Homeopathy is "also quite dangerous" is painting with rather a broad stroke it seems to me.

Like everything it depends.
If one is saying ...I will take this homeopathic remedy vs say a known cancer drug that is efficacious then I would agree.
That indeed is unwise and will result in early death.

If one is saying I will give my kid some Arnica ointment for swelling vs say using some anti-inflammatory like ibuprophen to ease the swelling then I couldn't agree less.

As for the Article...
"The reviewers sum up their report by saying that homeopathy should not be used to treat any health conditions that are chronic or that have the potential to become serious."

This also has a rather broad stroke approach. There are many who suffer from chronic things for which there are not really any great treatments or for which the treatments themselves have many side effects and long term problems. I see no problem with people seeking out alternate therapies which ultimately may not help, but do not have other life impactful consequences.

I think we can agree that for things with effective treatments it is folly attempt to substitute things which don't work for things that do work. For the bulk of medical conditions, this means standard evidence based therapy and medications.
--
Calling someone "hater" can actually be an apt description of someone with no argument, but pure bile in their discourse.

Quinine additionally has been an effective treatment for Malaria when not much else helped at all.

Good thing it wasn't something that people think is also harmless... Tylenol.
We had a girl die from that while I was on rotation in the transplant wing.
Cry for help... bottle of tylenol.
Horrific death waiting for a liver transplant that didn't come.

?
So are you saying that homeopathy is simply water and sugar?

I thought homeopathy was:
"the treatment of disease by minute doses of natural substances that in a healthy person would produce symptoms of disease."
Quinine in a detectable dose that is large enough causes malarial like symptoms. That is the very definition of homeopathy.

Ah.... it is called a homeopathic remedy and sold in homeopathic places and in studies is called homeopathic Arnica.
Quinine also is homeopathic and comes from the bark of a tree. Not sure whether being an herbal remedy makes Arnica not homeopathic.

The arnica in tablet form is known as a diluted homeopathic..
Web MD even states: "However, some oral supplements contain highly diluted arnica. These are considered homeopathic treatments."

Perhaps I am confused.

We have used something called Whole Baby Salve for each of our infants.
It has been amazing in treating scalded skin from diaper rash to mastitis and other burn like symptoms.

I was amazed that weeping scalded skin could be completely normal by the next day with zero sign of injury.

The biggest proof for me was when my son fell onto an electric burner.
His forearm skin melted and became spagetti like as we pulled his branded and charred arm off of the burner.
for 2 weeks we kept his arm most and redressed it 2-3 times daily with this whole baby salve.
By the end of 2 weeks there was barely any injury noticeable. His arm had only faint deep discoloration, but by about 2 months out we could not see any damage.
His arm to this day shows no sign of the concentric curcular brand he got, the melted skin depressions, or scarring and discoloration. It looks every bit like his other arm.

Why does it work? I dunno.
But it does and I would trust putting it on any damaged skin.

http://www.thelittleseedling.c...

Of course anyone can have their anecdotes like mine so take it with a grain of salt, but if you know someone who needs a baby gift, this is something nice. It has stead us well for 3 babies.

Arnica is something I have used in treating broken ribs. I have had broken ribs 4 times and each time it takes about 5-6 weeks for the pain to completely subside. It takes about 3 weeks for the bruising from the bleeding to go away.
I used Arnica after a heavy board bound up and spun back out of my table saw, knocking me to the ground, and caving in my ribs. My anectote is that, in this instance, I used topical Arnica Cream and Arnica tablets. This one bled the most and yet the bruising went away after about a week. By 2 weeks I could no longer feel the pain, when I moved or breathed. It was quite astonishing. Far cheaper than the 8k the hospital charged for the ER and CT to make sure my organs weren't leaking.

Sloane Kettering has this nice link.
http://www.mskcc.org/cancer-ca...

"Sesquiterpene lactones in arnica have anti-inflammatory properties and inhibit binding of transcription factors AP-1 and NF-B to DNA (14). Using a tincture prepared from arnica flowers, this led to suppressed collagenase-1 (MMP1) and interstitial collagenase-13 (MMP13) mRNA levels in human articular chondrocytes in vitro (14). MMP13 and MMP1 enzymes are thought to play a significant role in cartilage and joint destruction and inflammation seen in osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Both arnica tinctures and sesquiterpene lactones were found to suppress NF-B activation and IL-12 production in dendritic cells at high concentrations, but can also have immunostimulatory effects when diluted (2). Another study found that sesquiterpene lactones inhibit platelet function by interacting with platelet sulfhydryl groups, probably associated with reduced phospholipase A2 activity (12). In addition to sesquiterpene lactones, the allergenic potential of arnica may be partly due to other allergens such as polyacetylenes (15)."

I have also read a double blind research paper from an Orthopedic group in South Africa which showed great benefit in using Arnica in post surgery of ankle patients.

I think Arnica is a homeopathic remedy which would also make me skeptical of anyone claiming it is "Completely Useless in Treating medical Conditions"
Perhaps they are referring to other homeopathics which they think are useless, but it seems there may be a few which are "Useful".

Back when I was in public health school we read about the history of quinine which was thought to work because of the drug inducing a malaria-like set of symptoms. Thus the theory that "like cures like".
It was the original drug that got people thinking of homeopathy as a viable and valid way of treating people. 400 years later it seems to still be working.
So it is a homeopathic remedy which actually kills malarial parasites as well, by interfering with parasite reproduction somehow.

Maybe coincidental and maybe nothing to do with homeopathy as it is today, but the original post with the statement "completely useless at treating medical conditions." would seem to be invalid by just this one instance which was the first instance of homeopathy.

Could just use a chromecast dongle or and Apple TV for Netflix. I do this all the time when travelling. Don't have to tie up my machine and I can watch something in the background while I work.

Anyhow too much advertising to be worth my time anymore.
That is part of why I have cut the cord now, way to much of life wasted on unwanted advertising...and less and less meaningful content.
Now Netflix has become similar to what the reason my cousins switched from the networks to cable for. Less ads and more content. And I don't mind paying for that.

Not really here to argue. Just to relate the experience as I know it. You have more information on the particulars. Fine.
I know my cousins and many other's were lured to cable for its ad free stations and were willing to pay for them.... Like HBO for instance. That is what drew them to paying for service.... as you say... a pay movie distribution service. Without cable they could still pull in 20+ stations over the air if they wanted and yet they paid for services with fewer to no ads.

So given this experience it is how I understood things to be.

But now that I am older and have had my own various cable services.... I have found them awash in ads ... maybe even to a greater degree than Network TV

"Nobody remembers what never was."
I remember visiting my cousins in LA who had cable. We watched many hours of programming with no ads at the time in the late 70's. The big appeal for them is not having to watch ads which was a big draw of cable at the time. I think HBO was one of the many channels available and I don't remember ads in the sense that Network TV had ads. It was a revelation to me at the time. I thought this is a cool way to have TV content delivered. Pay up front and not have pesky ads interrupting ones movie. Fantastic.

At my cousins there were many other local stations over CATV that carried content uninterrupted as well. Later when MTV started, I don't remember many ads there either. Just Music Video after Music video.
That is in stark contrast to most of the fare on Cable TV these days.

"I have no idea what you mean by "Network", but since cable is one medium for distribution of network programming, it's hard to say that cable is not "network"-- and it was from the very beginning."

Network TV is quite common vernacular and simply means the major networks like ABC, NBC, CBS. Obviously everything can technically be called a Network, but, at one time, most people understood what one was talking about when anyone said Network TV vs. Cable TV... or Network vs. Cable. Even if you google Network TV vs. Cable TV lots of links pop up talking about the differences between these services even today.

Anyone remember the original premise of cable TV. No Advertising.
Just shows and announcements about what was coming up?
Once hooked though... a scattered ad or 2 barely was noticeable until Cable is the same as Network and nobody remembers the ad-free days.

Funny this comes up now when the dems don't have power.
Oh well... likely their sponsors don't really like net neutrality either, but they can toss a bone to the electorate who cares and say... see we did something.

mod up .... made me snort