Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How does homeopathy work?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #76
    Ya, ignore the fluff. Rolfing is one person's school of structural integration therapy, which is a type of massage. STI works well, Rolfing is nearly the same but branded, I suppose. It seems to work for what it is designed; getting locked/stiff muscles to unlock, basically.

    Comment


      #77
      Originally posted by SifuJason View Post
      Ya, ignore the fluff. Rolfing is one person's school of structural integration therapy, which is a type of massage. STI works well, Rolfing is nearly the same but branded, I suppose. It seems to work for what it is designed; getting locked/stiff muscles to unlock, basically.
      Structural Integration Therapy, referred to as STI?

      Still sounds like homeopathy to me.
      "Never trust a quote you read on the internet" - Abraham Lincoln



      Comment


        #78
        It's just a type of massage. If I told you massage helps your muscles relax, would you believe me? It's simply a methodology and way of deciding how to perform said massage. Swedish vs deep tissue, that type of thing.

        Comment


          #79
          I read about Rolfing in a book about various extraordinary human phenomena (mostly yoga and junk)

          It sounded like a slightly more brazen Swedish massage from the description. That doesn't sound too woo-woo to me.

          edit: The book was called POWERS OF THE MIND. It was written in the late 80s if I recall and I can't find it on Amazon.

          Comment


            #80
            Originally posted by SifuJason View Post
            It's just a type of massage. If I told you massage helps your muscles relax, would you believe me? It's simply a methodology and way of deciding how to perform said massage. Swedish vs deep tissue, that type of thing.
            I believe YOU about the fundametal principles of massage, rolfing and STI working.

            It's the claims made by others that I find extra-ordinary. The instant fixing of chronic back pain, sudden cessation of X symptom, etc. have all been claimed by proponents of rolfing. Take a survey at Weaver Street Market and you'll find dozens of people who will make outlandish claims regarding what their rolfer (?) accomplished just by jamming an elbow into their spine.

            My mom (see almond anecdote above) is one of those goofy Chapel Hill homeopaths that fully buys into rolfing. So if STI is in the same vein, I suppose I just see guilt by association.
            "Never trust a quote you read on the internet" - Abraham Lincoln



            Comment


              #81
              Oh, people ascribe all types of things they shouldn't. I am simply saying from a general perspective, Rolfing/STI is a good/better type of massage PT than say, Swedish massage. It can also help flexibility when used alongside a stretching regime. It isn't instant though.

              Comment


                #82
                So, back to the original topic...
                I'm not a believer in homeopathy, but I think it's odd that so many of you have piled on with so much anger and arrogance without ever addressing the original question from a scientific perspective. Proponents of homeopathy claim that water has a special property that allows it to retain properties of certain things it comes into contact with when diluted in a specific manner. Do I believe they are right? No. Is it possible that they are right? Yes. Can any of you prove that water doesn't have such a property? No. So even if the homeopathy evangelists are idiots, and even if the placebo effect works (or not), and even if big pharma would (or would not) like it, and even if XKCD is hilarious - all IRRELEVANT. Disappointingly un-Bullshido-like to have such amateur debunking. Just a bunch of hacks gathered around yelling "fuck them," "hell yeah".

                Comment


                  #83
                  Originally posted by radshop View Post
                  So, back to the original topic...
                  I'm not a believer in homeopathy, but I think it's odd that so many of you have piled on with so much anger and arrogance without ever addressing the original question from a scientific perspective.
                  Proponents of homeopathy claim that water has a special property that allows it to retain properties of certain things it comes into contact with when diluted in a specific manner.
                  There is no physical or biological basis for that to be true, especially the insanely high level dilution homeopaths use.
                  Do I believe they are right? No. Is it possible that they are right? Yes.
                  No, it isn't.
                  Can any of you prove that water doesn't have such a property? No.
                  There is no way to prove a negative.
                  So even if the homeopathy evangelists are idiots, and even if the placebo effect works (or not), and even if big pharma would (or would not) like it, and even if XKCD is hilarious - all IRRELEVANT.
                  Straw-man.
                  Disappointingly un-Bullshido-like to have such amateur debunking. Just a bunch or hacks gathered around yelling "fuck them," "hell yeah".
                  Fuck you.

                  Comment


                    #84
                    Originally posted by radshop View Post
                    So, back to the original topic...
                    I'm not a believer in homeopathy, but I think it's odd that so many of you have piled on with so much anger and arrogance without ever addressing the original question from a scientific perspective. Proponents of homeopathy claim that water has a special property that allows it to retain properties of certain things it comes into contact with when diluted in a specific manner. Do I believe they are right? No. Is it possible that they are right? Yes. Can any of you prove that water doesn't have such a property? No. So even if the homeopathy evangelists are idiots, and even if the placebo effect works (or not), and even if big pharma would (or would not) like it, and even if XKCD is hilarious - all IRRELEVANT. Disappointingly un-Bullshido-like to have such amateur debunking. Just a bunch of hacks gathered around yelling "fuck them," "hell yeah".
                    This is a fallacy called "Appeal to Ignorance". AKA Argument from Ignorance. How fitting. Hush now.
                    http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

                    edit: Damn. Beat me to it.
                    Last edited by wetware; 11/24/2010 7:03pm, .

                    Comment


                      #85
                      Originally posted by wetware View Post
                      This is a fallacy called "Appeal to Ignorance". How fitting.
                      Hush now.
                      http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

                      edit: Damn. Beat me to it.
                      I missed the "Appeal to Ignorance" part because I was too busy typing with one hand and face-palming.

                      Comment


                        #86
                        You know water that magical liquid we know nothing about. God I hate appeals to ignorance especially about a substance that we do indeed know a hell of a lot about.
                        Of the single rapier fight between valiant men, having both skill, he that is the best wrestler, or if neither of them can wrestle, the strongest man most commonly kills the other, or leaves him at his mercy.
                        –George Silver, Paradoxes of Defence

                        Comment


                          #87
                          Originally posted by radshop View Post
                          So, back to the original topic...
                          I'm not a believer in homeopathy, but I think it's odd that so many of you have piled on with so much anger and arrogance without ever addressing the original question from a scientific perspective. Proponents of homeopathy claim that water has a special property that allows it to retain properties of certain things it comes into contact with when diluted in a specific manner. Do I believe they are right? No. Is it possible that they are right? Yes. Can any of you prove that water doesn't have such a property? No. So even if the homeopathy evangelists are idiots, and even if the placebo effect works (or not), and even if big pharma would (or would not) like it, and even if XKCD is hilarious - all IRRELEVANT. Disappointingly un-Bullshido-like to have such amateur debunking. Just a bunch of hacks gathered around yelling "fuck them," "hell yeah".
                          Water has no intrinsic memory, nor its there any chemically or physically way to 'invent' one. Not least of which, water is a fluid with the molecules bound together by hydrogen bonds. H bonds are incredibly weak and malleable. This is why water is a non-viscous fluid. The half life of the Hbonds is on the order of 9 nanoseconds. If it has a memory, it has a very short one...

                          Comment


                            #88
                            Originally posted by tideliar View Post
                            Water has no intrinsic memory, nor its there any chemically or physically way to 'invent' one. Not least of which, water is a fluid with the molecules bound together by hydrogen bonds. H bonds are incredibly weak and malleable. This is why water is a non-viscous fluid. The half life of the Hbonds is on the order of 9 nanoseconds. If it has a memory, it has a very short one...
                            That short memory has actually been calculated in the laboratory down to 50 femtoseconds. (50 millionths of one nanosecond).

                            Our results highlight the efficiency of energy redistribution within the hydrogen-bonded network, and that liquid water essentially loses the memory of persistent correlations in its structure within 50 fs.
                            Ultrafast memory loss and energy redistribution in the hydrogen bond network of liquid H2O

                            M. L. Cowan1,3, B. D. Bruner1,3, N. Huse2,3, J. R. Dwyer1, B. Chugh1, E. T. J. Nibbering2, T. Elsaesser2 & R. J. D. Miller1

                            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture03383.html
                            Last edited by W. Rabbit; 11/26/2010 5:42pm, .

                            Comment


                              #89
                              I love the smell of properly-cited science.

                              Comment


                                #90
                                Originally posted by helmutlvx View Post
                                I love the smell of properly-cited science.
                                Hell yeah, Fuck them!

                                I worked out last night with a guy who does Rolfing. He's a chiropractor too, but he said when properly applied, Rolfing principles work. Like SifuJason said, it's how a thing is applied, not how it's labeled.
                                "Never trust a quote you read on the internet" - Abraham Lincoln



                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X