Under fire: Doctors slam `bogus' therapy

Under fire: Doctors slam `bogus' therapy

There are 270 comments on the AdelaideNow... story from Apr 18, 2010, titled Under fire: Doctors slam `bogus' therapy. In it, AdelaideNow... reports that:

DOCTORS have called for an end to taxpayer-funded subsidies for homeopathy as there is "no evidence that works at all". Homeopathy is based on the belief "like cures like" and dilution can strengthen a therapeutic material's effects, even if a product is diluted to where no measurable amount remains.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at AdelaideNow....

Since: Sep 07

La Quinta, CA

#43 Jul 18, 2010
Iqbal wrote:
<quoted text>
You are not a doctor. Have you tried homeopathic medication?
If Einstein and Niels Bohr do not agree on an area of physics, are you not stepping out of your area when you comment on homeopathy? It definitely matters if you study a subject and then comment upon the portion of the subject that you studied.
A doctor in chemistry will not participate in discussion on physics or even bio-chemistry.
Science does not explain everything that we experience- are you aware there are particles with negative mass? Will conventional physics ever accept this?
So, what you are claiming is that you have to be a homeopath to make homeopathy work? How is that different than having to be a witch to make magic work?

I'm going to explain this very slowly. Hopefully you have the basic education needed to follow along.

See if you can agree with these statements:
1) A chemical reaction requires, at the minimum, two different chemical compounds to work. That is to say, you can not have a chemical reaction unless there is something for each chemical to react two/with. Carbon by itself does not "react". Carbon in the presence of Oxygen and heat does "react".

Understand? Do you agree? Can you name a single example if you disagree?

2) The minimum amount of a chemical is one molecule. At less than 1 molecule, you have the components but not the chemical. For example: Carbon Dioxide has 1 carbon atom and 2 oxygen atoms. If you remove an oxygen atom, you no longer have carbon dioxide, you have carbon monoxide. So, while you can have nearly endless amounts of a particular compound, the least possible amount you can have is a single unbroken molecule. That molecule could be 2 atoms, it could be 20 atoms. It depends on how complex the chemical.

Exception: You could argue that the oxygen molecule O2 can be broken down into individual oxygen atoms and they would still be oxygen. In that scenario, the smallest unit would be a single atom.

Understand? Do you agree? Can you name an example if you disagree?

3) Given a measured amount of any substance there is a definite and very real number of molecules present. If you have the time and ability to remove one molecule at a time, you will eventually run out of the substance. In other words, if I give you a liter of HCl, there is a specific number of molecules within that liter. If you keep taking molecules out, you will eventually run out of the substance entirely.

Understand? Do you agree? Can you name an example if you disagree?

Those are pretty rock bottom basic principles. If we can not agree on fundamental reality, there's really no point discussing anything. If you do not grasp the basic chemistry involved, then you will obviously equate magic and reality on the same level.

So, go ahead and demonstrate that you have a minimum education and we can continue on to why you are wrong about homeopathy.
Iqbal

Delhi, India

#44 Jul 19, 2010
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
So, what you are claiming is that you have to be a homeopath to make homeopathy work? How is that different than having to be a witch to make magic work?
I'm going to explain this very slowly. Hopefully you have the basic education needed to follow along.
So, go ahead and demonstrate that you have a minimum education and we can continue on to why you are wrong about homeopathy.
I do understand the details provided by you. This is chemistry.

Are you a chemist?

You were discussing potency in homeopathy.Why did you start reference to chemistry? Chemicals do not work as scientific drugs also: over time show an undesirable reaction on human body
that leads to their with drawl. Interfere with the body's immune system that fights disease. In most cases the bacteria/virus becomes resistant to the chemical making drugs ineffective.

Penicillin killed 95% of the germ streptococcus in the initial stage, today 95% of the same are resistant to penicillin. We also know about the resurgence of Tuberculosis in the world. At one time it was thought to be curable with the invention of antibiotics. We now have “super bugs” that are resistant to most antibiotics.

Can you stay with potency?
The Patriot

Louisville, KY

#45 Jul 19, 2010
Iqbal wrote:
You were discussing potency in homeopathy.Why did you start reference to chemistry? Chemicals do not work as scientific drugs
Thank you for stating so succinctly why there is absolutely no point in continuing this discussion further. You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

Go read a science textbook.
also: over time show an undesirable reaction on human body
that leads to their with drawl.
Some, yes, but this is why those medicines are prescribed (and taken) sparingly.

You act as if the existence of adverse side effects is something new. It isn't. It has been weighed against the existence of good effects, and since the good outweigh the bad, we decide to use the medicine.
Interfere with the body's immune system that fights disease.
No. The vast majority of medicines - vaccines are the most obvious example - actually work WITH the immune system.
In most cases the bacteria/virus becomes resistant to the chemical making drugs ineffective.
Hence continued research.
Can you stay with potency?
Can you show any potency at all?

Since: Sep 07

La Quinta, CA

#46 Jul 19, 2010
Iqbal wrote:
<quoted text>
I do understand the details provided by you. This is chemistry.
Are you a chemist?
You were discussing potency in homeopathy.Why did you start reference to chemistry?
Because we needed to set a base level of understanding.

So far, you've agreed that in order for there to be a chemical reaction, the chemical must be present. The least amount of chemical possible would be 1 molecule.

That's an excellent place to start.

Now, lets discuss dilution.

A 1C dilution is created by taking 1x of something (where X is any given amount) and mixing it into 100x of pure water.

So, to make a 1C dilution of a drop of iodine, you would put it in 100 drops of water.

To make a 2C dilution of iodine, you would first take 1 drop and mix it with 100 drops of water. You would then take 1 drop of THAT dilution you just made and mix it with 100 fresh drops of water.

Written out mathematically:

1C =.01
2C = 1C divided by 100 =.0001

Understand?

For each additional "C", you are taking the previous amount and diluting it 1:100 in pure water.

So...

3C =.000001
4C =.00000001

30C would equal =.(59 zeros)1
200C would equal =.(399 zeros)1

Now, let's discuss how many atoms remain at this dilution level.

A single drop of substance contains roughly 2x10^23rd molecules.

Remember, you already agreed that there is a specific number of molecules present in any given material.

So, if you took a single drop and diluted it 1x, you would be dividing the number of molecules by 100.

In other words, 1 drop of 1C solution contains only 2x10^21th molecules of iodine.

Each subsequent dilution does the same thing, it dilutes the number of molecules by 100.

So:
0C = 2x10^23
1C = 2x10^21
2C = 2X10^19
3C = 2x10^17
4C = 2x10^15
5C = 2x10^13
6C = 2X10^11
7C = 2x10^9
8C = 2x10^7
9C = 2x10^5
10C = 2X10^3
11C = 2x10 or "20"

At 11C dilution we are down to 20 molecules of iodine.

At 12C we have a problem. 20 divided by 100 is .2

But we CAN'T have .2 molecules of something. You've ALREADY agreed that 1 is the least number of molecules you can have. Anything less than 1 and you no longer have the original substance, you have components of it.

So, let's ASSUME that for the 12C dilution we got lucky and got 1 whole molecule instead of a fraction of one.

12C = 1 lucky molecule.
13C = same lucky molecule beating 100:1 odds
14C = same lucky molecule beating 10000:1 odds

We aren't even HALFWAY to 30C yet.

The odds that there is even ONE molecule left of the original source material at 30C is so astronomical as to be ridiculous.

And, you've ALREADY agreed that without at least ONE molecule of the source material, there can be NO CHEMICAL reaction.

Let me sum up:

You've agreed that without one molecule of something, there can be no reaction. You've agreed that there is a limit to the number of molecules in something.

So, unless you can demonstrate an error in my mathematics, you need to explain how 1 molecule can be present in a 30C dilution.

And THEN you need to explain how it can be present in a 200C dilution.

Otherwise, you've already conceded that homeopathic remedies contain NO molecules of the source material and THEREFORE can not cause a chemical reaction.

In other words, they can have NO EFFECT.
Iqbal

New Delhi, India

#47 Jul 19, 2010
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Because we needed to set a base level of understanding.
So far, you've agreed that in order for there to be a chemical reaction, the chemical must be present. The least amount of chemical possible would be 1 molecule.
That's an excellent place to start.
Now, lets discuss dilution.
In other words, they can have NO EFFECT.
I have seen this message of yours earlier also- your favorite? I was looking for the source from where you picked it up. Is the source a doctor, a chemist or statistician? This is why I asked if you have a background in medicine.

Are you discussing chemical reaction or potency of a homeopathic medicine? What has a chemical reaction methodology in a lab to do when compared to a medicine that has to act on a human body to cure a disease?
Iqbal

New Delhi, India

#48 Jul 19, 2010
The Patriot wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for stating so succinctly why there is absolutely no point in continuing this discussion further. You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.
Go read a science textbook.
<quoted text>
Some, yes, but this is why those medicines are prescribed (and taken) sparingly.
You act as if the existence of adverse side effects is something new. It isn't. It has been weighed against the existence of good effects, and since the good outweigh the bad, we decide to use the medicine.
<quoted text>
No. The vast majority of medicines - vaccines are the most obvious example - actually work WITH the immune system.
<quoted text>
Hence continued research.
<quoted text>
Can you show any potency at all?
You write:

"those medicines are prescribed (and taken) sparingly."

In a well researched book, Betrayal of Trust: The Collapse of Global Public Health, Laurie Garrett from the USA, shows how the threat is not confined to the poor countries but, is greater in the West, basically because doctors there over-prescribe antibiotics so that bacterial infectionsare becoming increasingly resistant to the most widely used antibiotics. She writes that "doctors who over-prescribe antibiotics undermine the health care system by encouraging germs to become resistant."

"It has been weighed against the existence of good effects, and since the good outweigh the bad, we decide to use the medicine."

Recently Douglas C Wallace, a noted US geneticist, who has discovered some extra nuclear mitochondrial DNAs (mtDNA) that are more useful for drug testing and disease prevention in contrast to our conventional Mendalian genetics where only nuclear DNAs are taken into consideration.

Using his MITCHIP he has been able to find that Asian herbal medicines are not only effective against many diseases including some infections like malaria that he had tested, but has also shown that the western pharmacology of chemical compounds for a target damage the cell in the bargain.

"The vast majority of medicines - vaccines are the most obvious example"

Vaccines are not medicines. Vaccine is not used on a patient - it is used on a potential patient. You would be aware of the following:

"Only one viral disease, small-pox, has been successfully eradicated so far by human effort through vaccination. Every other vaccine could be explained as only a partial success in so far as the virus has only to mutate to bounce back with greater vigor."

Since: Sep 07

La Quinta, CA

#49 Jul 19, 2010
Iqbal wrote:
<quoted text>
I have seen this message of yours earlier also- your favorite? I was looking for the source from where you picked it up. Is the source a doctor, a chemist or statistician? This is why I asked if you have a background in medicine.
There is no source. This is core mathematics. You can do these calculations yourself. It's really not hard. In fact, I just did them above.

Did you find an error in the calculations or the conclusions? If so, present it.

Otherwise you really don't have an argument to make.
Are you discussing chemical reaction or potency of a homeopathic medicine? What has a chemical reaction methodology in a lab to do when compared to a medicine that has to act on a human body to cure a disease?
This question demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of biology on your part.

The body is fundamentally chemical. Breathing is chemistry - we exchange oxygen molecules for carbon dioxide. Eatting is chemistry - the acid in our stomachs break down the food. It's ALL chemistry.

Likewise ALL medicine is chemistry.

Even Homeopathy, which fails, still CLAIMS to be chemistry. They are CLAIMING to be selling you a bottle which contains a chemical (be it caffine, iodine, bee pollen, st. johns wort). It's ALL chemicals.

Even the body's immune system is fundamentally CHEMICAL in nature.

So, anything you take necessarily needs to cause a chemical reaction in order for it to have ANY effect on the body.

No chemical reaction - NO effect.

That's why you must take an aspirin in order to have the chemical effect of an aspirin as opposed to looking at a picture of an aspirin.

Get it?

So, back on topic.

Since homeopathy "cures" contain NO CHEMICAL, how does it cause a chemical reaction?

Since: Sep 07

La Quinta, CA

#50 Jul 19, 2010
Iqbal wrote:
Vaccines are not medicines. Vaccine is not used on a patient - it is used on a potential patient. You would be aware of the following:
"Only one viral disease, small-pox, has been successfully eradicated so far by human effort through vaccination. Every other vaccine could be explained as only a partial success in so far as the virus has only to mutate to bounce back with greater vigor."
Polio? Scarlet fever?

And in 1st world countries where vaccinations actually occur: Measles, mumps, rubella, whooping cough, etc etc etc

Now, you are in India, where leprosy is still a problem (learn to wash your damn hands!) so I can understand how you generally don't understand the relationship between disease and cures for disease.

Tell us, what does homeopathy offer for small pox?
The Patriot

Louisville, KY

#51 Jul 20, 2010
Iqbal wrote:
In a well researched book, Betrayal of Trust: The Collapse of Global Public Health, Laurie Garrett from the USA, shows how the threat is not confined to the poor countries but, is greater in the West, basically because doctors there over-prescribe antibiotics so that bacterial infectionsare becoming increasingly resistant to the most widely used antibiotics. She writes that "doctors who over-prescribe antibiotics undermine the health care system by encouraging germs to become resistant."
Aaaand... so?

I have never denied that over-prescription is a bad thing. What you are trying to prove is that any prescription is over-prescription. After all, if a minor amount of prescriptions is a good thing, then your attacks against traditional medicine are baseless, since it demonstrably works, even if it is overused (which you also haven't proven).
Iqbal wrote:
Recently Douglas C Wallace, a noted US geneticist, who has discovered some extra nuclear mitochondrial DNAs (mtDNA) that are more useful for drug testing and disease prevention in contrast to our conventional Mendalian genetics where only nuclear DNAs are taken into consideration.
Using his MITCHIP he has been able to find that Asian herbal medicines are not only effective against many diseases including some infections like malaria that he had tested, but has also shown that the western pharmacology of chemical compounds for a target damage the cell in the bargain.
Aaaand... source?
Iqbal wrote:
Vaccines are not medicines.
You

are

an

idiot.

Go read a science textbook. Come back when you have some idea of what it is that you're talking about.
Iqbal

Delhi, India

#52 Jul 20, 2010
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no source. This is core mathematics. You can do these calculations yourself. It's really not hard. In fact, I just did them above.
Did you find an error in the calculations or the conclusions? If so, present it.
Otherwise you really don't have an argument to make.
<quoted text>
This question demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of biology on your part.
The body is fundamentally chemical. Breathing is chemistry - we exchange oxygen molecules for carbon dioxide. Eatting is chemistry - the acid in our stomachs break down the food. It's ALL chemistry.
Likewise ALL medicine is chemistry.
Even Homeopathy, which fails, still CLAIMS to be chemistry. They are CLAIMING to be selling you a bottle which contains a chemical (be it caffine, iodine, bee pollen, st. johns wort). It's ALL chemicals.
Even the body's immune system is fundamentally CHEMICAL in nature.
So, anything you take necessarily needs to cause a chemical reaction in order for it to have ANY effect on the body.
No chemical reaction - NO effect.
That's why you must take an aspirin in order to have the chemical effect of an aspirin as opposed to looking at a picture of an aspirin.
Get it?
So, back on topic.
Since homeopathy "cures" contain NO CHEMICAL, how does it cause a chemical reaction?
Chemicals surely have an effect on the human body. But only chemicals have effect?

Why do antibiotics stop killing disease producing bacteria and virus after a time? Bacteria and virus should also be chemicals and should not resist a standard chemical reaction(hydrogen and chlorine produce HCL always in the same condition)- there has to be something beyond chemicals in the human body and the disease producing bacteria and virus. What is this?

Since: Sep 07

La Quinta, CA

#53 Jul 20, 2010
Iqbal wrote:
<quoted text>
Chemicals surely have an effect on the human body. But only chemicals have effect?
With the exception of external elemental effects (ie cold or hot), yes _only_ chemicals have an effect.
Why do antibiotics stop killing disease producing bacteria and virus after a time? Bacteria and virus should also be chemicals and should not resist a standard chemical reaction(hydrogen and chlorine produce HCL always in the same condition)- there has to be something beyond chemicals in the human body and the disease producing bacteria and virus. What is this?
Bacteria and viruses are both living organisms which have DNA and are evolving.

Antibiotics stop working on bacteria because the bacteria evolve to become immune. The way the antibiotics work IS chemical. A chemical in the antibiotic binds to a chemical receptor on a bacteria and kills it, or prevents it from reproducing, or attracts white blood cells, etc.

If the bacteria evolves to no longer have that particular receptor, then that particular chemical antibiotic will no longer work against it.

Antibiotics have never and will never work against viruses because viruses do not have the kind of receptors that bacteria have.

Bacteria are cellular organisms. Viruses work inside the body's cells. That's a common misunderstanding among people who don't have much education in biology/medicine.

There does not have the be something beyond chemical. You are making the declaration that there does without any evidence to back it up.

Until you can provide evidence that there is something, there's no reason to assume it exists.

Now, I can't help but notice that this is your 2-3rd post since I pointed out the mathematics of dilution.

Were you able to find an error in the math? Do you understand that once you are down to one molecule you can not dilute something any further?

This should not be a hard concept for you to grasp since you've already concede the principle rules which inevitably lead to this conclusion.
Iqbal

New Delhi, India

#54 Jul 21, 2010
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
With the exception of external elemental effects (ie cold or hot), yes _only_ chemicals have an effect.
<quoted text>
Bacteria and viruses are both living organisms which have DNA and are evolving.
Antibiotics stop working on bacteria because the bacteria evolve to become immune. The way the antibiotics work IS chemical. A chemical in the antibiotic binds to a chemical receptor on a bacteria and kills it, or prevents it from reproducing, or attracts white blood cells, etc.
If the bacteria evolves to no longer have that particular receptor, then that particular chemical antibiotic will no longer work against it.
Bacteria are cellular organisms. Viruses work inside the body's cells. That's a common misunderstanding among people who don't have much education in biology/medicine.
There does not have the be something beyond chemical. You are making the declaration that there does without any evidence to back it up.
This should not be a hard concept for you to grasp since you've already concede the principle rules which inevitably lead to this conclusion.
This is a little hard concept for me to grasp. Can we go a little slowly?

It seems many things effect human body other than chemicals. Radiation can kill. Sun’s rays provide vitamin D. Irregular sleeping hours lead to stomach disorders. Prolonged lack of sleep can kill. Radio waves induce cancer. Even negative thoughts: Modern medical research has amply demonstrated, through many recent studies, that negative thoughts are the leading risk factors for major killer diseases.

Miller TA, Smith TW, Turner CW, et. al. A meta-analytical review of research on hostility and physical health. Psychol. Bull 1996; 119:322-348.
Mittleman MA, Maclure M, Sherwood JB, et. al. Triggering of acute MI by episodes of anger. Circulation. 1995; 92: 1720-1725.
Angerer P, Siebert U, Kothny W, et. al.Impact of social support, cynical hostility and anger expression on progression of coronary atherosclerosis. J. Am. Coll.Cardiol. 2000; 36: 1781-1788.

"Bacteria and viruses are both living organisms which have DNA and are evolving."

Then they cannot be ONLY chemical. I have not come across any chemical in chemistry that evolved. There has to be something beyond chemistry in living organisms-that allows it to evolve and be NOT just chemical. What is this- I asked.
Iqbal

New Delhi, India

#55 Jul 21, 2010
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Polio? Scarlet fever?
And in 1st world countries where vaccinations actually occur: Measles, mumps, rubella, whooping cough, etc etc etc
Now, you are in India, where leprosy is still a problem (learn to wash your damn hands!) so I can understand how you generally don't understand the relationship between disease and cures for disease.
Tell us, what does homeopathy offer for small pox?
The doctor I quoted seems to be correct: All names of diseases that you have provided are present.

So small pox is the ONLY disease that is eradicated by vaccination. What about the later part of his comment- " Every other vaccine could be explained as only a partial success in so far as the virus has only to mutate to bounce back with greater vigor." (another way to look at it would be a big failure as what to do with the new mutant!)

Our definition of Cure means a patient suffering from a disease is rid of all symptoms of the disease after medication and remains so after the medication is stopped.
Mark

Conder, Australia

#56 Jul 21, 2010
Iqbal (I) wrote: "It seems many things effect human body other than chemicals. Radiation can kill. Sun’s rays provide vitamin D."

The sun does not provide vitamin D - our bodies produce it in response to exposure to the sun. Radiation kills by damaging cells in our bodies.

I: "Irregular sleeping hours lead to stomach disorders. Prolonged lack of sleep can kill."

Studies have shown that lack of sleep cause harmful variations to our brain chemistry.

I: "Radio waves induce cancer."

No they don't.

I: "Modern medical research has amply demonstrated, through many recent studies, that negative thoughts are the leading risk factors for major killer diseases."

Has it? If you mean depression then it is usually associated with incorrect levels in brain chemistry ie: low seratonin & dopamine levels.

I: "Bacteria and viruses are both living organisms which have DNA and are evolving."
Then they cannot be ONLY chemical. I have not come across any chemical in chemistry that evolved. There has to be something beyond chemistry in living organisms-that allows it to evolve and be NOT just chemical."

You are confusing abiogenesis (the formation of live) with evolution (descent with variation). These are 2 entirely seperate things.
Mark

Conder, Australia

#57 Jul 21, 2010
Iqbal wrote:
<quoted text>
The doctor I quoted seems to be correct: All names of diseases that you have provided are present.
So small pox is the ONLY disease that is eradicated by vaccination. What about the later part of his comment- " Every other vaccine could be explained as only a partial success in so far as the virus has only to mutate to bounce back with greater vigor." (another way to look at it would be a big failure as what to do with the new mutant!)
Our definition of Cure means a patient suffering from a disease is rid of all symptoms of the disease after medication and remains so after the medication is stopped.
I believe I answered that before - to eradicate a disease depends of its source, how its spread & 95% of the world following through with vaccination.

If the disease is found in the soil or an animal then eradication is impossible. If only found in humans (ie: smallpox) & 95% of people get vaccinated then success! Its gone.

Polio was almost gone until religious leaders in Africa, India & Pakistan lied about the vaccine scarying uneducated villagers. Someone should infected those religious leaders.

Since: Sep 07

La Quinta, CA

#58 Jul 21, 2010
Iqbal wrote:
<quoted text>
This is a little hard concept for me to grasp. Can we go a little slowly?
It seems many things effect human body other than chemicals. Radiation can kill. Sun’s rays provide vitamin D.
Radiation is an excellent point. Though it is also environmental, like heat or cold - in that you don't consume but are exposed to it.

A bullet would likewise be environmental.
Irregular sleeping hours lead to stomach disorders. Prolonged lack of sleep can kill.
These are conditions within the body,like starvation. incedentally, it's the resulting chemical reactions which have an effect. If you could not sleep and not have the chemical reaction as a result, it wouldnt be a problem.
Even negative thoughts:
Then they cannot be ONLY chemical.
Yes. Negative thoughts can not cause negative effects without a resulting chemical reaction.
I have not come across any chemical in chemistry that evolved.
That's like saying I've never known a letter than became a sentence.

Evolution occurs when changes happen in the DNA. DNA is Dioxyribo Nucleaic Acid. That's a chemical.

Life can not evolve without chemicals.

But, most importantly, let's boil down your argument:

It sounds like you are conceding that there are no chemicals present in homeopathic "cures" but you feel that there is something "else" there which is causing effects.

Fair assessment?

Since: Sep 07

La Quinta, CA

#63 Jul 21, 2010
Iqbal wrote:
<quoted text>
The doctor I quoted seems to be correct: All names of diseases that you have provided are present.
So small pox is the ONLY disease that is eradicated by vaccination.
This argument is as follows:

In America these diseases no longer are a problem as a result of vaccination. However, in India, where modern medicine takes a back seat to ineffective "magic" like homeopathy, these diseases are still present, therefore modern medicine fails.

Do you see the flaw in that logic.

You are using the fact that your medicine doesn't work to condemn the medicine that does.
What about the later part of his comment- " Every other vaccine could be explained as only a partial success in so far as the virus has only to mutate to bounce back with greater vigor." (another way to look at it would be a big failure as what to do with the new mutant!)
Right, because countries with high population density and low sanitation fail to get their populations vaccinate and breed more robust diseases.

But NONE of this is a response to the points.

EVEN IF modern medicine was a complete and total failure (which it CLEARLY isn't) that in and of itself would not suddenly make homeopathy real.

Since: Sep 07

La Quinta, CA

#66 Jul 21, 2010
HumanSpirit wrote:
What about the fraud of the mental health industry and the mind drugging of America as the number one priority:
Psychiatric Diagnosis
What does psychiatry have to do with whether or not a homeopathic "cure" contains anything more than pure water?

Nothing.

Take your rant somewhere else.

Since: Sep 07

La Quinta, CA

#67 Jul 21, 2010
HumanSpirit, are you a scientologist?

Since: Sep 07

La Quinta, CA

#71 Jul 22, 2010
HumanSpirit wrote:
<quoted text>
Not a Scientologist. That usually is the statement of a member of the mental health or pharmacutical industry or the representing Public firm. It's the only defense they have.
No, its a perfectly reasonable question when someone starts posting multiple anti-psychiatry posts on an off topic thread.

Though I do find your paranoia amusing.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Health Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Impacted Wisdom Teeth: Oral Surgery and Extraction (Sep '14) 1 hr Dr John Jay 9
News How to Get Rid of a Dog's Cold (Apr '11) 1 hr Boronofsky 60
News Homosexuality against natural law (Sep '09) 3 hr The Worlds Bigges... 1,431
News Researchers find gene that might limit desire t... 5 hr Jessie57 2
News Bernie Sanders's claim that '36,000 people will... 6 hr Richard 35
News The Latest: Trump promises health insurance for... 7 hr The Real Donald T... 2
News Donald Trump may have just destroyed the Republ... 7 hr The Real Donald T... 3
News Pregnancy Symptoms - 12 Very Early Symptoms of ... (Jun '07) 16 hr Mecshalae 7,074
Esophagus Spasm - How my mom STOPS her Esophage... (May '12) Jan 14 Kay 254
Nudity at doctor's office (Mar '07) Jan 10 kirton 131
More from around the web