The Secretary of Health and Human Services recently baselessly claimed that steroids, antibiotics, and cod liver oil yielded “very good results" with measles.
Dr. Edwards opened the clinic when “a divine appointment in 2011 opened his eyes to the fact that US medical schools only teach a very narrow way of disease and symptom management with pharmaceuticals instead of disease and symptom resolution by addressing root causes.”
Edit: other lemmers have educated me. Thanks for sharing your opinions and knowledge. Homeopathy <> holistic. Homeopathy is a stupid pseudoscience scam. Holistic is good. Original comment below being retained for context.
I hate how binary it is. A homeopathic or holistic view of a healthy lifestyle and body doesn’t mean someone can’t also accept some of the modern miracles of medical science, like providing weapons-grade intel about a deadly pathogen to your body’s chief defensive forces without forcing it to fight that foe to the death in a cage match. I’m all for integrating herbs in my diet and…idk, binaural therapy and soft lighting and whatever (not crystals, except for lookin’ and touchin’ because they’re just neat and pretty), but those are just nice maintenance in day to day existence. If there’s a low risk way to clue in my T and B cells without feeling like shit, possibly sickening others, and maybe even dying or being scarred/deformed, then sign me up!
No. These words are near complete opposites. Anyone who uses “holistic” in that way is being disingenuous or straight up does not know what those words mean.
It’s like trying to get public schools to teach “intelligent design.” They are using the word “holistic” (meaning “whole,” or to view the body as a whole system, that’s what a “holistic approach” actually means) in an attempt to suggest that homeopathy deserves to be a part of that approach, and that’s fucking stupid.
“Holistic” is good.
“Homeopathy” is absurd pseudoscientific bullshit about molecules having “memory,” and that diluting something makes it more powerful because… Reasons.
No problem… It’s a big pet peeve of mine because I believe pseudoscience can be dangerous at a societal level.
I used to equate those two words as well before I learned the difference. Given how many people seem to have done the same, they probably conflated them intentionally to muddy the waters.
This reminds me I need to go back and finish Sagan’s The Demon-Haunted World because he masterfully eviscerates pseudoscience in it.
I also loved how Philipp Dettmer tactfully addressed the Hygiene Hypothesis in Immune, which I believe everyone in the general population should read. It was profoundly eye-opening to learn about the principle mechanisms by which the immune system so delicately does its thing on the daily. It’s almost beyond my comprehension to appreciate how such an intricate and balanced dance performed by incomprehensible numbers of players can occur with only Brownian motion as the motivating driver (and, you know, many millions of years of fine-tuning through a relentless microbiological arms race for resources).
Gut by Enders and her explanation of the colon’s microbial constituents is another wonderful introduction for the lay person that really could supplant silly-ass homeopathy with something that is actually happening and no less amazing than the otherwise absurd concept of “molecular memory” or an alternative bond angle in water molecules.
If we’re talking about medicine, then you don’t get to pick and choose between actual effective medicine and your homeopathic snake oil. The stuff that you’re talking about, it just doesn’t work, and those vaccines that we’ve had for decades and longer, depending on the disease, they actually do work.
But if you want to buy some incense and soft lighting because it makes you feel better, maybe because it’s a placebo effect, then you can certainly do that. It’s your money and if you choose to spend it on snake oil then that’s your business. And if your justification is that maybe it might work even though there’s no solid evidence, that sounds a lot like Pascal’s Wager, but still, it’s your money to spend.
Just be careful that you are aware of the difference between the two.
Guess I’m pretty ignorant about homeopathy. I was just thinking about it as incorporating a bunch of adaptogenic herbs in teas and dietary supplements and maybe some harmless habitat adjustments. I don’t know much beyond that, but was trying to figure out how mutually exclusive the two approaches toward healing really were. I wasn’t advocating for homeopathy, but trying to pose an argument that a homeopathic person might still be able to embrace pharmacological methods as well.
I’ve not looked into binaural therapy and its efficacy. Same for soft-lighting, although I hear a lot about sleep disruption at night from screens.
I think it very much depends on the herbs we are talking about, though? As well as the amount taken, and so on. Suppose we are talking about curcumin, if that counts? Or green tea? Or garlic?
Like the poster was saying though - none of this would supplant modern findings, and I agree. I keep seeing various headlines about medicine and vaccines targeting certain cancers, or where they were able to have cancerous cells turned into normal cells. I would certainly hope that someone suffering from cancer would opt for breakthroughs like those vs. whatever homeopathic routes are offered up. Same goes for something like measles - get vaxxed if you haven’t been and get your kids vaxxed. Easy as pie.
I hear a lot about sleep disruption at night from screens.
And guess what, we have scientific studies about this. That’s why you’ve heard it, because they have studied it and confirmed it with the scientific method.
It’s like the joke, “what do they call alternative medicine that works?”
I think we are in agreement here? Anyway, I think where things typically go wrong is that most Americans’ experience with medicine is an assembly-line type of experience where the doctor might have mere moments with you, and to ask about your symptoms and very little else. They might ask if you drink or smoke, but ask almost no details about what you eat or how much you exercise, how you are sleeping.
I think this is where things go awry - people see a disconnect between this kind of experience and knowing there has to be more to it and that they should probably take the reins and the responsibility for the maintenance side of their health (and I absolutely think they should - no doctor is going to be able to make their patient drop the weight, quit smoking, stop drinking, cut way back on milk, dairy, salt, and sugar, go exercise and work on getting good sleep). Some people involve their doctor in this in an advisory capacity, if they can. And people doing this should be relying on credible medical sources as they do it.
And that last part of it is where it goes wrong - people “doing their own research” when they may not have the tools to separate the wheat from the chaff, and a whole lot of sites/influencers out there just ready and waiting for this type of person…
The rallying cry of homeopaths everywere… 🤷♂️ 🙄
Edit: other lemmers have educated me. Thanks for sharing your opinions and knowledge. Homeopathy <> holistic. Homeopathy is a stupid pseudoscience scam. Holistic is good. Original comment below being retained for context.
I hate how binary it is. A homeopathic or holistic view of a healthy lifestyle and body doesn’t mean someone can’t also accept some of the modern miracles of medical science, like providing weapons-grade intel about a deadly pathogen to your body’s chief defensive forces without forcing it to fight that foe to the death in a cage match. I’m all for integrating herbs in my diet and…idk, binaural therapy and soft lighting and whatever (not crystals, except for lookin’ and touchin’ because they’re just neat and pretty), but those are just nice maintenance in day to day existence. If there’s a low risk way to clue in my T and B cells without feeling like shit, possibly sickening others, and maybe even dying or being scarred/deformed, then sign me up!
No. These words are near complete opposites. Anyone who uses “holistic” in that way is being disingenuous or straight up does not know what those words mean.
It’s like trying to get public schools to teach “intelligent design.” They are using the word “holistic” (meaning “whole,” or to view the body as a whole system, that’s what a “holistic approach” actually means) in an attempt to suggest that homeopathy deserves to be a part of that approach, and that’s fucking stupid.
“Holistic” is good.
“Homeopathy” is absurd pseudoscientific bullshit about molecules having “memory,” and that diluting something makes it more powerful because… Reasons.
Good points. Thanks for the education and setting me straight! I love civil discourse :)
No problem… It’s a big pet peeve of mine because I believe pseudoscience can be dangerous at a societal level.
I used to equate those two words as well before I learned the difference. Given how many people seem to have done the same, they probably conflated them intentionally to muddy the waters.
This reminds me I need to go back and finish Sagan’s The Demon-Haunted World because he masterfully eviscerates pseudoscience in it.
I also loved how Philipp Dettmer tactfully addressed the Hygiene Hypothesis in Immune, which I believe everyone in the general population should read. It was profoundly eye-opening to learn about the principle mechanisms by which the immune system so delicately does its thing on the daily. It’s almost beyond my comprehension to appreciate how such an intricate and balanced dance performed by incomprehensible numbers of players can occur with only Brownian motion as the motivating driver (and, you know, many millions of years of fine-tuning through a relentless microbiological arms race for resources).
Gut by Enders and her explanation of the colon’s microbial constituents is another wonderful introduction for the lay person that really could supplant silly-ass homeopathy with something that is actually happening and no less amazing than the otherwise absurd concept of “molecular memory” or an alternative bond angle in water molecules.
If we’re talking about medicine, then you don’t get to pick and choose between actual effective medicine and your homeopathic snake oil. The stuff that you’re talking about, it just doesn’t work, and those vaccines that we’ve had for decades and longer, depending on the disease, they actually do work.
But if you want to buy some incense and soft lighting because it makes you feel better, maybe because it’s a placebo effect, then you can certainly do that. It’s your money and if you choose to spend it on snake oil then that’s your business. And if your justification is that maybe it might work even though there’s no solid evidence, that sounds a lot like Pascal’s Wager, but still, it’s your money to spend.
Just be careful that you are aware of the difference between the two.
Guess I’m pretty ignorant about homeopathy. I was just thinking about it as incorporating a bunch of adaptogenic herbs in teas and dietary supplements and maybe some harmless habitat adjustments. I don’t know much beyond that, but was trying to figure out how mutually exclusive the two approaches toward healing really were. I wasn’t advocating for homeopathy, but trying to pose an argument that a homeopathic person might still be able to embrace pharmacological methods as well.
They do nothing and are a waste of money. That’s not “maintenance” , that’s a “scam”.
I’ve not looked into binaural therapy and its efficacy. Same for soft-lighting, although I hear a lot about sleep disruption at night from screens.
I think it very much depends on the herbs we are talking about, though? As well as the amount taken, and so on. Suppose we are talking about curcumin, if that counts? Or green tea? Or garlic?
Like the poster was saying though - none of this would supplant modern findings, and I agree. I keep seeing various headlines about medicine and vaccines targeting certain cancers, or where they were able to have cancerous cells turned into normal cells. I would certainly hope that someone suffering from cancer would opt for breakthroughs like those vs. whatever homeopathic routes are offered up. Same goes for something like measles - get vaxxed if you haven’t been and get your kids vaxxed. Easy as pie.
And guess what, we have scientific studies about this. That’s why you’ve heard it, because they have studied it and confirmed it with the scientific method.
It’s like the joke, “what do they call alternative medicine that works?”
“Medicine.”
I think we are in agreement here? Anyway, I think where things typically go wrong is that most Americans’ experience with medicine is an assembly-line type of experience where the doctor might have mere moments with you, and to ask about your symptoms and very little else. They might ask if you drink or smoke, but ask almost no details about what you eat or how much you exercise, how you are sleeping.
I think this is where things go awry - people see a disconnect between this kind of experience and knowing there has to be more to it and that they should probably take the reins and the responsibility for the maintenance side of their health (and I absolutely think they should - no doctor is going to be able to make their patient drop the weight, quit smoking, stop drinking, cut way back on milk, dairy, salt, and sugar, go exercise and work on getting good sleep). Some people involve their doctor in this in an advisory capacity, if they can. And people doing this should be relying on credible medical sources as they do it.
And that last part of it is where it goes wrong - people “doing their own research” when they may not have the tools to separate the wheat from the chaff, and a whole lot of sites/influencers out there just ready and waiting for this type of person…