"The sun tires of summer and sighs itself into autumn." Terri Guillemets

User login

Who's online

There are currently 0 users and 38 guests online.

Welcome to iBrattleboro!

Welcome to iBrattleboro!
It's a local news source by and for the people of Brattleboro, Vermont, published continually. You can get involved in this experiment in citizen journalism by submitting meeting results, news, events, stories, reviews, how-to's, recipes, places to go, things to do, or anything else important to Brattleboro. Or, just drop by to see what others have contributed.

Find iBrattleboro on:

 Twitter YouTube

Authentically Local

Search the Archives

Ye Olde iBrattleboro Archive

Use the pulldown to choose desired number of results.

 

Search the first decade
of iBrattleboro archives
at Archive-It.org
Feb 20, 2003 to Feb 6, 2013

Looking For Primary Doctor Near Brattleboro


I am looking for a primary care doctor. Female is preferred, but will consider a male if he listens to and respects women. Would like someone who practices integrative medicine, i.e. homeopathy and naturopathy, but with an MD or DO degree.

Any suggestions?

Thanks.

Robbie

»

Comments | 10

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
 #

Maranatha Natural Living, LLC

A possibility?

Maranatha Natural Living, LLC
Address: 1860 Weatherhead Hollow Rd, Guilford, VT 05301
Phone: (802) 451-1966

Hours:
Thursday 10AM–6PM
Friday 9AM–1PM
Saturday Closed
Sunday 10AM–1PM
Monday Closed
Tuesday 9AM–5PM
Wednesday 10AM–6PM

http://www.maranathaliving.com/
E-Mail: gabriella@maranathaliving.com (Gabriela is an RN)

 
 #

This Google page lists a bunch of DO doctors in the area

This Google page lists a bunch of DO doctors in the area, but MDs and DOs connected with BMH (257-0341) are not taking new patients at this time.

(Copy and paste if need to...)

https://www.google.com/search?q=d.o.%20doctor%20in%20brattleboro%20vt&rlz=1C1EODB_enUS584US586&oq=d.o.+doctor+in+brattleboro+vt&aqs=chrome..69i57.14907j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&npsic=0&rflfq=1&rlha=0&rllag=42858270,-72581240,2529&tbm=lcl&rldimm=7047194737023732535&ved=0ahUKEwiwvMKs8KTWAhUBdiYKHWc6C5IQvS4IOzAA&rldoc=1&tbs=lrf:!2m1!1e3!3sIAE,lf:1,lf_ui:2#rlfi=hd:;si:7047194737023732535;mv:!1m3!1d18766.76285683534!2d-72.57967174999999!3d42.85827!2m3!1f0!2f0!3f0!3m2!1i285!2i308!4f13.1;tbs:lrf:!2m1!1e3!3sIAE,lf:1,lf_ui:2

 
 #

Homeopathy is not compatible

Homeopathy is not compatible with evidence-based medicine, other than being a placebo effect. Because of this, no legitimate MD or DO should practice it.

Please watch this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0-NalmRSl8

 
 #

Placebo effect

Please explain the demonstrated evidence that suggests homeopathy works on animals such as horses who are not affected by placebos.

 
 #

What demonstrated evidence?

What demonstrated evidence? There is no credible evidence in either human or non-human subjects that it works any better than a placebo.

Of course horses can be affected by placebos because: 1. Horses respond to cues from humans (thus if a human acts differently because they think a treatment will work, the horse may respond to that) and 2. Horses cannot self report, so humans are evaluating the efficacy of treatment and are themselves subject to the placebo effect. We see this happen between parents and infants all the time.

Also, someone who is a 9/11 truther, believes in chemtrails, and that Sandy Hook was a hoax does not have a leg to stand on when it comes to evaluating and vetting evidence.

 
 #

Science

There are a number of ibrattleboro participants who routinely make "knee-jerk" remarks supposedly debunking the efficacy of homeopathy. Typically they have a reductionistic understanding of science: "It cannot work because it does not make sense."

This reminds me of Einsteins erroneous insistence that quantum entanglement cannot be possible, because we cannot find an underlying mechanism which would explain how it works.

Right now I do not have the needed time to address these issues, but I hope to write in greater detail later.

 
 #

This is not simply a case of

This is not simply a case of "it cannot work because it does not make sense." This is a case of it doesn't work because it doesn't work and the fact that there is no plausible mechanism by which it could work is just another nail in its coffin.

Is it knee jerk to point out to a flat-earther that the earth isn't flat, but round? Is it reductionist to point out that due to the way gravity works, planets cannot be flat?

For homeopathy to be true, large swathes of physics, chemistry, and biology would need to be overturned. So in one corner we have huge bodies of knowledge with vast numbers of robust experiments. In the other corner, we have personal anecdotes and stories on par with psychics and faith healing.

My husband studies physics, so he explained this to me about your Einstein reference:

You misunderstand, misrepresent, and oversimplify Einstein's thoughts on quantum entanglement.

Einstein was actually one of the principle people involved in discovering entanglement within quantum physics. Einstein intended to use this to show that quantum physics is incomplete. Because quantum physics predicts entanglement, if Einstein could show that entanglement didn't work, he could show that there was something missing from or something wrong with our understanding of quantum physics. This is how science works - he set up a falsifiable hypothesis which later turned out to be falsified by Bell's theorem experiments plus many others.

Keep in mind that for every hypothesis that withstands experiment, there are ten, a hundred, thousands of others that don't. For you to say "but this other stuff turned out to be true therefore my pet idea is true" is to assume that your idea is the one rather then the 999. You'll note that homeopathy has been around longer than quantum physics and yet there are no equivalents to Bell's theorem.

In studying the possible effect of homeopathy, we have meta-analyses/systematic reviews (studies analyzing multiple studies) and actually a meta-analysis of the meta-analyses (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2125.2002.01699.x/abst...) and there are no findings that homeopathy works any better than a placebo. From the abstract:

"Eleven independent systematic reviews were located. Collectively they failed to provide strong evidence in favour of homeopathy. In particular, there was no condition which responds convincingly better to homeopathic treatment than to placebo or other control interventions. Similarly, there was no homeopathic remedy that was demonstrated to yield clinical effects that are convincingly different from placebo. It is concluded that the best clinical evidence for homeopathy available to date does not warrant positive recommendations for its use in clinical practice."

 
 #

Einstein and Entaglement

Einstein found that the mathematics of quantum theory predicted entanglement, which he was sure must be impossible. On the basis of his assumption that instantaneous connection between two particles distant from one another made no sense: Einstein said that, therefore, quantum theory must be incomplete. By "incomplete" he meant that there must be an, as yet, unknown variable which would preserve the math without the need of "spooky action."

Since then quantum entanglement repeatedly has been confirmed experimentally, showing that there is no need to add a "hidden variable" in order to "complete" quantum theory. Brian Greene discusses this in a very understandable way. I am sure that your husband is a serious student of physics, but still I suggest that you look into quantum entanglement for yourself.

 
 #

The Patellar Reflex

MT - “There are a number of ibrattleboro participants who routinely make "knee-jerk" remarks supposedly debunking the efficacy of homeopathy.”

The people who comment about homeopathy neither "knee-jerk" nor “supposedly” debunk homeopathy. Knee-jerk is generally defined as an “automatic and unthinking comment. Supposedly is generally defined as “assumed or believed as true, regardless of fact.” Neither is true.

As the current comment by flannelpyjamas indicates, their reply to you is well thought out and well spoken. There was nothing “automatic and unthinking” about it. Moreover, flannelpyjamas comment was not stated as their aussumption or as regardless of fact.

 
 #

Freedom of choice based on nonclinical, anecdotal evidence

Both homeopathy and naturopathy are considered pseudomedicalscience. They are sometimes, but should not be, considered “alternative medicine,” but merely as alternatives to medicine.

Of course, people have the freedom of choice once they believe that homeopathy and naturopathy can help them to engage a practitioner, with or without a medical license.

Any defense, in this article and future articles, of homeopathy and naturopathy must rest solely on that freedom of choice based on anecdotal, nonclinical evidence, not medical science.

In this case, the author indicated they “Would like someone who practices integrative medicine, i.e. homeopathy and naturopathy, but with an MD or DO degree.”

Nevertheless, I agree with flannelpyjamas that “no legitimate MD or DO should practice it.”

[(DO) Osteopathy: “a branch of medical practice that emphasizes the treatment of medical disorders through the manipulation and massage of the bones, joints, and muscles.”]

 

iBrattleboro Poll

I'm predicting that the upcoming fall colors will be

Choices