Yeah... the thing about the true homeopathic stuff is I'm not sure that the magic works topically. But then, my theories on such things are pretty hazy (much like homeopathy in general). I'll say this: when I ate it on the KLR650 the first time, my wife put arnica gel on one leg but not the other. The one with the arnica didn't bruise. Fuckin' pissed me off. No idea what was up with that.
Homeopathy, according to Wikipedia: If that doesn't smack of pseudoscientific bullshit, I don't know what does. A similar idea went into vaccines, but it's really apples to oranges. It sucks that you don't have an identical twin that got into an identical accident with an identical wife who applied arnica to neither leg, or the leg opposite your arnica'd leg. That would be much more conclusive, but even then, not statistically conclusive. That's what people can't grasp, and it blows my mind. Even more simply, the idea of a control group and the rationale behind a double-blind study. Do they not read articles or listen to the radio, where these concepts are discussed from time to time? No, they do. I'm trying to locate the disconnect, and coming up empty....a form of alternative medicine created in 1796 by Samuel Hahnemann based on his doctrine of like cures like (similia similibus curentur), whereby a substance that causes the symptoms of a disease in healthy people will cure similar symptoms in sick people.
The one with the arnica didn't bruise.
d00d. So here's the thing: Saying "one leg but not the other" was an oversimplification. the fact of the matter is, she put arnica gel on the parts that hurt. The parts that didn't, didn't get any. Two days later, the parts that hurt weren't bruised. The parts that didn't hurt were. And here's where your attitude is unhelpful, and here's why I tore you a new one over vaccines: I have zero faith in the operating principles behind homeopathic remedies. I grew up in a house with a rippin' Zeiss microscope, the son of a Ph. D. microbiologist with a degree from Cornell. My father in law has a dozen patents in organic chemistry specifically related to blood. BUT I saw, with my own two eyes, some sort of effect from that gel. I have felt an effect from homeopathic remedies before. So what I'm stating, in fairly explicit terms, is that the theories behind homeopathy are bunk but their effects, based on my own personal experience, are non-negligible. I would usually follow this up with some discussion on the woeful lack of study of the placebo effect, the fact that certain ethnicities respond better to some placebos rather than others, the pragmatic discussion that if magic vaseline cures my bruises I'll bloody well use magic vaseline, particularly as it's a fraction of the cost of neomycin and antibiotics aren't any good on bruises anyway, etc. I can't have that discussion now though because, like most skeptics, your reaction has been - scorn - sarcasm - castigation for ignoring the scientific method - incredulity at the stupidity of the human race at large. In effect, I'm saying "yeah, here's this thing I don't really understand and I'm a reasonably clever person" and your answer is "no, you're a fucking idiot just like everyone else." Do you see how that's a problem? Do you see how it might cause undue friction with a mother that is just trying to make your ear stop hurting? Come-to-jesus moment: I got /r/alternativehealth shut down because they were espousing medically dangerous notions (and operating as a spam haven, but that was just the tax evasion to Al Capone's arrest) and you're pissing me off. Do you think maybe your rhetoric is unnecessarily vitriolic?If that doesn't smack of pseudoscientific bullshit, I don't know what does. A similar idea went into vaccines, but it's really apples to oranges.
It sucks that you don't have an identical twin that got into an identical accident with an identical wife who applied arnica to neither leg, or the leg opposite your arnica'd leg. That would be much more conclusive, but even then, not statistically conclusive.
Didn't mean it to come across that way, but I can see your beef. I never meant to insinuate that I don't believe your anecdote, because I certainly do. I respect you immensely, and generally take your claims as gospel. When I have failed to acquire enough personal experiences to make up my mind one way or the other on something as scientific (or at least potentially scientific) as practicing medicine, I defer to scientific consensus. Such was the case, in this instance. Is there something going with homeopathic medicine worth studying? Probably. So why aren't we doing so? $'s. Similar concept to medical marijuana. If the shit you need is growing/growable in your backyard, lovely capitalism has little incentive to fund studies. Am I wrong? Also worth noting; Just because I'm attacking homeopathy doesn't necessarily mean that I'll blindly defend western medicine. FDA approval doesn't mean shit, other than the company pushing the drug has a sizable reserve of money. We've killed handfuls of people after a drug "passed" clinical trials. My apologies if you felt that I was attacking you, your intelligence, or your story, because I had no such intention. I certainly did intend to attack the theories behind homeopathy, but not claims of results, here and there. Yesterday, I apologized to my mother for questioning her intentions of making me feel better. So at least I'm that far. I might look into this "magic vaseline", I've got a gnarly contusion brewing where the skimboard smacked into my shin on an incoming wave with some serious force. Like with most drugs, the best guinea pig for determining how it will affect me is... myself. P.S. [AltMedz2theXtreme] Ever been on CureZone, where people periodically tell others to drink their own piss? "Not feeling better yet? Keep drinking your own pee, it gets better before it gets worse." Yikes. Hope that never made it onto any subreddits. Edit: Ah, I can see how you thought I lumped you in with the average dumbdumb. My bad. Shouldn't multitask when I'm making an argument.Do you think maybe your rhetoric is unnecessarily vitriolic?
Found your problem. Here's some serious, take it at face value pragmatic rhetorical advice: When you have these conversations, your counterpart has already rejected scientific consensus. Not saying they've rejected it correctly. Not saying they've rejected it rationally. Not saying they've even rejected it calmly but the fact of the matter is, you think you're saying "double blind testing" but they're hearing "one plus one equals three BELIEVE IT INFIDEL." It will get you exactly nowhere. It will escalate things from dispassionate to ad hominem. And it will read, as it was surely intended, as a dismissive attempt to silence dissent. If you wanna get people back to "scientific consensus" territory you need to figure out where they stepped off the path first. For some people, it may be way the fuck back - my wife worked with a woman who rejected germ theory. For some people, it may be in the weeds - yeah, there have been a couple studies that insist echinacea does fuckall for colds, but nobody with a clue recommends echinacea pills for anything and they sure don't recommend them for colds. On the one hand, you're pre-pasteur. On the other hand, you're arguing about research protocols. In neither case does "dismissive" open a dialog. Arnica works best when you put it on immediately. I'm about 98% of the way to chalking that up to placebo effect, but I'm also the kinda guy that will gleefully leverage the placebo effect whenever possible, even on myself. Especially on myself. CureZone sounds like a frightening place. There's some truly batshit stuff out there, and "it gets worse before it gets better" has a long and storied tradition.When I have failed to acquire enough personal experiences to make up my mind one way or the other on something as scientific (or at least potentially scientific) as practicing medicine, I defer to scientific consensus.
I have, in fact, yelled "PLACEBO YOURSELF!" at someone before, don't remember who or why, only the juxta-oxy-whatever. I hope that it was directed at a close friend. Thanks for your time and insights. I will be heeding the vast majortity of your advice, if not all of it.