Homeopathic nutritionist?
Replies
-
Sorry OP. One more letting you know to stay away from the woo and quackery. Live and learn and carry on. Food luck.9
-
-
ronjsteele1 wrote: »
<snippage>lynn_glenmont wrote: »
Actually, the FTC's job includes making sure that companies don't deceive consumers when marketing products to them.
Do you realize that a large portion of the medicines used to treat cancers, etc. they don't actually know "how" they work? They only know when they tried them they worked. A lot of people may not know or understand how hpathy works, but enough people use it and it works, that they want to continue using it (going to call millions of people worldwide liars? Because that would be pretty bold). And they continue to study the "whys." If a chemo worked for millions of people worldwide, you think the FDA and FTC would fight its use? Not on your life. It's all about the money and always will be........
Nonetheless, this decision was made and those of us that support and use it will continue to.
OP, I hope you are able to get this straightened out to your satisfaction.
[/delurk]
To the bolded:
1) Actually, they do know "how they work".
2) They don't work and many studies have shown this.
3) Educate yourself on the placebo effect.
4) Yes, it IS all about the money and always will be, and that is why these alternative-to-health practitioners charge so much for gargage.
Sincerely,
An Actual Doctor With an Actual Medical Degree as Well as an Actual Science Degree and Honours in Immunology and Molecular Biology/Biochemistry.
[/lurk]41 -
Also, when I saw the header "homoepathic nutritionist" I thought they were going to say they had paid to go into an empty room, recently vacated by a nutritionist <VBG>24
-
Lol. Not editing for greatness.PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »8 -
Australorp wrote: »ronjsteele1 wrote: »
<snippage>lynn_glenmont wrote: »
Actually, the FTC's job includes making sure that companies don't deceive consumers when marketing products to them.
Do you realize that a large portion of the medicines used to treat cancers, etc. they don't actually know "how" they work? They only know when they tried them they worked. A lot of people may not know or understand how hpathy works, but enough people use it and it works, that they want to continue using it (going to call millions of people worldwide liars? Because that would be pretty bold). And they continue to study the "whys." If a chemo worked for millions of people worldwide, you think the FDA and FTC would fight its use? Not on your life. It's all about the money and always will be........
Nonetheless, this decision was made and those of us that support and use it will continue to.
OP, I hope you are able to get this straightened out to your satisfaction.
[/delurk]
To the bolded:
1) Actually, they do know "how they work".
2) They don't work and many studies have shown this.
3) Educate yourself on the placebo effect.
4) Yes, it IS all about the money and always will be, and that is why these alternative-to-health practitioners charge so much for gargage.
Sincerely,
An Actual Doctor With an Actual Medical Degree as Well as an Actual Science Degree and Honours in Immunology and Molecular Biology/Biochemistry.
[/lurk]
*Insert enthusiastic standing applause elevated from slow clap*
7 -
Australorp wrote: »Also, when I saw the header "homoepathic nutritionist" I thought they were going to say they had paid to go into an empty room, recently vacated by a nutritionist <VBG>
Omg I didn't know doctors were funny!5 -
OP - I agree with the others who have told you to run, not walk, away from this quack you had an unfortunate encounter with.
If you have concerns about your four year old's diet and/or the safety of the changes you've made (and whether or not any modifications need to be made to make your diet appropriate for your child), seems to me it would be best to start with a pediatrician. They will actually take a history, weigh and measure the child, track growth and development, and can give good basic advice about appropriate dietary choices for your son. If you still have concerns you can ask the doctor for a referral to an actual registered dietician who can work with you to come up with a plan that will be safe and appropriate for your child.
Good luck!1 -
Yummmm. Food Luck
1 -
You are wrong as usual. What @lynn_glenmont said was 100% correct:ronjsteele1 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »
Actually, the FTC's job includes making sure that companies don't deceive consumers when marketing products to them.
For one second, their job is not about making sure consumers aren't "deceived."Actually, the FTC's job includes making sure that companies don't deceive consumers when marketing products to them.
Nope, thats not what the FTC's role is. Sounds like some grade A conspiracy theory. Also, If something is proven to treat a disease then it becomes medicine. If it doesn't then it should be discarded.Their job is to protect standard medical practice (and the AMA which buys and owns the FDA, FTC, etc.) from being encroached on with other things that work for diseases.
Nope, wrong again. The labeling decision is about holding the quacks up to the same standards as other products making the same claims. Why is it such a problem that the homeopathic companies prove their claims? If it is so effective then it should be easy to prove. 200 years of homeopathy and still no valid scientific evidence to back up the claims.When the government feels the need to protect people from their own decisions, then they don't believe much in freedom. And that's what the FTC's labeling decision is 100% about.
You have no idea what informed consent is. Don't pretend you do. Here is a very good description of what informed consent is:Informed consent doesn't mean the right to be informed only about what the government thinks "works" just because they don't understand it. It means the right to know and learn about whatever they desire to for medical care and then make their decision based on what they've learned.
http://missinglink.ucsf.edu/lm/ethics/Content Pages/fast_fact_informed_consent.htm
What ronjsteele post wouldn't be complete without a logical fallacy. Your asking for false equivalence. The data that shows lack of effect of homeopathy far outweighs the data that shows any effect. Also, science is not about belief. Its about what the data shows. And the data shows that homeopathy is pseudoscience.If the FTC can require their statement of inefficacy, then remedy manufacturers have the right to make their statement for efficacy. Let the person decide who they want to believe.
This is completely untrue. I'm sure you can provide some evidence, oh wait never mind, forgot who I was responding to.Do you realize that a large portion of the medicines used to treat cancers, etc. they don't actually know "how" they work? They only know when they tried them they worked.
And a lot of people know that it doesn't work and a lot understand why it doesn't work.A lot of people may not know or understand how hpathy works
2 more logical fallacies. Argument ad populum and argument by assertion. No, it doesn't work. It can not possibly work in anyway, shape, or form. No matter how much you say it does. You still would have to break a few laws of physics and biology for it to work.but enough people use it and it works
Great, 2 logical fallacis rolled into one neat little package, false dichotomy and a strawman. No one called anyone a liar. There are many reasons why people think it "works", placebo, post hoc ergo proper hoc, they got better on their own, they are among the worried well, regression to the mean. Shall I go on?that they want to continue using it (going to call millions of people worldwide liars? Because that would be pretty bold).
Again, just because millions of people use it doesn't prove it works. Millions of people use horoscopes. I guess horoscopes are scientifically validated?
No, they continue to do studies with poor controls, no blinding, small n. And they continue to show no effect, yet they either declare victory or they always follow up with "further studies needed." How many more negative studies do you need to know that it is pure pseudoscientific bs?And they continue to study the "whys."
They don't study the "whys." They've had 200 years to study the whys. Water doesn't have memory, diluting a substance doesn't make it stronger, law of similars is pure fairytale. No studies needed.
Duh. If its proven to work, as chemotherapy has been, then they would have no reason to fight it. Why would they? Not sure why you made this odd statement as it doesn't support your very weak argument at all.If a chemo worked for millions of people worldwide, you think the FDA and FTC would fight its use?
Yes, alternative medicine is all about the money, its a $34 billion dollar a year insustry.It's all about the money and always will be......
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/alternative-medicine-is-a-34-billion-industry-but-only-one-third-of-the-treatments-have-been-tested-879411/
Making money selling useless supplements and treatments. It's disgusting. But for some reason they get a pass.23 -
Do you realize that a large portion of the medicines used to treat cancers, etc. they don't actually know "how" they work? They only know when they tried them they worked.
This is completely untrue. I'm sure you can provide some evidence, oh wait never mind, forgot who I was responding to. [/quote]
http://cen.acs.org/articles/92/i29/Does-Acetaminophen-Work-Researchers-Still.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/07/23/one-big-myth-about-medicine-we-know-how-drugs-work/
"Knowing why a drug works has historically trailed the treatment, sometimes by decades. Some of the most recognizable drugs -- acetaminophen for pain relief, penicillin for infections, and lithium for bipolar disorder, continue to be scientific mysteries today." WP
http://discovermagazine.com/2010/nov/11-the-problem-with-medicine-dont-know-if-most-works
If you look at a PDR (Physicians Desk Reference) and start at the beginning of the drug listings you will find something interesting. Every drug listed has a "mechanism of action" recorded. I think you'll be shocked to discover just how many drugs in the 3000+ pages state "unknown" under this category --- because they don't know HOW that drug works.
http://www.pdr.net/drug-summary/Effexor-XR-venlafaxine-619
MECHANISM OF ACTION
SNRI; exact mechanism of the antidepressant action is unknown, but thought to be related to the potentiation of serotonin and norepinephrine in the CNS, through inhibition of their reuptake.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266780055_What_do_we_know_about_the_mechanism_of_action_of_drugs_in_the_different_drug_classes_Assessment_of_the_pharmaceuticals_approved_by_the_FDA_between_1980_and_2012
Drugs with unknown mechanisms of action (partial list):
Some drug mechanisms of action are still unknown. However, even though the mechanism of action of a certain drug is unknown, the drug still functions; it is just unknown or unclear how the drug interacts with receptors and produces its therapeutic effect.
Acamprosate
Armodafinil
Antidepressants
Cyclobenzaprine
Demeclocycline
Fabomotizole
Lithium
Meprobamate
Methocarbamol
Paracetamol
Phenytoin
PRL-8-53
I think you get the point..........0 -
Shadowmf023 wrote: »Well - I've never been to a homeopath. Although I've used homeopathic remedies. Which worked for me. **shrugs**
Exactly the same goes for homeopathy.24 -
You are wrong as usual. What @lynn_glenmont said was 100% correct:ronjsteele1 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »
Actually, the FTC's job includes making sure that companies don't deceive consumers when marketing products to them.
For one second, their job is not about making sure consumers aren't "deceived."Actually, the FTC's job includes making sure that companies don't deceive consumers when marketing products to them.
Nope, thats not what the FTC's role is. Sounds like some grade A conspiracy theory. Also, If something is proven to treat a disease then it becomes medicine. If it doesn't then it should be discarded.Their job is to protect standard medical practice (and the AMA which buys and owns the FDA, FTC, etc.) from being encroached on with other things that work for diseases.
Nope, wrong again. The labeling decision is about holding the quacks up to the same standards as other products making the same claims. Why is it such a problem that the homeopathic companies prove their claims? If it is so effective then it should be easy to prove. 200 years of homeopathy and still no valid scientific evidence to back up the claims.When the government feels the need to protect people from their own decisions, then they don't believe much in freedom. And that's what the FTC's labeling decision is 100% about.
You have no idea what informed consent is. Don't pretend you do. Here is a very good description of what informed consent is:Informed consent doesn't mean the right to be informed only about what the government thinks "works" just because they don't understand it. It means the right to know and learn about whatever they desire to for medical care and then make their decision based on what they've learned.
http://missinglink.ucsf.edu/lm/ethics/Content Pages/fast_fact_informed_consent.htm
What ronjsteele post wouldn't be complete without a logical fallacy. Your asking for false equivalence. The data that shows lack of effect of homeopathy far outweighs the data that shows any effect. Also, science is not about belief. Its about what the data shows. And the data shows that homeopathy is pseudoscience.If the FTC can require their statement of inefficacy, then remedy manufacturers have the right to make their statement for efficacy. Let the person decide who they want to believe.
This is completely untrue. I'm sure you can provide some evidence, oh wait never mind, forgot who I was responding to.Do you realize that a large portion of the medicines used to treat cancers, etc. they don't actually know "how" they work? They only know when they tried them they worked.
And a lot of people know that it doesn't work and a lot understand why it doesn't work.A lot of people may not know or understand how hpathy works
2 more logical fallacies. Argument ad populum and argument by assertion. No, it doesn't work. It can not possibly work in anyway, shape, or form. No matter how much you say it does. You still would have to break a few laws of physics and biology for it to work.but enough people use it and it works
Great, 2 logical fallacis rolled into one neat little package, false dichotomy and a strawman. No one called anyone a liar. There are many reasons why people think it "works", placebo, post hoc ergo proper hoc, they got better on their own, they are among the worried well, regression to the mean. Shall I go on?that they want to continue using it (going to call millions of people worldwide liars? Because that would be pretty bold).
Again, just because millions of people use it doesn't prove it works. Millions of people use horoscopes. I guess horoscopes are scientifically validated?
No, they continue to do studies with poor controls, no blinding, small n. And they continue to show no effect, yet they either declare victory or they always follow up with "further studies needed." How many more negative studies do you need to know that it is pure pseudoscientific bs?And they continue to study the "whys."
They don't study the "whys." They've had 200 years to study the whys. Water doesn't have memory, diluting a substance doesn't make it stronger, law of similars is pure fairytale. No studies needed.
Duh. If its proven to work, as chemotherapy has been, then they would have no reason to fight it. Why would they? Not sure why you made this odd statement as it doesn't support your very weak argument at all.If a chemo worked for millions of people worldwide, you think the FDA and FTC would fight its use?
Yes, alternative medicine is all about the money, its a $34 billion dollar a year insustry.It's all about the money and always will be......
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/alternative-medicine-is-a-34-billion-industry-but-only-one-third-of-the-treatments-have-been-tested-879411/
Making money selling useless supplements and treatments. It's disgusting. But for some reason they get a pass.
Thanks for saving me the trouble of replying, @johnwelk .
The only thing I can think to add to all this, is that if water molecules really could "remember" the way homeopathic theory assumes, then after all the millennia of water evaporating, falling from the sky onto various plants with different medicinal properties, evaporating again, etc., etc., then the water from my tap could cure everything.16 -
ronjsteele1 wrote: »It's all about the money and always will be........
Well, if you insist that proper medical treatment is just only about the money, just be careful when and where you chose to use homeopathy as a medical treatment or you could end up like this woman who is charged with failing to provide the necessaries of life and with criminal negligence causing the death of her seven-year-old son. He had a simple strep infection. She chose homeopathic herbal remedies instead of a trip to the doctor and now he's dead. You really want to risk a child's life over your suspicion that it's just one big money making conspiracy theory? I sure wouldn't.
calgaryherald.com/news/crime/trial-to-begin-for-woman-who-used-holistic-medicine-to-treat-fatally-ill-son11 -
Shadowmf023 wrote: »Well - I've never been to a homeopath. Although I've used homeopathic remedies. Which worked for me. **shrugs**
Exactly the same goes for homeopathy.
Mag Phos tissue salts seems to work fine for pain for me. It's been a life saver when I get headaches or pain in my colon.
I have an ulcer and can't take actual pain medication because it would make the symptoms worse and burn my stomach.
You don't have to believe me. Just stating my personal experience. If they don't work for you, that's fine.1 -
To the OP, I'm sorry you found a quack, It can happen to anyone, Glad you recognised it though and you get appropriate care. I’d always recommend your GP or equivalent. I went for treatment for my migraine through occupational health, and ended up with an acupuncturist… Needless to say I still get migraine, probably due to my lack of ‘faith’.
As to it being all about the money… I live in the UK where medical care is free on point of contact, if something is showing to work, after appropriate trials it becomes medicine. The only people who are scalping unwell people are the homeopaths and charging stupid money for small bottles of water and some attention. The placebo effects are real.
If homeopathy were real my Thames Water would provide me with all the cures provided by dinosaur bladder, and god knows what that would be?
12 -
Wynterbourne wrote: »He had a simple strep infection. She chose homeopathic herbal remedies instead of a trip to the doctor and now he's dead. You really want to risk a child's life over your suspicion that it's just one big money making conspiracy theory? I sure wouldn't.
calgaryherald.com/news/crime/trial-to-begin-for-woman-who-used-holistic-medicine-to-treat-fatally-ill-son
Again, the ignorance of not knowing the difference between naturopathic and homeopathic is showing. I read through those cases and not a single one (there are more stories further down the page) used homeopathy. They all used either herbs or foods. That is NOT homeopathy. I started out in herbs and discovered that none of them ever cured anything. They may have strengthened immune systems, etc but actually healing sickness they never worked for us. I moved on to other modes when I determined naturopathic was not effective for us. These two types of medicine are not interchangeable. Until people get that, discussion on their merits can't even take place.
We have treated strep (and so many other things) hpathically with no issue. The problem is you somehow lump every natural leaning person into one category which is unfair. When our son was bleeding out of every orifice I took him to ER. We didn't even look at how to heal him naturally until he was stable and safe. In our home that's what medicine is for - trauma care, emergencies, or when the natural doesn't seem to be working. Not everyone refuses medical care the way those people did. That said, I'm not quick to run to the doctor unless indications are there is immediate danger to whomever I'm caring for. Be careful about your assumptions of people. Most of the people I know personally are in the same camp we are. In 8yrs I've never met a single person/family that refuses all medical care. I know they exist, but I've never run into it in the natural circles we run in.
People seem to conveniently forget that those who choose natural medicine over traditional medical care is because traditional medical care has failed them miserably. Not just in not curing diseases but also in patient care. In working as a partner and not a dictator of what a person WILL do, etc. This has been true not in just one case in our family but in three adult cases and 2 child cases. Most people don't make these decisions lightly or based on one circumstance. Assuming they do makes an *kitten* out of the one assuming.
As I have said over and over on this forum- the key will always be balance and none of us is perfect at that. Being on the left or the right of the road either way still puts one in the ditch. That's not balance.
All of that said, I will defend the right of parents to choose whatever form of medical care they deem best for THEIR family. If doing everything a doctor tells them to fits them, that is their right to do so (and chemo has killed many a child). If what they choose leads to tragedy in a different form, then they will deal with the consequences both legally and morally/emotionally. I take great issue with the nanny state. If parents are allowed to be told how to raise their kids by the state, at what point does that end? It doesn't. And my children don't belong to the state.
0 -
Australorp wrote: »ronjsteele1 wrote: »
<snippage>lynn_glenmont wrote: »
Actually, the FTC's job includes making sure that companies don't deceive consumers when marketing products to them.
Do you realize that a large portion of the medicines used to treat cancers, etc. they don't actually know "how" they work? They only know when they tried them they worked. A lot of people may not know or understand how hpathy works, but enough people use it and it works, that they want to continue using it (going to call millions of people worldwide liars? Because that would be pretty bold). And they continue to study the "whys." If a chemo worked for millions of people worldwide, you think the FDA and FTC would fight its use? Not on your life. It's all about the money and always will be........
Nonetheless, this decision was made and those of us that support and use it will continue to.
OP, I hope you are able to get this straightened out to your satisfaction.
[/delurk]
To the bolded:
1) Actually, they do know "how they work".
2) They don't work and many studies have shown this.
3) Educate yourself on the placebo effect.
4) Yes, it IS all about the money and always will be, and that is why these alternative-to-health practitioners charge so much for gargage.
Sincerely,
An Actual Doctor With an Actual Medical Degree as Well as an Actual Science Degree and Honours in Immunology and Molecular Biology/Biochemistry.
[/lurk]
You cannot defeat the acolytes by reason alone and any counter evidence is always twisted to show actual proof because it's either a conspiracy, because the people who counter the ridiculous claims are obviously in on the conspiracy to protect their turf, or there exists some "proof" from nebulous "I read/heard" sources.9 -
My family has recently made some major dietary changes & wanted to consult a nutritionist to ensure that our choices were suitable for our 4 year old son. We are new to the area that we live in & found what we believed was a nutritionist online.
The appointment was today & it was very interesting to say the least.
I knew something was off while I was filling out the new patient paperwork. One of the questions was "are you missing the last 1/3 of your eyebrow?" Huh?? Although this was strange I've never been to a nutritionist & didn't want to make any assumptions.
My son & I are taken into a tiny room where a woman rolls a scanner up & down his spine. She says that the machine is taking pictures of his spine to see if one side of his body is more "stressed" than the other. Pictures, what?
Then we meet the "nutritionist". She tells me that she doesn't agree with the changes that we've made. She wanted to make sure that we wouldn't be difficult patients because of her stance on things. I told her that I never wanted to be the type of mom to go doctor hopping because I didn't hear what I was expecting.
So now that she's gotten it down that I'm in her office for health & not whatever else she assumed, she pulls out this strange machine. My son holds what looks like a gold pen wrapped in a paper towel while she holds what seems to be a pen without a tip. She then rubs the pen up & down my kids big toe 250 times or so.
Once she's done she gets really close to me & tells me that my son is:
Gluten intolerant
Has issues with:
Amino acids
Brain chemistry
Prostate
Testes
Pancreas
Pineal gland
Calcium deficiency
& these are the most important on a list about the size of my torso.
The machine she used is called an EAV & only after I asked about the machine did she say that she was a homeopathic doctor. I was clearly confused & asked if she was a nutritionist also & she replies "I only prescribe herbs."
WHAT?!
I continue to ask her questions like "how accurate is this machine?" "How do these results compare to a scratch or blood tests?" "Why haven't you asked us anything about our diet?" "How can you make any conclusions when you don't even know my son's height or weight?"
I'm going to make an appointment with another nutritionist however, homeopathy? What're your thoughts? Can I trust this lady & her magical machine?
She also claimed that my son has irregularities in his reproductive organs because of all of the soy that he eats. The kid has never touched soy in his life, won't go near the stuff. This conclusion left me even more puzzled.
I have had homeopathy treatment before with a lady who used to be a nurse and if she felt "science" was the way to go she would say so and was excellent I would not rule out homeopathy, BUT this one is a definite quack!0 -
ronjsteele1 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »ronjsteele1 wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »Brand new rules just put in place by the Federal Trade Commission:
"Over the counter homeopathic remedies sold in the US will now have to come with a warning that they are based on outdated theories ‘not accepted by most modern medical experts’ and that ‘there is no scientific evidence the product works’."
https://scientificamerican.com/article/homeopathic-medicine-labels-now-must-state-products-do-not-work/?WT.mc_id=SA_FB_HLTH_NEWS
This does not sound accurate. The label changes made recently pertain only to how remedy vials are sealed. I am forwarding the article to someone I know that operates in that arena for their verification. There are a number of things that are very inaccurate coming out of Australia of late that many are taking to apply to the US. I'll see what I can find out about this.
I've read multiple news reports that report essentially the same thing as this Scientific American article. Do you have any reason to doubt these multiple reports, based on this 24-page FTC report (https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/federal-trade-commission-staff-report-homeopathic-medicine-advertising-workshop/p114505_otc_homeopathic_medicine_and_advertising_workshop_report.pdf), aside from your feeling that it doesn't "sound accurate"?
I believe my post said it sounded inaccurate but I would verify. I doubt most stuff coming out of mags like SA. As someone that practices in this realm, I had not heard this yet and was surprised by it. But I've also been very busy and not reading a lot of what comes my way right now in terms of articles. This has not filtered down past hpaths yet - it is just starting to.
I went through both of these carefully and had the article reviewed by my friend in this business. The way the article is written they make it sound mandatory. It is not (viewed deep within the working group report). The FTC group did not say hpathy is placebo effect. Their contention was if they are going to be consistent with other supplements and claims that they make requiring the statement that the FDA has not verified supplement statements, then they have to be consistent with hpathy remedies. It had nothing to do with whether or not they endorse or believe in hpathy. I'm sure they don't. But that was not the basis for this decision. I also don't think they believe in using supplements for treating anything either but they still require labeling for them. So people can read into this what they want, but it does not say what this article says it does (does not surprise me).
What the article is stating HAS to be on the remedies was only an example given by the FTC that basically the companies could say what they wanted so long as they essentially communicate the same standard that is communicated with other supplements that are not FDA endorsed. They might certainly believe what they wrote as an example, but SA did not write the article such that they said this was an example given by the FTC. They wrote it as fact. SA slanted much?
I do find it interesting that someone would post an article negative to hpathy and everyone finds it acceptable but post an article positive about hpathy and it's not considered scientific evidence. The OP of the magazine article would have been less hypocritical to post the working group and FTC pages. But then again, hypocrisy mostly reigns here.
It will be interesting to watch what a couple of the main companies do with this. It has no effect on hpathy pharmacies selling to practitioners. It will only affect what is sold OTC. Most certainly the 2% of the country that uses hpathy for health care will eventually all be watching this with interest. I find it curious that with so little people in the US using hpathy, and FDA and FTC not "endorsing" it, that anyone would even worry about labeling - unless of course they are concerned that too much money is being lost to the medical world by the people using hpathy. What would be the point? If they think people are wasting their money, what do they care? This is a free country. People waste their money on lots of things. They already stated in the FTC report that adverse effects were almost never reported from its use so that can't be their motivation. Always follow the money...... I wonder what these people in these agencies do with doctors that are both MD's and practice hpathy with their patients? Must put them in a real conundrum.
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2016/11/otc-homeopathic-drugs-established-ftc-proof-standards-apply
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/federal-trade-commission-staff-report-homeopathic-medicine-advertising-workshop/p114505_otc_homeopathic_medicine_and_advertising_workshop_report.pdf
I've personally never seen a positive article about homeopathy that contained valid "scientific evidence." When you write that people responded negatively to it, what article are you referring to and what studies did it cite?
If the best argument for homeopathy is that people should be free to waste their money on whatever they want, I think that speaks for itself. Of course people should be free to buy sugar pills if they want. But companies selling sugar pills are also responsible for any false or unsubstantiated claims that they make on behalf of their "medicine."10 -
Homeopathic "nutritionist"? That sounds awfully similar to voodoo "doctor" or crystal "healer". I'm glad you were able to politely stand there and watch, I would have lost it and started giggling.8
-
MABMomma, PLEASE tell me you didn't pay more than $25 for this quack's evaluation????0
-
ronjsteele1 wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »He had a simple strep infection. She chose homeopathic herbal remedies instead of a trip to the doctor and now he's dead. You really want to risk a child's life over your suspicion that it's just one big money making conspiracy theory? I sure wouldn't.
calgaryherald.com/news/crime/trial-to-begin-for-woman-who-used-holistic-medicine-to-treat-fatally-ill-son
Again, the ignorance of not knowing the difference between naturopathic and homeopathic is showing. I read through those cases and not a single one (there are more stories further down the page) used homeopathy. They all used either herbs or foods. That is NOT homeopathy. I started out in herbs and discovered that none of them ever cured anything. They may have strengthened immune systems, etc but actually healing sickness they never worked for us. I moved on to other modes when I determined naturopathic was not effective for us. These two types of medicine are not interchangeable. Until people get that, discussion on their merits can't even take place.
We have treated strep (and so many other things) hpathically with no issue. The problem is you somehow lump every natural leaning person into one category which is unfair. When our son was bleeding out of every orifice I took him to ER. We didn't even look at how to heal him naturally until he was stable and safe. In our home that's what medicine is for - trauma care, emergencies, or when the natural doesn't seem to be working. Not everyone refuses medical care the way those people did. That said, I'm not quick to run to the doctor unless indications are there is immediate danger to whomever I'm caring for. Be careful about your assumptions of people. Most of the people I know personally are in the same camp we are. In 8yrs I've never met a single person/family that refuses all medical care. I know they exist, but I've never run into it in the natural circles we run in.
People seem to conveniently forget that those who choose natural medicine over traditional medical care is because traditional medical care has failed them miserably. Not just in not curing diseases but also in patient care. In working as a partner and not a dictator of what a person WILL do, etc. This has been true not in just one case in our family but in three adult cases and 2 child cases. Most people don't make these decisions lightly or based on one circumstance. Assuming they do makes an *kitten* out of the one assuming.
As I have said over and over on this forum- the key will always be balance and none of us is perfect at that. Being on the left or the right of the road either way still puts one in the ditch. That's not balance.
All of that said, I will defend the right of parents to choose whatever form of medical care they deem best for THEIR family. If doing everything a doctor tells them to fits them, that is their right to do so (and chemo has killed many a child). If what they choose leads to tragedy in a different form, then they will deal with the consequences both legally and morally/emotionally. I take great issue with the nanny state. If parents are allowed to be told how to raise their kids by the state, at what point does that end? It doesn't. And my children don't belong to the state.
If someone does have the "right" to deny someone access to medical care just because they are their parent, why would you want them to face legal consequences? Shouldn't you support changing the laws so that parents have total control over how they choose to treat or ignore any illnesses or conditions their children may develop?4 -
Yes. Unfortunately, today a number of states have laws specific to parents and consequences for the medical decisions they make for their children. Like it or not, we have to live within those laws (at least until if/when they are changed) which means there will be legal consequences for some people if what they choose hurts their kids. It's why 1) the state has no business in the family and 2) a parent better have discerning wisdom in what they choose to do. Both of those are relevant regardless of what the laws are, but even more so today in our current climate.0
-
I've tried staying out of this, but I'll just say I'm glad some states have seen fit to project children from the stupidity of their parent's short-sighted decision making.
/back to lurking18 -
She says that the machine is taking pictures of his spine to see if one side of his body is more "stressed" than the other.
My right hand is more stressed than my left. This is because my right hand is often spooning yoghurt into my face, whilst the left hand contributes nothing.6 -
ronjsteele1 wrote: »Yes. Unfortunately, today a number of states have laws specific to parents and consequences for the medical decisions they make for their children. Like it or not, we have to live within those laws (at least until if/when they are changed) which means there will be legal consequences for some people if what they choose hurts their kids. It's why 1) the state has no business in the family and 2) a parent better have discerning wisdom in what they choose to do. Both of those are relevant regardless of what the laws are, but even more so today in our current climate.
I don't consider it unfortunate that we have laws to address situations where people choose to harm their children. We've seen what can happen when parents have absolute power of life and death over their children. Many people would use it well and make decisions with the best interest of their children at heart. Some people wouldn't and someone shouldn't be at the total mercy of someone else just because they happen to be under the age of 18.
It would be nice if everyone had wisdom just because they chose to reproduce, but that just doesn't happen. If your parent wants to lock you in a closet for hours or beat you with stick or deny you medical care or starve you or barter sexual access to you for drugs or deliberately expose you to infectious diseases, the argument that the state has no business in the family rings pretty hollow. Having children doesn't make you an infallible person and it doesn't make you a better one. That most parents love and care for their children doesn't change the fact that some parents don't.26 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I've tried staying out of this, but I'll just say I'm glad some states have seen fit to project children from the stupidity of their parent's short-sighted decision making.
/back to lurking
A couple years ago a native child died because his parents, being special under the law due to native status, where allowed to abandon the treatment that would have saved his life in favour of quackery that killed him. Sad.
Oh, and another couple, non-native, was convicted over a similar incident, they also had a quack supplement company so it was likely they didn't want to show that their "medicine" wasn't up to treating their child. Yes, they really loved their child and feel remorse but that doesn't mean they are good parents when their belief in their own bs was stronger than their desire to seek proper treatment that would easily have saved his life.4 -
6
-
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »
This brought a rather disturbing image to mind.
OP, sorry you had this experience. I hope you have since found a good medical practitioner in your area.4
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions