Comments on: Cases dropped against malaria homeopaths

By: Jethro Stevenson

Jethro Stevenson — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 23:07:10 +0000

Studies are often carried out by or on behalf of the pharm companies it’s true, however they have to submit a lot of research based evidence which has to be corroborated before the new drug is licenced.

Conversely, ‘traditional’ medicines rely on uncorroberated anecdotal evidence to make their claims.

Don’t get me wrong, I am a great believer in the placebo effect, but it is dangerous to rely solely on it when there are proven alternatives.

By: Jane

Jane — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 01:22:03 +0000

Effectiveness of any treatment must be undertaken by scientific study not old wives tales or ‘my Nan swears by it’ homeopathy regularly fails these studies let’s not forget.

Who conducts/funds the studies? The pharmaceutical industry?

By: Richard

Richard — Sat, 15 Jan 2011 07:52:45 +0000

If any alternative medicines worked they would simply called medicine!

Effectiveness of any treatment must be undertaken by scientific study not old wives tales or ‘my Nan swears by it’ homeopathy regularly fails these studies let’s not forget

By: James Parker

James Parker — Sat, 15 Jan 2011 03:17:13 +0000

If you go into and truly understand alternative medicine (particulary Chinese`medicine)`then you realises how advanced and systematic it is. It far surpasses the medicine designed control and attack the problem created by rational thought.

By: Jethro Stevenson

Jethro Stevenson — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 18:51:28 +0000

@ Vashti
If your anecdote is to be believed then the fact that a small group of nurses was vaccinated/tested/revaccinated etc. suggests that they were part of a clinical trial. This would mean that they were testing a new vaccine, so yes, it’s quite probable that the vaccine(s) didn’t work. However, it is by carrying out more of these tests with different potential vaccines that vaccines are found for diseases and proven to work.

@James Parker
Just because people have been doing something for a long time does not mean it is effective. To assume that it does is very bad science. In fact, it could be argued that in the case of remedies for communicable diseases, that people have been trying it for a long time and the disease still exists shows how ineffective it is!

By: alan

alan — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 16:09:11 +0000

Can’t help feeling that someone is missing a trick here. This seems like an ideal opportunity to conduct a scientific experiment, on film, vis-à-vis Homeopathy. Complete with assistance from a group of willing unpaid guinea pigs.

By: Berber Anna

Berber Anna — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 10:51:32 +0000

Oh, so that’s what you mean. The frontal lobes are more of a ‘brake’ the way I see it. Most behaviour is started from the subconscious regions of the brain (which does not mean that you have no free will — those brain regions are as much a part of you as the conscious ones). The frontal lobe is where you go ‘WHOA no we’re NOT doing that’. That’s why certain poisons (alcohol, drugs, fatigue related toxins) make your inhibitions disappear — they fuck with that brake.
I still don’t see how the functioning of brain regions is related to the wave/particle behaviour of photons, though, apart from analogues people draw between the two processes.

By: James Parker

James Parker — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 01:17:55 +0000

Hey Berber

The wave/particle experiement suggest consiousness ‘knows what it is doing’ in the MOMENT in that it is aware, there is intelligence beyond the frontal lobes that produce the cage of rational thought.

By: James Parker

James Parker — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 00:24:32 +0000

The empirical testing belief system is relative and contextual. For example Newton physics is true from the relative position of gross matter/energy but then breaks down when you get to the subtler level of matter where a new context appears. Therefore all scientific discoveries are only true within a certain field, change the field the science no longer works.This is the same for Therefore science/the rational mind/part can NEVER understand the absolute/whole/non-dual reality or in other words GOD. The science method is only ever in a state of conceptual emergence, it is absorbed within its own conceptual framework and cannot see beyond it until it breaks down. To assume what Dawkins is assuming is to be absorbed within that conceptual reality ad is therefore no different to any religion.

By: James Parker

James Parker — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 00:11:57 +0000

Berber Anna, read Professor David Bohm, ‘Wholeness and the Implicate Order’ as one of many powerful scientific study into consiousness. Scientific materialists often close their minds to anything that they can’t understand and then label it as mumbo jumbo in order to protect the worldview they have identified with. This is similar to what happened to Einstein, Galileo etc, etc, etc…