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
 


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 25th June 2007, 01:53 AM   #681
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 22,277
Originally Posted by manioberoi View Post
Dana Ullman has NOT claimed that homeopathy has a viable treatment or cure for HIV/AIDS. So far neither does conventional medicine claim to have a cure for HIV/AIDS.

All that Dana Ullman has said is that Homeopathic treatment holds promise for such cure / treatment and proper trials need to be carried out so as to establish this. He has at no time stated that patients should abandon conventional treatment and look for homeopathic treatment for HIV/AIDS.

Do you find this objectionable?
Yes. His claim that homeopathic treatment even holds promise is unfounded. As long as the claim is not backed by tangible evidence, not only should patients not abandon conventional treatment, but homeopathic treatment should not even be suggested to them.

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
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 25th June 2007, 01:55 AM   #682
kieran
Critical Thinker
 
kieran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 294
Originally Posted by manioberoi View Post
alcoholus is a homeopathic remedy so is sac lac. Pure water is not - so far.
What exactly were you trying to say about pure water here? Were you opening up the door to being able to claim that pure water is a homoeopathic remedy in the future?

While I think most here will agree that there is no difference between the effect of a homoeopathic "remedy" and pure water, I don't think you will find that favourable to homoeopathy.
__________________
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 25th June 2007, 03:58 AM   #683
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 43,486
Originally Posted by manioberoi View Post
I am beginning to understand your objections and I sort of get the feeling that you are genuinely concerned that homeopathic remedies do nothing....
Wow! Light dawns!

Yes, manioberoi, that is exactly the case. I'm just stunned that you seem to have taken so long to realise this! Why do you think we are having this conversation in the first place?

We know there is no physical presence of the homoeopathic remedy in most of the preparations used, and we are unimpressed by all the flaky and unrepeatable studies that have been carried out to try to show that nevertheless there might be some physical difference in the carrier material. We realise, as apparently you do not, the sheer depth of the assault any such proven effect would make on the accepted scientific world-view, and thus, how extraordinarily unlikely it is to be true. Indeed, we understand as you seem not to understand, how vanishingly unlikely it is that ordinary biological tests and even the ordinary world such as engines and computers and so on would work as they obviously do work, if any of that "water memory" theory was actually true.

We are impressed by none of your anecdotes, because we are aware how fickle individual cases can be and how often patients recover without any treatment. We are also aware of how it is possible to persuade a patient, by kindly attention, that they are feeling a little better perhaps, even when in fact their condition has not changed. We, who are familiar with how sick people and animals progress and deteriorate on a daily basis, see nothing at all in the entire body of homoeopathic literature, that can't be easily explained by simple coincidence (homoeopath taking credit for what would have happened anyway), or the suggestibility of both patient and homoeopath.

That you do not have the clarity of mind to examine your beliefs and take account of this aspect is really quite sad.

You cling to your image of yourself as someone who helps patients. We see someone who is either competely deluded into believing that these inert remedies are influencing the course of the patient's condition, or a bare-faced fraud, taking money from desperate people for "treatment" you know to be valueless. (In your case I'm prepared to concede the former may be the actual situation.) We are therefore concerned and indeed outraged for the patients who are being misled and/or tricked in this manner.

Unless you can take a step back and recognise how we regard you, and take on board the reasons why we are of that opinion, then the conversation won't get very far.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe 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 25th June 2007, 04:12 AM   #684
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 43,486
Originally Posted by manioberoi View Post
The conventional medicines are tagged with severe side effects and each causes some new disease, cancer, genetic damage, liver dysfunction, blood disorders, immue suppression and the like. EVERY prescription has a high cost of cure - one that the patient bears for the rest of her life.
I have to step in with Hans on this one. This is complete nonsense.

Manioberoi, you seem to be knowledgeable in some aspects of science, but your knowledge is patchy and partial. In this aspect you are so wide of the mark you are on a different planet. You seem either to be parroting slander you have heard elsewhere, or to be one of these people who reads lists of reported side-effects and somehow comes away with the belief that all of these side-effects will inevitably happen to everyone who takes the drug.

This is not the case. Lists of side-effects are list of things that some people have reported as experiencing after taking the drug. (And, like a homoeopathic proving, it's possible some of these things might simply have been coincidental.) Most people experience no side-effects from any routine drugs. Almost nobody experiences all the side-effects on the list for any drug.

There are some "desperate remedies" for desperate diseases which come with inevitable side-effects, but even there, these side effects are usually temporary (such as the loss of hair related to many cancer treatments). And the bottom line is, there has to be a net benefit at the end. No doctor is going to use a drug which will leave their patient worse off than before. (Yes, sometimes a patient is left worse off, but these are isolated cases of idiosyncratic reactions, and if they were any more than isolated, the drug would have to be withdrawn.)

And to repeat, most people experience no side effects from most common medications.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe 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 25th June 2007, 04:24 AM   #685
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 22,277
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Wow! Light dawns!

*snip*

Unless you can take a step back and recognise how we regard you, and take on board the reasons why we are of that opinion, then the conversation won't get very far.

Rolfe.
Very precisely put!

And if manioberoi had indeed taken this step, he would not continue posting more anecdotes, and he would not keep making unfounded claims. ..And he would be on his way to the stark realization that he might actually be mistaken.

I have a question for you manioberoi. One that you don't have to answer here, just answer it to yourself:

Suppose a protocol was designed for testing homeopathy. One that satisfied both the skeptics and the homeopaths.

Suppose that protocol was carried out in an actual test. Results were collected, the participating homeopaths were asked to report on how they regarded the test; did the protocol interfere unduly with their mode of work, did they experience any difficulties that might influence the results, etc. They all reported back that no difficulties were experienced. (This is the way a real clinical trial is handled)

Now, suppose, we reveal the codes and compare the groups and find: Nothing. No difference except the expectable noise exists between the homeopathy result and the placebo result.

What would you conclude?

Would you conclude that:

1) It seems homeopathy does actually not work (at least in the context tested).

2) It seems the trial was flawed after all.

Hans

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
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 25th June 2007, 04:44 AM   #686
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 22,277
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
*snip*
This is not the case. Lists of side-effects are list of things that some people have reported as experiencing after taking the drug. (And, like a homoeopathic proving, it's possible some of these things might simply have been coincidental.) *snip*
Rolfe.
Actually, this is an interesting comparison. You see, there is a profound difference between pharma companies are required to state efficacy and how they must list side effects.

To list efficacy, they must conduct clinical trials, and the results must be statistical significant.

However, if a side effect is reported, and there is even suspicion that it might have been caused by the drug, they are required to list it.

In other words, they are required to prove that the drug works, and they have to disprove that it causes a given side effect. Read the inlay of a drug, and you will find that some of the reported side effects are listed as rare. This means that they are observed for less than one patient in a thousand.

Now remember that homeopaths base their assumption of efficacy on a system that is similar to the side effect reporting (except that there is no reporting system in place): If it hasn't been disproven that the cure was due to homeopathy, then it is assumed to be a homeopathic cure.

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
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 25th June 2007, 07:04 AM   #687
krazyKemist
Critical Thinker
 
krazyKemist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 430
Originally Posted by manioberoi View Post
And how might a homeopath publish at the inital stage in any other than the homeopathic or alternative journals which do not pass muster of members of this forum?
By having a spectacularly well-made study, following a well-established drug testing protocol.

Except for conferences, you cannot publish the same material twice. That is considered scientific fraud (get two publications for the price of one kind of thing) That is why the journal must be chosen carefully to establish credibility. If the journal has been known in the past to let whooly studies pass its editorial board (as many alt med journals do, unfortunately ), then there is much more reason to doubt your results.

Getting passed by a rigorous editorial board is much harder work, and expect your results to be thoroughly investigated, given the nature of what you claim. But you won't get rejected on grounds of 'this is homeopathy'. Good journals are not controlled by the 'drug industry'. The collaboration which would be needed for this is almost impossible. Drug companies cooperate in very few things. In fact they are very competitive towards one another (you should see how much effort they put in keeping secrets from one another ). What hurts one company is often quite good for its competitor... Again, see what happened with vioxx.

the Kemist
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 25th June 2007, 07:33 PM   #688
manioberoi
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 125
Originally Posted by krazyKemist View Post
By having a spectacularly well-made study, following a well-established drug testing protocol.

Except for conferences, you cannot publish the same material twice. That is considered scientific fraud (get two publications for the price of one kind of thing) That is why the journal must be chosen carefully to establish credibility. If the journal has been known in the past to let whooly studies pass its editorial board (as many alt med journals do, unfortunately ), then there is much more reason to doubt your results.

Getting passed by a rigorous editorial board is much harder work, and expect your results to be thoroughly investigated, given the nature of what you claim. But you won't get rejected on grounds of 'this is homeopathy'. Good journals are not controlled by the 'drug industry'. The collaboration which would be needed for this is almost impossible. Drug companies cooperate in very few things. In fact they are very competitive towards one another (you should see how much effort they put in keeping secrets from one another ). What hurts one company is often quite good for its competitor... Again, see what happened with vioxx.

the Kemist
I have been busy analyzing the 600 plus posts in this thread. Hence the delay in posting.

Some fundamental questions and some major observations:

1. Are you saying that all categories of disease would get better in 5% of cases (Post #1 & c) without treatment of any kind?

2. Are you then saying that cases of cancers (Staged, Graded, Typed) that have shown very low long term (18 to 24 months) cure rates of below 2% with chemotherapy would achieve 5% cure rate in the absence of all treatment?

3. A proper considered answer to #1 has not been given.

4. No answer at all has been given to the post (Asian Pacific J Cancer Prev) #664.

5. If some besotted homeopath does take up Randi's offer and succeeds should it not rightly be written off in the 5% clause and Randi should resile from his offer on the justified ground that the exception proves the rule (that homeopathy does not work).

6. So come on state upfront whether a one off like Randi's (unscientific?) offer is acceptable to the highly scientific members of this forum? Because it would most certainly not pass muster at ANY scientific level - homeopathic or conventional.

7. If it is not then really you are giving homeopathy a Hobbson's Choice of success, because you are starting with the unscientific premise that homeopathy does not work and even if it shows 100% cure in 5 successive trials you will reject them under yopur scientific 5% clause - the 5% clause has no real scientific basis - it is only a priori. It could just as well be .5% or .05 % depending on the level of significance.

8. I suggest that if you want to be scientific - consider the homeopaths circumstance:

A. Any one SINGLE remedy can produce one or more different symptoms from the expected set of symptoms of the provings but symptoms can not be restricted to the provings data alone.

B. No one SINGLE remedy can treat / cure any particular disease of the patient with 100% success rate.

C. No specified disease can be treated by one specific SINGLE remedy alone with 100% success rate.

D. A well chosen SINGLE remedy (alternatively, a set of SINGLE remedies if properly chosen by homeopath) is required to treat / cure the patient and this is amenable to proof in a homeopathically valid well structured double blind trial. Such trials do not seem to have been carried out as on date according to the published literature - at least not in India.

E. The effects of a COMBINATION (mixed set of remedies of one or more potencies) ( non classical homeopathy) can NEVER be predicted - although many claims are being made of their efficacy in advertisements - and in some countries they are being legally permitted to PATENT the COMBINATION raising the costs and profits level astronomically without any acceptable level -acceptable in this forum - of proof of cure).

F. ONLY trials that permit of adherence to the above principles should be carried out (controlled double blind - water vs water potency - 6C (below Avogrado's) in the first set of trials, 30C (beyond Avogadro's) in the second set of trials and any or all potency 3X and above permitted ( all non toxic potencies) in the third set of trials - this potency clause is on account of intractable difference of opinion among homeopaths about how and what works in homeopathy).

9. I rest my case.

Thank you for the very valuable discussion.

Regards.

Sarvadaman Oberoi
H 485 FF Ansals Palam Vihar
Gurgaon 122017 Haryana INDIA
Mobile: +919818768349 Tele: +911244076374
Website: http://www.freewebs.com/homeopathy249/index.htm
email: manioberoi@gmail.com
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 25th June 2007, 08:15 PM   #689
manioberoi
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 125
In para 4
for #664
read #647
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 25th June 2007, 11:34 PM   #690
Badly Shaved Monkey
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Badly Shaved Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,362
"1. Are you saying that all categories of disease would get better in 5% of cases (Post #1 & c) without treatment of any kind?"

No

"2. Are you then saying that cases of cancers (Staged, Graded, Typed) that have shown very low long term (18 to 24 months) cure rates of below 2% with chemotherapy would achieve 5% cure rate in the absence of all treatment?"

Seems unlikely

"3. A proper considered answer to #1 has not been given."

It's not been asked before and is not relevant to the discussion.

"4. No answer at all has been given to the post (Asian Pacific J Cancer Prev) #664."

That is correct. You posted a citation to a reference but did not draw any inference from it. There is nothing to respond to.

"5. If some besotted homeopath does take up Randi's offer and succeeds should it not rightly be written off in the 5% clause and Randi should resile from his offer on the justified ground that the exception proves the rule (that homeopathy does not work)."

There is no such thing as a "5% clause". You must have invented this. It is well established that if someone succeeds with a well-designed test of paranormal powers that has prior agreement of its validity from both parties then the money is available to a successful claimant.

"6. So come on state upfront whether a one off like Randi's (unscientific?) offer is acceptable to the highly scientific members of this forum? Because it would most certainly not pass muster at ANY scientific level - homeopathic or conventional."

That is your opinion. Your opinion is wrong.

"7. If it is not then really you are giving homeopathy a Hobbson's Choice of success, because you are starting with the unscientific premise that homeopathy does not work and even if it shows 100% cure in 5 successive trials you will reject them under yopur scientific 5% clause - the 5% clause has no real scientific basis - it is only a priori. It could just as well be .5% or .05 % depending on the level of significance."

You continue to misunderstand how probability considerations are applied to scientific trial data.

"8. I suggest that if you want to be scientific - consider the homeopaths circumstance:

A. ...

B. ...

C. ...

D. ...

E. ...

F. ..."

This has all been considered. They are factors in trial design. Homeopaths claim to be able to "cure" patients. The purpose of a trial is to see whether that is likely to be true, all the complexity is their problem. Getting an answer from a trial is not complex. When cheating and bias are well-excluded, homeopaths fail to "cure" patients

"9. I rest my case."

You have not made a case.

Also, after your long deliberations, you have failed yet again to answer this question;

Which do you want to admit, either homeopathy is scientifically testable or your entire clincal case record must be ignored? There is no third option. Which do you want to choose?
__________________
"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; 25th June 2007 at 11:36 PM.
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 26th June 2007, 12:13 AM   #691
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 22,277
Originally Posted by manioberoi View Post
I have been busy analyzing the 600 plus posts in this thread. Hence the delay in posting.
Nice work, few people bother to do that.

Quote:
1. Are you saying that all categories of disease would get better in 5% of cases (Post #1 & c) without treatment of any kind?
I don't think anybody in their right mind would make such a claim. Natural remission obviously varies greatly from disease to disease. Common cold has a natural remission rate of 100%, AIDS is so far at zero.

Quote:
2. Are you then saying that cases of cancers (Staged, Graded, Typed) that have shown very low long term (18 to 24 months) cure rates of below 2% with chemotherapy would achieve 5% cure rate in the absence of all treatment?
No, that would be an absurd claim.

Quote:
3. A proper considered answer to #1 has not been given.
Have you asked it before?

Quote:
4. No answer at all has been given to the post (Asian Pacific J Cancer Prev) #664.
What do you expect? There is not enough information to analyze the report.

Quote:
5. If some besotted homeopath does take up Randi's offer and succeeds should it not rightly be written off in the 5% clause and Randi should resile from his offer on the justified ground that the exception proves the rule (that homeopathy does not work).
With the reservation that I don't know if homeopathy is still applicable after the rule change, the challenge works so that an agreement is made betwee nthe applicant and the JREF on exactly what constitutes a positive result. If the applicant produced what has been agreed as a positive result, he/she wins the prize, period. Whether this can later be showed to be a statistical fluke, have a natural explanation, or something else, is irrelevant. The only thing that could reverse the result is if the applicant could be shown to have actually cheated.

Quote:
6. So come on state upfront whether a one off like Randi's (unscientific?) offer is acceptable to the highly scientific members of this forum? Because it would most certainly not pass muster at ANY scientific level - homeopathic or conventional.
That is because the JREF challenge, while using scientific methods, is not in itself scientific research. To have something accepted as science, winning the JREF prize would not suffice in itself. It would, however, ensure you much valuable attention from the scientific community and the media, plus, of course, a million dollars you could use for further research.

Quote:
7. If it is not then really you are giving homeopathy a Hobbson's Choice of success, because you are starting with the unscientific premise that homeopathy does not work and even if it shows 100% cure in 5 successive trials you will reject them under yopur scientific 5% clause - the 5% clause has no real scientific basis - it is only a priori. It could just as well be .5% or .05 % depending on the level of significance.
There is no "5% clause", but I now understand where you get this figure. The statistical significance test (95% confidence level) leaves a 5% possibility of a fluke result. Thus, when a claim is extraordinary, The scientific community will probably defer conclusion till it has been repeated. As I explained earlier, this is because such a result must be weighed against the existing mass of knowledge.

Quote:
8. I suggest that if you want to be scientific - consider the homeopaths circumstance:

A. Any one SINGLE remedy can produce one or more different symptoms from the expected set of symptoms of the provings but symptoms can not be restricted to the provings data alone.
This is an unproven claim. It has not been proven that a remedy can produce any symptoms at all (in high potencies).

Quote:
B. No one SINGLE remedy can treat / cure any particular disease of the patient with 100% success rate.
And?

Quote:
C. No specified disease can be treated by one specific SINGLE remedy alone with 100% success rate.
And?

Quote:
D. A well chosen SINGLE remedy (alternatively, a set of SINGLE remedies if properly chosen by homeopath) is required to treat / cure the patient and this is amenable to proof in a homeopathically valid well structured double blind trial. Such trials do not seem to have been carried out as on date according to the published literature - at least not in India.
It is not a requirement of a double blind protocol that only a single remedy is used. Protocols can be made to allow for standard homeopathic practice.

Quote:
E. The effects of a COMBINATION (mixed set of remedies of one or more potencies) ( non classical homeopathy) can NEVER be predicted - although many claims are being made of their efficacy in advertisements - and in some countries they are being legally permitted to PATENT the COMBINATION raising the costs and profits level astronomically without any acceptable level -acceptable in this forum - of proof of cure).
We don't really care what your claims are, regarding to combinations or not. Just state what results you claim to be able to achieve, and this is what should be tried.

Quote:
F. ONLY trials that permit of adherence to the above principles should be carried out (controlled double blind - water vs water potency - 6C (below Avogrado's) in the first set of trials, 30C (beyond Avogadro's) in the second set of trials and any or all potency 3X and above permitted ( all non toxic potencies) in the third set of trials - this potency clause is on account of intractable difference of opinion among homeopaths about how and what works in homeopathy).
I don't get your meaning of this, but it is not important. You can conduct your homeopathy in any way you wish, it is the results that will be judged. Only reservation is if you use very low potency remedies, where the actual pharmaceutical effect of the active content must be taken into account (e.g. if you use 2X Belladonna, and get results that are known to be belladonna effects, you will not have shown anything about homeopathy)

Quote:
9. I rest my case.
Excuse me, but did you have a case?



Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
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 26th June 2007, 12:22 AM   #692
kieran
Critical Thinker
 
kieran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 294
BSM and Hans seem to have gone through your points/comments/questions one-by-one, but I'll just add a bit on these ones ...

Originally Posted by manioberoi View Post
5. If some besotted homeopath does take up Randi's offer and succeeds should it not rightly be written off in the 5% clause and Randi should resile from his offer on the justified ground that the exception proves the rule (that homeopathy does not work).
The rules about what constitutes will be agreed between the tester and the claimant prior to the test. The test involves at least two stages, a preliminary test to make sure that we aren't all just wasting our time ... and the full test in which tighter statistical controls are applied.

Anyway - what do you care about statistics if you "know" that homoeopathy "works"? Whatever the statistical controls, however big the sample size, homoeopathy should always show through if it "works". Are you saying that you doubt it "works"?

Originally Posted by manioberoi View Post
6. So come on state upfront whether a one off like Randi's (unscientific?) offer is acceptable to the highly scientific members of this forum? Because it would most certainly not pass muster at ANY scientific level - homeopathic or conventional.
As you inferred, Randi's offer is indeed unscientific, it is a financial offer - and a considerable one at that. If a homoeopath managed to successfully win the $1M on offer then you can be sure that they will have the complete attention of the scientific community. The results will be analyzed and checked for repeatability by the scientific community - that's what they like to do. If something does actually work, school children could be conducting simple experiments to illustrate it for the next 50 years ...

Again, what do you care about how winning the $1M prize would be perceived if you "know", and are happy to demonstrate to everyone and anyones satisfaction, that homoeopathy "works"?

Originally Posted by manioberoi View Post
7. If it is not then really you are giving homeopathy a Hobbson's Choice of success, because you are starting with the unscientific premise that homeopathy does not work and even if it shows 100% cure in 5 successive trials you will reject them under yopur scientific 5% clause
I think you are the one claiming that homoeopathy works in any cases - and that is the only unscientific premise here because you have still not provided one shred of credible evidence to the contrary.

You appear to be a bit slow on this one so I'll try to spell it out as others have already done ... a 100% cure in 5 successive trials is completely meaningless ... please stop refering to it as it only shows how little you really understand. Think about it ... someone wins the lottery almost every week - the odds against a particular person winning the lottery are astronomical, yet someone does ... why is that? (Hint: Think about how many people actually didn't win.)
  • If you are claiming that you get 100% all the time - great, lets test it.
  • If you are cherry picking a handful of cases which were conducted in the complete absence of controls, and claiming it has some meaning, then you are only fooling yourself.
Originally Posted by manioberoi View Post
- the 5% clause has no real scientific basis - it is only a priori. It could just as well be .5% or .05 % depending on the level of significance.
I'm hoping you'll stop inventing excuses soon as you are going through the full set ... untestability, already "proven", conspiracy cover-up, statistical significance ...

Guess what, others have been down all these routes before (e.g. dowsers) - they finally get to a preliminary test, and they fail miserably but still they look for excuses (blaming the tests they previously agreed to!). You'd think they'd test themselves in private before letting thenselves look so stupid in public ... there is nothing stopping them ... and there is nothing stopping homoeopaths. Do a personal test today - tell us how you get on ...
__________________
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 26th June 2007, 06:10 AM   #693
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 31,443
Originally Posted by manioberoi View Post
8. I suggest that if you want to be scientific - consider the homeopaths circumstance:

...

B. No one SINGLE remedy can treat / cure any particular disease of the patient with 100% success rate.

C. No specified disease can be treated by one specific SINGLE remedy alone with 100% success rate.

I doubt very much that any treatment, of any kind, has a 100% success rate.

But a 100% success rate is not necessary to demonstrate that a treatment is effective: all you need to do is to demonstrate a greater improvement in patients given the treatment than in patients given a placebo.

Can you suggest a single remedy that can cure any particular disease with a 50% success rate?

A 30% success rate?

20%?

10%?

5%?

Even at these lower success rates, it can still be tested against placebo: you'll just need bigger sample sizes to adequately demonstrate the effect.
__________________
"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 26th June 2007, 12:05 PM   #694
krazyKemist
Critical Thinker
 
krazyKemist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 430
I will answer some of the questions to the best of my knowledge...

Originally Posted by manioberoi View Post
I have been busy analyzing the 600 plus posts in this thread. Hence the delay in posting.

Some fundamental questions and some major observations:

1. Are you saying that all categories of disease would get better in 5% of cases (Post #1 & c) without treatment of any kind?
For my part, no. It depends on :

-the nature of the disease (some diseases do disappear without intervention at a higher rate than others, the body fights them naturally without help)

-the nature of the test. Example:the perception of pain is very susceptible to the placebo effect. One study made on glucosamine even reported a strong placebo effect in 65% of subjects !!!

Quote:
2. Are you then saying that cases of cancers (Staged, Graded, Typed) that have shown very low long term (18 to 24 months) cure rates of below 2% with chemotherapy would achieve 5% cure rate in the absence of all treatment?
Cure, or event-free survival rate above 5 years ? Cancers are rarely considered cured, but rather in remisssion. In that case yes, it can happen, with poor cure rate cancers, in which the use of chemo is debatable. Chemotherapy agents are not exactly harmless, especially if you are reduced to the third line drugs (which will happen in case of poor response).

Quote:
5. If some besotted homeopath does take up Randi's offer and succeeds should it not rightly be written off in the 5% clause and Randi should resile from his offer on the justified ground that the exception proves the rule (that homeopathy does not work).

6. So come on state upfront whether a one off like Randi's (unscientific?) offer is acceptable to the highly scientific members of this forum? Because it would most certainly not pass muster at ANY scientific level - homeopathic or conventional.

7. If it is not then really you are giving homeopathy a Hobbson's Choice of success, because you are starting with the unscientific premise that homeopathy does not work and even if it shows 100% cure in 5 successive trials you will reject them under yopur scientific 5% clause - the 5% clause has no real scientific basis - it is only a priori. It could just as well be .5% or .05 % depending on the level of significance.
I think there is some misunderstanding of the scientific method and scientists here. You make an hypothesis : homeopathy does work. We have an alternative one : it does not. Those two are just opposing models. Neither is unscientific. You have reasons to believe it works, we have reasons to believe it does not. Science gives us tools to evaluate the value of these reasons. A scientist is a person with his/her own vision of the world, and those visions will often differ greatly. Einstein, for example, never accepted quantum theory, even if, as a model, it has enormous predictive power, which is the mark of a good model.

Quote:
8. I suggest that if you want to be scientific - consider the homeopaths circumstance:

A. Any one SINGLE remedy can produce one or more different symptoms from the expected set of symptoms of the provings but symptoms can not be restricted to the provings data alone.

B. No one SINGLE remedy can treat / cure any particular disease of the patient with 100% success rate.

C. No specified disease can be treated by one specific SINGLE remedy alone with 100% success rate.

D. A well chosen SINGLE remedy (alternatively, a set of SINGLE remedies if properly chosen by homeopath) is required to treat / cure the patient and this is amenable to proof in a homeopathically valid well structured double blind trial. Such trials do not seem to have been carried out as on date according to the published literature - at least not in India.

E. The effects of a COMBINATION (mixed set of remedies of one or more potencies) ( non classical homeopathy) can NEVER be predicted - although many claims are being made of their efficacy in advertisements - and in some countries they are being legally permitted to PATENT the COMBINATION raising the costs and profits level astronomically without any acceptable level -acceptable in this forum - of proof of cure).

F. ONLY trials that permit of adherence to the above principles should be carried out (controlled double blind - water vs water potency - 6C (below Avogrado's) in the first set of trials, 30C (beyond Avogadro's) in the second set of trials and any or all potency 3X and above permitted ( all non toxic potencies) in the third set of trials - this potency clause is on account of intractable difference of opinion among homeopaths about how and what works in homeopathy).
Consider this: conventional medicine had to prove that every single treatment was efficient. That is an awful amount of work, done over generations of researchers and doctors. That work has never been done properly by homeopathic medicine. It would also be a huge amount of work, that has to be done little by little. Begin with sound documentation and follow-up. Be honest and show your failures as well as your successes, as conventional medicine does. That is how research actually makes a discipline better.

Quote:
9. I rest my case.

Thank you for the very valuable discussion.

Regards.

Sarvadaman Oberoi
H 485 FF Ansals Palam Vihar
Gurgaon 122017 Haryana INDIA
Mobile: +919818768349 Tele: +911244076374
Website: http://www.freewebs.com/homeopathy249/index.htm
email: manioberoi@gmail.com
It's been a pleasure. And if you intend to begin testing, good luck.

the Kemist
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 27th June 2007, 12:11 AM   #695
manioberoi
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 125
Originally Posted by krazyKemist View Post
I will answer some of the questions to the best of my knowledge...



For my part, no. It depends on :

-the nature of the disease (some diseases do disappear without intervention at a higher rate than others, the body fights them naturally without help)

-the nature of the test. Example:the perception of pain is very susceptible to the placebo effect. One study made on glucosamine even reported a strong placebo effect in 65% of subjects !!!



Cure, or event-free survival rate above 5 years ? Cancers are rarely considered cured, but rather in remisssion. In that case yes, it can happen, with poor cure rate cancers, in which the use of chemo is debatable. Chemotherapy agents are not exactly harmless, especially if you are reduced to the third line drugs (which will happen in case of poor response).



I think there is some misunderstanding of the scientific method and scientists here. You make an hypothesis : homeopathy does work. We have an alternative one : it does not. Those two are just opposing models. Neither is unscientific. You have reasons to believe it works, we have reasons to believe it does not. Science gives us tools to evaluate the value of these reasons. A scientist is a person with his/her own vision of the world, and those visions will often differ greatly. Einstein, for example, never accepted quantum theory, even if, as a model, it has enormous predictive power, which is the mark of a good model.



Consider this: conventional medicine had to prove that every single treatment was efficient. That is an awful amount of work, done over generations of researchers and doctors. That work has never been done properly by homeopathic medicine. It would also be a huge amount of work, that has to be done little by little. Begin with sound documentation and follow-up. Be honest and show your failures as well as your successes, as conventional medicine does. That is how research actually makes a discipline better.



It's been a pleasure. And if you intend to begin testing, good luck.

the Kemist
It was a fruitful discussion.
This real life case provides food for thought and hence I am posting it here:

"American Homeopath (_Am_Hom) 1998
As if one patient (Greg Bedayn) Angustura vera Case About six years ago there was an article in the San Francisco Chronicle about an epidemic that was killing the northern California sheep population. They referred to it as "Ergot poisoning" and one of the finest schools of Veterinary Science in the country, the University of California at Davis, had thrown up their hands in frustration and called it "an act of God," or something similarly provocative for a homeopath. I dialed the operator and asked for the phone number of the two ranchers named in the article. I called both, the second one had many sheep that were affected and we had a long conversation. I was told that ergot smut is a seasonal mold that grows on the autumn grass found on the typically foggy California coast, but it grows only in the absence of rain, which would otherwise wash it off. Some years the rains come early and there is no problem; other years the rains come late and there is a substantial loss of livestock due to complications arising from the poisonings that continue sometimes for up to five months. The sheep's symptoms were of a neuralgic-convulsive sort. The stricken animals would quiver and shake and then get so stiff they could no longer balance their bodies over their feet; they would topple-over onto the ground and then bounce around a bit in an effort to right themselves. Anxiety mounting, their seizure would only worsen if approached by man or beast. They would die within an hour or two if not rescued by a rancher. It is interesting to note that when the ranchers found sheep in this state, they would hold their hand over the animal's eyes, and slowly the animal would calm down and allow itself to be lifted to its feet, at which point it would gallop off. The ranch terrain is mostly steep hills, and if stricken on the side of a steep slope, the sheep would fall then pitch-pole, end over end, down the hill -a frightful sight. The ranches involved were 200-2,000 acres each, with a total population of approximately 10,000 animals. Many of the animals were dying daily. The rancher videotaped the evening feeding process and mailed it to me -saying he was interested in homeopathy if it could help his animals. The video showed some of the symptoms very clearly, so I started packing a field-kit of remedies; Cicuta, Lolium, Ustilago, Strychninum, Nux vomica, Solanum nigrum, Secale as an isode, and a few others. I telephoned the late great George Macleod, in Scotland, and he suggested I try Belladonna followed by Strychninum. Before I could journey to the ranches and apply the remedies, the rains came and washed the mold off the grass, new grass sprouted almost immediately, giving the sheep toxin-free food -the seasonal episode was over. Then, in November 1995, (six years later), the first rancher from the newspaper article called me and said a new episode of toxicity had started and would I come out and take a look at his herd. A few days later, I gathered my travel kit and a homeopathcolleague, Sarah Nielsen, RN, and we drove to the ranch, located a few miles inland from Tomales Bay, about one hour drive north from San Francisco. We arrived and inspected the herd at their morning meal. There were two distinctly different problem-groups. For example, some of the lambs were suffering from failure to thrive and a marasmus, which we repertorized in general as emaciation. The lambs were from just hours, to 5 days old and looked markedly emaciated. Some appeared as if they did not know how to suckle. Many of the lambs were gaunt, back arched up, head hanging down with droopy ears. The sheep, on the other hand, had no emaciation but instead had a transient ataxia made worse from touch or loud noises. These "shakers" would become anxious when approached, and, if we moved in close to touch them, their shaking would suddenly get much worse, and, trying to run away, they would usually fall down into a position of opisthotonos (head thrown back, chest bowed out, limbs straight and rigid). Once they had fallen down, their breathing would usually get faster and faster in fits of increasing anxiety. In extreme cases the mouth would open and the tongue would appear thickened; the air passage seemed to be cut off with an accelerated heart rate; death would follow. Just before death, they would often go into a frenzied fit; eyes bulging, lips pulled back tight on the teeth in trismus, the body in tetanic rigidity. Repeatedly I asked the ranchers, in differing ways, if there was any incidence of gangrene, bleeding, uterine symptoms, or any discharges from the sheep, in an attempt to confirm that the symptoms were indeed caused by ergot poisoning (Secale). Repeatedly I was told there were no such symptoms. I read everything I could find on Ergot and Ergotism. This source has an interesting history, being the substance from which Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) is made; these ranches happened to be in Marin County, where much of the "Acid Generation" of the 1960's was spawned and I grew excited, anticipating a case of "Metaphorical Naturalism" -where the in-nature characteristics of the simillimum are reflected in the characteristics of the patient. I also uncovered stories of how, during the American colonial period, the Salem witch trials involved people who had been surreptitiously poisoned with ergot (Claviceps purpura) causing a convulsive, hallucinogenic state which was often the sole reason that they were burned at the stake as witches. While the symptoms of ergotism were somewhat similar to our sheep's symptoms, ours had no discharges, no uterine symptoms, no hemorrhages, and no symptoms of gangrene -at least one of which we would like to see in Secale poisoning. I pondered what LSD and the Salem witch-hunts might have to do with these staggering/dying sheep but decided to look beyond Secale, based on the lack of any confirming symptoms of ergot poisoning. At about that time, the UC Davis team produced a paper written on the subject of the New Zealand Ryegrass Staggers -referring to a seasonal poisoning-epidemic in sheep caused by the toxic endophyte, Acremonium lolii. These symptoms matched those of our sheep perfectly and I felt that it must have been the Acremonium which had activated the sheep's predisposed susceptibility to their transientataxia made worse by anticipation of being touched. This was showing up as a presentation of individualized susceptibility, or non-specific resistance. That is to say, all the sheep ate the same grass but not all the sheep were affected in the same way; only the susceptible sheep were affected by the toxin. (This is a crucial key to understanding chronic disease that western medicine blindly ignores). At this point I felt it was possible to cure the herd of this problem, if we could find the genus epidemicus; a single remedy selected for the entire population based on the totality of symptoms of that population, as if it were one patient. "The most important sentence in homeopathy is 'as if one person.''' -Jeremy Sherr, Homeonet 1996 A repertorization of the sheeps' general symptoms brought up two rubrics that caught my eye: 'Stiffening out of body' and 'Fear touch,' which seemed to be at the crux of the problem. After graphing these with 'Emaciation' (in the lambs), the main remedy choices in the Complete Repertory (with MacRepertory analysis set to: totality, small remedies, and rare-strange-and-peculiar remedies) were: Arnica, Ignatia, Cina, Ipecacuanha, Chamomilla, Cuprum, Angustura vera, Ferrum- phosphorica, Stramonium, Phosphorous, Plumbum, and Camphora. After some thought, we weren't satisfied with any of the polychrests so we studied Angustura. Angustura vera was first proven by Hahnemann and is listed in his Materia Medica Pura (1827). It is made from the bitter bark of the Galipoea cusparius-officinalis tree from Venezuela (Hahnemann mistakenly refers to it as Bonplandia trifoliata in his Materia Medica Pura). Its local reputation was almost as significant as that of Cinchona bark as a febrifuge in certain fevers, and as an allopathic suppressant for discharges. (Note: The ever popular gastronomic-tonic "Angustura aromatic bitters" is not made from Angustura but was originally made in the town of Angustura in Venezuela, after which it was named). Hahnemann talks about the symptoms of Angustura poisoning: Trembling, soon passing into violent convulsions. When touched, tetanus suddenly ensued. Eyelids wide open. Trismus, with wide separation of the lips, so that the teeth were quite exposed. Limbs stretched out to the utmost, stiff, and stark. The spinal column and head strongly drawn backwards. The trunk was from time to time shaken by violent jerking along the back, as from electric shocks, and somewhat raised. Respiration intermitting. Death after an hour. Half an hour after death the body was stiff and stark. These being the exact symptoms of the sheep, I packed the remedy with instructions and shipped it to the ranch. Two weeks later, the rancher called me to report they had given the Angustura vera 12c daily to the orphaned lambs as instructed in their formula, and to the general sheep population in their water troughs. I had written detailed instructions on how to charge-up gallon containers of distilled water and then charge the community water troughs with them, which they did religiously every day for one week. The lambs that had been suffering from marasmus had leapt back to the land of the living, with remarkable growth and renewed vitality -it amazed the ranchers who had been hopeful yet skeptical. The sheep stopped shaking and falling over; it was a short tapered resolution -the acute symptoms of toxicity were over. Then it rained, washing off the existing mold; the green grass popped up and the sheep's intake of the toxins stopped. I remember thinking at the time I'd have liked to have had more time to test and confirm the limits of the curative potential of Angustura with this herd, but the seasonal episode of endophyte proliferation was now passing until the following autumn. This process showed us the true genius of the genus epidemicus, in that the same remedy cured both the lambs and the sheep, each of a different pathology. Only the lambs had emaciation -the sheep had totally different symptoms -the shaking/stiffness, which grew worse from touch. By finding a remedy that was indicated for both sets of symptoms, and by treating the entire population as one patient, we discovered Hahnemann's genus epidemicus. It is interesting to note that the sick lambs were mostly orphans, and had not had mother's milk. It is possible they were exposed to the toxin in-utero. Sarah found Angustura listed in the rubric 'trismus neonatorum' which might explain the lambs' inability to suckle. Then something quite unexpected happened. Two weeks after the sheep were given the first dose of Angustura, an unusually violent storm swept over Northern California. It devastated the subject ranch which is located on the tallest hills within sight of the ocean at Tomales Bay, approximately 45 miles north of San Francisco. The winds were clocked at 100+ mph. The roof was blown off the barn, as were the barn doors. It blew a 2,500-gallon steel water tank through the air one-and-a-half miles until it crashed into a distant neighbor's building. Most trees, fences, and gates were destroyed by the high winds. Before first light the following morning, the ranchers went out in the onslaught searching with flashlights for animals in trouble. They found twenty-four new lambs that had not lived through the night, dead from exposure. There is a peculiar symptom with the local ewes that they tend to birth during storms. It appears to be a contraction response from their fear of the storm. Another theory is that during storms the predators are too busy avoiding the elements to be on the prowl for new lambs so the birthing sheep tends to deliver during stormy weather. The husband and wife team were clearly grief-stricken as they gathered their dead lambs on the truck to take for burial. The woman-rancher relates the following story: "I saw Gordon pick up one of the lambs and just as he was putting it on the truck he stopped and turned it over a few times -he said he thought he had seen its ear twitch -so I took it up the hill to the house and put it in front of our wood-burning stove on a pad and left it while I checked the house for damage (I should mention that this same lamb had had one eye pecked out the day before by a crow). The electricity had gone out during the night and we had no phone. I checked the lamb periodically -it was not breathing and had no pulse. I held it in my arms and rubbed it and sang softly to it but it seemed to be going into rigor mortis." Half an hour after death the body was stiff. "I felt so defeated, I wept. Gordon came in and we just sat in silence together with the dead lamb at our feet. For some reason I decided we should decorate the Christmas tree to take our minds off our problems. With flashlights we began to hang ornaments, then I remembered the story you told me..." During my first visit to the ranch, I had seen a newborn lamb lying dead on the barn floor when I arrived in the morning. It was such a disturbing sight; this lifeless caricature of youth. Later that afternoon, the woman rancher noticed me staring at the dead lamb and told me that she thought she had seen it move, so I immediately kneeled down and gave it a squirt of Cicuta 1M which I had with me, but to no avail -she looked at me and said "Now that would really impress me!" So I told her the story about how Dr. Stuart Close had once treated a 45-year-old woman who had already been pronounced dead, on site, by her family physicians. Close arrived at the residence as the relatives were standing around the parlor, drying tears, etc.; he quickly examined the patient. No radial pulse, limbs cold and rigid, face with an expression of death, both feet and legs were gangrenous up to the knees -the living manifestation of death. He tapped a few pellets of Arsenicum 45M (Fincke) under her lip and rubbed it against her gum. "Presently she opened her eyes and looked at me as I bent over her, and whispered to me 'I'm coming back.' In ten minutes more she was talking to me in an audible voice, asking questions about herself and what had happened. I had difficulty keeping my patient quiet and had to prevent her from talking. Reaction had come on with a vengeance. She went on to make an uneventful recovery and has led a healthy life for these 20 years past." So, with this story in mind, the woman rancher got the bottle of Strychninum 12c (in water) and put a few drops on the lambs nostrils. She relates: "Instantaneously the lamb twitched and jerked around a bit and shook, then went still again. I could hear the heartbeat; then it slowed and stopped again. I gave him another few drops of the remedy and the same thing happened. Then I put a squirt of Angustura vera down the lambs throat and with that he simply leapt back to life! Within ten minutes he was up and walking and would not let us alone as we decorated the Christmas tree in the early morning twilight, rubbing his little head against our legs to show us his gratitude." By the following morning, the lamb was doing so well that they put him out in a pen, and he's done quite well since. He turned into a husky little lamb and they've named him "One-eyed Jack." I was stunned when I received this information. It was enough that the single remedy had acted on the entire herd for differing pathologies, but to bring back the dead! One week later the woman rancher called to ask advice on how to follow-up on a sheep that had been attacked by a coyote: its throat had been torn open and the esophagus was punctured. Wide eyed and terrified, the sheep would not calm down. A hissing sound came from the punctured throat as she breathed. The rancher had only the remedies I had left there earlier to test on the staggering sheep. No Aconite, no Stramonium, no Opium, no Arnica, no Calendula, etc. Not being able to reach me at first for advice, the desperate rancher had given it a dose of Angustura. The sheep immediately calmed down to the point where they could approach it and touch it. This sheep went on to have an uneventful recovery. A few days later, the rancher called me again. Another lamb had been similarly attacked by a coyote and had open wounds on its ear, throat and jaw with much swelling, and it was acting extremely frightened. It was almost impossible to herd her into the corral. Again they squirted a stream of Angustura that made contact with the animal's nose and it immediately calmed down and even walked up to the woman rancher and nibbled on her tattered coat-tail. This would have been an unusual display of ease in a typically pusillanimous sheep, rare in one who, only moments before, had been so terrorized. We felt this to be very significant. The woman rancher commented on how the entire herd had become much more approachable and less skittish since the prophylactic watering-trough dosings of Angustura. I feel this case shows the broadly curative potential of the genus epidemicus/simillimum. The single remedy showed curative action on acute poisoning-epidemic symptoms as a specific, on chronic symptoms (pusillanimous/shyness), and on acute firstaid symptoms (terror, open wounds), in one herd of animals including a subgroup that was possibly made toxic in-utero. I would like to spend more time testing the limits of Angustura vera on this herd. I have since given the entire herd on this one ranch (as a control) a single dose of Angustura vera 10M, to see if it will permanently shift their susceptibility to the ryegrass staggers, as I suspect it will. Greg Bedayn, RSHom (NA), CCH, lives and practices in Lafayette, California. gbedaynaol. com -Fax: 510-930-9540"
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 27th June 2007, 12:23 AM   #696
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 22,277
So, manoberoi, I have to conclude that you have understood absolutely nothing of this "fruitful discussion". If you had understood even a little bit, you would not have posted yet another wordy anecdote.

I will give you yet one chance. Read very carefully because I will say this only once:

We don't give a damn about your anecdotes. Anecdotes are not acceptable as evidence.

Get it?

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
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 27th June 2007, 12:32 AM   #697
Professor Yaffle
Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs
 
Professor Yaffle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Emily's shop
Posts: 17,593
Paragraphs are your friend...
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 27th June 2007, 01:10 AM   #698
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 31,443
Originally Posted by manioberoi View Post
Two weeks after the sheep were given the first dose of Angustura, an unusually violent storm swept over Northern California. It devastated the subject ranch which is located on the tallest hills within sight of the ocean at Tomales Bay, approximately 45 miles north of San Francisco. The winds were clocked at 100+ mph. The roof was blown off the barn, as were the barn doors. It blew a 2,500-gallon steel water tank through the air one-and-a-half miles until it crashed into a distant neighbor's building. Most trees, fences, and gates were destroyed by the high winds.

And they say that homoeopathy has no side-effects...
__________________
"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 27th June 2007, 06:05 AM   #699
Badly Shaved Monkey
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Badly Shaved Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,362
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
And they say that homoeopathy has no side-effects...
We are all connected by the cosmic energy Brother Mojo.
__________________
"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 27th June 2007, 06:09 AM   #700
Badly Shaved Monkey
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Badly Shaved Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,362
Originally Posted by manioberoi View Post
It was a fruitful discussion.
This real life case provides food for thought and hence I am posting it here:

"American Homeopath (_Am_Hom) 1998
As if one patient (Greg Bedayn) Angustura vera Case About six years ago there was an article in the San Francisco Chronicle about an [about an utterly pointless anecdote]
Manioberoi, I'm afraid this is just getting to be pathetic. As Hans has said, please get this into your head once and for all: anecdotes such as this convey absolutely no weight whatsoever. Please understand that they simply do not exist on our spectrum of evidence. Just stop it now.

You have still failed to answer my question and repeatedly show yourself ignorant of why it is so important. So, please answer it now;

Which do you want to admit, either homeopathy is scientifically testable or your entire clincal case record must be ignored? There is no third option. Which do you want to choose?
__________________
"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 28th June 2007, 12:39 PM   #701
krazyKemist
Critical Thinker
 
krazyKemist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 430
Where has that guy Ullman gone ?

I wanted to discuss his important chemistry paper... and the definition of the word "nano"...

the Kemist
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 28th June 2007, 01:47 PM   #702
Michael C
Graduate Poster
 
Michael C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: N 49° 52' 3" E 8° 40' 21"
Posts: 1,932
Originally Posted by krazyKemist View Post
Where has that guy Ullman gone ?
A while ago in this thread, Gully/Ullman said he'd be away for two weeks. In a few days we'll see if he has any more to say.
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 29th June 2007, 02:12 PM   #703
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 31,443
Manioberoi seems to have done a runner as well.
__________________
"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 29th June 2007, 02:34 PM   #704
George 152
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,012
[quote=manioberoi;2723288]It was a fruitful discussion.
This real life case provides food for thought and hence I am posting it here:

"American Homeopath (_Am_Hom) 1998
As if one patient (Greg Bedayn) Angustura vera Case About six years ago there was an article in the San Francisco Chronicle about an epidemic that was killing the northern California sheep population. They referred to it as "Ergot poisoning" and one of the finest schools of Veterinary Science in the country, the University of California at Davis, had thrown up their hands in frustration and called it "an act of God," or something similarly provocative for a homeopath.

Well seeing that the claim is for 'ergot poisoning' I'll tell you how to cure it.
Put the sheep in a well eaten out (little or no grass) paddock for several days until the ergot is out of their system.
We had to deal with this every year as our main stock fodder was Ryegrass.
Symptoms were the sheep moving in tight cirles and losing balance.
Easily treated and definitely not fatal
George 152 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 29th June 2007, 02:50 PM   #705
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 43,486
It can be disabling or fatal. The poison causes the blood vessels to constrict and you can get bits of the extremities turning black or falling off. It's nasty.

But I really don't see the guys at Davis throwing up their hands in despair. It's well understood, and managing an outbreak is well understood.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe 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 30th June 2007, 12:15 AM   #706
Badly Shaved Monkey
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Badly Shaved Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,362
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Manioberoi seems to have done a runner as well.
I think I have said it before, but when I first started paying serious attention to homeopathy I was very circumspect in my criticism, but time and again we see the same pattern of evasion and cowardice as soon as tricky questions are posed. It's not just that they are stupid or ignorant, but that they actively flee from the opportunity to examine their beliefs.
__________________
"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 30th June 2007, 02:34 PM   #707
George 152
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,012
The only reason that animals could reach such an advanced stage is a lack of knowledge and very poor stockmanship.
Such as displayed by homeopathetic practicioners...
George 152 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 2nd July 2007, 10:23 AM   #708
JJM
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,853
I don't recall if Gully/Ullman brought this up here. Over at Orac's, he submitted that a 2005 article in Chest verified the use of a homeopathic prep. Today, Orac has analyzed that article (and refers to other analyses) and found it wanting. http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/20...ringeicu_1.php
JJM 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 2nd July 2007, 10:54 AM   #709
krazyKemist
Critical Thinker
 
krazyKemist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 430
What worries me is his observation about conventional medicine being slowly and quite stealthily invaded by woo. I've obseved this too. In Canada, we even have at least one university that boasts a chiropratic faculty.

One culprit for this here is the significant reduction of scientific education a doctor receives. Basic science has been taken out of the curriculum to make place for a debatable patient-doctor relationship segment. I say debatable because the capacity to deal with patients should be tested at the beginning, as a human trait. If you can't do it, better not be a doctor.

As a result of this, doctors rarely even know how clinical research is done. And dont ask them how a drug is developped ! Most doctors could not guess what I was doing when I told them I was a organic chemist. How could they tell if someone is using scientific terms abusively ?

I wonder if medical education has been modified the same way elsewhere ? In the patch-adams patient-relashionship way ?

the Kemist
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 2nd July 2007, 11:37 AM   #710
JJM
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,853
Originally Posted by krazyKemist View Post
What worries me is his observation about conventional medicine being slowly and quite stealthily invaded by woo. I've obseved this too. In Canada, we even have at least one university that boasts a chiropratic faculty.
Are you sure? A few years ago York U. almost merged with a chiro school; but then declined. If it had gone through, it would have been the first such combination. You can read about it at www.quackwatch.com .

As for Orac's observation that woo is invading medicine. If you go back to http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/ and search for "medical education" (the quote marks are important) you can read quite a bit about it.
Originally Posted by krazyKemist View Post
One culprit for this here is the significant reduction of scientific education a doctor receives. Basic science has been taken out of the curriculum to make place for a debatable patient-doctor relationship segment. {snip}

As a result of this, doctors rarely even know how clinical research is done. And dont ask them how a drug is developped ! Most doctors could not guess what I was doing when I told them I was a organic chemist. How could they tell if someone is using scientific terms abusively ? {snip}

the Kemist
The problem begins before medical school. While I hate philosophy- science has two components 1) a method of obtaining knowledge and 2) the body of knowledge thus obtained. In college, we emphasize the body of knowledge over the method. That gives students the idea science is all about authoritative claims. Then, when medical students encounter a chiropractor (homeopath, acupuncturist etc.), they are unprepared to analyze claims enunciated by another "authority."
JJM 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 2nd July 2007, 11:49 AM   #711
krazyKemist
Critical Thinker
 
krazyKemist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 430
Originally Posted by JJM View Post
Are you sure? A few years ago York U. almost merged with a chiro school; but then declined. If it had gone through, it would have been the first such combination. You can read about it at www.quackwatch.com .
Yep, quite sure. Went there a couple months ago for a conference. It is the Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières (UQTR), Quebec, Canada.

http://www.uqtr.ca

We in quebec do love to be the first ones to do stupid things. Such as stopping failing elementary school students when they are not up to scratch.

the Kemist

Last edited by krazyKemist; 2nd July 2007 at 11:52 AM.
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 2nd July 2007, 08:24 PM   #712
manioberoi
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 125
Originally Posted by JJM View Post
I don't recall if Gully/Ullman brought this up here. Over at Orac's, he submitted that a 2005 article in Chest verified the use of a homeopathic prep. Today, Orac has analyzed that article (and refers to other analyses) and found it wanting. http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/20...ringeicu_1.php
Welcome back after your well earned rest of two weeks.
After reading Orac's comments I would tend to agree with you that there are serious holes in that study.
To eliminate such fatal errors the discussion had focussed on ways and means to set up a reproducable, verifiable and scientifically acceptable series of pilot studies in homeopathic treatment - if this results in acceptable levels of curative effects being observed - full scale series of homeopathic trials could be set up to investigate the efficacy of homeopathic treatments - none of these studies would be negated merely on the ground that they are chemically tested (at the present stage of technology) to be placebo.

Your valuable comments on the post #485 #520 #534 would add value to this discussion.
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 2nd July 2007, 11:15 PM   #713
Badly Shaved Monkey
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Badly Shaved Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,362
Meanwhile...

Which do you want to admit, either homeopathy is scientifically testable or your entire clincal case record must be ignored? There is no third option. Which do you want to choose?
__________________
"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 2nd July 2007, 11:48 PM   #714
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,648
Originally Posted by Badly Shaved Monkey View Post
Meanwhile...

Which do you want to admit, either homeopathy is scientifically testable or your entire clincal case record must be ignored? There is no third option. Which do you want to choose?
By now it is clear that the answer is:
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh 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 3rd July 2007, 12:27 AM   #715
kieran
Critical Thinker
 
kieran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 294
Originally Posted by manioberoi View Post
Welcome back after your well earned rest of two weeks.
Seconded.
Originally Posted by manioberoi View Post
After reading Orac's comments I would tend to agree with you that there are serious holes in that study.
To eliminate such fatal errors the discussion had focussed on ways and means to set up a reproducable, verifiable and scientifically acceptable series of pilot studies in homeopathic treatment - if this results in acceptable levels of curative effects being observed - full scale series of homeopathic trials could be set up to investigate the efficacy of homeopathic treatments - none of these studies would be negated merely on the ground that they are chemically tested (at the present stage of technology) to be placebo.
I agree with virtually all of this paragraph. However, I'm a bit confused by the bit at the end so I'll hold judgement while I await clarification. I would be grateful if you could elaborate on what you are saying with your "none of these studies would be negated ..." caveat. Can you give me an example of a situation that could arise in which this condition would be activated?
Originally Posted by manioberoi View Post
Your valuable comments on the post #485 #520 #534 would add value to this discussion.
JJM - I think all of the posts manioberoi listed above have already been commented on by others - but manioberoi seems to need a personal statement from you on these ... I think you have his respect/attention ...
__________________
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 3rd July 2007, 01:10 AM   #716
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 31,443
Originally Posted by kieran View Post
JJM - I think all of the posts manioberoi listed above have already been commented on by others - but manioberoi seems to need a personal statement from you on these ... I think you have his respect/attention ...

Actually, the "welcome back after your well earned rest of two weeks" makes me suspect that manioberoi has mistaken JJM for JamesGully.
__________________
"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 3rd July 2007, 02:10 AM   #717
kieran
Critical Thinker
 
kieran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 294
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Actually, the "welcome back after your well earned rest of two weeks" makes me suspect that manioberoi has mistaken JJM for JamesGully.
I was also wondering that. I can remember JamesGully telling us he wouldn't be around for a couple of weeks ... but I also looked back to see when JJM last posted in this thread before yesterday and it seemed about two weeks - but I am too lazy to get exact dates ...

I am having slightly scary thoughts .... do we have any evidence that JJM and JG are not in fact the same person?

... or maybe they went on holiday together ...

... or maybe it's just coincidence - a bit like when homoepathic remedies "work" ...
__________________
Ted: "Have you been studying this chart like I told you?"

Last edited by kieran; 3rd July 2007 at 02:19 AM. Reason: happy holidays!
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 3rd July 2007, 06:01 AM   #718
JJM
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,853
Originally Posted by kieran View Post
JJM - I think all of the posts manioberoi listed above have already been commented on by others - but manioberoi seems to need a personal statement from you on these ... I think you have his respect/attention ...
I don't know how you people can correspond with him, I find him incoherent. How is that for a personal statement?
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Actually, the "welcome back after your well earned rest of two weeks" makes me suspect that manioberoi has mistaken JJM for JamesGully.
The "well-earned rest" from engaging homeopaths continues.
Originally Posted by kieran View Post
I was also wondering that. I can remember JamesGully telling us he wouldn't be around for a couple of weeks ... but I also looked back to see when JJM last posted in this thread before yesterday and it seemed about two weeks - but I am too lazy to get exact dates ...

I am having slightly scary thoughts .... do we have any evidence that JJM and JG are not in fact the same person?
{snip}
I am not JG. Think about it. Remember that one never sees Superman and Clark Kent at the same place. Yet, I am right here with the homeopaths. Anyone with two ears to hear with can see we are distinct.

Gee, that logic makes me sound like a homeopath ...
JJM 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 3rd July 2007, 06:27 AM   #719
kieran
Critical Thinker
 
kieran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 294
Originally Posted by JJM View Post
I am not JG. Think about it. Remember that one never sees Superman and Clark Kent at the same place.
... are you saying that Clark Kent is Superman? (I think you could have used a spoiler there ... I've always wanted to use a spoiler on these posts but (i) I don't know how, and (ii) I have nothing suitable to "hide".)

Originally Posted by JJM View Post
Yet, I am right here with the homeopaths. Anyone with two ears to hear with can see we are distinct.

Gee, that logic makes me sound like a homeopath ...
(Completely ignoring the presence of JJM as it would mess up my ill-formed ideas ...) I'm starting to form a hypothesis here ... when we dilute the presence of JamesGully to infinitely small levels (i.e. he goes away for two weeks) then there is a mechanism by which the threads lose the memory of JJM .. and he also disappears. Check it out for yourself on this thread. It's a kind of inverse homoeopathy but for "people" on "message boards". I might start my own journal and lists lots of anecdotes to illustrate it, and discussing mechanisms by which message boards could support the concept of forgetfulness. I might possibly make some money if I sell them as "natural" message boards ...
__________________
Ted: "Have you been studying this chart like I told you?"

Last edited by kieran; 3rd July 2007 at 06:37 AM.
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 3rd July 2007, 06:36 AM   #720
kieran
Critical Thinker
 
kieran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 294
Originally Posted by JJM View Post
I don't know how you people can correspond with him, I find him incoherent. How is that for a personal statement?
I think his level of "incoherency", whilst somewhat oscillitary, is tending downwards. He appears to have (for the moment) given up trying to claim that homoeopathy is untestable, and I am hoping that that it is slowly sinking in that his cut'n'paste anecdotes are irrelevant.

manioberoi - what was wrong/missing from the responses you got from others here to posts #485 #520 #534?
(It looks like you are going to have to move on without JJM's direct feedback.)
__________________
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
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 09:30 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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.