Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I think it is a valid criticism of 'mainstream' medicine to say that in concentrating on the body proper they largely ignore the human dimensions of illness - the mind as a function of the organism is largely neglected. "The result is that medicine has been slow to realize that how people feel about their medical condition is a major factor in the outcome of treatment."
If people get something they need on a human level from homeopathy that positively effects their health/outcome I say good. Especially if they are not getting it from 'mainstream' medicine.
Just don't make the mistake of calling it medicine. Or science.
The human side he was on about could be seen as psychology.
Hmmm, good point! So homeopathy could be viewed as psychosomatic?
(re. Reiki)
Whether or not you think it's swell, is of no consequence.
What matters, is that ... whatever it was... it worked.
Improving my quality of life and physical mobility greatly.
Which for me, was monumental.
So the claim is that as long as one believes ANY disease can be cured?
What is the definition of disease in this claim?
Do the claims apply to........
Sciatica
Influenza
Parasitic infection
Arthritis
Cancer
Malnutrition
Congenital defects
Mental illnesses
What exactly are the diseases which can be cured?
My sister was afraid of spiders as a kid, once she couldn't sleep because there was a spider in her room so I went in to catch it for her. The spider was too quick for me and ran into a gap between the skirting board and the floor. I pulled a thread out of the hem of my pants and held it between my thumb and forefinger rolling it slightly to make it look enough like a spiders leg to fool a 7 year old, and it did, she went to sleep safe in the knowledge the spider was in the front garden.
I might have helped my sister sleep, but I did nothing to cure her phobia, it was just a trick. In my view whether done consciously or unconsciously homeopathy is this same trick.
Saw a documentary about homeopathy, and it came to the conclusion that it is placebo, since in the experiment they did there was no difference between those who was given the real stuff and those who just got water. That is however all I know about it.
I see, so a sympahetic bartender and a shot of JD could work just as well?Yes both from the placebo effect and the fact you have someone you feel is actually listening to you.
I see, so a sympahetic bartender and a shot of JD could work just as well?
I think a lot of people seem to fail to understand that a lab made version of a chemical is identical to it when it appears in a plant somewhere. Being "natural" doesn't make it any better, or any worse.
I agree that neither are necessarily better or worse, but synthetic compounds are definitely not identical to their plant counterparts. Not only that, but the chemical is isolated from its constituent parts as it would appear in nature. I'm reminded of the pharmaceutical industry's induction of Marinol into the drug trade, which is a synthesized (and of course isolated) form of THC, normally found in marijuana. It is unanimously considered less effective than pure marijuana or marijuana resin.
A synthetic compound and a naturally compound are identical otherwise they would not be the same compound.
Could you rephrase that?
Maybe I'm wrong, but are you suggesting the the respective compounds are the same because they have the same name?
... though sometimes one description applies to several different things. There are three kinds of dichorobenzene, for instance, and four kinds of butene (all with very different properties). And potentially, there can be an infinite number of variations of any particular type of polymer.Yes any two things that share the same chemical name are the same thing, they have to be otherwise they wouldn't share the same name. In chemistry a name is a description of what something is.
... though sometimes one description applies to several different things. There are three kinds of dichorobenzene, for instance, and four kinds of butene (all with very different properties). And potentially, there can be an infinite number of variations of any particular type of polymer.
Edit: a quick Googling tells me that Marinol is made from only one isomer of THC, while plant-derived THC is usually a mixture of several isomers.
Right, but they're all included under the umbrella term "butene", just as several isomers are included under the umbrella term "THC".True that is why you get but-1-ene, z-but-2-ene etc.
But how many times is it repeated? Whatever the number, it's still the "same" polymer. And the chain length can affect its chemical behaviour, especially if whatever reaction you're concerned with only occurs at the ends.And the polymer thing again is not true as a polymer has a repeated pattern. Though the way it sits does change it somewhat due to H-bonds and van der walls
Right, but they're all included under the umbrella term "butene", just as several isomers are included under the umbrella term "THC".
But how many times is it repeated? Whatever the number, it's still the "same" polymer. And the chain length can affect its chemical behaviour, especially if whatever reaction you're concerned with only occurs at the ends.
Edit: I know they're not strictly polymers, but in most detergents, the length of the molecule is what allows the polar end to be far enough away from the non-polar end that the detergent will actually attach to dirt.
But what I'm getting at is that because THC is an umbrella term for several isomers, when TurkeyOnRye says that Marinol (one isomer of THC) isn't as effective as the THC in marijuana (a mixture of several isomers), it's entirely possible that he's correct, because different isomers can react in different ways.Which is also included under the umbrella term "alkenes" which is under the umbrella term "hydro carbons"
Yeah, it bugs me when people interpret "natural" as "necessarily better", but what I was getting at is that oftentimes, a synthetic version of some substance isn't actually identical to the natural version. Sometimes, when a synthetic and a natural version of some substance are called "the same", it really only means something like "members of the same class of chemicals" or "functionally equivalent for the intended purpose".The point I was trying to make is that a synthetic version of a molecule is the same as a natural version of it, provided the same isomers, chain length etc, and that people often see the word "natural" and thing it must be better, or vice versa.