so it can't hurt unless there is some kind of allergy. i used that in conjuntion with the frozen teething rings and other things that i could find that helped.

 

I think as with most things, looking at a "cure" from one percpective isn't going to get you anywhere. i feel it is most effective when you use all the tools available that you feel comfortable with. if you like accupuncture and it helps you do that. if you like homeapathy and it works for you DO THAT. who cares if it is a placibo effect. as long as it WORKS!!!

[tvashtarkatena]

Ah, who cares about homeopathy, anyway. It's all a bunch of bullshit.

[Bug]

Homeopathy doesn't work overnight so it does not fit the current mindset of mainstream America. "Fix me doctor".

[rob]

Homeopathy doesn't work overnight so it does not fit the current mindset of mainstream America. "Fix me doctor".

 

What is the homeopathic solution for a gunshot wound? Or internal bleeding?

 

Or, is that what chiropractors are for? After all, they can cure deafness!

[sk]

Homeopathy doesn't work overnight so it does not fit the current mindset of mainstream America. "Fix me doctor".

 

I always think of homeopathy/herbs in regard to living a healthy life style. if i have a head ache i take an asprin(willow bark) if i have a digestive issue i dig out my slippery elm. if i have a tummy ache i look for some spirmint leaves. pared with healthy living those types of things work. HOwever if there is something really really wrong i want answers and i want a medication or surgery or stitches that will solve the issue.

[Bug]

Homeopathy doesn't work overnight so it does not fit the current mindset of mainstream America. "Fix me doctor".

 

What is the homeopathic solution for a gunshot wound? Or internal bleeding?

 

Or, is that what chiropractors are for? After all, they can cure deafness!

Is that supposed to be a nonsequitor?

That's like saying, "This rubber body mallet won't fix my carburetor so all body detailers are worthless".

 

[TheJiggler]

Homeopathy doesn't work overnight so it does not fit the current mindset of mainstream America. "Fix me doctor".

 

Given that there is NO serious scientific evidence that Homeopathy works, nor even a plausible mechanism for it to work (homeopathy as opposed to natural or herbal medicine), why would you say it doesn't work over night? Its just as likely to work over night as over a day/week/month/year/century?

 

Actually, thats not true, there is a mechanism. The placebo effect. Which should be able to work over night.

[Bug]

As you like Jigglehead.

It is not a cure-all and nothing is.

 

[JayB]

What in your mind differentiates someone practicing homeopathy from someone who believes that the root of all illness is demonic possession, and uses chants and incantations for treatment?

 

The two are cannot be distinguished from one another in terms of their efficacy or their scientific basis.

[Bug]

Homeopathy has worked in cases where natural or normal bodily healing functions are in need of a little prodding. To attempt to apply it accross the board (AMA style) is ludicrous. The is a time and place for surgery, accute illness medications, etc. If your body is tweaked by externalll influences such as poisonings or horendous diet and can be steered back to its normal processes through homeopathy, why not?

To say it will or will not cure cancer or malaria etc is a misinformed approach.

Western medicine has a lot to learn from other traditions. For example, Arab doctors check on 16 different aspects of a pulse.

There is more out there than science has examined, studied and added to the codex. Any good doctor will tell you that a person getting well or not depends on more than science can define.

 

[JayB]

How do you personally define homeopathy?

 

The two central doctrines are "Like cures like," and that the potency of a given compound is inversely proportional to its concentration.

 

There has never been a single case where a homeopathic remedy worked according to the principles that the practice is based upon. In the rare cases where a "homeopathic" remedy has shown an effect, it's been a standard dose response to whatever the active ingredient in the compound is - just like any other drug. Dilute the "homeopathic" remedy and the effect diminishes in direct proportion to the dose, rather than increasing as you'd expect if the claims of the homeopaths were valid.

 

Moreover - has there ever been a case where homeopaths have conducted empirical research and conclusively proven that one of their theories is wrong, or that a given remedy produces no effect? This happens in scientific medicine all of the time. If homeopaths have no empirical mechanism for determining what doesn't work, how confident are you that they have a sound basis for concluding that they know what does work?

 

I'd note that open mindedness is one thing, credulity/gullibility is another. If you are really "open-minded" on this issue, you owe it to yourself to acquaint yourself with the most robust scientific critiques of the ideas that homeopathy is based upon, then decide whether you're still prepared to believe in it.

 

 

[Bug]

Wikpedia "Homeopathic remedies are made from substances that, in undiluted form, cause symptoms similar to the disease they aim to treat." This is about the only thing Wikpedia said that I have been led to beleive about homeopathy. "like cures like" in your terms. I do not know where you get "There has never been a single case where a homeopathic remedy worked according to the principles that the practice is based upon." when you yourself state that there has not been exhaustive emperical research done (paraphrase). So you ask why I accept it in some circumstances?

In one case that worked for me, my blood sugar had spiked and then crashed. A surgeon wanted to remove my gall-bladder. Another wanted to stimulate my pancrease with some kind of pharemiceutical. A homeopath suggested I take a remedy that would cause my blood sugar to spike in a small way and diminish this over a week until my pancrease was processing insulin at the correct levels again. Placebo or not, my blood sugar stabilized and I have not had a problem since. It is similar in a broad way to the idea of vaccinating against a flu virus. You give the patient a dose of the virus (dead cells) that stimulate the body to react and correct the problem.

In my case, it was training the body to react to a stimulus in a costructive way. It did not leave me without a gall bladder nor possible kidney damage from a long term chemical dose. Good doctors and good homeopaths will someday meet near the middle. There are clearly more cases where doctors and science are a better choice but why throw out the baby with the bath water.

Your approach seems to border on a religous application of science regardless of the outcome. Take the cholesterol medications that were recently revealed to cut cholesterol but not reduce plaque buildup. The companies that sell the stuff knew about it for over two years as per their "scientific studies" but didn't bother to tell anyone. It was revealed by an independent researcher (read competitor) and the FDA is investigating. Poor application of science there no? But that does not make all science bad does it?

[chucK]

So would a live vaccine be a homeopathic treatment?

 

Those work sometimes don't they?

[G-spotter]

So would a live vaccine be a homeopathic treatment?

 

Those work sometimes don't they?

 

That would depend what dose you give it at.