Re: How safe is homeopathy anyway? Experiences?

[Guest guest]

If you are taking the right remedy you will most likely just get better and

better. My experience with homeopathy is new and limited but what I have

done and seen is amazing - I had a really bad sore throat that was getting

to the point where it just hurt too much to talk, and within a half and hour

I was 75% better and within a couple of days of taking the remedy I was fine

again... this after more than 2 weeks of this horrible sore throat. The only

problem was that my tincture, which contains alcohol, kept canceling out the

remedy. True homeopathy doesn't mix herbs and homeopathy together.

My son fell and almost knocked his front baby teeth out - I gave him some

arnica for trauma and almost instantly he went from a crying screaming

miserable kid to a pleasant happy almost overly energetic one. And this was

long lasting as well - he was born 2 months premature and had always been

clingy and had to be held 24/7 for the first 9 months of his life and it

wasn't much better when he fell and hurt his teeth... well since giving him

arnica he's like a new completely different mostly happy kid. It was amazing

Plus his gums healed up beautifully and his teeth are looking great.

I tried a remedy for menstrual cramps recently, but felt like maybe the

remedy did what you are worried about - made things worse before they got

better - that was a little freaky for me and I was trying to eat mints to

cancel out the remedy because I was in such pain... but I'll tell you what -

once the pain went away it was gone - no need for advil or any of the usual

stuff I take. So while I thought it wasn't working, maybe it was working too

well? But the thing is that it was sudden - within 1/2 hour of taking the

remedy, so if you are taking it for 3 days now, maybe you don't have to

worry about this happening???

If you have a good homeopath and are comfortable with that person, you

should be ok - let them know what you are worried about and see what they

say.

Pam B.

[Guest guest]

If you are taking the right remedy you will most likely just get better and

better. My experience with homeopathy is new and limited but what I have

done and seen is amazing - I had a really bad sore throat that was getting

to the point where it just hurt too much to talk, and within a half and hour

I was 75% better and within a couple of days of taking the remedy I was fine

again... this after more than 2 weeks of this horrible sore throat. The only

problem was that my tincture, which contains alcohol, kept canceling out the

remedy. True homeopathy doesn't mix herbs and homeopathy together.

My son fell and almost knocked his front baby teeth out - I gave him some

arnica for trauma and almost instantly he went from a crying screaming

miserable kid to a pleasant happy almost overly energetic one. And this was

long lasting as well - he was born 2 months premature and had always been

clingy and had to be held 24/7 for the first 9 months of his life and it

wasn't much better when he fell and hurt his teeth... well since giving him

arnica he's like a new completely different mostly happy kid. It was amazing

Plus his gums healed up beautifully and his teeth are looking great.

I tried a remedy for menstrual cramps recently, but felt like maybe the

remedy did what you are worried about - made things worse before they got

better - that was a little freaky for me and I was trying to eat mints to

cancel out the remedy because I was in such pain... but I'll tell you what -

once the pain went away it was gone - no need for advil or any of the usual

stuff I take. So while I thought it wasn't working, maybe it was working too

well? But the thing is that it was sudden - within 1/2 hour of taking the

remedy, so if you are taking it for 3 days now, maybe you don't have to

worry about this happening???

If you have a good homeopath and are comfortable with that person, you

should be ok - let them know what you are worried about and see what they

say.

Pam B.

[Guest guest]

If you are taking the right remedy you will most likely just get better and

better. My experience with homeopathy is new and limited but what I have

done and seen is amazing - I had a really bad sore throat that was getting

to the point where it just hurt too much to talk, and within a half and hour

I was 75% better and within a couple of days of taking the remedy I was fine

again... this after more than 2 weeks of this horrible sore throat. The only

problem was that my tincture, which contains alcohol, kept canceling out the

remedy. True homeopathy doesn't mix herbs and homeopathy together.

My son fell and almost knocked his front baby teeth out - I gave him some

arnica for trauma and almost instantly he went from a crying screaming

miserable kid to a pleasant happy almost overly energetic one. And this was

long lasting as well - he was born 2 months premature and had always been

clingy and had to be held 24/7 for the first 9 months of his life and it

wasn't much better when he fell and hurt his teeth... well since giving him

arnica he's like a new completely different mostly happy kid. It was amazing

Plus his gums healed up beautifully and his teeth are looking great.

I tried a remedy for menstrual cramps recently, but felt like maybe the

remedy did what you are worried about - made things worse before they got

better - that was a little freaky for me and I was trying to eat mints to

cancel out the remedy because I was in such pain... but I'll tell you what -

once the pain went away it was gone - no need for advil or any of the usual

stuff I take. So while I thought it wasn't working, maybe it was working too

well? But the thing is that it was sudden - within 1/2 hour of taking the

remedy, so if you are taking it for 3 days now, maybe you don't have to

worry about this happening???

If you have a good homeopath and are comfortable with that person, you

should be ok - let them know what you are worried about and see what they

say.

Pam B.

[Guest guest]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Hash: SHA1

atmadiva wrote:

> I'm so sorry I'm posting a ton on this board, but with my recent

> dxs, I'm trying to find out as much info as possible.

No apology needed...

I'm a skeptic of homeopathy (and everything else). Although

definitions vary as to what people mean by homeopathy, here it

is typically the use of small amounts of water or sugar pills to

treat disease.

The safety comes down to what is wrong with you (water and sugar

pills being pretty safe), Graves is (in most) a chronic disease

that untreated (or ineffectively treated) carries a significant

risk of death mainly through heart attack or stroke.

So I(!) wouldn't use any treatment that doesn't have at least

some substantive backing from clinical research, ideally with

double blind trials where appropriate.

For serious forms of hyperthyroidism this means ATD, surgery (or

even RAI, which is safer than no treatment at all).

For mild forms of hyperthyroidism I'm prepared to warrant that

herbal treatments (Lemon Balm, and Bugleweed), dietary, and

lifestyle changes all have either successes in clinical trials,

or at least plausible mechanisms of action. i.e. Stress, excess

dietary Iodine are both clearly fingered as possible triggers of

Graves, and excess dietary Iodine is known to interfere with ATD

treatment. Lemon Balm is known to have effects relating to

Thyrotropin receptor antibodies etc.

Even then there is little formal research on the merits of the

herbal treatments, partly I fear due to a lot of such research

being linked to producing marketable drugs.

Either way I think you need to decide upfront what forms of

evidence you are prepared to bet your life/health on, and apply

those criteria to any possible treatments you are considering.

Applying such critical thinking has led me to question RAI, so I

don't think critical thinking is the enemy of alternative

medicine, but it may be the enemy of bad medicine, whatever it's

guise.

That said applying such approaches you quickly discover there is

very little quality evidence on how to treat thyroid disease

other than with the three conventional approaches. Ironically

the most extensive areas of research cover RAI, and much was

probably more motivated by the cold war and nuclear industry

interests, than medical science.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE+W1XkGFXfHI9FVgYRAqkOAJsHxgCOTrBsbzs/xnkyFJArjo5rngCgjC0Y

oHKHt60RWew4NveajTanRcA=

=od1e

-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Guest guest]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Hash: SHA1

atmadiva wrote:

> I'm so sorry I'm posting a ton on this board, but with my recent

> dxs, I'm trying to find out as much info as possible.

No apology needed...

I'm a skeptic of homeopathy (and everything else). Although

definitions vary as to what people mean by homeopathy, here it

is typically the use of small amounts of water or sugar pills to

treat disease.

The safety comes down to what is wrong with you (water and sugar

pills being pretty safe), Graves is (in most) a chronic disease

that untreated (or ineffectively treated) carries a significant

risk of death mainly through heart attack or stroke.

So I(!) wouldn't use any treatment that doesn't have at least

some substantive backing from clinical research, ideally with

double blind trials where appropriate.

For serious forms of hyperthyroidism this means ATD, surgery (or

even RAI, which is safer than no treatment at all).

For mild forms of hyperthyroidism I'm prepared to warrant that

herbal treatments (Lemon Balm, and Bugleweed), dietary, and

lifestyle changes all have either successes in clinical trials,

or at least plausible mechanisms of action. i.e. Stress, excess

dietary Iodine are both clearly fingered as possible triggers of

Graves, and excess dietary Iodine is known to interfere with ATD

treatment. Lemon Balm is known to have effects relating to

Thyrotropin receptor antibodies etc.

Even then there is little formal research on the merits of the

herbal treatments, partly I fear due to a lot of such research

being linked to producing marketable drugs.

Either way I think you need to decide upfront what forms of

evidence you are prepared to bet your life/health on, and apply

those criteria to any possible treatments you are considering.

Applying such critical thinking has led me to question RAI, so I

don't think critical thinking is the enemy of alternative

medicine, but it may be the enemy of bad medicine, whatever it's

guise.

That said applying such approaches you quickly discover there is

very little quality evidence on how to treat thyroid disease

other than with the three conventional approaches. Ironically

the most extensive areas of research cover RAI, and much was

probably more motivated by the cold war and nuclear industry

interests, than medical science.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE+W1XkGFXfHI9FVgYRAqkOAJsHxgCOTrBsbzs/xnkyFJArjo5rngCgjC0Y

oHKHt60RWew4NveajTanRcA=

=od1e

-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Guest guest]

Simon Says:

> I'm a skeptic of homeopathy (and everything else). Although

> definitions vary as to what people mean by homeopathy, here it

> is typically the use of small amounts of water or sugar pills to

> treat disease.

Being a skeptic is fine, but you shouldn't knock something if you don't

understand what you are talking about. Homeopathy is an energy medicine,

meaning there is more to a homeopathic remedy than water or sugar - a very

powerful something is in those " sugar pills " .

Simon Says:

> The safety comes down to what is wrong with you (water and sugar

> pills being pretty safe), Graves is (in most) a chronic disease

> that untreated (or ineffectively treated) carries a significant

> risk of death mainly through heart attack or stroke.

Dee's own endo has given her 6 months to try alt treatments, I assume this

is because he has either seen alt med work on other patients or her case is

so mild that he figures it can't hurt and if she gets worse he's keeping an

eye on her anyway.

Simon Says:

> So I(!) wouldn't use any treatment that doesn't have at least

> some substantive backing from clinical research, ideally with

> double blind trials where appropriate.

Again, you should do your homework before making statements like this.

Classical Homeopathy is over 200 years old and there have been many many

studies done on it (here is one: http://www.gentlebirth

org/archives/hompstdy.html) and there are many statistics showing where

people treated with homeopathy had better results than those treated

allopathically. For example, here is just one story (from http://www

homeoint.org/morrell/british/evidence.htm):

" ... had suggested Aconite as a remedy for simple fever and Dr Burnett

determined to test the advice on his children's fever ward, dosing all the

patients down one side with Fleming's Tincture of Aconite, and treating the

others as usual. Within twenty-four hours all the aconite children were

cured (save one, who had measles) and smartly discharged, while the rest

still languished in hospital. The experiment was repeated with the same

startling results until a truculent nurse, impatient of the doctor's hard

heart, dosed all the patients indiscriminately from 'Dr Burnetts' Fever

Bottle' and emptied the ward.

" The doctor was 'simply dumbfounded', spent his nights reading homeopathic

literature and, having suffered a conversion which he afterwards compared to

St 's on the road to Damascus, instantly resolved to 'fight the good

fight of homeopathy with all the power I possess: were I to do less I should

be afraid to die.' His M.D thesis, submitted when his year's term at

Barnhill elapsed, was rejected for heretical, homeopathic tendencies (a

second thesis was accepted in 1876). " [from e’s ‘Life of Dr Burnett]

It also works on animals and infants, which goes to show you that it is not

a placebo effect taking place. I have been using homeopathic treatments on

my son for everything from teething to colds to fevers to trauma - and that

is what has made me a believer in this stuff. I've seen it work. And I've

talked to many many moms who all swear that the hylands homeopathic teething

remedy is a godsend. I don't think there is better proof than when babies

all over are screaming and unconsolable are given this remedy they become

happy babies again - almost instantly. It may not be the " scientific " proof

you are looking for, but it works for me and lots of other moms.

The problem is in doing double blind studies on homeopathic remedies -

especially ones for serious illnessness - is that each treatment is specific

to the individual, so while 10 people may be sick with the same disease,

each person may require a different remedy to bring them back to health.

And think about it, how many times have we read or even written on this

board that everyone is different? Well here is a medical science that

finally treats us as different individuals with different variations of a

disease? How great is that?!

Simon Says:

> For serious forms of hyperthyroidism this means ATD, surgery (or

> even RAI, which is safer than no treatment at all).

I am proof positive that alt med works on SERIOUS forms of hyperthyroidism -

and TED as well. There are not JUST 3 treatment options folks, there are

many more than that, but only 3 that the allopathic medical community

recognizes. And I'm not the first person it's worked for, nor will I be the

last.

Simon Says:

> Even then there is little formal research on the merits of the

> herbal treatments, partly I fear due to a lot of such research

> being linked to producing marketable drugs.

Yup, I beleive you are right there. Same goes for homeopathic research.

However studies ARE being done on these things, even if they aren't showing

up in the medical journals you are reading.

Simon Says:

> That said applying such approaches you quickly discover there is

> very little quality evidence on how to treat thyroid disease

> other than with the three conventional approaches. Ironically

> the most extensive areas of research cover RAI, and much was

> probably more motivated by the cold war and nuclear industry

> interests, than medical science.

Well there you go, hu? Just because something has the most studies done on

it doesn't make it the most desirable treatment, does it?

And since I'm on the subject of not knocking what you don't understand, how

in the world do you explain " scientifically " what has happened to people on

this list who have asked for prayers and have seen miracles happen because

of it? I'm talking about fires that ignored Elaines home yet destroyed her

neighbors', 's baby who was doing really bad but turned a corner Sunday

night after posted that prayer request, etc etc. Miracles happen! That

s the power of thought and the energy of the universe working Simon - the

same energy principles that homeopathic medicine uses - it's hard to

understand, but when you see it working, you will have to believe.

xoxo,

Pam B.

PS. If you are bored and want to do some interesting research, try a search on

Rockerfeller and Homeopathic and America Medical Association - it's kind of

ironic that the guy who started the AMA only ever had a homeopathic doctor for

himself and lived a very very long life. I would give you a link to this, but

I'm having a hard time finding it right now and really have to get going with my

day... my kid has been screaming for 2 days now - he woke up this morning

screaming and grumpy. He sneezed... it was ugly, but at least now I know what

his problem is... it's been an hour of no screaming since I gave him a

homeopathic remedy for his cold - his nose is still running, but he's playing

quietly now, and I know the runny nose won't last much longer.

[Guest guest]

Hi Simon and Pam-

I've been popping in pretty often because of and happened to see this

post.

The problem here might be because so many equate homeopathy and alternative

medicine while there's a profound difference. Homeopathy is a type of

alternative medicine but alternative medicine is not homeopathy. I didn't

know the difference either and thought they were the same until I looked it

up (after I joined this list). Simon's definition is right and there isn't

any scientific support for homeopathy while there is some for alternative

medicine.

Anyhow, don't know if a misunderstanding is what happened here but thought

I'd add my 2 cents.

Take care,

dx & RAI 1987 (at age 24)

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

> Hash: SHA1

>

> Pam B wrote:

> >

> > Being a skeptic is fine, but you shouldn't knock something if

> you don't

> > understand what you are talking about. Homeopathy is an energy

> medicine,

> > meaning there is more to a homeopathic remedy than water or

> sugar - a very

> > powerful something is in those " sugar pills " .

>

> I have read extensively on various quack and snake oil

> treatments, more than you would probably believe, and even on

> weird and wonderful treatments that turned out to have some merit.

>

> It was fairly apparent early on that homeopathy as generally

> understood in the UK was complete junk. I can even quote peer

> reviewed meta analysis of such research studies claim no

> evidence for any curative effect on any ailment with homeopathy,

> but my guess is that evidence no matter how good won't sway

> those who believe, it never has with Astrology.

>

> > Dee's own endo has given her 6 months to try alt treatments, I

> assume this

> > is because he has either seen alt med work on other patients

> or her case is

> > so mild that he figures it can't hurt and if she gets worse

> he's keeping an

> > eye on her anyway.

>

> I have absolutely no problem with alternative medicine - don't

> put words in my mouth.

>

> My problem is with homeopathy, specifically where treatment is

> based on the idea of complements, and the use of dilutions such

> that none or insignificant amounts of the original material is left.

>

> I am prepared to believe that some " compliments " happen to also

> have beneficial effects (but not if they are then diluted away

> to a ridiculous extent).

>

> My local University runs a department of complementary medicine,

> publishing a journal on evidence based studied, the results for

> homeopathy are unsurprisingly disappointing.

>

> You may say " it can't hurt " , but it may well take money and

> attention away from treatments that are likely to help. In

> economics it is called an opportunity cost, but it boils down to

> hurting in my book.

>

> > Simon Says:

> >

> >>So I(!) wouldn't use any treatment that doesn't have at least

> >>some substantive backing from clinical research, ideally with

> >>double blind trials where appropriate.

> >

> >

> > Again, you should do your homework before making statements

> like this.

>

> I have.

>

> > The problem is in doing double blind studies on homeopathic

> remedies -

> > especially ones for serious illnessness - is that each

> treatment is specific

> > to the individual

>

> I don't believe individualised treatment protocols exclude

> rigorous testing protocols, they might make them harder, but

> they can definitely be studied in an evidence based manner.

>

> The " it isn't testable " is one of the many defences of quackery,

> and should get any thinking person wondering " well how do they

> know it works? " .

>

> > Well there you go, hu? Just because something has the most

> studies done on

> > it doesn't make it the most desirable treatment, does it?

>

> I never said it did.

>

> Although you might determine you'd like a couple of properly

> controlled studies showing the treatment you opt for is both

> safe and effective before parting with your time, and hard

> earned cash.

>

> However there is the issue of how many negative studies do you

> need before you accept something is junk. Especially where you

> have evolving bodies of knowledge questioning, or demolishing,

> the underlying concepts.

>

> Astrology became obviously meaningless as we understood the

> nature of the skies and could predict the motion of most of the

> heavenly bodies to a high degree of accuracy. Atomic theory has

> a similar undermining effect on homeopathy, along with the poor

> results in rigorous trials, and the growth in medical knowledge.

>

> Just for the record I also don't believe in supernatural

> miracles, god(s), ghosts, the power of (unheard) prayer other

> than as autosuggestion, the Lochness monster, the beast of

> Bodmin, Astrology, Palmistry, Phrenology, Atlantis (other than

> as a story by Plato), or reincarnation.

>

> I'm not closed minded on these topics either, if new evidence

> comes along I'll reconsider, but I have read a lot of how these

> beliefs get started, and are perpetuated, have weighed the

> evidence and these thing are clattering along the bottom of my

> belief scale.

>

> Curiously I do believe in UFO's and witches, but not necessarily

> in aliens visiting the earth, or magick.

>

> Bizarrely perhaps as someone with more than a passing

> acquaintance with theoretical physicist I'm not over convinced

> with the concept of energy, although in physics where it is

> clearly defined, it can at least said to be a demonstratably

> useful model of reality, unlike the woolly and unclear

> definitions of " energy " found in so much quack medicine.

>

> When a friend and an acquaintance published a book on discarded

> ideas the publisher made them remove the entry on Astrology as

> " too many people believe " -- well that approach will really help

> educate them.

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

>

> iD8DBQE+XBp2GFXfHI9FVgYRAu1mAJwLa6xM13/Hcom43kn8XziWNMh7pwCeNihD

> 3s6mKrRsbAcODkuUdAbjKV8=

> =sH4H

> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

>

> -------------------------------------

> The Graves' list is intended for informational purposes only and is not

intended to replace expert medical care.

> Please consult your doctor before changing or trying new treatments.

> ----------------------------------------

> DISCLAIMER

>

> Advertisments placed on this yahoo groups list do not have the endorsement

of

> the listowner. I have no input as to what ads are attached to emails.

> --------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Simon and Pam-

I've been popping in pretty often because of and happened to see this

post.

The problem here might be because so many equate homeopathy and alternative

medicine while there's a profound difference. Homeopathy is a type of

alternative medicine but alternative medicine is not homeopathy. I didn't

know the difference either and thought they were the same until I looked it

up (after I joined this list). Simon's definition is right and there isn't

any scientific support for homeopathy while there is some for alternative

medicine.

Anyhow, don't know if a misunderstanding is what happened here but thought

I'd add my 2 cents.

Take care,

dx & RAI 1987 (at age 24)

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

> Hash: SHA1

>

> Pam B wrote:

> >

> > Being a skeptic is fine, but you shouldn't knock something if

> you don't

> > understand what you are talking about. Homeopathy is an energy

> medicine,

> > meaning there is more to a homeopathic remedy than water or

> sugar - a very

> > powerful something is in those " sugar pills " .

>

> I have read extensively on various quack and snake oil

> treatments, more than you would probably believe, and even on

> weird and wonderful treatments that turned out to have some merit.

>

> It was fairly apparent early on that homeopathy as generally

> understood in the UK was complete junk. I can even quote peer

> reviewed meta analysis of such research studies claim no

> evidence for any curative effect on any ailment with homeopathy,

> but my guess is that evidence no matter how good won't sway

> those who believe, it never has with Astrology.

>

> > Dee's own endo has given her 6 months to try alt treatments, I

> assume this

> > is because he has either seen alt med work on other patients

> or her case is

> > so mild that he figures it can't hurt and if she gets worse

> he's keeping an

> > eye on her anyway.

>

> I have absolutely no problem with alternative medicine - don't

> put words in my mouth.

>

> My problem is with homeopathy, specifically where treatment is

> based on the idea of complements, and the use of dilutions such

> that none or insignificant amounts of the original material is left.

>

> I am prepared to believe that some " compliments " happen to also

> have beneficial effects (but not if they are then diluted away

> to a ridiculous extent).

>

> My local University runs a department of complementary medicine,

> publishing a journal on evidence based studied, the results for

> homeopathy are unsurprisingly disappointing.

>

> You may say " it can't hurt " , but it may well take money and

> attention away from treatments that are likely to help. In

> economics it is called an opportunity cost, but it boils down to

> hurting in my book.

>

> > Simon Says:

> >

> >>So I(!) wouldn't use any treatment that doesn't have at least

> >>some substantive backing from clinical research, ideally with

> >>double blind trials where appropriate.

> >

> >

> > Again, you should do your homework before making statements

> like this.

>

> I have.

>

> > The problem is in doing double blind studies on homeopathic

> remedies -

> > especially ones for serious illnessness - is that each

> treatment is specific

> > to the individual

>

> I don't believe individualised treatment protocols exclude

> rigorous testing protocols, they might make them harder, but

> they can definitely be studied in an evidence based manner.

>

> The " it isn't testable " is one of the many defences of quackery,

> and should get any thinking person wondering " well how do they

> know it works? " .

>

> > Well there you go, hu? Just because something has the most

> studies done on

> > it doesn't make it the most desirable treatment, does it?

>

> I never said it did.

>

> Although you might determine you'd like a couple of properly

> controlled studies showing the treatment you opt for is both

> safe and effective before parting with your time, and hard

> earned cash.

>

> However there is the issue of how many negative studies do you

> need before you accept something is junk. Especially where you

> have evolving bodies of knowledge questioning, or demolishing,

> the underlying concepts.

>

> Astrology became obviously meaningless as we understood the

> nature of the skies and could predict the motion of most of the

> heavenly bodies to a high degree of accuracy. Atomic theory has

> a similar undermining effect on homeopathy, along with the poor

> results in rigorous trials, and the growth in medical knowledge.

>

> Just for the record I also don't believe in supernatural

> miracles, god(s), ghosts, the power of (unheard) prayer other

> than as autosuggestion, the Lochness monster, the beast of

> Bodmin, Astrology, Palmistry, Phrenology, Atlantis (other than

> as a story by Plato), or reincarnation.

>

> I'm not closed minded on these topics either, if new evidence

> comes along I'll reconsider, but I have read a lot of how these

> beliefs get started, and are perpetuated, have weighed the

> evidence and these thing are clattering along the bottom of my

> belief scale.

>

> Curiously I do believe in UFO's and witches, but not necessarily

> in aliens visiting the earth, or magick.

>

> Bizarrely perhaps as someone with more than a passing

> acquaintance with theoretical physicist I'm not over convinced

> with the concept of energy, although in physics where it is

> clearly defined, it can at least said to be a demonstratably

> useful model of reality, unlike the woolly and unclear

> definitions of " energy " found in so much quack medicine.

>

> When a friend and an acquaintance published a book on discarded

> ideas the publisher made them remove the entry on Astrology as

> " too many people believe " -- well that approach will really help

> educate them.

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

>

> iD8DBQE+XBp2GFXfHI9FVgYRAu1mAJwLa6xM13/Hcom43kn8XziWNMh7pwCeNihD

> 3s6mKrRsbAcODkuUdAbjKV8=

> =sH4H

> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

>

> -------------------------------------

> The Graves' list is intended for informational purposes only and is not

intended to replace expert medical care.

> Please consult your doctor before changing or trying new treatments.

> ----------------------------------------

> DISCLAIMER

>

> Advertisments placed on this yahoo groups list do not have the endorsement

of

> the listowner. I have no input as to what ads are attached to emails.

> --------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------

>

>

[Guest guest]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Hash: SHA1

Pam B wrote:

>

> Being a skeptic is fine, but you shouldn't knock something if

you don't

> understand what you are talking about. Homeopathy is an energy

medicine,

> meaning there is more to a homeopathic remedy than water or

sugar - a very

> powerful something is in those " sugar pills " .

I have read extensively on various quack and snake oil

treatments, more than you would probably believe, and even on

weird and wonderful treatments that turned out to have some merit.

It was fairly apparent early on that homeopathy as generally

understood in the UK was complete junk. I can even quote peer

reviewed meta analysis of such research studies claim no

evidence for any curative effect on any ailment with homeopathy,

but my guess is that evidence no matter how good won't sway

those who believe, it never has with Astrology.

> Dee's own endo has given her 6 months to try alt treatments, I

assume this

> is because he has either seen alt med work on other patients

or her case is

> so mild that he figures it can't hurt and if she gets worse

he's keeping an

> eye on her anyway.

I have absolutely no problem with alternative medicine - don't

put words in my mouth.

My problem is with homeopathy, specifically where treatment is

based on the idea of complements, and the use of dilutions such

that none or insignificant amounts of the original material is left.

I am prepared to believe that some " compliments " happen to also

have beneficial effects (but not if they are then diluted away

to a ridiculous extent).

My local University runs a department of complementary medicine,

publishing a journal on evidence based studied, the results for

homeopathy are unsurprisingly disappointing.

You may say " it can't hurt " , but it may well take money and

attention away from treatments that are likely to help. In

economics it is called an opportunity cost, but it boils down to

hurting in my book.

> Simon Says:

>

>>So I(!) wouldn't use any treatment that doesn't have at least

>>some substantive backing from clinical research, ideally with

>>double blind trials where appropriate.

>

>

> Again, you should do your homework before making statements

like this.

I have.

> The problem is in doing double blind studies on homeopathic

remedies -

> especially ones for serious illnessness - is that each

treatment is specific

> to the individual

I don't believe individualised treatment protocols exclude

rigorous testing protocols, they might make them harder, but

they can definitely be studied in an evidence based manner.

The " it isn't testable " is one of the many defences of quackery,

and should get any thinking person wondering " well how do they

know it works? " .

> Well there you go, hu? Just because something has the most

studies done on

> it doesn't make it the most desirable treatment, does it?

I never said it did.

Although you might determine you'd like a couple of properly

controlled studies showing the treatment you opt for is both

safe and effective before parting with your time, and hard

earned cash.

However there is the issue of how many negative studies do you

need before you accept something is junk. Especially where you

have evolving bodies of knowledge questioning, or demolishing,

the underlying concepts.

Astrology became obviously meaningless as we understood the

nature of the skies and could predict the motion of most of the

heavenly bodies to a high degree of accuracy. Atomic theory has

a similar undermining effect on homeopathy, along with the poor

results in rigorous trials, and the growth in medical knowledge.

Just for the record I also don't believe in supernatural

miracles, god(s), ghosts, the power of (unheard) prayer other

than as autosuggestion, the Lochness monster, the beast of

Bodmin, Astrology, Palmistry, Phrenology, Atlantis (other than

as a story by Plato), or reincarnation.

I'm not closed minded on these topics either, if new evidence

comes along I'll reconsider, but I have read a lot of how these

beliefs get started, and are perpetuated, have weighed the

evidence and these thing are clattering along the bottom of my

belief scale.

Curiously I do believe in UFO's and witches, but not necessarily

in aliens visiting the earth, or magick.

Bizarrely perhaps as someone with more than a passing

acquaintance with theoretical physicist I'm not over convinced

with the concept of energy, although in physics where it is

clearly defined, it can at least said to be a demonstratably

useful model of reality, unlike the woolly and unclear

definitions of " energy " found in so much quack medicine.

When a friend and an acquaintance published a book on discarded

ideas the publisher made them remove the entry on Astrology as

" too many people believe " -- well that approach will really help

educate them.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE+XBp2GFXfHI9FVgYRAu1mAJwLa6xM13/Hcom43kn8XziWNMh7pwCeNihD

3s6mKrRsbAcODkuUdAbjKV8=

=sH4H

-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Guest guest]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Hash: SHA1

Pam B wrote:

>

> Being a skeptic is fine, but you shouldn't knock something if

you don't

> understand what you are talking about. Homeopathy is an energy

medicine,

> meaning there is more to a homeopathic remedy than water or

sugar - a very

> powerful something is in those " sugar pills " .

I have read extensively on various quack and snake oil

treatments, more than you would probably believe, and even on

weird and wonderful treatments that turned out to have some merit.

It was fairly apparent early on that homeopathy as generally

understood in the UK was complete junk. I can even quote peer

reviewed meta analysis of such research studies claim no

evidence for any curative effect on any ailment with homeopathy,

but my guess is that evidence no matter how good won't sway

those who believe, it never has with Astrology.

> Dee's own endo has given her 6 months to try alt treatments, I

assume this

> is because he has either seen alt med work on other patients

or her case is

> so mild that he figures it can't hurt and if she gets worse

he's keeping an

> eye on her anyway.

I have absolutely no problem with alternative medicine - don't

put words in my mouth.

My problem is with homeopathy, specifically where treatment is

based on the idea of complements, and the use of dilutions such

that none or insignificant amounts of the original material is left.

I am prepared to believe that some " compliments " happen to also

have beneficial effects (but not if they are then diluted away

to a ridiculous extent).

My local University runs a department of complementary medicine,

publishing a journal on evidence based studied, the results for

homeopathy are unsurprisingly disappointing.

You may say " it can't hurt " , but it may well take money and

attention away from treatments that are likely to help. In

economics it is called an opportunity cost, but it boils down to

hurting in my book.

> Simon Says:

>

>>So I(!) wouldn't use any treatment that doesn't have at least

>>some substantive backing from clinical research, ideally with

>>double blind trials where appropriate.

>

>

> Again, you should do your homework before making statements

like this.

I have.

> The problem is in doing double blind studies on homeopathic

remedies -

> especially ones for serious illnessness - is that each

treatment is specific

> to the individual

I don't believe individualised treatment protocols exclude

rigorous testing protocols, they might make them harder, but

they can definitely be studied in an evidence based manner.

The " it isn't testable " is one of the many defences of quackery,

and should get any thinking person wondering " well how do they

know it works? " .

> Well there you go, hu? Just because something has the most

studies done on

> it doesn't make it the most desirable treatment, does it?

I never said it did.

Although you might determine you'd like a couple of properly

controlled studies showing the treatment you opt for is both

safe and effective before parting with your time, and hard

earned cash.

However there is the issue of how many negative studies do you

need before you accept something is junk. Especially where you

have evolving bodies of knowledge questioning, or demolishing,

the underlying concepts.

Astrology became obviously meaningless as we understood the

nature of the skies and could predict the motion of most of the

heavenly bodies to a high degree of accuracy. Atomic theory has

a similar undermining effect on homeopathy, along with the poor

results in rigorous trials, and the growth in medical knowledge.

Just for the record I also don't believe in supernatural

miracles, god(s), ghosts, the power of (unheard) prayer other

than as autosuggestion, the Lochness monster, the beast of

Bodmin, Astrology, Palmistry, Phrenology, Atlantis (other than

as a story by Plato), or reincarnation.

I'm not closed minded on these topics either, if new evidence

comes along I'll reconsider, but I have read a lot of how these

beliefs get started, and are perpetuated, have weighed the

evidence and these thing are clattering along the bottom of my

belief scale.

Curiously I do believe in UFO's and witches, but not necessarily

in aliens visiting the earth, or magick.

Bizarrely perhaps as someone with more than a passing

acquaintance with theoretical physicist I'm not over convinced

with the concept of energy, although in physics where it is

clearly defined, it can at least said to be a demonstratably

useful model of reality, unlike the woolly and unclear

definitions of " energy " found in so much quack medicine.

When a friend and an acquaintance published a book on discarded

ideas the publisher made them remove the entry on Astrology as

" too many people believe " -- well that approach will really help

educate them.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE+XBp2GFXfHI9FVgYRAu1mAJwLa6xM13/Hcom43kn8XziWNMh7pwCeNihD

3s6mKrRsbAcODkuUdAbjKV8=

=sH4H

-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Guest guest]

Hi and Simon, I'm not sure what the misunderstanding is, unless my

definition of scientific studies is different from yours and Simon's (it

must be).

All I know is is that homeopathy does work (as does alt med like herbalism)

- because I've seen it work.

Pam B.

PS. Simon have you SEEN a UFO then? You always manage to make us smile, don

t you?

-- Re: How safe is homeopathy anyway? Experiences?

Hi Simon and Pam-

I've been popping in pretty often because of and happened to see this

post.

The problem here might be because so many equate homeopathy and alternative

medicine while there's a profound difference. Homeopathy is a type of

alternative medicine but alternative medicine is not homeopathy. I didn't

know the difference either and thought they were the same until I looked it

up (after I joined this list). Simon's definition is right and there isn't

any scientific support for homeopathy while there is some for alternative

medicine.

Anyhow, don't know if a misunderstanding is what happened here but thought

I'd add my 2 cents.

Take care,

dx & RAI 1987 (at age 24)

[Guest guest]

Hi and Simon, I'm not sure what the misunderstanding is, unless my

definition of scientific studies is different from yours and Simon's (it

must be).

All I know is is that homeopathy does work (as does alt med like herbalism)

- because I've seen it work.

Pam B.

PS. Simon have you SEEN a UFO then? You always manage to make us smile, don

t you?

-- Re: How safe is homeopathy anyway? Experiences?

Hi Simon and Pam-

I've been popping in pretty often because of and happened to see this

post.

The problem here might be because so many equate homeopathy and alternative

medicine while there's a profound difference. Homeopathy is a type of

alternative medicine but alternative medicine is not homeopathy. I didn't

know the difference either and thought they were the same until I looked it

up (after I joined this list). Simon's definition is right and there isn't

any scientific support for homeopathy while there is some for alternative

medicine.

Anyhow, don't know if a misunderstanding is what happened here but thought

I'd add my 2 cents.

Take care,

dx & RAI 1987 (at age 24)

[Guest guest]

OK Simon and Pam and ,

I need to weigh in here too. On a couple of concepts only, however. One is

the curse of the double-blind study. While it is scientific method, for some

things it simply doesn't work. For instance when someone treats a patient

for a 'common cold' with Chinese herbal medicine and acupuncture, the

definition of what is treated is much more detailed than just 'common cold'.

Is it wind cold or wind heat symptoms, for instance, might be a question the

practitioner asks. Each are treated differently. Does it present with a sore

throat or a stuffed nose (primarily)? Again, different treatment entirely.

As the symptoms change, so does the treatment--very individually...so how do

you accomplish a controlled study? So you can't really 'prove' that Chinese

medicine works, yet I KNOW it does. I know because I had PCOS cured, I know

because my son's severe asthma was cured, I know because I banged my foot

horribly last year (it was swollen to 2x it's size and deep purple) the

night before I had 1000 people to feed at a festival, and painful though it

was, I asked my husband to treat it so I could walk--and he did, and I

could, almost like those revival meetings where the guy throws down his

crutches and (miracle!) walks.

That said, I have tried homeopathy and based on my own experience I don't

think it works. I have also read some studies of NAET where they tricked the

practitioner (who thought she knew what was in the vials) and she got the

results she expected--except that the substances were switched completely.

And THAT said, I am a firm believer in our innate ability to heal ourselves

with a kind of faith that may allow one's belief that something is working

to clear out inner obstructions and allow healing to occur--or something

along those lines.

So who knows? For Pam, homeopathy, NAET and the rest might just do the

trick--while they'd never work for Simon. For me, Chinese medicine has

produced miracles--but time and again, I run into people for whom it's done

nothing. I always assume they saw a 'bad' practitioner, and that if they'd

seen my wonderful husband, they'd be convinced of the effectiveness of the

treatment. Maybe they just needed to believe in it!

Just as I always wonder about jumping to conclusions (I still am not SURE

that bad generics had anything to do with my relapse, and I'm not SURE that

splitting my dose into 3 each day has anything to do with my current move

back towards remission)--Just as when Jody says 'don't ever do Atkins it

killed my (I forget which) relative', I can think of 100 other

circumstantial coincidences that might also have killed him--(sorry Jody,

that one seems to have stuck in my mind for a year or more!).

I guess our minds have an awful lot to do with healing. Perhaps we'll never

understand the wonderful mystery! Maybe we're ALL right for ourselves, but

should never try to convince anyone else to try what works for us!

Terry

>

> Reply-To: graves_support

> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:24:49 -0800

> To: graves_support >

> Subject: Re: How safe is homeopathy anyway? Experiences?

>

> Hi Simon and Pam-

>

> I've been popping in pretty often because of and happened to see this

> post.

>

> The problem here might be because so many equate homeopathy and alternative

> medicine while there's a profound difference. Homeopathy is a type of

> alternative medicine but alternative medicine is not homeopathy. I didn't

> know the difference either and thought they were the same until I looked it

> up (after I joined this list). Simon's definition is right and there isn't

> any scientific support for homeopathy while there is some for alternative

> medicine.

>

> Anyhow, don't know if a misunderstanding is what happened here but thought

> I'd add my 2 cents.

>

> Take care,

>

>

> dx & RAI 1987 (at age 24)

>

>

>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>> Hash: SHA1

>>

>> Pam B wrote:

>>>

>>> Being a skeptic is fine, but you shouldn't knock something if

>> you don't

>>> understand what you are talking about. Homeopathy is an energy

>> medicine,

>>> meaning there is more to a homeopathic remedy than water or

>> sugar - a very

>>> powerful something is in those " sugar pills " .

>>

>> I have read extensively on various quack and snake oil

>> treatments, more than you would probably believe, and even on

>> weird and wonderful treatments that turned out to have some merit.

>>

>> It was fairly apparent early on that homeopathy as generally

>> understood in the UK was complete junk. I can even quote peer

>> reviewed meta analysis of such research studies claim no

>> evidence for any curative effect on any ailment with homeopathy,

>> but my guess is that evidence no matter how good won't sway

>> those who believe, it never has with Astrology.

>>

>>> Dee's own endo has given her 6 months to try alt treatments, I

>> assume this

>>> is because he has either seen alt med work on other patients

>> or her case is

>>> so mild that he figures it can't hurt and if she gets worse

>> he's keeping an

>>> eye on her anyway.

>>

>> I have absolutely no problem with alternative medicine - don't

>> put words in my mouth.

>>

>> My problem is with homeopathy, specifically where treatment is

>> based on the idea of complements, and the use of dilutions such

>> that none or insignificant amounts of the original material is left.

>>

>> I am prepared to believe that some " compliments " happen to also

>> have beneficial effects (but not if they are then diluted away

>> to a ridiculous extent).

>>

>> My local University runs a department of complementary medicine,

>> publishing a journal on evidence based studied, the results for

>> homeopathy are unsurprisingly disappointing.

>>

>> You may say " it can't hurt " , but it may well take money and

>> attention away from treatments that are likely to help. In

>> economics it is called an opportunity cost, but it boils down to

>> hurting in my book.

>>

>>> Simon Says:

>>>

>>>> So I(!) wouldn't use any treatment that doesn't have at least

>>>> some substantive backing from clinical research, ideally with

>>>> double blind trials where appropriate.

>>>

>>>

>>> Again, you should do your homework before making statements

>> like this.

>>

>> I have.

>>

>>> The problem is in doing double blind studies on homeopathic

>> remedies -

>>> especially ones for serious illnessness - is that each

>> treatment is specific

>>> to the individual

>>

>> I don't believe individualised treatment protocols exclude

>> rigorous testing protocols, they might make them harder, but

>> they can definitely be studied in an evidence based manner.

>>

>> The " it isn't testable " is one of the many defences of quackery,

>> and should get any thinking person wondering " well how do they

>> know it works? " .

>>

>>> Well there you go, hu? Just because something has the most

>> studies done on

>>> it doesn't make it the most desirable treatment, does it?

>>

>> I never said it did.

>>

>> Although you might determine you'd like a couple of properly

>> controlled studies showing the treatment you opt for is both

>> safe and effective before parting with your time, and hard

>> earned cash.

>>

>> However there is the issue of how many negative studies do you

>> need before you accept something is junk. Especially where you

>> have evolving bodies of knowledge questioning, or demolishing,

>> the underlying concepts.

>>

>> Astrology became obviously meaningless as we understood the

>> nature of the skies and could predict the motion of most of the

>> heavenly bodies to a high degree of accuracy. Atomic theory has

>> a similar undermining effect on homeopathy, along with the poor

>> results in rigorous trials, and the growth in medical knowledge.

>>

>> Just for the record I also don't believe in supernatural

>> miracles, god(s), ghosts, the power of (unheard) prayer other

>> than as autosuggestion, the Lochness monster, the beast of

>> Bodmin, Astrology, Palmistry, Phrenology, Atlantis (other than

>> as a story by Plato), or reincarnation.

>>

>> I'm not closed minded on these topics either, if new evidence

>> comes along I'll reconsider, but I have read a lot of how these

>> beliefs get started, and are perpetuated, have weighed the

>> evidence and these thing are clattering along the bottom of my

>> belief scale.

>>

>> Curiously I do believe in UFO's and witches, but not necessarily

>> in aliens visiting the earth, or magick.

>>

>> Bizarrely perhaps as someone with more than a passing

>> acquaintance with theoretical physicist I'm not over convinced

>> with the concept of energy, although in physics where it is

>> clearly defined, it can at least said to be a demonstratably

>> useful model of reality, unlike the woolly and unclear

>> definitions of " energy " found in so much quack medicine.

>>

>> When a friend and an acquaintance published a book on discarded

>> ideas the publisher made them remove the entry on Astrology as

>> " too many people believe " -- well that approach will really help

>> educate them.

>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

>>

>> iD8DBQE+XBp2GFXfHI9FVgYRAu1mAJwLa6xM13/Hcom43kn8XziWNMh7pwCeNihD

>> 3s6mKrRsbAcODkuUdAbjKV8=

>> =sH4H

>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

>>

>> -------------------------------------

>> The Graves' list is intended for informational purposes only and is not

> intended to replace expert medical care.

>> Please consult your doctor before changing or trying new treatments.

>> ----------------------------------------

>> DISCLAIMER

>>

>> Advertisments placed on this yahoo groups list do not have the endorsement

> of

>> the listowner. I have no input as to what ads are attached to emails.

>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------

> ------------

>>

>>

[Guest guest]

Hi Pam-

OK! OK! OK! I just thought there might have been a misunderstanding. I

don't have time to explain scientific studies and their strong points and

flaws.

Been spending more time being a mommy than a scientist for the past couple

of years anyways and that's the way I like it right now.

Next time this happens, I won't worry about it.

Take care,

dx & RAI 1987 (at age 24)

>

> Hi and Simon, I'm not sure what the misunderstanding is, unless my

> definition of scientific studies is different from yours and Simon's (it

> must be).

>

> All I know is is that homeopathy does work (as does alt med like

herbalism)

> - because I've seen it work.

>

> Pam B.

>

> PS. Simon have you SEEN a UFO then? You always manage to make us smile,

don

> t you?

[Guest guest]

This has been a great discussion and cleared up a lot of misconceptions.

However, what I think many of us are apprehensive about is treating

Graves Disease with homeopathy alone. I took homeopathic thyroid when I

started ATDs, and got my act together nutritionally, and started a

serious but reasonable nutrition regimen and eliminated caffeine from my

diet, and weaned my baby... all of which or any of which may have been

important factors in going into remission. I have also had recent

success with homeopathy with family flus, etc.

But to anyone who is thinking of treating GD with homeopathy alone,

you've heard compelling evidence not to. It can be used as an adjunct to

alternative herbal treatment, TCM, or allopathic treatment. This is too

serious a disease to do otherwise. Just M(never to be)HO.

Take care, Fay

________________________________________________________________

Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today

Only $9.95 per month!

Visit www.juno.com

[Guest guest]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Hash: SHA1

Jody wrote:

> Faye and to those opposed to alternatives,

I haven't seen anyone opposed to alternatives, I might be

opposed to one particular alternative because the evidence

suggests it is snake oil.

> I think it is wonderful.

Definitely agreed, anyone who makes and sustains the effort to

make changes to their lifestyle and to sort their own problems,

whilst helping others has got to be applauded.

I'm just concerned about one aspect.

> As for the scientific studies that so many of us depend on, I

> have come to realize that *I* only like the studies that

> support *my* beliefs that RAI is bad for us, or studies that

> support *my* belief that atd's DO help the eye disease, when

> most studies disagree with this...I know what it has done for

> me.

We are all guilty of bias, and subjectivity. The reason double

blind trials are given such weight in the evidence based

medicine is the protocol makes it possible to exclude those

aspects (but not fraud, or mistakes, or many other issues).

Individual cases are really hard to draw conclusions from, and

it is perfectly possible a treatment might be measured to have

no positive outcome if the mean result across patients was the

same as the control if it turns out to be good for some and

equally bad for others. Hopefully in those cases the

experimentors keep digging as to who it works for.

There is some interesting work being conducted to try and use

the practice of medicine, rather than just clinical trials, to

extract evidence for particular practices being more or less

effective than others automatically. Kind of a " Big Doctor "

system, rather than " Big Brother " .

> Scientific studies support T4 replacement as something that

> 'exactly' like what our bodies make...

Show me the studies ;-)

There are quite a few that show T3 supplementation is a pig to

get right, and whilst I'm convinced by the weight of evidence

that getting the mix right is best, I've seen enough posts in

thyroid support groups saying " I tried T3 and it all it gave me

was a headache " to know those original T3 studies weren't simply

flawed.

However the interpretation placed on those earlier studies

started to shift when the later studies were done, from T3 is

bad to T3 is difficult to use right.

> Scientific studies support the *myth*, in my opinion, that

> RAI is *safe*, effective, the only way to go...that the very

> limited downsides of it are downplayed...

With all these studies you get variation, but most studies on

RAI only give some indiction of the risk or upper limits on the

risk, a lot of the perception comes from interpretation.

> if I had the energy

> and time I would do everything I could to find out where the

> money comes from for funding of these studies, the ones that

> support this, is probaby from drug companies...they like the

> studies to support *their* line of thinking.

We all like it when are prejudices are reinforced - the real

trouble comes when the protocol is warped to get the desired

results, or the paper is squashed because it gets the wrong results.

If you think it is a conspiracy the NIH employees are implicated.

> I think the majority of scientific studies are

> flawed and not accurate, that they are going to come out on

> the side of those funding them, no matter what the actual

> results were/are.

I don't think it is the majority, scientists have scruples as

well. But no it isn't a perfect world, one of the reasons you

look for repetition of results in other labs.

> My favorite quote is this:

>

> " All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed.

> Then it is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as

> self-evident. " (Schopenhauer)

But just because it is ridiculed doesn't mean it will come be to

regarded as self evident, more often it is probably just ridiculous.

On the other hand quite a lot of things that are held to be self

evident...

" I will not define time, space, place and motion, as being well

known to all. " Isaac Newton (Translated from Principia)

Turn out not to be so simple, re: Einstein.

> To me this sums up how much of the truth is science, medicine

> and other areas is arrived at, but it is those that come out

> against the *truths* of science and show other possibilities

> that face the greatest challenge...

I think most of the " truth " in medicine and science is got

through hardwork, and lots of thinking.

Sure revolutionary ideas get a hard time, but that is quite right.

Sagan claimed " extraordinary ideas require extraordinary proof " .

Just look at the roasting the cold fusion pioneers got.

> so when we talk *truths*

> in medicine and science, I think we have to ask 'whose' truth

> and do we want to take the risks or believe it as gospel, or

> maybe throwing in a bit of commonsense and follow our own gut

> feelings?

It is an article of faith in modern physics that there is an

objective reality out there whose nature we can hope to discern.

Of course the world might not be like that, but it gets really

hard to determine the true nature of the Universe if it doesn't

have one, or it keeps changing.

> Simon, as for those mind over matter, power of positive

> thinking, believing makes it so...well I have long believed

> that I can talk myself out of a cold, that I can control it

> instead of it controlling me...I know first hand how the

> power of prayer has worked in my life. These things may not

> be able to be scientifically explained, but maybe not

> everything has to be explained through science does it?

No but if you are claiming an objective effect (or even

subjective) we can measure it can compare your cold against a

control group on say Chicken soup ;-)

By the way I don't have a problem with any of those, unless it

is mind over distant matter (i.e. ESP), although I'm not up on

third party prayer I'm sure attitudes of patients and carers

makes a difference however induced.

> Though, both Harvard and I think the other hospital is 's

> Hopkins are doing *scientific* studies on the power of prayer

> in both heart disease/surgery and in cancer recovery. One of

> the doctors involved at Harvard was on one of the news shows

> last year talking about the improvements in those who were in

> the prayer group compared to those who were not having

> prayers said for them and she was amazed.

And what mechanism do you propose for the effects of such prayer?

A god who only cares for popular people, or something more direct?

> Okay Simon, have at me ;-)

Okay ;-)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE+XUZ2GFXfHI9FVgYRAoUsAKCgQJTrIlH1GTOQVURcZWygK6uSHgCggb3y

fw4wRjyX9rtfbH4lRqPiyKI=

=X4K/

-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Guest guest]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Hash: SHA1

Jody wrote:

> Faye and to those opposed to alternatives,

I haven't seen anyone opposed to alternatives, I might be

opposed to one particular alternative because the evidence

suggests it is snake oil.

> I think it is wonderful.

Definitely agreed, anyone who makes and sustains the effort to

make changes to their lifestyle and to sort their own problems,

whilst helping others has got to be applauded.

I'm just concerned about one aspect.

> As for the scientific studies that so many of us depend on, I

> have come to realize that *I* only like the studies that

> support *my* beliefs that RAI is bad for us, or studies that

> support *my* belief that atd's DO help the eye disease, when

> most studies disagree with this...I know what it has done for

> me.

We are all guilty of bias, and subjectivity. The reason double

blind trials are given such weight in the evidence based

medicine is the protocol makes it possible to exclude those

aspects (but not fraud, or mistakes, or many other issues).

Individual cases are really hard to draw conclusions from, and

it is perfectly possible a treatment might be measured to have

no positive outcome if the mean result across patients was the

same as the control if it turns out to be good for some and

equally bad for others. Hopefully in those cases the

experimentors keep digging as to who it works for.

There is some interesting work being conducted to try and use

the practice of medicine, rather than just clinical trials, to

extract evidence for particular practices being more or less

effective than others automatically. Kind of a " Big Doctor "

system, rather than " Big Brother " .

> Scientific studies support T4 replacement as something that

> 'exactly' like what our bodies make...

Show me the studies ;-)

There are quite a few that show T3 supplementation is a pig to

get right, and whilst I'm convinced by the weight of evidence

that getting the mix right is best, I've seen enough posts in

thyroid support groups saying " I tried T3 and it all it gave me

was a headache " to know those original T3 studies weren't simply

flawed.

However the interpretation placed on those earlier studies

started to shift when the later studies were done, from T3 is

bad to T3 is difficult to use right.

> Scientific studies support the *myth*, in my opinion, that

> RAI is *safe*, effective, the only way to go...that the very

> limited downsides of it are downplayed...

With all these studies you get variation, but most studies on

RAI only give some indiction of the risk or upper limits on the

risk, a lot of the perception comes from interpretation.

> if I had the energy

> and time I would do everything I could to find out where the

> money comes from for funding of these studies, the ones that

> support this, is probaby from drug companies...they like the

> studies to support *their* line of thinking.

We all like it when are prejudices are reinforced - the real

trouble comes when the protocol is warped to get the desired

results, or the paper is squashed because it gets the wrong results.

If you think it is a conspiracy the NIH employees are implicated.

> I think the majority of scientific studies are

> flawed and not accurate, that they are going to come out on

> the side of those funding them, no matter what the actual

> results were/are.

I don't think it is the majority, scientists have scruples as

well. But no it isn't a perfect world, one of the reasons you

look for repetition of results in other labs.

> My favorite quote is this:

>

> " All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed.

> Then it is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as

> self-evident. " (Schopenhauer)

But just because it is ridiculed doesn't mean it will come be to

regarded as self evident, more often it is probably just ridiculous.

On the other hand quite a lot of things that are held to be self

evident...

" I will not define time, space, place and motion, as being well

known to all. " Isaac Newton (Translated from Principia)

Turn out not to be so simple, re: Einstein.

> To me this sums up how much of the truth is science, medicine

> and other areas is arrived at, but it is those that come out

> against the *truths* of science and show other possibilities

> that face the greatest challenge...

I think most of the " truth " in medicine and science is got

through hardwork, and lots of thinking.

Sure revolutionary ideas get a hard time, but that is quite right.

Sagan claimed " extraordinary ideas require extraordinary proof " .

Just look at the roasting the cold fusion pioneers got.

> so when we talk *truths*

> in medicine and science, I think we have to ask 'whose' truth

> and do we want to take the risks or believe it as gospel, or

> maybe throwing in a bit of commonsense and follow our own gut

> feelings?

It is an article of faith in modern physics that there is an

objective reality out there whose nature we can hope to discern.

Of course the world might not be like that, but it gets really

hard to determine the true nature of the Universe if it doesn't

have one, or it keeps changing.

> Simon, as for those mind over matter, power of positive

> thinking, believing makes it so...well I have long believed

> that I can talk myself out of a cold, that I can control it

> instead of it controlling me...I know first hand how the

> power of prayer has worked in my life. These things may not

> be able to be scientifically explained, but maybe not

> everything has to be explained through science does it?

No but if you are claiming an objective effect (or even

subjective) we can measure it can compare your cold against a

control group on say Chicken soup ;-)

By the way I don't have a problem with any of those, unless it

is mind over distant matter (i.e. ESP), although I'm not up on

third party prayer I'm sure attitudes of patients and carers

makes a difference however induced.

> Though, both Harvard and I think the other hospital is 's

> Hopkins are doing *scientific* studies on the power of prayer

> in both heart disease/surgery and in cancer recovery. One of

> the doctors involved at Harvard was on one of the news shows

> last year talking about the improvements in those who were in

> the prayer group compared to those who were not having

> prayers said for them and she was amazed.

And what mechanism do you propose for the effects of such prayer?

A god who only cares for popular people, or something more direct?

> Okay Simon, have at me ;-)

Okay ;-)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE+XUZ2GFXfHI9FVgYRAoUsAKCgQJTrIlH1GTOQVURcZWygK6uSHgCggb3y

fw4wRjyX9rtfbH4lRqPiyKI=

=X4K/

-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Guest guest]

What a fascinating amount of debate this topic has stimulated! I

actually really love hearing from viewpoints that are (seemingly)

diametrically opposed, because I get the 'dirt' ie. the fears,

misconceptions, 'facts' on both ends and use my own experience and

judgement to fall somewhere along the continuum.

Just a side note: I am not only doing homeopathy (yes, I am doing

homeopathy), but this is part of a rigorous regimen designed by my

naturopath, coordinated with my TCM/acupuncturist, and including

herbal tinctures (our friend bugleweed et al), dramatic dietary

change, yoga, visualization, a healthy dose of research, and a paid

stress leave. And blood test monitoring from my allopathic supports

to ensure they don't have to charge me under the mental health act

and book me into a ward 'when it doesn't work' (quote from an allo

doctor).

We'll see. I reserve a healthy dose of scepticism for any system

that deigns to do everything for me - alt or allo. I think the dart

falls somewhere less extreme - where? I'll have to find out.

Dee

[Guest guest]

What a fascinating amount of debate this topic has stimulated! I

actually really love hearing from viewpoints that are (seemingly)

diametrically opposed, because I get the 'dirt' ie. the fears,

misconceptions, 'facts' on both ends and use my own experience and

judgement to fall somewhere along the continuum.

Just a side note: I am not only doing homeopathy (yes, I am doing

homeopathy), but this is part of a rigorous regimen designed by my

naturopath, coordinated with my TCM/acupuncturist, and including

herbal tinctures (our friend bugleweed et al), dramatic dietary

change, yoga, visualization, a healthy dose of research, and a paid

stress leave. And blood test monitoring from my allopathic supports

to ensure they don't have to charge me under the mental health act

and book me into a ward 'when it doesn't work' (quote from an allo

doctor).

We'll see. I reserve a healthy dose of scepticism for any system

that deigns to do everything for me - alt or allo. I think the dart

falls somewhere less extreme - where? I'll have to find out.

Dee

[Guest guest]

I want to clarify my stand on this for the benefit of newbies weighing

the options. I speak for myself but I think others may agree with me.

What distinguishes homeopathy from other alternative options such as

herbal remedies or Traditional Chinese Medicine, etc. is that the

substances in the latter, like allopathic medicine have specific

properties that do specific things. The principle of homeopathy is that

you want a substance that in larger doses will act completely counter to

what you want to achieve, but so diluted that the original substance may

not even be present.

I'm open to the possibility that homeopathy alone might be able to work

on GD, but I would not want to be the one to prove it. ( I should just

mention that on a friend's advice I bought belladonna for fever but

accidently bought the most potent dose, i.e. the most diluted, and was

terrified to use it. I did eventually and I have to say I've seen it

work.) The purpose of this list is to share info and offer direction. I

would steer anyone to ATDs, surgery , and most alternative practices over

RAI. With limited time and funds though, I would greatly hesitate to

recommend anyone try homeopathy as anything but an auxilliary to any of

the above.

Take care, Fay

P.S. I'm working on an article for a local thyroid support group. I don't

have a lot of room so I'm concentrating on success with ATDs. The head of

the group says that most people who come to her with GD have had poor

(read: mismanaged) experience. I hope to run it by the group soon and

look forward to your input.

P.S.S. Simon, you'll like this. It's from a selection of Letters to a

Pastor: " Dear Pastor, I know G-d loves everybody but He never met my

sister. Yours sincerely, Arnold, age 8. "

________________________________________________________________

Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today

Only $9.95 per month!

Visit www.juno.com

[Guest guest]

yours is a luxury of the upper classes; not everyone, in fact very few, have

an opportunity to spend lots o' money on something that may or may not work,

over a long period of time

Re: How safe is homeopathy anyway?

Experiences?

Just a side note: I am not only doing homeopathy (yes, I am doing

homeopathy), but this is part of a rigorous regimen designed by my

naturopath, coordinated with my TCM/acupuncturist, and including

herbal tinctures (our friend bugleweed et al), dramatic dietary

change, yoga, visualization, a healthy dose of research, and a paid

stress leave. And blood test monitoring from my allopathic supports

to ensure they don't have to charge me under the mental health act

and book me into a ward 'when it doesn't work' (quote from an allo

doctor).

We'll see. I reserve a healthy dose of scepticism for any system

that deigns to do everything for me - alt or allo. I think the dart

falls somewhere less extreme - where? I'll have to find out.

[Guest guest]

yours is a luxury of the upper classes; not everyone, in fact very few, have

an opportunity to spend lots o' money on something that may or may not work,

over a long period of time

Re: How safe is homeopathy anyway?

Experiences?

Just a side note: I am not only doing homeopathy (yes, I am doing

homeopathy), but this is part of a rigorous regimen designed by my

naturopath, coordinated with my TCM/acupuncturist, and including

herbal tinctures (our friend bugleweed et al), dramatic dietary

change, yoga, visualization, a healthy dose of research, and a paid

stress leave. And blood test monitoring from my allopathic supports

to ensure they don't have to charge me under the mental health act

and book me into a ward 'when it doesn't work' (quote from an allo

doctor).

We'll see. I reserve a healthy dose of scepticism for any system

that deigns to do everything for me - alt or allo. I think the dart

falls somewhere less extreme - where? I'll have to find out.

[Guest guest]

> yours is a luxury of the upper classes; not everyone, in fact very

few, have

> an opportunity to spend lots o' money on something that may or may

not work,

> over a long period of time

I know many working class and impoverished people using alternative

medicine rather than allopathic means because they wish to get well.

This includes a carpenter making less than $18,000 a year who's

treating his prostate cancer with alternative methods. Many of these

people have access to low-income clinics or are Medicaid eligible but

would rather spend what little money they have for somthing they

believe will be better for them. Then there are moderate-income

people like me who get charged an arm and a leg for health insurance,

and others who can't afford it at all. Actually, if you're uninsured,

allopathic medicine seems more like the " luxury of the upper classes. "

Best wishes,

[Guest guest]

> yours is a luxury of the upper classes; not everyone, in fact very

few, have

> an opportunity to spend lots o' money on something that may or may

not work,

> over a long period of time

I know many working class and impoverished people using alternative

medicine rather than allopathic means because they wish to get well.

This includes a carpenter making less than $18,000 a year who's

treating his prostate cancer with alternative methods. Many of these

people have access to low-income clinics or are Medicaid eligible but

would rather spend what little money they have for somthing they

believe will be better for them. Then there are moderate-income

people like me who get charged an arm and a leg for health insurance,

and others who can't afford it at all. Actually, if you're uninsured,

allopathic medicine seems more like the " luxury of the upper classes. "

Best wishes,

[Guest guest]

I think all of the treatment options - traditional or alternative - are all

iffy as to whether or not they will work long term... we are all gambling on

remission here aren't we? (except those of us who do RAI or surgery - they

have pretty much guaranteed a life time of replacement hormones.) Yet

regardless of treatment choice, we are all supposed to have the same goal -

to get our health back - so does it really matter if some of us want to try

different ways to reach that goal? Or that we are willing to find ways to

make that happen?

But a *luxury of the upper classes* to do alt med? I really doubt that alt

med is a luxury based on class, and so would you if you went and sat in the

waiting room at my natural health clinic or another of my ND's offices - you

will see all walks of life there, believe me.

I'm fortunate in that my health insurance (now there is a luxury of the

upper class) covers visits to naturopaths. Realistically though, if I didn't

have insurance at all, alt med would cost LESS than traditional med -

because most NDs charge less than most MDs and, if everything goes as

planned, alt med is going to heal ALL of me, and remission is going to stick

for a very long time, and I won't have to do this all over again any time

soon. And if you really want to get into the details, a lot of the

lifestyle changes we are talking about are FREE (yoga, meditation,

relaxation, etc.), and cooking whole foods cost less that buying prepared,

processed foods, etc etc etc.

But this is *my* gamble, not yours, so why is it you seem to have a problem

with it?

Pam B.

-- RE: Re: How safe is homeopathy anyway?

Experiences?

yours is a luxury of the upper classes; not everyone, in fact very few, have

an opportunity to spend lots o' money on something that may or may not work,

over a long period of time