University of Toronto: Anti-vaccine Homeopathy Course Is Fine 273
The University of Toronto recently undertook an investigation of one of its courses, a bachelor-level health class that taught both anti-vaccination materials and the "science" of homeopathy. The investigation was undertaken because of complaints from professors and other scientific and medical experts. Surprisingly, the university concluded that the class was just fine. "Students taking (the course) ... are in their final year of study and are expected to approach controversial topics with a critical lens. The instructor reports that she provides these readings as the students have already seen the other side in previous courses." The course's syllabus is available for reading. It contains quotes like this: "There are broad concepts that bind various 'alternative' medical modalities together. Among these is the assertion that the human organism, which developed as an integrated unit in its formation, also functions as an integrated unit; that mind, body, and spirit are inextricably linked. Disorder or disturbance in any one of these areas can cause disease in another area."
Update: 07/13 14:14 GMT by S : Reader Gallenod points out that the University has now decided that the course will not be taught during the 2015-2016 academic year, or over the summer.
Update: 07/13 14:14 GMT by S : Reader Gallenod points out that the University has now decided that the course will not be taught during the 2015-2016 academic year, or over the summer.
magic is the same as science? (Score:2)
Re:magic is the same as science? (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, it isn't "magic" if you say it's "quantum mechanics".
No it does not.
And as part of the "course goals":
Bullshit.
It's called the placebo effect.
Re: magic is the same as science? (Score:2)
Re: magic is the same as science? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is trivial to observe that the placebo effect occurs with a sugar pill or with a homeopathic remedy. If there is "quantum mechanics" involved, it is almost certainly not the mechanism described by homeopathy.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Just to play devil's advocate here, declaring a problem solved because you've attributed it to the placebo effect isn't really good enough. The placebo effect is merely a name for something we don't understand.
For the sake of argument let's assume we don't understand the placebo effect (though that's really not true, but I'll play along).
We still have a known mechanism, called the placebo effect, by which people report to experiencing some health improvements in the absence of a physical mechanism. We also know of no plausible physical mechanism by which things like homeopathy can have an effect. And, in fact, when measured, their effects match exactly the effects of placebo.
So yes, we can absolutely say the pr
Re: magic is the same as science? (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, the placebo effect is something we DO understand, quite well in fact. Many studies have been done on it in quite some detail.
Re: (Score:3)
Mind over matter (or something very similar to our notion of it) may well exist, but if it cannot be reproduced in a controlled manner, it's useless are far as medicine goes.
Re: magic is the same as science? (Score:5, Informative)
The placebo effect is merely a name for something we don't understand.
No. No it isn't. If this is the starting point for your argument then you are already wrong before you say another word.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's rather disturbing that the university would keep this course
Re: (Score:3)
> It's called the placebo effect.
It could well be -- the placebo effect is ~ 50% effective. How the hell can you have something that effective when you have zero mg administered? The placebo effect is even stranger (From 13 Things that don't make sense) [newscientist.com]
Re:Quantum Mechanics is bollocks (Score:4, Insightful)
Describe the mechanism for "filtering of photons based on time of emission" and there is a Nobel Prize waiting for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Describe the mechanism for "filtering of photons based on time of emission" and there is a Nobel Prize waiting for you.
Greg Egan did that - but no Nobel Prize for him because he's set his fiction in a Riemannian universe where time is a little different:
:)
http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/ORTHOGONAL/ORTHOGONAL.html
Of course he got a bad review once from a steampunk fantasy guy for having "too much science" in his SF and his aliens being a bit too alien
Way offtopic maybe but cool books that make you look at the real stuff a bit differently.
Re: (Score:3)
Your theory does not explain why the interference pattern is destroyed when they start filtering the photons.
Against Vaccines or About Against Vaccines? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Against Vaccines or About Against Vaccines? (Score:5, Funny)
We will delve into a quantum physics’ understanding of disease and alternative medicine to provide a scientific hypothesis of how these modalities may work. Quantum physics is a branch of physics that understands the interrelationship between matter and energy. This science offers clear explanations as to why homeopathic remedies with seemingly no chemical trace of the original substance are able to resolve chronic diseases, why acupuncture can offer patients enough pain relief to undergo surgery without anesthesia, why meditation alone can, in some instances, reduce the size of cancerous tumors.
My fucking brain will never be the same.
Re:Against Vaccines or About Against Vaccines? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I see it as three different cases:
1. The health nut who is already healthy but attributes their health to this one weird secret that only a few, special, people know about. Because everyone else isn't as smart as they are.
2. Someone with a bad disease who wants some hope that they'll get better so they'll try anything.
3. Munchausen syndrome
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Against Vaccines or About Against Vaccines? (Score:5, Insightful)
You have to wonder if we live in a time where any opposing viewpoint merits a "teach the controversy" approach. Can I claim anything, convince hoards of mouth-breathers desperate for something to cling to, and have it taught at a university, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary?
I'd also like to take a moment to quote Tim Minchin's awesome beat poem rant "Storm" which seems relevant:
"By definition", I begin
"Alternative Medicine", I continue
"Has either not been proved to work,
Or been proved not to work.
You know what they call "alternative medicine"
That's been proved to work?
Medicine."
If you haven't seen or heard it, I highly recommend it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: Against Vaccines or About Against Vaccines? (Score:4, Funny)
The barrier to entry for "There should be a class about this" is pretty low.
Re: (Score:2)
You know what they call "alternative medicine"
That's been proved to work?
Medicine."
What bothers me about that it's a complete misrepresentation. Criticism is meaningless when it drifts off in to some parody of the topic under discussion.
In this case, the author implies that "alternative medicine" is understood as "alternatives to medicine" instead of "alternative approaches to medicine". If he intends his talk to convince believers that they're mistaken, he's failed. They'll simply roll their eyes, convinced he doesn't understand the topic, as it appears the speaker doesn't understand t
Re: (Score:3)
It is highly ironic that you should link to Tennant's article, given that you are attempting to claim that there is a fallacy behind the author's words. A much more effective (and perhaps only) way for you to refute them (and which would also conform to Tennant's ideas of a correct response) would be to present some examples of "alternative approaches to medicine" that do work (and while you are about it, explain in what way they are "alternative" - a choice between chemo and radiation, for example, is not
Re:From the horses mouth (Score:4, Informative)
I have no problem with a course teaching about what anti-vaccine supporters claim if it helps doctors debunk it in person and helps them dismantle it in person. I hope this is what it is about.
That was exactly my hope. I could see the legitimacy of inoculating students to all the half truths and outright lies that alternative fruitcakes are trying to pitch the public. It's even important to have our medical students versed in some of it just so they can be prepared to counter the fear mongers.
Regrettably, the course outline reveals otherwise. It goes as far to say the course will delve into a quantum physics’ understanding of disease. So it's a course teaching the very worst of the lies. The instructor is listed as Beth Landau-Halpern. Here's an undercover video CBC [youtube.com] caught her and others in where she tells the parent that vaccines are causing allergies and other stupidity that is entirely counter to scientific evidence. She even has a blog post here [straight.com] confirming it was her and pleading that her advice was devoid of context, as if there is some context in which suggesting vaccines like that for MMR is really far worse for a child than a homeopathic placebo she was willing to sell...
This is as about as bad as it can get. We have the U of T willing to run a course taught by someone this loony, and then to review the course material and find it acceptable even! Of course, they are not going to be offering the course next year, and hopefully never again. But for it to get this far is a sign of some very, very deep rot in institutions that seriously needs to be cleaned up.
From the "Course Goals" (Score:5, Informative)
"Question the priorities and approaches of mainstream western medicine through the lens of a more holistic approach to health."
"Understand the connection between body, mind, energy, and spirit and how the interplay between these impact health and disease."
"Intelligently address the concerns of those afraid of alternative medicine or skeptical about its efficacy. "
Wow, this sounds like a nice university...
There's that word again: "lens" (Score:3)
Critical look at bullshit (Score:3)
This is a university. Not a career training institute. There maybe some controversial shit and this course is examining that phenomena. It's probably a good course. Now if the professor is dictating this and slapping down students for writing against the psychobabel doctrine then yeah that's a problem.
Besides, if alternative medicine worked, it would be called medicine.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think you quite grasp how many older medical practices with centuries of effective treatment are lumped together under "alternative" along with claptrap like homeopathy.
Just to name a few: Herbology, accupuncture, and the use of cannabis are considered "alternative" therapies. Every one of those has been in use for thousands of years longer than "modern" medicine, and are as effective as they've ever been, despite the naysaying of those who would rather shove prescription pills down your throat.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course all those "alternative" therapies also share something in common with homeopathy, no scientific evidence that they actually work.
Accupuncture has been proven to be junk, Herbs and cannabis are much better, however not nearly as good as actual medicine. You are right however that they are exactly as effective as they've ever been. The same can not be said for modern medicine, which gets more effective every single day.
How long we've been doing something ("thousands of years") has never been an accu
Re: (Score:2)
It's pretty clear from the syllabus that it's not a good course.
College is a for enhancing careers (Score:2)
This is a university. Not a career training institute.
In practical terms that is a distinction without a difference in today's world. I went to college to get a diploma that allows me to be considered for specific jobs. I happened to learn a lot of information relevant to those jobs along the way. Virtually all people who go to college today do so to enhance their employment prospects. All other considerations are secondary. Once upon a time college may have been for a more general education but that is no longer the case and hasn't been for some time now
Re: (Score:2)
As a line from some alien in Star Trek it's merely tacky, in a University it should ring alarm bells.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a university. Not a career training institute. There maybe some controversial shit and this course is examining that phenomena. It's probably a good course. Now if the professor is dictating this and slapping down students for writing against the psychobabel doctrine then yeah that's a problem.
Besides, if alternative medicine worked, it would be called medicine.
Actually, it wouldn't--this has a lot to do with history, and the bottom line is that the modern evidence-based school and the now-gone eclectic schools are the ones that where "But does it work?" actually get the most attention.
That said, most of alternative doesn't work, or works but not for the reasons they give, and a 'good' version of this course probably would be covering how to sort through and develop rigorous scientific tests. And possibly also raising the important question of "If the placebo eff
Re: (Score:3)
It was a joke comparison between homeopathy and placebo. Sorry I didn't make that clearer.
You managed to accurately describe actual medicines and homeopathy due to the critical issue of dosage: the difference between the two is that homeopaths would dilute the poison into the yoctomolar range and consider it all the more powerful for it, while people who had to pass chemistry would be wondering how that could possibly work.
Teaching the science of homeopathy. (Score:3)
Welcome students, to this course delving deep into all the science that is the foundation of homeopathy.
Let's start.
No questions?
You all get an A.
Class dismissed.
Re:Teaching the science of homeopathy. (Score:5, Insightful)
Welcome students, to this course delving deep into all the science that is the foundation of homeopathy.
Let's start.
No questions?
I have a question:
Assuming I've understood the concept correctly, and it's about water remembering, wouldn't the water coming out of the tap have once in it's life been in a continuous body of water that has already come into contact with every single possible contaminant, and therefore should cure every disease known to man?
Theology (Score:2, Interesting)
It seems fine to me too.
Anyone undertaking these courses knows what they're signing up for (pseudo-science), and in all honesty, it goes to show how well respected, religion-aligned theology courses have had state approval (and actual educational value) throughout the times. After all, most "original universities" started out from a form of clergy information repository, and its faculty and alumni related one way or the other to religion.
It would be antithetical to not sanction an homeopathy course by deny
From the sublime to the ridiculous ... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
> Anyone undertaking these courses knows what they're signing up for
Unfortunately no, you'd probably be surprised the stupid things some doctors think. If it's outside their specialty, they can be horribly wrong.
Faulty bullshit detection kit. (Score:3)
Anyone undertaking these courses knows what they're signing up for (pseudo-science)
The people signing up for a course in homeopathy 'know' jack shit, they honestly cannot distinguish science from pseudoscience. These are the people that the education system failed to educate and now they are being misled at the university level. It may not be as violent as scientology but it is on the same level of intellectual immaturity and has no place in a modern university.
The problem with this kind of crap is two-fold, first it is downright dangerous to the patients health to encourage them to sh
broad concepts that bind... (Score:3)
And that concept is "bullshit". I find no problems with lumping homeopathy, chiropracty, healilng crystals, astrology and other magic cures together.
(prepared for a dozen posts that say chiropractors are not like that!)
Re: broad concepts that bind... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But if they claim to heal all other kinds of issues, they're getting into quack territory. A pinched nerve in your
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately the professional and regulatory bodies that deal with chiropractors have shown no interest or willingness to deal with the former group, causing everyone to assume that latter group is no different.
I can't take a profession seriously when it has such a large percentage of quacks and no willingness to address the issue.
Danger! Danger! (Score:2, Funny)
This is dangerous stuff. I knew a guy, who forgot to take his homeopathic medicine. He died of an overdose!!
Nice! (Score:2)
"... and are expected to approach controversial topics with a critical lens."
Wow! I guess they also have astrology and phrenology doctorates .
Well then! (Score:2)
Sham on you Canada.
I typo'ed that, but decided it was better with the bad spelling.
And how are you graded? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yet you turned down my proposed phrenology course? (Score:2)
For shame, University of Toronto! Phrenology is every bit as scientifically proven as homeopathy!
This is an opportunity for Big Oil (Score:2)
...To sell UT the phlogiston it will need for the coming winter.
According to the course description, it will use quantum mechanics to "explain" why homeopaths believe that a weaker solution of a medication has more of an effect than a stronger solution. No word on whether dillithium crystals will be involved.
Re: (Score:2)
Embarassing (Score:2)
As a University of Toronto graduate and employee, I find this all rather embarrassing.
Summary misses a crucial point (Score:5, Informative)
Course Discontinued (Score:5, Informative)
Fortunately, wiser heads have finally prevailed:
http://www.provost.utoronto.ca... [utoronto.ca]
From the article:
=====
The UTSC Health Studies Program has indicated that the course in question will not be taught in the 2015-16 academic year, or over the summer term.
As Provost of this academic institution, I must at all times respect the diversity of opinions and views of academic colleagues and sessional instructors. However, I do note with respect that the Deans of the University’s Faculty of Medicine and Dalla Lana School of Public Health have released a statement commenting on the education of their students regarding vaccinations. It includes the following:
“As deans of two of the health sciences faculties at the University of Toronto, we teach our students that vaccines are safe, effective and vital to children’s health. Vaccines are one of history’s most important and significant achievements in public health and medicine. The best evidence that science can provide proves that the health benefits of vaccines far outweigh their potential side effects, and we instruct our students accordingly.”
=====
Video or it didn't happen (Score:3)
"Understand the connection between body, mind, energy, and spirit and how the interplay between these impact health and disease."
I hope that the University will publish the videos taken during the lectures and of the experiments conducted to show the connections between body, mind, energy and spirit. I think this transparency and level of disclosure will do a lot for the reputation of everyone involved.
Okay, okay ... aaand, you lost me. (Score:5, Insightful)
I teach physics at a liberal arts college, I am totally on board with exposing students to cross-disciplinary ideas that go against accepted norms. So as I'm reading through the syllabus, I'm fine with things like this:
Sure, no problem, let's do a compare-and-contrast, it's popular enough that we need to be familiar with it whether we think it's baloney or not, and considerations of how states of mind affect states of health are real and useful. But then we hit page 2:
No. The author has no idea what quantum physics is, and is using it as a magic wand made of pure bullshit. Uttering the phrase "quantum physics" is, of course, a pretty common and cliched way to sound impressive without knowing anything, but it demonstrates that the "honest intellectual inquiry" thing is just a disguise, and the professor is here to sell snake oil.
Get the hell out of my ivory tower.
The "other side"? (Score:2)
"The instructor reports that she provides these readings as the students have already seen the other side in previous courses."
"The other side"? When one side is the best modern science has to offer, and the other "side" is unadulterated bull$hit, further study is not necessary, except to the extent that it would be helpful for students to be familiar with said BS so they can swiftly disabuse patients of the idea that any of it is actually going to work.
When, in a course of scientific study, one side disca
Futurama said it best (Score:3)
Announcer Bot:You have a degree in balogna! (sprays the idiot with water)
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
From the syllabus
"We will delve into a quantum physics’ understanding of disease and alternative medicine to provide a scientific hypothesis of how these modalities may work. Quantum physics is a branch of physics that understands the interrelationship between matter and energy. This science offers clear explanations as to why homeopathic remedies with seemingly no chemical trace of the original substance are able to resolve chronic diseases, why acupuncture can offer patients enough pain relief to undergo surgery without anesthesia, why meditation alone can, in some instances, reduce the size of cancerous tumors."
... and in chapter 2 we discuss the placebo effect and how correlation does not imply causation.
Re: (Score:3)
Neither economy nor psychology are pseduo-sciences so your opinion isn't relevant.
There are wacky _parts_ of certain economy and psychology areas but that doesn't invalidate the general scientific approach of them both just like string theory doesn't invalidate physics. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Economy and psychology have real, reproduceable results.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Theology is better than those (Score:5, Insightful)
No it's not. Theology doesn't study the natural world, and offers zero testable hypothesis. It's definitely useful knowledge, if one wishes to understand motivations of large groups of people, but it's no science.
Re: (Score:2)
Theology, when taught from a neutral viewpoint, is a philosophy. Science and math were also, at one time, considered "philosophies", in that they, all three, relied on inductive proof techniques developed by the classical philosophers. With the development of the scientific method, however, science stands apart on a new basis of testable hypotheses. It is my understanding that math is considered by many to not be a science on this basis.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're confused, though I'm not sure where you've gone wrong. A little history of science, and a better understanding of induction might help you here.
Re: (Score:2)
Induction is just one mere tool to be used. Putting everything that uses a specific tool is folly.
You may think it folly, but the historical fact is that up until about 200 years ago, the Venn diagram between mathematicians and theologians was pretty inclusive. Newton and Pascal wrote more prolifically on theology then they did math. When education was rare, and education in philosophy (and thus inductive logic) was rarer, the same people had to wear many hats, and their output in those disparate fields hewed pretty closely together.
Theology is certainly not philosophy. Testability is the cornerstone of science. Rational theories are the cornerstone of philosophy. Theology is neither rational or presents theories, but interpretations of dogma.
This is false. Rational theories are the cornerstone of philosophy; tha
Empiricism (Score:3)
No, natural sciences have started from observation. Science is empirical, and theology is without empirical evidence. It relies on received knowledge and rationalism. There is no observational test which can be used to determine the existence of any given god or religious belief, therefore science can not be used to evaluate theological truths.
This is not to say that theological truths are better or worse than empirical ones, but for me personally, I will consider anything that contradicts empirical evidenc
Re: (Score:2)
Ending in "ology" does not make it a science. Theology is really a component of the study of cultures.
Re: Theology is better than those (Score:2)
Girlology 101 yo! *drops mic*
Re: (Score:2)
Theology is really a component of the study of cultures.
Right, so what about that isn't science?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That it's completely untestable?
You can still work backwards; what was done, what happened. And then, you can also observe events. What is being done, what happens.
Theology is not a science (Score:4, Informative)
Theology, when taught from a neutral viewpoint, is a real science.
No it is not. The neutrality of one's viewpoint is irrelevant to whether it is a science or not. It concerns studying concepts that are by definition not falsifiable. Therefore it cannot be science. Theology is basically the earnest study of a work of fiction as if it were real. You can have a scientific study of the psychology of theology. You can study anthropology, history, sociology, etc as it relates to religion. But theology itself is not and cannot be a science. It makes no predictions about the natural world that can be tested and reproduced.
Re: (Score:2)
You're confusing the study of beliefs with the beliefs themselves. You have a deep misunderstanding of the subject, which is probably why your reaction here is visceral and not rational.
Show me the evidence (Score:4, Interesting)
You're confusing the study of beliefs with the beliefs themselves.
I'm afraid I'm not confused in the slightest. Theology is by definition "the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially : the study of God and of God's relation to the world [merriam-webster.com]". Since god(s) existence and relation to the world (if any) are by definition not known or falsifiable, any "study of their nature" is in essence a study of a work of fiction and most definitely not science. You can study other sciences as they relate to the effects of theology (including beliefs) but theology is not a science itself.
You have a deep misunderstanding of the subject, which is probably why your reaction here is visceral and not rational.
I described what a science is and what it isn't and how theology does not fit the definition of a science. If that isn't rational I'm afraid you do not understand the meaning of the word. If you understand the topic then by all means show me how theology fits the definition of a science. Show me what predictive value it has in describing the world. Show me testable and repeatable hypothesis theology has ever made that have been shown to be true by objective evidence.
Re:That's cool though (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed and it's not fine.
It's not being fair, that's being unfair. It's unfair to those who hold themselves to a higher standard of truth and realistic accuracy that someone with a handful of internet links can waltz in and be given the same platform. Why bother actually researching anything when you can just complain you're not being given an equal voice and have it handed to you because you poor little thing being left out in the cold by the big bad mean people.
But hey diversity is always a good thing right?
Dear University of Toronto, please remove your head out of your ass. Homeopathy should not be given any legitimate platform, nor should any other form of ridiculous pseudoscience. If you want students to have a critical lens, then teach them more rigor about the scientific method and drawing proper conclusions. Teach about flawed experiment designs, fabricated data, and the dangers of pay to publish journals.
Sometimes I don't even know why I bother.
Re: That's cool though (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely, and not only is it giving undue volume to a bunch of nutters, it's legitimizing a viewpoint that kills people. Desperate folks eschew actual medicine, some of which may actually save their lives. It gives false hope to the terminally ill and inflates huckster's wallets. This garbage is truly despicable.
Expected outcome (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Shh! Please don't jinx me.
I'm currently in negotiations with the University of Toronto to secure funding and resources to start up my Unicorn and Care Bare Dissection class: Biology 666
Re: (Score:3)
If you want students to have a critical lens, then teach them more rigor about the scientific method and drawing proper conclusions. Teach about flawed experiment designs, fabricated data, and the dangers of pay to publish journals.
Yes, and in this day and age, I really think homeopathy should be taught in in a class like that. But from the viewpoint you describe, so as to demonstrate that it is pure bunk.
Re:That's cool though (Score:5, Informative)
Oranges may be natural medicine, but they're not homeopathy.
The theory of homeopathy is that you cure a disease with a drug that reproduces the symptoms of that disease (that's the prefix "homo" in homeopathy-- "same"). So, oranges would only be useful as a homeopathy remedy if eating oranges gives you the symptoms of scurvy. ...and then homeopathy takes that drug and dilutes it until not a single molecule originating in an orange is in the drug. The homeopathy cure for scurvy would be "take a drink of water from a glass of water that was filled from a glass of water that was filled from a glass of water that had one drop of orange juice in it.
Re: (Score:3)
Oranges may be natural medicine, but they're not homeopathy.
The theory of homeopathy is that you cure a disease with a drug that reproduces the symptoms of that disease (that's the prefix "homo" in homeopathy-- "same"). So, oranges would only be useful as a homeopathy remedy if eating oranges gives you the symptoms of scurvy. ...and then homeopathy takes that drug and dilutes it until not a single molecule originating in an orange is in the drug. The homeopathy cure for scurvy would be "take a drink of water from a glass of water that was filled from a glass of water that was filled from a glass of water that had one drop of orange juice in it.
Yes, well the key question here is: no pulp or extra pulp?
Sheesh, amateurs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact that you include transgenderism to be the same as homeopathy, or a white women co-oping black culture, just shows how people like you are part of the problem.
You're an armchair 'expert' who doesn't actually know anything about topics you're discussing, but you think your point of view is valid regardless.
It's depressing that humanity's breadth of knowledge has increased to an unprecedented level, yet instead of educating themselves about the world they live in people prefer to just dig deeper holes
Re:That's cool though (Score:4, Informative)
> Yet, many social sciences teach that self-identification should be the only factor and to suggest anything else is discrimination.
I don't think that is an accurate characterization when there has been some evidence found for a biological role in some aspects of gender identification. In fact, a specific region of the brain in transsexuals has been found to be typical of their identified gender rather than the one their chromosomes would predict. Additionally its even been found female to male transsexuals experience "phantom limb syndrome" for the penis they never had.
So really, evidence points to, we are actually talking about people with what appears to be a congenital birth defect, in the one organ we are pretty shit at tampering with directly....the brain. So yah, I would say that expecting them to express the same gender identification as someone without their condition is about as discriminatory as asking a man in a wheelchair why his lazy ass can't walk up the stairs.
Transsexuality (Score:5, Interesting)
I could explain that gender is mostly a social construct, or a mental one (as opposed to biological sex, which has some fuzzy boundaries but is otherwise more clearly defined). I could explain transsexualism in terms of foreign hand syndrome, where your brain is telling you that your body is wrong and the difference between your mind and body is a continual torment. I could tell you about years of secret anguish and desperate struggles against one's self, as often as not leading to suicide.
But I'm pretty sure you have an unshakable faith in a baseless opinion. I'd wish some dire situation on you for your close-mindedness, but I can't actually think of a worse curse than being willfully ignorant and without compassion.
Re:Vaccines are great, but (Score:5, Informative)
There's a reason those diseases are exceedingly rare. You anonymous idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a reason those diseases are exceedingly rare. You anonymous idiot.
But... but... closing the barn door first is just unnecessary work for something that hasn't been proven to be a problem yet!
Re: (Score:2)
blindly proclaiming that anyone who doesn't get a foreign substance injected in to their bodies on a regular basis for diseases that are exceedingly rare is some religious nut job or brain dead hillbilly while ignoring the fact they they themselves are quite often uneducated about the facts surrounding vaccines.
This particular bit reminds me of the old Yogi Berra wisdom "No one goes to that place any more - it's too crowded"
The reason these diseases are rare, is because the goddamned vaccines work.
A goodly number of children died from the diseases these vaccines were created to control. They don't now, so they don't need vaccinated now, right?
Too bad there isn't a vaccine against complete lack of reason.
Re: (Score:2)
People who oppose vaccines promote the idea of stimulating the immune system the natural way, by doing such things as eating dirt or having enemas of other people's feces (this is a real thing, and not just in California!) Vaccines are a precisely calibrated and targeted way of exposing a person to an immune-stimulating level of infection. Having this exposure be controlled and precise is what makes it "scientific" and evil in the eyes of anti-vaxxers.
In the same way, the precise and targeted nature of gene
Re: (Score:2)
So yes, there is new stuff barely accepted by the establishment that is now becoming a "thing". Someday, I imagine, doctors may advocate that a patient exercise and create a decent diet for themselves, but that would be pretty outrageous. All he
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine that this article is simply worded to make the course seem more controversial than it is
Ah, if only:
We will delve into a quantum physics’ understanding of disease and alternative medicine to provide a scientific hypothesis of how these modalities may work. Quantum physics is a branch of physics that understands the interrelationship between matter and energy. This science offers clear explanations as to why homeopathic remedies with seemingly no chemical trace of the original substance are able to resolve chronic diseases, why acupuncture can offer patients enough pain relief to undergo surgery without anesthesia, why meditation alone can, in some instances, reduce the size of cancerous tumors.
In any case, the course will now not be taught this year (or hopefully ever):
http://www.provost.utoronto.ca... [utoronto.ca]
Re: (Score:2)
Look up how they do the "dilutions", the concentration of the original ingredients asymptotes. It does not go to zero.
Yes it does. That's the whole point of the criticism. It is so diluted that the probability of having a single molecule is close to 0. Dilution doesn't split atoms or molecules. Either you have one or you don't.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a way for scammers to stretch their supplies of actual medicine ridiculously thin to make obnoxiousl
Re: (Score:2)
Or not use any at all. Seriously, since Homeopathy means diluting a substance down to a level where it would be undetectable, how would you be able to tell the difference between two vials of homeopathic "medicine" where vial A was properly diluted and vial B was just plain water that never held any such substance?
Homeopathic "medicine" providers could just sell tiny bottles of water and t
Avogadro's Number... look it up (Score:2)
Look up how they do the "dilutions", the concentration of the original ingredients asymptotes. It does not go to zero. Fools (including critics) don't actually check what is in there, preferring to misapply equations.
Concentrations are usually expressed as percentages because we usually deal in numbers of molecules so large, there's no point in expressing quantities like that. (A single drop of water contains approx. 100 quintillion molecules.)
But, homeopathy dilutes substances SO MUCH, that using math and Avogadro's Number we can calculate that a vial of said "remedy" containing all the water on planet earth is more likely to have zero vs. a single molecule of the substance.
While technically this probability is expres
Re: (Score:2)
If any active ingredients are found in a homeopathic medicine, it can not legally be called homeopathic, and will be in contravention of the law if sold as such. It will then actually have to go through safety and efficacy testing like normal medications, and as none have ever passed efficacy testing (as they aren't effective) can not legally be sold.
No Problem (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Saying vaccination = homeopathy just shows that you don't understand what homeopathy is.
Homeopathy is not showing the body something in smaller numbers, or a weakened state. Homeopathy, by actual definition, is showing the body NOTHING. the level of dilution used to make something meet the definition of homeopathy is so much that there should be no trace whatsoever of the original item in the dose being administered.
If in fact the active ingredient IS present in the dose being administered, the medication c
Re: (Score:2)