Homoeopaths don't tell lies

[Rolfe]

Yeah, I know. We've all remarked on the fact that homoeopaths seem frequently to be a bit economical with the actualite. To put it mildly. But consider. If they actually fudged the data (as in, made it up) to come up with something that showed what looked like real evidence of a real effect, it would be much more difficult to criticise the studies.

My point is that when we critique papers by homoeopaths we start from the assumption that the data they present are real data. And this seems a valid assumption, because we've never seen homoeopath data that showed any sort of sizeable or self-evident effect. We've never even seen a very significant p value that wasn't the product of an obvious data dredge.

The Rao/Roy paper, for example, demonstrated incompetence to a quite staggering degree. To the point where one begins to wonder whether in fact this is deliberate, in order to advance the agenda. However, thinking about it a bit longer, it seems very unlikely that anyone publishing with deliberate intent to mislead would present something that could be so easily shot down in flames.

Same with the clinical papers. Weak effects that merge into the background of statistical noise, massaged out to try to make them mean something. Clear evidence in the Materials and Methods that blinding was inadequate. And so on. Nobody ever seems to shift the two or three data points it would take to get a result that would make the reader sit up and take notice. Nobody ever seems to describe solid double-blinding when in fact this didn't take place.

I slightly wonder why. Is it fear that when their highly significant results proved not to be repeatable, they'd be found out? Or is it the innate honesty of the sincere (but not very bright) believer?

Rolfe.

[Soapy Sam]

They don't tell BIG LIES just a lot of very very small ones.

Seriously- a fair number of homoeopaths are clearly not actually stupid people.
They must be convinced their nonsense is real or they couldn't go on spouting it.

[Pixel42]

Homeopaths don't lie because the standard of evidence of their potential customers is so low they don't need to, pseudoscientific piffle is all that's required to satisfy them.

[Professor Yaffle]

Some TCM researchers do though:

http://ori.dhhs.gov/misconduct/cases/NguyenM.shtml

[paximperium]

Technically it isn't lying when you dilute the truth and succus it rigorously. This extreme dilution of truth is what gives homeopathy its power.

[Rolfe]

Technically it isn't lying when you dilute the truth and succus it rigorously. This extreme dilution of truth is what gives homeopathy its power.


I'd nominate that for pith if I thought it had the slightest hope of standing up out of context....

Rolfe.

[bellonax]

*derail* I was at the doctor's this morning and in the waiting room there was this old fella telling the receptionist how his older brother had died in Febuary. He'd had some serious problem with his gall bladder - but hadn't known that because he'd gone to see a homeopathist who told him his pain was due to a wheat allergy.

When he finally when to a regular hospital and had surgery apparently it was so swollen thatn they had to "chip it out" (I assume he meant the gall stone, but I don't know much about it). The surgery was too stressful for him and he died of a heart attack a week later. *derail over*

[JJM]

I cannot find citations among my files; but there have been cases where homeopathic preps were adulterated with actual drugs. Often, that means caffeine or OTC analgesics; but they can be dangerous under the wrong conditions. I also recall a prep for asthma that contained a steroid.

That kind of cheating is very difficult to detect in clinical studies where the investigator has complete control over supplies, and is aware of the situation. (Sometimes a commercial firm makes such doctored nostrums and gives them for research to an unwitting scientist.) On the other hand, with free access to OTC homeo preps, and samples from innocent researchers, it is quite simple to detect contamination in preps that are near, or beyond, the Avogadro limit. It could be a high-school science project (unless they are restricted as to the chemicals they can use).

The same type of cheating is found for herbal preps. The FDA has issued several recalls for herbal Viagra that contained the non-herbal variety.

[Mojo]

All the instances of that sort of thing I've noticed have involved herbal rather than homoeopathic medicines ("herbal" eczema treatments containing steroids is one that seems to come up).

[Acleron]

Well, they may not lie in the methods and results, but they sure do in and about the conclusions.

[catbasket]

From NCAHF position paper (http://www.ncahf.org/pp/homeop.html#suspicious) -
Homeopathic products also may work because of adulteration. Morice (1986, pp. 862-863) reported that a homeopathic remedy called "Dumcap" appeared to be effective in treating asthma. Although labeled as containing "nux vomica" (strychnine), arsenic album (arsenic trioxide), Blatta onentalis (cockroach extract), and stramoni folic (stramonium), analysis revealed that the product was adulterated with therapeutic levels of the antiasthma, steroidal drugs prednisolone and betamethasone.

(it sounded familiar)

[Toke]

I slightly wonder why. Is it fear that when their highly significant results proved not to be repeatable, they'd be found out? Or is it the innate honesty of the sincere (but not very bright) believer?

Hard to tell.
A study showing homeopaty actually working would be a sensation, and would be chekked rather rigiously.
An the other hand.
The skills necsesary for a propper study cannot be too common among homeopaths.
(You don´t need (but not very bright), if lacking the required skills will do)

[MRC_Hans]

Interesting question. I think it is because they are cheating ...... cheating themselves. I have bebated with quite a lot of homeopaths by now; some are quite intelligent, some are pure scatterbrains. But nearly all seem sincere. With a few notable exceptions, they really believe in the stuff. So falsifying test data is not what you do if you wanna keep convincing yourself; that is something you do when you know your stuff is false but want to try to fob it on others.

Indeed, homeopathy is really all about massaging your observations till they fit your belief, so it is not so strange they do that too, when making trials.

I had a discussion on hpathy, with Neil Shere (aka Bach), about a test where someone had tried to identify remedies by Kirlian Photography (and yes, it was our old friend Kumar who brought it up :roll: ). Now the conclusion said, among other things: "It can be seen that the Kirlian Photography shows a significant difference between remedy and controls, for some of the data. (My emphasis). Now, although Neil is a reasonably intelligent and logical person, there was absolutely nothing I could say to convince him that this was a data dredge. I even proved to him that I could get a significant subset from a set of random data.

Hans

[fls]

Along those lines...

I've always wondered about the remedy manufacturers. The temptation to simply fill up the bottles from the tap in the kitchen must be overwhelming, considering that other than getting caught in the act, no one would know. And, even if you are caught, you can't get into much trouble for it, since homeopaths couldn't criticize or publicize the transgression without admitting that the bulk of what they do would have to be irrelevant if they had been unknowingly using tap water.

Linda

[Professor Yaffle]

Wasn't there a case recently were the manufacturers recalled a remedy because it was labelled wrong. They discovered the error themselves because no homeopaths complained...

ETA or maybe I dreamed that?

ETA2: http://dcscience.net/?p=196

[Mojo]

Wasn't there a case recently were the manufacturers recalled a remedy because it was labelled wrong. They discovered the error themselves because no homeopaths complained...

ETA or maybe I dreamed that?


Attention mes amis! Homeopathic emergency in France! (http://dcscience.net/?p=196).

[Soapy Sam]

But nearly all seem sincere. With a few notable exceptions, they really believe in the stuff. So falsifying test data is not what you do if you wanna keep convincing yourself; that is something you do when you know your stuff is false but want to try to fob it on others.


Hans, you are too honest.
People falsify data because they know they are right- so when the result of the test is inconclusive, they massage the data to fit their perceived reality. Of course they don't see this as wrong, because they know it's right!

The blindness to the fact of cherry-picking is practically diagnostic of wishful thinking..

(And this applies far more widely than homoeopathy. It's what peer revue is designed to detect in science- but that requires human rivalry to work. Homs. see themselves as an embattled minority, holding on high the torch of truth. So they accept their colleagues' cherry picking as fact.

[ponderingturtle]

They don't tell BIG LIES just a lot of [SIZE=1]very very small ones.


They tell big lies, just in person were they say that you should take their water to prevent malaria if you are going to the tropics. They don't publish bad information because if it came out they faked results that would be bigger news than yet more evidence that homeopathy does nothing.

[JJM]

Along those lines...

I've always wondered about the remedy manufacturers. The temptation to simply fill up the bottles from the tap in the kitchen must be overwhelming, considering that other than getting caught in the act, no one would know. {snip}

LindaAlong those lines is an opposite consideration- they start out diluting and succussing; but stop way before the labeled dilution is achieved. (That is not mere laziness, it is economical since most of the cost of preparing the really dilute stuff, manually, is in the time it takes.) In the end, a significant amount of the starting material may remain, and the poisonous stuff could be dangerous.

[fls]

Along those lines is an opposite consideration- they start out diluting and succussing; but stop way before the labeled dilution is achieved. (That is not mere laziness, it is economical since most of the cost of preparing the really dilute stuff, manually, is in the time it takes.) In the end, a significant amount of the starting material may remain, and the poisonous stuff could be dangerous.

I was thinking that, as far as we know, they do what they say they do.

Are you saying that it is standard practice to truncate the number of dilutions? If so, where did you get this information?

Linda

[meow]

Yeah, I know. We've all remarked on the fact that homoeopaths seem frequently to be a bit economical with the actualite. To put it mildly. But consider. If they actually fudged the data (as in, made it up) to come up with something that showed what looked like real evidence of a real effect, it would be much more difficult to criticise the studies.

My point is that when we critique papers by homoeopaths we start from the assumption that the data they present are real data. And this seems a valid assumption, because we've never seen homoeopath data that showed any sort of sizeable or self-evident effect. We've never even seen a very significant p value that wasn't the product of an obvious data dredge.


Rolfe.


http://www.vetpath.co.uk/jref/histamine.pdf

p<.0001

[fls]

http://www.vetpath.co.uk/jref/histamine.pdf

p<.0001

I have read the paper and you are correct. It is a most excellent example of a data dredge.

Linda

[JJM]

I was thinking that, as far as we know, they do what they say they do.Yes, scientists think that way. Supreme Court Justice Learned Hand (as I recall) remarked that perjury is the biggest obstacle to justice. The same obtains in science.

Are you saying that it is standard practice to truncate the number of dilutions? If so, where did you get this information?

LindaNo, I don't think it is standard practice. You make a good point. It simply accords with your suggestion that they could just offer tap-water: one would, similarly, have to catch them at it (truncated dilutions). Although, it is easier to find contaminants in dilutions claimed to be beyond Avogadro's limit, as opposed to tapwater

I think I got the idea from Jay Shelton's book "Homeopathy" (Prometheus, 2004). I will look through the book (you know, flipping back-and-forth through the pages :)) to see if I can find it.

[Mojo]

Are you saying that it is standard practice to truncate the number of dilutions?


Here's Zep quoting Dr. MAS: Here we go! Dr. MAS at his finest!

For those who know homeopathy dilution nomenclature, please sit before reading:

1st succession 1:100 = 1C
2nd succession 1:100 = 2C
3rd succession 1:100 = 3C
4th succession 1:100 = 4C
5th succession 1:100 = 5C
6th succession 1:100 = 6C
7th succession in water and dilution = 30C
8th succession in dilution = 200C
9th succession in dilution = 1M
10th succession in dilution = 10M
11th succession in dilution = 50M
12th succession in dilution = CM


See also PixyMisa's response (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3525345#post3525345).

[fls]

Yes, scientists think that way. Supreme Court Justice Learned Hand (as I recall) remarked that perjury is the biggest obstacle to justice. The same obtains in science.

It is an odd assumption, I realize. I was thinking of the example Professor Yaffle brought up. Perhaps the recall can serve as evidence that they aren't lying, since it would have been unnecessary if they were?

No, I don't think it is standard practice. You make a good point. As for your suggestion that they could just offer tap-water, one would similarly, have to catch them at it (truncated dilutions). Although, it is easier to find contaminants in dilutions claimed to be beyond Avogadro's limit, as opposed to tapwater

I'll admit that the reference to tap-water was poetic license. I think they'd still use distilled water.

I think I got the idea from Jay Shelton's book "Homeopathy" (Prometheus, 2004). I will look through the book (you know, flipping back-and-forth through the pages :)) to see if I can find it.

I wonder if that would be easier using a search function... ;)

Linda

[fls]

I think I got the idea from Jay Shelton's book "Homeopathy" (Prometheus, 2004). I will look through the book (you know, flipping back-and-forth through the pages :)) to see if I can find it.

Helloooo?

Linda

[JJM]

Helloooo?

LindaI can't find it- it would be easier if the book had a search function.

ETA: I think I must have read that some homeopaths skip ultimate dilutions; even though I grew up in New Jersey, I don't think I am clever-enough to suspect that fraud.

[kerikiwi]

The temptation to simply fill up the bottles from the tap in the kitchen must be overwhelming, considering that other than getting caught in the act, no one would know. And, even if you are caught, you can't get into much trouble for it, since homeopaths couldn't criticize or publicize the transgression without admitting that the bulk of what they do would have to be irrelevant if they had been unknowingly using tap water.

Linda

Minor sidetrack:
My daughter's young friend had a pet lamb which was savaged by a dog. No, they did not get a vet to repair the wounds and give antibiotics, and no they did not do the second best thing and cut its throat.
The homeopath provided medicine and instructed them to refill the bottle from the tap when they needed more.
The lamb died a week later.

[Rolfe]

No doubt the homoeopathy "eased its passing". We hear that one quite often on the homoeopathy boards.

Rolfe.

[Bob Blaylock]

Every statement by a homeopath has been in contact with a statement, that has been in contact with a statement that has been in contact with a statement…and so on…that ultimately has been in contact with a lie. That lie, “potentized” by all the generations of dilution and succession, is now a homeopathic remedy for untruth, and therefore renders anything that a homeopath says, true.

[Miss_Kitt]

BB -- That's brilliant, man.

[Yuri Nalyssus]

No doubt the homoeopathy "eased its passing". We hear that one quite often on the homoeopathy boards.

Rolfe.
I thnk it was BSM that told a sick but funny story about an account on a homeo list regarding an injured squirrel which was treated homeopathically. It did fantastically well. Right up to the moment it died (sorry, crossed the "Rainbow bridge").

It also suffered horribly in the meantime :mad: (but at least it suffered holistically).

Yuri

[Rolfe]

Oh, this one (http://vetpath.co.uk/voodoo/squirrel.html).

I'm very sorry to hear that. Our Siamese rescue group has a term we use when a fur baby dies. We sing them to the rainbow bridge. Singing, for the soulful sounds that the Meezers make, and the rainbow bridge is where they wait until their human can join them to go on to heaven together. So I'm singing your squirrel to the rainbow bridge.

The rainbow bridge is also where all the abused and unoved fur kids wait to meet up with humans who have been down trodden and unloved in this life, so they can learn to love each other.


Makes me physically sick.

Rolfe.

[Yuri Nalyssus]

Mouth opens to widest possible with each inspiration, click/cluck and air noise as gasps for air, closes mouth, belly "thuds", exhales, longer than inhale, with effort and wheezes exhaling. It is dreadful and has not stopped for over a month. (This has not improved)

Over a month... Bastards.

Yuri