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 20th December 2007, 07:47 AM   #161
fls
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,226
Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
Well, well, well.

I waited and waited and waited for somebody here to tell Wilsontown how wrong he is. I know that lots of people know the Shang/Egger review of homeopathic and allopathic clinical trials, and yet, none of you had the balls to tell him the truth...and you all lost your credibility for your loud silence (no big surprise).
I just wanted to make it clear (in case it wasn't already), that I also agree with Wilsontown's analysis of the Shang meta-analysis. You, however, have yet to provide a criticism that that stands up to scrutiny. Bluster doesn't count. Or rather, bluster instead of actually addressing specific points serves to act as evidence against the validity of your criticisms.

Linda
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 20th December 2007, 08:12 AM   #162
Badly Shaved Monkey
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Badly Shaved Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,362
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I wanted to comment further on that, but unfortunately it seems you have to have a Google or Blogger identity to post to the blog, which I have no intention of acquiring.
I thought that at first, but all you do is click on 'nickname' and you can free-enter an identity for yourself for that post.
__________________
"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 20th December 2007, 08:13 AM   #163
Badly Shaved Monkey
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Badly Shaved Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,362
Originally Posted by fls View Post
I just wanted to make it clear (in case it wasn't already), that I also agree with Wilsontown's analysis of the Shang meta-analysis.
I am Spartacus too.

Dullman seems to be Nero, but I can't even hear the sound of his fiddle at the moment.
__________________
"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 20th December 2007, 10:28 AM   #164
wilsontown
Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 127
Originally Posted by Cuddles
To be fair, I was going to tell him how wrong he is. But he isn't, so I didn't.
Originally Posted by fls
I just wanted to make it clear (in case it wasn't already), that I also agree with Wilsontown's analysis of the Shang meta-analysis.
Originally Posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
I am Spartacus too.
Heh, cheers all. Dana, several people here have tried to explain why your interpretation of the Shang meta-analysis is flawed. So far you've utterly failed to take on board any of their points, and you're still spouting the same nonsense.
wilsontown 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 20th December 2007, 01:47 PM   #165
BillyJoe
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,531
Originally Posted by Badly Shaved Monkey View Post
Dullman seems to be Nero, but I can't even hear the sound of his fiddle at the moment.

Don't worry he'll soon copy and paste his original post somewhere else yet again before long.
BillyJoe 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 22nd December 2007, 08:10 AM   #166
Dana Ullman
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 201
Quackbusters confirm effect from homeopathic medicines!

Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
It was Yuri Nalyssus who actually ran with this, as he is on good enough terms with a retired homoeopath to be able to ask him to referee the trial. He advertised widely for homoeopaths to take part in the trial, and to be honest we expected he'd get 20 quite easily. (In fact, no testing method was forbidden - they could try the remedy out on patients, do mass spectroscopy or NMR or particle acceleration or even get Rustum Roy to shove it through his magic spectrophotometer if they wanted, but we assumed that as the proving effects were universally declared to be so striking, that would be the preferred method.) Well, Yuri got exactly six volunteers.

Guess what. Three were right and three were wrong.

I cautioned him that it was almost inevitable that some homoeopath would start boasting that 50% of the participants could tell a remedy from a blank, and wasn't that great, but in fact he never publicised the results due to the small number of participants.
Rolfe.
Rolfe...
Let me get this straight. Three of the six homeopaths were able to determine which of the TEN medicines they had taken? Hmmmm. Thank you! This study, though small, showed an impressive result for homeopathy! If this were a demonstration of ESP, it too would have a very positive result.

Please let me know how to contact Yuri.

Because many medicines cause similar symptoms in people (many medicines, for instance, may cause a frontal headache, or watery eyes, or nausea). So, the fact that 3 of 6 homeopaths were able to correctly determine the medicine they tested out of 10. Fab. Can we move on now?

And for all of you "Shang supporters," if he did all of the analyses that you have suggested, please report what he said was the result of him comparing the 21 high quality homeopathic studies and the 9 allopathic ones?

And finally, of the final 8 homeopathic studies, what would you say if just ONE of the 8 homeopathic studies was removed from the mix? And what would you say when the new statistically analysis shows that this one study with a negative result was so strong that the remaining 7 trials together showed homeopathic medicines as better than a placebo.

Can ANYONE tell me in what ways the final 8 and 6 studies were "matched?"
Dana Ullman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2007, 08:41 AM   #167
Badly Shaved Monkey
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Badly Shaved Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,362
Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
Rolfe...
Let me get this straight. Three of the six homeopaths were able to determine which of the TEN medicines they had taken? Hmmmm. Thank you! This study, though small, showed an impressive result for homeopathy! If this were a demonstration of ESP, it too would have a very positive result.

Please let me know how to contact Yuri.

Because many medicines cause similar symptoms in people (many medicines, for instance, may cause a frontal headache, or watery eyes, or nausea). So, the fact that 3 of 6 homeopaths were able to correctly determine the medicine they tested out of 10. Fab. Can we move on now?


Please note I don't think I have ever used that smilie before.

Absolutely priceless.

Thank you for that.

(You might want to read what Rolfe actually wrote instead of what you hoped she wrote.)
__________________
"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 22nd December 2007, 08:47 AM   #168
Badly Shaved Monkey
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Badly Shaved Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,362
Ah, well. On that note of yet another abysmal example of a failure of basic reading comprehension I shall bow out for the day.

When I get back, perhaps I'll find that Dana has told us how come Rustum Roy messed up his controls so badly.

And he might even show whether he has actually ready Elia's papers by answering the two questions posed on it.

What are the odds? 50:50
__________________
"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 22nd December 2007, 08:48 AM   #169
Acleron
Master Poster
 
Acleron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,290
Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
Rolfe...
Let me get this straight. Three of the six homeopaths were able to determine which of the TEN medicines they had taken? Hmmmm. Thank you! This study, though small, showed an impressive result for homeopathy! If this were a demonstration of ESP, it too would have a very positive result.

Please let me know how to contact Yuri.
Where does the TEN 'medicines' come from?

From Rolfe:-
Quote:
At this stage I changed the format yet again, to multiply not the repetitions a single tester had to undergo, but to multiply the testers. The final format of the test required a number of homoeopaths (at least ten, but we hoped for 20), each of whom was certain they could recognise the proving effects of any ultradilute remedy of their choice. Each one would be sent either that remedy, or a bottle of blank pills. All they had to do was to say which it was.

It was Yuri Nalyssus who actually ran with this, as he is on good enough terms with a retired homoeopath to be able to ask him to referee the trial. He advertised widely for homoeopaths to take part in the trial, and to be honest we expected he'd get 20 quite easily. (In fact, no testing method was forbidden - they could try the remedy out on patients, do mass spectroscopy or NMR or particle acceleration or even get Rustum Roy to shove it through his magic spectrophotometer if they wanted, but we assumed that as the proving effects were universally declared to be so striking, that would be the preferred method.) Well, Yuri got exactly six volunteers.
Each recipient had a 50% chance of getting it right through random chance.

Rolfe was prescient in saying that homeopaths would distort the conclusions but you have distorted the experiment as well.
Acleron 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 22nd December 2007, 09:07 AM   #170
Blue Bubble
Sharper than a thorn
 
Blue Bubble's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Duxford, Cambridgeshire, UK
Posts: 4,214
Talking

Spppppllllaaaaaaaaatttttt ... that's the sound of my coffee splattering through my nostrils onto my keyboard.

Priceless ... abso-loo-tely priceless.

Oh Dana doobey doo ...
Blue Bubble 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 22nd December 2007, 10:29 AM   #171
Baron Samedi
Critical Thinker
 
Baron Samedi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 476
Originally Posted by Badly Shaved Monkey View Post


Please note I don't think I have ever used that smilie before.

Absolutely priceless.

Thank you for that.

(You might want to read what Rolfe actually wrote instead of what you hoped she wrote.)
Ah, let's give DanaJames the benefit of the doubt and assume (like normal) he misread what really happened. Let's say that he interpreted it as 1 bottle out of 10 is homeopathic remedy, and 9 bottles are pure water. Each person is given a bottle at random, and they have to correctly identify if it is water or remedy.

Now, it's no longer 50/50, so does 3 out of 6 sound impressive? Considering if all people simply answered "water", we would expect 5, maybe even 6, to be right.

Ah, it's going to be a Merry Christmas indeed. Thank you all for the early present!
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 22nd December 2007, 02:41 PM   #172
BillyJoe
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,531
This is one of my problem with Dana Ullman. He has written several books which, apparently, have sold very well, but he lacks basic comprehension skills and he has shown this repeatedly. And Rolfe's post was very clearly written. Imagine the trouble he must have - and apparently has had -comprehending the results of clinical trials. This is probably why he doesn't actually bother - as BSM suspects - to ever read more then just the extract of the author's conclusion. The sad thing is that people are relying on this person for information!

My other problem with him is his style. He doesn't have any. How can you possibly write a whole book and expect it to be read if you have absolutely no literary flair? Yet he has done so. Is it possible he has a ghost writer or are his books just as lacking as his posts here. I can imagine several othe individuals on this forum writing a book that I would eagerly look forward to reading. But they have not done so. Where is the justice?

BillyJoe
BillyJoe 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 23rd December 2007, 07:52 AM   #173
fls
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,226
Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
And for all of you "Shang supporters," if he did all of the analyses that you have suggested, please report what he said was the result of him comparing the 21 high quality homeopathic studies and the 9 allopathic ones?
I don't know if he said what it was (or if he did one), but I would think that if an analysis were done, both the homeopathic and medicine studies would find differences between treatment and placebo groups. How could they not, given that his analysis shows that significant bias was present in both groups of studies and bias necessarily creates differences between groups? If you toss a loaded die, do you not expect one particular number to come up most often? My question is, so what? What valid conclusion do you think you can draw from that?

Quote:
And finally, of the final 8 homeopathic studies, what would you say if just ONE of the 8 homeopathic studies was removed from the mix? And what would you say when the new statistically analysis shows that this one study with a negative result was so strong that the remaining 7 trials together showed homeopathic medicines as better than a placebo.
I would say that demonstrating that the proof for homeopathy is not robust does not help your cause.

Quote:
Can ANYONE tell me in what ways the final 8 and 6 studies were "matched?"
Yes. Groups were formed by matching on "enrolled patients with similar disorders and assessed similar outcomes". From those matching groups, studies associated with the least bias were selected for one of the analyses.

Linda

Last edited by fls; 23rd December 2007 at 07:54 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 23rd December 2007, 08:01 AM   #174
fls
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,226
Dannagain posted this study a few days ago, which was basically a test like that outlined by Yuri.

What is interesting is not that it was a complete failure, but how the authors completely ignored that it was a complete failure and instead published it as support for the validity of homeopathic provings.

Linda

Last edited by fls; 23rd December 2007 at 08:02 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 24th December 2007, 02:46 AM   #175
Badly Shaved Monkey
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Badly Shaved Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,362
Originally Posted by fls View Post
Dannagain posted this study a few days ago, which was basically a test like that outlined by Yuri.

What is interesting is not that it was a complete failure, but how the authors completely ignored that it was a complete failure and instead published it as support for the validity of homeopathic provings.

Linda
It is yet another affront to the intelligence from the homs. "We found nothing and that proves homeopathy works."

It reveals their entire mindset. They know homeopathy works. Therefore any counter-evidence has to be bent to that fact. They don't do studies to test an hypothesis. There is no real testing going on because they have already drawn their Conclusions. All they lack at the start of a study are the Results. So they do the study, sometimes using legitimate Materials and Methods, more often not. They obtain whatever Results they can. As we have seen these tend to fall into two groups: either 'signficant' through their fallacious and incompetent methods or non-significant if they conduct fair tests. They then fit the Results to their predetermined Conclusions.

Hey, presto! Homeopathy wins again.

It saves all that tiresome mucking about having to think of new ideas.
__________________
"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 24th December 2007, 05:04 AM   #176
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 40,290
Oh, it's Harald Walach again. He's figured out that a demonstration of the reality of proving symptoms is the most straightforward way to test whether the claims of homoeopathy have any factual basis. I suspect quite a lot of them realise this, but are reluctant to try it because they also realise that a failure to show any objective proving effects actually holes homoeopathy below the waterline, which a failure to degranulate basophils or cause a hiccup on a spectrophotometer trace actually doesn't.

Dr. Walach, however, is so strongly convinced that he cannot conceive of failure. He's a bit like Neil (Bach) in this respect, because he simply believes any failure is due to poor design of the test, and is very very prepared to read success into actual failure whenever possible.

Some years ago I was persuaded to email him personally to ask whether a certain paper of his was in fact a spoof. His reply demonstrated quite clearly that the man is completely on another planet in this respect.

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 24th December 2007, 06:22 AM   #177
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 40,290
Originally Posted by Baron Samedi View Post
.... 1 bottle out of 10 is homeopathic remedy, and 9 bottles are pure water. Each person is given a bottle at random, and they have to correctly identify if it is water or remedy.

Now, it's no longer 50/50, so does 3 out of 6 sound impressive? Considering if all people simply answered "water", we would expect 5, maybe even 6, to be right.

No, wait a minute, I see the germ of a good idea here.

The reason they say they can't identify which one of a number of remedies they've taken is that to get the full symptom picture you need a team of at least ten provers.

So, we change the test to a simple matter of distinguishing a remedy chosen by the homoeopath for its ability to produce striking symptoms (however non-specific) in one person, and ask them to say if they've been given that, or the blank pills. A simple either/or test here produces problems because obviously there is a 50:50 chance of a lucky guess.

However, what if we were to give the homoeopath ten or more vials, with the assurance that one and one only contained the specified remedy. Surely they should be able to tell which one quite easily! Now as described that still leaves a 1 in 10 chance of a lucky guess, which is still too much. However, it's a lot better than 1 in 50, as regards working towards statistical significance.

So, we need to find out how many vials a homoeopath thinks it would be practical to screen for remedy presence, assuming only one is the actual remedy. Then we need to work out how many repetitions of that test would require to be correct in order to achieve p<0.001. If in fact this level of significance can be achieved with perhaps only three repetitions, then it could well be practical for one person to undertake the whole thing, just saying when they felt ready to go on to the next set. Even if it was a couple of months, that would be achievable.

Now, what excuses might they find for not doing this one?

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 24th December 2007, 06:55 AM   #178
Dana Ullman
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 201
Yeah, I did misunderstand Rolf's posting.

That said, having 3 of the 6 people determine that they were given a homeopathic medicine rather than a placebo is actually better than you might realize, though this small trial of only 6 doesn't prove one thing or another. The fact of the matter is that not everyone is appropriate for doing a proving of a homeopathic medicine (to clarify, a "proving" is an experimental trial of using a substance in repeated doses until it causes symptoms in healthy people; this information then analyzed for which symptoms are experienced by multiple people and then added to homeopathic materia medica and/ot to homeopathic software). Only certain people are hypersensitive to a specific medicine, and then, the experimenter noted which precisely described symptoms are experienced by multiple people.

If you're going to do some type of test, you need to first determine which people think that they are hypersensitive to a specific medicine for a proving and then use ONLY these people.
Dana Ullman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2007, 07:01 AM   #179
Dana Ullman
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 201
Originally Posted by fls View Post
I don't know if he said what it was (or if he did one), but I would think that if an analysis were done, both the homeopathic and medicine studies would find differences between treatment and placebo groups. How could they not, given that his analysis shows that significant bias was present in both groups of studies and bias necessarily creates differences between groups? If you toss a loaded die, do you not expect one particular number to come up most often? My question is, so what? What valid conclusion do you think you can draw from that?



I would say that demonstrating that the proof for homeopathy is not robust does not help your cause.



Yes. Groups were formed by matching on "enrolled patients with similar disorders and assessed similar outcomes". From those matching groups, studies associated with the least bias were selected for one of the analyses.

Linda

Sorry Linda. Please list which CONDITIONS of the 8 homeopathic trials were matched to 6 allopathic trials? For instance, one of the homeopathic trials used was for "weight-loss." Which allopathic study did this? Which allopathic trial evaluated the "prevention of influenza?"

While I will certainly concede that the original 110 homeopathic and 110 allopathic trials were matched, the final 8 and 6 trials were not matched in any shape, way, or form. If you can prove otherwise, say it, though I know that you've got nothing here...and you refuse to admit it.
Dana Ullman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2007, 07:19 AM   #180
shpalman
Thinker
 
shpalman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 203
Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
Yeah, I did misunderstand Rolf's posting.

That said, having 3 of the 6 people determine that they were given a homeopathic medicine rather than a placebo is actually better than you might realize...
It's exactly what you would expect from chance.

Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
... though this small trial of only 6 doesn't prove one thing or another. The fact of the matter is that not everyone is appropriate for doing a proving of a homeopathic medicine (to clarify, a "proving" is an experimental trial of using a substance in repeated doses until it causes symptoms in healthy people; this information then analyzed for which symptoms are experienced by multiple people and then added to homeopathic materia medica and/ot to homeopathic software). Only certain people are hypersensitive to a specific medicine, and then, the experimenter noted which precisely described symptoms are experienced by multiple people.

If you're going to do some type of test, you need to first determine which people think that they are hypersensitive to a specific medicine for a proving and then use ONLY these people.
Does that mean that this particular homeopathic remedy will only work on these people?
__________________
--
Opinions expressed in this posting are subject to change without notice
shpalman 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 24th December 2007, 07:21 AM   #181
Baron Samedi
Critical Thinker
 
Baron Samedi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 476
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
No, wait a minute, I see the germ of a good idea here.

The reason they say they can't identify which one of a number of remedies they've taken is that to get the full symptom picture you need a team of at least ten provers.

So, we change the test to a simple matter of distinguishing a remedy chosen by the homoeopath for its ability to produce striking symptoms (however non-specific) in one person, and ask them to say if they've been given that, or the blank pills. A simple either/or test here produces problems because obviously there is a 50:50 chance of a lucky guess.

However, what if we were to give the homoeopath ten or more vials, with the assurance that one and one only contained the specified remedy. Surely they should be able to tell which one quite easily! Now as described that still leaves a 1 in 10 chance of a lucky guess, which is still too much. However, it's a lot better than 1 in 50, as regards working towards statistical significance.

So, we need to find out how many vials a homoeopath thinks it would be practical to screen for remedy presence, assuming only one is the actual remedy. Then we need to work out how many repetitions of that test would require to be correct in order to achieve p<0.001. If in fact this level of significance can be achieved with perhaps only three repetitions, then it could well be practical for one person to undertake the whole thing, just saying when they felt ready to go on to the next set. Even if it was a couple of months, that would be achievable.

Now, what excuses might they find for not doing this one?

Rolfe.
Well, if you want only 3 trials, this is easy. Pick 1 bottle out of 10 to have the remedy and the other 9 pure water and the person has to get a perfect 3/3 hit rate. If the person tries to get away with being able to be correct either 2 or 3 times out of 3, you have to have 1 bottle out of 55 instead of 1 out of 10, so that's a heck of a lot more tests (30 vs 165). No matter what, though, those 9 bottles of water must be the same as the water used for dilution, or else we'll have more PhDs writing letters about how bad the test is.

Sadly, DanaJames already blurted the typical cop-out -- it wasn't the test that failed, just the person taking the test. If the test fails, the person is too unskilled to properly judge the waters. If you test 50 people and they all fail, well, you just cherry picked lousy people. And if you test 1,000 people, he'll blurt out that one person did pass hence it is possible to tell.
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 24th December 2007, 07:25 AM   #182
shpalman
Thinker
 
shpalman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 203
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Oh, it's Harald Walach again.
More recent stuff from Walach in vol. 96 number 4 of Homeopathy, DOI doesn't work:

Quote:
It is a well-known lore of homeopathic proving that those in control groups, relatives, or even the pet dog may develop proving symptoms although they have not taken the remedy. This lore, although anecdotal and not scientific evidence at all, is valuable since it suggests that placebo controls might not be adequate.
That whole patient-practitioner-remedy entanglement stuff is complete nonsense, of course.

Walach's letter is part of a debate which seems to have been kicked off by F. Dantas, P. Fisher, H. Walach, F. Wieland, D. P. Rastogi, H. Teixeira, D. Koster, J. P. Jansen, J. Eizayaga, M. E. P. Alvarez, M. Marim, P. Belon, and L. L. M. Weckx. A systematic review of the quality of homeopathic pathogenetic trials published from 1945 to 1995. Homeopathy 96 (1) 4-16 (2007) which says, for example:

Quote:
The quality of reports was in general poor, and much important information for methodological analysis and reproducibility of HPTs was omitted from many reports... There was a large variation in methods. Quasiexperimental designs, without control groups were the most common type of study, particularly before–after studies, followed by trials using placebo parallel group (36% of the sample)... The nature of the effects was very diverse, but many seemed to be common symptoms, associated with placebo in clinical trials or reported as everyday symptoms, but we did not systematically assess this.
__________________
--
Opinions expressed in this posting are subject to change without notice

Last edited by shpalman; 24th December 2007 at 07:35 AM.
shpalman 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 24th December 2007, 07:29 AM   #183
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 40,290
Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
If you're going to do some type of test, you need to first determine which people think that they are hypersensitive to a specific medicine for a proving and then use ONLY these people.

Just to clarify, the subjects in the test were professional homoeopaths who had declared that they already knew they could "prove" the chosen substance.

The terms "medicine" and "hypersensitive" are nonsensical in the context of your posting.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 24th December 2007 at 07:35 AM.
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 24th December 2007, 07:41 AM   #184
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 40,290
Originally Posted by Baron Samedi View Post
Well, if you want only 3 trials, this is easy. Pick 1 bottle out of 10 to have the remedy and the other 9 pure water and the person has to get a perfect 3/3 hit rate. If the person tries to get away with being able to be correct either 2 or 3 times out of 3, you have to have 1 bottle out of 55 instead of 1 out of 10, so that's a heck of a lot more tests (30 vs 165). No matter what, though, those 9 bottles of water must be the same as the water used for dilution, or else we'll have more PhDs writing letters about how bad the test is.

Yes, I think this is a better protocol, possibly, we'll just have to see what wriggle-outs they come up with on this one.

Personally, I think that, given a year, anyone who is certain they can "prove" a particular remedy should be able to pick out which one of ten bottles actually contains that remedy, if the other nine bottles are only blank sugar pills. And I also think that doing one repetition per year is not unreasonable.

However, if they want to take a whole year to decide which is the bottle out of each group of ten, then wait an entire year before starting the next group, fine. That would still give us a result in five years. Since I've been arguing this one round the houses with them for nearly five years already, with nothing but evasions and backtracking to show for it, I'd be very happy to agree to a definitive test that would give an answer so quickly.

And to counter Dana's objections, it is written in the protocol that the subject (or all the subjects, if more than one) should be experienced homoeopaths who are already convinced of their own ability to "prove" their chosen remedy.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 24th December 2007 at 07:43 AM.
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 24th December 2007, 08:05 AM   #185
Badly Shaved Monkey
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Badly Shaved Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,362
Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
Yeah, I did misunderstand Rolf's posting.

That said, having 3 of the 6 people determine that they were given a homeopathic medicine rather than a placebo is actually better than you might realize...
As post-hoc rationalisations go that really is a peach.

You have just placed yourself beyond the access of logical discourse. The size of the trial is irrelevant. If there had been 1000 Homs given a 50:50 trial and 500 succeeded you would declare that they all had special powers and all the rest were just mundanes.

But then the other 500 would have to be 100% right in determining that they had only been given blanks. But the remedies were allocated at random, so what would be the odds of 500 remedies being given to the 500 sensitives and the other 500 being given to 500 mundanes who have the self-contradictory property of being 100% accurate in spotting that this was so....


Please don't try to think about the above too closely it will make your brain bleed, but living in a constant state of reduction ad absurdum is the sad fate of the homeopath.

The stupid...it hurts.
__________________
"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 24th December 2007, 09:00 AM   #186
fls
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,226
Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
Sorry Linda. Please list which CONDITIONS of the 8 homeopathic trials were matched to 6 allopathic trials? For instance, one of the homeopathic trials used was for "weight-loss." Which allopathic study did this? Which allopathic trial evaluated the "prevention of influenza?"

While I will certainly concede that the original 110 homeopathic and 110 allopathic trials were matched, the final 8 and 6 trials were not matched in any shape, way, or form. If you can prove otherwise, say it, though I know that you've got nothing here...and you refuse to admit it.
The point is that the question being asked and the type of study design and analysis used to answer that question does not depend upon matching on the basis of condition. Once you have created two groups that are similar, subsequent comparisons are performed on the groups as a whole or on subsets of the groups selected on the basis of characteristics of interest. The "conditions" are not the characteristic of interest. "High quality" and "relatively free from bias" are.

I'm happy to admit it, because it just doesn't matter.

Linda
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 24th December 2007, 09:47 AM   #187
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 40,290
Originally Posted by Badly Shaved Monkey View Post
As post-hoc rationalisations go that really is a peach.

You have just placed yourself beyond the access of logical discourse. The size of the trial is irrelevant. If there had been 1000 Homs given a 50:50 trial and 500 succeeded you would declare that they all had special powers and all the rest were just mundanes.

But then the other 500 would have to be 100% right in determining that they had only been given blanks. But the remedies were allocated at random, so what would be the odds of 500 remedies being given to the 500 sensitives and the other 500 being given to 500 mundanes who have the self-contradictory property of being 100% accurate in spotting that this was so....


Please don't try to think about the above too closely it will make your brain bleed, but living in a constant state of reduction ad absurdum is the sad fate of the homeopath.

The stupid...it hurts.

Actually, I hadn't glommed on to that one! It's a beauty. And of course you're quite right.

If any of them had special powers, the result would have to be better than 50% by exactly that proportion. Because of course the mundanes wouldn't always be wrong, you'd expect them to be right half of the time just by chance. So the presence of any specially-blessed individuals would always skew it above 50%.

I can't find the email now where Yuri told me how many of the correct-responders actually got the remedy and how many got the blank. It might be easiest just to ask him.

I suppose you could argue that while the specially-blessed individuals will always be right whatever they get, the response of the mundanes should be skewed to "I got the blank", because they are incapable of experiencing the proving symptoms even if they get the remedy? Now it's my brain hurting to try to figure how this might affect anything, if it even does, given that both mundanes and specials get either/or by random assignment.

Anyway, like I said, Yuri advertised for experienced homoeopaths who were confident they could in fact prove the remedy they chose. Which rather undermines the entire objection.

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 24th December 2007, 12:21 PM   #188
Deetee
Illuminator
 
Deetee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,788
More magical thinking......

Dana, ever play that game where you are at a party and the DJ offers a prize to the couple who are left on the dance floor after guessing which way they should line up with each other?

Each person on the dance floor has to assume the position of "front to front" or "back to back" with their dance partner. The DJ has 2 cards which he picks at random - calling out "front to front" or "back to back" each time the card comes up.

So as the couples choose their positions, he shouts out what his card says. Each couple who are correctly matched stay on the floor, the others sit down. After about 7 or 8 turns, there is one couple left who has "guessed" correctly each time, and who wins the prize.

Is this couple endowed with paranormal powers of prediction? Do they have a quantum entanglement linked to the vibrational energy emanating from the cards? There must be a logical explanation - after all, who could possibly conceivably "guess" correctly 8 times in succession? Spooky, huh?

Isn't chance a wonderful thing?
The constant attribution of supernatural powers to the simple circumstances of probability is one of the things I dislike most about Woo.
__________________
"Reci bobu bob a popu pop." - Tanja
"Everything is physics. This does not mean that physics is everything." - Cuddles
"The entire practice of homeopathy can be substituted with the advice to "take two aspirins and call me in the morning." - Linda
"Homeopathy: I never knew there was so little in it." - BSM

Last edited by Deetee; 24th December 2007 at 12:22 PM.
Deetee 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 24th December 2007, 12:48 PM   #189
BillyJoe
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,531
Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
Yeah, I did misunderstand Rolf's posting.

No, Dana, you did not misunderstand Rolfe's post, you misread it.

Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
That said, having 3 of the 6 people determine that they were given a homeopathic medicine rather than a placebo is actually better than you might realize, though this small trial of only 6 doesn't prove one thing or another. The fact of the matter is that not everyone is appropriate for doing a proving of a homeopathic medicine .
And now you are misreading AND misunderstanding.
BillyJoe 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 24th December 2007, 12:55 PM   #190
BillyJoe
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,531
PS: They tell me you wrote an authoritative book on homoeopathy recently.

Last edited by BillyJoe; 24th December 2007 at 12:55 PM.
BillyJoe 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 24th December 2007, 06:09 PM   #191
Dana Ullman
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 201
Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
Sorry Linda. Please list which CONDITIONS of the 8 homeopathic trials were matched to 6 allopathic trials? For instance, one of the homeopathic trials used was for "weight-loss." Which allopathic study did this? Which allopathic trial evaluated the "prevention of influenza?"

While I will certainly concede that the original 110 homeopathic and 110 allopathic trials were matched, the final 8 and 6 trials were not matched in any shape, way, or form. If you can prove otherwise, say it, though I know that you've got nothing here...and you refuse to admit it.
You folks can create your own idea for testing homeopathy, but because you still have such a shallow understanding of the method, you will continue to create bad designs in which only naive homeopaths will participate.

In the meantime, I'm still waiting to hear anyone answer the above questiona. I'll be waiting beside Godot.

And merry Christmas everyone. Whether you and I agree or disagree on one subject or another, I do wish you well.
Dana Ullman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2007, 06:32 PM   #192
fls
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,226
Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
You folks can create your own idea for testing homeopathy, but because you still have such a shallow understanding of the method, you will continue to create bad designs in which only naive homeopaths will participate.
Translation...

Only savvy homeopaths realize that they must avoid testing homeopathy because they already know it will fail.

Quote:
In the meantime, I'm still waiting to hear anyone answer the above questiona. I'll be waiting beside Godot.
Translation...

I have no comeback for your answers, so I will pretend that they do not exist.

Linda
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 24th December 2007, 07:02 PM   #193
BillyJoe
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,531
Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
You folks can create your own idea for testing homeopathy, but because you still have such a shallow understanding of the method, you will continue to create bad designs in which only naive homeopaths will participate.

That is easy to say.
What is hard is to explain why the designs you have been given are wrong.
What is even harder is coming up with your own design for an appropriate test.

Take that as another challenge you will ignore.

Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
In the meantime, I'm still waiting to hear anyone answer the above questiona. I'll be waiting beside Godot.

And I'll still be waiting to hear from you why the answers already supplied are wrong.
I'll be waiting beside my dog.

Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
And merry Christmas everyone. Whether you and I agree or disagree on one subject or another, I do wish you well.

It is not about agreement or disagreement.
It is about reading and understanding, and responding in a meaningful way.

Last edited by BillyJoe; 24th December 2007 at 07:03 PM.
BillyJoe 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 24th December 2007, 07:22 PM   #194
Acleron
Master Poster
 
Acleron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,290
Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
You folks can create your own idea for testing homeopathy, but because you still have such a shallow understanding of the method, you will continue to create bad designs in which only naive homeopaths will participate.

In the meantime, I'm still waiting to hear anyone answer the above questiona. I'll be waiting beside Godot.

And merry Christmas everyone. Whether you and I agree or disagree on one subject or another, I do wish you well.
fls has repeatedly rebutted your statements on this metastudy. Your inability to understand what is fairly simple speaks volumes. As each point in your arguement is deflated you simply invent more or just repeat the old argument.

You claim that you do not prescribe to people, however you harm them very directly by publishing untruths. You encourage others who may be deluded or just charlatans. Innocent people will spend money with homeopaths to get water or lactose. Others will fail to get proper treatment and will die because of your desire to convince them of something that is just not true.

After 200 years you cannot produce one irrefutable piece of evidence to match BSM's question.

Contrary to your statement, the people in this forum do understand the tenets of homeopathy. They understand the inherent contradiction in 'proving', they understand the science of dilution and they understand that there is no evidence that homeopathy works. Your mistake is in believing that rolling out the proclamations that go down so well with the uneducated and non-skeptical believers is all that is required here.

I cannot see how you could possibly wish us well when advising others to undertake your variety of harm.

BTW Please wait beside Godot, in Beckett's play he never appeared.
Acleron 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 December 2007, 01:55 PM   #195
Here_to_learn
Master Poster
 
Here_to_learn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 2,230
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
And to counter Dana's objections, it is written in the protocol that the subject (or all the subjects, if more than one) should be experienced homoeopaths who are already convinced of their own ability to "prove" their chosen remedy.
How about adding to the protocol that at first each and everyone gets the "real" homeopathic remedy, so that they can verify that they indeed do experience whatever they are supposed to experience? When they have confirmed that, the actual test can begin.
Here_to_learn 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 December 2007, 02:31 PM   #196
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 40,290
Because then they'll say there are so many delayed effects they really can't say when, if ever, they'll be able to begin again.

See, I've been round this one before.

Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
You folks can create your own idea for testing homeopathy, but because you still have such a shallow understanding of the method, you will continue to create bad designs in which only naive homeopaths will participate.

Dana, you talk about ideas for testing homoeopathy. You've only been asked for simple documented case reports of people with demonstrably non-self-limiting illnesses being cured by homoeopathy. You have none. If you can't demonstrate one actual unambiguous cure, and you don't even seem to have a candidate, however flawed, because all we get are ancient tales, studies on self-limiting conditions, and studies in which it is impssible to say that anyone was cured by homoeopathy, then what's to test?

Now we have another one. Just show that you can reliably differentiate any remedy of your choice from a bottle of blank sugar pills. Any way you like. Get your mate Rustum Roy to do it if you want. Or just see if these amazing proving symptoms show up, it's your choice. You maintain your magic sugar pills have real physical effects on the real physical world, which are different from ordinary mundane sugar pills. So there must be some way to tell.

Unless of course homoeopathy has never cured anyone, and the pills are indeed indistinguishable from any other old sugar pills.

Now there's a hypothesis that fits the observed facts! Care to try to disprove it?

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 25th December 2007 at 02:33 PM.
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 26th December 2007, 12:20 AM   #197
shpalman
Thinker
 
shpalman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 203
From Oakleigh Homeopathy:

Quote:
... my children (...) during a lapse of attention managed to eat whole bottles full of the remedies and had no ill effects whatsoever!
__________________
--
Opinions expressed in this posting are subject to change without notice
shpalman 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 December 2007, 03:01 AM   #198
Here_to_learn
Master Poster
 
Here_to_learn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 2,230
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Because then they'll say there are so many delayed effects they really can't say when, if ever, they'll be able to begin again.
Dana, surely you must have an idea on how long a remedy does affect you, otherwise you woudn't know when it's time to switch to a second remedy if the first one didn't lead to the intented effect? So, I'm sure you can tell us how long to wait before you'd be in the clear.

And if this differers between different remedies, just give us a couple of examples.

Thanks!
Here_to_learn 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 December 2007, 12:40 PM   #199
BillyJoe
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,531
It will differ between different remedies, it will differ between different patients, it will differ within the same patient at different times and places. Hell, it will differ between different practitioners and the same patient. Even the remedy will differ between different practitioners and the same patient.

And what is the common link? Nonsense:


It seems that what is important is not the practitioner, or the patient, or the particular remedy, but the EPR like entanglement between the practitioner, the patient and the remedy bound together by the ritual of serial dilution and percussion.

Or something like that.

Last edited by BillyJoe; 26th December 2007 at 12:42 PM.
BillyJoe 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 December 2007, 02:05 PM   #200
Anders W. Bonde
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 445
Watching a thread like this is always fascinating in a perverse sort of way. It compares more than anything with watching the Black Knight in Monty Python's "Holy Grail" being dismembered and playing down the fact, or perhaps it compares with 'Comical Ali' in the early days of the (tragic and deeply flawed) US-led invation of Iraq.

Should one admire Mr. Ullman's persistency in repeatedly and without exception being shown he is WRONG, and yet still returning for more flogging? Stupid must have its limit, I suppose, but we haven't found it yet it seems. Anyone with just a grain of common sense and ability to think critically and logically can see that Mr. Ulmann, as any other homeopath, is, digging a hole for himself, and that the hole gets bigger and bigger whether he keeps posting or not. Amazing.

I can't really determine whether Mr. Ulmann is simply deluded, or whether he's a con-man and he knows it. Perhaps it's equal parts of both? The way he keeps plugging his miserable book(s) I'm inclined to think he knows he's wrong, but there's a market for suckers and he's going for it. I'll save my expletives for later, assuming I make up my mind one way or the other.

Merry Yuletide, everyone, even to you, Mr. Ullman. If you're simply deluded you deserve our efforts in providing you knowledge to help opening your eyes, and those of your victims, to reality - if you are just a simple snake-oil peddling con-man, you deserve nothing but contempt. Either way, please keep exposing yourself, and homepathy, as the idiocy it is by continuing to post here. At least that way you are useful, Mr. Ulmann.
__________________
Anders W. Bonde

Last edited by Anders W. Bonde; 26th December 2007 at 02:05 PM. Reason: Bekauze eye karnd sbel
Anders W. Bonde 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 05:49 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.