How I see it

Peter Moran said:

(where on earth else in medicine does a "like cures like" principle apply?).

An electric shock can induce a heart attack by causing fibrillation. An electric shock can also cure
a heart attack when applied by a defibrillator.

Exposure to radiation can cause cancer. Exposure to radiation is also used to cure cancer.

An adverse effect of ingesting digoxin (drug originally found in the herb digitalis) is cardiac
arrhythmia. An important therapeutic use of digoxin is the treatment of cardiac arrhythmia.

Peter Moran said:

I sent this recently to the "rapid response" section of the BMJ. It was

in

Quoted message said:

response to a disussion of homeopathy, which is still attracting precious medical research funds
(God knows why). Exactly the same considerations apply to many other "alternative" treatment
theories.

Quote (slightly altered)

"Time to rephrase the questions"

Evidence that homeopathic remedies possess intrinsic biomedical properties is actually weakening.
Even after two hundred years the several extraordinary hypotheses upon which it is based remain
quite unvalidated (where on earth else in medicine does a "like cures like" principle apply?).

It is surely time to forget the "weird science" aspect of it altogether.

It is, after all, only one of many improbable treatment methods competing for our interest, all
with fairly similar levels of evidence or lack thereof. They are all sustained mainly by simplistic
(and too self-serving?) interpretations of outcomes within the clutter of influences that apply
within everyday medical practice.

It would be easier to take such contenders seriously if there were not
altogether too many "weird sciences" involved, far too many for science

to

Quoted message said:

have overlooked in the year 2003, and also if novel conventional medical methods were not producing
equally staunch believers until dummy treatments were shown to be capable of producing equivalent
"responses"(e.g. 1).

The questions, rephrased, are "why can absolutely ANY kind of well- intended medical attention lead
to apparent clinical benefits, what are the limitations of such non-specific effects (we already
have a fairly good handle on that) and what might be the ethics of using pseudoscientific pretences
as a therapeutic method (once this penny finally drops, as it

must

Quoted message said:

eventually for most)."

Peter Moran

MB BS BSc(Med) FRACS FRCS (Eng)

1. Roberts, A. H., D. GO. Kewman, L. Mercier, and M. Hovell. 1993. The power of nonspecific
effects in healing: Implications for psychosocial and biological treatments. Clinical
Psychology Review 13:375-391.

Competing interests:

None declared concatenated

Peter Moran said:

I sent this recently to the "rapid response" section of the BMJ. It was

in

Quoted message said:

response to a disussion of homeopathy, which is still attracting precious medical research funds
(God knows why). Exactly the same considerations apply to many other "alternative" treatment
theories.

Quote (slightly altered)

"Time to rephrase the questions"

Evidence that homeopathic remedies possess intrinsic biomedical properties is actually weakening.
Even after two hundred years the several extraordinary hypotheses upon which it is based remain
quite unvalidated (where on earth else in medicine does a "like cures like" principle apply?).

It is surely time to forget the "weird science" aspect of it altogether.

It is, after all, only one of many improbable treatment methods competing for our interest, all
with fairly similar levels of evidence or lack thereof. They are all sustained mainly by simplistic
(and too self-serving?) interpretations of outcomes within the clutter of influences that apply
within everyday medical practice.

It would be easier to take such contenders seriously if there were not
altogether too many "weird sciences" involved, far too many for science

to

Quoted message said:

have overlooked in the year 2003, and also if novel conventional medical methods were not producing
equally staunch believers until dummy treatments were shown to be capable of producing equivalent
"responses"(e.g. 1).

The questions, rephrased, are "why can absolutely ANY kind of well- intended medical attention lead
to apparent clinical benefits, what are the limitations of such non-specific effects (we already
have a fairly good handle on that) and what might be the ethics of using pseudoscientific pretences
as a therapeutic method (once this penny finally drops, as it

must

Quoted message said:

eventually for most)."

Peter Moran

MB BS BSc(Med) FRACS FRCS (Eng)

1. Roberts, A. H., D. GO. Kewman, L. Mercier, and M. Hovell. 1993. The power of nonspecific
effects in healing: Implications for psychosocial and biological treatments. Clinical
Psychology Review 13:375-391.

Competing interests:

None declared concatenated

"Peter Moran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I sent this recently to the "rapid response" section of the BMJ. It was

in

Quoted message said:

response to a disussion of homeopathy, which is still attracting precious medical research funds
(God knows why). Exactly the same

considerations

Quoted message said:

apply to many other "alternative" treatment theories.

The "alternative" medicine called obstetrics recently used precious research dollars to close birth
canals up to 30% and "scientifically" determine that all singleton term breech babies should be
taken via major abdominal surgery.

Quoted message said:

Quote (slightly altered)

"Time to rephrase the questions"

Evidence that homeopathic remedies possess intrinsic biomedical properties is actually weakening.
Even after two hundred years the several extraordinary hypotheses upon which it is based remain
quite unvalidated (where on earth else in medicine does a "like cures like" principle

apply?).

Quoted message said:

Closing the birth canal causes birth problems; closing the birth canal cures birth problems (with
MDs "helping" with surgery of course)....

Quoted message said:

It is surely time to forget the "weird science" aspect of it altogether.

It is, after all, only one of many improbable treatment methods competing for our interest, all
with fairly similar levels of evidence or lack thereof. They are all sustained mainly by
simplistic (and too self-serving?) interpretations of outcomes within the clutter of influences
that apply within everyday medical practice.

It would be easier to take such contenders seriously if there were not altogether too many "weird
sciences" involved, far too many for science to have overlooked in the year 2003, and also if
novel conventional medical methods were not producing equally staunch believers until dummy

treatments

Quoted message said:

were shown to be capable of producing equivalent "responses"(e.g. 1).

The questions, rephrased, are "why can absolutely ANY kind of well-

intended

Quoted message said:

medical attention lead to apparent clinical benefits, what are the limitations of such non-
specific effects (we already have a fairly good handle on that) and what might be the ethics of
using pseudoscientific pretences as a therapeutic method (once this penny finally drops, as it

must

Quoted message said:

eventually for most)."

Peter Moran

MB BS BSc(Med) FRACS FRCS (Eng)

1. Roberts, A. H., D. GO. Kewman, L. Mercier, and M. Hovell. 1993. The power of nonspecific
effects in healing: Implications for psychosocial and biological treatments. Clinical
Psychology Review 13:375-391.

Competing interests:

None declared

Peter Moran said:

I sent this recently to the "rapid response" section of the BMJ. It was

in

Quoted message said:

response to a disussion of homeopathy, which is still attracting precious medical research funds
(God knows why). Exactly the same considerations apply to many other "alternative" treatment
theories.

Quote (slightly altered)

"Time to rephrase the questions"

Evidence that homeopathic remedies possess intrinsic biomedical properties is actually weakening.
Even after two hundred years the several extraordinary hypotheses upon which it is based remain
quite unvalidated (where on earth else in medicine does a "like cures like" principle apply?).

It is surely time to forget the "weird science" aspect of it altogether.

It is, after all, only one of many improbable treatment methods competing for our interest, all
with fairly similar levels of evidence or lack thereof. They are all sustained mainly by simplistic
(and too self-serving?) interpretations of outcomes within the clutter of influences that apply
within everyday medical practice.

It would be easier to take such contenders seriously if there were not
altogether too many "weird sciences" involved, far too many for science

to

Quoted message said:

have overlooked in the year 2003, and also if novel conventional medical methods were not producing
equally staunch believers until dummy treatments were shown to be capable of producing equivalent
"responses"(e.g. 1).

The questions, rephrased, are "why can absolutely ANY kind of well- intended medical attention lead
to apparent clinical benefits, what are the limitations of such non-specific effects (we already
have a fairly good handle on that) and what might be the ethics of using pseudoscientific pretences
as a therapeutic method (once this penny finally drops, as it

must

Quoted message said:

eventually for most)."

Peter Moran

MB BS BSc(Med) FRACS FRCS (Eng)

1. Roberts, A. H., D. GO. Kewman, L. Mercier, and M. Hovell. 1993. The power of nonspecific
effects in healing: Implications for psychosocial and biological treatments. Clinical
Psychology Review 13:375-391.

Competing interests:

None declared

concatenated

Peter Moran said:

It was in response to a disussion of homeopathy, which is still attracting precious medical
research funds (God knows why).

When I went onto milk as a child, as well as other foods, my body would swell up until it was close
to splitting and I experienced apnea. During times of swelling I obviously could not walk.

My mother tried all conventional methods for months to discover what was causing it, and how to fix
it. Doctors told her, while patting her hand, that "the only thing wrong with him is his mother".

Doctors told her she was foolish and mistaken. Another wanted to put me on an anti-histamine for the
rest of my life that was known to produce drowsiness.

Her (and my) last line of help was a naturopath, which at the time was considered the equivalent of
a witch-doctor. The naturopath correctly recognised food allergies, and went about identifing each
one that I had.

The doctors and conventional medicine were far too rigid, arrogant and ignorant to help me.

Very curious that it was only with the assistance of a "weird science" such as naturopathy that my
problems were solved.

Russ.

"Mark Thorson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Peter Moran said:

(where on earth else in medicine does a "like cures like" principle

apply?).

Quoted message said:

An electric shock can induce a heart attack by causing fibrillation. An electric shock can also
cure a heart attack when applied by a defibrillator.

Exposure to radiation can cause cancer. Exposure to radiation is also used to cure cancer.

An adverse effect of ingesting digoxin (drug originally found in the herb digitalis) is cardiac
arrhythmia. An important therapeutic use of digoxin is the treatment of cardiac arrhythmia.

Ingenious.

But from memory, while digoxin has beneficial effects on heart rate and function in arrythmias, it
does not reverse them, does it? It also causes nausea and bradycardia in normal people, which on
the homeopathic principle of "like cures like" should make it a treatment for those symptoms in
selected folk.

Likewise radiation kills off cancer cells, it does not reverse the cancer state.

I am sure you would agree that even allowing considerable leeway in how you interpret such a
principle it is difficult to see how it is supported by modern therapeutics.

Peter mroan

Surgeon Peter Moran, MB BS BSc(Med) FRACS FRCS (Eng) WHINED about wasting precious research dollars
on homeopathy....

I replied that the "alternative" medicine called OBSTETRICS is wasting research dollars:

Quoted message said:

The "alternative" medicine called obstetrics recently used precious

research

Quoted message said:

dollars to close birth canals up to 30% and "scientifically" determine

that

Quoted message said:

all singleton term breech babies should be taken via major abdominal surgery.

Peter had asked if there were anything like homeopathy in medicine ("like cures like"😉...

I replied:

Quoted message said:

Closing the birth canal *causes* birth problems; closing the birth canal

*cures*

Quoted message said:

birth problems (with MDs "helping" with surgery of course)....

I forgot to mention Surgeon Moran's COCCYX game...

See health.groups.yahoo.com1935Open ↗

Surgeon Moran perpetuates massive obstetric crime (via silence) and whines loudly about
homeopathy...

Thanks for reading,

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo [email hidden]

Peter Moran said:

But from memory, while digoxin has beneficial effects on heart rate and function in arrythmias, it
does not reverse them, does it?

If the arrhythmia condition is removed, does that not count as a "cure", even though continued
treatment with digoxin may be required to maintain the arrhythmia-free state?

Quoted message said:

Likewise radiation kills off cancer cells, it does not reverse the cancer state.

If enough cancer cells were killed to permanently halt progression of the diesease, does that not
count as a "cure".

Quoted message said:

I am sure you would agree that even allowing considerable leeway in how you interpret such a
principle it is difficult to see how it is supported by modern therapeutics.

I'd just suggest you be a little more careful in your choice of rhetoric. If you recast the question
of whether homeopathy is a valid medical practice into a question about whether "like cures like" is
ever a reasonable proposition, you'd better be prepared to defend your position.

"Mark Thorson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Peter Moran said:

But from memory, while digoxin has beneficial effects on heart rate and function in arrythmias,
it does not reverse them, does it?

If the arrhythmia condition is removed, does that not count as a "cure", even though continued
treatment with digoxin may be required to maintain the arrhythmia-free state?

In auricular fibrillation, the main medical use for digoxin, it slowed the heart rate but does
not defribillate. Other drugs or electrical defibrillation will do so sometimes, but they are
not "like". It was also used for congestive cardiac failure, which is not a notable side effect
of digoxin.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Likewise radiation kills off cancer cells, it does not reverse the cancer state.

If enough cancer cells were killed to permanently halt progression of the diesease, does that not
count as a "cure".

Radiotherapy simply causes more genetic damage so that the cancer cells die. It does not reverse the
gene or immunological abnormalities that can cause cancer to develop, it makes them worse. It even
has limited applicability, curing only a few cancers by intself.. Surgery cures far more cancers,
but is not :like".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am sure you would agree that even allowing considerable leeway in how you interpret such a
principle it is difficult to see how it is supported by modern therapeutics.

I'd just suggest you be a little more careful in your choice of rhetoric. If you recast the
question of whether homeopathy is a valid medical practice into a question about whether "like
cures like" is ever a reasonable proposition, you'd better be prepared to defend your position.

I am. I said "where on earth else in medicine does a "like cures like" principle apply?" Are you
suggesting that these rather dubious few cases are establishing a general *principle* (i.e. rule or
law) that would be of use in directing the treatment of other conditions? That is what the "like
cures like" principle did for homeopathy. All of homeopathy was based upon choosing treatments by
their ability to cause the symptoms that patients complained of.

Peter Moran.

Peter Moran said:

In auricular fibrillation, the main medical use for digoxin, it slowed the heart rate but does not
defribillate. Other drugs or electrical defibrillation will do so sometimes, but they are not
"like". It was also used for congestive cardiac failure, which is not a notable side effect of
digoxin.

Fibriillation was used in my first example -- electric shock both causing and curing fibrillation.

The second example is digoxin having cardiac arrhythmia as one of its major adverse side effects,
but also having the treatment of cardiac arrhythmia as one of its major therapeutic uses. Do you
dispute either of these?

I didn't say anything about using digoxin to treat any form of fibrillation. You seem to have
confused my first and second examples.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Likewise radiation kills off cancer cells, it does not reverse the cancer state.

If enough cancer cells were killed to permanently halt progression of the diesease, does that
not count as a "cure".

Radiotherapy simply causes more genetic damage so that the cancer cells die. It does not reverse
the gene or immunological abnormalities that can cause cancer to develop, it makes them worse. It
even has limited applicability, curing only a few cancers by intself.. Surgery cures far more
cancers, but is not :like".

At level of an individual cell, sure, radiation does not cure that cell from the cancer state. But
at the level of the whole organism, if radiation permanently eradicates the cancer, is that not a
cure? How about of the cancer is gone and replaced by healthy cells? At what point will you say a
cure has been accomplished?

If someone were to accept your semantic argument, they'd have to say no one was ever cured of a
bacterial infection by antibiotics, because the antibiotics did not resurrect the cells already
killed by the infection.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am sure you would agree that even allowing considerable leeway in how you interpret such a
principle it is difficult to see how it is supported by modern therapeutics.

I'd just suggest you be a little more careful in your choice of rhetoric. If you recast the
question of whether homeopathy is a valid medical practice into a question about whether "like
cures like" is ever a reasonable proposition, you'd better be prepared to defend your position.

I am. I said "where on earth else in medicine does a "like cures like" principle apply?" Are you
suggesting that these rather dubious few cases are establishing a general *principle* (i.e. rule
or law) that would be of use in directing the treatment of other conditions? That is what the
"like cures like" principle did for homeopathy. All of homeopathy was based upon choosing
treatments by their ability to cause the symptoms that patients complained of.

You asked where. I provided the where. Now, you are changing the criteria, asking for an
establishment of a general principle. If that was what you originally wanted, you should have asked
for that in the first place. If I were to provide that now, how do I know you wouldn't just change
the criteria again?