talkmagic.co.uk

My old Nan always used to say "You won't get me in any hospital. Once they get you in there, you're as good as dead." One day she developed a bladder infection and her doctor wanted her to go into hospital to be treated. The family convinced her this was for the best and she would soon be well again. So she went into hospital for the first time in her life (having given birth to her 3 children at home) and she died two weeks later. I have reason to believe she died from dehydration.

No reason for telling that story really. It just felt appropriate for some reason. It's certainly not a dig at doctors or hospitals. More a dig at death.

Oh, and an apple a day keeps the doctor away.

my mum had cancer a few years back - do you know what she did? she went to the doctors, had her operation and her chemo...and she got better...

bad news gets reported ten times more than good, sadly...and other people's misery sells more papers than happiness unfortunately...

IAIN wrote:...and other people's misery sells more papers than happiness unfortunately...

Especially when it's regarding Cheryl Cole being "close to melt down", or Jordan being "out of control", or Peter Andre telling Jordan to "stop the lies now!", or Victoria Beckham "starving herself to death", or stories about that silly woman who used to be in Atomic Kitten and now spends all her time getting drunk, eating kebabs, and getting sacked by Iceland.

Whatever did we do before "celebrity"?

themagicwand wrote:Whatever did we do before "celebrity"?

relied on talent, i think?

IAIN wrote:relied on talent, i think?

Ah, talent. Vastly over-rated. It's far better these days when all one has to do is shag a footballer, then get very drunk for a few weeks and end up in rehab, then leave rehab and confess to some trashy magazine that your life is in meltdown, then go to some celebrity bash wearing very little, then sell your story to the Daily Star.

And as for the women, well they're even worse.

Kolm says science is trusted. It isn't. I don't trust it for one. And of course what I say is always gospel.

And there are lots of people who don't trust it either. That is why they go to homeopaths.

In fact I went to a homeopath once. I met him in a health food shop. I have acid reflux so I thought I would try him. He was of course bloody useless.

But then I went to a throat doctor. He was bloody useless too. He made me a trifle suspicious since all over his waiting room were pictures of opera stars and entertainers that he supposedly helped with their voices. I thought I was in an agents office with all the photographs around the walls. I prefer doctors to have pictures of skeletons and suchlike around the walls.

I got doubly suspicious when I saw people come out of his office in droves with their credit cards offered to the receptionist. Since in Canada treatment is supposed to be free it got my guard up.

When I saw him he tried to sell me voice therapy. I asked him how much it was and the b***** said it was $1200. I growled that it was free under the National Health Service in Britain even though I knew it probably wasn't. He growled back that it wasn't free in the UK and I asked how the hell he knew if he had never been there. I then asked him why everyone walked out of his office with their credit cards at the ready and he glared at me saying, "Don't worry-you won't fund my retirement"

He was just as useless as the homeopath. However the homeopath didn't try to sell me voice lessons or have pictures of bloody opera stars on the wall. I preferred the homeopath. Less expensive quackery.

mark lewis wrote:I have noted the young bogtrotter's remarks on this thread about my comments on his fellow bogtrotter. I agree that they are not witty remarks but they are not intended to be. I truly hope the b***** contracts a serious illness which is quite likely given his propensity to indulge in unnatural behavior. And I hope he gets treatment from some incompetent conventional or alternative doctor who kills him off altogether.

I dare say if young Guiness had been scammed out of several thousand pounds by this person in the same way I have been he would be singing the same tune.

Now toodle off and make sure your Irish car tax. is up to date. There's a good boy.

Anyway we are supposed to be talking about homeopathy.

And the racism and homophobia is out. That didn't take long, did it, Marky boy?

I really don't know what "homophobia" has to do with the conversation. Unless of course you are referring to homeopathy which nearly everbody here has a phobia about.

As for racism I assume you mean my references to bogtrotters. No racism whatsoever old chap. I lived among them for at least ten years and if I were racist I would hardly have stayed there. Mind you I am not sure they have quite gotten over me yet.

Well, well, well. What do we have here? http://gimpyblog.wordpress.com/2009/09/ ... mment-6269

Hmmm... Scientifically it can be proven that we are facing global warming and yet, Scientifically there are those that can prove that Global Warming is a well planned farce.

Scientifically it can be proven that we have the technology to send man to the moon and yet, Scientifically there is evidence that supports the contrary

Scientists who have proven certain psychic & paranormal factors are typically poo-pooed and deliberately attacked by those that believe to the contrary and embrace opposing Scientific data... those from either side inferring that the researchers are practicing "quack" or "incomplete" science.

As I said earlier the lists go on and on.

Not so long ago there were products deemed as being unsafe for human consumption due to dangerous side-effects and yet, we have big corporations that wanted to make bigger profits so they paid researchers to prove otherwise and thus things like NutraSweet comes to market.

There are numerous examples of how "the facts" aren't just supported by this and that "science" but the politics around them as well as the agenda certain groups strive to push forward. Anyone willing to open their eyes a bit wider, can see these facts for themselves. For those that can't, sorry, but I refuse to write it all out in braille for you... I simply will not play the "prove it to me" game in that it's pure horse pucky; a common ploy used by the "rationalists" so as to frustrate their opposition while puffing up their personal egos. In short, it's a bullying tactic.

The bottom line is, everyone is just as right as they are wrong in that science is a tool controlled by bureaucrats and politicians.

cough

And we don't really need to scientifically prove we can send a man to the moon. Proof for that is rather ontological.

Here's a map (a huge map) of how the different areas of scientific research relate to each other. In some areas, notably the lower left (health research) there are literally hundreds of thousands of incredible people investigating, experimenting, publishing what they discover, sharing and learning from each other in ways that can be repeated and shown to work. And the pace of progress is increasing.



For those of you who don't get how that's better than putting your trust in blind guesswork, here's a nice cartoon you might not understand either



And one you certainly won't get! http://xkcd.com/54/
(hint: google 160.4 GHz)

Craig Browning wrote:I simply will not play the "prove it to me" game in that it's pure horse pucky; a common ploy used by the "rationalists" so as to frustrate their opposition while puffing up their personal egos. In short, it's a bullying tactic.

The bottom line is, everyone is just as right as they are wrong in that science is a tool controlled by bureaucrats and politicians.

And in two sentences your position is clarified; the purpose of asking for proof is to frustrate those who cannot provide it.

Craig, you have faith in your position, and as such, no evidence will ever sway your opinion as anecdotes and conspiracy theories hold more water. It is clear that you have no understanding of, nor desire to understand, the scientific peer review process so as to allow you to judge for yourself what is credible research and what is "horse pucky". So it transpires that you dismiss science using the same reasoning by which science, using evidence to back up its position, devalues much of alternative medicine and yet you still require only your own faith and refuse to produce any evidence in order to do this.

One thing that certainly is horse pucky though, is your last statement. It seems to me that anyone whose sole point of argument beyond belief and anecdotes is to attack the institution upon which the whole of modern life is based (using a computer in order to do this, no less) knows that the evidence simply doesn't stand up.

You're still not HEARING what I've said and, true to most in your shoes, seeking to make me the one that's in the wrong.

I don't buy into "all of it".. .never said that. I've only said that ALTERNATIVE Health methods can, have and do work in certain instances and that the professionals that work in that field that aren't out to screw their patrons or sell snake oil will insist on working with an MD. Not because they "know what they do won't work" but for the sake of proper procedure.

I don't have to list proof, it exists, anyone can find it IF THEY WANTED TO...which is my point, you guys don't want to see data that might cause you to question the gospels you've embraced. That's where the conflict exists

Craig Browning wrote:you guys don't want to see data that might cause you to question the gospels you've embraced. That's where the conflict exists

but havent quite a few asked to see this data?! I'm confused...

I'm off to drop a couple of disprin into the sea now, so we can all never suffer from headaches again...