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

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


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 homeopathy

Reply
Old 14th March 2008, 12:37 AM   #361
Dr. Nancy Malik
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 105
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']According to a British Medical Journal Clinical Evidence review of 2,404 conventional treatments, only
15% were rated as beneficial,
22% as likely to be beneficial,
7% as trade off between benefits and harms,
5% as unlikely to be beneficial,
4% as likely to be ineffective or harmful
and
47% of unknown effectiveness.[/font]

[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']In every clinical study the accepted criteria for effectiveness beyond chance is 1 in 100. This standard is below other scientific endeavour. To put this statistics in perspective (in a simple minded way - taking away all the statistical calculation of probability) if 100 people are treated and 2 are found to benefit while in the control group out of 100 only 1 benefit. Then the 1% improvement is then considered as an event beyond chance or placebo. Such studies can then be used to apply to FDA for approval even if 6 or 7 other studies indicated otherwise.

Such evidence of efficacy had failed to recognise that the drug failed to help the other 98 % of the people. In a number of statin
drug trials the effectiveness was even less than 1%.

Such studies will also not reveal that the drug could actually cause harm to almost all of them, in one way or another.

If efficacy is measured in such minuscule, homoeopathic level (I'm just kidding) then how could anyone ever claim that modern medicine has evidence of benefit when the evidence of lack of benefit is even greater. If we have to pay so much money for so little chance of a benefit we are better off buying lottery.[/font]

[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']If next time your physician tell you that this drug is a 50% improvement in chance (1/2) ask him what's the ABSOLUTE rate of efficacy. The relative rate of efficacy had always been marketed because it looks large and impressive but when you ask for the absolute number of people helped out of how many went into the trial you will get the real picture.

Then ask for the side-effects. And the cost would be more than the cost of the drug you pay for.[/font]
Dr. Nancy Malik 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 14th March 2008, 12:49 AM   #362
Zep
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,699
Perhaps you could comment on this table of dilutions for us? Thank you!

1st succession 1:100 = 1C
2nd succession 1:100 = 2C
3rd succession 1:100 = 3C
4th succession 1:100 = 4C
5th succession 1:100 = 5C
6th succession 1:100 = 6C

7th succession in water and dilution = 30C
8th succession in dilution = 200C

9th succession in dilution = 1M
10th succession in dilution = 10M
11th succession in dilution = 50M
12th succession in dilution = CM
Zep 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 14th March 2008, 01:31 AM   #363
Baron Samedi
Critical Thinker
 
Baron Samedi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 476
Originally Posted by Dr. Nancy Malik View Post
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']According to a British Medical Journal Clinical Evidence review of 2,404 conventional treatments, only
15% were rated as beneficial,
22% as likely to be beneficial,
7% as trade off between benefits and harms,
5% as unlikely to be beneficial,
4% as likely to be ineffective or harmful
and
47% of unknown effectiveness.[/font]
And now you're quoting from here?
http://www.naturalmatters.net/articl...le=3032&cat=85

Quote:
According to a British Medical Journal Clinical Evidence review of 2,404 conventional treatments, only 15% were rated as beneficial, 22% as likely to be beneficial, 7% as trade off between benefits and harms, 5% as unlikely to be beneficial, 4% as likely to be ineffective or harmful and 47% of unknown effectiveness.
www.clinicalevidence.com/ceweb/about/knowledge.jsp
Funny thing... I follow their own link to find out where they got these numbers from
Quote:
Of around 2500 treatments covered 13% are rated as beneficial, 23% likely to be beneficial, 8% as trade off between benefits and harms, 6% unlikely to be beneficial, 4% likely to be ineffective or harmful, and 46%, the largest proportion, as unknown effectiveness (see figure 1).
Not to nitpick, but usually when quoting numbers, you actually give the same numbers as the original source.

Originally Posted by Dr. Nancy Malik View Post
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']In every clinical study the accepted criteria for effectiveness beyond chance is 1 in 100. This standard is below other scientific endeavour. To put this statistics in perspective (in a simple minded way - taking away all the statistical calculation of probability) if 100 people are treated and 2 are found to benefit while in the control group out of 100 only 1 benefit. Then the 1% improvement is then considered as an event beyond chance or placebo. Such studies can then be used to apply to FDA for approval even if 6 or 7 other studies indicated otherwise.


This is not how statistics works. Sorry. This is wrong is so many ways, and I haven't had enough coffee yet.

Originally Posted by Dr. Nancy Malik View Post
Such evidence of efficacy had failed to recognise that the drug failed to help the other 98 % of the people. In a number of statin
drug trials the effectiveness was even less than 1%.

Such studies will also not reveal that the drug could actually cause harm to almost all of them, in one way or another.

If efficacy is measured in such minuscule, homoeopathic level (I'm just kidding) then how could anyone ever claim that modern medicine has evidence of benefit when the evidence of lack of benefit is even greater. If we have to pay so much money for so little chance of a benefit we are better off buying lottery.[/font]

[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']If next time your physician tell you that this drug is a 50% improvement in chance (1/2) ask him what's the ABSOLUTE rate of efficacy. The relative rate of efficacy had always been marketed because it looks large and impressive but when you ask for the absolute number of people helped out of how many went into the trial you will get the real picture.

Then ask for the side-effects. And the cost would be more than the cost of the drug you pay for.[/font]
Wow, math really isn't your strong suit, is it? Even with your bogus example, you claimed that the control group has a success rate of 1/100, and the drug has a success rate of 2/100. This does not lead to a 50% improvement in chance.

But it's okay, Hans is dealing with this exact same post over here

http://www.otherhealth.com/research-...-issues-5.html
Baron Samedi 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 14th March 2008, 03:18 AM   #364
fls
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,226
Do you have a reference for this information? I was unable to find this review in my search.

Thanks for finding that Baron Samedi.

Quote:
In every clinical study the accepted criteria for effectiveness beyond chance is 1 in 100. This standard is below other scientific endeavour. To put this statistics in perspective (in a simple minded way - taking away all the statistical calculation of probability) if 100 people are treated and 2 are found to benefit while in the control group out of 100 only 1 benefit. Then the 1% improvement is then considered as an event beyond chance or placebo. Such studies can then be used to apply to FDA for approval even if 6 or 7 other studies indicated otherwise.

Such evidence of efficacy had failed to recognise that the drug failed to help the other 98 % of the people. In a number of statin
drug trials the effectiveness was even less than 1%.
I'm trying to picture a statin study where 99 people out of a hundred had a heart attack. Who cares about the drug! The ability to find, with 99% specificity, those people about to have a heart attack, is surely the far more amazing part of this imaginary study.

Linda

Last edited by fls; 14th March 2008 at 03:26 AM.
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 14th March 2008, 03:22 AM   #365
Worm
Graduate Poster
 
Worm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,489
Originally Posted by fls View Post
Do you have a reference for this information? I was unable to find this review in my search.
Baron S gave the link up there ^

It's from the BMJ website

http://clinicalevidence.bmj.com/cewe.../knowledge.jsp
__________________
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" Isaac Asimov

Not all cults are bad - I've joined a cult of niceness
Worm 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 17th March 2008, 05:30 AM   #366
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,079
Originally Posted by Dr. Nancy Malik View Post
In every clinical study the accepted criteria for effectiveness beyond chance is 1 in 100.


No.

Quote:
This standard is below other scientific endeavor.


It would be if it was true, yes.

Quote:
To put this statistics in perspective (in a simple minded way - taking away all the statistical calculation of probability) if 100 people are treated and 2 are found to benefit while in the control group out of 100 only 1 benefit. Then the 1% improvement is then considered as an event beyond chance or placebo.
No.

Quote:
Such studies can then be used to apply to FDA for approval even if 6 or 7 other studies indicated otherwise.
No.


Quote:
Such studies will also not reveal that the drug could actually cause harm to almost all of them, in one way or another.


Wrong. You can't get a clinical trial approved unless you have built in an evaluation of harmful effects.

Quote:
Then ask for the side-effects. And the cost would be more than the cost of the drug you pay for.
Side effects will always be listed on the inlay.

You know, Nancy (is it OK for me to call you Nancy?), it is one thing that you try to kick the ball into our court, by attacking conventional meds, instead of defending homeopathy; all homeopaths doe that most of the time, but if you do at least try to get your facts straight, OK?

That said, don't forget that whatever the vices and virtues of conventional medicine (and it certainly has both), none of this can in any way validate homeopathy.

Finally: There is no such thing as "allopathy". Allopathy is a Hahnemannian construct and is defined as a method that seeks to cure by introducing symptoms different from (but not necessarily opposite to) those of the disease. This may have covered quite a bit of conventional medicine at Hahnemann's time, but it has no relevance to modern medicine which does not seek to cure by introducing symptoms at all.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
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 1st March 2009, 04:27 AM   #367
meow
Critical Thinker
 
meow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 470
Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
Dear Friends...
The people on this list continually assert that homeopathic medicines are simply too small of a dose to have any biological effect. I will, therefore, be curious what comments any of you will have on the body of research conducted with homeopathic doses of thyroxin and its effects on tadpoles.

Does pretreatment with thyroxin (10-8 M) enhance a "curative" effect of homeopathically prepared thyroxin (10-30) on highland frogs? Results of a multi researcher study
Welles, S.U., Suanjak-Traidl, E., Weber, S., Scherer-Pongratz, W., Frass, M., Endler, P.C., Spranger, H., Lothaller, H.: Accepted by Research on Complementary Medicine / Forschende Komplementärmedizin 2007

The effect of homeopathically prepared thyroxin (10-30 parts by weight) on highland frogs is influenced by electromagnetic fields.
Weber, S., Welles, S.U., Suanjak-Traidl, E., Scherer-Pongratz, W., Frass, M., Endler, P.C, Spranger, H., Lothaller, H.: Accepted by Homeopathy (former Br Hom J) 2007

Treatment of Lowland Frogs from the Spawn Stage on with Homeopathically Prepared Thyroxin (10-30)
Graunke H., Endler P.C., Scherer-Pongratz W., Frass M., Lothaller H. The Scientific World Journal 2007; 7:

Those of you who continue to say that the nanodoses of homeopathic medicines are too small to have any effect are simply ill-informed or prefer to provide mis-information.

As for my word, "nanodoses," please note that the words nanotubes and nanoplankton have nothing to do with one-billionth of anything. The word or prefix "nano" has roots in the word "dwarf" and today is used to mean very small and yet powerful.


more excellent research james. problem is that they have their heads stuck up their...




meow meow
meow 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 1st March 2009, 09:06 AM   #368
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,647
Originally Posted by meow View Post
more excellent research james. problem is that they have their heads stuck up their...
meow meow
Removing my head from your meow meow, just for fun I looked at the first paper. Their conclusions:
Quote:
This in itself is an interesting result, but it does not prove the hypothesis that hyperstimulation of highland animals leads to an optimisation of the previous original study protocol i.e. that a curative effect of homeopathically prepared thyroxin is enhanced by pre-treatment with thyroxin in highland amphibians.
Excellent research as you said.

Oh, and by the way -- woof WOOF.
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto 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 » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

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 11:58 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, 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.