Hamid Bey, The Miracle Man ?

[bratok]

Hi,
I was searching though the net and stumbled on some info about this dude. What do you think of it?

I met Hamid Bey, with his good friend, Dr. Hereward Carrington, in Buffalo recently. I was quite impressed with the beautiful spiritual gleam in Mr. Bey's eyes. I sang the song, "O God Beautiful!" for him. Ever since then he has been singing it.

Hamid Bey is an Egyptian from the Sudan, famous land of sheiks. He was reared under an austere mystical training, and the feats he performs are a part of the religious rites of his sect.

Mr. Bey showed me that by touching anyone's wrist he could divine his thoughts. Each thought has a certain vibration and by contact with the pulse of the person thinking the thought. Mr. Bey receives the same vibration and consequently thinks the same thought. Later, he demonstrated to me his method of physical trance, in which he fell into my hands, breathless and almost lifeless. The stethoscope revealed that his heart-beat, at first fast, slowed down to an intermittent beat, and then got very slow.

Mr. Bey can remain underground, buried for twenty-four hours, sealed in an air-tight casket, and can hold a thousand pounds on his chest. He controls his pulse at will–its beats appeared and completely disappeared at his will. He also pierces his body with long needles without bloodshed. The marks, almost instantaneously disappeared after the needles were withdrawn. He thrusts these needles into his throat, cheeks, and tongue without pain. He can produce blood from one puncture and withhold blood from another.

Most of these things he performed right in front of me. In the various cities where he visits he often gives demonstrations before gatherings of eminent physicians and surgeons. In New York City he submitted to burial for three hours. On this occasion his body was sealed in a casket and placed six feet underground. The doctors who were present admitted that they could not explain the feat other than by Hamid Bey's declaration that by self-imposed catalepsy, he renders his body almost lifeless.

Passing needles thru his cheeks and certain other of Mr. Bey's feats are performed, after long practice, by manipulating glands of the throat and by pressing certain nerves on the head. These are very interesting physiological phenomena showing that man can control the functions of the heart and all other organs of involuntary action. This is known to Hindu Yogis and Swamis who practice Yoga as well as to mystics of other sects.

Of course, it must be remembered that without love of God and without wisdom, such control and feats are just physiological jugglery and a detriment to spiritual realization. But Hamid Bey loves God, and he tells me he loves Him more and more since he heard the song, "O God Beautiful."

He has a good wife. "I often wake up in the night, sit upright, rebuke sleep away, and talk to Him," he told me. "At first my wife did not understand to whom I talked. But now she does, and we both love 'God Beautiful.'" O, how I love to hear him say that! I told him to tell everyone wherever he goes, that prayer without love of God is meaningless, and that people should talk to God every night when no one is watching or listening That is a sure way to know God easily Otherwise, a thousand shows of prayer will fail to accomplish any spiritual result.

I told Mr. Bey to produce trance by love of God, rather than merely by glandular pressure, as results produced by devotion are safer and greater. Generally, it takes another person to arouse Mr. Bey from his trance. But, in the conscious trance of devotion, or Yoga, one never loses consciousness but transcends the material consciousness and comes back to consciousness of matter at will again. That is the conscious communion with God that Yogoda aspires to teach.

Mr. Bey can put small animals and sometimes certain types of men into the cataleptic state. Medical science as well as metaphysical science should investigate the results and possibilities for usefulness of such phenomena.


http://www.yoganandaafrican-american.com/html/d_hamid_bay_m_man.html

[Undodog]

Another jack-of-all-trades. It would impress me more if someone turned up who could only do one thing but they did it really well.
Instead we have another classic stage mentalism act passed off to the gullible as a gift from God and therefore proof of his existence.

Hamid Bey - The Miracle Man!
..."Pick a card. Any card…”

[Bikewer]

Another tired list of "Fakir" stunts...

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by bratok
Later, he demonstrated to me his method of physical trance, in which he fell into my hands, breathless and almost lifeless. The stethoscope revealed that his heart-beat, at first fast, slowed down to an intermittent beat, and then got very slow.

An old trick. Involves a tennis ball under the armpit controlling the flow of blood to the wrist. Very impressive at first sight, but not in the least bit mystical.

I think this is the same guy that produces ash from 'thin air'. A trick recently replicated by magician Alastir Cook.

[Groo]

Maybe you are thinking about the "Baba" dude...

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by Groo
Maybe you are thinking about the "Baba" dude...


Ah Yes! I think you're right. Thanks.

[bratok]

An old trick. Involves a tennis ball under the armpit controlling the flow of blood to the wrist.
A tennis ball under the armpit? How does that work?

Thanx!

[Bikewer]

Apply pressure to brachial artery- no (or greatly decreased) blood flow to arm.

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by bratok

A tennis ball under the armpit? How does that work?

Thanx!

When you move your arm close to the body the pressure of the ball stops the flow of blood and so the pulse at the wrist dissapears. Apparently it is not harmful if done for short periods. You can start and stop the pulse at will, and I understand that a good practitioner can also make the pulse slow down using this method.

[bratok]

Hmm... but this could only make the pulse weaker or make it disappear at all. It can't make it slower or faster, only heart can do it, as I see.

>>The stethoscope revealed that his heart-beat, at first fast,
>>slowed down to an intermittent beat, and then got very slow.

Stethoscopes are mostly used to listen to the heart beat in the chest... why the pulse on wrist ( that could be made weaker with the ball in the armpit ) is usually felt with bare fingers...

[bratok]

Hmm... I donno, I still do believe ;) that with hard practice people ( Yogies, Sufies, etc. ) can do things with their body that an average person sometimes can't even imagine... staying without air for a long time, healing themselfs and staying perfectly healthy, astral projecting... who knows, maybe even levitating.


Thanx!

[Psi Baba]

Originally posted by Groo
Maybe you are thinking about the "Baba" dude...
Who?

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by bratok
Hmm... I donno, I still do believe ;) that with hard practice people ( Yogies, Sufies, etc. ) can do things with their body that an average person sometimes can't even imagine... staying without air for a long time, healing themselfs and staying perfectly healthy, astral projecting... who knows, maybe even levitating.


Thanx!

Such things would be EASY to prove. So where is the proof?

[bratok]

Such things would be EASY to prove. So where is the proof?
What kind of proof would you like? And why do you think a Sufi or a Jogi would run around, proving things that are obviouse for him, to people would do everything to call him a scam? :confused:

Ok, for example, someone can walk on water - why should be run around showing it to people?


Thanx!

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by bratok
What kind of proof would you like? And why do you think a Sufi or a Jogi would run around, proving things that are obviouse for him, to people would do everything to call him a scam? :confused:

Ok, for example, someone can walk on water - why should be run around showing it to people?

Thanx!

A simple demonstration under controlled conditions would be adequate.

Why should he run around showing it to people? Are you kidding? Something that would change the way we view the world, something that would redefine scientific understanding, and he can't be bothered to demonstrate?

[Aussie Thinker]

Bratok,

What kind of proof would you like? And why do you think a Sufi or a Jogi would run around, proving things that are obviouse for him, to people would do everything to call him a scam?

Ok, for example, someone can walk on water - why should be run around showing it to people?


Thanx!

These same people who charge like wounded bulls for people to “see” their magic would love to grab Randi’s 1 million. A quick walk on water would have Randi handing over the $M pretty damn quick.

Did you think of the alternative.. they do not prove their “talents” because they KNOW they do not exist and that an experienced fraud sniffer like Randi will expose them and destroy their cash cow of gullible fools who still give their “gifts” credence ?

Please try just a little rational scepticism Bratok !

[bratok]

I suppose that it's in everybodies nature - to believe. Same as everybody wants to love, to be loved, etc, etc, so everybody wants to believe ( doesn't really matter in what ).

Some want to believe that flying or levitating is possible, so they go to Copperfield's show to see what they want. It doesn't really matter weather he is flying or has invisible cords attached to him, he is getting paid for what people want to see from him.

Some tend to believe that it is possible to talk to dead people and they are ready to pay money for it. Once again, lots of mediums appear and it doesn't metter if they are really talking to dead people or just "reading" their client... still people get what they pay for.

Some are willing to believe in god and that he want us to do good things, raise charity, for example. Once someone is glad to give his money to a chruch, lots and lots of churches appear, glad to collect it. And again, it does not matter if there is god, people get what they payed for.

Then a smart person, like our Mr. Randi here, see that there are also lots of people who believe that there is no god, that nothing supernatural is possible, etc ... and this people are also glad to spend their time and money, proveing their believes. "Why not to help them?", he thinks.

Now he goes around holding speaches, telling people just what they want to hear and getting money for it. He's even taking donations. I.e. if you believe that there IS GOD, donate to a church. If you believe that there's NO GOD, donate to Mr. Randi.

As a church-holder says "I'll give you 1m$ if you could prove that there's no god!", same Randi's saying "I'll give you 1m$ if you could prove that there is god!"

Of cource, none of them has any intentions to give away this 1m$, as no one would be able to prove them wrong, under *their* circumstances.

They just have it as a lable - "I'm so sure of what I'm saying, that I could give 1m$ to abobody who could prove that I'm wrong!"

And people look at it - "gee, he sure know what he speaks of if he can risk that money!" People don't understand that the same as rubber band't don't work from seasickness, same noone is going to give away this 1m$.

Even here were rumors about Randi changing the task right before the test and other such things...

So, I hope, now you have understand why no one had ever got his million and never will. :)


Next, this people who have reached some heights in the supernatural abileties, so to say, ( one again, Yogies, Sufies ) they have a completely different point of view at the world. They have their inner world and they don't give a, pardon, s**t about the "false valuables" ( as they take it ) of this world - 1m$, a sports car, a big house or a castle, etc. They just don't need it.

They also see that science is going its way and they don't want to hurry it, by showing something that modern science considers impossible. Not so long ago science thought that the earth was flat and the one who disagreed with it almost ended up on a stake. Or when Paster claimed that some deseases are caused by this little being, viruses, most didn't agree with him either. Do you think that our modern science is perfect and knows everything? When science would come to a conclusion that walking on water IS possible, it would become a common fact and I'm sure Yogies will show it to simple people.

Same is with homeopathy. It is bases on some sort of "vibrations that carry information" that are passed from an element to a remedy. Just because our science today can't sense this vibrations ( same as it couldn't see a virus 100 years ago ), it considers that they don't exist, that it is pure water and so doesn't work. 100 years would pass and our grand-grand-children would watch history chanels and say how stupid people were at the beginning of the 21st century. :D


Good Luck!

[geni]

Originally posted by bratok

Next, this people who have reached some heights in the supernatural abileties, so to say, ( one again, Yogies, Sufies ) they have a completely different point of view at the world. They have their inner world and they don't give a, pardon, s**t about the "false valuables" ( as they take it ) of this world - 1m$, a sports car, a big house or a castle, etc. They just don't need it.

The one million could help a lot of staving children or don't the yogies care for them either?

They also see that science is going its way and they don't want to hurry it, by showing something that modern science considers impossible. Not so long ago science thought that the earth was flat and the one who disagreed with it almost ended up on a stake.

Science never said the earth was flat. The church and various other people said it was flat science never did.

Or when Paster claimed that some deseases are caused by this little being, viruses, most didn't agree with him either.

Paster did not discover viruses. I think you may mean bacteria

Do you think that our modern science is perfect and knows everything? When science would come to a conclusion that walking on water IS possible, it would become a common fact and I'm sure Yogies will show it to simple people.

Well until they do I sticking with the view that they can't.

Same is with homeopathy. It is bases on some sort of "vibrations that carry information" that are passed from an element to a remedy. Just because our science today can't sense this vibrations ( same as it couldn't see a virus 100 years ago ), it considers that they don't exist, that it is pure water and so doesn't work.

I can detect every type of vibration of water molecules using variuos types of spectroscopy. Vibrations are pretty easy to spot.

[Aussie Thinker]

Bratok,

There is one HUGE difference between Randi and Psychics.

One of them is telling the truth.

If you think it is OK for people to LIE to other people to feed their need for a belief in the supernatural then that is where we have to disagree.

Even if they are harmless these lying charlatans make me personally sick. If I had my way I would arrest them all for fraud and lock them up… I would then run Randi tests on them .. release would be conditional upon passing the tests (life imprisonment for all) or admitting they are unmitigated liars and frauds !

I think it is time the world shrugged its way out of superstition and mythology .. who knows what potential this expansion of rational thought could have for the world.

[Undodog]

Originally posted by bratok
As a church-holder says "I'll give you 1m$ if you could prove that there's no god!", same Randi's saying "I'll give you 1m$ if you could prove that there is god!"
If God is there it should be easy to prove.

If he's not, it's IMPOSSIBLE to show people that he's not there. What do you show them?

You can't prove a negative.
How many times must this be repeated?

[bratok]

If I had my way I would arrest them all for fraud and lock them up… I would then run Randi tests on them .. release would be conditional upon passing the tests (life imprisonment for all) or admitting they are unmitigated liars and frauds ! Nah, I've got a better idea! We must tie stones to their legs and throw them into the water. If they have supernatural abileties, they would float. If they don't - we can still pull them out, dry them and burn on a stake, as frauds.

If you think it is OK for people to LIE to other people to feed their need for a belief in the supernatural then that is where we have to disagree. I'm not saying that it's "good" or "bad". It's just they way our world is. If someone is willing to pay money to talk to his dead grandmother, lots of people would be glad to *help* him. If someone want to believe that is it impossible to talk to dead people and is ready to pay money to prove what he believes in, Randi would also help him.

The one million could help a lot of staving children or don't the yogies care for them either? Well... how shall we put it. When a average person just sees "He is starving, you must feed him!!!" This *heigher* people do see the situation much, much more complete, so to say.

What do you think a perfect world should look like? Should there be no fires, no floods, no people starving or looseing their loved ones? No frauds? No wars? Also why should people go to this boring job? Better they should be able to do nothing and have a lot of money! This way leads to peace! But as we know, peace and laziness leads to eternal peace :D ...

If God is there it should be easy to prove. What kind of prove would you like? Look outside the window, beutaifull white snow covering trees... did all this form by accident? I donno... ;)


Good Luck!

[The Don]

Originally posted by bratok
I suppose that it's in everybodies nature - to believe. Same as everybody wants to love, to be loved, etc, etc, so everybody wants to believe ( doesn't really matter in what ).

There is however a difference between rational belief (based upon a study of phenomena and an application of logical process) and irrational belief.

With respect to the pulse slowing down phemomenon. The most rational explanation is that it's some kind of trick. Conduct some experiments. If it turns out to be a trick then fine. If not then seek some other explanation.

I consider ascribing a supernatural cause to this at this stage to be irrational. After experimentation, by all means explore the supernatural, or perhaps some natural causes

Originally posted by bratok
Some want to believe that flying or levitating is possible, so they go to Copperfield's show to see what they want. It doesn't really matter weather he is flying or has invisible cords attached to him, he is getting paid for what people want to see from him.

Some tend to believe that it is possible to talk to dead people and they are ready to pay money for it. Once again, lots of mediums appear and it doesn't metter if they are really talking to dead people or just "reading" their client... still people get what they pay for.

It DOES matter when they claim to be able to do things, using mechanisms which don't exist. If they were willing to say "I am going to use my cold reading skills to enable me to mutter some platitudes about a dead relative so that you feel less sad about their death" then fine. When they say "I'm talking to your dead erlative" that's just fraud.

Originally posted by bratok
Some are willing to believe in god and that he want us to do good things, raise charity, for example. Once someone is glad to give his money to a chruch, lots and lots of churches appear, glad to collect it. And again, it does not matter if there is god, people get what they payed for.

So long as the people involved in that religion do not use it as the basis for hate or for personal wealth generation unless they say that they intend to do so

Originally posted by bratok
Then a smart person, like our Mr. Randi here, see that there are also lots of people who believe that there is no god, that nothing supernatural is possible, etc ... and this people are also glad to spend their time and money, proveing their believes. "Why not to help them?", he thinks.

Now he goes around holding speaches, telling people just what they want to hear and getting money for it. He's even taking donations. I.e. if you believe that there IS GOD, donate to a church. If you believe that there's NO GOD, donate to Mr. Randi.

The BIG difference is that Mr. Randi encourages rational belief. If you believe in something (for example that Elephants exist), all he asks is that you provide *good* evidence to back it up (an Elephant in this example)

Originally posted by bratok
As a church-holder says "I'll give you 1m$ if you could prove that there's no god!", same Randi's saying "I'll give you 1m$ if you could prove that there is god!"

Of cource, none of them has any intentions to give away this 1m$, as no one would be able to prove them wrong, under *their* circumstances.

They just have it as a lable - "I'm so sure of what I'm saying, that I could give 1m$ to abobody who could prove that I'm wrong!"

And people look at it - "gee, he sure know what he speaks of if he can risk that money!" People don't understand that the same as rubber band't don't work from seasickness, same noone is going to give away this 1m$.

I'm afraid that you cannot "prove a negative" in that way. Mr Randi is perfectly prepared to award the $1m prize, so long as the evidence offered to support a supernatural claim is of sufficient quality.

Religion on the other hand is often so dogmatic that it cannot acommodate evidence to the contrary


Originally posted by bratok
Even here were rumors about Randi changing the task right before the test and other such things...

So, I hope, now you have understand why no one had ever got his million and never will. :)


Next, this people who have reached some heights in the supernatural abileties, so to say, ( one again, Yogies, Sufies ) they have a completely different point of view at the world. They have their inner world and they don't give a, pardon, s**t about the "false valuables" ( as they take it ) of this world - 1m$, a sports car, a big house or a castle, etc. They just don't need it.

They also see that science is going its way and they don't want to hurry it, by showing something that modern science considers impossible. Not so long ago science thought that the earth was flat and the one who disagreed with it almost ended up on a stake. Or when Paster claimed that some deseases are caused by this little being, viruses, most didn't agree with him either. Do you think that our modern science is perfect and knows everything? When science would come to a conclusion that walking on water IS possible, it would become a common fact and I'm sure Yogies will show it to simple people.

Same is with homeopathy. It is bases on some sort of "vibrations that carry information" that are passed from an element to a remedy. Just because our science today can't sense this vibrations ( same as it couldn't see a virus 100 years ago ), it considers that they don't exist, that it is pure water and so doesn't work. 100 years would pass and our grand-grand-children would watch history chanels and say how stupid people were at the beginning of the 21st century. :D


Good Luck!

Pasteur was able to demonstrate an effect, people got sick, the cause was x.

The trouble with homeopathy is that proper, double blind tests have not even been able to demonstrate any kind of an effect. Let me repeat that,

The trouble with homeopathy is that proper, double blind tests have not even been able to demonstrate any kind of an effect

Using your Pasteur example. it's like trying to talk about a diesase that doesn't exist

[bratok]

Mr Randi is perfectly prepared to award the $1m prize, so long as the evidence offered to support a supernatural claim is of sufficient quality. Do you know him personaly? Are you on his research team? Do you stand by him, when people are showing their *supernatural* skills? If not, then how can you know that he "is perfectly prepared to award the $1m prize, so long as the evidence offered to support a supernatural claim is of sufficient quality." You just believe ( believe with no evidence of sufficient quality :) ) that he is honest.

The BIG difference is that Mr. Randi encourages rational belief. If you believe in something (for example that Elephants exist), all he asks is that you provide *good* evidence to back it up (an Elephant in this example). But if ones task is to prove you wrong, he'll say "Get out of here, you scam! Elephants don't exist! Do you think I can't see that you did a plastic surgery to this poor hippo!?" :D

It DOES matter when they claim to be able to do things, using mechanisms which don't exist. If they were willing to say "I am going to use my cold reading skills to enable me to mutter some platitudes about a dead relative so that you feel less sad about their death" then fine. When they say "I'm talking to your dead erlative" that's just fraud. What for does someone want to talk to a dead person? Mostly to find out that his immortal sole is in heaven and feeling great there, so to feel better about his death, right? So he still gets what he's paying for. The client won't get this moral sattisfaction, if the medium will admit that he made everything up.


Pasteur was able to demonstrate an effect, people got sick, the cause was x. Once again, it depends on who was running this tests. If Randi was, and his goal was to proove that homeopathy doesn't work, maybe even not at a conscious level, he would throw off cases when people did get well, explaining them by something else. While if the testers goal would be to prove that homeopathy is working, he would most likely try to explain cases where it didn't work by some other circumstances.

I do know a person who was ill ( i won't say with what ) and modern medicine could not offer a fast and effective cure. So he turned to homeopathy, started feeling better in 2 week and was perfectly healthy in about 2 month. I consider this enough evidence for me to believe that it does work.


Good Luck!

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by bratok
I do know a person who was ill ( i won't say with what ) and modern medicine could not offer a fast and effective cure. So he turned to homeopathy, started feeling better in 2 week and was perfectly healthy in about 2 month. I consider this enough evidence for me to believe that it does work.In that case there's no point in further debate. If you can't tell the difference between what might easily be natural recovery (and probably was, or perhaps just the proper medicine eventually having its effect), and definite, proven cause and effect, then discussion is pointless.

Supposing your friend had put on a coral necklace, then recovered - would you credit the coral necklace? Or if he'd stopped eating cabbage? Or started eating shrimps? Or only ever walked on the left hand side of the road? Or written a letter to Santa Claus?

If one apparent recovery 2 months after taking a homoeopathic remedy is enough to make you "believe", that's your affair. But don't come on a critical thinking forum and expect this to be accepted as "evidence".

Rolfe.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by bratok
Once again, it depends on who was running this tests. If Randi was, and his goal was to proove that homeopathy doesn't work, maybe even not at a conscious level, he would throw off cases when people did get well, explaining them by something else. While if the testers goal would be to prove that homeopathy is working, he would most likely try to explain cases where it didn't work by some other circumstances.

Good Luck!

Sorry but this is just absolute nonsense.

The whole point of a double blind test is that neither the participants nor those running the test know who is receiving the treatment being tested and who is inthe control group. This information is not made available until AFTER the results have been collated. It is therefore not possible for the person running the test to influence the outcome, deliberately or otherwise.

You'll have to guess again as to why homeopathy fails in double blind tests.

[AlienX]

I'm not certain that many true effective scientists go out of their way to prove a +ve or a -ve. They simply look at the data and not let what they wan't to be the case influence their scientific methodology..

So far all we have had in homeopathy is people who wan't the results to be +ve get +ve results. Yet when proper unbiased analysis takes place it fails. Just remember the tests so far can produce +ve results without homeopathic solutions so then it's down to probabilities - thus a single +ve trial result is not enough - it must be repeatable.

Just like the person taking the test is under scrutiny that they don't cheat to produce a +ve result then the test also incorporates the opposite in that the tester should not be able to influence a -ve result.

As has already been stated when Homeopathy undergoes double blind testing where nobody really knows which sample is which then all that is left is the truth. The whole point of this procedure is to rule out both +ve and -ve influence.

Placebo effect is a known and widely reported phenomena, thus any real effect upon a person is just due to this and not really that the Homeopathic solutions do anything really.

Put it this way no controlled drug can be sold unless it can prove that first it causes no harm and second that it does what it says it can in medical trials. If you apply the same safeguards to Homeopathy then you would not be able to buy them as they fail.
If for example a Homeopatic solution really does have an actual effect - then who says this will be a good effect?, thus technically speaking if they do what they claim they can then they must be proven to do more good than harm.

If Homeopathy worked then why don't any of the large pharma companies sell Homeopathic solutions?, they already test every non standard cure/herbal remedy looking for an active ingredient(s) - surely they have looked into homeopathy - yet still nothing. Billions spent each year looking for new drugs/products and still zippo! Kind of suggests it's doesn't work don't you think?

Your friend got better but there is no evidence at all that the homeopathic solution worked. Basing your opinion that it must work on such flimsy evidence is basically poor science and judgement.

AX

[The Don]

Originally posted by bratok
I do know a person who was ill ( i won't say with what ) and modern medicine could not offer a fast and effective cure. So he turned to homeopathy, started feeling better in 2 week and was perfectly healthy in about 2 month. I consider this enough evidence for me to believe that it does work.


I'm very glad that your acquaintance got better, that's always a good thing.

I lost 30lbs in weight just after buying a new car

These two events were unrelated but happened around the same time. If I chose to, I could link them.

[bratok]

If one apparent recovery 2 months after taking a homoeopathic remedy...
He was takeing it this two month, 3 remedies, 3 times a day.

The whole point of a double blind test is that neither the participants nor those running the test know who is receiving the treatment being tested and who is inthe control group. You see, true homeopathy is supposed to be curing the cause of the desease, not the symptoms ( as most of our modern medicine is ).

For example, 10 people have a stuffy nose. A regular doctor would give all of them a nosal spray ( to ease the symptoms for a few hours ) and maybe nosal antibiotic... But a true homeopathy should at first seat with the patient and determine, why is his nose stuffy. Maybe he's got a cold. Maybe he's allergic to something. Maybe his grandmother has methiorism :) and his subconscious is blocking his nose, so that he doesn't have to smell it. etc, etc. So 10 different people, even if they have similar symptoms, should use 10 different remedies. If someone is allergic, a remedy from cold won't help him.

If Homeopathy worked then why don't any of the large pharma companies sell Homeopathic solutions? In most cases a person is unable to determine himself what is the real cause of his desease ( allergy to a cat or grandma farting ), so he won't be able to buy the righ remedy in a drugstore. Also this remedies are very cheap, so large pharma companies would prefer to make something more expansive.


Good Luck!

[Undodog]

That 'Good Luck' is beginning to get creepy.
It reminds me of 'Love and Light'. :(

[Trollbane]

Originally posted by bratok

You see, true homeopathy is supposed to be curing the cause of the desease, not the symptoms ( as most of our modern medicine is ).


Utter BS catchphrase for all snake oil peddlers.. Modern medicine has two goals:

1) To remove the cause of the disease. For example if you have a headache caused by some bacteria (not by your chi being out of order etc..) Removing the bacteria with antibiotics is curing the cause for the disease.

2)Making the symptoms easier to cope with, this kicks in in the meantime. No remedy works instantaniously, so grab a few aspirins and life is a lot easier.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by bratok
You see, true homeopathy is supposed to be curing the cause of the desease, not the symptoms ( as most of our modern medicine is ).

For example, 10 people have a stuffy nose. A regular doctor would give all of them a nosal spray ( to ease the symptoms for a few hours ) and maybe nosal antibiotic... But a true homeopathy should at first seat with the patient and determine, why is his nose stuffy. Maybe he's got a cold. Maybe he's allergic to something. Maybe his grandmother has methiorism :) and his subconscious is blocking his nose, so that he doesn't have to smell it. etc, etc. So 10 different people, even if they have similar symptoms, should use 10 different remedies. If someone is allergic, a remedy from cold won't help him.


A double blind test would involve the homeopath doing everything you say above with each patient and deciding what "treatment" he recommends. Once he has done that, the patient would be assigned to either receive the prescribed "treatment" or a placebo, but neither the patient or homeopath would know what had been received.

You will need to guess again as to why double blind tests show homeopathy not to work.

[geni]

Originally posted by bratok



You see, true homeopathy is supposed to be curing the cause of the desease, not the symptoms ( as most of our modern medicine is ).


No in homeopahthy the desease is the symptoms.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by bratok
In most cases a person is unable to determine himself what is the real cause of his desease ( allergy to a cat or grandma farting ), so he won't be able to buy the righ remedy in a drugstore. Also this remedies are very cheap, so large pharma companies would prefer to make something more expansive.Wow, you have swallowed the propaganda hook, line and sinker, haven't you? Like I said, if you want to "believe", hey, it's a free country. But don't try to claim there's any science behind it, because there isn't. And don't try to claim there's any more effect beyond a lot of things getting better on their own eventually (even occasionally things which aren't expected to get better, do), or people managing to persuade themselves that they're better when they aren't - because there isn't.

Homoeopathic medicine manufacturers are making piles of money from all this stuff. Why? Because it's astonishingly cheap to make, and because they don't have the large overhead costs placed on proper medicine manufacturers of actually providing evidence that it works. It's very big business indeed. Let us just be thankful that there exist also ethical pharmaceutical companies who are interested in researching real drugs, even though years of expensive research may in the end not produce what they were hoping for.

The fact remains that when you take a group of patients, send all of them to the homoeopath and allow all the individualisation stuff and so on, but then only give half of them what the homoeopath actually prescribed and give the other half a dummy pill, there is no difference between the groups.

Scientific medicine is the "miracle" of our age. Thanks to efffective drugs, we can sleep through major surgery, diabetes is merely an inconvenience not a death sentence, smallpox and polio are rare and exotic diseases and my mother can still read the newpaper instead of having gone blind from glaucoma. Homoeopathy on the other hand has not one single condition to which it can point and say, thanks to this method, this disease has been conquered.

We hear of individual "miracle cures" attributed to homoeopathy, but they are always one-off, and the next patient with the same condition who goes to the homoeopath finds that nothing changes. The proponents do small, poorly-controlled trials and only publish the ones where they like the results. ("How many groups of ten owners did you have to ask before you found the one where eight of them said their cats preferred Whiskas?") However, the effects they describe at that level are always marginal, and often not worth having - for example the asthma patients having one cough less each day, or the children's diarrhoea which on average cleared up a couple of hours earlier than without treatment (when the standard treatment clears it up almost immediately). Not only that, these effects are irreproducible - do the asthma trial again, or the diarrhoea one, and guess what, no effect.

If you scour the literature, you'll find quite a lot of these poor, small-scale studies, and if you just add them up, hey, doesn't it look as if there's an effect here? But if you correct for the quality of the studies looked at, it becomes very clear that as study quality (number of patients, proper control group, effective experimental design including blinding etc.) increases, the results tend inexorably to "no effect".

Not only that, but the bedrock of homoeopathic theory, the proving, is also total nonsense. The homoeopaths say they can feel all sorts of unmistakable symptoms when they take one of these remedies - in fact they're so sure, they claim that if any one of us non-believers were to take the remedy we'd feel them too. But if you give them some homoeopathic pills without telling them whether they're "medicated" or not, and ask them to say whether or not they feel the symptoms, they can't tell.

It's delusional, due to the human race's propensity for magical thinking. "Believe", if you want. But if you come arguing that it's real or it's scientific, be prepared for an argument.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Undodog
That 'Good Luck' is beginning to get creepy.
It reminds me of 'Love and Light'. :( Frankly it reminds me of Kumar, though with him I think it was "Best wishes".

Rolfe.

[bratok]

Utter BS catchphrase for all snake oil peddlers.. Modern medicine has two goals:
1) To remove the cause of the disease. For example if you have a headache caused by some bacteria (not by your chi being out of order etc..) Removing the bacteria with antibiotics is curing the cause for the disease.
2)Making the symptoms easier to cope with, this kicks in in the meantime. No remedy works instantaniously, so grab a few aspirins and life is a lot easier. Well... to me it more looks like the modern medicine is much more effective in acheaving the second goad, while almost forgetting about the first. Like they won't be too much into thinking what causes the headache, what bacterias, how did they get there, etc? Simply "you have a headache? Take an aspirin. Headache stopped? Yes? Now get out of here."

You will need to guess again as to why double blind tests show homeopathy not to work. Could you please give me a link to some results of this tests?

Wow, you have swallowed the propaganda hook, line and sinker, haven't you? Ok, I see this discussion isn't leading anywhere :nope: ... you still believe that none of it works, as if it would, Randi would have given it his million. I still think it does work and that Randi has no intention of giving anybody this mil., as with it, he would prove himself, his theories and his point of view at the world wrong.

diabetes is merely an inconvenience not a death sentence... This nice "inconvenience" make one buy loads of insulin every day, so suppoerting the pharma industry. Even if they would find a miracle drug that would cure it once and for all, would they release it??? :D

While a person useing his inner reserves can cure it once and for all within a few month! Yogi, Sufism... I've already wrote about Norbekov's system. It also works on glaucoma. With simple miopia it usually takes 3-5 days to restore a single dioptrie. And this exercises were known for thousands of years!

Asthma? What does modern medicine offer? Buying & useing a spray all the time? Once again, *mostly* they are treating the consequences ( or how ever it spells ), not the desease itself, nor what has caused it.

Thanx! ( instead of "Good Luck" ) ;)

[Ipecac]

Bratok,

It's clear that you're bringing nothing to this "debate" accept blind acceptance, superstition and an astonishingly non-critical thought process. You seem to know nothing about how actual medicine works, the scientific process, or the whole point of the James Randi Educational Foundation.

Listen to what people are telling you. You might learn something.

[geni]

Originally posted by bratok


Could you please give me a link to some results of this tests?


asthma (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2903029.stm)

arnica (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2710107.stm)

Ok, I see this discussion isn't leading anywhere :nope: ... you still believe that none of it works, as if it would, Randi would have given it his million. I still think it does work and that Randi has no intention of giving anybody this mil., as with it, he would prove himself, his theories and his point of view at the world wrong.

It does not matter what you think ar randi does. The evidence says homeopathy does not work period.

This nice "inconvenience" make one buy loads of insulin every day, so suppoerting the pharma industry. Even if they would find a miracle drug that would cure it once and for all, would they release it??? :D

Conspiracy theorys will not get you anywhere. Can you show that parmicuticle companies are acting like this?

While a person useing his inner reserves can cure it once and for all within a few month! Yogi, Sufism... I've already wrote about Norbekov's system. It also works on glaucoma. With simple miopia it usually takes 3-5 days to restore a single dioptrie. And this exercises were known for thousands of years!

Referance please

Asthma? What does modern medicine offer? Buying & useing a spray all the time? Once again, *mostly* they are treating the consequences ( or how ever it spells ), not the desease itself, nor what has caused it.

When the desease is as complex is asthma it is to be expected that the first treatements are not able to deal with the underlying cause.

[bratok]

>>Could you please give me a link to some results of this tests?
Or how's about this one :D ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/884738.stm

>>When the desease is as complex is asthma it is to be expected that the first treatements are not able to deal with the underlying cause.
Didn't really understand that... so can modern medicine cure asthma or it can just ease the symptoms?

>>Referance please.
Already posted links to his books, where he claims this results + his forum where people post their results + I attended classes by this system and saw people improove their healthy, as well as remove glasses.


Thanx!

[geni]

Originally posted by bratok
>>Could you please give me a link to some results of this tests?
Or how's about this one :D ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/884738.stm

do enough tests and you get a few false posertives

>>When the desease is as complex is asthma it is to be expected that the first treatements are not able to deal with the underlying cause.
Didn't really understand that... so can modern medicine cure asthma or it can just ease the symptoms?

In many cases modern medicine can't cure asthma but then neither can anyone else. Modern medicine can relive the symptons though.

>>Referance please.
Already posted links to his books, where he claims this results + his forum where people post their results + I attended classes by this system and saw people improove their healthy, as well as remove glasses.

What thread are the links on?
Well it can take off my glasses if I want to and perform better than you would expect without them. It is posible to improve vision in the short term by a nuber of tricks (lying down and placing stones on the eyes for a few hours) but I yet to see any proof that long term improve,ents in vision can be atcheved with some form of surgery.

[/B]

[bratok]

>>do enough tests and you get a few false posertives
So once again I'm saying that the results of a test are based on the believes of the tester. If you think homeopathy does NOT work, you would throw off the cases where it worked as false... while if you believe it does work, you might as well throw off all the cases where it didn't help :D .

>>What thread are the links on?
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25653&highlight=norbekov

and

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30589&highlight=norbekov

>>Well it can take off my glasses if I want to and perform better than you would expect without them.
By removeing glasses I mean correction of the vision. One girl who had -2.5 , by the end of the classes, brought a paper from an opthometrist, saying that her vision is perfect.

[Corey]

Originally posted by bratok
[B
So once again I'm saying that the results of a test are based on the believes of the tester. If you think homeopathy does NOT work, you would throw off the cases where it worked as false... while if you believe it does work, you might as well throw off all the cases where it didn't help :D .
[/B]


That, by definition...is NOT a legitimate, controlled scientific experiment. Someone who is honestly researching something to discover the actual outcome, not to gather evidence to prove or disprove a theory, would not discount ANY evidence. You compile all the results and make an evaluation. Positive or negative results in specific cases in the context of a study don't prove or disprove something. Say you have 100 people with migraine headaches, half taking a drug you're testing for migraine pain relief and half taking a placebo. You want to determine if the drug is effective. You randomly choose which 50 people will get the placebo and the list is given to the person who puts the pills in the cup for each individual (identified by a number, let's say). The person taking the pill, the person administering the pill to them and the person recording the results have NO clue who gets what. It's the definition of a double blind study. After the data comes in on who's migraine went away and how long it took, you compile it and gather your conclusions as to how much more effective the active drug was over the placebo. Keep in mind...a certain number of people who took the placebo, thinking they were getting medication, will get better. The key in conducting studies to establish the effectiveness of something is to observe what amount of variable there is in the control.

I know that's long winded and overly obvious to the other people who already know this. My point is that if you take any given treatment, acupuncture, yoga, etc and you test it, randomly giving half the people the real treatment and the other half a control (thinking they are getting the same thing as everyone else, but instead getting randomized acupuncture, that sort of thing, something that is NOT the treatment in question, though they think it is) then you can establish what difference there is between the active and control group. Though the overall conclusion might be for or against the idea in question, there will be data both ways. That doesn't mean you discount it, you take it in to consideration of the overall picture. If you test 100 people to see if yoga cures back injuries and 1 gets cured while 99 do not, that's not evidence of the claim and considering the 1 a variable (considering all contributing factors like what type of back injury it is, possibility of misdiagnosis, drugs or physical therapy being administered concurrently...which can be extremely difficult) within the realm of probability is not unusual or unethical.

So my response, encapsulated is...a true researcher DOES NOT alter the outcome of an experiment, because a true researcher doesn't start with the fixed idea of something being absolutely right or wrong and trying to prove or disprove something, they make a controlled and impartial review of the evidence and come to a logical conclusion.

[geni]

I think your other points got pretty well answered in the other threads.

The thing you must rember is that for homeopathy to work every one of our theorys about how the world works would have to be wrong so you are going to produce some very good evidence before that conculsion can be drawn. Just think is things did behave in funny ways when diluted beond avogadro's limit this would have been found by chemists long ago. Or are you claiming that things are different when you are dealing with life. Rember that life is just a set of self organising chemical reactions and there is no evidence sugesting otherwise.
Lets see what you have then a few poorly conducted studies. Do you belive in cold fusion as well? The evidnce for that appers to be just as good. It is strange that all these claims are made and not one comes to anything.

[bratok]

I googled up some info about double blind studies of homeopathy and...

About half of them told that there was the same effect ( almost no effect ) between patients who used homeopathy and dummy pills.

Second half climed that patients useing homeopathy got about 80% improovemnet ( in general ), while the dummy pill users only 2-3%.

So what does it tell us?

1. Homeopathy works, but "skeptics" faked the first 1/2 of studies. Doesn't sound very real...

2. Homeopathy does NOT work and "optimists" faked the other 1/2 of studies. Doesn't sound very real either...

3. Homeopathy does work if used properly. In the first 1/2 of cases it was obviosly missused. Like 10 arthrise patients would have 10 different causes and should get 10 different remedies, while modern medicine would try to cure them with the same drug...


Thanx.

[geni]

Originally posted by bratok


So what does it tell us?

1. Homeopathy works, but "skeptics" faked the first 1/2 of studies. Doesn't sound very real...

2. Homeopathy does NOT work and "optimists" faked the other 1/2 of studies. Doesn't sound very real either...

3. Homeopathy does work if used properly. In the first 1/2 of cases it was obviosly missused. Like 10 arthrise patients would have 10 different causes and should get 10 different remedies, while modern medicine would try to cure them with the same drug...


It tells us that that you can use google but you don't want to post links.
How about selective reporting. Sorry untill you tell us where you are getting you information from we can't go any further.

[AlienX]

I'm sorry but bratok your not listening at all. You seem to assume that people have a "belief" that something is false just like you believe that something is true. This is not the case, I don't care if it's true or not simply the data says it isn't.

You clearly have no understanding of Homeopathy and it's claims. You mistakenly seem to think that all of the trials have been people saying they "feel better / worse" - nope.
Proper chemical trials have been performed that were supposed to show that water had a memory (key claim of Homeopathy), but the trial failed dismally. Initially i felt really sorry for the scientists involved as it basically ruined them, but at the end of the day they simply demonstrated bad science.

Many scientists have a theory or an idea and a basic principal is to try your best to prove yourself wrong. If you can't do it yourself you then tey and get other people to prove your theory wrong. Yes arguments can break out but on the whole it seems to work nicely and prevents wasted resourses.

I think you should sit down with an open mind and consider

1. why no drug companies have released Homeopathic solutions.
2. If they have an effect why should it be +ve.
3. You can't test a homeopathic solution and tell it from ordinary plain water. Thus how do you know what your buying?
4. The rediculous scientific explantions by unscientific people usually incorporating the latest complicated stuff on string thoery etc. Look the best minds in the world struggle to understand this stuff so I seriuosly doubt homeopaths do.
5. All large scale testing fails, especially the chemical ones where a persons opinion of how well they feel is irrelevent.

AX

[Psi Baba]

Originally posted by bratok
Well... to me it more looks like the modern medicine is much more effective in acheaving the second goad, while almost forgetting about the first. Like they won't be too much into thinking what causes the headache, what bacterias, how did they get there, etc? Simply "you have a headache? Take an aspirin. Headache stopped? Yes? Now get out of here."
You seem unable to distinguish between a researcher and general practicioner. Your family doctor is not going to suddenly embark on a multi-year research project to find out why you have a headache or where your bacteria came from. If he suspects something that's less than obvious, he will order tests the determine precisely what ailment you have, then apply a treatment or cure for that ailment, depending on what is available. (Mind you, the Cold (rhinovirus, etc.) is not curable, therefore, "cold remedies" do in fact only treat the symptoms, but this is an exception, not the rule as you seem to claim). Medical researchers, on the other hand, do in fact concern themselves with the causes and origins of things, thus enabling a doctor to properly treat a patient, so stop saying they don't. It's beginning to sound ignorant, stubborn, or just plain stupid.

This nice "inconvenience" make one buy loads of insulin every day, so suppoerting the pharma industry. Even if they would find a miracle drug that would cure it once and for all, would they release it??? :D
Of course they would! Do you realize how lucrative a total cure for diabetes would be? No company in the world would pass up the chance to market that. There are millions of diabetics and even if you cured them all, there will be more, so the market for the cure won't disappear.

While a person useing his inner reserves can cure it once and for all within a few month! Yogi, Sufism... I've already wrote about Norbekov's system. It also works on glaucoma. With simple miopia it usually takes 3-5 days to restore a single dioptrie. And this exercises were known for thousands of years!
You've already been asked, but I'll restate it: can you provide a bona fide example of this? A documented incidence of someone really and truly curing themselves of diabetes would be tad bit newsworthy.

Asthma? What does modern medicine offer? Buying & useing a spray all the time? Once again, *mostly* they are treating the consequences ( or how ever it spells ), not the desease itself, nor what has caused it.
And just what is the disease that causes Asthma? Do tell.

[Rolfe]

Well, since I've been off-line we've had quite a few people taking Bratok's points one at a time, and it's all getting complicated, so I'll do a general comment.

First, get this. Real medicine is all about diagnosing the cause of the disease. This is essential before you can really do anything constructive. If the cause can be eliminated, well and good. Most infections are in this category. Yes, sometimes the cause cannot (yet) be eliminated or reversed, and patients have to stay on (for example) hormone replacement therapy (like insulin). But as someone else said, the market for a permanent cure would be huge, not to mention the possible Nobel Prize, and I think it's just a matter of time - there was a significant advance only this month. In this country, and many others, medicine is paid for by central taxes, and the government is always looking for long-term solutions to cut the chronic drugs bill. No chance of hiding away permanent cures for the money around here! It's as mythical as the eternal light bulb that Phillips allegedly bought the patent to and buried.

Homoeopathy talks a good deal about tackling the underlying cause of disease, but that's complete woo-woo, based on a wholly magical notion of "cause" being in a disturbance of the magical energy systems which don't actually exist. In fact all they do is look at the overt symptoms and base their content-free treatment on those. Diagnosis? Not in the accepted meaning of the word. All this rambling about treating glaucoma or diabetes is pure propaganda. If that was possible by homoeopathy, it wouldn't be "alternative", it would have been gladly embraced by real medicine (and the scientists would be re-writing the "laws of physics"). You can't show us any reference to these effects, because there aren't any. That's because the stories are pure invention.

Now, talking of references.... The most recent paper I'm aware of where they did the trial by sending the entire group to the homoeopaths for individualisation but only gave half the prescribed magic water was White et al. 2003 (http://thorax.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/58/4/317). This trial was carried out in a Department of Complementary Medicine at a major university - they certainly have no interest in deliberately rubbishing homeopathy, their goal is simply to investigate alternative remedies scientifically to sift out the good ones. So far, homoeopathy isn't doing too well though.

There are many, many individual trials of homoeopathy, and it would be impossible to post the lot here. However, the Task Force for Veterinary Science (http://www.vet-task-force.com/Medline3.htm) has a page of links to virtually every one which is available on-line - mostly human studies in fact. This page includes everything from reputable journals, including the (few) meta-analyses where they thought there might be some weak effect there, and also the further analyses which concluded that the better the design of the trial the more the conclusion tended to no-effect.

Do you understand that part, Bratok? It's crucial. The homoeopaths tend to do small, uncontrolled, poor-quality studies because frankly they have an axe to grind. When people come along who are confident enough of their results to do a proper investigation, they find nothing. Actually, there's no fame and fortune in showing no-effect for homoeopathy, but that's the result you get if you don't design a biassed trial.

Now, instead of reading pro-homoeopathy sites or randomly roaming around Google, try reading the literature summaries by people who have studied the subject with an open mind (that is, not being determined to "believe" in homoeopathy no matter what).

Bandolier, homeopathy trials and quality (http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/alternat/homequal.html)
Prescrire International, homeopathy update (http://www.hutch.demon.co.uk/prescrire/)
The Scientific Evidence on Homeopathy (http://www.acsh.org/publications/priorities/1201/homeopathy.html)
Overview of Homeopathic Research (http://www.homeowatch.org/research/overview.html)
A systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy (http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/abstract.asp?ref=0306-5251&vid=54&iid=6&aid=2&s=)
Keeping an open mind - the research (http://vetlab.co.uk/voodoo/research.html)

In fact there is one web site which draws together a superb collection of articles on the subject, and a comprehensive list of links to more good stuff - and not only that, includes links to proponent sites as well just to be completely even-handed (I bet you won't find the homoeopaths posting links to their critics!). Nobody who wants to understand the real deal on homoeopathy can possibly afford not to read this site cover to cover, and follow every link. This is....

<FONT SIZE="+2" COLOR=RED>Homeowatch</FONT> (http://www.homeowatch.org/index.html)

You might particularly like this excellent (and very readable) article dating from 1842 - Homeopathy and Its Kindred Delusions (http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/holmes.html).

Bratok, if you simply intend to keep believing in homoeopathy no matter what the evidence, then please go away. You won't find any evidence for homoeopathy offered to you here, because not only is there no credible evidence (and that an entire system of "medicine" can't put forward one single verifiable, self-evident effect even now in the 21st century should surely ring some warning bells), it is a simple fact that the theory drives a coach and horses through the basic laws of chemistry and physics, so it isn't very likely we'll find any. You certainly won't convert anyone who has a brain and uses it. Simply repeating the standard lies and delusions of the homoeopathy proponents and accusing the rational critics of bias is pointless.

However, if you really do have an enquiring mind, and want to know what the real deal is, go off and read that nice big link above, and all its links. Then come back and discuss from a position of some knowledge, if you still have something to say.

By the way, if you googled for anything homoeopathic, did you notice how many paid-for links popped up to sites wanting to SELL you stuff with the tag "homoeopathy" on it? It's HUGELY profitable, and the people who are making pots of money out of it are busy crafting seductive advertising material to stop you from seeing the truth. Go to the amateur sites, the real scientists and doctors who put up the truth in their own spare time simply because it hurts them to see poor souls like you being taken for a ride by this fraud.

Rolfe.

[Zep]

Bratok, I am a serious asthmatic. I have been all my life. And I have tried just about ALL the cures in the world at some time or another, INCLUDING homeopathic remedies. I used them for many months, in one case for over a year.

Let me tell you this quite clearly so you understand: NOT ONE OF THE HOMEOPATHIC REMEDIES FOR ASTHMA WORKED FOR ME. They did nothing. Ziltch. Nada. No effect at all.

Add that to your list of homeopathic asthma cure stories because it cancels out any one "homeopathic success" story you can name.

PS. I currently use modern medicines to control my asthma, and it is both very cheap and extremely effective.

PPS. It is NOT "Randi's $1M," it is JREF's $1M. And Randi would not conduct or control any scientific testing, so the idea that he would "discard" or "throw out" bad results is plainly ludicrous. This is all in writing on this website, and Randi is legally obliged to comply with this requirement. So can we stop hearing about this sort of silliness from now on, please?

[bratok]

Proper chemical trials have been performed that were supposed to show that water had a memory (key claim of Homeopathy), but the trial failed dismally... On the other hand I heard of studies here in Russia, claiming the use of "informational vibrational therapy" - i.e. when we are ill, out cells are vibrating "wrong", so the scientists record the "right" vibration into water and we drink this water, so transfering the "right" vibrations to our cells :eek: ...

So here's a suggestion - let's wait with our discussion for some 10 years and then we'll see, weather it's total BS or not. :)

Let me tell you this quite clearly so you understand: NOT ONE OF THE HOMEOPATHIC REMEDIES FOR ASTHMA WORKED FOR ME. They did nothing. Ziltch. Nada. No effect at all. Did the homeopathy say what caused your asthma? What was he treating?

So what was the original topic? Weather people ( twive again, Yogies, Sufies, Chi-Gungs, etc. ) can develop supoernatural abileties.


Thanx!

[Ceinwyn]

Bratok: a question for you.

You are told that you have cancer. It's treatable, but the medical doctors say you need chemotherapy.

Do you

a) go for the chemo or

b) take some roots and herbs


I'm really curious about this.

[Undodog]

Originally posted by bratok
On the other hand I heard of studies here in Russia, claiming the use of "informational vibrational therapy" - i.e. when we are ill, out cells are vibrating "wrong", so the scientists record the "right" vibration into water and we drink this water, so transfering the "right" vibrations to our cells :eek: ...
Amazing. How much does this glass of water cost?

[Darat]

Originally posted by bratok
...snip...

So here's a suggestion - let's wait with our discussion for some 10 years and then we'll see, weather it's total BS or not. :)

...snip...


Thanx!

What wait yet another ten years? :(

You do realise that homeopathy was "discovered" in 1796 by Samuel Hahnemann? That's over 200 years ago, and the American Institute of Homeopathy was founded in 1844, over 150 years ago.

And you are still saying we should 'wait and see'? :D

[bratok]

>>And you are still saying we should 'wait and see'? :D

But the experiment with deluted allergens that failed under Randi's control was less then a year ago. While homeopathy is more then 200 years old, it is just now that we are makeing experiments, trying to prove that this vibration do ( or do not ) exist. And in 10 years or so, I suppose, it would be much more clear.

buki, this kind of deseases usually don't appear by themselfs, but are provoked by long term anger and unforgiveness at someone, that later turns into anger at the whole world and at the angry person himself.

Now back to the original topic... ;)


Thanx!

[The Don]

Originally posted by bratok
Same is with homeopathy. It is bases on some sort of "vibrations that carry information" that are passed from an element to a remedy. Just because our science today can't sense this vibrations ( same as it couldn't see a virus 100 years ago ), it considers that they don't exist, that it is pure water and so doesn't work. 100 years would pass and our grand-grand-children would watch history chanels and say how stupid people were at the beginning of the 21st century. :D


Good Luck!

Well bratok,

As our American colleagues would say...... You mentioned homeopathy first dude

If you had wanted the subject to stay on this fakir, you should have addressed the specific questions directed towards you and not derailed the discusssion ;) :D , though I actually found the derailed discussion very interesting


Originally posted by bratok
So what was the original topic? Weather people ( twive again, Yogies, Sufies, Chi-Gungs, etc. ) can develop supoernatural abileties.


The answer is that there is no evidence of this coming from proper trials, just poor anecdotal evidence and the claims of the people with the alleged abilities (who aren't the most objective).

[AlienX]

Ok i'll put it this way - if there is "vibrational energy" thats transfered, then so what?. It still has no effect.

Deep down I think Homeopathy is rubbish mainly because it doesn't appear to work at all and the reasons given for the mechanism are not plausible.

As for not being able to measure the vibrations of molecules - well thats just silly as there are many many machines designed to do this anyway to a very high degree.

Unfortunately you clearly don't have an open enough mind to be able to rationally consider the facts. People have gone out of their way to explain things to you yet you simply ignore them.

Homeopaths claim scientific explanations of thier products yet ignore the fact that science says it doesn't work.

Show me repeatable data (that means by other people) and i'll take note. It's how science works QED, try and circumvent this by saysing - well it worked for me just doesn't cut it at all.

In the past (and still do) we have had things we know just work but have had no understanding of the mechanism. So we just have impirical data from measurements or observable effects.
Here comically were given the opposite - a defined mechanism that does not fit the impirical evidence ;-).

It's a shame and demonstrates what an easy job Homeopaths have in selling very expensive water. They make up any old rubbish and are unable to back it up with solid data and people buy it ;-) - that's bad science and basic incompetance.

People are trying to help your here m8, just have a look at the counter arguments to Homeopathy and then decide if all the negative data is wrong and why it's wrong more to the point.

AX

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by bratok
On the other hand I heard of studies here in Russia, claiming the use of "informational vibrational therapy" - i.e. when we are ill, out cells are vibrating "wrong", so the scientists record the "right" vibration into water and we drink this water, so transfering the "right" vibrations to our cells :eek: ...You "heard of" studies. We posted links to the papers and articles we were citing, and to many more. In fact, there's no way you could possibly have read a tenth of the literature we referred to in the time before that post.

Now, I've read extensively round this subject. I've never even "heard of" these vibration studies - apart from Benveniste's more recent demented ravings (http://www.digibio.com/), of course. So if they actually exist, how about you posting links to the studies, or their abstracts, or at least a decent discussion of the studies (not a news report, please). That way we can become better informed and have a chance of assessing the quality of this evidence for ourselves.

Guess what. I don't believe these studies exist. Why? Well, when Benveniste published his "memory of water" study it was on the main news reports and in all the newspapers. And rightly so, because if the results had been correct, it would have meant that much of what we think we know of basic physics and chemistry must be wrong. Exactly the same is true of these "vibrations". If a credible study were published showing such evidence, the news media would be all over it. But if we've all missed this amazing news (like we mised the amazing news that diabetes and glaucoma and so on can be cured by simple "alternative" techniques), please enlighten us.

Homoeopathy right now is in deep trouble. You might not think it from all the "new-age" propaganda circulating, but it's true. They've tried to maintain that their method is scientific, and it's backfiring on them. The more controlled trials which are done, the more obvious it is becoming that there's no repeatable or demonstrable effect there. There is no way to tell a homoeopathic preparation from a sham, neither in vivo nor in vitro. And that includes measuring "vibrations". And the alleged "proving" effects can be shown to be delusional when the subjects don't know what they're taking.

This is leading the homoeopathic "researchers" into overtly paranormal explanations, though these are often dressed up in misunderstandings and misapplications of quantum theory ("that isn't physics, it's a fruitcake recipe", as someone remarked on another thread). Anyone still messing around with "vibrations" is seriously behind the times. However, this forced departure from conventional science, and the admission that the method only seems to "work" in an unblinded manner for convinced homoeopaths (it is postulated by some effect of their conscious intentions) undoubtedly marks the beginning of the departure of homoeopathy from any pretensions to scientific credibility.

Knowing human nature, and its infinite capacity to be quacked, plus the tenacity to which the homoeopaths will cling to their extremely lucrative scam, I wouldn't expect it to be all over in ten years. But the writing is on the wall.

On the other hand, if there's anything more than rumour to the "vibrations" story, let's be seeing some writing in some actual scientific publications.

Rolfe.

[FutileJester]

Originally posted by Rolfe
However, this forced departure from conventional science, and the admission that the method only seems to "work" in an unblinded manner for convinced homoeopaths (it is postulated by some effect of their conscious intentions) undoubtedly marks the beginning of the departure of homoeopathy from any pretensions to scientific credibility.

Interesting! Do you think that this departure will be enough to eventually cause regulatory change in the UK/US/wherever? It seems like admitting that there is no scientific basis for something is good reason to remove special protections for it. Not that we don't already have a good reason or two in this case.

Thanks for once again providing lots of good info and well-written summaries. You make life easy for us lazy folks. :)

[bratok]

Guess what. I don't believe these studies exist. Why? Well, when Benveniste published his "memory of water" study it was on the main news reports and in all the newspapers. Ok, ok. Let's see what science says about it in 10, 30, 50 years or so. ;)

So to the original. Weather there were people in our civilisation who were able to find a key to the "sleeping" resources of our bodies? Awake this resources and so gain supernatural powers? People who have found a true meaning of life? Where did their knowlege, knowlege of hundred years, go?

Ok, we know where it is supposed to be - behind steel doors with dead bolts, in deep caves, under 7 seals and 40 locks... right under your nose. :eek: :confused: if you know what it's about ;) .

But how do we find a key to this treasures? :p


Thanx!

[Undodog]

Originally posted by bratok
this kind of deseases usually don't appear by themselfs, but are provoked by long term anger and unforgiveness at someone, that later turns into anger at the whole world and at the angry person himself.
Did I read you right?
Cancer is caused by anger and unforgiveness?

Can you just answer Buki's questions with a simple A or B?

Thanx!

[bratok]

Originally posted by Undodog

Did I read you right?
Cancer is caused by anger and unforgiveness?

Yes it is. Nothing, no desease, ( to what I believe in ) can appears by itself.
Well... if someone would have that kind of a desease and

1. Doctor would give him a 100% guarantee that chemo would get him rid of it - I would suggest him to take the chemo and do a forgiveness and some other exercises.

2. If the doctor would tell him "hmm... I donno, maybe it might help afterall..." - I would suggest him to send this doctor away and find some "guru", so to say, who would be able to teach him what he needs to do to get healthy.


Thanx!

[Psiload]

Originally posted by Undodog

Did I read you right?
Cancer is caused by anger and unforgiveness?

Can you just answer Buki's questions with a simple A or B?

Thanx! Yeah... everytime I walk through the Pediatric Oncology ward here in the hospital where I work, I just can't bring myself to feel sorry for all those angry little bastards.:rolleyes:

The they bring it upon themselves theory has got to be the most disgusting concept in the entire Woo Woo arsenal of asinine theories.

[King of the Americas]

...this man is a god-man.

A man who pushes the limits of what was thought to be possible.

"With half the faith of a mustard seed, you can move mountains."

---

Anybody ever seen the Coral Castle?

[bratok]

...I just can't bring myself to feel sorry for all those angry little bastards. Little children ( up to age of 7-8 or so ) are very emotionaly linked to their parent. So in this case, they are producing their parents emotions.

Thanx!

[Dragonrock]

Originally posted by bratok
Little children ( up to age of 7-8 or so ) are very emotionaly linked to their parent. So in this case, they are producing their parents emotions.

Thanx!

I know this is a personal attack, but you are an evil man. How dare you accuse parents of causing their children's cancer. You disgust me.

[hgc]

Originally posted by bratok

Yes it is. Nothing, no desease, ( to what I believe in ) can appears by itself.
Well... if someone would have that kind of a desease and

1. Doctor would give him a 100% guarantee that chemo would get him rid of it - I would suggest him to take the chemo and do a forgiveness and some other exercises.

2. If the doctor would tell him "hmm... I donno, maybe it might help afterall..." - I would suggest him to send this doctor away and find some "guru", so to say, who would be able to teach him what he needs to do to get healthy.


Thanx! I hope you're not making healthcare decisions for anyone but yourself.

OK. So you've set up a dichotomy of 100% guarantee vs Dr. Moron. Now consider a realistic scenario: The oncologist tells you that for the type of tumor, in its particular stage of development, chemo provides a complete cure for 75% of patients. No guarantees. What would you do? Get the chemo or get the guru?

[bratok]

Originally posted by Dragonrock
How dare you accuse parents of causing their children's cancer. You disgust me. Not intentionaly, of cource. Just little children are feeling / projecting / reflecting emotions of people around them. Especially their parents. So if a parent is angry at the whole world, it might just pop out as a desease not in them, but in their small children.

[geni]

Originally posted by bratok
Not intentionaly, of cource. Just little children are feeling / projecting / reflecting emotions of people around them. Especially their parents. So if a parent is angry at the whole world, it might just pop out as a desease not in them, but in their small children.

Can you explani to why if someone ingests a stong alpha source their chances of cancer increase dramatically even when they don't know that they have ingested it?

[bratok]

Originally posted by geni
Can you explani to why if someone ingests a stong alpha source their chances of cancer increase dramatically even when they don't know that they have ingested it? This is the outer reason. Same as smoking.

[Darat]

Originally posted by bratok
Not intentionaly, of cource. Just little children are feeling / projecting / reflecting emotions of people around them. Especially their parents. So if a parent is angry at the whole world, it might just pop out as a desease not in them, but in their small children.

Do you really and sincerely hold the views and opinions you have expressed in this and other threads or are you just trying to see how far you can go?

[bratok]

Originally posted by Darat
Do you really and sincerely hold the views and opinions you have expressed in this and other threads or are you just trying to see how far you can go?
I do believe ( based on believe of Yogies and similar esoteric things ) that all deseaseas are causes either by an out influence, like smoking, drinking, poisoning, etc. or inner, negative view at the world, anger, unforgiveness, being scared of something, etc...

Once again we went off topic :D
So to the original. Weather there were people in our civilisation who were able to find a key to the "sleeping" resources of our bodies? Awake this resources and so gain supernatural powers? People who have found a true meaning of life? Where did their knowlege, knowlege of hundred years, go?

Ok, we know where it is supposed to be - behind steel doors with dead bolts, in deep caves, under 7 seals and 40 locks... right under your nose. if you know what it's about .

But how do we find a key to this treasures?

[Ceinwyn]

Originally posted by bratok

I do believe ( based on believe of Yogies and similar esoteric things ) that all deseaseas are causes either by an out influence, like smoking, drinking, poisoning, etc. or inner, negative view at the world, anger, unforgiveness, being scared of something, etc...

Once again we went off topic :D

Oh, you believe. So I won't be holding my breath for anything like PROOF or EVIDENCE for that particular statement.

So to the original. Weather there were people in our civilisation who were able to find a key to the "sleeping" resources of our bodies? Awake this resources and so gain supernatural powers? People who have found a true meaning of life? Where did their knowlege, knowlege of hundred years, go?

Ok, we know where it is supposed to be - behind steel doors with dead bolts, in deep caves, under 7 seals and 40 locks... right under your nose. if you know what it's about .

But how do we find a key to this treasures?

First of all, you need to provide any evidence for these so-called "sleeping" resources. Hundreds of years of research, no one has found anything of the sort yet.

I find it hard to believe that you're serious about what you're saying; my troll detector is getting awfully restless...

[Ipecac]

Bratok,

You are truly a woo woo. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

People, we are wasting our time here.

[Psiload]

King of the Americas wrote:

Anybody ever seen the Coral Castle?

I have. It's an amazing example of what a looney toon with far too much free time on his hands, and a good working knowledge of basic mechanical engineering can accomplish.

Amazingly pointless, but amazing nonetheless.

[Psiload]

Originally posted by bratok
This is the outer reason. Same as smoking.
Can you give us a guesstimation here? What percentage of cancer cases are caused by "outer reasons" vs. those cases caused by... on second thought... nevermind.

I suddenly feel tired... so very tired.

:nope:

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by FutileJester
Do you think that this departure will be enough to eventually cause regulatory change in the UK/US/wherever? It seems like admitting that there is no scientific basis for something is good reason to remove special protections for it. Not that we don't already have a good reason or two in this case.Don't hold your breath!

They haven't admitted that in so many words, of course. They're trying to dress it up as quantum theory, and since most biology types don't know enough about QM to spot the BS instantly for what it is, this line will probably hold for a bit yet. And of course there are still the relative dinosaurs like Bratok who dement on about the earlier failed explanations as if they were true, and that also has an effect.

Then again, the constant assertion that "it works" does tend to sow doubt in the minds of those who haven't examined the subject very carefully - "surely there must be something in it or they wouldn't be so sure that it works...."

However, I think that eventually the truth must come out. It's amazing that it's taking so long for this particular delusion, when the "tractors" didn't last ten minutes by comparison, but I think it's something in the spirit of the age.

I don't know if I showed you these before, but my favourites of the "it's all in the mind" homoeopathy explanations are
Harald Walach on how magic is a sensible explanation (http://vetlab.co.uk/voodoo/walach.pdf)
Are Thoresen on how both homoeopathy and acupuncture are all in the mind (http://vetlab.co.uk/voodoo/thoresen.html) (of the operator!)

Enough of this (and there is indeed more), and I think the penny will eventually begin to drop. In fact, in one of his editorials in Homeopathy, Peter Fisher actually cautioned his colleagues against too fanciful explanations as they were allowing sceptics to hold the discipline up to ridicule (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/story/0,12980,1048643,00.html). However, never underestimate the capacity of quacks to keep their lucrative balls in the air, so to speak.

Rolfe.

[AlienX]

What a perfect example of whats wrong with Homepathy.

Claiming that the cause is the person themself causing the illness when we have many know direct 99.99999% proof that x is a cause and ignore it.

All these claims about it being scientific and the mechanisms behind it being x, then once proved it's not jumping on the next thing FFS get real.

How dare you claim a family who has lost a child was due to their own fault. The only real examples of this is where people take their children off treatment to take this garbage.

Personal attacks are not really the right approah but circumstances sometimes dictate...

Go away and crawl back into the hole you came from, your just scum to even suggest this .. you disgust me.

AX

[Rolfe]

I ask for a reference to something Bratok says has already been demonstrated, and which he has "heard about". His reply?Originally posted by bratok
Ok, ok. Let's see what science says about it in 10, 30, 50 years or so. ;)You implied science already had said something about it. You "heard about" this study. OK, where is it? We've posted ample details about what science says about it NOW, so where is your contrary evidence?

I'm with Ipecac.Bratok,

You are truly a woo woo.

People, we are wasting our time here.I'm prepared to believe he's not Kumar's sock puppet, because the English is mangled in a quite different sort of way. However, the minute Kumar slinks off, this appears. Homoeopathy. Mind over matter. Ancient knowledge of self-healing. Evidence of virtual reincarnation? :nope:

When Kumar went we had all this hair-shirting about calling him a troll. If he was sincere in his ludicrous delusions, surely it was unfair to call troll on him. However, the other side of that argument was that anyone who simpy repeats his original paranormal statements without any attempt to consider or take on board any of the rational argument offered to him, was damn close to trolling.

So, this is just the same. Persistent refusal to engage in rational argument, preferring instead to reiterate woo-woo beliefs =

:tr:

Rolfe.

[FutileJester]

Originally posted by bratok
Not intentionaly, of cource. Just little children are feeling / projecting / reflecting emotions of people around them. Especially their parents. So if a parent is angry at the whole world, it might just pop out as a desease not in them, but in their small children.

You know, more so than many skeptics I understand why people try alternative remedies. I know, up close and personal, what the dehumanization of an overly bureaucratic health care system and the horrible side effects of radiation and chemo can drive one to consider for a loved one.

But you've shot yourself in the head here, as far as I'm concerned. How in the world can I consider anything you say seriously when you tell me that parents' anger is 'the' cause of cancer in children? Do you have any idea how insulting that is to someone like me? I saw my parents ripped apart by cancer in both of my siblings. They have never been angry people; they were just very, very sad. To know that you would look at someone like my mother and assume right away that she caused the death of her child disgusts me more than you can imagine.

The many oncologists I've encountered over time were warm, human, caring people with families of their own who did everything they could to care for their patients. The emotional state of both the patient and the family were frequently discussed. Do you really think that something as simple as anger management prevents cancer and has been overlooked or suppressed by these people?

I know your post was not directed at me in any way, but I can't help but read it and be insulted. You disrespect the dedicated research of the thousands of scientists and doctors who are directly responsible for saving my sister's life, and tell me my parents sentenced my brother to death for not being somehow less angry. I'd advise you to be cautious in what you imply.

[Rolfe]

FutileJester, whether he actually says it or not, Bratok will simply assume that there was anger there and either you didn't notice or you are in denial. He is impossible to reason with, and has now been revealed as crass, insulting and frankly despicable in his paranormal belief system.

Your story has touched me deeply, and I can only say that I'm so glad there was a happy ending for your sister at least. Given Bratok's standard of medical decision-making, I think he is a prime candidate for a Darwin Award.

Rolfe.

[Zep]

Bratok: Did the homeopathy say what caused your asthma? What was he treating?From memory, there were actually four (4) different professional homeopaths that my parents took me to. Each one said that it was something different causing my asthma, and each one had a different remedy for me to take. They had different ways of assessing me (one looked at my eyes - I now think he was into iridology, which I suspect is unusual for a "standard" homeopath). Most of them also asked both me and my parents lots of questions about my allergies. I do remember that their remedies looked and tasted like plain water, and I also remember clearly that they did NOTHING to help my asthma. Not one thing. The before and after tests proved this.

I would also like to point out that I was younger and was not skeptical of homeopathy at that time, so it was not like I wanted it to fail (no-one WANTS to be asthmatic!). I was quite despondent at the time that there was apparently nothing that would help me. I have since learned better - I still don't like being asthmatic, but I know how to beat it soundly using modern scientific medicine.

So, as I said before, HOMEOPATHY DID NOT WORK FOR ME. It FAILED. F. A. I. L. E. D. First-hand experience of homeopathy for your files, Mr Bratok. Do not try to tell me they were not "real" homeopaths - it said so on the signs on their doors, and on the bills my parents paid.

[Zep]

For the (*cough*) older folks amongst us, I seem to recall that the "anger causes cancer" idea was tossed about momentarily by the more pharmaceutically enhanced Flower Power type people during the 1960's, but was rapidly discarded as crap at that time when the facts were circulated.

Bratok, you have AT LEAST 40 years of history to catch up yet on this subject, plus an incredible amount of learning effort on reality to put it. Given that you think it will take anything up to 30 years to "prove" your inane homeopathic ideas, I suggest you check out of here now, and give us a call 30 years from now and let us know how it turned out.

Off you go!

[Rolfe]

Another one for the record. When I was about 14, my parents took me to a homoeopath to be treated for acne. It made absolutely no difference at all. And like Zep, I had no reason to want it to fail. I just thought this was some new doctor my mother and father had got hold of.

Also, my best friend was taken to a homoeopath by her mother for treatment for amenorrhoea. The treatment made no difference to her either.

Get this.

<FONT SIZE="+4" COLOR=RED>IT DIDN'T WORK.</FONT>

If anecdotes are sufficient evidence, then there are three first-hand ones for you.

Rolfe.

[The Don]

Yesterday you complained about the fact that the thread was going off topic.

I posted yesterday to try and get the thread back on topic.

You ignored that post.

Either address the post or quit whining about the thread (I'd actually prefer the quit whining option)

[King of the Americas]

You think the Coral Castle is amazingly pointless...?

And the creator was someone with too much time on their hands...?

I'd like to see ANYONE try to duplicate those works with the tools and machines he employed.

[Psiload]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
You think the Coral Castle is amazingly pointless...?

And the creator was someone with too much time on their hands...?

I'd like to see ANYONE try to duplicate those works with the tools and machines he employed.
Why would ANYONE want to? Aren't their enough tourist traps in Florida already?

[FutileJester]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Don't hold your breath!

Thanks, I was turning blue! :)

Then again, the constant assertion that "it works" does tend to sow doubt in the minds of those who haven't examined the subject very carefully - "surely there must be something in it or they wouldn't be so sure that it works...."

True. I do hold out hope that eventually the watchdog function of the government will finally kick in and demand the same level of evidence for all medicine.

I don't know if I showed you these before, but my favourites of the "it's all in the mind" homoeopathy explanations are
Harald Walach on how magic is a sensible explanation (http://vetlab.co.uk/voodoo/walach.pdf)
Are Thoresen on how both homoeopathy and acupuncture are all in the mind (http://vetlab.co.uk/voodoo/thoresen.html) (of the operator!)


Talk about out there! I begin to wonder why even a drop of distilled water is necessary; if it's about the practitioner's 'entanglement' with the patient, why can't they just think them better? You're absolutely right, this is just simple magical thinking dressed up. They try to prove their magic with science, and when science doesn't give the results they want, they go right back to, "Yep, it's magic!"

FutileJester, whether he actually says it or not, Bratok will simply assume that there was anger there and either you didn't notice or you are in denial.

Agreed; if the facts don't fit the theory, you obviously don't have the right facts yet. It seems he hasn't stuck around to confirm this himself though, perhaps because he's realized how deeply insulting his position is.

Your story has touched me deeply, and I can only say that I'm so glad there was a happy ending for your sister at least.

Thanks, I appreciate it. She graduated high school in the top 20 out of 500 and went on to get dual degrees in microbiology and chemistry - all while she was in treatment. I'm very proud. :D We owe modern medicine, and the people who create it, more than I can ever say.

Sorry if I helped to derail the thread. The hypocrisy of someone talking about the power of being peaceful and good, while carelessly insulting people in blind defense of his personal beliefs... well, it pushes my buttons.

[King of the Americas]

Desire and ability are two different things.

Even if you DID 'desire' to do this feat, you couldn't demonstrate the 'ability' to do so...at least no one has done so yet.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by FutileJester
Talk about out there! I begin to wonder why even a drop of distilled water is necessary; if it's about the practitioner's 'entanglement' with the patient, why can't they just think them better?Have you read Phil Stevens' article Magical Thinking in Complementary and Alternative Medicine (http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-11/alternative.html)? It's excellent.

Phil is a great guy and I've had some email correspondence with him. It was he who passed the Thoresen article on to me, but I think Walach was almost too much even for him to take on board. I suggested what you said. If you read Milgrom (http://www.vetlab.co.uk/voodoo/milgrom1.pdf), you find anecdotes of homoeopathy still working even though there was a serious mistake or misunderstanding in the preparation of the remedy, or of patients reporting feeling better even before they took the remedy, just at the moment that practitioner "understood" the condition and decided on the remedy, or simply by drinking water which had been exposed to a piece of paper with the name of the remedy written on it (wow, literate water! :D ) Milgrom didn't mention the story about the pharmacist who simply filled the bottles with water (http://www.geocities.com/healthbase/hypothetical_homeopath.html), but no doubt his quantum theory covers that one too.

So how soon before the magicians progress to the point where they don't need the "remedies" any more? Oh, but what would they sell then?

:id:

Hey, Bratok seems to have abandoned this thread (and maybe the forum?) - one more spooky similarity to the late, unlamented Kumar. So I guess we can do what we like with it. I vote we trash the homoeopaths some more.

Rolfe.

[Dragonrock]

Bratok ran away
He bravely ran away
When danger reared it ugly head
Bratok turned his tail and fled
He bravely ran away.

With appologizes to the Monty Python troupe

[Lost Boy]

Originally posted by AlienX

Proper chemical trials have been performed that were supposed to show that water had a memory (key claim of Homeopathy), but the trial failed dismally. Initially i felt really sorry for the scientists involved as it basically ruined them, but at the end of the day they simply demonstrated bad science.

What is it that Benveniste is supposed to have done wrong in his water memory experiments? I know they have not been reproduced, but is there a clear idea of what he did wrong in the first place i.e. were there innocent mistakes of technique or interpretation or was it a more active fraud? Fraud seems unlikely because at the time he seemed horrified at the reaction to his work, but his subsequent fall into the arms of the crank science fraternity makes me wonder. The accounts I've read skirt this issue. Does anyone here know or have an idea and is prepared to risk the libel lawyers?!

[Psiload]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Desire and ability are two different things.

Even if you DID 'desire' to do this feat, you couldn't demonstrate the 'ability' to do so...at least no one has done so yet. There is nothing about the Coral Castle that required paranormal building techniques. The stories about the kookbar building the structure without employing any type of mechanical machinery, are just that... stories. Pictures of the "castle" under construction clearly show the machinery used during it's construction... it may not have been state-of-the-art, but it was perfectly adequate to accomplish the job.

I seem to recall a pretty good invesigation of the subject being done by Joe Nickell(of CSICOP)... I'll see if I can dig it up.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Lost Boy
What is it that Benveniste is supposed to have done wrong in his water memory experiments? I know they have not been reproduced, but is there a clear idea of what he did wrong in the first place i.e. were there innocent mistakes of technique or interpretation or was it a more active fraud?It seems to be fairly simple. First, one must realise that Benveniste wasn't simply a normal scientist who "stumbled over" something strange.

Whatever his past achievements (and he himself seems to think very highly of them), he was a convinced homoeopath who was being funded by Boiron, France's largest manufacturer of homoeopathic medicines, to see if he could find some way to tell their magic water from any old water. Homoeopathic remedies are enormously profitable - not only are they very cheap to manufacture, the fact that there is no need to go to the expense of meeting any licensing requirements for safety or efficacy also makes it a great business to be in. So it's no wonder they divert a little of their enormous profits to trying to see if someone might some day come up with some scientific justification for it all.

So it was no accident that one of his technicians did the whole dilute-and-succuss thing on a sample to get it to a homoeopathic 30C preparation - that was what the study was all about. Come on, why else would anyone go through all that and then test the result, anyway?

The experiment was to see if a 30C preparation of IgE was still capable of degranulating basophils (like a real solution of IgE will do). This has diddly-squat to do with homoeopathic theory or "like cures like", but they'd take any effect they could get in ultra-molar dilution as "proof" of homoeopathy.

The reading of the experiment involved manual cell counting of blood films which were prepared in such a way as to demonstrate basophil degranulation. In the normal course of events this is a rather flaky system in that basophils will degranulate by themselves anyway sometimes, and what they were trying to show was that there was more degranulation in the 30C IgE solutions than in the sham controls.

The thing about manual blood cell counting is that it's a bit subjective. Do you count that cell that's half way in the field of view or not? You're supposed to follow strict rules, but it's easy to allow bias to creep in. What actually happened was that the technicians doing the counting knew which sample was which. They wanted the experiment to work, and so subconsciously biassed their counting to find more degranulated cells in the test samples and fewer in the controls.

Yes, they all truly believed it had worked. It was only when the evil triumvirate of Maddox, Stewart and Randi came to check that Maddox spotted that the operators weren't blinded. Randi organised a blinding system which was a wee bit theatrical but nevertheless highly effective. When they repeated it blind, they were still convinced the experiment would work, and devastated when the code was broken to discover that there was no effect there at all.

Of coures, Benveniste refused to acknowledge that he was in error, and went completely woo-woo. He now believes that he can record the memory of water digitally, and transmit it over the Internet. He also believes that certain people (especially Randi) have a dampening influence on his magical effect (in that case, how come it worked the first time the sceptics were there to watch, and only stopped working when the blinding system was implemented?), and some people enhance it. He apparently believed the latter even at the time of the original experiments - Elizabeth Davenas, the first author on the infamous Nature article, was supposed to be one of these. The idea that these people are just the most markedly biassed workers doesn't seem to get through to him.

The really interesting person is in fact Madeleine Ennis. She's a professor at Queen's in Belfast and she's still quite legit. She was persuaded to repeat the test, but using histamine instead of IgE. But the main difference was that she used flow cytometry (a mechanical instrument) to count the cells, instead of people looking down a microscope. She claims that it worked for her. She published. Others have failed to replicate her findings, but I think some others may have declared that they too have got it to "work".

She sits on the fence and says she's a sceptic about alternative medicine, but still, she got these results. And it's true that the machine should be pretty much impossible to impose bias on (which has saved many legitimate researchers from making fools of themselves). What I don't understand is why in that case she doesn't go for the JREF million herself, or maybe better, ask Randi or Maddox or someone sensible to come into her lab and see if they can figure out where the bias is being introduced.

It was actually Enniss's experiment that the BBC replicated for the Horizon programme starring one J. Randi, and as the entire world knows, the results on that (extremely well blinded) occasion were completely random.

Rolfe.

[Lost Boy]

Thanks Rolfe

I hadn't realised that Benveniste already had a dodgy provenance at the time of the famous experiment.

Ennis is a curiosity. You're right she should have called in scrutineers to look for bias, because that in itself would be an interesting (and publishable) scientific enterprise.

[AlienX]

I think Benveniste ended up between a rock and a hard place. Making such claims that he had repeatable data then being shown that it wasn't the case ruined him.
He even had instances of one of his Chemists getting significantly better results than others in the team - this should have got the old alarm bells ringing instantly - but it clearly didn't, this is very poor science indeed and you should suspect some form of tuning going on. Note tuning does not have to be a deliberate effort.

This stands out as something he has done wrong - when the tests are blinded they fail, it's why many Homeopaths are abandoning the science angle and moving towards the magic angle.

What other choice did the guy have - he'd dug himself such a deep hole that there was no going back so he continues to make his claims and tries to make money from them now.

As is plainly obvious the more exceptional your claims the more exceptional the evidence has to be. Here we have exceptional claims with very poor evidence.

A new particle has been found recently which does not fit with the current models - perhaps the Homeopaths can jump on this one and cliam it's why and how "Homeopathy works" ;-).

AX