Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Thursday March 13 2014, @12:53AM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]
from the better-living-through-solopsism dept.

Papas Fritas writes:

Michael Schulson writes that if you want to write about spiritually-motivated pseudoscience in America, you can drive hundreds of miles to the Creation Museum in Kentucky but that America's greatest shrine to pseudoscience, the Whole Foods Market, is only a 15-minute trip away from most American urbanites. For example the homeopathy section at Whole Foods has plenty of Latin words and mathematical terms, but many of its remedies are so diluted that, statistically speaking, they may not contain a single molecule of the substance they purport to deliver.

"You can buy chocolate with "a meld of rich goji berries and ashwagandha root to strengthen your immune system," and bottles of ChlorOxygen chlorophyll concentrate, which "builds better blood." There's cereal with the kind of ingredients that are "made in a kitchen-not in a lab," and tea designed to heal the human heart," writes Schulson. "Nearby are eight full shelves of probiotics-live bacteria intended to improve general health. I invited a biologist friend who studies human gut bacteria to come take a look with me. She read the healing claims printed on a handful of bottles and frowned. "This is bullshit," she said, and went off to buy some vegetables."

According to Schulson the total lack of outrage over Whole Foods' existence, and by the total saturation of outrage over the Creation Museum, makes it clear that strict scientific accuracy in the public sphere isn't quite as important to many of us as we might believe. "The moral is not that we should all boycott Whole Foods. It's that whenever we talk about science and society, it helps to keep two rather humbling premises in mind: very few of us are anywhere near rational. And pretty much all of us are hypocrites."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4) by EvilJim on Thursday March 13 2014, @02:47AM

    by EvilJim (2501) on Thursday March 13 2014, @02:47AM (#15656) Journal

    is this an article? don't all supermarkets have bullshit products? why is the article calling me a hypocrite?

    • (Score: 2) by EvilJim on Thursday March 13 2014, @03:09AM

      by EvilJim (2501) on Thursday March 13 2014, @03:09AM (#15666) Journal

      aaand... if the creationist museum is so infuriatingly bad why would the author recommend people visit it? wouldn't it be better to let it die a lonely death? and is the only connection between these two articles really a lack of scientific basis? I'm not one to complain about the stories posted as I'm capable of not reading if I so choose, but I just don't get what this is all about?

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by mrbluze on Thursday March 13 2014, @04:41AM

      by mrbluze (49) on Thursday March 13 2014, @04:41AM (#15695) Journal

      Yeah the bull shit sometimes makes it into the cow's milk. But what about the intellectual enhancement from soylent? What about bacon?

      --
      Do it yourself, 'cause no one else will do it yourself.
    • (Score: 4, Funny) by Aighearach on Thursday March 13 2014, @04:43AM

      by Aighearach (2621) on Thursday March 13 2014, @04:43AM (#15698)

      After the buyout, it appears that soylent news is feeding us to the right wing propagandists. :(

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 13 2014, @07:57AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 13 2014, @07:57AM (#15757)

        and it sure would be nice if the same exact troll story didn't appear here three days after it showed up on mother slashdot.

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by hubie on Thursday March 13 2014, @11:27AM

          by hubie (1068) on Thursday March 13 2014, @11:27AM (#15802) Journal

          I'm not sure what your expectations are. Should one scour Slashdot and perhaps all other tech-related web sites before submitting a story here? Right now, on the front page of mother Slashdot, is a story about how a paper talks about how happy developers are more productive developers. That was posted here, like, three days ago. It goes both ways. Personally, I try to submit stories that are fairly unique, but there is only so much due diligence I'm going to put in because uniqueness of stories is not a requirement, but a desirement. And pretty much most stories I see posted either here or there I see on the MSN home page, or the default Google News page. Does that mean they shouldn't be posted to either site?

          This site needs to try to be itself, and not worry about trying to not be Slashdot.

        • (Score: 2) by weeds on Thursday March 13 2014, @12:34PM

          by weeds (611) on Thursday March 13 2014, @12:34PM (#15825) Journal

          slashdot can do what it wants and post what it wants. If our members find a story that they think might be of interest to other members, post it. Until and unless we decide on a specialty, there may be overlap. We certainly should not be copying from slashdot - we are independent. (Holds up pitchfork and torch!)

        • (Score: 1) by SleazyRidr on Thursday March 13 2014, @02:39PM

          by SleazyRidr (882) on Thursday March 13 2014, @02:39PM (#15887)

          Is this site just supposed to survive on the dregs that the other sites don't report? Personally I'd be happy to see the same story posted on /., |., here, technocrat and s'qute (and the other sites I don't know about, too). We're here for the discussion and getting different viewpoints from different people is important to knowing what's actually going on.

    • (Score: 2) by NovelUserName on Thursday March 13 2014, @07:15PM

      by NovelUserName (768) on Thursday March 13 2014, @07:15PM (#16050)

      This. Pretending that the marketing claims targeted at Whole Foods customers are somehow special and worse than any of the other marketing bullshit out there seems disingenuous.

  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 13 2014, @02:55AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 13 2014, @02:55AM (#15657)

    But some Psuedosciences are created more equal than others.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by fliptop on Thursday March 13 2014, @03:00AM

    by fliptop (1666) on Thursday March 13 2014, @03:00AM (#15658) Journal

    I mean, come on people. [slashdot.org] I'll probably get modded down for this, but I did warn [soylentnews.org] that letting in Hugh Pickens would ruin the soylent experiment.

    --
    It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide.
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Reziac on Thursday March 13 2014, @03:14AM

      by Reziac (2489) on Thursday March 13 2014, @03:14AM (#15668) Homepage

      I've noticed a few of those. But it's been interesting to compare the discussions, too -- they're not really very much alike, even when the same people are commenting on both sites.

      Tho could be they used up all their good comments on the first site they hit.

      • (Score: 5, Interesting) by istartedi on Thursday March 13 2014, @05:45AM

        by istartedi (123) on Thursday March 13 2014, @05:45AM (#15717) Journal

        OK, Karma to burn (numerical, no less) so let's see if my response on that other site [slashdot.org] results in a different discussion here. Copy-pasted verbatim for those who don't want to follow the link:

        Author of TFA mixes apples and oranges (Score:2)

        No pun intended. Homeopathy and the anti-GMO campaign don't belong in the same bucket. Homeopathy works on the placebo effect. Yes indeedy, that's pseudocience if you believe in it. It "works for that guy" much like prayer. OTOH, running a massive experiment on all of humanity by GMOing foods is more anti-science to me. There is no way to have a control group. Just like drugs that get onto the market and they discover that 1 out of a million people get heart attacks from the drug. There was no way to test that drug properly before releasing it. Likewise, there is no way to test the long-term effects of GMOs on large populations before releasing them. The fact that some of us would rather be in the control group doesn't make us anti-science. It makes us skeptical and that's good. TFA --> recycling bin.

        • (Score: 1) by mrbluze on Thursday March 13 2014, @09:07AM

          by mrbluze (49) on Thursday March 13 2014, @09:07AM (#15769) Journal

          The way UFO watching has been discredited was by people posing as UFO enthusiasts but making ridiculous claims and appearing as lunatics, whilst in fact they were distracting from secret aerospace programs etc. The same problem exists in the pharmaceutical industry, especially since many cheap/home remedies are as good as paid drugs, it is indeed interesting that non GMO has been thrown in with snake oil homoeopathy.

          --
          Do it yourself, 'cause no one else will do it yourself.
          • (Score: 2) by Daniel Dvorkin on Thursday March 13 2014, @02:29PM

            by Daniel Dvorkin (1099) on Thursday March 13 2014, @02:29PM (#15883) Journal

            The way UFO watching has been discredited was by people posing as UFO enthusiasts but making ridiculous claims and appearing as lunatics, whilst in fact they were distracting from secret aerospace programs etc.

            Please, just stop right now. You're not doing yourself or your side any favors.

            --
            Pipedot [pipedot.org]:Soylent [soylentnews.org]::BSD:Linux
        • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 13 2014, @01:54PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 13 2014, @01:54PM (#15857)

          The genetically modified portion of GMO typically means that the organism contains inserted DNA that contains the information to make a particular protein. These proteins usually make the organism resistant to environmental stresses. The proteins themselves are made of the same material as the organism's "normal" proteins and should get digested the same.

          • (Score: 1) by sjames on Saturday March 15 2014, @09:46AM

            by sjames (2882) on Saturday March 15 2014, @09:46AM (#16789) Journal

            Snake venom is just another protean made from the same amino acids as any other protean.

            It really does matter a great deal what proteans are inserted and that they are properly expressed.

        • (Score: 1) by monster on Thursday March 13 2014, @02:03PM

          by monster (1260) on Thursday March 13 2014, @02:03PM (#15865) Journal

          Well, that is the nature of the control group: Even if they don't receive the drug/active agent, they must still think that they do, otherwise differences in Placebo effect kick in. You must not be told that you are not eating GMOs, even if that is the case.

          About TFA, there is a newspaper page today about transgenics in an spanish newspaper [eldiario.es] (spanish language) with a quite balanced point of view and a lot of links to actual studies about the aspects of GMOs. I encourage people interested in information about it (and not just bias reinforcement) to follow and read them, they are quite interesting.

        • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by bucc5062 on Thursday March 13 2014, @02:11PM

          by bucc5062 (699) on Thursday March 13 2014, @02:11PM (#15870)

          Why do you say that Homeopathy is pseudoscience when many of the drugs created today come from or have there basis in natural ingredients. Before there were giant drug companies turning all humans in to junkies for their pills there were knowledgeable people that understood what plant extract, plant part, or mineral could effect a human condition. Many poisons are natural (homeopathic) and I would consider that science helped prove what we already knew, poison from some plants can kill. That is not a placebo effect. Let's take one:

          n the United States, willow bark is used by herbalists as an antipyretic (fever reducer), a mild analgesic (pain reliever), and an anti-inflammatory. There is currently strong scientific evidence that willow bark is effective for osteoarthritis and lower back pain. Early study suggests that willow bark extracts may not be helpful for rheumatoid arthritis, but further study is warranted to confirm these recommendations. Taking willow bark may increase the risk of bleeding; however, this risk may be less than taking aspirin.

          from healthline.com [healthline.com]

          So that seems to be a little more then pseudoscience or quackery medicine. Here is another:

          Devil’s claw is an herb. The botanical name, Harpagophytum, means “hook plant†in Greek. This plant, which is native to Africa, gets its name from the appearance of its fruit, which is covered with hooks meant to attach onto animals in order to spread the seeds. The roots and tubers of the plant are used to make medicine.

          Devil’s claw is used for “hardening of the arteries" (atherosclerosis), arthritis, gout, muscle pain (myalgia), back pain, tendonitis, chest pain, gastrointestinal (GI) upset or heart burn, fever, and migraine headache. It is also used for difficulties in childbirth, menstrual problems, allergic reactions, loss of appetite, and kidney and bladder disease.

          which even states from the national institutes of health (NIH) to be effective via scientific study.

          It is not that homeopathy can cure, effect or otherwise be the answer to everything, but to dismiss it as nothing is short sighted.

          --
          The more things change, the more they look the same
          • (Score: 4, Informative) by Daniel Dvorkin on Thursday March 13 2014, @02:25PM

            by Daniel Dvorkin (1099) on Thursday March 13 2014, @02:25PM (#15878) Journal

            "Homeopathy" has a very specific meaning, which your examples don't address. No one's arguing that herbal medicine as a whole is necessarily quackery (well, I don't think they are, anyway, and if they are then they're wrong) but specifically that homeopathy is quackery by its very nature.

            --
            Pipedot [pipedot.org]:Soylent [soylentnews.org]::BSD:Linux
            • (Score: 2) by bucc5062 on Thursday March 13 2014, @03:22PM

              by bucc5062 (699) on Thursday March 13 2014, @03:22PM (#15911)

              I'll comment on this one though there were a couple after that said simple. I understand your point. I did confuse homeopathy with the utilization of natural ingredients in medications. After reading about it I found that i also had a skeptical eye towards that specific use of natural elements. That is sad really for I have and do see the benefits of using more natural ingredients in managing some health issues.

              So I stand on my thoughts that natural products to help some medical conditions is not a bad thing, blind faith in any specific health system is bad.

              --
              The more things change, the more they look the same
          • (Score: 1) by SleazyRidr on Thursday March 13 2014, @02:27PM

            by SleazyRidr (882) on Thursday March 13 2014, @02:27PM (#15881)

            A lot of natural remedies are very effective. I agree with you that a lot of medicines come from natural sources and that the pharmaceutical companies are just upset that they can't take money from you along the way. Homeopathy, though is a special kind of bullshit. It's roots are by curing poisons by giving you a very dilute mixture of the same poison. The rate at which it is diluted is so great that you are statistically unlikely to find a single molecule of the "active ingredient" in your treatment. I'd elaborate, but Wikipedia has already covered it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy [wikipedia.org].

            • (Score: 1) by GeminiDomino on Friday March 14 2014, @01:22PM

              by GeminiDomino (661) on Friday March 14 2014, @01:22PM (#16342)

              It's roots are by curing poisons by giving you a very dilute mixture of the same poison.

              If it's good enough for the Dread Pirate Roberts, it's good enough for an upstart like you!

              --
              "We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture"
          • (Score: 4, Interesting) by umafuckitt on Thursday March 13 2014, @03:04PM

            by umafuckitt (20) on Thursday March 13 2014, @03:04PM (#15903)

            The fact that some homeopathic remedies contain plants with medicinal properties has zero relevance on whether or not homeopathy is a pseudoscience. Homeopathy in fact is a pseudoscience because it is based on a hypothesis (like cures like) which has no basis in fact. It considers high dilutions of the "medicines" to be more effective, even though this principle can be refuted by any child with basic chemistry knowledge. All the best trials of homeopathy show no effect. Only the shoddier trials show significant effects. The meta-analyses show now effects. Homeopaths have countered this by stating that the effects of homeopathy can't be measured in a trial. If that's not a pseudo-scientific claim, I don't know what is.

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by tomp on Thursday March 13 2014, @05:59AM

      by tomp (996) on Thursday March 13 2014, @05:59AM (#15726)

      If the best geek news in the past hour comes from slashdot, that's where we'll get it.

      There's a lot about slashdot that should be shunned. However if they have news of interest, it should be presented here to be read by those that no longer view slashdot.

      Now where's the 411 on sword swallowing?

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by guises on Thursday March 13 2014, @11:25AM

        by guises (3116) on Thursday March 13 2014, @11:25AM (#15801)

        it should be presented here to be read by those that no longer view slashdot

        Exactly. Isn't that the point of the new site? If Soylent just reposts everything on Slashdot without the ads and without the beta I'll be happy. Anything in addition to that is icing.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Sir Garlon on Thursday March 13 2014, @12:00PM

        by Sir Garlon (1264) on Thursday March 13 2014, @12:00PM (#15809)

        It's inevitable there will be some overlap between Soylent and Slashdot because there is only so much news to go around. But since the main reason I left Slashdot was the poor choice of stories to publish, too much overlap would make me leave here, too. This story is just trolling, and a good representative of what IMO was wrong with Slashdot.

        --
        [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
        • (Score: 1) by fliptop on Thursday March 13 2014, @12:21PM

          by fliptop (1666) on Thursday March 13 2014, @12:21PM (#15815) Journal

          This story is just trolling, and a good representative of what IMO was wrong with Slashdot

          Amen, brother!

          --
          It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide.
        • (Score: 2) by metamonkey on Thursday March 13 2014, @02:05PM

          by metamonkey (3174) on Thursday March 13 2014, @02:05PM (#15867)

          I really wouldn't care if people simply took the stories that appear on slashdot and relinked them here, in flagrant dickery. I want discussion, and I'd rather do that on Soylent than Slashdot. News is news, and none of it's OC, anyway (except interviews and asks).

          --
          Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by c0lo on Thursday March 13 2014, @03:03AM

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 13 2014, @03:03AM (#15660) Journal

    very few of us are anywhere near rational. And pretty much all of us are hypocrites.

    Of us? Us being who, exactly? Some weird nations that went beyond the need of immediate survival, safety and stopped between the love/belonging and esteem levels [wikipedia.org] instead of ascending to self-actuation?

    Ask 80% of world population living for less than $10-adjusted/day [globalissues.org] ... would they bother whether or not goji-berry is present in their diet?

    If speaking about hypocrisy and ignorance... I have a hunch that:

    1. pretending we are representative for this world and
    2. choosing not to look around

    denotes more hypocrisy and willful ignorance than the "Whole food market" and Creation museum...

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by sibiday fabis on Thursday March 13 2014, @05:55AM

      by sibiday fabis (2160) on Thursday March 13 2014, @05:55AM (#15723)

      Parent and grandparent not only applies to the "third world" but much of the "first world" as well. Goji? Sure. Overpriced Vitamin C and bioflavinoids available at much less with some diligence. Why would we essentially triple our food budget to obtain the basic nutrients (RDA + peer reviewed supplements that so far appear to have an actual benefit for certain conditions). Nit picking on goji, per se, but rather the overprices "super-nutrient" du jour.

      You can spend a shi*t-ton on unproven "cures/supplements" for no discernible benefit. There's a fair amount of honest (use your own values for "honest") research that seems to show benefits from certain supplements, ranging from full-spectrum light to fish oil to glucosamine/chondriotin. Read, check your sources, look for verification compare prices and sourcing - and try it yourself for a while. If it works for you, great. Weigh the actual benefit to your health vs. the cost. Try a similar but less expensive supplement for comparison. Decide which is the best choice.

      This does not include homeopathy, crystal therapy, channeling and the like. Caveat Emptor. And other Latin/nonLatin warnings.

      • (Score: 2) by bucc5062 on Thursday March 13 2014, @02:26PM

        by bucc5062 (699) on Thursday March 13 2014, @02:26PM (#15879)

        First, before commenting on your specific point, why is this troll article? Every article in one way or another is a troll article because it invites comments; it "trolls" for a response. Bad, ugly, stupid comments may deserve the moniker of troll, but let us not just label an article a Troll just because we may not like the topic. As it is, I think this one could have generated some good discussion on the topic of modern drugs to homeopathic drugs. To that point....

        Your wording seems to indicate you feel homeopathy or homeopathic therapy is quack medicine ('let the buyer beware'). In doing some quick loooking around I found that WebMD [webmd.com] had a well measured statement:

        What is homeopathy used for?

        Historically, people have used homeopathy to maintain health and treat a wide range of long-term illnesses, such as allergies, atopic dermatitis, rheumatoid arthritis, and irritable bowel syndrome. They have also used it to treat minor injuries, such as cuts and scrapes and muscle strains or sprains. Homeopathic treatment is not considered appropriate for illnesses, such as cancer, heart disease, major infections, or emergencies.

        Homeopathy has been widely used in India, England, and other European countries.

        Is homeopathy safe?

        Homeopathic remedies have been regulated in the United States since 1938 and are considered to be safe.

        Every year we hear about drug companies that put out medicines that have horrible side-effects, can kill, and when under regulated, do little to help yet we continue to bow at the great Drug Gods for healing. Certainly there are charlatans in homeopathic manufacturing, but that should not dismiss the practice out right. Before Pfizer came out with its magic pill I'll bet there was some natural element that made the foundation of the drug.

        Only extremists would think that homeopathy is a complete cure all. Most see it for what it is, a more natural way to help deal with the general issues that afflict us in our daily lives. You have a typical western view of medicine which closes you off to so many other possibilities in health.

        --
        The more things change, the more they look the same
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 13 2014, @03:20PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 13 2014, @03:20PM (#15908)
          And you are helping to prove the point of the article. Anti-science is anti-science, no matter which side of the so-called political spectrum one falls on.
          • (Score: 2) by bucc5062 on Thursday March 13 2014, @03:43PM

            by bucc5062 (699) on Thursday March 13 2014, @03:43PM (#15920)

            Man, I deserve this...sigh...Okay, I had a mis-understanding about homeopathy. I confused the use of natural elements (something which I do believe in and has been scientifically proven in studies) with the practice of homeopathic medicine. After reading upon it (which is why I love SN, Google, and curiosity) I learned more and found that i also have doubts about its specific practice.

            So there is my mae culpa. I am a man of science, but I also believe that there is more we don't know then we do and we should not discount, out of hand, those things which are not developments from "modern science". Because I believe in Science and the scientific method, any claims of "magic" should be held to critical thought, examination, and review. This goes beyond just medicine to energy, engineering, and other areas of the human experience.

            I got egg on my face, but with some natural herbs and spices, it not only tastes good, it is good for me. /grin

            --
            The more things change, the more they look the same
            • (Score: 2) by JeanCroix on Thursday March 13 2014, @05:50PM

              by JeanCroix (573) on Thursday March 13 2014, @05:50PM (#16006)
              Kudos to you, sir. An actual mea culpa? We sure aren't on slashdot anymore...
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by el_oscuro on Thursday March 13 2014, @03:08AM

    by el_oscuro (1711) on Thursday March 13 2014, @03:08AM (#15662)

    If you want a peek into the bizarro world that is our food industry, where a standard slice of bacon is 35 calories, but you can order a healthy sounding salad with 1700. Or a fake guacamole dip where the "avocado powder" is really a chemical used to treat herpes. How about a "Healthy Choice" frozen dinner which tastes like cardboard but has more added sugar than a Snickers bar? The list goes on and on and every one of them is available right at your local grocery store.

    If there is one nearby, try shopping at Trader Joe's. They have plenty of calorie bombs too, but if you read the ingredients on the back, you will find more actual food and less chemicals, and most things have less calories. And they seem to be cheaper too.

    --
    SoylentNews is Bacon! [nueskes.com]
    • (Score: 4, Informative) by Reziac on Thursday March 13 2014, @03:12AM

      by Reziac (2489) on Thursday March 13 2014, @03:12AM (#15667) Homepage

      Don't get me wrong, I love TJ's for the unique items they carry (those tend to have good prices), but I also read labels, and many a time a rather high-priced item (like a $2 box of mac-and-cheese, WTF) proves to be just a major supermarket brand in a TJ wrapper. So... know your products applies there as much as anywhere.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Thursday March 13 2014, @03:47AM

      by Nerdfest (80) on Thursday March 13 2014, @03:47AM (#15677)

      I'm amazed that in civilized countries 'homoeopathic' remedies are legal. Shouldn't you need to have real science or at least a double-blind study or two before you can make *any* claims? Normally I'm not against extracting money from the gullible, but once public health money comes into the equation I get more interested.

      • (Score: 1) by ragequit on Thursday March 13 2014, @04:07AM

        by ragequit (44) on Thursday March 13 2014, @04:07AM (#15679) Journal

        Nah, they just put a fine print disclaimer like "These claims have not been evaluated by the FDA" on the back somewhere.

        See here: http://www.drvita.com/product/navitas-naturals-sun -dried-goji-berries-16-oz/12840 [drvita.com]
        scroll down a bit

        --
        The above views are fabricated for your reading pleasure.
      • (Score: 1) by RoyWard on Thursday March 13 2014, @04:15AM

        by RoyWard (3670) on Thursday March 13 2014, @04:15AM (#15682)

        Is public health money involved in homeopathy? I'd like to see a citation for that.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by lx on Thursday March 13 2014, @09:53AM

          by lx (1915) on Thursday March 13 2014, @09:53AM (#15779)

          It depends on where you live. In Britain homeopatic therapy is still covered by the NHS. The climate is changing though. [theguardian.com]

      • (Score: 1) by naff89 on Thursday March 13 2014, @04:31AM

        by naff89 (198) on Thursday March 13 2014, @04:31AM (#15688)

        Shouldn't you need to have real science or at least a double-blind study or two before you can make *any* claims?

        You do, and all claims are evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. If they're not, they require a big label that says "Not Evaluated by the FDA" and "Not intended to treat or diagnose [anything]".

        If you still think it works despite those warnings, well, there's only so much we can do to help you.

        • (Score: 1) by Aighearach on Thursday March 13 2014, @04:48AM

          by Aighearach (2621) on Thursday March 13 2014, @04:48AM (#15702)

          You might even just like eating it. I've heard lots of people say they take homeopathic remedies because they might work, are almost certainly safe.

          And I agree. The placebo effect is much stronger than the medicinal effect of most "proven" medicines.

          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by girlwhowaspluggedout on Thursday March 13 2014, @06:39AM

            by girlwhowaspluggedout (1223) on Thursday March 13 2014, @06:39AM (#15741)
            To quote that bastion of medical fact and accuracy [wikipedia.org]:

            Government regulatory agencies approve new drugs only after tests establish not only that patients respond to them, but also that their effect is greater than that of a placebo (by way of affecting more patients, by affecting responders more strongly, or both).

            IANAD, but AFAIK, that is indeed how drug testing works.

            --
            Soylent is the best disinfectant.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 13 2014, @11:22AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 13 2014, @11:22AM (#15800)

          Shouldn't you need to have real science or at least a double-blind study or two before you can make *any* claims?

          You do, and all claims are evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.

          That's not entirely true. From the FDA:

          The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) recognizes as official the drugs and standards in the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the United States and its supplements (Sections 201 (g)(1) and 501 (b), respectively).

          Furthermore

          Section 211.165 (Testing and release for distribution): In the Federal Register of April 1, 1983 (48 FR 14003), the Agency proposed to amend 21 CFR 211.165 to exempt homeopathic drug products from the requirement for laboratory determination of identity and strength of each active ingredient prior to release for distribution.

          So, "real" drugs have to tested for safety and efficacy; neutraceuticals have to be labeled in such a way as to make clear that they are not drugs, but only "nutritional supplements" or other such language; but "homeopathic" remedies, as long as they're recognized in the pharmacopea and contain no active allopathic agent, are allowed to be called drugs.

      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by deego on Thursday March 13 2014, @06:27AM

        by deego (628) on Thursday March 13 2014, @06:27AM (#15740)

        >> I'm amazed that in civilized countries 'homoeopathic' remedies are legal. Shouldn't you need to have real science or at least a double-blind study or two before you can make *any* claims? Normally I'm not against extracting money from the gullible, but once public health money comes into the equation I get more interested.

        I am amazed that in civilized countries, do-gooders still try to dictate what others can and cannot do with their own bodies.

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by pe1rxq on Thursday March 13 2014, @10:32AM

          by pe1rxq (844) on Thursday March 13 2014, @10:32AM (#15791) Homepage

          I don't want to prevent anyone from gulping down homeopathic shit...

          I do want to protect them from doing it because they were being lied to.

          In a civilized country lying about its effects should be illegal.
          You want to sell water? Fine, just don't claim it is magical because you diluted and shaked something.

          • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday March 13 2014, @01:57PM

            by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday March 13 2014, @01:57PM (#15859)

            If you go that route, then you have to ban religions too, because there's no way to prove that it's real. That's not going to go over very well, since every "civilized country" not only has a large contingent of religious citizens, they all purport to support freedom of religion (for the most part; some have banned obvious scams like Scientology).

            • (Score: 2) by metamonkey on Thursday March 13 2014, @02:11PM

              by metamonkey (3174) on Thursday March 13 2014, @02:11PM (#15871)

              No, religions would just need appropriate warning labels. "Warning: Adherence to this faith may or may not result in eternal salvation." Well, we'd need those labels for every religion except mine, of course.

              --
              Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
            • (Score: 1) by SleazyRidr on Thursday March 13 2014, @02:44PM

              by SleazyRidr (882) on Thursday March 13 2014, @02:44PM (#15891)

              I'll bear that in mind next time I pick up a bottle of Islam from Whole Foods.

          • (Score: 2) by bucc5062 on Thursday March 13 2014, @02:37PM

            by bucc5062 (699) on Thursday March 13 2014, @02:37PM (#15885)

            Oh please, your comment is insightful?

            In the civilized country of the US of A companies lie *all the time* and seem to do it legally so please don't try to compare our wondrous first world morality to some third world and say it is better.

            Homeopathy is not shit, it is respected by the medical community, it is regulated by the FDA, and it has shown to be a viable alternative to manufactured chemicals that at times can do more harm to the body the some natural ingredient. Have you heard of Willow Bark. A natural pain reliever that is as effective, though slower in action then aspirin and less harmful to the stomach.

            As to your water example, A couple of years ago some company told the US market that they infused their water with extra oxygen to help make you feel better. A bold face lie that people bought in the millions; in a civilized country non the less. Now that is shit from a male cow.

            --
            The more things change, the more they look the same
            • (Score: 1) by pe1rxq on Thursday March 13 2014, @02:47PM

              by pe1rxq (844) on Thursday March 13 2014, @02:47PM (#15896) Homepage

              Homeopathy is NOT respected by the medical community. Just stop spreading nonsense.

              It is NOT a viable alternative to anything.

              And yes, I have heard of willow bark, I do know a little bit about the history of aspirin and it has NOTHING to do with homeopathy.

              And the guys selling 'oxygen' water are just as guilty as the homeopaths and both should be made accountable. All quackery should be threated equal.

              • (Score: 2) by bucc5062 on Thursday March 13 2014, @03:33PM

                by bucc5062 (699) on Thursday March 13 2014, @03:33PM (#15914)

                So I will walk a line here. I had been confused between what I understood to be homeopathy and what it is defined as by most articles (and their own text). I was defending the use of natural elements in caring for medical issues, not homeopathy its self. So in that regard I was incorrect in my thoughts.

                I still find your statement about "civilized countries" to be disingenuous and it did not enhance your viewpoint. Of course all quackery should have the light of day put upon it, but you made a position like civilized countries don't have quacks (that is how it read). I'm not moderating, but I did not see you point as insightful mainly because of that one statement. Since they all lie, there is no real "civilized" country on this planet. Only those that try to lie less in the interest of their population. Currently my country is looking less and less civilized then some others so homeopathy seems to fit in right along with "we're not spying on you" or "trust your money with us".

                --
                The more things change, the more they look the same
                • (Score: 2) by pe1rxq on Thursday March 13 2014, @04:43PM

                  by pe1rxq (844) on Thursday March 13 2014, @04:43PM (#15967) Homepage

                  Ah, that makes sense. Although it doesn't suprise me much, it is very easy to get confused what exactly the quackers are peddling, and that is the way they like it.

                  I have no problems with using 'natural elements', as long as it is evidence based.
                  There is a lot of evidence for e.g. willow bark. So much evidence that it led to the development of aspirin.
                  For both there is a lot of evidence and with this evidence you can choose which one works best in your current situation.
                  If your stomach is sensitive use one, do you need something really potent and pure, use the other.

                  And my personal definition of a civilized country indeed is a bit of an utopia...

        • (Score: 1) by SleazyRidr on Thursday March 13 2014, @02:46PM

          by SleazyRidr (882) on Thursday March 13 2014, @02:46PM (#15895)

          I don't want to dictate what people can put into their own bodies. I do want to dictate what you can sell someone as "medicine" and more importantly what the health system spends its money on. I like the fact that some of my money is going to help people that need it. I don't like the fact that some of it is enriching these scammers.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by Jiro on Thursday March 13 2014, @07:30AM

        by Jiro (3176) on Thursday March 13 2014, @07:30AM (#15753)

        Actually, it's an intentional loophole. The law that gave the FDA much of its power was sponsored by a homeopath [wikipedia.org] thus letting homeopathic substances be exempt from normal FDA rules.

      • (Score: 1) by akinliat on Thursday March 13 2014, @03:04PM

        by akinliat (1898) <reversethis-{moc.liamg} {ta} {tailnika}> on Thursday March 13 2014, @03:04PM (#15902)

        As long as the claims are sufficiently vague, and there is no demonstrable harm being caused, it's highly unlikely that we'd see any sort of legal or regulatory action.

        As someone pointed out below, homeopathic remedies have been approved as safe since the thirties in the US (around the same time that marijuana was criminalized because of "reefer madness"). Considering that they're almost entirely water, with maybe one or two molecules of the original substance, it's unlikely they can do any harm, other than raising false hopes.

        That's not something that I imagine will be criminalized anytime soon.

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by Jiro on Thursday March 13 2014, @07:19AM

      by Jiro (3176) on Thursday March 13 2014, @07:19AM (#15750)

      Your own post shows some of the classic signs of fearmongering. For instance, claiming that some additive is a chemical used to treat herpes is an attempt to make it sound scary. Clearly we are supposed to make some sort of (il)logical leap from "herpes is bad" to guilt by association for that chemical, without you actually stating anything meaningful about the chemical itself. (Some Google searching shows you are referring to an ordinary preservative, not even to the flavoring.)

      And only 30% of the calories of a Snickers bar comes from sugar, so that comparison is not as bad as you imply.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by RoyWard on Thursday March 13 2014, @04:37AM

    by RoyWard (3670) on Thursday March 13 2014, @04:37AM (#15694)

    The Creation Museum is actively harmful in that it misrepresents scientific process in a way that will discourage critical thinking. That is not it's direct purpose - it is there to bolster a particular belief system, but the message it sells still has that damaging payload.

    Whole Foods is a chain of shops. They sell some good stuff and some not so good stuff (and which is which is something that everyone will have different opinions on), and this is going to be true of all stores. For instance, most supermarkets sell cigarettes, which is something I regard as extremely harmful, but that's not what makes me a hypocrite when I shop there (in this case the hypocrisy is supporting a large chain rather than more specialty stores and farmers' markets, but that's a different argument).

    • (Score: 1) by guises on Thursday March 13 2014, @11:34AM

      by guises (3116) on Thursday March 13 2014, @11:34AM (#15804)

      Whole Foods has its share of products that actively misrepresent scientific progress, the homeopathy example is a good one. None the less, I shop there happily just because they have different foods than the mega marts. If you want products other than those made by Unilever / Frito Lay / Nestle / etc., you need a place like Whole Foods.

      Still, there's a difference between selling homeopathic remedies and pushing homeopathic remedies, just as there's a difference between selling a book advocating creationism and doing the advocation yourself. I suppose that's you were getting at. Just wish there was a Trader Joe's near where I live...

  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Rune of Doom on Thursday March 13 2014, @04:45AM

    by Rune of Doom (1392) on Thursday March 13 2014, @04:45AM (#15700)

    This seems to me like a fluffy hit-piece on Whole Foods, rather than any sort of rational (or useful) criticism. While reading it, I can't help but think it should include a subliminal message, "You hippies shut up and start showing some appreciation for fast food and industrial farming!" The obvious difference between Whole Foods and obnoxious pseudo-sciences such as 'Creationism' is that no one is forcing you to shop at Whole Paycheck. Is my takeaway from Mr. Schulson's piece supposed to be a newfound rationalist hatred for Whole Foods, or the feeling that I ought to show Creationist nut-jobs more tolerance?

    A look at Michael Schulson other work, on subjects ranging from Creationism to Global Warming, seems to show a pattern of either 'praising' the opponents of traditional 'right-wing' causes with damns, or damning those same causes with faint praise. I wonder how long until he writes, "Monsanto unfairly targeted" or "The Tea Party is no crazier than the Green Party".

    • (Score: 1) by Aighearach on Thursday March 13 2014, @04:51AM

      by Aighearach (2621) on Thursday March 13 2014, @04:51AM (#15704)

      I think the takeaway is that any publicity is good publicity, so the more times you repeat Whole Paycheck the more people will spend their paycheck there. Hippies bad, creationists good, Whole Paycheck Whole Paycheck Whole Paycheck

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by krishnoid on Thursday March 13 2014, @04:54AM

    by krishnoid (1156) on Thursday March 13 2014, @04:54AM (#15705)

    Good to know they can all provide one at least one guarantee:

    "This statement has not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease."

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 13 2014, @04:54AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 13 2014, @04:54AM (#15706)

    Someone claims to promote science and their convincer is an anecdote about their "scientist friend" saying that something is bullshit.
    Would it have made homeopathy proven and great if said friend had exclaimed that this is some amazing stuff?

    Sometimes it feels like there are people out there that believe in science not because they've examined it themselves but because that just happens to be what some authority figure they trust have told them is right.
    I wish those people would just switch sides and join the crackpots.

    • (Score: 1) by mascot on Thursday March 13 2014, @01:45PM

      by mascot (698) on Thursday March 13 2014, @01:45PM (#15851)

      Well I get the vast majority of my scientific opinions from authorities I trust.

      I trust the IPCC to tell me about climate change, the FDA to tell me what is safe, the EPA to tell me whic pollutants need to be regulated...the list goes on. I trusted my teachers at school and my text books.

      Life is to short to be an expert in everything. I can't go reading papers and working stuff out from first principles- If I was so skeptical of authority I doubt I'd have gotten as far as high school science by now (I'm 30).

      I think trusting an authority is fine, even necessary. You just need to be a bit careful which authorities you trust. I guess I'll be with the crackpots if any one asks......

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 13 2014, @05:13AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 13 2014, @05:13AM (#15710)

    Well, yeah, you could both say the Creation Museum and those folks at Whole Foods are both peddling pseudoscience, but one of them is not quite like the other. The Creation Museum has a rather clear religious agenda, and they have been attempting to push this agenda into the realm of public policy, which is arguably a violation of the First Amendment. While the vendors of the various products at Whole Foods do attempt to influence public policy to a certain extent, they mostly only do so to control the extent to which their products are regulated. The creationists, on the other hand, are attempting to influence public policy to the point of having their brand of pseudoscience taught in public schools in place of real science. That's on the level of manufacturers of homeopathic remedies and other weirdness attempting to influence public policy to make purchases of their products mandatory for all, and as far as I know none of them is trying to do that.

    It's sort of like the difference between a plain bigot, e.g. Mel Gibson who has been frequently accused of anti-Semitism, and an activist bigot, e.g. Orson Scott Card, whose homophobia and activism against LGBT are well known. The former type is only harmful if you happen to get in their way, while the latter type is trying to actively change law and society in favour of their bigotry.

    • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday March 13 2014, @02:06PM

      by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday March 13 2014, @02:06PM (#15868)

      It's sort of like the difference between a plain bigot, e.g. Mel Gibson who has been frequently accused of anti-Semitism, and an activist bigot, e.g. Orson Scott Card, whose homophobia and activism against LGBT are well known. The former type is only harmful if you happen to get in their way, while the latter type is trying to actively change law and society in favour of their bigotry.

      And to be fair, Mel Gibson will probably only give you a hard time if he's drunk. The rest of the time he probably behaves just fine and keeps his bigotry in check or under wraps. Remember, alcohol is famous for lowering inhibitions. Most people probably have some bigoted views inside them, but their rational mind keeps that in check or at least keeps them from acting on them in polite society, just like other people avoid acting on various sexual impulses most of the time. But add in a bunch of alcohol, and suddenly those inhibitions are gone, and people act out in ways they normally wouldn't. And when they're a famous celebrity and act out in public and the press documents it, everyone knows and remembers, unlike if they just have an episode at home among family or friends.

      Orson Scott Card on the other hand probably doesn't drink at all (he's Mormon), and he'll push his bigoted views on you at any time.

    • (Score: 1) by Ellis D. Tripp on Thursday March 13 2014, @10:15PM

      by Ellis D. Tripp (3416) on Thursday March 13 2014, @10:15PM (#16101)

      , depending on how broadly certain passages end up being interpreted:

      http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/23031/ [sciencebasedmedicine.org]
      http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/cam-practition ers-as-pcps-under-the-aca-part-1/ [sciencebasedmedicine.org]
      http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/cam-practition ers-as-pcps-under-the-aca-part-2/ [sciencebasedmedicine.org]

      --
      "Society is like stew. If you don't keep it stirred up, you end up with a lot of scum on the top!"--Edward Abbey
  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 13 2014, @05:19AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 13 2014, @05:19AM (#15711)

    ... However..

    I'm not!

  • (Score: 1) by deego on Thursday March 13 2014, @06:19AM

    by deego (628) on Thursday March 13 2014, @06:19AM (#15737)

    I believe the same self-righteous breed of smug scientists and scientist-wannabes would be making fun of those in 1950s who gave up smoking out of an overabundance of caution.

    They probably made fun of any smoke-free joints or ideas thereof, as shrines of pseudoscience.

    The fact is that million dollar double-blind controlled trials take years, sometimes 50. And, for some more complex problems, these things are all but impossible.

    In the meanwhile, that is while you wait those 50 years, it is up to you to use some common sense. Like, not breathe char of burned crap and call it smoking. Like avoid rat-poison that's "safe" because it's not yet been shown to hurt humans..

           

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by pe1rxq on Thursday March 13 2014, @11:38AM

      by pe1rxq (844) on Thursday March 13 2014, @11:38AM (#15805) Homepage

      Homeopathy has been around for a good 200 years. Billions have been spend on it by gullible folk.
      They could have done those trials a long time ago.
      In fact, they did, and everytime someone tried they got the same result: IT DOES NOT WORK!
      Pretty much anything we learned about biology, physics and chemistry along those 200 years would have to be invalidated before it could work.

      Btw next time take another example than smoking. Even during the 1950s most doctors would have told you it is probably not very good for your health.
      Tobaco companies actually used a lot of the same tactics as the quacks to keep the public away from actual real science.

      • (Score: 2) by bucc5062 on Thursday March 13 2014, @03:12PM

        by bucc5062 (699) on Thursday March 13 2014, @03:12PM (#15906)

        natural medicines have been around for more then a "good 200 years". Homeopathy just took that use to a different path. The use of natural medicines is not a cure all, but then the miracle of modern science is not as well. From an article on the nih.goc site:

        The late Sir Douglas Black should have the last word. In a very balanced article on complementary medicine, he wrote:

        ‘Although mainstream medical intervention is critical in only a minority of episodes of illness, in those particular episodes it is critical indeed; and I would plead that at least in acute illness, and possibly in any illness, “complementary†medicine should also be subsequent to an assessment of the clinical situation by competent “orthodox†means.’7

        These days, drug companies are not focused on finding curatives, they are interested in finding drugs that keep us hooked on their product. I cannot give my absolute belief in modern drugs when the basis of their existence is to increase their profit. At times I have used natural medicines to help in the occasional, daily issues that arise in life and find them to be at least as beneficial. When I need mainstream medical intervention i would certainly be thankful for what modern medical science has wrought, but it is not the do all and end all of what is out there to help the human body.

        --
        The more things change, the more they look the same
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 13 2014, @05:02PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 13 2014, @05:02PM (#15983)

          There is a difference between natural remidies like camomile and bach flowers and pure bullshit like homeopathy. It is disgusting how homeopathy tries to wedge itself into the same niche and it's sad that the two are mixed up a lot but there is a clear difference.

          If you're referring to homeopathy as "natural medicine" you should be ashamed. That's highly deceptive and completely false.

          • (Score: 2) by bucc5062 on Thursday March 13 2014, @05:22PM

            by bucc5062 (699) on Thursday March 13 2014, @05:22PM (#15995)

            After I made my posts I had a chance to read up on homeopathy and I realized I had confused natural elements used in health conditions and homeopathy medicine. Since then I have posted my mae culpa (like this one) for I do not want the impression that I support unproven techniques.

            As one who has used such items as Bach flowers, willow bark, and other type of natural elements in dealing with minor issues, for both me and my horses, I found them to be a viable alternative to standard medicines. For example, I have an elder horse that benefits from daily pain medication. I cannot use NSAIDs every day for it would tear out her gut (and cost me some $$$), so I am using something with natural ingredients (including Willow Bark) with good success. These are not super diluted supplements, but supplements that show the proportion of items. If it did not work I would see that effect and when something stronger is needed, I have no issue using an NSAID.

            I was confused, I now see the difference and I am NOT claiming homeopathy as natural medicine.

            --
            The more things change, the more they look the same
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 13 2014, @12:26PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 13 2014, @12:26PM (#15818)

      Are you implying that homeopathy hasn't already been disproven and the entire system relies on ignoring scientific facts?

      If water had memory it'd have the memory of all the shit that has been in it too. I'm honestly confused as to why a person like you even browses a site like soylent news.
      There might be some merit to homeopathy though and that's the case with all placebos.
      And to use your own argument: You'd be one of those people that kept smoking because someone used marketing and pseudo science to convince you that it actually does something good.

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by fliptop on Thursday March 13 2014, @12:29PM

      by fliptop (1666) on Thursday March 13 2014, @12:29PM (#15819) Journal

      Like avoid rat-poison that's "safe" because it's not yet been shown to hurt humans

      Actually, it saves lives [wikipedia.org].

      --
      It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide.
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Geezer on Thursday March 13 2014, @10:14AM

    by Geezer (511) on Thursday March 13 2014, @10:14AM (#15786)

    Neither do deceptive marketing practices or fraudulent products.

    Contrary to the general skepticism about natural remedies, it should be pointed out that naturally-occurring medicinal products have been successfully employed for many centuries, and the efficacy thereof proven by empirical observation (got science?).

    Indeed, many of our modern "scientific" pharmaceuticals are merely refinements of ages-old remedies. Iodine, Digitalis, and Sulphur come immediately to mind.

    The hucksters are giving nature a bad name.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by khakipuce on Thursday March 13 2014, @10:14AM

    by khakipuce (233) on Thursday March 13 2014, @10:14AM (#15787)

    My question to homeopathy supporters is "what about all that piss?" Cows, sheep, humans ... if there is some sort of "molecular memory" in water that endless dilution cannot remove then our drinking water must be affected by whatever other animals drank and excreted.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 13 2014, @12:34PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 13 2014, @12:34PM (#15824)

      I'm sorry, but you're not allowed to use logic here. That's against our policy.

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by halcyon1234 on Thursday March 13 2014, @01:41PM

      by halcyon1234 (1082) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 13 2014, @01:41PM (#15849)

      My question to homeopathy supporters is "what about all that piss?" Cows, sheep, humans ... if there is some sort of "molecular memory" in water that endless dilution cannot remove then our drinking water must be affected by whatever other animals drank and excreted.

      Oh, but you see, getting diluted waste products is a GOOD THING! They're called 'nosodes'. They're the 'ultradiluted forms of diseased tissue, blood, pus and excretions of a sick person' [www.cbc.ca]. THEY PREVENT THE FLU!!!!

      Nonono wait, follow me on this one. Y'see, flu shots are BAD because BIG PHARMA is actually just injecting you with the disease itself. Do you want to put poison in your body? Of course not.

      And remember, dilution is AWESOME, because contrary to what "big science says", reducing the amount of a substance in a dilution actually increases it's power. It doesn't matter if that is completely illogical, this is actually HOW IT WORKS! Okay, these two points in mind...

      So a nosode is an ultradiluted (more powerful) form of extracts of a diseased person. And disease is bad, but you are only getting a little bit of it. And you only get a little bit of it, because that will make your immune system learn to fight it. Exactly like a flu shot... WAIT NO, flu shots are bad. You don't want poison. So flu shots don't work. But a nosode does, for the exact same reason. But you should use a nosode instead of a flu shot, because nosodes-- umm-- they're good, okay. There's only a little bit of "bad stuff" in them, wait it isn't bad it's powerful. But since there's less of it, there's more of it, so it's worse than a flu shot-- umm-- FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK JUST GIVE ME MONEY!!!!!!!

      --
      Original Submission [thedailywtf.com]
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 13 2014, @10:37AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 13 2014, @10:37AM (#15792)

    My girlfriend had severe Tonsillitis a while back combined with a really bad cough.
    I already disliked her doctor before but after she returned without any proper medication and just a 12 euro bottle of homeopathic sugar pills her "doctor" recommended I almost went berserk.
    She didn't know it was homeopathic and didn't quite believe me that this isn't in fact medicine but just bullshit in a bottle so I furiously downed the entire bottle and called her doctor to tell him that he is a quack.

    There were very few times that I've been that angry but now we can laugh about it.

    • (Score: 1) by Dragon on Thursday March 13 2014, @01:50PM

      by Dragon (2927) on Thursday March 13 2014, @01:50PM (#15854)

      You are not getting how this works, it basically exploits the placebo-effect to the max.

      I am no fan of this line of treatment and science and yes, there is no amount of measurable medication in the thing but you must not underestimate the effect the mind can have on the body. While I would never try such a treatment, you did rob your girlfriend the chance this kind of treatment might have worked.

      Instead of waiting four weeks of it does have a bettering effect and *then* "going berserk" (maybe; and whatever that means) you just have made an ass out of yourself.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 13 2014, @02:19PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 13 2014, @02:19PM (#15874)

        Also if she had a viral infection there is not a whole lot he can do. However, some people *insist* they have some bottle of pills. So doctors prescribe sugar pills and give it a technical name. If they come back saying the pills are not working 'let me prescribe the stronger version' which is just the same thing but a different color and a different technical name.

        Placebo has been shown to help slightly in some specific cases. But not enough to help usually.

        The doctor should have been more up front with her though and said 'it is a viral infection there is not a lot I can do it typically takes about 4 weeks to clear if you get xyz symptoms come talk to me'.

        The usual 'cure' for tonsillitis is to cut the suckers out. With maybe a spray to help reduce swelling. I use the over the counter Chloraseptic works fair ok for me and takes the sting out of it. Though gargling with salt water produces the same affect.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 13 2014, @04:57PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 13 2014, @04:57PM (#15980)

        So you recommend taking placebos in a severe case of tonsilitis? The next doctor was close to sending her to a hospital and yet you tell me I should've not been mad about her getting 12 euros worth of sugar pills? I think you might honestly be stupid or something.

        I'm 100% fine with placebos and actually think that they're an important part of medicine but I am not fine at all with placebos being sold at insane prices promising an actual effect outside of a purely psychological one.

        But yeah, I really "robbed" her of experiencing a tonsil removal. I feel bad now

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by microtodd on Thursday March 13 2014, @01:32PM

    by microtodd (1866) on Thursday March 13 2014, @01:32PM (#15844) Homepage Journal

    I didn't RTFA...why start now?

    Anyways, I find it interesting that the author/summary thinks there should be "outrage" over Whole Foods pseudoscience. I shop there pretty regularly. I buy produce, wine, cheese, potato chips. No one there ever tried to sell me a homeopathic solution to a lingering health problem. It was just a grocery store, one that I preferred over Kroger's. But like other people on this thread have mentioned, you have to read labels and make price comparison decisions. Not just blindly assume that "Whole Foods"=="All Healthy Foods". I can shop healthy at Kroger's or Publix if I wanted to. I just think Whole Foods has a better selection of produce: bok choy, snow peas, colored peppers, those aren't always in stock at Publix.

  • (Score: 1) by GlennC on Thursday March 13 2014, @02:27PM

    by GlennC (3656) on Thursday March 13 2014, @02:27PM (#15882)

    I'm sorry to say that I am less than an hour's drive from the Creation Museum.

    That said, my nearest Whole Foods is still closer.

    --
    Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
  • (Score: 2, Informative) by mattwrock on Thursday March 13 2014, @05:16PM

    by mattwrock (3835) on Thursday March 13 2014, @05:16PM (#15991)

    I live close to the Museum. My sister's family and my family thought it would be a "lark" to see it. Since we don't believe in any of their ideas, and we don't want to support them, we went for free on Christmas day.
    The first thing we saw was a video basically denigrating science, and science teaching. 2 "Angels" dressed real cool proposed that if the earth was millions of years old, we would have *miles* of sediment built up in our rivers, and the Grand Canyon could only be carved out in a catastrophic event in a couple of days.
    The other "exhibits" were a life size arc, complete with a diorama of people riding dinosaurs. It would have been funny, but most of the people there truly believe in this junk. It was scary because there were hundreds of people there!

    --
    Ones and zeros everywhere... I even saw a 2 - Bender