Kurzgesagt - In A Nutshell: Homeopathy Explained – Gentle Healing or Reckless Fraud? - General

[video]https://youtu.be/8HslUzw35mc[/video]

The video makes a great point about personal touch contributing to the rise in popularity of bullshit alternatives and distrust of modern medicine. Even if the science isn't there and it really makes no sense, people will often naturally gravitate towards the "doctor" who seems more genuinely interested in their well-being.

[QUOTE=thejjokerr;53151299]Interesting video with a nice cameo from the DHMIS clock. My mom took me to [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromotherapy"]chromotherapy[/URL] when I was a kid (about 5-6). It's one of the earliest things I remember for some reason. No idea what she was trying to help or if it worked, but I should ask about it sometime.[/QUOTE] Apparently the joker is trying that as well, I hope it works for him.

Don't vaccines also use "fight fire with fire" methods? Would dilluting vaccines and shaking them make it homeopathy? I'm a bit confused on what is necessary for something to be considered homeopathy.

[QUOTE=Nillor;53153275]Don't vaccines also use "fight fire with fire" methods? Would dilluting vaccines and shaking them make it homeopathy? I'm a bit confused on what is necessary for something to be considered homeopathy.[/QUOTE] Not at all. Vaccines don't fight the germs.

[QUOTE=Nillor;53153275]Don't vaccines also use "fight fire with fire" methods? Would dilluting vaccines and shaking them make it homeopathy? I'm a bit confused on what is necessary for something to be considered homeopathy.[/QUOTE] Vaccines are more complicated than that. It stimulates your own immune system to fight a certain bacteria or virus in a safe setting. Homeopathy would heal lead poisoning by adding lead to water and dilute it so much you wouldn't ingest a single atom of it.

[QUOTE=Killuah;53153276]Not at all. Vaccines don't fight the germs.[/QUOTE] Well, neither does homeopathy :v: [QUOTE=judgeofdeath;53153281]Vaccines are more complicated than that. It stimulates your own immune system to fight a certain bacteria or virus in a safe setting. Homeopathy would heal lead poisoning by adding lead to water and dilute it so much you wouldn't ingest a single atom of it.[/QUOTE] Yeah ok I get it now. I wasn't too sure if the dilution into inexistence was a necessary step.

[QUOTE=Nillor;53153275]Don't vaccines also use "fight fire with fire" methods? Would dilluting vaccines and shaking them make it homeopathy? I'm a bit confused on what is necessary for something to be considered homeopathy.[/QUOTE] It’s the difference between dilution by water and vaccines using a weaker strain/version of a disease.

i had a friend that died from a homeopathic overdose... he drank a glass of water

[QUOTE=Nillor;53153293]Well, neither does homeopathy :v: Yeah ok I get it now. I wasn't too sure if the dilution into inexistence was a necessary step.[/QUOTE] It doesn't matter whether dilution is a necessary step. Vaccines aren't fighting fire with fire, it's tricking your body into making a immune response to a disease (or toxic agent) it hasn't been exposed to. If you want the fire analogy, it's more like tricking the inhabitants of a house into buying fire alarms and put up fire doors and shit.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;53153326]It doesn't matter whether dilution is a necessary step. Vaccines aren't fighting fire with fire, it's tricking your body into making a immune response to a disease (or toxic agent) it hasn't been exposed to. If you want the fire analogy, it's more like tricking the inhabitants of a house into buying fire alarms and put up fire doors and shit.[/QUOTE] Ok, here goes. You light a tiny fire in someones home, which they extinguish with no problem. They are now aware of the fire as a threat, and will use that knowledge to prevent future bigger fires. Be it buying smoke detectors or whatever. In this scenario, fire was a tool used to prevent future fires, thus fighting fire with fire. At least that was my thought process when using the term.

[QUOTE=Nillor;53153338]Ok, here goes. You light a tiny fire in someones home, which they extinguish with no problem. [/QUOTE] This analogy doesn't really fit, because your "tiny fire" implies that it might still be or become dangerous. There might not be a fire to begin with - see difference between [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attenuated_vaccine"]attenuated[/URL] and [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inactivated_vaccine"]inactivated[/URL] vaccines.

[QUOTE=Nillor;53153338]Ok, here goes. You light a tiny fire in someones home, which they extinguish with no problem. They are now aware of the fire as a threat, and will use that knowledge to prevent future bigger fires. Be it buying smoke detectors or whatever. In this scenario, fire was a tool used to prevent future fires, thus fighting fire with fire. At least that was my thought process when using the term.[/QUOTE] No, the term comes from controlled burns of flammable material to starve a much larger, uncontrolled fire of its fuel. Its a trick used in fire-fighting for wildfires where they will go ahead of where the fire is spreading and burn away brush and such with small burns so that when the big fire arrives, it doesn't have more brush to burn and spread.

[QUOTE=NoOneKnowsMe;53153355]This analogy doesn't really fit, because your "tiny fire" implies that it might still be or become dangerous. There might not be a fire to begin with - see difference between [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attenuated_vaccine"]attenuated[/URL] and [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inactivated_vaccine"]inactived[/URL] vaccines.[/QUOTE] Ah, I see. So instead of lighting a tiny fire, you bring a lighter with no flint, thus making it attenuated. Now I'm wondering whether the virus from the vaccine is destroyed because of its possible danger, or simply because our immune system can see that it's foreign? Is there even a way to tell? Do the home owners destroy the lighter because they somehow learn its potential, or because it's foreign?

[QUOTE=Nillor;53153552]Ah, I see. So instead of lighting a tiny fire, you bring a lighter with no flint, thus making it attenuated. [B]Now I'm wondering whether the virus from the vaccine is destroyed because of its possible danger, or simply because our immune system can see that it's foreign? Is there even a way to tell?[/B] Do the home owners destroy the lighter because they somehow learn its potential, or because it's foreign?[/QUOTE] I'm a bit confused about what you mean here - but I'll try to answer anyway. The body's immune system reacts to antigens, which are basically just molecular patterns; could be a protein that looks a certain way or perhaps a certain sugar or whatever. So antigens isn't something that is specific to virus or bacteria - human cells obviously have proteins incorporated into their cell membranes, for example. So why isn't the immune system attacking the body itself? Well, basically the immune cells are "trained" to recognize only foreign antigens - the body does this by eradicating any immune cell that recognizes an antigen (that is, a protein or whatever else) that exists in the body itself, leaving only immune cells that recognize foreign antigens (bacteria, virus etc.). When an immune cell encounters [I]and recognizes[/I] a foreign antigen, it will start replicating itself and thus form an immune response that can combat the infection. This takes days, though. Once the infection is eradicated, some of these immune cells with persist, so a quicker and more effective immune response can be mounted next time they encounter the same antigen (that is, the same bacteria/virus). Vaccines work by providing the body with the foreign antigen without establishing an actual infection. This way, the immune cells will recognize the antigen, form an immune response - and then persist so you have a more efficient response. This way, if you ever get infected with the actual bacteria/virus, your response will be much more swift, basically making it so the infection will never establish itself. The reason why vaccines use attenuated or inactivated pathogens (bacteria/virus) is because it's not enough to simply inject the antigen alone (and for a number of other reasons). This is because the body knows not all antigens necessarily belong to something dangerous - the body needs to detect not only the antigen, but also some signs that something dangerous is around. This is done by recognizing molecules that are typical for foreign microbes etc. So if you just inactivate or attenuate the pathogen in your vaccine (instead of simply injecting an antigen from it), you're fairly likely to make the body think that something dangerous is actually around, and get the immune response you want.

Some of my family members believe in a lot of bullshit, but i dont want to convince them that it's bs since the placebo effect really seems to be working.

[QUOTE=Str4fe;53153855]Some of my family members believe in a lot of bullshit, but i dont want to convince them that it's bs since the placebo effect really seems to be working.[/QUOTE] I mean if they don't neglect real treatment alongside bogus stuff the worst that can happen is their wallet taking a hit. If they do however, I think it's cause enough to try and convince them.

[QUOTE=prinner;53153308]i had a friend that died from a homeopathic overdose... he drank a glass of water[/QUOTE] [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1594310]hydric acid[/url] is a hell of a way to go, my condolences

[QUOTE=prinner;53153308]i had a friend that died from a homeopathic overdose... he drank a glass of water[/QUOTE] I've seen an alternate version that goes like "One of my friends overdosed on homeopathic medicine. He forgot to take them."

Oh man, this garbage is huge in India and is a real bane to doctors there because all kinds of quacks dispense this shit while actively leading an anti-intellectual charge against men of science. Hypochondriacs like to pretend like allopathic medicines are unnecessarily strong, produced by a cabal of evil pharmaceutical companies (kinda sorta true) designed to fuck over your body and make even more money. As opposed to their sugar tictac.

Homeopathy is real and you have all drank, swam, and bathed in my concentrated cum

[QUOTE=Snickerdoodle;53153955]I've seen an alternate version that goes like "One of my friends overdosed on homeopathic medicine. He forgot to take them."[/QUOTE] oh yeah that was it lol... couldnt remember the punchline so i ad libbed

The issue with comparing homeopathy with vaccinations is that the similarities are only superficial. Homeopathy is based on the idea of humors from hundreds of years ago, which is complete bullshit. The theory behind it is incredibly obsolete. Meanwhile vaccinations are based on an in-depth understanding of the human immune system. When your adaptive immune system is exposed to protein parts from the disease, it's able to remember those structures, create cells that are able to destroy foreign objects that have those structures on them, and replicate those cells whenever the body runs into objects with those structures again. Homeopathy could not possibly be using the adaptive immune system because A. It allegedly becomes more effective the more diluted it is, which is completely counter to how the adaptive immune system works B. Many homeopathic remedies are so diluted that it's extremely unlikely that even a single molecule of the toxic substance is even in the liquid, so there's no binding sites for the adaptive immune system to make use of anyway.

[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;53156810] B. Many homeopathic remedies are so diluted that it's extremely unlikely that even a single molecule of the toxic substance is even in the liquid, so there's no binding sites for the adaptive immune system to make use of anyway.[/QUOTE] You can literally buy homeopathic kitten chlamydia, and homeopathic berlin wall :v: