Dana Ullman's Homeopathy Studies Thread

[Criticalist]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

Hey Criticalist,
Using a single homeopathic medicine without individualization for a specific pathology is only effective in rare and exceptional situations, such as Oscillococcinum within the first 48 hours of the flu, Kali bichromicum (potassium dichromate) in the treatment of thick tracheal discharges, and Arnica in certain post-surgical cases.

But the only evidence for that comes from this trial! You are just twisting the results to favour your pre existing beliefs. If the trial is negative, its because the remedy was non individual. If its positive, its because there are exceptions.

What pre existing research would have made the authors believe potassium dichromate would not be individualised?

[Ivor the Engineer]

Originally Posted by Criticalist

Ive just been looking through the study, and something has struck me. In table 1, patient characteristics, the main difference, as has been noted is that 9 of the placebo group were receiving home oxygen, whereas only 5 of the treatment group were (25 in both group). No statistical analysis is provided for this comparison - there is no p value. I accept that p values are not designed to test for differences between the pre treatment groups but it would be interesting to see the likelihood of this particular grouping. Can any of our more statistically- savvy contributors comment?

<snip>

The answer is provided by the hypergeometric distribution:

In a set of N objects, of which m are distinct (e.g., defective, ill, etc.), the probability of picking k of these distinct objects in a sample of n objects without replacement is given by:

P(X=k) = mCk . ((N-m)C(n-k)) / (NCn)

where 'C' in the above implies the combination function i.e.

nCr = n!/(r!.(n-r)!)

So, in our case we have:

N = 50
m = 5+9 = 14
n = 25
k = 0 to 14

Using Excel's COMBIN() function, the following results were obtained:

k = 0: 4.75281E-06
k = 1: 0.000138624
k = 2: 0.001663483
k = 3: 0.010931458
k = 4: 0.044090212
k = 5: 0.115736807
k = 6: 0.204241424
k = 7: 0.24638648
k = 8: 0.204241424
k = 9: 0.115736807
k = 10: 0.044090212
k = 11: 0.010931458
k = 12: 0.001663483
k = 13: 0.000138624
k = 14: 4.75281E-06

Given that a split of 9-5 or 5-9 are equivalent, you would expect this to occur about 23% of the time (100% x 2 x 0.115736807).

[fls]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

Hey Criticalist,
Using a single homeopathic medicine without individualization for a specific pathology is only effective in rare and exceptional situations, such as Oscillococcinum within the first 48 hours of the flu, Kali bichromicum (potassium dichromate) in the treatment of thick tracheal discharges, and Arnica in certain post-surgical cases.

Ah, here come the excuses. They always seem to be a posteriori, though. I wonder why that is?

Quote:

Shang's use of Oscillococcinum in a flu PREVENTION trial made by no sense to any homeopath, nor did the use of homeopathic doses of thryoid for weight-loss. Even one of the trials by Fisher using Arnica for long-distance running was ill-conceived (and Fisher has acknowledged this), especially since no previous small trial was conducted to evaluate if a larger trial was warranted.

The bottomline is that Shang's inclusion of only the large studies primarily included trials that had no external validity to homeopathic practice (or the homeopathic methodology).

It is interesting that Shang purposefully ignored analyzing the 21 high quality homeopathic trials and the 9 high quality allopathic ones, though this analysis will soon be published.

Ah yes, the homeopathic solution to an analysis that they say was less than ideal when it comes to external validity (determined post hoc on the basis of the results, of course) is to perform an analysis which has even less external validity, less internal validity, and less reliability. It's a good thing that analysis gives them the result they want*, else we'd have to move even further down the evidence ladder.

Linda

*An assumption based on DUllman's pimping. Of course, given his habit of presenting negative studies as though they were positive, it's quite possible this analysis is negative as well.

[Dana Ullman]

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.

[fls]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

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.

I'm curious. Why are results that don't show a statistically significant difference touted as conclusive evidence of an effect?

I'm also curious as to how every single lab managed to 'randomly' sort the tadpoles so as to have tadpoles at a lower stage of development in the treatment group right from the start?

Linda

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I don't think he's even trying any more.

It's the intellectual equivalent of agonal breathing. We should ask the relatives about organ donation, but I think the brain may have been donated some time ago.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Originally Posted by fls

<snip>

I'm also curious as to how every single lab managed to 'randomly' sort the tadpoles so as to have tadpoles at a lower stage of development in the treatment group right from the start?

Linda

Linda has not being paying close enough attention; this is explained by the Practioner-Tadpole-Remedy (PTR) quantum entanglement effect.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Originally Posted by Badly Shaved Monkey

I don't think he's even trying any more.

It's the intellectual equivalent of agonal breathing. We should ask the relatives about organ donation, but I think the brain may have been donated some time ago.

I heard a funny line on the radio the other day, referring to 'sledging' which goes on on cricket pitches between players and fans. To (misquote) an Australian fan to an English fielder:

[Aussie accent]

"Hey Dana! Can we borrow your brain? We're building an idiot!"

[/Aussie accent]

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer

I heard a funny line on the radio the other day, referring to 'sledging' which goes on on cricket pitches between players and fans. To (misquote) an Australian fan to an English fielder:

[Aussie accent]

"Hey Dana! Can we borrow your brain? We're building an idiot!"

[/Aussie accent]

I've heard it before and it still makes me laugh.

[Rolfe]

Well, look at that! Half a day after BSM suggests (in the original thread) that we won't see Dana again here because he'd be too embarrassed, Mr Brass Neck himself pops up again.

Now, guys, quit with the insults, or Auntie Rolfe may have to use that "report" button, you know.

Now, Dana, I don't really want an answer to this here, because it's not strictly on topic, but I note you've ignored the post I wrote yesterday, addressing you, in the first "Dana Ullman" thread. I'm hurt! However, I'll just repost it here, on the assumption that somehow you missed it.

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Originally Posted by JamesGully

Your critiques of these scientists are so weak that no serious journal has published your critiques. Please provide references to the published critiques of .... Roy .... in peer-review journals. ..... As for Roy's work, is there anyone here who has published a similar body of research as Roy has (and thus, has shown some "scientific chops") and who has provided some solid critique of Roy's work on homeopathy? Put up or shut up.

Oh Dana, you must be so proud of us!

KERR, M., MAGRATH, J., WILSON, P. & HEBBERN, C. (2008) Comment on "The defining role of structure (including epitaxy) in the plausibility of homeopathy". Homeopathy 97, 44-45.

OK, I'd accept that Homeopathy isn't what I'd call a "serious journal", but you seem to have some regard for its publications. The authors of that reference are us. For some reason the journal omitted our degrees, but three PhDs and one about-to-be. I think you might find a reasonable body of research covered there, if you were to look. Enough "scientific chops" for you?

So, you wanted a "serious journal" to publish our critique. Check (to certain definitions of "serious").
You wanted a reference to a critique of Roy's work in a peer-reviewed journal. Check, two birds with one stone.
You wanted confirmation that we have similar research backgrounds to Roy. Well, you can start with the 4 PhDs, and work it out.
And you wanted us to provide some solid critique of Roy's work on homoeopathy. Check.

Your little breast must just be bursting with pride!

You see, Dana, you pretty much caused that publication all by yourself. I admit Gavinimurthy was also banging on about Roy's work, which is when we first demolished his results, but we'd kind of lost interest, and we might not even have noticed its appearance in Homeopathy if you hadn't come along and told us.

So, Roy and his co-authors have been shredded in public, and it's all down to you. Great work.

(And don't bother reading Rao's reply. She hasn't got one. She must be pretty embarrassed to have come out with that lameness, is all I can say.)

Rolfe.

I note you also said

Originally Posted by JamesGully

You folks are good at ganging up on me here, but you seem unable or afraid to go out into the world to publish your scientific chops.

Happy now?

Dana, you were the one who was going to "drop the bomb". Or so you told us. As far as we can understand you, you were talking about Roy's UV spectroscopy work. Which we'd already chewed up and spat out on the basis of an online PowerPoint presentation, but no matter.

Now that the bomb has been comprehensively exposed as a dud, do you simply intend to make no further comment?

We're waiting for you - back in the original "Dana Ullman" thread in General Scepticism, or in the Rustum Roy thread right here. You were the one who was so excited by his work. I'm sure we'd welcome your insights!

Rolfe.

[Acleron]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

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.

{nano snip}
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.

It would be pleasant if everyone preserved the modern use of nano to mean one thing. It doesn't mean that because other people get it wrong that you are getting it right.

As for misinformation, I see that you are still wrongly implicating Charles Darwin as an example of a cure with homeopathy. And we still haven't seen this denoument of Shang's metastudy, even though you still complain about it elsewhere. As one of the more outspoken supporters of homeopathy, shouldn't you be a little more cognisant with facts and truth?

[Dana Ullman]

Originally Posted by Acleron

It would be pleasant if everyone preserved the modern use of nano to mean one thing. It doesn't mean that because other people get it wrong that you are getting it right.

As for misinformation, I see that you are still wrongly implicating Charles Darwin as an example of a cure with homeopathy. And we still haven't seen this denoument of Shang's metastudy, even though you still complain about it elsewhere. As one of the more outspoken supporters of homeopathy, shouldn't you be a little more cognisant with facts and truth?

Acleron...talk to Steve Jobs and tell him to stop calling his product NANO. And tell people to stop using the words nanotubes, nanoparticles, nanoprobes, and so many others that are not directly defined by "one-billionth" of anything. Let's all goosestep too. Not.

Instead, should we only follow whatever your personally favorite definition of nano is? Nah.

As for my statements about Darwin and Gully...please be specific. Tell me what is wrong with my online article on this subject.

As for my reference to the above tadpole/frog research, I cannot help but notice the near-silence. Linda's comments do not explain how or why the effect of homeopathic thyroxin is elminated by microwave ovens or cell phones?

As for Shang, good research needs to have a reasonable amount of internal and external validity. Sorry, Shang's work doesn't, and people who say that it does simply shows how little they know about homeopathy and/or statistical validity issues.

I'm going away...until Monday...and may or may not have time to check-in, but the tadpole/frog research still beckons for good analysis.

[Rolfe]

Hello, Dana! I'm sure you can't have failed to notice my post about the Roy research, duplicated above.

Roy's work was your absolute favourite, not so long ago. That paper was the "bomb" you were getting ready to drop on us.

Do you really expect us obediently to go chasing after whatever weak and poorly-designed study you've dredged up today, while you still refuse to make any comment at all on the barely-smoking heap of dud that is Roy's publication?

Rolfe.

Oh, and you should realise that in language, context is everything. And in the context of biology, medicine and pharmacology, "nano" unambiguously means 10^-9. It matters not what other uses the prefix has been put to in the wider world; within a biomedical conversation, please confine yourself to the strict meaning.

[fls]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

As for my reference to the above tadpole/frog research, I cannot help but notice the near-silence. Linda's comments do not explain how or why the effect of homeopathic thyroxin is elminated by microwave ovens or cell phones?

I think the silence is because you haven't explained why we are supposed to conclude there is an effect when the results did not demonstrate an effect. Further discussion about the (lack of) randomization and (lack of) adequate blinding seems pointless given the non-significant results.

And the graph that shows the pooled frequency of metamorphosis seems to show that there is a significant baseline difference that simply persists throughout the study, irrespective of treatment. If you think it shows something different, please elaborate.

Linda

[Acleron]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

Acleron...talk to Steve Jobs and tell him to stop calling his product NANO. And tell people to stop using the words nanotubes, nanoparticles, nanoprobes, and so many others that are not directly defined by "one-billionth" of anything. Let's all goosestep too. Not.

Instead, should we only follow whatever your personally favorite definition of nano is? Nah.

My personally favourite definition is the one that conveys the most concise information. In terms of concentration a nano gram is one billionth of a gram, a nano Mole is one billionth of a Mole. The popular use of the word nano has been distorted by the award of grants for research into the very small. Surely you wouldn't be attempting to jump on to that bandwagon.

Originally Posted by JamesGully

As for my statements about Darwin and Gully...please be specific. Tell me what is wrong with my online article on this subject.

From your link

Quote:

Despite Darwin’s skepticism about homeopathy, he experienced the power of these medicines.

For the first time in his adult life, Darwin was resting.

Quote:

I am become perfectly indolent which I feel the oddest change of all to myself & this letter is the greatest mental effort done by me since coming here

It's pretty well accepted that overworking the body can produce or exarcerbate all sorts of symptoms and that rest allows the body to recover from limiting conditions. This is a much more reasonable hypothesis for Darwin's recovery than having to invoke unproven theories which become more and more complex as each facet of them is broken by data.

[quote=JamesGully;3341149]As for Shang, good research needs to have a reasonable amount of internal and external validity. Sorry, Shang's work doesn't, and people who say that it does simply shows how little they know about homeopathy and/or statistical validity issues.[quote]

So far, all you have said is that you don't not agree with Shang. This is perfectly understandable as it shows that homeopathy = placebo and you wouldn't want that. However, you have mentioned here and elsewhere that a paper is about to be released that proves your belief. Any idea of when and where this might be published?

[Rolfe]

Acleron - it was the work of Rustum Roy he was talking about.

In fact we'd already looked at it, as most of the results were already on the Web in the form of a PowerPoint presentation, and Gavinimurthy started a thread asking for comment on it at that stage. JJM noticed that the results were crap, and correctly deduced that the main bugaboo was inconsistent quality of the ethanol solvent.

Once it actually appeared in a paper journal (Homeopathy) we were sufficiently inspired to write an actual Letter to the Editor about it. This was published last week, together with a reply by the corresponding author, Manju Rao. She had absolutely no rebuttal of the criticisms.

Read all about it in the "Rustum Roy drops the bomb" thread. This is what I'm trying to get Dana to engage with in this post above.

Rolfe.

[Acleron]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Acleron - it was the work of Rustum Roy he was talking about.

In fact we'd already looked at it, as most of the results were already on the Web in the form of a PowerPoint presentation, and Gavinimurthy started a thread asking for comment on it at that stage. JJM noticed that the results were crap, and correctly deduced that the main bugaboo was inconsistent quality of the ethanol solvent.

Once it actually appeared in a paper journal (Homeopathy) we were sufficiently inspired to write an actual Letter to the Editor about it. This was published last week, together with a reply by the corresponding author, Manju Rao. She had absolutely no rebuttal of the criticisms.

Read all about it in the "Rustum Roy drops the bomb" thread. This is what I'm trying to get Dana to engage with in this post above.

Rolfe.

I realised that, you did such a perfect job it didn't need any embellishment. In fact, such a wonderful piece of work, I don't think Ullman will respond directly to you. His technique at this stage is either to repeat the nonsense elsewhere or to start talking about something completely different.

Ullman asked me to respond to his use of 'nano' and his claims about Darwin and homeopathy.

[Rolfe]

Sorry, I thought you hadn't realised.

He was a bit mysterious about it all, and I'm wondering if his next ploy might be to deny that it was the Rao/Roy publication he was talking about in his "I'm getting ready to drop the bomb on you folks" speech.

Rolfe.

[Cuddles]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

And tell people to stop using the words nanotubes, nanoparticles, nanoprobes, and so many others that are not directly defined by "one-billionth" of anything. Let's all goosestep too. Not.

I'm sure it will come as a surprise to all those people working with nanoparticles, nanotubes and nanoprobes that the subjects of their research aren't actually on the order of nanometres. Do you want to tell them or should I?

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I don't really want to play into Dana's fantasies, but the graphs in the second of his papers are feckin' weird.

Look at the last graph (bottom right). The line for control data goes straight across, the experimental data drop rapidly then rise. Two points are marked as p<0.01. The nadir of the drop and the last line in the sequence, where each of the four intervening points are higher than the former and lower than the latter. Indications of data spread (SD or SEM) are given for none of the data. Even so, I struggle to imagine what data structure can yield these artefacts. There must be wild differences in variance among the points.

And this is the paper that claims to be properly blinded!

I've said it before and I'll say it again: isn't it remarkable how the homs keep choosing unnecessarily complicated and unstable experimental models, just like Dr BuenaVistaSocialClub and Madeleine Ennis with their degranulating basophils.

I think the real role of these models is to act as random number generators for data that they can then dredge.

"Chi-square tests were used to compare groups. Different statistical methods had been discussed in connection with the amphibian model previously, including variance analysis, t-test, survival analysis, proportional hazards model, logistic regression.[1], [5] and [10] These usually give comparable results but (1) need larger numbers of basins in one experiment."

Come on guys, pick a test any test.

" Furthermore (2), depending on differences in the overall duration of experiments, S.D. is usually variable when experiments from different laboratories are pooled"

Oh, and a large bucket of heteroscedascity, please.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

But enough of this, I want to see Dana defend Roy's shoddy ethanol absorbance work.

Or will he just blame it on excessive ethanol absorption?

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Badly Shaved Monkey

Or will he just blame it on excessive ethanol absorption?

Mmmm, tasty! I fancy a spot of that.

Hey, BSM, do you reckon our mutually esteemed (derogatory remarks concerning) colleagues Messrs D_y, S____n, H___e, G_____y et al have noticed that publication? A quick look at the RCVS Register would confirm for them that it is indeed me, even without middle initial or post-nomials, as the SAC is given as my affiliation in both places. I would have expected at least one of them would have caught on. Do I hear the snappy tattoo of carpet tacks being spit?

Do you think Manju's 10/10ths response would have satisfied them that all was well? Frankly, I wouldn't be all that surprised.

Rolfe.

[fls]

Originally Posted by Badly Shaved Monkey

I don't really want to play into Dana's fantasies, but the graphs in the second of his papers are feckin' weird.

Look at the last graph (bottom right). The line for control data goes straight across, the experimental data drop rapidly then rise. Two points are marked as p<0.01. The nadir of the drop and the last line in the sequence, where each of the four intervening points are higher than the former and lower than the latter. Indications of data spread (SD or SEM) are given for none of the data. Even so, I struggle to imagine what data structure can yield these artefacts. There must be wild differences in variance among the points.

Exactly. Even if you get past the problem of non-significant differences, there are plenty of other problems to chew on.

Quote:

And this is the paper that claims to be properly blinded!

It may be best not to read the methods section, then.

Quote:

I've said it before and I'll say it again: isn't it remarkable how the homs keep choosing unnecessarily complicated and unstable experimental models, just like Dr BuenaVistaSocialClub and Madeleine Ennis with their degranulating basophils.

I think the real role of these models is to act as random number generators for data that they can then dredge.

They do serve as good examples of how to introduce (or create) bias.

Quote:

"Chi-square tests were used to compare groups. Different statistical methods had been discussed in connection with the amphibian model previously, including variance analysis, t-test, survival analysis, proportional hazards model, logistic regression.[1], [5] and [10] These usually give comparable results but (1) need larger numbers of basins in one experiment."

Come on guys, pick a test any test.

" Furthermore (2), depending on differences in the overall duration of experiments, S.D. is usually variable when experiments from different laboratories are pooled"

Their initial, more standard analyses, were probably quite embarrassing.

Quote:

Oh, and a large bucket of heteroscedascity, please.

One of these days, I'm going to manage to work that in to casual conversation.

Linda

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Do you think Manju's 10/10ths response would have satisfied them that all was well? Frankly, I wouldn't be all that surprised.

Well, the authors replied, didn't they? The lack of substance shouldn't be a problem to homoeopaths.

They probably think she "blew [your] weak critique out of the water".

[Rolfe]

Yes, I remember. It's SOP.

Rolfe.

[BillyJoe]

Originally Posted by Badly Shaved Monkey

heteroscedascity

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Heteroscedasticity

Seems it's spelled heteroscedasticity (or heteroskedasticity)....oops!

(If I have the meaning correct, heteroscedasticity means that, in the different experiments, the standard deviation of the variable being measured is different)

[Rolfe]

Oh. I can now die happy.

Rolfe.

[BillyJoe]

...knowing that BSM has finally made a msitake?

[Rolfe]

Nah. Impossible. We know he controls robots with his brain.

Rolfe.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally Posted by BillyJoe

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Heteroscedasticity

Seems it's spelled heteroscedasticity (or heteroskedasticity)....oops!

(If I have the meaning correct, heteroscedasticity means that, in the different experiments, the standard deviation of the variable being measured is different)

Aw, nuts. Google is definitely not my friend any more. I realised I wasn't sure of the spelling, but obviously I checked with sources that also can't spell.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally Posted by fls

They do serve as good examples of how to introduce (or create) bias.

Homeopathic Research= A song of badly tuned data.

[Deetee]

The tadpole papers are hard to understand - primarily because the authors don't give full details of methodology and analysis - They refer to other papers they have written for us to see the details. This is often done in publications, but makes things very difficult.

I am taken however by the introduction, where Figure 1 is prominently displayed (an odd place for results/data to appear, no?). The authors have pooled the results from 5 different studies looking at the same phenomenon. The lines are nearly-identical. Control group tadpoles start out as being significantly different to study group tadpoles (p<0.01), and remain different at all study points thereafter.

Not only does this make nonsense of the conclusion that there is something magically different between the groups that is due to homeopathy, but it points to major randomisation problems in the studies, which must be a critical flaw and is hard to explain unless there is undue influence taking place in homeopathy's favour by biasing group selection. "Slow developing" tadpoles are somehow favoured for selection into the homeopathy study group, which is trying to prove that homeopathy.... wait for it.... slows development.

[BillyJoe]

Quote:

Control group tadpoles start out as being significantly different to study group tadpoles

They haven't actually plotted t=0, so I'm not sure about that point.




Figure 1. The influence of highly diluted thyroxine vs analogously prepared water, on highland Rana temporaria. Results from five researchers in five laboratories, pooled data from.[2] and [10] Ordinate—cumulative frequency of 4-legged tadpoles (N); abscissa—points in time; black squares—cumulative frequencies of animals treated with homeopathically prepared thyroxine; white squares—animals treated with analogously prepared water; and **—P<0.01.

[BillyJoe]

They think they can see about three different homoeopathic effects in these studies:


The inverse curative effect.

Quote:

One of the bases of homeopathy, namely the principle of similars, can be demonstrated by first hyperstimulating Rana temporaria by immersion in an aqueous molecular thyroxine solution (10−8 parts by weight, not submitted to an agitation process) and then inducing an inverse ‘curative’ effect by a homeopathically prepared solution of the same hormone.There appears to be a relationship between the effect of homeopathically prepared thyroxine and a naturally or artificially elevated thyroxine level in the animals during metamorphosis. This is in some respects analogous to intoxication/detoxication studies, where organisms are first treated with a high dose of a toxin and then with a sequentially diluted and agitated solution of the same toxin.

The curative effect

Quote:

Artificial acceleration of metamorphosis can also be achieved by raising temperature of the water in which the animals live. This might be considered a ‘curative’ effect in the light of the homeopathic principle of similiars.

The proving effect

Quote:

Another characteristic, namely that of a drug proving effect, is illustrated by the finding that very frequent application of the solution, causes first a slowing and subsequently an acceleration of metamorphosis. Here, the effect of the solution is at first inverse to (‘curative phase’) and later concurrent with that of molecular hyperstimulation (‘drug proving’).

[Baron Samedi]

Originally Posted by BillyJoe

They haven't actually plotted t=0, so I'm not sure about that point.
(snip)

Question. Why is the y axis scale in %? Is this to show percent change over baseline at different times? And if so, how did they plug this number in, by the mean, median, or 1 - (sum at time=n) / (sum at time 0)? Just curious.

[Rolfe]

This isn't the tadpole study where there was a suspicion they might have used an aqueous solution for the controls and an alcohol-based homoeopathic preparation, was it?

Rolfe.

[Deetee]

The y axis represents the cumulative percentage of tadpoles reaching the 4-legged stage of development. (At entry to study they all had hind legs)

BJ is correct - I assumed the populations were different at the start of the study, but the first data points are at Time point 1 (whenever that would be). Very odd they do not give time 0 data points.

[Deetee]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

This isn't the tadpole study where there was a suspicion they might have used an aqueous solution for the controls and an alcohol-based homoeopathic preparation, was it?

Rolfe.

Well they say they used double distilled water for test and controls....

[Rolfe]

Hmmm, you've got me musing again why Rao and Roy used ethanol for their experimental work regarding their theories about the Memory of Water.

A topic for the other thread, perhaps.

Rolfe.

[fls]

Originally Posted by Deetee

The y axis represents the cumulative percentage of tadpoles reaching the 4-legged stage of development. (At entry to study they all had hind legs)

BJ is correct - I assumed the populations were different at the start of the study, but the first data points are at Time point 1 (whenever that would be). Very odd they do not give time 0 data points.

The time 0 data points should be assumed to be the same as the tadpoles were all selected to be the same. You are correct that the first data point is going to reflect the result of sorting, rather than the result of treatment, though.

Linda