--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I use homeopathic remedies for colds and they work really well. > > > > > > The theory is that very minute amounts of the cause of an ailment > > > > > > are put into the body and then the body reacts by creating > > > > > > antidotes to that ailment. > > > > > > > > > > Interesting. I wonder how they get the more than 200 virus > > > > > types that cause colds into the remedy. > > > > > > > > From what I understand they use the opposite of the cold, or > > > > rather something that makes you feel the opposite sorts of > > > > things you feel when you have a cold. > > > > > > So symptomatic relief, then, not anything to do with what > > > actually causes the cold or with triggering the body to > > > produce "antidotes" (I guess she meant antibodies). That > > > makes marginally more sense, I suppose. > > > > As you'll see from my quotes below my memory of how it works > > is a bit flawed. > > Close enough. > > > > There's something called Bach Flower Remedies, but I don't > > > think that relates to Johann Sebastian. > > > > Can you get Motorhead Flower Remedies? That ought to drive > > some germs out of you. > > Ayyyyy...sterilize you for life. > > > > But JSB is a cure for just about anything, so maybe putting > > > him into the treatments isn't all that dumb. > > > > I've got some water I could sell you, but it's expensive... > > > > Thought I would check up on this lest the Homeopathy Society > > sue me for defamation. > > > > The book I got the info from is called "13 things that don't > > make sense" by Michael Brooks, and the inclusion of homeopathy > > is because it appears to work in some cases regardless of what mainstream > > science thinks of it. > > > > The banging on the Bible is called succussion and they use machines > > too for the most "potent" remedies where things have to be banged > > thousands of times. > > What's this supposed to accomplish?
Good question. I have no answer to any of it. How does removing all trace of the ingredients make them more effective? > They have remedies for things made out of lava, > > crop circles, flapjack and even bat and cicada wings. A proper > > witches cauldron. > > > > The music he mentions are just notes like "F sharp minor" or > > "G major" so unless Bach used those a lot.... > > Well, those are key signatures, not notes. Don't know if > Bach wrote in those keys any more than others. > > MB asks how notes > > are potentized into bottles and the homeopath just rolls his eyes > > and sighs. Even he doesn't seem too convinced about some of it, > > but here's how it works from MBs book: > > > > "A homeopathic goes through a system of checks called "proving". > > The original substance is given to a group of volunteers who > > note any strangeness, any symptoms of anything they experience. > > over the next few weeks. These symptoms are compiled and compared > > and the ones that seem universal are then associated with the > > substance. If a patient in a consultation reports anything like > > those symptoms, the principle of homeopathy - literally, "similar > > suffering" - means that a remedy made from the substance in question > > might make a useful treatment. > > > > The trouble is that many of the medicines in the pharmacy haven't > > had anything like a decent "proving" and are obvious examples of > > quackery. They have remedies made from condoms, the blood from an > > HIV positive man and even the whiff of anti matter." > > Jesus, HIV-positive blood?? And what's "the whiff of anti > matter"? He doesn't elaborate on that, it's just what is written on the jars. By definition you can't smell anti-matter without being destroyed so god knows where they got that idea from. > > And this is before they dilute it out of existence of course, which > > makes even less sense of course. His conclusion is there might be > > something there in the original principle but all the bollocks gets > > in the way. > > Why does he conclude that there's *anything* there in the > original principle? Because some of it is based on folk remedies that on their own might have some value but the signal may have been swamped by the "tongue of bat" noise that's crept in over the years. There are some positive anecdotes but as we know the plural of anecdote isn't data. He also quotes the result of a meta analysis into homeopathy that concluded there was a bit more to it than placebo. But that finding was rejected because it contradicted all the (many) others and is seen as a statistical anomally. One of his reasons for investigating is he seems to think there might be something in the fact that it's still around and is so popular. But so is astrology.... > > The book is worth a read: > > > > http://www.amazon.co.uk/Things-That-Dont-Make-Sense/dp/186197647X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1353408304&sr=1-1 > > > > It covers topics including life on Mars, free will and the > > placebo effect and there is more to all of them than meets > > the eye. > > I liked "There's no good scientific explanation for why we > must die," apparently (from the Amazon page) one of the > topics covered.
