Can't be true.
Homeopathy says that the potency increases with dilution - since the blankets were very wet, they couldn't have had any effect.
Homeopathy says that the potency increases with dilution - since the blankets were very wet, they couldn't have had any effect.
I think it's more appropriate to say that the improper application of homeopathy killed him - so, not unlike the improper application of any number of legitimate medical techniques. The difference here is that the proper application of medical techniques might have helped, whereas the proper application of homeopathic techniques would have done nothing.
I'd chalk this death under "unscientific thought induced by homeopathic philosophy".
(Not like it's likely to do any good. Homeopathic believers are pretty hard to sway.)
I have not used homeopathy nor read up on it. I don't really know exactly what they do. But my impression is they are skipping that first part, that their mental model is missing something and thus results are rather hit or miss.
Even better, the more you dilute, the more potent it becomes. You literally get to a point where there is no active molecule left...just H2O.
What you are saying (exposing your immune system to a small threat so it can safely build a response) is a valid argument. In fact, that's how vaccines work. Give your body a little bit of non-infectious virus so it can build appropriate antigens before you encounter it in real life.
I have no idea what you are saying about Japanese Americans though.
I am not a big fan of vaccines, but that's a bear I usually try to not wrestle. Still, I appreciate the acknowledgement that the principle is valid.
Why is difficult to accept that a system that evolved to attack certain cells can misidentify targets, especially if the real targets have selective pressures to mimic friendly cells?
It happens all the time in other systems (friendly fire, false positives in anti-virus-software)
They say people with CF "overproduce" mucus and are "drowning in their own mucus". It isn't true. They are drowning in phlegm because they underproduce healthy mucus and become highly infected. Unlike skin, mucus membranes do not keep out infection when dry. One study found people with CF produce too little mucus, yet this crazy idea persists, even though it isn't logical and doesn't fit the facts.
I am sorry that I don't know how to make my case in the format you feel it needs to be made in. That is a problem space I am working on resolving. But I did not get well in order to impress anyone or prove anything. I did it to get my life back. Being good at doing something does not automatically make one good at explaining it.
The proper treatment of the root cause is allergen immunotherapy, which completely consistent with the false-target hypothesis. I'm just too lazy to do it and I'm fine with treating the symptoms or suffering through them for a few weeks a year.
Likely because you have an unrealistic expectation for how the immune system actually works. One that works "too well" is not advantageous. "No real reason" is silly, because that is the job of the immune system, to attack invaders. If it misidentifies your own systems as invasive, it will attack your own systems. The mechanism is not in question, how to treat it best is.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/more-boosting/
Thanks for replying.
Because plenty of the conditions are due to the body's hostility to itself, or because what may kill invaders will also injure the body.
There are rarely, if ever cure-alls that do not affect the body's normal function, and assuming that the body's function is at all times beneficial is a mistake, a flaw in your "alternate" models.
The body can generally take care of itself, but does not always, in every person and situation. We are not perfect beings and clinging to those assumptions hurts humanity more than any flaw in the dominant model.
Reform is a wonderful, necessary goal. Tossing aside evidence-based medicine to do so is utterly foolish.
I am not saying nothing ever goes wrong or that we are perfect beings. Nor am I clinging to any assumptions.
" I have found that strengthening the body first and then re-exposing myself is a way to get healthier."
This is certainly a falsifiable assumption.
You are unsatisfied with the "assumptions" of medical science's model, so you are offering your own interpretation of reality. Why should your assumptions about behavior and causal relationships be judged any less harshly than you judge the dominant model?
I realize that is not your problem to solve. But when you accuse me of not even trying, the only meaningful reply I have is that I can find no path forward since I am constantly attacked and shut out. For now, I remain at an impasse, unable to develop the site in a manner satisfactory to those who feel it is inadequate and feel that is sufficient justification for ugly ad hominems.
Your willingness to talk to me about this is essentially a first. Most people either wish to paint me as a potential savior, who can magically get them well without this communication process, or evil and insane. I want neither role. So I have intentionally stepped away from situations where I was given no other option. I believe it is far better to not share the information than to have people trying things on personal faith in me with no understanding of the process involved. I view that as deadly dangerous. Educating people is hard work. It is impossible work when they want salvation rather than education -- when they want me to tell them what to do, not how to think and problem solve on their own.
So thank you for taking the time to talk to me.
My point is, as an individual point of data, you are unable prove that what you did had anything to do with the end result.
"I remain at an impasse, unable to develop the site in a manner satisfactory to those who feel it is inadequate and feel that is sufficient justification for ugly ad hominems."
Well, without proper research methods and controls being employed, it is tough to extrapolate the experience to others.
"Most people either wish to paint me as a potential savior, who can magically get them well without this communication process"
Could it be possible that you are fitting into this mold, where your condition is varying as your expectations shift?
I am not looking to extrapolate the experience to others. I am trying to figure out how to share my best understanding. What I have done is not "unique". I have, at best, gone farther, faster than others. A lot of people are pursuing alternative treatments and better nutrition to help themselves. Most people are far less open about that fact. It gets seriously bashed on CF lists.
The climate used to be a lot more rejecting of anything proactive and filled with a lot of prayer requests on the assumption that no human could really do much, not even doctors. The one thing I have managed to do so far is to change the discussion from "My child needs surgery. Please pray for us." to "My child needs surgery. Please tell me your experiences with this specific surgery. Did it help? Do you regret it? Were there complications? What is the best way to prepare for this?"
I do not really know what you mean by your last question. I have gotten off multiple drugs. I no longer have constant excruciating pain. I no longer dehydrate so readily. I am more resilient to both heat and cold. My skin does not tear as readily. My blood sugar is more stable. And on and on. There are significant physical changes. Those are not the result of some kind of magical thinking. They are the result of sustained effort to resolve the underlying problem.