Maker Pro
Maker Pro

OT truth in advertising

E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
You obviously haven't a clue what you are talking about.
Homeopathy is bullshit!

Well...... being the scientifically inclined chap I am, I once tended to that
view until I was once given a homoeopathic remedy for mild arthritis in my
hands.

I didn't even know it was anything homoeopathic I was being given. It worked
very well though. I got pain relief possibly faster than with conventional
analgesics in fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poison-ivy_(plant)

It works. I have no idea how or why but it does indeed work.

Graham
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
Doug said:
Antioxidants really have little to do with the health benefits of drinking
wine (or any other form of alcohol). To quote a pathologist friend of mine,
"You never, ever see coronary artery disease in alcoholics. You open up a
70-year-old alcoholic, and his heart looks like a teenager's."

Is that really so ?

He's very clear about it, though, that if you go beyond two drinks a day, the damage
you're doing to your brain and liver outweighs the cardiac benefits.

The liver damage I understand. The brain ?

Graham
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
default said:
My shopping cart seldom has a box or can in it - I'm always amazed at
what passes for food these days.

I find canned tomatoes very convenient. Ingredients: peeled plum tomatoes, tomato
juice, citric acid. I assume the citric acid is there as a preservative.

Canned pre-cooked beans are very handy too. Nothing artificial in there either. Other
than that I rarely buy anything canned.

Graham
 
D

Doug Miller

Jan 1, 1970
0
Is that really so ?

I guess so -- the guy used to be the chief of pathology at one of the major
hospitals here in Indianapolis, before he moved to New York to take a job
*teaching* pathology. I'm not a medical type myself, so I have no firsthand
knowledge, but I assume he knows what he's talking about.
The liver damage I understand. The brain ?

Ethyl alcohol is a CNS (central nervous system) depressant. Basically, it's a
mild poison. It definitely has bad effects on nerve tissue, and I'm sure that
a brief Google search would turn up plenty of information on that.
 
D

Doug Miller

Jan 1, 1970
0
Well...... being the scientifically inclined chap I am, I once tended to that
view until I was once given a homoeopathic remedy for mild arthritis in my
hands.

I didn't even know it was anything homoeopathic I was being given. It worked
very well though. I got pain relief possibly faster than with conventional
analgesics in fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poison-ivy_(plant)

It works. I have no idea how or why but it does indeed work.

Google "placebo effect" for a possible explanation.
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
Doug said:
Google "placebo effect" for a possible explanation.

I've entirely ruled that one out. I'm not daft.

It seems homoeopathic remedies work on animals too who don't even know it's been introduced into their
drinking water.

Explain how that's a placebo effect.

Graham
 
D

Doug Miller

Jan 1, 1970
0
I've entirely ruled that one out. I'm not daft.

I didn't say you were. But it's not possible to rule it out, except by
conducting a scientifically-designed double-blind study. It's simply
impossible to rule out placebo effect on one's own self, because you *know*
what you're taking.
It seems homoeopathic remedies work on animals too who don't even know it's
been introduced into their
drinking water.

Got a cite for a controlled, double-blind study that substantiates that?

I didn't think so. Every time homeopathic remedies are investigated in
placebo controlled, double-blind scientific studies, they are shown to be
ineffective.
Explain how that's a placebo effect.

Easily: the humans who are introducing it into their drinking water are the
same humans who are evaluating its supposed effect.
 
J

John Larkin

Jan 1, 1970
0
You obviously haven't a clue what you are talking about.
Homeopathy is bullshit!

Of course it is; look up "placebo" some time when you're not
medicating yourself with alcohol.

From the Macquarie Dictionary:
" micronutrient
/muykroh'nyoohtrearnt/
noun a vitamin, mineral or other substance essential for good
health, but required in tiny amounts only.
Compare macronutrient."

"macronutrient
/makroh'nyoohtreeuhnt/
noun a substance, as oxygen, hydrogen, etc., required in large
amounts, for good health.
Compare micronutrient."

But "being present in very small quantities" does not necessarily make
a nutrient into a micronutrient. The difference between using white
sugar or brown sugar in your cookies affects the taste, but is
nutritionally irrelevent. The numbers are just too small. And who
wants to depend on eating masses of sugar to boost one's health?

HTH jack

ps, I'm looking forward to your definition of energy.

Given how fuzzy existing definitions seem to be, I may as well make up
my own, I guess. As a design engineer, I exclude matter as being
energy; of you don't, then everything is energy, including vacuum, and
the term loses utility. So: energy is those things that are properly
measured in joules. So sugar, properly measured in grams, is not
energy. It can be pursuaded to create energy, the amount depending
greatly on the process used. If you drop it onto the floor, it
produces less energy than if you burn it, still less than if you mix
it with anti-sugar.

Simple dimensional analysis.

John
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
Doug said:
I didn't say you were. But it's not possible to rule it out, except by
conducting a scientifically-designed double-blind study. It's simply
impossible to rule out placebo effect on one's own self, because you *know*
what you're taking.

That's precisely the point. I *didn't* know what I was taking when I first came across it. I didn't
know its name or anything. I was just told that a friend of a friend found it helpful for the same
thing.

Graham
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
Doug said:
Got a cite for a controlled, double-blind study that substantiates that?

If it wasn't effective, why would farmers pay for it ? They're not rich over here.

Graham
 
R

Rich Grise

Jan 1, 1970
0
Lawmakers around the world tend to have difficulty with the idea that not
everyone thinks like they do. People who drink too much are unlikely to be
the sort to study nutritional info on labels. This just makes it more
difficult for those interested in their health to make informed decisions.

One evening, I was looking for something to flavor my vodka water, so I
tried a couple of tablespoons of brown sugar - it tasted just like root
beer!

Brown sugar is also an important ingredient in a lot of cooking, like
cookies and sloppy joes:
http://www.neodruid.net/Share/SloppyJoes.txt

Cheers!
Rich
 
R

Rich, but drunk

Jan 1, 1970
0
Antioxidants really have little to do with the health benefits of drinking
wine (or any other form of alcohol). To quote a pathologist friend of mine,
"You never, ever see coronary artery disease in alcoholics. You open up a
70-year-old alcoholic, and his heart looks like a teenager's." He's very clear
about it, though, that if you go beyond two drinks a day, the damage you're
doing to your brain and liver outweighs the cardiac benefits.


Well, alcohol attacks brain cells, right? Well, in the jungle, the
predators always go for the weakest/slowest of the prey, so it's only
logical that alcohol would attack your weakest/slowest brain cells,
thereby strengthening "the herd". ;-D

Cheers!
Rich
 
R

Rich, but drunk

Jan 1, 1970
0
I guess so -- the guy used to be the chief of pathology at one of the major
hospitals here in Indianapolis, before he moved to New York to take a job
*teaching* pathology. I'm not a medical type myself, so I have no firsthand
knowledge, but I assume he knows what he's talking about.

Ethyl alcohol is a CNS (central nervous system) depressant. Basically, it's a
mild poison. It definitely has bad effects on nerve tissue, and I'm sure that
a brief Google search would turn up plenty of information on that.

Yes - I drink alcohol to slow down my brain enough to make myself more
equal to normal people. >:->

And it feels SOooo good! %-}

Cheers!
Rich
 
R

Rich, but drunk

Jan 1, 1970
0
Of course it might work that way, probably would. But I would rather
have all the facts to make my own choices and not have the government
deciding to protect me from myself.

Virtual reality is addicting to some folks so perhaps it should be
regulated or taxed?

Day trading on the stock market is addicting and should be regulated?

Gambling ditto?

McDonald's cholesterol burgers? Krispy Creme?

Makes no sense whatsoever to drive an SUV a few blocks to a store when
walking is so much more healthy - but I don't see them trying to
regulate or control that behavior.

A small amount of alcohol may be beneficial. My wife takes a glass of
wine after a stressful day - and believe me that is beneficial! to
her, and everyone around her. Would Valium be safer?

There's a sign where I launch my boat "Access closed due to low water
level" The city protecting me? Probably just protecting themselves.

I drive a kayak . . .

The most insidious addiction of all is the addiction to control, or
more accurately, the illusion of control, which afflicts all of the
rule-makers, who, unfortunately, get the sheeple to cosign their
insanity.

Cheers!
Rich
 
R

Rich Grise

Jan 1, 1970
0
I've entirely ruled that one out. I'm not daft.

It seems homoeopathic remedies work on animals too who don't even know it's been introduced into their
drinking water.

Explain how that's a placebo effect.

The experimenters only record the results that match their expectations.

Cheers!
Rich
 
R

Rich Grise

Jan 1, 1970
0
I didn't say you were. But it's not possible to rule it out, except by
conducting a scientifically-designed double-blind study. It's simply
impossible to rule out placebo effect on one's own self, because you
*know* what you're taking.

I've observed the placebo effect in myself! I was participating in a
test for a new anti-heartburn drug, and they gave me a bottle of pills,
and a little log book.

I took one pill, and by heartburn disappeared almost instantly. And
they weren't Rolaids, either!

I recused myself from the study.

Cheers!
Rich
 
R

Rich Grise

Jan 1, 1970
0
That's precisely the point. I *didn't* know what I was taking when I first came across it. I didn't
know its name or anything. I was just told that a friend of a friend found it helpful for the same ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
thing.

That IS the placebo effect.

Cheers!
Rich
 
R

Rich Grise

Jan 1, 1970
0
Given how fuzzy existing definitions seem to be, I may as well make up
my own, I guess. As a design engineer, I exclude matter as being
energy; of you don't, then everything is energy, including vacuum, and
the term loses utility. So: energy is those things that are properly
measured in joules. So sugar, properly measured in grams, is not
energy. It can be pursuaded to create energy, the amount depending ^^^^^^
greatly on the process used. If you drop it onto the floor, it
produces less energy than if you burn it, still less than if you mix
it with anti-sugar.

s/create/release/

Cheers!
Rich
 
D

Doug Miller

Jan 1, 1970
0
That's precisely the point. I *didn't* know what I was taking when I first came
across it. I didn't
know its name or anything. I was just told that a friend of a friend found it
helpful for the same
thing.

Thus the placebo effect.
 
D

Doug Miller

Jan 1, 1970
0
If it wasn't effective, why would farmers pay for it ? They're not rich over
here.

Because they *think* it's effective?
 
Top