Even More Fun with Homeopath Dana Ullman, MPH(!)
- Thread starter Badly Shaved Monkey
- Start date
-
- Tags
- dana ullman homeopathy
Professor Yaffle
Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs
There isn't.
The other thread is "More Fun..." whereas this one is "Even More Fun..."
The other thread is "More Fun..." whereas this one is "Even More Fun..."
Rolfe
Adult human female
Let's keep in focus here. These papers in no way address BSM's challenge. The main reason is that they are not case reports, and as such contain far too little data to be able to judge them in these terms.
GIVE ONE, YOU ONLY NEED ONE, INCONTROVERTIBLE EXAMPLE, WITH REFERENCES, OF HOMEOPATHY CURING A NON-SELF-LIMITING CONDITION.
The brain study papers aren't really addressing the issue because the original diagnosis is not demonstrated with lab and other results, and the "cure" is similarly not demonstrated. It's mostly bald assertion.
Look, Dana, I lost a very dear friend to glioblastoma last year. I know exactly how they diagnosed it, and how they followed up to see if the treatment they were trying had had any effect (no, sadly it hadn't). I know how they'd have known if indeed she had gone into remission. I also know that it wasn't expected, and that the seven months she survived from diagnosis was about what was predicted.
That's why I find that brain tumour study you posted so offensive. If there really were an effective treatment for this sort of tumour, such that six of seven patients went into remission, we'd be getting a hell of a lot more detail than that. It's window dressing.
However, I'll calm down now and give you a more measured view. First, it doesn't seem like homoeopathy at all. Yes, the remedies are described as "homoeopathic", but you could describe anything at all as homoeopathic, in that someone, somewhere will have made a homoeopathic potentisation of it - even prednisolone. The potencies used are not clear, though I'm guessing it might be 6X of the plant extract and 3X of the calcium phosphate. Not knowing the concentration of the mother tinctures is a bit of a downer, but essentially 1ppm of the former and 1,000ppm of the latter. Yeah, homoeopathic! It's a trial of some sort of herbalism. I see another paper by the same authors looking quite explicitly at μmol/l amounts of the stuff in a purely bench-top study of alleged anti-inflammatory properties. Wow, versatile stuff this!
Now, the patients. Fifteen people with "intracranial tumours". Of all sorts, apparently. I thought my esteemed colleague who did the Cushing's study on the dogs and horses was pushing it when he lumped equine pars intermedia tumours with canine pituitary-dependent Cushing's and canine adrenal tumours all together, but this one takes the biscuit. From Dana's post -
The bolded part isn't in the abstract I've been able to find, which only has
Dana, could you sounce your version of the abstract for us please? I may be able to get access to the full text from work, I'll see. But in the mean time, that's not much in the way of documentation, is it? But apparently lots of different diagnoses all treated the same. New sort of homoeopathy to me, I thought the point of that was that even people with the same diagnosis were treated differently, according to the individualisation.
And we're told no more than "6 of the 7 got better". Wow. If these patients had anything like what my friend had, that wouldn't be a throwaway line in an obscure journal, it would be banner headlines. Still, maybe it was a less malignant diagnosis, so we'll cut some slack here. Maybe this outcome wasn't all that unexpected in these patients anyway? In which case, what's all the fuss about. But really, to know what to make of this, we need some actual information, and what we have been given is nothing but a bald assertion.
Finally, could anything else have been responsible for the alleged, apparent recoveries. Well. These people appear to have been patients in a top cancer centre in Houston, Texas. Do we really think their oncologists just sat back and let the homoeopaths/herbalists do what they liked, and deprived the patients of any other treatment?
No, I didn't think so.
So, Dana, no documentation of the actual diagnoses, in detail, no documentation of the alleged "cure" of the brain tumours, and absolutely no way that there was nothing else that might have been responsible for this cure, if indeed it happened.
Just some herbalists being allowed to try their apparently harmless concoctions on a few patients receiving conventional treatment, and we have no idea what happened to similar patients who didn't get the herb/mineral, but I rather suspect probably not much different.
Damn, I'm doing it myself now, critiquing an academic paper in the thread devoted to case studies. Dana, that abstract in no way fulfils BSM's criteria, as discussed. And it would be nice if it was actual homoeopathy that was being practised, case-taking and individualisation and so on, don't you think? Take any further discussion of that and similar offerings to the other thread. Now go away and search your or someone else's case notes for something that does fit the bill. Have you ever "cured" anything serious, ever? Even once? Or can't you remember?
Rolfe.
GIVE ONE, YOU ONLY NEED ONE, INCONTROVERTIBLE EXAMPLE, WITH REFERENCES, OF HOMEOPATHY CURING A NON-SELF-LIMITING CONDITION.
The brain study papers aren't really addressing the issue because the original diagnosis is not demonstrated with lab and other results, and the "cure" is similarly not demonstrated. It's mostly bald assertion.
Look, Dana, I lost a very dear friend to glioblastoma last year. I know exactly how they diagnosed it, and how they followed up to see if the treatment they were trying had had any effect (no, sadly it hadn't). I know how they'd have known if indeed she had gone into remission. I also know that it wasn't expected, and that the seven months she survived from diagnosis was about what was predicted.
That's why I find that brain tumour study you posted so offensive. If there really were an effective treatment for this sort of tumour, such that six of seven patients went into remission, we'd be getting a hell of a lot more detail than that. It's window dressing.
However, I'll calm down now and give you a more measured view. First, it doesn't seem like homoeopathy at all. Yes, the remedies are described as "homoeopathic", but you could describe anything at all as homoeopathic, in that someone, somewhere will have made a homoeopathic potentisation of it - even prednisolone. The potencies used are not clear, though I'm guessing it might be 6X of the plant extract and 3X of the calcium phosphate. Not knowing the concentration of the mother tinctures is a bit of a downer, but essentially 1ppm of the former and 1,000ppm of the latter. Yeah, homoeopathic! It's a trial of some sort of herbalism. I see another paper by the same authors looking quite explicitly at μmol/l amounts of the stuff in a purely bench-top study of alleged anti-inflammatory properties. Wow, versatile stuff this!
Now, the patients. Fifteen people with "intracranial tumours". Of all sorts, apparently. I thought my esteemed colleague who did the Cushing's study on the dogs and horses was pushing it when he lumped equine pars intermedia tumours with canine pituitary-dependent Cushing's and canine adrenal tumours all together, but this one takes the biscuit. From Dana's post -
The bolded part isn't in the abstract I've been able to find, which only has
Dana, could you sounce your version of the abstract for us please? I may be able to get access to the full text from work, I'll see. But in the mean time, that's not much in the way of documentation, is it? But apparently lots of different diagnoses all treated the same. New sort of homoeopathy to me, I thought the point of that was that even people with the same diagnosis were treated differently, according to the individualisation.
And we're told no more than "6 of the 7 got better". Wow. If these patients had anything like what my friend had, that wouldn't be a throwaway line in an obscure journal, it would be banner headlines. Still, maybe it was a less malignant diagnosis, so we'll cut some slack here. Maybe this outcome wasn't all that unexpected in these patients anyway? In which case, what's all the fuss about. But really, to know what to make of this, we need some actual information, and what we have been given is nothing but a bald assertion.
Finally, could anything else have been responsible for the alleged, apparent recoveries. Well. These people appear to have been patients in a top cancer centre in Houston, Texas. Do we really think their oncologists just sat back and let the homoeopaths/herbalists do what they liked, and deprived the patients of any other treatment?
No, I didn't think so.
So, Dana, no documentation of the actual diagnoses, in detail, no documentation of the alleged "cure" of the brain tumours, and absolutely no way that there was nothing else that might have been responsible for this cure, if indeed it happened.
Just some herbalists being allowed to try their apparently harmless concoctions on a few patients receiving conventional treatment, and we have no idea what happened to similar patients who didn't get the herb/mineral, but I rather suspect probably not much different.
Damn, I'm doing it myself now, critiquing an academic paper in the thread devoted to case studies. Dana, that abstract in no way fulfils BSM's criteria, as discussed. And it would be nice if it was actual homoeopathy that was being practised, case-taking and individualisation and so on, don't you think? Take any further discussion of that and similar offerings to the other thread. Now go away and search your or someone else's case notes for something that does fit the bill. Have you ever "cured" anything serious, ever? Even once? Or can't you remember?
Rolfe.
Last edited:
However, I previously performed a power analysis, and there was a 70% chance that any significant differences between the groups would be missed. But I already told you this.
Call it weak if you like. It's sufficient to account for any differences in outcome without bringing magic water into it.
Linda
Dana Ullman
Thinker
- Joined
- May 22, 2007
- Messages
- 201
Hey Linda...
Below are some of the differences between the treatment group and the control group. On which data was your power analysis made?
The amount of tracheal secretions was reduced significantly in group 1 (the homeopathic treatment group) (p < 0.0001). Extubation (the removal of obstructive mucus from the lung with a tube) could be performed significantly earlier in group 1 (p < 0.0001). Similarly, length of stay was significantly shorter in group 1 (4.20 +/- 1.61 days vs 7.68 +/- 3.60 days, p < 0.0001 [mean +/- SD]). This data suggest that potentized (diluted and vigorously shaken) Kali bichromicum 30C may help to decrease the amount of stringy tracheal secretions in COPD patients.
In this study, all patients underwent a trial of extubation, but none (!) of the patients in group 1 had to be reintubated or needed even noninvasive ventilation to improve breathing. The amount of secretions remained stable and did not increase for patients in group 1. Also, the blood gas analyses after extubation remained stable in group 1. In contrast, four patients in group 2 had to be reintubated due to deterioration of blood gas analysis that was caused by tracheal secretions of grade 2 or 3.
Below are some of the differences between the treatment group and the control group. On which data was your power analysis made?
The amount of tracheal secretions was reduced significantly in group 1 (the homeopathic treatment group) (p < 0.0001). Extubation (the removal of obstructive mucus from the lung with a tube) could be performed significantly earlier in group 1 (p < 0.0001). Similarly, length of stay was significantly shorter in group 1 (4.20 +/- 1.61 days vs 7.68 +/- 3.60 days, p < 0.0001 [mean +/- SD]). This data suggest that potentized (diluted and vigorously shaken) Kali bichromicum 30C may help to decrease the amount of stringy tracheal secretions in COPD patients.
In this study, all patients underwent a trial of extubation, but none (!) of the patients in group 1 had to be reintubated or needed even noninvasive ventilation to improve breathing. The amount of secretions remained stable and did not increase for patients in group 1. Also, the blood gas analyses after extubation remained stable in group 1. In contrast, four patients in group 2 had to be reintubated due to deterioration of blood gas analysis that was caused by tracheal secretions of grade 2 or 3.
Professor Yaffle
Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs
ON THE OTHER THREAD PLEASE!
You are right. These patients clearly do not fit the criteria, since even the patients in the control group got better. I'll put my response in the other thread.
Linda
Rolfe
Adult human female
I agree, none of this comes even close to fitting the criteria for inclusion in this thread. However, as Dana has advanced the brain tumours as being suitable, I'll just cover the small in vivo part of that study again, having now seen the full paper.
First, although the authors describe this treatment as homoeopathic, it is clear that it is nothing of the sort. It is a trial of a herbal/mineral preparation in low but material concentrations. Not only that, but there is no actual homoeopathy involved - no case-taking, individualisation or remedy selection.
Now the results do seem interesting, however I have to say I treat them with more than a little scepticism, as the implied findings are literally too good to be true. Also, although the patients were indeed located in India, not Texas, I still see no reason to believe that conventional treatment was stopped when the herbal treatment began, so we don't know if we're just looking at a woo-woo remedy piggybacking on standard therapeutic approach. To put it simply, we are shown no control data of a complarable group of patient who were otherwise treated the same way, but who didn't get the herbalism. So we don't know how much, if anything, the herbalism contributed to the outcomes.
It may be that this plant really does contain some pharmaceutically useful ingredient, and that seems to be what the bulk of the paper is investigating. But even if it did, so what? Just what, exactly, does this have to do with homoeopathy, Dana? Just that the authors use the word in the paper, and the plant they are investigating has (like just about everything else on the planet) also been used to make potentised homoeopathic preparations.
Incidentally, does anyone know anything about the status of this journal? The title is impressive, as is the fact that some of the authors give their address as a cancer centre in Houston, Texas, however the quality of the paper is poor to my eyes. I haven't really looked at the benchwork part, as being even less relevant to what Dana is trying to show than the rest of it, however any journal which allows authors to present such earthshattering (or highly implausible, depending on how you look at it) clinical outcomes in the middle of what is basically an in vitro study, with so little data or confirmatory evidence for the assertions, is to my mind very suspect. I would have expected any competent scrutineer to insist on the clinical case information being removed, with the suggestion that that study be submitted for publication as a separate paper, with sufficiently detailed data and supporting evidence.
Rolfe.
Last edited:
I'm not sure that the findings are too good to be true. Many "brain tumours" are fairly benign (and I would propose that those that happen to show up at a homeopath's office are even moreso). For example, meningiomas tend not to cause any problems unless they happen to be in a spot where they place some pressure on an underlying structure. I wouldn't be surprised if these tumors were incidental findings in a patient who was sick from some other, self-limiting cause. However, I agree that the receipt of conventional treatment seems to be the more obvious possibility. And that these results didn't make the news tells us that they weren't particularly unexpected.
It's not one that I had heard of before this. I did look it up and it is the publication of an NGO, The International Union Against Cancer. It states that the submissions are peer-reviewed. But this paper essentially tells us what the quality of that review is. As you said, I wouldn't have passed the paper as is.
Linda
Rolfe
Adult human female
OK, maybe I was too trusting of their description of the lesions.
I'm no neurologist, and I don't know the expected outcome of the lesions named (glioma, meningioma, crainiopharyngioma, neurinoma and pituitary tumors), though "pituitary tumour" says "Cushing's disease" to my biochemist mind, and forgive me if I'm not impressed. The language suggests scary nasties though, and after having watched my friend die over a period of seven months from a glioblastoma, I did read it with the impression that these were serious cases with a poor prognosis. My bad.
OK, possibly not serious cases, no confirmation of diagnosis presented, no details given of conventional treatment which might have influenced the outcomes, no documentation of the alleged recoveries, and no control group to demonstrate what outcomes might have been expected in a comparable group treated conventionally without the herbalism. Published in a crap journal with crap scrutineering standards.
Sorry, Dana, no. Next please?
Rolfe.
I'm no neurologist, and I don't know the expected outcome of the lesions named (glioma, meningioma, crainiopharyngioma, neurinoma and pituitary tumors), though "pituitary tumour" says "Cushing's disease" to my biochemist mind, and forgive me if I'm not impressed. The language suggests scary nasties though, and after having watched my friend die over a period of seven months from a glioblastoma, I did read it with the impression that these were serious cases with a poor prognosis. My bad.
OK, possibly not serious cases, no confirmation of diagnosis presented, no details given of conventional treatment which might have influenced the outcomes, no documentation of the alleged recoveries, and no control group to demonstrate what outcomes might have been expected in a comparable group treated conventionally without the herbalism. Published in a crap journal with crap scrutineering standards.
Sorry, Dana, no. Next please?
Rolfe.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Bump. Surely even the Merikans are awake by now? Or is Dana still frantically Googling for anything he can cut-and-paste that has some promising-looking buzzwords in it?
Just checked on the original version of this challenge, in the Bad Science blog.
By the way, which of you guys is pv? That's what I was looking for, the list of suggested non-self-limiting conditions we'd like to see case reports about. Others exist too, of course. I see someone else there ("wewillfixit") has come up with my perennial Addison's suggestion. That one is so uncompromisingly fatal, and yet the recovery with simple conventional treatment so complete and so dramatic I always think, where, homoeopaths, is your equivalent of that one? Or really, in memory of my late friend, how about a glioblastoma, properly documented of course?
Today I thought about a nice veterinary one. I was teaching some agriculture students about milk fever, and described the sudden collapse and death associated with the condition. Then I described the equally sudden and dramatic recovery with one simple injection. Homoeopathic vets, have you ever cured a case of milk fever?
No, it's always someone who knows someone who heard about a homoeopath in Nebraska, or the Punjab maybe, who had ever so many cured cases, why don't you email him about it? I'm a vet too, and I'll corroborate BSM's statement that dogs rarely eat homework. So where are all these records of cured cases of these sorts of conditions?
You know, all those deep, gentle, long-lasting and permanent cures that only individualised potentised homoeopathy can deliver, and which some of its proponents promise to every single one of their patients. I mean, there can't actually be none at all, can there? You know, you peel the pathology back from the outside in, unravelling all the layers from the most recent to the most persistent symptoms, and you get that deep and gentle cure.
Just one documented case? Of a patient who really wasn't going to get better on their own?
Rolfe.
PS. BSM, somewhere in one of those blogs, someone with access to the full text had done a great job on Allbrecht and Schutter (you remember, the one and only of Gregory's list of a handful of veterinary trials on the FacHom web site that could actually be traced online, in abstract). I can't find it now, do you have a link? I'd love to know where that guy got the full text, and peruse his analysis once more.
PPS. It's OK, I found it. Chris Lawson. Never heard of him before, and can't figure out how to contact him.
Just checked on the original version of this challenge, in the Bad Science blog.
pv said:
By the way, which of you guys is pv? That's what I was looking for, the list of suggested non-self-limiting conditions we'd like to see case reports about. Others exist too, of course. I see someone else there ("wewillfixit") has come up with my perennial Addison's suggestion. That one is so uncompromisingly fatal, and yet the recovery with simple conventional treatment so complete and so dramatic I always think, where, homoeopaths, is your equivalent of that one? Or really, in memory of my late friend, how about a glioblastoma, properly documented of course?
Today I thought about a nice veterinary one. I was teaching some agriculture students about milk fever, and described the sudden collapse and death associated with the condition. Then I described the equally sudden and dramatic recovery with one simple injection. Homoeopathic vets, have you ever cured a case of milk fever?
No, it's always someone who knows someone who heard about a homoeopath in Nebraska, or the Punjab maybe, who had ever so many cured cases, why don't you email him about it? I'm a vet too, and I'll corroborate BSM's statement that dogs rarely eat homework. So where are all these records of cured cases of these sorts of conditions?
You know, all those deep, gentle, long-lasting and permanent cures that only individualised potentised homoeopathy can deliver, and which some of its proponents promise to every single one of their patients. I mean, there can't actually be none at all, can there? You know, you peel the pathology back from the outside in, unravelling all the layers from the most recent to the most persistent symptoms, and you get that deep and gentle cure.
Just one documented case? Of a patient who really wasn't going to get better on their own?
Rolfe.
PS. BSM, somewhere in one of those blogs, someone with access to the full text had done a great job on Allbrecht and Schutter (you remember, the one and only of Gregory's list of a handful of veterinary trials on the FacHom web site that could actually be traced online, in abstract). I can't find it now, do you have a link? I'd love to know where that guy got the full text, and peruse his analysis once more.
PPS. It's OK, I found it. Chris Lawson. Never heard of him before, and can't figure out how to contact him.
Last edited:
Chris Haynes
Perfectly Poisonous Person
Yes, even those of us on the west coast are awake, and Dana is on the west coast.... You posted this about 2pm Pacific Standard Time, it is now about 2:48 pm Pacific Standard Time. Dana must really be searching and searching.
Ivor the Engineer
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2006
- Messages
- 10,412
Let's be honest here: treatment for glioblastoma multiforme isn't exactly brilliant (yet).
(Father died 14 months ago, 12 months on from surgery, a few months after finishing a course of radiotherapy and temozolomide chemotherapy.)
Dana Ullman
Thinker
- Joined
- May 22, 2007
- Messages
- 201
shpalman
Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 203
Mojo
Mostly harmless
So all that case-taking, individualisation and remedy selection that homoeopaths do is just a waste of the patient's time and money?
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Professor Yaffle
Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs
If you want people to defend Shang, ask the questionon an appropriate thread.
Do we really need to remind you what the topic of this thread is?
Again?
Professor Yaffle
Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs
Just for the record, that's me.
Ivor the Engineer
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2006
- Messages
- 10,412
Rolfe
Adult human female
Ooooh, look people, IT'S A TRAP!!!!!
Get over yourself. Of course I know that homoeopaths occasionally use "low-potency" preparations (though not often, as far as I can see). And of course I know that Hahnemann started off using material doses, and only came up with the dilute-out-of-existence idea after he'd killed a few people.
If indeed we had brain cancer case reports detailing the case-taking and individualisation as above, then of course the case would be homoeopathic even if the subsequent decision was to use a 3X or a 6X remedy - potentised, I would imagine.
However, that is not the case. I would not expect you to have to rely on me to tell you that homoeopathy involves case-taking and individualisation. I presume you would agree that is the case? Therefore, why do you present that paper as representing homoeopathy in any way?
It might be helpful if you would actually tell us what you would define as being "homoeopathy". You see, there are so many trials around where people have performed what they honestly believed to be homoeopathy, and which some homoeopaths had actually confirmed was homoeopathy - indeed, some using actual homoeopaths to do the case-taking and remedy selection. Many of these trials replicate the conditions of earlier trials hailed by the homoeopathic community. Nevertheless, when a negative result is obtained, we suddenly find the methods denounced as being "not real homoeopathy" for one reason or another. So, it would be nice if you were to define for us what you consider the defining characteristics of this homoeopathy you espouse so fervently, so that we'll know it when we see it.
And if you want to discuss Shang, GO TO THE OTHER THREAD. Maybe you think that if you bluster and obfuscate enough, nobody will notice that you cannot produce a single well-documented case report of a patient recovering from a non-self-limiting illness using homoeopathic treatment alone.
Won't work.
My God, homoeopathy is in fact older than "modern" medicine. 200 years in fact. Can you just imagine the outcry if even in that past 50 years modern pharmacotherapeutic medicine was unable to produce even one single well-documented case report showing a patient recovering from a non-self-limiting illness!!!!
And you don't have even one. For something that is supposed to be a complete system of medicine, which boasts ever so many poorly or non-documented anecdotal miracle cures of all sorts of things. But not a single one properly documented and verifiable.
What an indictment.
Rolfe.
Last edited:
I suspect that these cases were all examples of individualized homeopathy. I suspect that someone simply went through a bunch of old case files and pulled out those in which the diagnosis was brain cancer and the prescribed remedy was Ruta. It would explain the offhand way in which they were mentioned, plus the lack of any reasonable attempt at meeting the standards for clinical research.
Ah. Your choice to ignore what we said and attempt to distract us with lies (and I call them lies, because you have been shown several times that many (I'll be generous and avoid the use of the more accurate 'most' or 'all') of your statements are untrue) speaks volumes. It tells us that we are on the right track. Our criticisms are proving fatal to your cause.
Linda
Rolfe
Adult human female
It wasn't how I interpreted the paper, but it's a thought. Where did they get 15 cases of brain tumour, and over what period of time were they presented? Who was actually treating them, and was the Ruta given as part of this study, or independently?
This simply underlines the fact that the paper presents nowhere near enough information to be able to make any judgement.
I think these guys are big enthusiasts for this concoction - I see another paper where they are investigating suspected anti-inflammatory effects. And whether or not they came to it through homoeopathy, they are postulating and investigating perfectly normal, rational material effects on telomeres and so on. I suspect their optimism may be outrunning the real potential of the stuff, but time will tell.
However, even if their research results in the isolation of a novel pharmaceutical with useful properties from this botanical source, it still won't be homoeopathy.
Rolfe.
Badly Shaved Monkey
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,363
Just to clarify, Dana, none of us has much doubt that "Mother Tincture" Belladonna would yield incontrovertible evidence of 'curing' that medical condition known as life whether it was prescribed with the usual rigmarole of case-taking and checking the patient's credit score. You would still be faced with the problem that 'like cures like' simply is not a generalisable medical principle. That, however, can be an argument for another day. Let's confine ourselves to 'high-potency' homeopathy so you can't be so silly again. That is unless you'd like to show me a case of tachycardia, mydriasis and dry mouth 'cured' by pharmaceutical quantities of atropine prescribed in a homeopathic manner. Now that would be a good trick.
All of which brings us back to square one;
GIVE ONE, YOU ONLY NEED ONE, INCONTROVERTIBLE EXAMPLE, WITH REFERENCES, OF HOMEOPATHY CURING A NON-SELF-LIMITING CONDITION.
T = 04d 22h 18m 41s
All of which brings us back to square one;
GIVE ONE, YOU ONLY NEED ONE, INCONTROVERTIBLE EXAMPLE, WITH REFERENCES, OF HOMEOPATHY CURING A NON-SELF-LIMITING CONDITION.
T = 04d 22h 18m 41s
Professor Yaffle
Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs
You're not Emily, are you?
No, the nearest I get to Bagpuss fame is that I know the woman who did the music and the voice of Madeleine the Ragdoll. Oh and I have shaken Oliver Postgate's hand and touched the real Bagpuss and Clangers.
Rolfe
Adult human female
I did start to wonder whether that Ruta stuff might be some good for milk fever, as it seems to contain a fair bit of calcium phosphate. But then, I don't think you'd be allowed to inject it i/v.
Rolfe.
Badly Shaved Monkey
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,363
Oliver Postgate let you touch his Clangers??!!
I'll notify the authorities.
At Cambridge Folk Festival a couple of years ago the kids' show was the music from Bagpuss performed by the original couple together with Nancy Kerr and James Fagan because Nancy is their daughter. A very jolly show it was.
"We will wash it, we will scrub it, we will polish it up, up, up..."
Meanwhile;
T = 04d 23h 26m 54s
Can anyone else feel a game of Mornington Crescent coming on?
Dare I even hazard a Canning Town?
(Dana's in knip and only an INCONTROVERTIBLE EXAMPLE, WITH REFERENCES, OF HOMEOPATHY CURING A NON-SELF-LIMITING CONDITION can get him out).
Double spoon.
Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
I'll see your Canning Town, and raise you a Seven Sisters.
We will mix it, we will fix it, we will stick it with glue, glue, glue. . .
We will stickle it, every little bit of it, we will make it like new, new, new.
Badly Shaved Monkey
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,363
I don't want Dana to feel left out so I'm invoking Wide Receiver!!
Powell Street
But I'd still like ONE INCONTROVERTIBLE EXAMPLE, WITH REFERENCES, OF HOMEOPATHY CURING A NON-SELF-LIMITING CONDITION to read as we play.
This isn't fair.
I was a part of the Guardian debate, and have been getting to know Dana quite well. I feel like squabbling siblings to be honest!
But asking for proof and an example of homeopathy curing something, especially a named disease is against the Society of Homeopaths Code of Conduct, which states a homeopath (point 73) is expected to:
On a side note, I have asked 3 different homeopaths for an explanation of this point, since many are adamant that homeopathy can cure illness, or why it is often broken, but no action taken. No reply has ever come.
I was a part of the Guardian debate, and have been getting to know Dana quite well. I feel like squabbling siblings to be honest!
But asking for proof and an example of homeopathy curing something, especially a named disease is against the Society of Homeopaths Code of Conduct, which states a homeopath (point 73) is expected to:
On a side note, I have asked 3 different homeopaths for an explanation of this point, since many are adamant that homeopathy can cure illness, or why it is often broken, but no action taken. No reply has ever come.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Welcome Mattbee. Point of clarification. They may be prohibited from making advertising claims that they can cure a named disease, but that doesn't stop them from claiming that they have cured people with all sorts of things wrong with them - or at least it doesn't seem to.
So, no doubt a homoeopath wouldn't see a patient with a brain tumour as having a brain tumour, he'd see them as someone with their vital force disordered in a certain way so that it produced certain symptoms. Then he'd discover the perfect simillimum and restore them to perfect health. By his way of seeing it.
However, what BSM is looking for is simply such a cure on a patient who, before homoeopathic treatment, had a confirmed documented medical diagnosis of something non-self-limiting, and afterwards had confirmed documented evidence that the condition was no longer present. And that there was no conventional treatment which might have caused the recovery.
The homoeopath doesn't have to recognise the medical diagnosis at all, as part of the process.
Rolfe.
So, no doubt a homoeopath wouldn't see a patient with a brain tumour as having a brain tumour, he'd see them as someone with their vital force disordered in a certain way so that it produced certain symptoms. Then he'd discover the perfect simillimum and restore them to perfect health. By his way of seeing it.
However, what BSM is looking for is simply such a cure on a patient who, before homoeopathic treatment, had a confirmed documented medical diagnosis of something non-self-limiting, and afterwards had confirmed documented evidence that the condition was no longer present. And that there was no conventional treatment which might have caused the recovery.
The homoeopath doesn't have to recognise the medical diagnosis at all, as part of the process.
Rolfe.
Last edited:
Dana Ullman
Thinker
- Joined
- May 22, 2007
- Messages
- 201
Wow...I obviously touched a nerve (or main vein) in Linda. She has now devolved into calling me a liar...though didn't say where I lied in the above statement.
In fact, she previously gave us her power calculation to the COPD study but didn't tell us to what results she was referring (whoops).
By the way, David Colquhoun's published "critique" of the COPD study did not question the statistically analysis of this study (no one yet has published a critique of this study that questioned its statistical analysis), nor did he question the study's design or how it was conducted. He primarily questioned that anyone would allow seriously ill people to be treated with homeopathy (the fact that the homeopathic treated group experienced substantial improvement really irritated him). He also insisted that the homeopathic medicine could not work...and thus research on homeopathy is dangerous.
I wonder if he thinks that the atomic bomb was a placebo too, especially since those tiny tiny atoms are way too small to have any effect even when they collide (or are shaken).
One must assume that the randomized double-blind placebo control trial is the problem here. Wow, what cynical view of the scientific method.
Finally, this thread has my name on it. Some people insist that this thread has only one question. Obviously, it has many questions.
No one has yet to provide a knock-out blow to the COPD study...the weak references to the differences between the treatment group and the control group showed no statistically significant differences, especially in the light of the substantial results!
...nor have there been knock-out blows to the severe sepsis study, also conducted at the University of Vienna...and there are many more that I can reference...the four studies by Reilly at the University of Glasgow for further reference (all of these four trials were with the 30C dose!).
And as for the brain cancer cases...now that you know that various homeopathic medicines can have powerful effects of serious illnesses, you must be wondering if they can help various other conditions. I now assume that you all are going to be using the over-the-counter homeopathic medicines that are not beyond Avogadro's number.
In fact, she previously gave us her power calculation to the COPD study but didn't tell us to what results she was referring (whoops).
By the way, David Colquhoun's published "critique" of the COPD study did not question the statistically analysis of this study (no one yet has published a critique of this study that questioned its statistical analysis), nor did he question the study's design or how it was conducted. He primarily questioned that anyone would allow seriously ill people to be treated with homeopathy (the fact that the homeopathic treated group experienced substantial improvement really irritated him). He also insisted that the homeopathic medicine could not work...and thus research on homeopathy is dangerous.
I wonder if he thinks that the atomic bomb was a placebo too, especially since those tiny tiny atoms are way too small to have any effect even when they collide (or are shaken).
One must assume that the randomized double-blind placebo control trial is the problem here. Wow, what cynical view of the scientific method.
Finally, this thread has my name on it. Some people insist that this thread has only one question. Obviously, it has many questions.
No one has yet to provide a knock-out blow to the COPD study...the weak references to the differences between the treatment group and the control group showed no statistically significant differences, especially in the light of the substantial results!
...nor have there been knock-out blows to the severe sepsis study, also conducted at the University of Vienna...and there are many more that I can reference...the four studies by Reilly at the University of Glasgow for further reference (all of these four trials were with the 30C dose!).
And as for the brain cancer cases...now that you know that various homeopathic medicines can have powerful effects of serious illnesses, you must be wondering if they can help various other conditions. I now assume that you all are going to be using the over-the-counter homeopathic medicines that are not beyond Avogadro's number.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Dana, there is another thread with your name on it, totally dedicated to discussing academic papers. You still haven't posted even once in it.
This thread is dedicated to any evidence you have for homoeopathic treatment ever having cured a non-self-limiting condition. We're still waiting.
Everybody and his auntie knows that herbal remedies have real effects, sometimes very powerful. Cannabis, anyone? Or opium? Whether this Ruta stuff contains anything of that nature is still an open question, as far as I can see. If the Indian guys have any really impressive results, it might fit them better to publish in a higher-quality journal.
But you really can't go round claiming every material effect of a herbal preparation as "homoeopathy", just because homoeopaths also use potentised preparations of the same plant in their case-taking sillymum like-cures-like antics. That's taking intellectual dishonesty a bit far, even for you!
So, while you're still dredging the literature, and your own and your colleagues' casebooks, for that single, elusive documented cure, why not do as I asked and give us your definition of homoeopathy? Does it require case-taking? Does it require finding a simillimum according to the doctrine of "like cures like"? Do you subscribe to the single remedy doctrine, and waiting to see what effect that has, or do you allow polypharmacy?
Inquiring minds want to know.
But they'd rather know about the academic papers in the thread created for that purpose.
Rolfe.
PS. Oh no not Reilly! Isopathy, anyone? Really, really dodgy statistics anyone? And the whole house of cards relies on the condition being treated (allergic rhinitis I think, hay fever to the rest of us) being.... ta-dah.... SELF-LIMITING!
This thread is dedicated to any evidence you have for homoeopathic treatment ever having cured a non-self-limiting condition. We're still waiting.
Everybody and his auntie knows that herbal remedies have real effects, sometimes very powerful. Cannabis, anyone? Or opium? Whether this Ruta stuff contains anything of that nature is still an open question, as far as I can see. If the Indian guys have any really impressive results, it might fit them better to publish in a higher-quality journal.
But you really can't go round claiming every material effect of a herbal preparation as "homoeopathy", just because homoeopaths also use potentised preparations of the same plant in their case-taking sillymum like-cures-like antics. That's taking intellectual dishonesty a bit far, even for you!
So, while you're still dredging the literature, and your own and your colleagues' casebooks, for that single, elusive documented cure, why not do as I asked and give us your definition of homoeopathy? Does it require case-taking? Does it require finding a simillimum according to the doctrine of "like cures like"? Do you subscribe to the single remedy doctrine, and waiting to see what effect that has, or do you allow polypharmacy?
Inquiring minds want to know.
But they'd rather know about the academic papers in the thread created for that purpose.
Rolfe.
PS. Oh no not Reilly! Isopathy, anyone? Really, really dodgy statistics anyone? And the whole house of cards relies on the condition being treated (allergic rhinitis I think, hay fever to the rest of us) being.... ta-dah.... SELF-LIMITING!
Last edited:
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2003
- Messages
- 28,209
Amoung people in good health mortality rate may be sub 70%
Still ducking the question.
Still unable to address our criticisms with anything other than a pretense that you can't see them.
We can add your references to the list in the other thread, but I'm already familiar with them and they will fare no better than the others I'm afraid.
Linda
Professor Yaffle
Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs
Nancy is Sandra's daughter, but not John Faulkner's. Nancy's dad was a Northumbrian piper Ron Elliot. I knew Nancy quite well too, but haven't seen her since we were both teenagers.
Sorry for the total derail.
Oh. I should point out that none of these qualify for this thread. The COPD study and severe sepsis study both involved controls groups which recovered as well as the homeopathy groups. And allergic rhinitis is a self-limiting condition.
Linda
Dana Ullman
Thinker
- Joined
- May 22, 2007
- Messages
- 201
Linda,
Excuse me?! Please answer my question about your statistical critique of the COPD study. Your silence on this issue says everything...and your decision to not answer it and instead to call me a "liar" creates a red flag (alerting "danger") and a white flag ("surrender"). Fret not, I don't waterboard prisoners.
People on this list asked for ONE condition for which homeopathy was proven to be effective...this COPD trial was conducted at the University of Vienna Hospital. Check out the lead investigator: Michael Frass, MD. See ALL of his non-homeopathic research.
Heck...admit you're wrong...or better, learn something new.
Just as good homeopaths refer to conventional docs for certain patients in certain circumstances, a large percentage of doctors in Europe refer patients to homeopaths or prescribe these medicine themselves: 42% of British docs refer to homeopaths, 20%+ of German docs prescribe homeopathic medicines, and 30-40% of French docs prescribe them too...and high percentages in Italy and the Netherlands.
And did you see the new issue of the Lancet that remarked that 100 milliion Indians rely ONLY upon homeopathic treatment. YOU try to prescribe just placeboes to patients and see how long you last. Any takers? Didn't think so.
Excuse me?! Please answer my question about your statistical critique of the COPD study. Your silence on this issue says everything...and your decision to not answer it and instead to call me a "liar" creates a red flag (alerting "danger") and a white flag ("surrender"). Fret not, I don't waterboard prisoners.
People on this list asked for ONE condition for which homeopathy was proven to be effective...this COPD trial was conducted at the University of Vienna Hospital. Check out the lead investigator: Michael Frass, MD. See ALL of his non-homeopathic research.
Heck...admit you're wrong...or better, learn something new.
Just as good homeopaths refer to conventional docs for certain patients in certain circumstances, a large percentage of doctors in Europe refer patients to homeopaths or prescribe these medicine themselves: 42% of British docs refer to homeopaths, 20%+ of German docs prescribe homeopathic medicines, and 30-40% of French docs prescribe them too...and high percentages in Italy and the Netherlands.
And did you see the new issue of the Lancet that remarked that 100 milliion Indians rely ONLY upon homeopathic treatment. YOU try to prescribe just placeboes to patients and see how long you last. Any takers? Didn't think so.