Episode #340

[tzmtj]

hey now,

was it this show when you guys were berating homeopathy?  i don't recall but...  i was once treated via an 'immunotherapeutic' method and wondered if you guys lump this in with homeopathy.  the dr's treatment of a skin condition was indeed cured through his diligence and patience.  i'd be curious about your thoughts on this...

rsvp...
~tj

[Trinoc]

was it this show when you guys were berating homeopathy?  i don't recall but...  i was once treated via an 'immunotherapeutic' method and wondered if you guys lump this in with homeopathy.  the dr's treatment of a skin condition was indeed cured through his diligence and patience.  i'd be curious about your thoughts on this...

Homeopathy is specifically the sort of treatment where you are given something which allegedly was made by taking an "active" ingredient which in normal quantities would cause the symptoms complained of, and then diluting it to the point where there is little to no chance of any of it remaining. That is, the medicine you are taking is pure water or a pure sugar pill with no plausible amount of drug content. This places it at the top of most skeptics' lists of meaningless therapies.

Immunotherapy -- treatment by somehow boosting the body's own immune response -- is not necessarily nonsense, but the term has been used by many peddlers of nonsense therapies to try to enhance credibility. It probably depends on whether you were being treated by a real MD or by an "alternative" practitioner.

You refer to the cure as having been down to "diligence and patience", rather than necessarily the immunotherapy itself. This, coupled with the fact that many such conditions are self-limiting (i.e. go away by themselves in time) may well account for the recovery.

[MikeHz]

hey now,

was it this show when you guys were berating homeopathy?

I think that would be almost every show.

[Jay]

rikilii,  I was just searching again and I cant find more information that what I already found on this.  Hook me up.

[Spykitten01]

As this episode's WTN winner, I would like to thank the panel for not attempting to pronounce my last name and thus butchering it (though in truth, it wouldn't have bothered me, considering 90% of people that give it a try do just that haha) - And also, no, I have never been to Vancouver, but my grandparents do have one of those lovely bird clocks in their basement. A recommended buy!

[tzmtj]

trinoc,

thanks for that clarification.  as usual my poste was incomplete and unclear.  this medical dr., a dermatologist; who treated me tried unsuccessful 'conventional' methods over several months (patience/diligence).  it was when he resorted to an immunotherapeutic approach that the condition was cured.  clearly there is a difference between homeopathy and this type of treatment from an MD.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

trinoc,

thanks for that clarification.  as usual my poste was incomplete and unclear.  this medical dr., a dermatologist; who treated me tried unsuccessful 'conventional' methods over several months (patience/diligence).  it was when he resorted to an immunotherapeutic approach that the condition was cured.  clearly there is a difference between homeopathy and this type of treatment from an MD.

I'm curious, what did this "immunotherapeutic approach" consist of?  What made you associate it with Homeopathy?

[tzmtj]

well...

he used a 'manmade' concoction (insert long chemical name here), that caused a skin 'reaction' on my shoulder - sort of a burn.  he later used the same stuff and applied it to the area he was 'treating'.  sure enuff, after a few applications, the condition was treated succesfully - it cleared up, went away, dissolved?  the idea was that my body developed an allergic reaction which was then used on the 'effected' area.  my body attacked it as if it were an allergy, or that was my understanding.

i guess i was trying to confirm the difference between the two and that the immunotherapeutic treatment was 1.) applied by an MD - dermatologist.  and 2.)  successfully treated.   :D

[PhysiPhile]

[wrong thread]

[pipelineaudio]

Thanks for the excellent coverage of the SOPA/PIPA issues on this podcast. Given the nature of the skeptic community at large on IP issues, I was terrified I was gonna be listening to ten minutes of freetard philospohy

I was pleasantly surprised to find this was not the case

I think one thing that should have been mentioned was that SOPA/PIPA were entirely unnecessary, they were, like ballot issues in elections, just ways for people to get out of doing their jobs. Similar to the leftist knee jerk "solution" of adding more and more gun laws to combat violent crime, the problems SOPA/PIPA are meant to adress are already illegal. They just lack enforcement. Anyone who has ever tried has seen the magical myth factory surrounding RIAA death camps and other incredible conspiracies aimed at lifetime imprisonment for anyone whos ever downloaded an mp3.

Too bad.

If we want to end the current R&D black hole gripping so much of the tech industry and prevent a feared future technological dark age, those who are elected and paid to do their jobs will just have to buck up and do it. Hitting Megavideo, and hard was a good example. Sure the freetards and the enablers of those who make their living through piracy will fight back, but let them.

Also IP has lost the PR war, its amazing just how evil you are considered for standing up for your rights. This has to change. It is only a question of whether it changes sooner or later. We are ALL affected by technology and we are almost all eventually able to be automated into unemployment.

Its one thing to be bitter about the devastation piracy has had, looking from inside the IP industry outwards, but its 100% pissing in our wounds for someone to be making money illegally off of it

[pipelineaudio]

I should add:

My ears pricked up when you mentioned stanford and David Levine. Unfortunately, these are like the climate change deniers of IP.

Another, no less controversial Levine, Robert wrote this when talking about the two million dollar grant google had given to Stanford Law School

"The idea that other people's stuff should be free is not an ideology. Calling it an ideology is giving it a dignity that it doesn't deserve. It's not an ideology, it's an illusion.

What you have is people making money from content, and they want to be able to keep making money from content. People who make money distributing content without paying for it will want to continue making money by not paying for it. They can say they are doing things for the good of the country, or whatever, but they are not doing anything that is not in their own selfish interests. Google is championing free culture because they make a lot of money distributing other people's stuff."

No matter what the pirates say, the issue isnt really about paying for content, the issue is WHO gets paid for content