ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags alternative medicine , dana ullman , homeopathy

Reply
Old 18th June 2007, 02:41 PM   #401
Dragon
Graduate Poster
 
Dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,406
Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
... snip ,,,

But heck, don't just listen to me...listen to your hero, Charles Darwin.

...snip ...

Good-bye for now...
Ok then,

Quote:
You speak about Homœopathy; which is a subject which makes me more wrath, even than does Clair-voyance: clairvoyance so transcends belief, that one's ordinary faculties are put out of question, but in Homœopathy common sense & common observation come into play, & both these must go to the Dogs, if the infinetesimal doses have any effect whatever. How true is a remark I saw the other day by Quetelet, in respect to evidence of curative processes, viz that no one knows in disease what is the simple result of nothing being done, as a standard with which to compare Homœopathy & all other such things.It is a sad flaw, I cannot but think in my beloved Dr Gully, that he believes in everything— when his daughter was very ill, he had a clair-voyant girl to report on internal changes, a mesmerist to put her to sleep—an homœopathist, viz Dr. Chapman; & himself as Hydropathist! & the girl recovered.—
Letter to W.D. Fox, September 4th, 1850
__________________
"We must favour verifiable evidence over private feeling. Otherwise we leave ourselves vulnerable to those who would obscure the truth."
Richard Dawkins - The Enemies of Reason
Dragon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2007, 03:15 PM   #402
Badly Shaved Monkey
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Badly Shaved Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,310
Originally Posted by Badly Shaved Monkey View Post
Dana,

First comment on the Elia paper- even if true, what bearing do you think it has on the issue of homeopathy? It has no relevance whatsoever.
Second comment:

What is your opinion of the statistical methods used?

By the way, I would really hate to be wasting my time with this. I have paid real money, £28.43 to be precise, to download this paper and I would not be happy to be attempting to discuss its contents with a bullsh!tter who has not read the paper, but just tries to bluff his way using abstracts and second-hand quotations. So, simple question, what is the penultimate word on page 823?
__________________
"i'm frankly surprised homeopathy does as well as placebo" Anonymous homeopath.
"Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment; you must also be right." (Robert Park)
Is the pen is mightier than the sword? Its effectiveness as a weapon is certainly enhanced if it is sharpened properly and poked in the eye of your opponent.
Badly Shaved Monkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2007, 03:19 PM   #403
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 25,648
Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
I am reiterating part of my old posting to this list (and adding to it) because all of these issues below remained unanswered by skeptics

...

Sadly, I've grown tired of you, primarily due to your intellectual dishonesty.
Since you are so keen on "intellectual honesty", I'll assume that it's your comprehension skills that are the problem. I'll reiterate what I posted here (and add to it). I'll try to type slowly this time.


Quote:
But heck, don't just listen to me...listen to your hero, Charles Darwin.
At least you aren't referring to him as anyone's God this time. That's progress, I guess.

Quote:
Sometimes study with an N=1 provide important substantiation.

I take great pleasure to telling you a historical fact. Our greatly beloved Charles Darwin not only sought care from a highly respected homeopathic physician, it is unlikely that Darwin could have completed his seminal work, Origin of Species, in 1859, if he didn't receive this homeopathic care 10 year prior to its publication.
Do you have any evidence to support this assertion?

Quote:
Just read Darwin's letters to read about this story and learn something about his life...
A good idea.

Quote:
From 1837 onwards Darwin was frequently incapacitated with episodes of stomach pains, vomiting, severe boils, heart palpitations, trembling, and other symptoms. In 1847, Darwin's illness worsened. He was again experiencing frequent episodes of vomiting and weakness, but he now was also experiencing fainting spells and seeing spots in front of his eyes. Darwin wrote that he was so sick that he was “unable to do anything one day out of three.” He was so ill that he wasn’t even able to attend his father’s funeral when he died on November 13, 1848.

He went a month without vomiting, a very rare experience for him, and even gained some weight. One day he surprised himself by being able to walk seven miles. He wrote to a friend, “I am turning into a mere walking & eating machine” (Quammen, 2006, 112)
Here's the letter, dated 18th April 1849, from which that quotation was taken. Note the description of Gully's treatment: "the Water Cure".

Quote:
And after just a month of treatment, Charles had to admit that Gully’s treatments were not quackery after all. After spending 16 weeks there, he felt like a new man, and by June he was able to go home to resume his important work (Grosvenor, 2004). Darwin actually writes that he is “of almost perfect health” (Burkhardt, 1996, 108).
And only 15 months later, in September 1850, he wrote:
Quote:
You speak about Homœopathy; which is a subject which makes me more wrath, even than does Clair-voyance: clairvoyance so transcends belief, that one's ordinary faculties are put out of question, but in Homœopathy common sense & common observation come into play, & both these must go to the Dogs, if the infinetesimal doses have any effect whatever. How true is a remark I saw the other day by Quetelet, in respect to evidence of curative processes, viz that no one knows in disease what is the simple result of nothing being done, as a standard with which to compare Homœopathy & all other such things. It is a sad flaw, I cannot but think in my beloved Dr Gully, that he believes in everything— when his daughter was very ill, he had a clair-voyant girl to report on internal changes, a mesmerist to put her to sleep—an homœopathist, viz Dr. Chapman; & himself as Hydropathist! & the girl recovered.—
He doesn't seem to have been very convinced of the merits of homoeopathy, does he?

Quote:
Although some medical historians have referred to Gully as a hydrotherapist, this is just the historians way of writing homeopathy out of history. Gully considered himself to be a homeopath, and while his staff provided various treatments to Darwin, Gully's treatment was primarily homeopathic medicines.
Note that in the letters above, Darwin refers to Gully's regime as "the Water Cure". Note that he describes Gully as acting as a "Hydropathist", who needed a second "doctor", one "Dr. Chapman", to provide homoeopathic treatment for his daughter. Note the description of Gully's regime in this letter, from which you quoted the last time you told your Darwin story:
Quote:
As you say you want my hydropathical diary, I will give it youf1 —though tomorrow it is to change to a certain extent.— 1⁄4 before 7. get up, & am scrubbed with rough towel in cold water for 2 or 3 minutes, which after the few first days, made & makes me very like a lobster— I have a washerman, a very nice person, & he scrubs behind, whilst I scrub in front.— drink a tumbler of water & get my clothes on as quick as possible & walk for 20 minutes—f2 I cd. walk further, but I find it tires me afterwards— I like all this very much.— At same time I put on a compress, which is a broad wet folded linen covered by mackintosh & which is “refreshed”—ie dipt in cold water every 2 hours & I wear it all day, except for about 2 hours after midday dinner; I don't perceive much effect from this of any kind.— After my walk, shave & wash & get my breakfast, which was to have been exclusively toast with meat or egg, but he has allowed me a little milk to sop the stale toast in. At no time must I take any sugar, butter, spices tea bacon or anything good.—f3 At 12 oclock I put my feet for 10 minutes in cold water with a little mustard & they are violently rubbed by my man; the coldness makes my feet ache much, but upon the whole my feet are certainly less cold than formerly.— Walk for 20 minutes & dine at one.— He has relaxed a little about my dinner & says I may try plain pudding, if I am sure it lessens sickness.—

After dinner lie down & try to go to sleep for one hour.— At 5 olock feet in cold water—drink cold water & walk as before— Supper same as breakfast at 6 oclock.— I have had much sickness this week, but certainly I have felt much stronger & the sickness has depressed me much less.— Tomorrow I am to be packed at 6 oclock A.M for 1 & 1⁄2 hour in Blanket, with hot bottle to my feet & then rubbed with cold dripping sheet;f4 but I do not know anything about this.— I grieve to say that Dr Gully gives me homoœopathic medicines three times a day, which I take obediently without an atom of faith.
The homoeopathy seems to have been only a small component of these shenanigans.

In your earlier post on this subject, you posted,
Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
After being at Dr. Gully’s spa for just nine days, Darwin laments that Gully had prescribed homeopathic medicine to him, “I grieve to say that Dr. Gully gives me homeopathic medicines three times a day, which I take obediently without an atom of faith.”

And even though Darwin was extremely skeptical, just two days later (March 30, 1849) Darwin acknowledged, “I have already received so much benefit that I really hope my health will be much renovated”
Thus giving the impression that he ascribed his "cure" to the homoeopathic treatment. Here's the letter from which your quotation comes; the whole sentence, of which you quoted only part, reads:
Quote:
I am now not at home (though I have so dated this letter) but have come to Malvern for two months to try the cold water cure, and I have already received so much benefit that I really hope my health will be much renovated.
Does he attribute his improvement to homoeopathy?

Even Gully does not seem to have been entirely convinced about the merits of homoeopathy. From here:
Quote:
Gully was strongly against the administration of medical drugs for chronic disorders (Gully 1846, p. 513 n.) and cautious in his use of homoeopathic remedies: ‘although I might be induced to try to subdue a passing but troublesome symptom, I could not trust to remove the essential nature of a chronic malady by homœopathic means’ (Gully 1846, p. 83 n.).
He "might be induced to try" homoeopathy to "subdue a passing but troublesome symptom"? Hardly a resounding endorsement of a "holistic" therapy.

And, just in case you missed it the second time I posted it, I'll repeat what Darwin wrote about a year and a half after you claim he conceded that homoeopathy had cured him:
Quote:
You speak about Homœopathy; which is a subject which makes me more wrath, even than does Clair-voyance: clairvoyance so transcends belief, that one's ordinary faculties are put out of question, but in Homœopathy common sense & common observation come into play, & both these must go to the Dogs, if the infinetesimal doses have any effect whatever. How true is a remark I saw the other day by Quetelet, in respect to evidence of curative processes, viz that no one knows in disease what is the simple result of nothing being done, as a standard with which to compare Homœopathy & all other such things. It is a sad flaw, I cannot but think in my beloved Dr Gully, that he believes in everything— when his daughter was very ill, he had a clair-voyant girl to report on internal changes, a mesmerist to put her to sleep—an homœopathist, viz Dr. Chapman; & himself as Hydropathist! & the girl recovered.—
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

Last edited by Mojo; 18th June 2007 at 03:24 PM.
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2007, 03:24 PM   #404
krazyKemist
Critical Thinker
 
krazyKemist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 432
I took a look at the Elia paper. It does relate to an homeopathy concept indeed ('structure of water'). I have a slight problem however :

The actual experimental procedure, ie, materials & methods, type of water used ('bidistilled' looks cool, but does not tell me much), containers, ect. is incomplete.

The thing is that ultrapure water (water that has been purified up to having a resistance around 18 MOhms) will dissolve pretty much anything. Even some of the boron contained in ordinary glass (I personnaly have measured this). If walls of container were attacked somehow, it could explain slight deviation in calorimetric testing, without resorting to 'structure of water'.

Last edited by krazyKemist; 18th June 2007 at 03:28 PM.
krazyKemist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2007, 04:47 PM   #405
Dana Ullman
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 201
[quote=SYLVESTER1592;2696452]
Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post

First of all it’s in Pediatr Infect Dis J. not PEDIATRICS
Pediatric Inf Dis J. : Impact factor 1.819
Pediatrics : Impact factor 2.710

BTW the article can be found here you might want to show it so we can all see what we are discussing.


But you are right, indeed most of the research in it is based on data from Nicaragua, from previously published data. It has been looked at quite extensively…

A report in May 1994 examined the homeopathic treatment of diarrhea in children who lived in Nicaragua [7]. On Day 3 of treatment the homeopathic group had one less unformed stool than the control group (3.1 Vs 2.1; p <.05). However, critics [8] pointed out that not only were the sickest children excluded, but there were no significant differences on Days 1, 2, 4, or 5. This suggests that the conclusion was not valid. Further, there was no assurance that the homeopathic remedy was not adulterated (contaminated). Finally, standard remedies which halt diarrhea were not used for comparison purposes.

And : The Nepal trial was not significant p=0.06 as you may have read in the paper you suggested

WELL...LOOK AT THE ENTIRE SET OF STUDIES...OR DO YOU PREFER TO SQUINT YOUR EYES SO MUCH THAT YOU CANNOT SEE THEM?

Just a few questions right of the bat…

1) Why do you think it is relevant or a good study?
BECAUSE THE TREATMENT GROUP DID SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER THAN THE PLACEBO GROUP, VERIFYING THAT THE PLACEBO "EXPLANATION" TO HOMEOPATHIC TREATMENT IS INADEQUATE.

2) What conclusion would you attribute to the fact that on day 3 there were less then 2 unformed stools but on the days before day 3 and after day 3 there was no significant difference?

ACTUALLY...FROM THE 1ST DAY TO THE 5TH DAY, THE TREATMENT GROUP EXPERIENCED LESS DIARRHEA (p=0.013).

3) What do you think has a better effect ORS or a homeopathic drug (yet undefined, since it changed according to the prescriber)


YOU MEAN ORT...SOMETIMES, IT IS NOT EITHER/OR. IN THIS CASE, THE GROUP WHO GOT HOMEOPATHY AND ORT DID BETTER THAN THOSE WHO JUST GOT ORT.

SYL
[quote=Mojo;2700512]
Here's the letter, dated 18th April 1849, from which that quotation was taken. Note the description of Gully's treatment: "the Water Cure".

DARWIN COULD NOT SEEM TO BE A SUPPORTER OF HOMEOPATHY IF HE WANTED ANY SUPPORT FROM ORTHODOX SCIENTISTS AT THAT TIME. AND YET, THE RESULTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. AFTER 12 YEARS OF VERY SERIOUS PROBLEMS WITH HIS HEALTH AND AN INABILITY TO WORK ONE OUT OF THREE DAYS, HE EXPERIENCED REAL RELIEF FOR THE FIRST TIME. HMMMMM.

IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT NO ONE HERE HAS COME FORWARD TO DECLARE THAT HYDROTHERAPY IS AN IMPORTANT TREATMENT. COME ON NOW...EVERYONE INTO COLD WATER TREATMENT NOW!

IN THE MEANTIME, I WON'T DISCLOSE THE "HOMEOPATHIC STUDIES" THAT DARWIN CONDUCTED UNTIL MY FORTHCOMING BOOK IS PUBLISHED.

Note that in the letters above, Darwin refers to Gully's regime as "the Water Cure". Note that he describes Gully as acting as a "Hydropathist", who needed a second "doctor", one "Dr. Chapman", to provide homoeopathic treatment for his daughter. Note the description of Gully's regime in this letter, from which you quoted the last time you told your Darwin story:The homoeopathy seems to have been only a small component of these shenanigans.

YOU HAVE TO LOVE THE FACT THAT YOU CALL SOMETHING THAT PROVIDED IMPRESSIVE BENEFITS TO CHARLES DARWIN AS "THESE SHENANIGANS."

ONCE AGAIN, DARWIN COULD NOT ADMIT OPENLY THAT HE SOUGHT OUT HOMEOPATHIC TREATMENT. COULD HE? LOOK AT WHAT YOUR REACTIONS HAVE BEEN.

Even Gully does not seem to have been entirely convinced about the merits of homoeopathy. From here:He "might be induced to try" homoeopathy to "subdue a passing but troublesome symptom"? Hardly a resounding endorsement of a "holistic" therapy.

BY THE WAY...I HAVE A COPY OF GULLY'S 1846 BOOK, AND THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO THAT STATEMENT ON PAGE 83...AND THE BOOK ENDS ON PAGE 405, SO ANOTHER PERSON'S STATEMENT ABOUT PAGE 500+ IS DUBIOUS TOO.

MEDICAL HISTORIANS CONFIRM THAT GULLY WAS A HOMEOPATHY AND A HYDROTHERAPIST...BUT HECK, PEOPLE HERE HAVE BLINDERS ON AND HAVE NO SENSE OF HISTORY.
Dana Ullman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2007, 06:40 PM   #406
Chris Haynes
Perfectly Poisonous Person
 
Chris Haynes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Wacky Washington Way Out West
Posts: 4,289
An awful lot of shouting from someone who has yet to answer some simple questions, including mine.

I won't copy them all (again)... I'll just ask one simple one:

What is the success rate for syphilis with Hahnemann's homeopathic methods versus antibiotics? (knowing that one of the miasms that Hahnemann thought that existed was "syphilis").
__________________
I used to be intelligent... but then I had kids

"HCN, I hate you!"
( so sayeth Deetee at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1077344 )...
What I get for linking to http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/
Chris Haynes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2007, 08:06 PM   #407
Dana Ullman
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 201
Understanding Samuel Hahnemann, MD

Hey HC...
I apologize for the shouting. I haven't figured out how to do the quoting with a posting. I instead chose to differentiate my words from others by using capital letters.
Hahnemann was respected enough that he was voted as an honorary member of the NY medical society in 1832, though he was voted out in 1843 just one week after his death because the medical society said that homeopathy was too much of an ideological and "economic" threat.
Although many people who were uninformed about homeopathy make fun of Hahnemann's concept of miasms, this concept were some of the earliest sophisticated insights about genetic disease. Hahnemann determined that people with syphilis, gonorrhea, and TB didn't die immediately, but during their disease process they gave birth (or sperm), and this new human being's health was influenced by the diseases of the mother and father. Such child would not have syphilis, gonorrhea, or TB, but they would have specific symptoms that were associated with each of their "miasms."
As for other biographical info about the man, here's an excerpt from my forthcoming book:

In America’s capital city, Washington, DC, the only monument honoring a physician is one to the founder of homeopathic medicine, Samuel Hahnemann, MD (1755-1843). This monument was dedicated in 1900 by President William McKinley.
Although trained as a medical doctor, Hahnemann was a learned chemist and author of the leading German textbook for apothecaries (pharmacists) of the day. He was conversant in at least nine languages and even supported himself in his mid-20s teaching languages at the famed University of Leipic.
Learning these languages enabled him to become familiar with the latest developments in medicine and science throughout the western world. He further expanded his knowledge and his growing prestige by translating 22 major textbooks, primarily medical and chemistry textbooks (several of which were multi-volume works). Over a 29 year period, Hahnemann translated a total of 9,460 pages.
Prior to his discovery of homeopathy, Hahnemann’s respect as a physician brought German royalty to seek his medical care, and modern medical historians confirm that Hahnemann “showed sound balance and good judgment” in his advocacy of proper diet, fresh air, and exercise as a method of treatment. His promotion of hygienic measures during epidemics won him praise as a public health advocate, and his kind rather than cruel and harsh treatment of the insane granted him a place in the history of psychiatry (Rothstein, 1972, 152).
It is not surprising to know that Hahnemann was a Freemason, the esoteric fraternal organization and secret society of men who shared certain moral and metaphysical ideals.
Hahnemann stopped practicing conventional medicine of that day because he felt that he was doing more harm than good. Instead, he made a living for his family of 11 children as a translator. During the translation of a book by William Cullen, the leading physiologist of that time, Hahnemann noted that Cullen asserted that the reason that Peruvian bark was an effective drug for malaria was due to its bitter and astringent properties. Hahnemann thought this was a peculiar statement because he knew more bitter and astringent medicines, but they provided no benefit in the treatment of malaria. He then conducted an experiment upon himself where he took this herb twice a day until he developed symptoms of its toxicology, and here he discovered that it created a fever with chills as well as other symptoms that were similar to malaria. Hahnemann proposed that Peruvian bark (which contains quinine) may be effective for treating people with malaria because it has the capacity to cause similar symptoms.
Hahnemann ultimately conducted upon himself experiments with 90 other substances, and his colleagues and friends also engaged in these experiments. He had found a consistent pattern from these experiments, that is, he found that various substances in overdose create their own unique syndrome of symptoms and that whatever syndrome a substance causes in toxic dose, it can and will elicit a healing response when given in specially prepared small doses to people who have similar symptoms of pathology.
Hahnemann observed that sick people were hypersensitive to the medicine to which might cause similar symptoms as they were experiencing, and because of this, Hahnemann began using smaller and smaller doses. Being a chemist, he experimented with various ways to make these doses of medicines both safe and effective. At different times over the next 40 years, he diluted the medicines 1:10, 1:100, or 1:50,000, with vigorous shaking in-between each dilution, and he consistently found that exceedingly small doses of medicines had powerful therapeutic effects when prescribed according to his principle of similars.
Being the incredibly avid experimenter, Hahnemann did not come easily or quickly to his conclusions about the exceptionally small doses he and his colleagues found effective. In fact, he first wrote about homeopathy in 1796, and for the next 30 years (!) he primarily used doses that are today considered “low potencies.” Further, in 1829, a homeopathic physician wrote him about his successes in using potencies that were dilution 1:10 over 200 times, and Hahnemann expressed several skepticism for such actions until he himself found that these “higher potencies” were surprisingly effective Bradford, 1895, pp 455-6).
Although people who are unfamiliar with homeopathy have questioned the logic and the efficacy of the doses that homeopaths use, these people are inevitably inadequately informed of the history of development of homeopathy and are similarly ignorant of the body of scientific and empirical evidence of homeopathy’s successes.
Ultimately, Hahnemann authored three major books on homeopathy, including six editions of his seminal work on homeopathy, The Organon of the Healing Art, continually updating and refining this science and art.
Christoph Wilhelm Hufeland, MD (1762-1836), Germany’s most well known and respected physician of his day, was as famous as Goethe and Schiller in the early 19th century. As the editor of the leading medical journal in Germany called Journal of Practical Medicine, Hufeland published some of Hahnemann’s writings, and he held an extremely high regard for him. “I have discovered in him an amplitude of knowledge, clearness of mind, and a spirit of tolerance, which last is the more worthy of notice in him.” Hahnemann is “one of our most distinguished, intelligent and original physicians” (Everest, 186).
Even though Robert Koch first discovered the cholera bacteria in 1883, as early as 1831 Hahnemann ascribed the cause of the cholera epidemics that raged during that time to a “an enormously increased brood of those excessively minute, invisible, living creatures so inimical to human life, of which the contagious matter of the cholera most probably consists” (Hahnemann, 1831).
Nicholas Von Hoffman, a columnist for the Washington Post, wrote, “Samuel Hahnemann lived from 1755 to 1843 and, although this German physician never visited the U.S., for 70 years or more his ideas tore up and divided American medicine. No other single individual causes the settled and comfortable structures of this profession the trouble Hahnemann did, and even now many of the questions he raised have not been answered.”
Even many of homeopathy’s most severe critics have had kind words for Samuel Hahnemann. Morris Fishbein, the Executive Director of the American Medical Association, wrote that “the influence of Hahnemann was, on the whole certainly for the good. He emphasized the individualization of the patient in the handling of disease…and he demonstrated the value of testing the actual virtues of a drug by trial” (Fishbein, 1925, 37).
Despite Hahnemann’s significant contributions to medicine, pharmacy, chemistry, psychiatry, and public health, he remained a humble man. “I do not ask during my lifetime any recognition of the beneficent truth, which I, without any thought of myself, offer. What I have done, I did from higher motives for the world. Non inutilis vixi (I have not lived in vain).”
On the Hahnemann Monument in Washington, DC, are those Latin words. Indeed, Dr. Samuel Hahnemann did not live in vain.
Dana Ullman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2007, 11:18 PM   #408
SYLVESTER1592
Critical Thinker
 
SYLVESTER1592's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 307
Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post

Syl:
First of all it’s in Pediatr Infect Dis J. not PEDIATRICS
Pediatric Inf Dis J. : Impact factor 1.819
Pediatrics : Impact factor 2.710

BTW the article can be found here you might want to show it so we can all see what we are discussing.


But you are right, indeed most of the research in it is based on data from Nicaragua , from previously published data. It has been looked at quite extensively…

A report in May 1994 examined the homeopathic treatment of diarrhea in children who lived in Nicaragua [7]. On Day 3 of treatment the homeopathic group had one less unformed stool than the control group (3.1 Vs 2.1; p <.05). However, critics [8] pointed out that not only were the sickest children excluded, but there were no significant differences on Days 1, 2, 4, or 5. This suggests that the conclusion was not valid. Further, there was no assurance that the homeopathic remedy was not adulterated (contaminated). Finally, standard remedies which halt diarrhea were not used for comparison purposes.

And : The Nepal trial was not significant p=0.06 as you may have read in the paper you suggested

James:
WELL...LOOK AT THE ENTIRE SET OF STUDIES...OR DO YOU PREFER TO SQUINT YOUR EYES SO MUCH THAT YOU CANNOT SEE THEM?

Syl:
Just a few questions right of the bat…

1) Why do you think it is relevant or a good study?

James:
BECAUSE THE TREATMENT GROUP DID SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER THAN THE PLACEBO GROUP, VERIFYING THAT THE PLACEBO "EXPLANATION" TO HOMEOPATHIC TREATMENT IS INADEQUATE.

Syl:
2) What conclusion would you attribute to the fact that on day 3 there were less then 2 unformed stools but on the days before day 3 and after day 3 there was no significant difference?

James:
ACTUALLY...FROM THE 1ST DAY TO THE 5TH DAY, THE TREATMENT GROUP EXPERIENCED LESS DIARRHEA (p=0.013).

Syl:
3) What do you think has a better effect ORS or a homeopathic drug (yet undefined, since it changed according to the prescriber)

James:
YOU MEAN ORT...SOMETIMES, IT IS NOT EITHER/OR. IN THIS CASE, THE GROUP WHO GOT HOMEOPATHY AND ORT DID BETTER THAN THOSE WHO JUST GOT ORT.

SYL
Indeed a screemer, but I'll take your word for it that you were trying to differentiate the text. There are other ways to do that then using CAPS lock. (CAPS lock is basically considered rude/ bad behaviour)


I suggest you play with the method of quoting, copying and pasting for a while. You just have to click the add quotation square before you reply. Then you move the /quote to the point you want to quote something. Move the start of the quotation to the start of the next part you want to quote.
If this sounds to complicated… Just select the add quotation square and edit out the parts you are not responding or which you want to skip for brevity. You can do this several times by copying and pasting the same original quote.

I have especially tried to be nice by asking the simple questions that would invite you into the discussion. There are a lot more general damning questions that can be asked about homeopathy…
So I propose you remain civil and try to look at them from an open point of view as we have.

----------------

Now for my questions…
Let me explain what is said here so you understand the criticism:

“A report in May 1994 examined the homeopathic treatment of diarrhea in children who lived in Nicaragua [7]. On Day 3 of treatment the homeopathic group had one less unformed stool than the control group (3.1 Vs 2.1; p <.05).”

I'll get back to this further down...

“ However, critics [8] pointed out that not only were the sickest children excluded, but there were no significant differences on Days 1, 2, 4, or 5.”

This points to something called selection bias. The significance of time is something I will get back to in a minute.

“ This suggests that the conclusion was not valid. Further, there was no assurance that the homeopathic remedy was not adulterated (contaminated).”

We don’t have a guarantee of what was actually given, so the actual effect and composition of the medication is at best dependent on hearsay. Remember that IR spectroscopy can identify crystals and salts, but needs preparation of the sample and the end result merely states that there was no difference between them, not what was in it.

“ Finally, standard remedies which halt diarrhea were not used for comparison purposes.”

So what was the benefit? If both ORT (=ORS in my part of the world) was given in together with homeopathic solutions, how do you know the effect was to be attributed to the homeopathic solution? How do you know it did better or worse than ORT?
The effects were compared in a meta-analysis of different population groups in different parts of the world with different causes of diarrhea, different water supply, general health etc…
They say they have no reason to think there was a difference between the groups, but show no data, furthermore cultural and socio-economic differences are to be expected between Nepal and Nicaragua. No data, just a statement without any foundation for it. Basically microbiological agents in different parts of the world are different with different virulence. No data again, not even a statement this time. Some of these are endemic, some are not, but I'll leave that out of this discussion. You have enough to worry about.

If we would compare the effect of homeopathic treatment here and in a third world country, I recon that in third world countries the effects might be better. At least they are getting clean water and enough attention…

---------------------
In response to :” WELL...LOOK AT THE ENTIRE SET OF STUDIES...OR DO YOU PREFER TO SQUINT YOUR EYES SO MUCH THAT YOU CANNOT SEE THEM?”

I am looking at the total picture… and at the details of the study like anyone with a critical mind would do. Since the criticism above is on half of the data, this is relevant to address.

-----------------

In response to: “2) What conclusion would you attribute to the fact that on day 3 there were less then 2 unformed stools but on the days before day 3 and after day 3 there was no significant difference?

ACTUALLY...FROM THE 1ST DAY TO THE 5TH DAY, THE TREATMENT GROUP EXPERIENCED LESS DIARRHEA (p=0.013).”

The p=0.013 tells you there is a difference between the two curves, but it does not tell you the end-result. It merely tells you that the curves are significantly different. When you look at the curves, they diverge on day 3, but come together on day 4 at day 5 they are almost the same as on day 2. This is why many of the better Infectious Disease Jornals require that you also give the percentiles table, which shows you the survival distribution for the first, median and third quartile of the survival distribution.

Kaplan Meier curves are often used to evaluate survival, this has a purpose because you can tell at a certain point in time that more or less people have survived after treatment. In this case the divergence of the curve occurs in the middle of the disease process during treatment. The end result however, does not seem to be affected.

By placing the cut-off point the way the authors did, a significant difference in the curves resulted is a difference achieved on day 3.1 vs 3.8, but looking at the curves of patients with diarrhea, you see they converge after day 3. This is questionable. Furthermore the reporting was done by the parents. This is not a very reliable way of doing so, and by measuring the number of stools, not volume or diaper weight. Furthermore, daily visit concerning the health of the child may lead to observer bias by the parent. So double blind

110 controls x 51.4%= 57 diarrhea , 53 cured
120 cases x 38.1%= 46 diarrhea, 74 cured

If you want to get this exact table the probability of the getting this exact table is p=0.013, but the significance of the Chi Square value for the Odds ratio’s (which is is Pearson uncorrected if you want it to be significant is 4.22 with p=0.047 in SPSS) is questionably significant (Yates corrected Chi-Square= 3.693 with a p= 0.055 this is normally done when one of the cells reaches 10 and df =1 because Pearson uncorrected Chi-Square becomes too unreliable, not strictly necessary but reveals a more certain evaluation of significance) and resembles the major contribution to the meta-analysis, the Nepal trial. This last trial was not significant. These numbers tell you something about the differences between the groups ( not the chance of getting the exact distribution, which has little to do with the effect of a drug). If you think I'm wrong, let me know...

Basically there is no or a barely significant improvement on day 5 when you look at it objectively and their results all pivots on what you call diarrhea, who you exclude, when you exclude them, who does your evaluation and how they do it, not to mention dredging for statistically significant results at all cost.

Furthermore the repeated study by the same author( presented by fls in her post) corrects her statements and says there is no significant difference. That should tell you enough...
--------------------

In response to:
3) What do you think has a better effect ORS or a homeopathic drug (yet undefined, since it changed according to the prescriber)

YOU MEAN ORT...SOMETIMES, IT IS NOT EITHER/OR. IN THIS CASE, THE GROUP WHO GOT HOMEOPATHY AND ORT DID BETTER THAN THOSE WHO JUST GOT ORT.

Now they both got a drug ORT and were treated for parasites and bacteria and all other diseases, yet the difference that was seen was attributed to the homeopathic solution….

These other things could be called confounding factors and they disrupt the analysis of the effect of the homeopathic solution, which does not seem to be very strong in the first place.

It also raises the question, what differences in the cause of the diarrhea were observed. A general remark is made but the numbers are absent. The cause of the diarrhea and the type of diarrhea seem important in the design of the study… Don’t you agree?

---------------
Now you said something interesting while answering the question why you thought this study was relevant or a good study: "BECAUSE THE TREATMENT GROUP DID SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER THAN THE PLACEBO GROUP, VERIFYING THAT THE PLACEBO "EXPLANATION" TO HOMEOPATHIC TREATMENT IS INADEQUATE."
You are saying that it is relevant or good merely because 1) homeopathy did better then the placebo 2)because the placebo explanation seemed inadequate.
This says nothing about the quality of the study or it's relevance to medical practice. It does however say something about the way you look at a study. The study was poorly designed, not well executed and poorly analyzed with the intent to show a significant result, overstating the significance and meaning of the results. Your answer to my question was not about the quality of the study or the relevance to medical practice or science as a whole, but about the importance of the study to the endorsement of homeopathy.
So let's not lecture about science, but rather try to contribute to it. We are all fallible, even scientists...

I don’t want to swamp you. So I’ll leave the other questions for the other members.

SYL
__________________
-"Only by following the trail
that civilization and the human spirit have gone along to reach a higher stage of development is it possible to know and understand one's fellow man".
-
E.C. Van Leersum, 1862-1938, prof. Medical History, University of Leiden, The Netherlands.

Last edited by SYLVESTER1592; 18th June 2007 at 11:59 PM.
SYLVESTER1592 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2007, 12:16 AM   #409
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 25,648
Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
YOU HAVE TO LOVE THE FACT THAT YOU CALL SOMETHING THAT PROVIDED IMPRESSIVE BENEFITS TO CHARLES DARWIN AS "THESE SHENANIGANS."
All hail the post hoc fallacy.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2007, 12:19 AM   #410
SYLVESTER1592
Critical Thinker
 
SYLVESTER1592's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 307
BTW James

Many are aware of the medical history surrounding both conventional medicine and homeopathy. I don't think many of us would contradict that Hahnemann did some good in his time, when medicine was built on different foundations as modern medicine and used things such as blood letting and mercurochrome solutions. It is very well possible that his brand of medicine compared to the medical practice of his time was less bad for the patient and led to better results. Many things have changed, modern medicine has evolved using science to better itself. Homeopathy hasn't. There is the rub.

You might want to leave the past and look into the present and future...
It's more productive...

SYL
__________________
-"Only by following the trail
that civilization and the human spirit have gone along to reach a higher stage of development is it possible to know and understand one's fellow man".
-
E.C. Van Leersum, 1862-1938, prof. Medical History, University of Leiden, The Netherlands.
SYLVESTER1592 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2007, 12:23 AM   #411
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 25,648
Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
DARWIN COULD NOT SEEM TO BE A SUPPORTER OF HOMEOPATHY IF HE WANTED ANY SUPPORT FROM ORTHODOX SCIENTISTS AT THAT TIME.
you chose Darwin's letters as the text to consider, and claimed that they showed that he supported homoeopathy.
Originally Posted by JamesGully
Just read Darwin's letters to read about this story and learn something about his life...
Can you produce any evidence that this is the case?

Quote:
IN THE MEANTIME, I WON'T DISCLOSE THE "HOMEOPATHIC STUDIES" THAT DARWIN CONDUCTED UNTIL MY FORTHCOMING BOOK IS PUBLISHED.
Drosera?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2007, 12:53 AM   #412
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 25,648
Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
DARWIN COULD NOT SEEM TO BE A SUPPORTER OF HOMEOPATHY IF HE WANTED ANY SUPPORT FROM ORTHODOX SCIENTISTS AT THAT TIME.

Of course, Darwin is famous for never publishing anything that he feared might upset prevailing viewpoints.

On the origin of Species... also shows us Darwin's approach to ideas he thought plausible but feared might be controversial: while reluctant to publish, he discussed the idea of evolution by natural selection in his private correspondence. If, as you claim, he supported homoeopathy but was reluctant to do so publicly, his letters would be the very place we would expect to see statements of his views on the matter.

What we actually find there is:
Quote:
You speak about Homœopathy; which is a subject which makes me more wrath, even than does Clair-voyance: clairvoyance so transcends belief, that one's ordinary faculties are put out of question, but in Homœopathy common sense & common observation come into play, & both these must go to the Dogs, if the infinetesimal doses have any effect whatever. How true is a remark I saw the other day by Quetelet, in respect to evidence of curative processes, viz that no one knows in disease what is the simple result of nothing being done, as a standard with which to compare Homœopathy & all other such things. It is a sad flaw, I cannot but think in my beloved Dr Gully, that he believes in everything—
If he wished not to be seen as a supporter of homoeopathy, all he had to do was not support it. However, what we find is a clear opposing statement.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2007, 12:56 AM   #413
Capsid
Graduate Poster
 
Capsid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,550
Quote:
IN THE MEANTIME, I WON'T DISCLOSE THE "HOMEOPATHIC STUDIES" THAT DARWIN CONDUCTED UNTIL MY FORTHCOMING BOOK IS PUBLISHED.
Not a publication in Nature then?
Capsid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2007, 01:07 AM   #414
Michael C
Graduate Poster
 
Michael C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,883
Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
DARWIN COULD NOT SEEM TO BE A SUPPORTER OF HOMEOPATHY IF HE WANTED ANY SUPPORT FROM ORTHODOX SCIENTISTS AT THAT TIME. [...] ONCE AGAIN, DARWIN COULD NOT ADMIT OPENLY THAT HE SOUGHT OUT HOMEOPATHIC TREATMENT. COULD HE? LOOK AT WHAT YOUR REACTIONS HAVE BEEN.
So Charles Darwin, who was not afraid to shock the world by asserting that humans and apes descended from a common ancestor, would have been afraid to admit that he did something as daring as using a homeopathic treatment?
Michael C is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2007, 01:38 AM   #415
Professor Yaffle
Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs
 
Professor Yaffle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Emily's shop
Posts: 17,347
Quote:
IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT NO ONE HERE HAS COME FORWARD TO DECLARE THAT HYDROTHERAPY IS AN IMPORTANT TREATMENT. COME ON NOW...EVERYONE INTO COLD WATER TREATMENT NOW!
Well after reading his "hydropathical diary", I find that part of the hydrotherapy treatment included an increase in exercise and an improved diet. Both (now) well known to be helpful in the promotion of good health...
Professor Yaffle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2007, 01:57 AM   #416
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 17,464
Originally Posted by manioberoi View Post
It is not rigmarole - it is consultation leading to an individualized remedy or series of remedies to be decided as the case progresses that we are talking here - and the series would nearly always be different for each person.
Well, yes. Homeopathic procedure.

Quote:
So we are not testing a remedy - we are rather testing homeopathy against placebo( and I have noted that some here call the remedy placebo!).
Yes, we are testing the remedy, because the only difference between the placebo group and the verum group is that the latter receives remedies.

Both groups are subjected to the "homeopathic procedure". So, if there is a difference, it must be due to a property of the remedies. If there is no difference, the conclusion is that the remedies have no properties different from placebo.

And yes, one of the claims of the skeptics is that homeopathic remedies equal placebo.

Quote:
Such are the difficulties in deciding "proper testing conditions "
I still fail to see the difficulties. Admitted, a properly conducted trial, with individualized treatment, will be fairly complex. More complex than a single drug trial, but there are certainly no insurmountable problems.

Quote:
If there is consensus that randomly allotting patients to receive placebo and homeopathy (series of remedies as required) (placebo?) is acceptable proof - then if there is any significant difference (favourable to the latter) - would it be acceptable proof that homeopathy is not placebo?
A properly designed and executed double blinded, randomized, placebo controlled trial of homeopathy with a positive result would be considered important evidence that there is reason for further research.

The reason for this rather reserved position is that IF homeopathy works, a considerable part of present science will have to be revised, thus overthrowing the very solid body of evidence that exist for it. Therefore, such a revision will require extremely strong evidence (remember, even a statistical 99% confidence still leaves a 1% possibility of a spurious result)

Therefore, I don't think a single trial result, even if well conducted, will immidiately convert the scientific world in favor of homeopathy. It will, however, no doubt motivate further serious research. And it will certainly open the door to widespread publication.

Hans
__________________
Don't. Just don't.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2007, 02:00 AM   #417
manioberoi
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 125
Originally Posted by Rasmus55 View Post
On the discussion regarding India and its homeopathic goodness:

India is the scam artist's dream land. Every sort of quackery imaginable is practiced there. It is a land of incredible superstitions and mass quantities of poor, uneducated people. Given the incredible corruption of the wonderful socialist government of India, competent medical care is available only for the select few. Often times, whether a person will receive good medical care depends upon his caste; low caste people lose. In fact, those Indians who can afford the expense will travel to Europe or (their favorite place to go) the U.S. for serious problems. Furthermore, aspiring Indian medical students do all they can to get out of India and study abroad. Why is this? Visit India sometime and it will become apparent to.

It is no wonder that in a land where superstition rules the mind and credible medical care is unavailable to the plebs sordida that homeopathy and faith healing should flourish. After all, there are no alternatives. Of course, this sort of stupidity is reinforced by the likes of Deepak Chopra; a man who has one set of spiritual and scientific convictions for those in his homeland but an alternative set for his Western prey.

Beware Indian made homeopathic remedies as they may kill you. Indian water represents some of the most polluted water in the world.

Of course, let us not forget that the famed homeopathic Greek quack "professor" George Vithoulkas was trained in homeopathy in India. Vithoulkas' writings are nearly incomprehensible, always bitter, and reflect a confused, afflicted mind. Search youtube for some of his "teaching" clips and be astounded at how little sense it all makes. Vithoulkas is exactly the type of quality loon that one would expect from an Indian university of quackery.
Unfortunately we all have our scam artists, whether it is the U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia, India, China etc but there is a legal system which does catch and at times punish such scamsters. The enforcement standards vary and we in India are gradually improving the standards of enforcement - aka India is the only country where PepsiCo is being compelled to put a seal of quality assurance "One Quality Worldwide" across all its product labels.

Good Manufacturing Practices have been legislated in India for manufacturing Homeopathic drugs. Homeopathic education is standardised under the relevant legislation. Homeopathic clinical field units and research centres have been set up across the country.

India takes quality in health very seriously - the Courts have stepped in very often on complaints of the public about poor standards in government health facilities - they are being upgraded and improved - re-usable needles are banned/ phased out.

As for the private sector this article from Canada is quite revealing about the high standards achieved in India:

"Medical tourism: Need surgery, will travel
CBC News Online | June 18, 2004
India

India is considered the leading country promoting medical tourism-and now it is moving into a new area of "medical outsourcing," where subcontractors provide services to the overburdened medical care systems in western countries.

India's National Health Policy declares that treatment of foreign patients is legally an "export" and deemed "eligible for all fiscal incentives extended to export earnings." Government and private sector studies in India estimate that medical tourism could bring between $1 billion and $2 billion US into the country by 2012. The reports estimate that medical tourism to India is growing by 30 per cent a year.

India's top-rated education system is not only churning out computer programmers and engineers, but an estimated 20,000 to 30,000 doctors and nurses each year.

The largest of the estimated half-dozen medical corporations in India serving medical tourists is Apollo Hospital Enterprises, which treated an estimated 60,000 patients between 2001 and spring 2004. It is Apollo that is aggressively moving into medical outsourcing. Apollo already provides overnight computer services for U.S. insurance companies and hospitals as well as working with big pharmaceutical corporations with drug trials. Dr. Prathap C. Reddy, the chairman of the company, began negotiations in the spring of 2004 with Britain's National Health Service to work as a subcontractor, to do operations and medical tests for patients at a fraction of the cost in Britain for either government or private care.

Apollo's business began to grow in the 1990s, with the deregulation of the Indian economy, which drastically cut the bureaucratic barriers to expansion and made it easier to import the most modern medical equipment. The first patients were Indian expatriates who returned home for treatment; major investment houses followed with money and then patients from Europe, the Middle East and Canada began to arrive. Apollo now has 37 hospitals, with about 7,000 beds. The company is in partnership in hospitals in Kuwait, Sri Lanka and Nigeria.

Western patients usually get a package deal that includes flights, transfers, hotels, treatment and often a post-operative vacation.

Apollo has also reacted to criticism by Indian politicians by expanding its services to India's millions of poor. It has set aside free beds for those who can't afford care, has set up a trust fund and is pioneering remote, satellite-linked telemedicine across India."
manioberoi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2007, 02:06 AM   #418
manioberoi
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 125
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Well, yes. Homeopathic procedure.



Yes, we are testing the remedy, because the only difference between the placebo group and the verum group is that the latter receives remedies.

Both groups are subjected to the "homeopathic procedure". So, if there is a difference, it must be due to a property of the remedies. If there is no difference, the conclusion is that the remedies have no properties different from placebo.

And yes, one of the claims of the skeptics is that homeopathic remedies equal placebo.



I still fail to see the difficulties. Admitted, a properly conducted trial, with individualized treatment, will be fairly complex. More complex than a single drug trial, but there are certainly no insurmountable problems.



A properly designed and executed double blinded, randomized, placebo controlled trial of homeopathy with a positive result would be considered important evidence that there is reason for further research.

The reason for this rather reserved position is that IF homeopathy works, a considerable part of present science will have to be revised, thus overthrowing the very solid body of evidence that exist for it. Therefore, such a revision will require extremely strong evidence (remember, even a statistical 99% confidence still leaves a 1% possibility of a spurious result)

Therefore, I don't think a single trial result, even if well conducted, will immidiately convert the scientific world in favor of homeopathy. It will, however, no doubt motivate further serious research. And it will certainly open the door to widespread publication.

Hans
Valid point.
manioberoi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2007, 02:16 AM   #419
manioberoi
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 125
Originally Posted by fls View Post
You can't write off an entire area of medicine on the basis of just 6 studies by a few authors especially when leading homeopathic bodies have published public refutations about this collated study.
manioberoi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2007, 02:26 AM   #420
manioberoi
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 125
Originally Posted by fls View Post
Yes. And that is one of the main criticisms of homeopathy - that rather than measuring true cures, they measure "cure" only by symptom suppression.



We have made no requirements for the material presence of the drug. And both individualized and single treatments are amenable to the kind of study that allows us to remove the effects of chance and wishful thinking.



Yes. These are exactly the kinds of results one would expect if homeopathic treatments have no real effect.

Linda
Symptom suppression!!! Apparently you have no knowledge of homeopathy.

Homeopathy individualizes treatment based not only on symptoms - in addition to symptoms a homeopath needs to consider mentals, generals, pathology and sometimes genus epidemicus.
manioberoi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2007, 02:28 AM   #421
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 25,648
Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
Some of you even went off the deep-end by saying that the 13 papers that Dr. Roy got published in NATURE are meaningless.

Unless they have some bearing on whether homoeopath works, they are meaningless in the context of this thread.

Here are all 15 of "the 13 papers that Dr. Roy got published in NATURE", plus a letter for good measure:
  1. R. Roy, D. Agrawal, J. Cheng, and S. Gedevanishvili, “Unexpected sintering of powdered metals parts in microwaves”, Nature, 399, 664 (June 17, 1999)
  2. R. Roy, D. Agrawal, J. Cheng, and S. Gedevanishvili, “Full sintering of powder-metal bodies in a microwave field,” Nature, 399, 668 (1999).
  3. Roy, R. and D. Agrawal, "Thermal-Expansion Materials Not So New," Nature 388:433 (July 31, 1997).
  4. Zhao,X-Zhong, R. Roy, K. A. Cherian, and A. Badzian, "Hydrothrmal Growth of Diamond in Metal-C-H2O Systems," Nature 385(6): 513-515 (1997).
  5. Paulus, William J., S. Komarneni and R. Roy, "Bulk Synthesis and Selective Exchange of Strontium Ions in Na4Mg6Al4Si4O20F4 Mica," Nature 357:571-573 (June 18, 1992).
  6. Malla, P.B., P. Ravindranathan, S. Komarneni and R. Roy, "Intercalation of Copper Metal Clusters in Montmorillonite," Letters to Nature 351:555-557 (June 13, 1991).
  7. Roy, R., "Diamonds at Low Pressure," Nature 325:17-18 (Jan. 1, 1987).
  8. Yarbrough, W.A. and R. Roy, "Extraordinary Effects of Mortar-and-Pestle Grinding on Microstructure of Sintered Alumina Gel," Nature 322(6077):347-349 (24 July 1986).
  9. Komarneni, S. and R. Roy, "Use of g-Zirconium Phosphate for Cs Removal from Radioactive Waste," Nature 299:707-708 (1982).
  10. McCarthy, G. J., W. B. White, R. Roy, B. E. Scheetz, S. Komarneni, D. K. Smith and D. M. Roy, "Interactions Between Nuclear Waste and Surrounding Rock," Nature 273:216-217 (1978).
  11. Katz, G., A. W. Nicol and R. Roy, "New Topotaxy in Precipitation from Spinel," Nature 223:609-610 (1969).
  12. Datta, R. K. and R. Roy, "Dependence on Temperature of the Distribution of Cations in Oxide Spinels," Nature 191:169-170 (1961).
  13. Roy, R. and H. M. Cohen, "Effects of High Pressure on Glass: A Possible Piezometer for the 100-Kilobar Region," Nature 190:798-799 (1961).
  14. Dachille, F. and R. Roy, "High Pressure Phase Transformations in Laboratory Mechanical Mixers and Mortars," Nature 186:34 (1960).
  15. Aramaki, S. and R. Roy, "Revised Equilibrium Diagram for the System Al2O3-SiO2," Nature 184:631-632 (1959).
  16. Dachille, F. and R. Roy "The Spinel-Olivine Inversion in Mg2GeO4," Nature 183:1257 (1959).

If you think any of these is relevant to homoeopathy, please say which, and what it says that supports homoeopathy.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

Last edited by Mojo; 19th June 2007 at 02:36 AM.
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2007, 02:34 AM   #422
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 17,464
Dear JamesGully:

I noted with pleasure that you complimented me for being a "gentleman" (I here take the liberty to assume that you were referring to my conduct, not my gender). I very much try to conduct my part of debates in a gentlemanly manner, however, such conduct is greatly expedited if the opposition does the same. So, could you perhaps try to give me anopportunity ot terutn the compliment, sometime soon?

I know that you are very well versed in internet debates, so you cannot be unaware that writing whole sentences in capitals is considered shouting, and is certainly incompatible with gentlemanly conduct.

[quote=JamesGully;2700720]
Originally Posted by SYLVESTER1592 View Post
DARWIN COULD NOT SEEM TO BE A SUPPORTER OF HOMEOPATHY IF HE WANTED ANY SUPPORT FROM ORTHODOX SCIENTISTS AT THAT TIME. AND YET,
This does not make sense. At the time in question, homeopathy was not particularly controversial. It was new, and under debate, but it had certainly not been thoroughly ridiculed as I admit it has now. Finally, Charles Darwins track record is not exacly one of avoiding controversy.

Quote:
THE RESULTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. AFTER 12 YEARS OF VERY SERIOUS PROBLEMS WITH HIS HEALTH AND AN INABILITY TO WORK ONE OUT OF THREE DAYS, HE EXPERIENCED REAL RELIEF FOR THE FIRST TIME. HMMMMM.

IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT NO ONE HERE HAS COME FORWARD TO DECLARE THAT HYDROTHERAPY IS AN IMPORTANT TREATMENT. COME ON NOW...EVERYONE INTO COLD WATER TREATMENT NOW!
It is obvious from the quited sources that the therapy he received was quite complex, at least consisting of homeopathy, hydrotherapy, diet, and exercise, maybe more. For one who keeps requesting intellectual honesty from others, it is very inappropriate to insist on arbitrarily attributing Darwin's recovery to a specific part of this regimen.

Quote:
IN THE MEANTIME, I WON'T DISCLOSE THE "HOMEOPATHIC STUDIES" THAT DARWIN CONDUCTED UNTIL MY FORTHCOMING BOOK IS PUBLISHED.
That is your privilege, but then I suggest you refrain from referring to them. Not to mention shouting about them.

Quote:
YOU HAVE TO LOVE THE FACT THAT YOU CALL SOMETHING THAT PROVIDED IMPRESSIVE BENEFITS TO CHARLES DARWIN AS "THESE SHENANIGANS."
Again, you cannot make any conclusions about which part of the extensive regimen caused the improvement of Darwin's condition. In fact, you cannot even conclude that any part of it was the cause. We don't know what Darwin's ailment was, so we don't know the probabilities of a spontaneous remission. The anecdote is interesting, but remains an anecdote.

Quote:
ONCE AGAIN, DARWIN COULD NOT ADMIT OPENLY THAT HE SOUGHT OUT HOMEOPATHIC TREATMENT. COULD HE? LOOK AT WHAT YOUR REACTIONS HAVE BEEN.
Allow me to remind you that this happened over a century before any of us was born, so I assume we would not have commented much. As for Darwin's contemporaries, they would have considered it at worst controversial, but certainly not a base for ridicule.

Quote:
BY THE WAY...I HAVE A COPY OF GULLY'S 1846 BOOK, AND THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO THAT STATEMENT ON PAGE 83...AND THE BOOK ENDS ON PAGE 405, SO ANOTHER PERSON'S STATEMENT ABOUT PAGE 500+ IS DUBIOUS TOO.
Perhaps different reprints have differet pagination, but i don't think the referens was totha book.

Quote:
MEDICAL HISTORIANS CONFIRM THAT GULLY WAS A HOMEOPATHY AND A HYDROTHERAPIST...BUT HECK, PEOPLE HERE HAVE BLINDERS ON AND HAVE NO SENSE OF HISTORY.
This is a good opportunity to clear up some therminology; in your opinoin, what exactly defines a "homeopath"?

Hans
__________________
Don't. Just don't.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2007, 03:01 AM   #423
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 25,648
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Perhaps different reprints have differet pagination, but i don't think the referens was totha book.

According to the bibliography on the Darwin Correspondence Project website, the reference is to:

Gully, James Manby. 1846. The water cure in chronic disease: an exposition of the causes, progress, & terminations of various chronic diseases of the digestive organs, lungs, nerves, limbs, & skin; and of their treatment by water, and other hygienic means. London.

It is possible that JamesGully has the 1846 edition published in New York by Wiley & Putnam.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2007, 03:23 AM   #424
kieran
Critical Thinker
 
kieran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 296
Originally Posted by manioberoi View Post
It is not rigmarole - it is consultation leading to an individualized remedy or series of remedies to be decided as the case progresses that we are talking here - and the series would nearly always be different for each person.

So we are not testing a remedy - we are rather testing homeopathy against placebo( and I have noted that some here call the remedy placebo!).

Such are the difficulties in deciding "proper testing conditions "

If there is consensus that randomly allotting patients to receive placebo and homeopathy (series of remedies as required) (placebo?) is acceptable proof - then if there is any significant difference (favourable to the latter) - would it be acceptable proof that homeopathy is not placebo?
No-one seems to have addressed this one directly so I'll have a go ... I think that manioberoi was proposing a tweak to the proposed conceptual test protocols.
  • Manioberoi seems reluctant to buy into the protocols proposed so far because there is some kind of sequence of steps that homoeopathic practioners go through with the patients wherein they use a sequence of "medicines" and modify the next "prescription" based on the outcome of the previous administration.
  • The test protocols proposed so far randomly (and blindly) substitute each prescription with a placebo. This will make the analysis of the results hard to interpret (unless we are only interested in the final administration of the sequence).
  • To keep with manioberoi's description of homoeopathic practices, the randomization should be applied to a particular homoeopath-patient link instead ... so that all remedies provided to a particular (randomly and blindly chosen) patient are substituted. I think that this is what manioberoi is proposing above - I'll leave it to him to correct me if I have misinterpreted his meaning.
The direct answer to his follow up question is YES!!! (Sorry for shouting.) If such a simple test was conducted properly (large enough sample, proper blinding, no data mining, no meta-analysis with less well conducted studies, etc) then it would be the start of a beautiful relationship between homoeopathy and the real world.

If there is a significant difference between homoeopathy and placebo, and this can be consistently reproduced, then we have something very, very interesting to consider.

What is there to be afraid of in seeing the results of such simple studies? Why come up with blocking tactics and resort to obscure and poorly conducted work? I think I know why there is not a mountain of good evidence (note - not hear-say) for homoeopathic effectiveness in respected peer-reviewed literature ... do you have any ideas that do not involve a persecution complex???
__________________
Ted: "Have you been studying this chart like I told you?"
kieran is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2007, 03:59 AM   #425
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 17,464
Originally Posted by kieran View Post
No-one seems to have addressed this one directly so I'll have a go ... I think that manioberoi was proposing a tweak to the proposed conceptual test protocols.
  • Manioberoi seems reluctant to buy into the protocols proposed so far because there is some kind of sequence of steps that homoeopathic practioners go through with the patients wherein they use a sequence of "medicines" and modify the next "prescription" based on the outcome of the previous administration.
  • The test protocols proposed so far randomly (and blindly) substitute each prescription with a placebo. This will make the analysis of the results hard to interpret (unless we are only interested in the final administration of the sequence).
  • To keep with manioberoi's description of homoeopathic practices, the randomization should be applied to a particular homoeopath-patient link instead ... so that all remedies provided to a particular (randomly and blindly chosen) patient are substituted. I think that this is what manioberoi is proposing above - I'll leave it to him to correct me if I have misinterpreted his meaning.
Yes, the protocol I envisage follow the third description. Thus, every prescription the practitioner makes will go through an independent distributor, from where either remedy or placebo is dispensed, according to which group the patient in question is in.

The only reasonable reservation I have yet met to this protocol is that some practitioners like to dispense remedies directly to the patient, having the patient take the remedy in the practitioner's presense.

This would require a complete set of randomized remedies, placebo, but since such a practice must already be limited to what inventory the practitioner can have in his practice, that should not be an insurmountable problem, either. What would be needed is that if the practitioner stores, say, 30 different remedies, a set of randomly numbered containers with these remedies must be fabricated. An equivalent set of randomly numbered containers with placebo should be added to the inventory. A computer program has the key to the patients, remedies and placebo. Thus, if the practitioner wants to prescribe Arnica 30C, he enters that into the computer program, and the program returns a number. The practitioner then finds that bottle and issues the medicine to the patient.
Of course the computer records the issuance.

In this way, neither the patient nor the practitioner will ever know if the remedy is real remedy or placebo.

Complicated, but not really difficult.

Hans
__________________
Don't. Just don't.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2007, 04:13 AM   #426
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 17,464
Originally Posted by manioberoi View Post
You can't write off an entire area of medicine on the basis of just 6 studies by a few authors especially when leading homeopathic bodies have published public refutations about this collated study.
We don't. We write off, or at least dismiss, homeopathy on the following grounds:

1) It is an archaic theory, founded in a time when the knowledge of pathology, disease agents, pharmacology, and physics was very limited. Just imagine if somebody from the 19th century tried to tell modern engineers how to design an airplane.

2) None of the principles in homeopathy, like cures like, miasms, vital force, uldtradilution, have any support in our current knowledge about how the universe functions.

3) No sound research has been able to consistently show positive results for any part of homeoapthy.

4) There exist alternative explanations for the observed practical results of homepathic treatment (natural recovery, placebo, observer bias, reporting bias, concurrent treatment, delusion, direct fabrication, etc).

Hans
__________________
Don't. Just don't.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2007, 04:17 AM   #427
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 17,464
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
*snip*
Here are all 15 of "the 13 papers that Dr. Roy got published in NATURE", plus a letter for good measure:
*snip*


I cant help wondering if our good friend has trouble with research, or simply with counting.

... Or if he is just insincere.

Hans
__________________
Don't. Just don't.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2007, 04:26 AM   #428
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 25,648
Originally Posted by kieran View Post
Manioberoi seems reluctant to buy into the protocols proposed so far because there is some kind of sequence of steps that homoeopathic practioners go through with the patients wherein they use a sequence of "medicines" and modify the next "prescription" based on the outcome of the previous administration.

I seem to remember this forming the basis of one of bwv11's objections to double-blind trials of individualised homoeopathy: that the blinding would inevitably break down because the homoeopath would be able to see the results of the previously administered remedies.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2007, 04:30 AM   #429
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 17,464
Originally Posted by manioberoi View Post
Infortunately we all have our scam artists, whether it is the U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia, India, China etc but there is a legal system which does catch and at times punish such scamsters. The enforcement standards vary and we in India are gradually improving the standards of enforcement - aka India is the only country where PepsiCo is being compelled to put a seal of quality assurance "One Quality Worldwide" across all its product labels.
Ehr, and you believe THAT? Then I can inform you that, for instance in China, PepsiCo is still using old-fashioned soda cans with the opener ring that comes off, which is dangerous, but cheaper. "One Quality Worldwide", my foot.

Quote:
Good Manufacturing Practices have been legislated in India for manufacturing Homeopathic drugs.
GMP does not ensure efficacy.

Quote:
Homeopathic education is standardised under the relevant legislation. Homeopathic clinical field units and research centres have been set up across the country.
Yeah, nice effort. Which requirements does the Indian government impose on homeopathy for documenting efficacy, and where is it published?

Quote:
India takes quality in health very seriously - the Courts have stepped in very often on complaints of the public about poor standards in government health facilities - they are being upgraded and improved - re-usable needles are banned/ phased out.
I'm sure they are making a honest effort, but as this is common knowledge, I don't suppose I insult you too much by pointing out that the initial platform for healthcare in India has enourmous room for improvement. So much that useless, but also harmless medicines (like we claim homeopathic remedies are) will be an improvment in many areas.

... Just like Hahnemann's practices were in the early 19th century in Europe where part of mainstream medicine actually made more harm than good.

Quote:
*Yada, yada*....

Apollo has also reacted to criticism by Indian politicians by expanding its services to India's millions of poor. It has set aside free beds for those who can't afford care, has set up a trust fund and is pioneering remote, satellite-linked telemedicine across India."
Which part of Apollo's services are homeopathic? We all know that for those who can pay, India can offer excellent conventional medical treatment.

Hans
__________________
Don't. Just don't.

Last edited by MRC_Hans; 19th June 2007 at 04:34 AM. Reason: Typos
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2007, 04:34 AM   #430
Michael C
Graduate Poster
 
Michael C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,883
A while ago I asked a precise question, but didn't get a reply. Please, could Mr. Ullman/Gully (or anybody else who deems that they are qualified to answer), give me a precise reply:

A test using homeopathic proving:

- A homeopath chooses three homeopathic remedies that will produce different, easily-distinguishable symptoms. We'll call them substance A, B and C.

- A reputed homeopathic laboratory produces samples of the three remedies, plus a placebo sample.

- The homeopath is given a sample, and his task is to ascertain if the sample is substance A, B, C or a placebo. He may choose provers whom he already knows (himself included), so he should have a clear idea of how they react to the three different substances.

- How many provers would the homeopath need in order to find the answer?
Michael C is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2007, 04:46 AM   #431
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 17,464
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
I seem to remember this forming the basis of one of bwv11's objections to double-blind trials of individualised homoeopathy: that the blinding would inevitably break down because the homoeopath would be able to see the results of the previously administered remedies.
Well, that was not exactly his objection (if I understood correctly the many words that Neil (aka bwv11) love to veil his replies in.

His objection is that the practitoner needs to observe an correlate the reaction of the patient to the remedy, and how can he do that if he doesn't know the remedy.

My reply to that was that the practitioner is to act as if all patients get verum, and the proof will be in the results.

Perhaps, as we have already attracted an unprecedented TWO perfectly literate homeopaths, we should wish for even more and hope that Neil (who is also quite literate) would collect enough courage to present his wiews here himself.

I don't post at Hpathy anymore (Neil knows why), but perhaps somebody else, or one of the homeopaths who are undoubtedly lurking here, could give him a hint?

Hans
__________________
Don't. Just don't.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2007, 05:18 AM   #432
fls
Penultimate Amazing
 
fls's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,236
Originally Posted by manioberoi View Post
You can't write off an entire area of medicine on the basis of just 6 studies by a few authors especially when leading homeopathic bodies have published public refutations about this collated study.
I don't write off an entire area on the basis of these six studies. The possibility that homeopathic remedies have any effect is excluded by everything we currently know about physiology and pharmacology and claims of cure that don't hold up under properly controlled conditions, are what drive me to write off an entire area.

Linda
__________________
God:a capricious creative or controlling force said to be the subject of a religion.
Evidence is anything that tends to make a proposition more or less true.-Loss Leader
SCAM will now be referred to as DIM (Demonstrably Ineffective Medicine)
Look how nicely I'm not reminding you you're dumb.-Happy Bunny
When I give an example, do not assume I am excluding every other possible example. Thank you.
fls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2007, 05:20 AM   #433
fls
Penultimate Amazing
 
fls's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,236
Originally Posted by manioberoi View Post
Symptom suppression!!! Apparently you have no knowledge of homeopathy.

Homeopathy individualizes treatment based not only on symptoms - in addition to symptoms a homeopath needs to consider mentals, generals, pathology and sometimes genus epidemicus.
I wasn't speaking of the information you use to choose treatments, but rather how you decide whether a treatment worked.

Linda
__________________
God:a capricious creative or controlling force said to be the subject of a religion.
Evidence is anything that tends to make a proposition more or less true.-Loss Leader
SCAM will now be referred to as DIM (Demonstrably Ineffective Medicine)
Look how nicely I'm not reminding you you're dumb.-Happy Bunny
When I give an example, do not assume I am excluding every other possible example. Thank you.
fls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2007, 05:20 AM   #434
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 25,648
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Well, that was not exactly his objection (if I understood correctly the many words that Neil (aka bwv11) love to veil his replies in.
Ah. My recollection was a little off - I couldn't find the page where he said that.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2007, 05:21 AM   #435
Badly Shaved Monkey
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Badly Shaved Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,310
Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
Hey HC...
I apologize for the shouting. I haven't figured out how to do the quoting with a posting. I instead chose to differentiate my words from others by using capital letters.
Hahnemann was respected enough that he was voted as an honorary member of the NY medical society in 1832,...pointless historical digression...
So, one minute we have you accusing others of "intellectual dishonesty" then you manage to find time to take this fascinating but irrelevant historical tour.

Whereas, you have not found time to discuss Elia's papers having been so insistent that we take them seriously. I have taken them seriously and have paid good money to obtain a copy of the first of them. I have then asked a couple of specific questions to open the discussion of the content and one to allow you to demonstrate that you have indeed read the whole paper and have a copy to hand.

You have answered none.

Perhaps you need a reminder;

A. What bearing do you think it has on the issue of homeopathy?

B. What is your opinion of the statistical methods used?

C. What is the penultimate word on page 823?


You should be careful, in future, whom you accuse of intellectual dishonesty.

While I am on the subject of reminding the debts you owe, here are two of those other questions that you steadfastly refuse to answer;

I return to your clinical evidence base;

4. Can you tell us whether either of these machines works?

http://www.bio-resonance.com/elybra.htm

http://www.remedydevices.com/voice.htm

Bear in mind that the users of these machines rely on exactly the same anecdotal experience and fallacious post hoc reasoning that every other homeopath does. Are the homeopaths who use these machines right or wrong in thinking they work?

It's a very simple question and capable of a single-word answer.

9. I set a p-value for significance of 0.05 and run 100 trials. In no trial is the test substance distinguishable from the control. How many trials can I expect to show an apparent "effect" from my test substance?
__________________
"i'm frankly surprised homeopathy does as well as placebo" Anonymous homeopath.
"Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment; you must also be right." (Robert Park)
Is the pen is mightier than the sword? Its effectiveness as a weapon is certainly enhanced if it is sharpened properly and poked in the eye of your opponent.

Last edited by Badly Shaved Monkey; 19th June 2007 at 05:29 AM.
Badly Shaved Monkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2007, 05:28 AM   #436
Badly Shaved Monkey
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Badly Shaved Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,310
Originally Posted by SYLVESTER1592 View Post
Now for my questions…
Let me explain what is said here so you understand the criticism:

“A report in May 1994 examined the homeopathic treatment of diarrhea in children who lived in Nicaragua [7]. On Day 3 of treatment the homeopathic group had one less unformed stool than the control group (3.1 Vs 2.1; p <.05).”

I'll get back to this further down...

“ However, critics [8] pointed out that not only were the sickest children excluded, but there were no significant differences on Days 1, 2, 4, or 5.”

This points to something called selection bias. etc. etc.
Now, on the subject of intellectual honesty, in the light of Sylvester's careful explanations will JamesGully cease to refer to these studies in support of his pet therapy? Or, will we see the usual stubborn refusal to listen to reason? (I'm not taking bets on this).
__________________
"i'm frankly surprised homeopathy does as well as placebo" Anonymous homeopath.
"Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment; you must also be right." (Robert Park)
Is the pen is mightier than the sword? Its effectiveness as a weapon is certainly enhanced if it is sharpened properly and poked in the eye of your opponent.
Badly Shaved Monkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2007, 05:48 AM   #437
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 17,464
Originally Posted by manioberoi View Post
Symptom suppression!!! Apparently you have no knowledge of homeopathy.

Homeopathy individualizes treatment based not only on symptoms - in addition to symptoms a homeopath needs to consider mentals, generals, pathology and sometimes genus epidemicus.
Nevertheless, homeopathy deals with no manifestations of disease, except symptoms. It also deals exclisively with the symptomatic expression of remedies.

So, while I understand that homeopaths don't regard it as symptom suppression, but as "True Cure [tm]", for an outsider, I'm afraid there is no discernible difference. To see homeopathy as anything but pitting symptoms against symptoms, you need to believe in its efficacy. Which most of us don't.

Hans
__________________
Don't. Just don't.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2007, 05:56 AM   #438
Badly Shaved Monkey
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Badly Shaved Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,310
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Nevertheless, homeopathy deals with no manifestations of disease, except symptoms. It also deals exclisively with the symptomatic expression of remedies.

So, while I understand that homeopaths don't regard it as symptom suppression, but as "True Cure [tm]", for an outsider, I'm afraid there is no discernible difference. To see homeopathy as anything but pitting symptoms against symptoms, you need to believe in its efficacy. Which most of us don't.

Hans

Or to put it another way, manioberoi, this is another of those things that homeopaths baldly assert as true but without being able to corroborate. I'm afraid simply insisting that what you say is true but being unable to produce conclusive evidence or argument is not going to convince anyone here.

If I just insisted that you believe I had fairies at the bottom of my garden I hope you would ask me for some evidence.
__________________
"i'm frankly surprised homeopathy does as well as placebo" Anonymous homeopath.
"Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment; you must also be right." (Robert Park)
Is the pen is mightier than the sword? Its effectiveness as a weapon is certainly enhanced if it is sharpened properly and poked in the eye of your opponent.
Badly Shaved Monkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2007, 06:00 AM   #439
Badly Shaved Monkey
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Badly Shaved Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,310
As a side-point, someone also needs to point out that some of us have read a lot of homeopathic case reports and the one thing they singularly fail to show is anything like a consistent pattern of curing patients. We see an awful lot of treating patients and unwrapping the layers of "dis-ease" and re-repertorising to match new remedies to the current symptom picture, but precious little that one might call a cure except when the condition was inevitably self-limiting.

I think the idea that there are all these "cured" patients going around is one of those big rhetorical lies about homeopathy that is tackled too weakly.
__________________
"i'm frankly surprised homeopathy does as well as placebo" Anonymous homeopath.
"Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment; you must also be right." (Robert Park)
Is the pen is mightier than the sword? Its effectiveness as a weapon is certainly enhanced if it is sharpened properly and poked in the eye of your opponent.
Badly Shaved Monkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2007, 07:44 AM   #440
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 17,464
Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
Hey HC...
I apologize for the shouting. I haven't figured out how to do the quoting with a posting. I instead chose to differentiate my words from others by using capital letters.
Mmmokay. I notice others have explained the quoting feature, so enough about that.

Quote:
Hahnemann was respected enough that he was voted as an honorary member of the NY medical society in 1832,
If so then it is frankly rather disingenious of you to assert that Charles Darwin did not dare to support homeopathy openly in the same years. Do try to make your story straight.

Quote:
though he was voted out in 1843 just one week after his death because the medical society said that homeopathy was too much of an ideological and "economic" threat.
Source?

Quote:
Although many people who were uninformed about homeopathy make fun of Hahnemann's concept of miasms, this concept were some of the earliest sophisticated insights about genetic disease. Hahnemann determined that people with syphilis, gonorrhea, and TB didn't die immediately, but during their disease process they gave birth (or sperm), and this new human being's health was influenced by the diseases of the mother and father. Such child would not have syphilis, gonorrhea, or TB, but they would have specific symptoms that were associated with each of their "miasms."
Excuse me, but this is nonsense. The diseases you mention are infectuous diseases, and have nothing whatsoever to do with genetic diseases. Do you really not know about these things?

Quote:
and modern medical historians confirm that Hahnemann “showed sound balance and good judgment” in his advocacy of proper diet, fresh air, and exercise as a method of treatment. His promotion of hygienic measures during epidemics won him praise as a public health advocate, and his kind rather than cruel and harsh treatment of the insane granted him a place in the history of psychiatry (Rothstein, 1972, 152).
And, have you realized that herein probably lies the explanation to his successes in treating epidemics?

Quote:
Hahnemann noted that Cullen asserted that the reason that Peruvian bark was an effective drug for malaria was due to its bitter and astringent properties. Hahnemann thought this was a peculiar statement because he knew more bitter and astringent medicines, but they provided no benefit in the treatment of malaria. He then conducted an experiment upon himself where he took this herb twice a day until he developed symptoms of its toxicology, and here he discovered that it created a fever with chills as well as other symptoms that were similar to malaria. Hahnemann proposed that Peruvian bark (which contains quinine) may be effective for treating people with malaria because it has the capacity to cause similar symptoms.
If you are to write about this, and claim intellectual honesty, you must also explain how the symptoms Hahnemann experienced are not charanterisic for Cinnhoa bark at all. In fact his observation is one of the riddles in the history of homeopathy, because the feever and chills he experienced cannot be repeated by others. In fact, later historians have suggested that he either was allergic to to some substance in the bark, or he simply happend to have a flu.

Also, do write that we now know that the active substance, chinine, ceartainly does not produce malaria-like symptoms when given to healthy subjects.

In other words, if you consider writing about the history of Hahnemann and homeopathy, you owe it to your readers to explain how Hahnemann's initial "discovery" of homeopathy was in fact based on a mistake .

Quote:
Hahnemann ultimately conducted upon himself experiments with 90 other substances, and his colleagues and friends also engaged in these experiments. He had found a consistent pattern from these experiments, that is, he found that various substances in overdose create their own unique syndrome of symptoms and that whatever syndrome a substance causes in toxic dose, it can and will elicit a healing response when given in specially prepared small doses to people who have similar symptoms of pathology.
No, that was not what Hahnemann discovered. He discovered, what is already known, that various substances provoke a toxic reaction, which has a repeatable pattern. That it can cure diseases with a similar pattern is, however, Hahnemann's theory. One for which there remains, after 200 years, no conclusive evidence.

Quote:
*snip*
Despite Hahnemann’s significant contributions to medicine, pharmacy, chemistry, psychiatry, and public health, he remained a humble man. “I do not ask during my lifetime any recognition of the beneficent truth, which I, without any thought of myself, offer. What I have done, I did from higher motives for the world. Non inutilis vixi (I have not lived in vain).”
On the Hahnemann Monument in Washington, DC, are those Latin words. Indeed, Dr. Samuel Hahnemann did not live in vain.
Or, he was perhaps a bit hypocritical. If you read his basic work, the Organon of Medicine, it is far from humble. Indeed about half of the text is devoted to telling the reader how great he, Hahemann, is, and how stupid his detractors are.

But enough of all this theorizing and history massage: Are there any of the concrete point raised you would like to adress, or are you content to drone on with your evasions?

I notice that since the post where you were kind enough to call me a gentleman, you have consistently ignored whatever I have posted. I take it that the gentleman approach is not likely to get me anywhere with you, so I suppose I must consider a gloves off approach from now on. No problem, I have tried that before.

Hans
__________________
Don't. Just don't.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:43 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.