On Feb 7, 2:36*am, Tony Hwang wrote:
RicodJour wrote:
On Feb 6, 6:20 pm, *wrote:
RicodJour wrote:

A few things, Tony. *I believe you misunderstand what I meant. *I do
not believe that 'western medicine', 'eastern medicine' or
'homeopathic' anything are infallible, but there's some truth in all
of them.

I think you do not grasp the theory behing homeopathy. The theory is that
something akin or affiliated with the malady under treatment, when ingested
in minuscule amounts (I mean REALLY insignificant amounts) will trigger a
bodily response to rehabilitate the diseased organ.

If anyone believes all of homeopathic treatments are a bunch of hooey
(that's a medical term), all they have to do is look at the active in
willow bark, which was used for millennia for pain, and neti pots.
Simple and effective. *People didn't wake up and become smart within
the last century. *People have been smart all along. *Throwing out all
of that smart because some things that they did were proven wrong or
not understood, is, well, stupid.

No, willow bark was ingested in therapeutic amounts. Homeopathic remedies
are ingested in nanogram concentrations. A typical dose is equivalent to
dropping one aspirin tablet in a five hundred gallon tank of water then
asking the patient to place one drop of the resultant mixture under the
tongue.

First off, what is a therapeutic amount? *If you mean the minimum
amount that will work, okay, how do you factor in the placebo effect?
That means no amount of aspirin _can_ help you. *And I am pretty sure
that a nanogram is infinitely larger than none.

You are familiar with vaccines. *A totally minuscule amount is
injected and the body takes over from there. *If it works for a
vaccine, will it work for something not injected? *Well, the Polio
vaccine can be taken orally, and it's still a minuscule amount. *Will
it work with other stuff? *I don't know, and neither do you - or
anybody else for that matter. *The immune system was around for a fair
bit of time before it was discovered, yet it managed to work just fine
before that.

Saying that you know something without a shadow of a doubt about
something as complex as the human body is simply foolish. *If you said
take all of the blood out of a body, or cutoff it's head, and it will
die, or something simple like that, I'd agree with you. *But you're
not, so I don't. *I'll repeat - I'm saying I don't know and neither
does anybody else.

We have just barely gotten started understanding the human body.
Don't pretend we're done.

Hi,
Homeopathic is VERY, VERY symptom specific. Even you have use it
properly like not handling the tablet with fingers, etc.
No sense talking about it for some one who never tried it or does
not understand.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There is nothing to understand. It's not even as good as snake oil.
Complete fantasy that calls into doubt the intellect of anyone that
believes such crap.
I include traditional Chinese remedies under the heading of crap also.

On Feb 7, 2:55*am, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"RicodJour" wrote in message

...

Dogs poop in your backyard - kill them off!

========

Dogs. Mosquitoes. Same thing. SWAT!

No. eat the poop if you have diarroeah! Dilute it down a bit if you
don't like the taste. Heh! Heh!
Same theory.

RicodJour wrote:
On Feb 6, 6:20 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
RicodJour wrote:

A few things, Tony. I believe you misunderstand what I meant. I do
not believe that 'western medicine', 'eastern medicine' or
'homeopathic' anything are infallible, but there's some truth in all
of them.

I think you do not grasp the theory behing homeopathy. The theory is
that something akin or affiliated with the malady under treatment,
when ingested in minuscule amounts (I mean REALLY insignificant
amounts) will trigger a bodily response to rehabilitate the diseased
organ.



If anyone believes all of homeopathic treatments are a bunch of
hooey (that's a medical term), all they have to do is look at the
active in willow bark, which was used for millennia for pain, and
neti pots. Simple and effective. People didn't wake up and become
smart within the last century. People have been smart all along.
Throwing out all of that smart because some things that they did
were proven wrong or not understood, is, well, stupid.

No, willow bark was ingested in therapeutic amounts. Homeopathic
remedies are ingested in nanogram concentrations. A typical dose is
equivalent to dropping one aspirin tablet in a five hundred gallon
tank of water then asking the patient to place one drop of the
resultant mixture under the tongue.

First off, what is a therapeutic amount?

The amount necessary to achieve the desired result.


If you mean the minimum
amount that will work, okay, how do you factor in the placebo effect?

You don't.

That means no amount of aspirin _can_ help you. And I am pretty sure
that a nanogram is infinitely larger than none.

Sorry, I don't understand those two sentences.


You are familiar with vaccines. A totally minuscule amount is
injected and the body takes over from there.

"Miniscule" was not the proper word, and for that I apologize. In
homeopathy, the amount of the presumed "active ingredient" is present in
undetectable amounts. The amount of the "drug" is essentially zero and no
known test can find it.

If it works for a
vaccine, will it work for something not injected?

No. Injectable drugs are injectable for a reason and the reason is that they
won't work if introduced in any other manner. That is, if given orally,
stomach acids will destroy them, if attempted as nose drops or suppositories
or some other vehicle, the body will destroy any efficacy long before the
drug can do its work.

Well, the Polio
vaccine can be taken orally, and it's still a minuscule amount.

And minuscule is way greater than zero.

Will
it work with other stuff? I don't know, and neither do you - or
anybody else for that matter. The immune system was around for a fair
bit of time before it was discovered, yet it managed to work just fine
before that.

Ignorance is not a reason to implement anything. If someone has terminal
cancer, no physician is going to say "I don't know if waving chicken claws
over the body while dancing a jig will cure the disease, so let's try it."
You go with what is known to work.

In the case of Homeopathy, there is no instance where it has been shown to
be effective. There are, conversely, hundreds of trials and thousands of
examples in which Homeopathy has been found to NOT work. And "well, it might
work this time" is not a reasonable position either.


Saying that you know something without a shadow of a doubt about
something as complex as the human body is simply foolish. If you said
take all of the blood out of a body, or cutoff it's head, and it will
die, or something simple like that, I'd agree with you. But you're
not, so I don't. I'll repeat - I'm saying I don't know and neither
does anybody else.

Again, ignorance is not a reason in deciding a course of treatment. Those
who administer treatments, however, are NOT ignorant. They do know that
Homeopathy does not work, never has worked, and cannot be made to work. They
know this because the theory behind Homeopathy does not follow the provable
laws of biology or physiology and that thousands upon thousands of
controlled tests have NEVER demonstrated efficacy for ANY Homeopathic
regimen.


We have just barely gotten started understanding the human body.
Don't pretend we're done.


We know a lot more than we did in the late 18th century when Homeopathy was
concocted.

RicodJour wrote:
On Feb 7, 12:34 am, Smitty Two wrote:


The story I heard was that the placebo effect didn't even work on the
founder of homeopathy. He did one or two tests, on himself. He was
the test coordinator, the test administrator, and the test subject.
And the magic dilutions still failed to work. But even that didn't
stop his promotion of the concept.

I can't speak to the homeopathy guy, and it sounds perfectly
plausible, but as to the placebo effect it's everywhere and you see it
every day.

In relatively recent news.
http://www.rtmagazine.com/news/2011-02-02_01.asp
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/ne...placebo-effect
http://www.medpagetoday.com/OBGYN/Menopause/24404
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/voices...ower-of-ritual

In personal relations:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-al..._b_818349.html

I find it curious that some people feel that things such as
acupuncture and the placebo effect are assaults on science and
rationality. My view is that if people who are looking for relief,
find it in a placebo effect or anything else, whether it's considered
science or not, who cares? If they feel it works, for them, and they
feel better for it, why try to argue that it isn't helping them
because they don't have scientific proof? That's just cruel and
stupid.

There are a number of books on the mind-body connection, and I'd doubt
anyone would seriously argue that people that are stressed and
depressed don't have higher disease and mortality rates, so I'm not
quite sure why someone would argue that a person's beliefs have no
effect on other factors related to the body.

http://my.clevelandclinic.org/heart/.../bodymind.aspx

When was the last time that you saw hundreds of nearly universal 5
star ratings on a health book on Amazon? Sarnow has had amazing
results with people with debilitating back pain. His method? He
talks to them.
http://www.amazon.com/Healing-Back-P.../dp/0446392308

I find it highly amusing that the people that are so positive that
there's nothing to it - the people who think they have _really_ strong
minds and are skeptics - are actually saying, my mind isn't really
that strong.


Oh, the placebo effect exists.

Suppose I concoct a pill, a sugar pill, and in controlled tests my pill was
found to alleviate the symptoms of the common cold in 30% of the testees. I
take it to the FDA for approval and they ask "what are the physical
principles behind the active ingredient?" Suppose, then, I respond by saying
"There is no active ingredient. The pill relies entirely on the placebo
effct for its efficacy."

Will the FDA approve the drug?

Let me think...

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:




First off, what is a therapeutic amount?

The amount necessary to achieve the desired result.
My more anal retentive side may be kicking in, but there is really no
such thing as a therapeutic amount. There is a therapeutic window being
the lowest dose where you see results and the highest dose where there
are no nasty side effects



--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:





Oh, the placebo effect exists.

Suppose I concoct a pill, a sugar pill, and in controlled tests my pill was
found to alleviate the symptoms of the common cold in 30% of the testees. I
take it to the FDA for approval and they ask "what are the physical
principles behind the active ingredient?" Suppose, then, I respond by saying
"There is no active ingredient. The pill relies entirely on the placebo
effct for its efficacy."

Will the FDA approve the drug?

The FDA would make you test your placebo against another placebo,
probably. Controlled tests means, by definition, that you are looking at
two groups. One administered the active drug, the second some other (not
all are placebo-controlled. For example, most cancer treatments are
controlled by using standard cancer treatments.) Telling the FDA it was
able to alleviate symptoms of the common cold in 30% of the testees
means nothing to the FDA. They want to know if there is difference and
if the difference is statistically significant.


Let me think...

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

On Feb 7, 3:24*am, harry wrote:

There is nothing to understand. It's not even as good as snake oil.
Complete fantasy that calls into doubt the intellect of anyone that
believes such crap.
I include traditional Chinese remedies under the heading of crap also.

Hee Haw.

R

On Feb 7, 7:36*am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
*"HeyBub" wrote:

Oh, the placebo effect exists.

Suppose I concoct a pill, a sugar pill, and in controlled tests my pill was
found to alleviate the symptoms of the common cold in 30% of the testees. I
take it to the FDA for approval and they ask "what are the physical
principles behind the active ingredient?" Suppose, then, I respond by saying
"There is no active ingredient. The pill relies entirely on the placebo
effct for its efficacy."

Will the FDA approve the drug?

You do realize that the FDA is in charge of drugs _and_ McDonald's,
right? That they're the ones that are okay with food-like substitutes
and consider a chicken house with an open door to be free-range
chicken, right? That they find no problem with feeding cattle food
that it is pretty much incapable of digesting without harm, and
pumping it full of antibiotics, and then serving it up at Cracker
Barrel. Yeah, what could possibly go wrong there?

I particularly loved the FDA's "BPA can't _possibly_ harm you!"
announcement, followed a year later with, "Well, maybe..." I
predicted that one - it would upset manufacturing and the plastics
industry too much to have an abrupt ban.

The FDA is a huge, scientific organization with top minds used to
their fullest capacity analyzing drugs to make sure they're safe. And
the FDA simply can't make mistakes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_withdrawn_drugs
Oh...sorry, nevermind.

Believing that the FDA knows all about drugs makes as much sense as
believing OSHA knows all about construction. However, it is in
keeping with your all-government-is-bad mentality, unless you're
trying to make a point and then you point out an infallible
governmental entity. Nice job of waffling.

* *The FDA would make you test your placebo against another placebo,
probably. Controlled tests means, by definition, that you are looking at
two groups. One administered the active drug, the second some other (not
all are placebo-controlled. For example, most cancer treatments are
controlled by using standard cancer treatments.) Telling the FDA it was
able to alleviate symptoms of the common cold in 30% of the testees *
means nothing to the FDA. They want to know if there is difference and
if the difference is statistically significant.

Bingo. I do not find it surprising in the least that the guy with the
most medical experience in this thread understands that a benefit to a
patient is a benefit.

R

On Feb 7, 4:28*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
RicodJour wrote:
On Feb 6, 6:20 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
RicodJour wrote:

A few things, Tony. I believe you misunderstand what I meant. I do
not believe that 'western medicine', 'eastern medicine' or
'homeopathic' anything are infallible, but there's some truth in all
of them.

I think you do not grasp the theory behing homeopathy. The theory is
that something akin or affiliated with the malady under treatment,
when ingested in minuscule amounts (I mean REALLY insignificant
amounts) will trigger a bodily response to rehabilitate the diseased
organ.

If anyone believes all of homeopathic treatments are a bunch of
hooey (that's a medical term), all they have to do is look at the
active in willow bark, which was used for millennia for pain, and
neti pots. Simple and effective. People didn't wake up and become
smart within the last century. People have been smart all along.
Throwing out all of that smart because some things that they did
were proven wrong or not understood, is, well, stupid.

No, willow bark was ingested in therapeutic amounts. Homeopathic
remedies are ingested in nanogram concentrations. A typical dose is
equivalent to dropping one aspirin tablet in a five hundred gallon
tank of water then asking the patient to place one drop of the
resultant mixture under the tongue.

First off, what is a therapeutic amount?

The amount necessary to achieve the desired result.

If you mean the minimum
amount that will work, okay, how do you factor in the placebo effect?

You don't.

That means no amount of aspirin _can_ help you. *And I am pretty sure
that a nanogram is infinitely larger than none.

Sorry, I don't understand those two sentences.



You are familiar with vaccines. *A totally minuscule amount is
injected and the body takes over from there.

"Miniscule" was not the proper word, and for that I apologize. In
homeopathy, the amount of the presumed "active ingredient" *is present in
undetectable amounts. The amount of the "drug" is essentially zero and no
known test can find it.

If it works for a
vaccine, will it work for something not injected?

No. Injectable drugs are injectable for a reason and the reason is that they
won't work if introduced in any other manner. That is, if given orally,
stomach acids will destroy them, if attempted as nose drops or suppositories
or some other vehicle, the body will destroy any efficacy long before the
drug can do its work.

Well, the Polio
vaccine can be taken orally, and it's still a minuscule amount.

And minuscule is way greater than zero.

Will
it work with other stuff? *I don't know, and neither do you - or
anybody else for that matter. *The immune system was around for a fair
bit of time before it was discovered, yet it managed to work just fine
before that.

Ignorance is not a reason to implement anything. If someone has terminal
cancer, no physician is going to say "I don't know if waving chicken claws
over the body while dancing a jig will cure the disease, so let's try it."
You go with what is known to work.

In the case of Homeopathy, there is no instance where it has been shown to
be effective. There are, conversely, hundreds of trials and thousands of
examples in which Homeopathy has been found to NOT work. And "well, it might
work this time" is not a reasonable position either.



Saying that you know something without a shadow of a doubt about
something as complex as the human body is simply foolish. *If you said
take all of the blood out of a body, or cutoff it's head, and it will
die, or something simple like that, I'd agree with you. *But you're
not, so I don't. *I'll repeat - I'm saying I don't know and neither
does anybody else.

Again, ignorance is not a reason in deciding a course of treatment. Those
who administer treatments, however, are NOT ignorant. They do know that
Homeopathy does not work, never has worked, and cannot be made to work. They
know this because the theory behind Homeopathy does not follow the provable
laws of biology or physiology and that thousands upon thousands of
controlled tests have NEVER demonstrated efficacy for ANY Homeopathic
regimen.



We have just barely gotten started understanding the human body.
Don't pretend we're done.

We know a lot more than we did in the late 18th century when Homeopathy was
concocted.

==
"Concocted" is the operative word for sure.
==

RicodJour wrote:
On Feb 7, 3:24 am, wrote:

There is nothing to understand. It's not even as good as snake oil.
Complete fantasy that calls into doubt the intellect of anyone that
believes such crap.
I include traditional Chinese remedies under the heading of crap also

Hmmm,
You do realize 75% of modern medicine is still comes from natural
source. Your ignorance is dripping all over you. Give me one example,
do you know how OTC product Imodium is made?

On Feb 7, 4:39*pm, Tony Hwang wrote:
RicodJour wrote:
On Feb 7, 3:24 am, *wrote:

There is nothing to understand. It's not even as good as snake oil.
Complete fantasy that calls into doubt the intellect of anyone that
believes such crap.
I include traditional Chinese remedies under the heading of crap also

Hmmm,
You do realize 75% of modern medicine is still comes from natural
source. Your ignorance is dripping all over you. Give me one example,
do you know how OTC product Imodium is made?

Imodium? Don't think so
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imodium

There are a few exceptions, eg quinine. But that is not as effective
as today's remedies.


99% of "traditional" medicine has been shown to be complete BS. I
include Europeans one too.
A hundred years ago eg, there was a European theory that plants with
leaves shaped like human organs were cures for that organ. Hence
names like "Liverwort" "lungwort" and "Heartsease"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungwort
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartsease
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverwort

Where do you get 75%? You just made that up.

What reason is there to suppose that chemicals manufactured by a plant
would be useful in human medice? Many plants make powerful toxins,
some of which are coincidently useful.

The plant manufactures them for it's own purposes, not for our
benifit.
Many plant chemicals are made for the exact opposite, ie to prevent
them from being eaten.

On Feb 7, 1:37*pm, harry wrote:

What reason is there to suppose that chemicals manufactured by a plant
would be useful in human medice?

Ask fruits and vegetables.

Many plants make *powerful toxins, some of which are coincidently useful.

Funny, that.

The plant manufactures them for it's own purposes, not for our benifit.

Your thinking gives me fits, not sure about the ben part.

Animals manufacture meat, skin, fur and all sorts of other things for
their own purposes, and we still go after the benefits. Likewise with
plants.

So to sum up your position - if man didn't make it for man, it's
useless.
Good point.

R

Roy wrote:

We know a lot more than we did in the late 18th century when
Homeopathy was concocted.

==
"Concocted" is the operative word for sure.
==

I really, really try to be precise, but I, even I, sometimes fall short.
Like when I used the word "minuscule" and it was pointed out that
"minuscule" may be the proper amount. I really intended the thought to mean
"indistinguishable from zero," but I failed. Miserably.

No cookie for me tonight.

harry wrote:

What reason is there to suppose that chemicals manufactured by a plant
would be useful in human medice? Many plants make powerful toxins,
some of which are coincidently useful.

The plant manufactures them for it's own purposes, not for our
benifit.
Many plant chemicals are made for the exact opposite, ie to prevent
them from being eaten.

Yep. Long gone are the days when a botanist found a new chemical in a rare
plant and everybody scurried around looking for a disease it might cure.

Today, scientists study the disease to find its areas of vulnerabilities and
from there create the chemical that attacks that vulnerability.

I doubt there's been a new drug extracted from plants in fifty years. Or if
there has, the number in that category is vanishingly small compared to
those drugs created from scratch.

On Feb 7, 5:57Â*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:

What reason is there to suppose that chemicals manufactured by a plant
would be useful in human medice? Â* Many plants make Â*powerful toxins,
some of which are coincidently useful.

The plant manufactures them for it's own purposes, not for our
benifit.
Many plant chemicals are made for the exact opposite, ie to prevent
them from being eaten.

Yep. Long gone are the days when a botanist found a new chemical in a rare
plant and everybody scurried around looking for a disease it might cure.

Today, scientists study the disease to find its areas of vulnerabilities and
from there create the chemical that attacks that vulnerability.

I doubt there's been a new drug extracted from plants in fifty years. Or if
there has, the number in that category is vanishingly small compared to
those drugs created from scratch.

You doubt. Well, that's good enough for me! Oh, wait, no it's not.
You're just using a weasel word while you're trying to score points.
Just one more vast area where you have a smattering of information and
a plenitude of opinion.

A very good customer's wife has a cousin who goes into the jungle two
or three times a year and brings back plants for research. He's
nearly died several times from one thing or another, but he is paid
very handsomely by drug companies for bringing back promising
candidates.

The reason that you wouldn't hear the stuff about plants in the raw is
threefold. Primarily it is because the drug companies are the ones
with the deep pockets, the only ones that can afford to jump through
the FDA hoops over years of submittals and trials, and the only ones
that can fund research without begging from the government. I've also
heard rumors that the drug companies have a new guy, he's called a
"lobbiest", but he may be part time.

The second reason - the drug companies would make no money from a
straight up plant medicinal remedy, because they couldn't patent it,
or trademark it, or control it entirely. When they find something,
they synthesize the active ingredients and then control it.

Third and most obvious reason, you don't listen very well. Your
Google seems to be broken.
http://www.uic.edu/classes/osci/osci...%20Drugs. htm

Old article
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2...-10-10-02.html
but I particularly like this part:
"In a commentary published alongside the study, Jeffrey McNeeley,
chief scientist of the IUCN-World Conservation Union, pointed out that
some bioprospecting efforts have been called �biopiracy,� such as when
a drug company made $200 million in profits selling cancer drugs
developed from Madagascar�s rosy periwinkle while that country �got
nothing.� "

And more on biopiracy:
http://nie.wikispaces.com/Brazil+And+US+Pharmaceuticals
Drug companies have been taking plants from less developed countries
and reaping staggering profits. The countries are fighting back.
Just your usual humdrum run of the mill story of drug companies
playing for profits and not for cures. It's anti-human and absolutely
capitalism in its lowest form.

It seems that the very idea that medicines can come from plants upsets
you. It's really not a threat to you, a threat, I mean, and no one
will force you to take any medicine unless you keep ignoring reality
that doesn't fit in with your preconceived notions.

R

On Feb 7, 5:52*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

I really, really try to be precise, but I, even I, sometimes fall short.

Eliminate the ",even I, sometimes" from the sentence and we are in
100% agreement.

R

On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 09:39:31 -0700, Tony Hwang wrote:



RicodJour wrote:
On Feb 7, 3:24 am, wrote:

There is nothing to understand. It's not even as good as snake oil.
Complete fantasy that calls into doubt the intellect of anyone that
believes such crap.
I include traditional Chinese remedies under the heading of crap also

Hmmm,
You do realize 75% of modern medicine is still comes from natural
source. Your ignorance is dripping all over you. Give me one example,
do you know how OTC product Imodium is made?

No, but 96.4% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

On Feb 8, 12:06*am, RicodJour wrote:
On Feb 7, 5:57*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:





harry wrote:

What reason is there to suppose that chemicals manufactured by a plant
would be useful in human medice? * Many plants make *powerful toxins,
some of which are coincidently useful.

The plant manufactures them for it's own purposes, not for our
benifit.
Many plant chemicals are made for the exact opposite, ie to prevent
them from being eaten.

Yep. Long gone are the days when a botanist found a new chemical in a rare
plant and everybody scurried around looking for a disease it might cure..

Today, scientists study the disease to find its areas of vulnerabilities and
from there create the chemical that attacks that vulnerability.

I doubt there's been a new drug extracted from plants in fifty years. Or if
there has, the number in that category is vanishingly small compared to
those drugs created from scratch.

You doubt. *Well, that's good enough for me! *Oh, wait, no it's not.
You're just using a weasel word while you're trying to score points.
Just one more vast area where you have a smattering of information and
a plenitude of opinion.

A very good customer's wife has a cousin who goes into the jungle two
or three times a year and brings back plants for research. *He's
nearly died several times from one thing or another, but he is paid
very handsomely by drug companies for bringing back promising
candidates.

The reason that you wouldn't hear the stuff about plants in the raw is
threefold. *Primarily it *is because the drug companies are the ones
with the deep pockets, the only ones that can afford to jump through
the FDA hoops over years of submittals and trials, and the only ones
that can fund research without begging from the government. *I've also
heard rumors that the drug companies have a new guy, he's called a
"lobbiest", but he may be part time.

The second reason - the drug companies would make no money from a
straight up plant medicinal remedy, because they couldn't patent it,
or trademark it, or control it entirely. *When they find something,
they synthesize the active ingredients and then control it.

Third and most obvious reason, you don't listen very well. *Your
Google seems to be broken.http://www.uic.edu/classes/osci/osci...arch%20for%20R...

Old articlehttp://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2003/2003-10-10-02.html
but I particularly like this part:
"In a commentary published alongside the study, Jeffrey McNeeley,
chief scientist of the IUCN-World Conservation Union, pointed out that
some bioprospecting efforts have been called biopiracy, such as when
a drug company made $200 million in profits selling cancer drugs
developed from Madagascar s rosy periwinkle while that country got
nothing. "

And more on biopiracy:http://nie.wikispaces.com/Brazil+And+US+Pharmaceuticals
Drug companies have been taking plants from less developed countries
and reaping staggering profits. *The countries are fighting back.
Just your usual humdrum run of the mill story of drug companies
playing for profits and not for cures. *It's anti-human and absolutely
capitalism in its lowest form.

It seems that the very idea that medicines can come from plants upsets
you. *It's really not a threat to you, a threat, I mean, and no one
will force you to take any medicine unless you keep ignoring reality
that doesn't fit in with your preconceived notions.

R- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are full of crap. I often spend weeks in "jungles " in South
America/Africa/Asia on my holidays. There's nowhere left to explore.
Tourists get everywhere. Not American tourists, they are too paranoid.
I expect that's why you are so ignorant.
Plants don't make medices, they make toxins. A very small perecentage
of them are useful. Most medicines are toxic if taken in large amounts.

RicodJour wrote:
On Feb 7, 5:52 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

I really, really try to be precise, but I, even I, sometimes fall
short.

Eliminate the ",even I, sometimes" from the sentence and we are in
100% agreement.


My revised statement then becomes:

"I think you do not grasp the theory behing homeopathy. The theory is that
something akin or affiliated with the malady under treatment, when ingested
in amounts indistinguishable from zero, will trigger a bodily response to
rehabilitate the diseased organ."

I'm about to twitch to death with glee over your agreement.

On Feb 8, 3:48*am, harry wrote:

You are full of crap. I often spend weeks in "jungles " in South
America/Africa/Asia on my holidays. *There's nowhere left to explore.

So...while on holiday all tourists are investigating the properties of
the local flora and fauna for possible medicinal benefit? That seems
like a tall order for a couple or three weeks. When do they find the
time to go parasailing?

R

On Feb 8, 7:14*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
RicodJour wrote:
On Feb 7, 5:52 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

I really, really try to be precise, but I, even I, sometimes fall
short.

Eliminate the ",even I, sometimes" from the sentence and we are in
100% agreement.

My revised statement then becomes:

"I think you do not grasp the theory behing homeopathy. The theory is that
something akin or affiliated with the malady under treatment, when ingested
in amounts indistinguishable from zero, will trigger a bodily response to
rehabilitate the diseased organ."

I'm about to twitch to death with glee over your agreement.

The death part sounds interesting but your twitching in glee sounds
vaguely sexual and disturbing. ~

I've already acknowledged that neither I nor anyone else know enough
to say any medicine is entirely bogus or entirely infallible. You've
already acknowledged that the placebo effect is real. We're already
in agreement, though not the one you were looking to twitch over.
Sorry.

I'll ask two really simple questions about a simple everyday item that
everyone has been intimately familiar with since early childhood to
help illustrate my point. What's the healthiest type of bread? What
grain, and why? It's clear from your stance on more complicated
matters of health and medicine, that absolute certainty is possible,
and one type of grain _has_ to be better than another. If you can
answer those questions with definitive, verifiable proof, I'll agree
that the world is simpler than I thought.

Until then, I'll continue to believe that neither I nor anyone else
know it all about anything.

R

In article
,
RicodJour wrote:



So...while on holiday all tourists are investigating the properties of
the local flora and fauna for possible medicinal benefit?

Why do you think they call it Club Med?

On Feb 8, 12:44*pm, Smitty Two wrote:
*RicodJour wrote:

So...while on holiday all tourists are investigating the properties of
the local flora and fauna for possible medicinal benefit?

Why do you think they call it Club Med?

I thought it was because of all of the recreational drugs. Apparently
Harry has been hoovering up more than his share.

R

RicodJour wrote:

Until then, I'll continue to believe that neither I nor anyone else
know it all about anything.


It must be a lonely religion.

On Feb 8, 9:26*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
RicodJour wrote:

Until then, I'll continue to believe that neither I nor anyone else
know it all about anything.

It must be a lonely religion.

No, not lonely, but it is a minority. It must keep things simple to
be one of those people that have the ability to be certain about
things they know nothing about.

Read anything about the Earth's magnetic poles recently? That has me
concerned.

R

On Feb 8, 7:02*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Feb 8, 12:44*pm, Smitty Two wrote:

*RicodJour wrote:

So...while on holiday all tourists are investigating the properties of
the local flora and fauna for possible medicinal benefit?

Why do you think they call it Club Med?

I thought it was because of all of the recreational drugs. *Apparently
Harry has been hoovering up more than his share. *

R

I have never been on a club med. It is a holiday for chavs not
intellectuals. ;-)

I am not into drugs of any sort.
I did have an interesting few days with a local "witch doctor" in the
Orinoco delta once. He was a very interesting chap, well into various
herbal remedies, and recreational drugs nin the first world.
Strangely, he was not of any religion.

On Feb 9, 2:48*am, RicodJour wrote:
On Feb 8, 9:26*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

RicodJour wrote:

Until then, I'll continue to believe that neither I nor anyone else
know it all about anything.

It must be a lonely religion.

No, not lonely, but it is a minority. *It must keep things simple to
be one of those people that have the ability to be certain about
things they know nothing about.

Read anything about the Earth's magnetic poles recently? *That has me
concerned.

R

Now you're just trolling. He is very susceptable to trolls. If you
want to get him going just mention guns.

One can find out most things from the internet.

RicodJour wrote:

Read anything about the Earth's magnetic poles recently? That has me
concerned.


Well, you could move...

On Feb 9, 7:29*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
RicodJour wrote:

Read anything about the Earth's magnetic poles recently? *That has me
concerned.

Well, you could move...

I can't afford the flight.

R