Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22

Thread: Mass drug overdose - none dead

  1. #1

    Mass drug overdose - none dead

    Orchestrated by the Merseyside Skeptics Society

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/...none-dead.html
    Mass drug overdose – none dead

    17:43 01 February 2010 by Andy Coghlan
    No ill effects were reported by hundreds of volunteers who took part in a mass-overdose stunt around the world to demonstrate that homeopathic remedies are nothing more than sugar pills.

    "There were no casualties at all, as far as I know," says Martin Robbins, spokesman for the "10:23" campaign, created to highlight the alleged ineffectiveness of homeopathic remedies.

    "No one was cured of anything either," says Robbins. Like an estimated 300 volunteers in several cities in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the US, he swallowed a bottleful of around 80 homeopathic "pillules" at exactly 10.23 am on Saturday. Each pillule is a tiny sugar pill dabbed with a drop of a homeopathic remedy, produced through "infinite" dilution – the process whereby a solution is diluted to the point where no molecules of an active component are likely to remain.

    They want to believe

    Robbins says that the aim of the stunt was to draw attention to homeopathic medicine's lack of scientific foundation and to embarrass the British high-street pharmacist Boots into withdrawing its treatments from sale.

    Responding to the stunt, Boots said: "We know that many people believe in the benefits of complementary medicines and we aim to offer the products we know our customers want."

    Robbins said that the campaign, conceived and orchestrated by the Merseyside Skeptics Society, would be a success if it prompted the public to ask more questions about what homeopathy actually is.

  2. #2

  3. #3
    All this stunt really shows is the continued narrow minded arrogance that traditional Western medicine (or whatever you want to call it) has a right to a monopoly on medical treatment.

    The article doesn't even bother to say what the protestors "overdosed" on or if it was even claimed that the substances would be harmful if injested in large quantities.

    I am not saying that homeopathic or other non-traditional methods are necessarily legitimate. But neither do I see the value in summarily dismissing them as completely bogus. I think there are many things out there of potential value that Western medicine chooses to stay blind to because it risks upsetting the accepted paradigm.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by orangejello View Post
    All this stunt really shows is the continued narrow minded arrogance that traditional Western medicine (or whatever you want to call it) has a right to a monopoly on medical treatment.

    The article doesn't even bother to say what the protestors "overdosed" on or if it was even claimed that the substances would be harmful if injested in large quantities.

    I am not saying that homeopathic or other non-traditional methods are necessarily legitimate. But neither do I see the value in summarily dismissing them as completely bogus. I think there are many things out there of potential value that Western medicine chooses to stay blind to because it risks upsetting the accepted paradigm.
    There is an awful lot of crap out there though. Some idiot gets stung by a bee and his cancer goes into remission. Because people confuse correlation with causation all the time he goes around saying bees cure cancer. The next thing you know people are purposely getting stung by bees thinking it will cure their cancer. Since statistically some people who are doing this will go into remission as well, they reinforce the idiocy. The tragic part is people forgo effective treatment options because they are vulnerable in a time of crisis. This is why good medicine or any science is rigorously tested with things like double blind studies. It is not narrow minded it is intelligent, thoughtful scientific method.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16751949/

    Given that no reputable scientific study has shown the efficacy of homeopathy, I put it in the same category as cramming bees up your nose.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by orangejello View Post
    All this stunt really shows is the continued narrow minded arrogance that traditional Western medicine (or whatever you want to call it) has a right to a monopoly on medical treatment.

    The article doesn't even bother to say what the protestors "overdosed" on or if it was even claimed that the substances would be harmful if injested in large quantities.

    I am not saying that homeopathic or other non-traditional methods are necessarily legitimate. But neither do I see the value in summarily dismissing them as completely bogus. I think there are many things out there of potential value that Western medicine chooses to stay blind to because it risks upsetting the accepted paradigm.
    orangejello,

    I agree that traditional western medicine is narrow-minded and arrogant at times. This protest, however, is interesting in that it is not an attack by western medical doctors against homeopathic medicine is. It is a protest by the Merseyside Skeptics Society who, according to their website http://www.merseysideskeptics.org.uk/who-are-we/, seek to "discern truth from fiction". This is a society that says "we adhere to principles of scientific skepticism, a position which seeks to establish the veracity of scientific and historical claims through a logical and impartial evaluation of the available evidence." I find their mission admirable and that is why I posted this.

    The story behind the protest is actually quite interesting:
    Last week, on the 26th January 2010, the Merseyside Skeptics Society sent a detailed and lengthy complaint to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority detailing a litany of what we believe to be irregularities regarding the language used to promote and describe the homeopathic offerings available from Boots through its online store and more generally in the information surrounding homeopathy that Boots supplies to its consumers and others. The letter to the MHRA sets out the many points of concern that we feel are serious enough to warrant complaint, of which some are:

    5 specific, detailed complaints regarding the description and marketing language used for particular products available on the Boots website which we feel are in contravention of the UK National Rules Scheme and The Medicines (Advertising) Regulations 1994.

    10 stated objections to the description of homeopathy and homeopathic remedies in the treatment of specific conditions, potentially contravening The Medicines (Advertising) Regulations 1994.

    10 further complaints with regard to the claims made for homeopathic remedies generally.

    A complaint in the manner in which supposedly medicinal products are being marketed and sold, potentially contravening The Medicines (Advertising) Regulations 1994.

    While the complaint procedure is still underway, we’d prefer not to go into specific details – we do, however, acknowledge that since making the complaint Boots have withdrawn sections of the website relating to specific items of the complaint (action taking by Boots at 10am on Feb 1st, 2010).
    Personally, I am taken aback by many of the claims that I find on internet. When an established pharmacy start making hyperbolic claims, to get the gullible and ignorant to buy their products, I think that it is quite reasonable for the Merseyside Skeptics Society to protest, don't you?

    Wise.

  6. #6
    Senior Member khmorgan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    366
    Quote Originally Posted by t8burst View Post
    Since statistically some people who are doing this will go into remission as well, they reinforce the idiocy.
    In addition, the people who do not go into remission are not around to say "It doesn't work!"

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by t8burst View Post

    Given that no reputable scientific study has shown the efficacy of homeopathy, I put it in the same category as cramming bees up your nose.
    That's your perogative. However I prefer to stay more open minded about things like homeopathy or naturapathy as I think it's arrogant and narrow minded to assume they have no value whatsoever. I suspect that the lack of "reputable scientific study" is in part due to the fact that the current scientific and medical establishment is hostile to anything that threatens their monopoly. Something that leaves little in terms of incentive, funding, and resources for researchers wishing to carry out effective studies on alternative types of treatment. It's easier to discredit by denying and denouncing than to fund and allow proper studies. I am not saying things like homeopathy should be considered a replacement for traditional medicine. But I think looking at where there might be opportunities to complement systems of treatment with each other is worthwhile.

    As an aside the medical school where my brother teaches has introduced a course for students to explore alternative treatments. It's only an elective and relatively short (20 hours or so). But I see it as a positive thing.
    Last edited by orangejello; 02-03-2010 at 03:21 PM.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by orangejello View Post
    That's your perogative. However I prefer to stay more open minded about things like homeopathy or naturapathy as I think it's arrogant and narrow minded to assume they have no value whatsoever. I suspect that the lack of "reputable scientific study" is in part due to the fact that the current scientific and medical establishment is hostile to anything that threatens their monopoly. Something that leaves little in terms of incentive, funding, and resources for researchers wishing to carry out effective studies on alternative systems of care. It's easier to discredit by denying and denouncing than to fund and allow proper studies. I am not saying things like homeopathy should be considered a replacement for traditional medicine. But I think looking at where there might be opportunities to complement systems of treatment with each other is worthwhile.
    OJ makes a good point. Though I personally believe homeopathic medicine to be ineffective, one must acknowledge there is no financial gain for corporations to pay for expensive studies on treatments they cannot patent or protect.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by orangejello View Post
    That's your perogative. However I prefer to stay more open minded about things like homeopathy or naturapathy as I think it's arrogant and narrow minded to assume they have no value whatsoever. I suspect that the lack of "reputable scientific study" is in part due to the fact that the current scientific and medical establishment is hostile to anything that threatens their monopoly. Something that leaves little in terms of incentive, funding, and resources for researchers wishing to carry out effective studies on alternative types of treatment. It's easier to discredit by denying and denouncing than to fund and allow proper studies. I am not saying things like homeopathy should be considered a replacement for traditional medicine. But I think looking at where there might be opportunities to complement systems of treatment with each other is worthwhile.

    As an aside the medical school where my brother teaches has introduced a course for students to explore alternative treatments. It's only an elective and relatively short (20 hours or so). But I see it as a positive thing.
    People make a TON of money off of "cures" like homeopathy. Why don't they fund studies to prove they work? Probably because they don't. I am not narrow-minded enough to think that there are not new things to be learned in medicine and not foolish enough not to realize that big drug companies spend most of their research money funding boner and hair loss products because that is where the money is. The problem is that belief in some global conspiracy of the "medical establishment" to hide cheap cures hurts people. I have seen it first hand. People who are very ill are desperate people who are easily preyed upon by both charlatans as well as well meaning people peddling "medicine" that is ineffective and unproven. I contend that scenario happens far more often than people who are denied a cure or benefit by being denied access to "alternative" medicine.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Lazlo View Post
    OJ makes a good point. Though I personally believe homeopathic medicine to be ineffective, one must acknowledge there is no financial gain for corporations to pay for expensive studies on treatments they cannot patent or protect.
    Meh, people make tons of money bottling water and selling it. If it worked someone would be making billions selling it (instead of the millions they do now)

Similar Threads

  1. Ischemic Stroke due to Drug Overdose
    By TINAMARIE in forum Tranverse Myelitis, Multiple Sclerosis, Non-traumatic SCI
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-01-2006, 10:48 AM
  2. Overdose photo
    By michaelm in forum Life
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-22-2003, 12:04 PM
  3. Can you overdose on Ditropan?
    By TD in forum Care
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09-12-2002, 02:16 PM
  4. Overdose of Ditropan XL?
    By TD in forum Care
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-03-2002, 02:41 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-14-2002, 05:08 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •