What IS homeopathy?

[sorgoth]

I was arguing with my mother about homeopathy, and she won because, although I had a general idea, I did not know exactly WHAT homeopathy was, and was thus unable to prove exactly how it's a load of bullcrap.

If you could just give me a brief summary and a couple of good reasons why it doesn't work, that would be great, thanks.

[BTox]

Originally posted by sorgoth
I was arguing with my mother about homeopathy, and she won because, although I had a general idea, I did not know exactly WHAT homeopathy was, and was thus unable to prove exactly how it's a load of bullcrap.

If you could just give me a brief summary and a couple of good reasons why it doesn't work, that would be great, thanks.

In a nutshell, an inane "alternative" medical treatment system devised by a kook in the 18th century in response to some of the barbaric treatments of that time.

More details on quackwatch:

quackwatch homeopathy summary (http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.html)

[Quasi]

Oliver Wendell Holmes, MD, Dean of Harvard Medical School thoroughly debunked Homeopathy in his landmark book "Homeopathy and its Kindred Delusions." Here are a few gems:

"The real inventor of that specious trickery was an Irishman by the name of Butler. The whole story is to be found in the "Ortus Medicinm" of Van Helmont. I have given some account of his chapter "Butler" in different articles, but I would refer the students of our Homoeopathic educational institutions to the original, which they will find very interesting and curious.

"Homoeopathy has proved lucrative, and so long as it continues to be
so will surely exist,--as surely as astrology, palmistry, and other
methods of getting a living out of the weakness and credulity of
mankind and womankind. Though it has no pretensions to be considered
as belonging among the sciences, it may be looked upon by a
scientific man as a curious object of study among the vagaries of the
human mind. Its influence for good or the contrary may be made a
matter of calm investigation. I have studied it in the Essay before
the reader, under the aspect of an extravagant and purely imaginative
creation of its founder. Since that first essay was written, nearly
half a century ago, we have all had a chance to witness its practical
working. Two opposite inferences may be drawn from its doctrines and
practice. The first is that which is accepted by its disciples.
This is that all diseases are "cured" by drugs. The opposite
conclusion is drawn by a much larger number of persons. As they see
that patients are very commonly getting well under treatment by
infinitesimal drugging, which they consider equivalent to no
medication at all, they come to disbelieve in every form of drugging
and put their whole trust in "nature."

Essentially, in human clinical trials where homeopaths are allowed to practice as they see fit, it is a total failure. This is why they refuse any direct testing today. Further, Samuel Hahnemann did not invent homeopathy, he merely marketed the idea better than Butler. The political climate in the 1800´s was very similar to today, with people obsessed with "natural" treatments etc. There is really too much to go into, and it is a fun read besides. Today, homeopaths are taking money set aside for real cancer research by the NIH Institute of Complementary and Alternative and Integrative Medicine or whatever they call themselves right now. They deliberately design studies so as to cheat and produce ambiguous results, or leave out controls and claim homeopathy works when the person gets better, or they do not record that the people are taking real prescription drugs, give them homeopathy, and claim the drugs did nothing. You may not have access to the actual full journal articles, but I have read them. The newspapers, magazines and television distort the results and do not allow for a rebuttal of the studies, so to the public it appears to have real merit, which it does not.
Sorry for the lecture style and length of the post, but I hope this was helpful.

[Darat]

It's a "magic spell".

Or that's what I saw when it comes up in discussion that I get involved in or if I am asked what I think about it.

I simply tell people it is "using a magic spell". That tends to get them intrigued and to engage in a discussion with me.

And then I can explain why it is a "magic spell". I try very hard not to go down "it's not scientifically proven" route in a casual discussion, I find by playing on the fact the preparation involves "magic" in its preparation (i.e. the shaking etc.) makes more of an impact at. I've found only a few people who really "believe" in people being turned into frogs!

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Darat
It's a "magic spell".Oh yes, exactly! (http://www.bartleby.com/196/5.html)

I didn't know that bit about Butler the Irishman, and I thought I'd read pretty well around the subject. Quasi, are these texts you mention available on the Internet? They're old enough to be public domain, anyway.

Rolfe.

[Jas]

And here I was thinking that it was just overpriced water....

[sorgoth]

Thanks, this should help.

[DickK]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Oh yes, exactly! (http://www.bartleby.com/196/5.html)

I didn't know that bit about Butler the Irishman, and I thought I'd read pretty well around the subject. Quasi, are these texts you mention available on the Internet? They're old enough to be public domain, anyway.

Rolfe. Rolfe, I don't know if this is what you might be after...I had a google around for "Ortus Medicnm" and found this: http://www.blackmask.com/books21c/messays.htm ...it contains the refs Quasi has noted. Amazing that OWH's view is so sanely modern in the 19th C. It rather throws the current trend for anti-reason into frightening perspective. Still, enjoy and thanks to Quasi for the refs.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by DickK
Rolfe, I don't know if this is what you might be after...I had a google around for "Ortus Medicnm" and found this: http://www.blackmask.com/books21c/messays.htm ...it contains the refs Quasi has noted. Amazing that OWH's view is so sanely modern in the 19th C. It rather throws the current trend for anti-reason into frightening perspective. Still, enjoy and thanks to Quasi for the refs.
DickK,

First of all, welcome to the forum. (Yeah, I'm late, but this is the post of yours that caught my attention.)

You hit the nail on the head here. OWH was, along with many of the U.S's great 18th and 19th century personalities, a child of the Enlightenment. Alas, the late 18th century began a reactionary force (Romanticism) that railed against the progress of science and skepticism. And we are now in what I think is the tail end of a huge wave of renewed dualism and a bizarre anti-intellectual zeitgeist.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by DickK
Rolfe, I don't know if this is what you might be after...I had a google around for "Ortus Medicnm" and found this: http://www.blackmask.com/books21c/messays.htm ...Oh, thank you very much indeed!
I was familiar with the essay reproduced in Homeowatch, but that doesn't mention the Butler connection. It may be in one of the other essays collected in your link.

OWH didn't miss a trick regarding homeopathy, even in 1842. I really can't think of a relevant point he didn't make - even not knowing exactly what a mole was, or exactly how vaccines work. :clap:

Rolfe.

[Quasi]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Oh yes, exactly! (http://www.bartleby.com/196/5.html)

I didn't know that bit about Butler the Irishman, and I thought I'd read pretty well around the subject. Quasi, are these texts you mention available on the Internet? They're old enough to be public domain, anyway.

Rolfe.

Only part of the text is available online. I had access to an actual copy when I was at Harvard Med. School (Countway Library of Medicine,) but now I am now at a major european technical university, and we do not have one.
I feel particular anger towards the NIH which makes totally unsubstantiated claims about homeopathy on their website. The deeper you look into any CAM modality the worse it looks.
Homeowatch is of course a good source of info too. I wish they would reprint the original OWH text. It would go nicely next to Quantum Healing or any John Edwards book.

[Gold]

contrary to what most people here think, homeopathy does indeed work. i am not sure how it works but it does.

i don't recommend anyone fool around with it due to the unknown consequences of adding these frequencies to the human body. i had an awfully nasty effect happen to me a while ago.

if anyone tries a homeopathic proving and if you start to get symptoms i suggest you stop the experiment at once.

[geni]

Originally posted by Gold
contrary to what most people here think, homeopathy does indeed work. i am not sure how it works but it does.

Prove it

if anyone tries a homeopathic proving and if you start to get symptoms i suggest you stop the experiment at once.

Really? Care to explain this?

Ultramolecular homeopathy has no observable clinical effects. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled proving trial of Belladonna 30C.

RESULTS: No significant group differences in proving rates were observed [Belladonna provers N = 14 (13.9%); placebo provers N = 15 (14.3%); mean difference -0.4%, 95% confidence interval -9.3, 10.1] based on intention to treat analysis. Primary outcome was not affected by seasonality or the individual's attitude to complementary medicine. CONCLUSION: Ultramolecular homeopathy had no observable clinical effects.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14651731&dopt=Abstract

[Gold]

you are lucky that you do not believe in it. this will keep you out of trouble. it seems like anyone can devise a study that both proves and disproves homeopathy. there are plenty of both.

there is no question that the remedies can affect humans, animals, plants.

i have often wondered if these homeopaths are causing some type of long term negative effect in their patients. i believe that we need to have better regualtion of this practice to prevent homeopathic remedy harm such as i experienced.

[geni]

Originally posted by Gold
you are lucky that you do not believe in it. this will keep you out of trouble. it seems like anyone can devise a study that both proves and disproves homeopathy. there are plenty of both.

Unless you can show a flaw in the paper I posted this statement is irrelevent. I am yet to see (and have seen quite a few) a study that supports homeopathy that did not contain design flaws.

there is no question that the remedies can affect humans, animals, plants.

You have made this assurtion twice now and failed to back it up

i have often wondered if these homeopaths are causing some type of long term negative effect in their patients. i believe that we need to have better regualtion of this practice to prevent homeopathic remedy harm such as i experienced.

Apart from preventing convetional treatment the answer on the avible evidence is no.

[Gold]

seems to me as though homeopathy has plenty of critics who concede that many studies are perfectly designed and that they deliver evidence in favor of homeopathy. klaus linde is one such anti-homeopathy scientist who has stated this. he can not offer a logical explanation as to why homeopathy is testing positive so he instead goes off on some wild goose chase looking for the oddest explanations.

i think the best explanation is that homeopathy does work but we do not know how it works. therefore since we do not know how it works it could be dangerous. i believe that almost anyone here can eventually prove a remedy and end up with severe symptoms. diligence would be required. but why would anyone want to put themselves in grave danger? stay away.

[LucyR]

Drivel.

[geni]

Originally posted by Gold
seems to me as though homeopathy has plenty of critics who concede that many studies are perfectly designed and that they deliver evidence in favor of homeopathy. klaus linde is one such anti-homeopathy scientist who has stated this. he can not offer a logical explanation as to why homeopathy is testing positive so he instead goes off on some wild goose chase looking for the oddest explanations.

Lets put this simply. There is a million dollars for the first homeopath to show that they can do what they claim they can do. the offer has been around for a while. None of them have won the millon. Now produce some evidece to support you claim.

i think the best explanation is that homeopathy does work but we do not know how it works. therefore since we do not know how it works it could be dangerous. i believe that almost anyone here can eventually prove a remedy and end up with severe symptoms. diligence would be required. but why would anyone want to put themselves in grave danger? stay away.

I think that the best explantion for the evidence that we have is that homeopathy has no effect beyond the placebo effect. Please feel free to provide evidence to the country.

[Gold]

Lets put this simply. There is a million dollars for the first homeopath to show that they can do what they claim they can do.


first off, how can anyone measure these homeopathic frequencies. they do not even know what they are or if it is even at the quantum level.

the equipment does not exist. although it seems that some claims have been made for these measurements but i am not certain of any of this.

there will never be a penny released because the holder of the money just has to deny that a proving took place. the holder of the money has the ultimate control over a somewhat subjective test.

any takers lose on the spot.

[geni]

Originally posted by Gold

first off, how can anyone measure these homeopathic frequencies. they do not even know what they are or if it is even at the quantum level.

We can do broad spectrum scans these days but that is beside the point. It doesn't matter what they do as long as they are able to tell the difference between a homeopathic remedy of potency of greater than 12C and the stock solvent. Whether they do thjis by testing on themselves and looking for proving symptoms or by testing it on pacients to see if they improve or by testing it on plants or by using various spectrographioc method it doesn't matter. All they need to able to do is show that they can tell the difference.

there will never be a penny released because the holder of the money just has to deny that a proving took place. the holder of the money has the ultimate control over a somewhat subjective test.

The test is not remotly subjective. see above for why.

Put it like this. If you gave a homeopath 10 vials of distilled water and 10 vials of some remedy at 30C and the homeopath was able to tell which was which the million would have been won. Totaly objective.

[/B]

[LucyR]

What are 'homeopathic frequencies'?

[geni]

Originally posted by LucyR
What are 'homeopathic frequencies'?

If you can get a straight answer on that one you are doing well. I have seen them described as eletromagnetic frequencies (not sure how they get them to stay in the remedies) vibration frequencies (they don't say what is vibrating most of the time. Sometimes they say atoms but then they fail to explain why I can't detect this on an IR spectomiter) and superstring vibration (how this is ment to be caused by a bit of shaking it not made clear).

[LucyR]

Thanks, geni.

I wonder what Gold has to say?

[BTox]

Originally posted by Gold


i think the best explanation is that homeopathy does work but we do not know how it works. therefore since we do not know how it works it could be dangerous. i believe that almost anyone here can eventually prove a remedy and end up with severe symptoms. diligence would be required. but why would anyone want to put themselves in grave danger? stay away.

No, the best explanation is that is does not work and we know why it does not - because they "remedies" are nothing but placebos.

[Gold]

btox,
that is not very scientific.

to others,
i do not know if it is frequencies or if the strings are set about vibrating in a certain manner or what is happening but i do know that this system of inducing some change (good, bad, dangerous) does exist.

going back to the million dollar challenge question. i don't think that anyone is able to measure and prove which are the dummy vials and which are real remedies. i am quite certain that no one is going to take a million dollar prize by devising an experiment with 20 or 30 people and seeing if there is a proving. this type of test would not be considered valid for a number of reasons. first and foremost --klaus linde has seen dozens of perfectly designed studies that pass all the requirements. since klaus linde is anti-homeopathy he ends up with no solid explanation as to why this is so.

therefore, no one at JREF is going to allow one of these types of studies to be performed because several will pass the mustard.

homeopathy could be dangerous to your health be careful. you do not know what the long term effects will be.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Gold
btox,
that is not very scientific.



Yeah, I'm only a professional scientist, and have been so for over 20 years. I've read the clinical trials, I know what's in the "remedies", I know the so-called theories behind homeopathy. It's a fraud, plain and simple.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Gold

homeopathy could be dangerous to your health be careful. you do not know what the long term effects will be.

The only danger is relying on this absurd treatment for a serious ailment. Ever eat a handful of 30C "remedies"? I have - absolutely no effect. Na da.

[Gold]

btox,
you are lucky that you feel that way. it will keep you out of danger. besides, isn't a true scientist supposed to maintain some degree of belief. i believe that the idea of microrganisms were also ridiculed -- even after the invention of the microscope no less.

that is a case whereby the evidence was right in front of them yet the people who should have known better denied it.

seems odd that so many medical doctors and others around the world would practice something that has no value. they practice it because it is able to ellicit some type of an effect. the problem is that they do not know if the effects are dangerous long term.

[LucyR]

Originally posted by Gold
to others,
i do not know if it is frequencies or if the strings are set about vibrating in a certain manner or what is happening but i do know that this system of inducing some change (good, bad, dangerous) does exist.


Strings? Cosmic strings? Guitar strings?

You really don't know what you're talking about, do you?

[LucyR]

Originally posted by Gold
seems odd that so many medical doctors and others around the world would practice something that has no value. they practice it because it is able to ellicit some type of an effect. the problem is that they do not know if the effects are dangerous long term.

They practice it because it makes money.

[Gold]

Ever eat a handful of 30C "remedies"? I have - absolutely no effect. Na da.

it does not matter if you eat a handful or an entire case. the key is to take small amounts consistantly over a prolonged period of time. if no effect is seen then another remedy just may do the trick.

you conducted the experiment in a very poor, unprofessional manner.

i should warn you though to not engage in this again. your health is in danger.

[Gold]

They practice it because it makes money.

most of the MD's could make far more money in conventional medicine. self-treatment is an option that is extremely cheap but this could be the most dangerous of all.

i believe that this practice should be halted until the physicists know what is happening, and something is happening.

many of the wisest scientists believed that the earth was once flat despite evidence from before christ was present. there is no end to the denialists claims.

[Gold]

You really don't know what you're talking about, do you? Strings? Cosmic strings? Guitar strings?

you are correct. i do not know what is happening, but i do know that something is happening.

i proved some remedies and it was an absolute nightmare. to this day i often wonder if i successfully antidoted them.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Gold

seems odd that so many medical doctors and others around the world would practice something that has no value. they practice it because it is able to ellicit some type of an effect. the problem is that they do not know if the effects are dangerous long term.

They practice it because it is benign and does elicit one response, the placebo effect. Which is fine for people with minor, self-limiting conditions. Of course, some practice it knowing full well it is nonsense but do so because they themselves are quacks and frauds.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Gold


i should warn you though to not engage in this again. your health is in danger.

You'd have a point if I was lactose intolerant, but I'm not.

[Gold]

They practice it because it is benign and does elicit one response, the placebo effect. Which is fine for people with minor, self-limiting conditions. Of course, some practice it knowing full well it is nonsense but do so because they themselves are quacks and frauds. it seems that you are very good at 2 things.

1. remembering what you read

2. making assumptions of what you read to be true.



the key is that you are making assumptions. you read something and then you assume it is true. you have shown us already that you do not understand this problem by your claim that you swallowed a bottle of 30C remedy.

that proves to me that if you are confused as to how to do a proving then you are confused on other issues.

assuming can get you in trouble at times. something may not appear to be true but it is true. since we lack the scientific knowledge then all we have to go on is experience, and experience is something you have not done.

[MRC_Hans]

Hi Gold. That you, Bach?

Hans ;)

[Quasi]

Gold-

Read the million dollar challenge. First, both Randi and the claimant agree beforehand the conditions of the test, which are not ambiguous. For example, in Homeopathy, obtain ten homeopathic solutions. Then obtain ten of the exact same solutions that have not been potentized by shaking. Now randomly code all samples and find the ten homeopathic ones using any diagnostic tools. Its that simple. Then the terms, in which you must pick out 10 out of 10 with no misses will ensure you will win the million, because Randi is no longer involved. The money is held by a third party, and the results need no judging. So where are the homeopaths? Further, your assumption that MDs or "conventional" medicine makes more money, think again. There is no research, quality control, nor checks and balances in homeopathy. Its all profit, and you do not need to go to school to be a homeopathic doctor. Just say you are and you are, and no law enforcement etc. will lift a finger to stop you (except in Germany etc. where they were foolish enough to license them.)
Thirdly, you have not considered another possibility- that the current homeopathic clinical trials are specifically designed to give ambiguous results, using a handful of patients, not recording the use of prescription drugs, or using no controls in combination with known cyclical, or high remission diseases. Further, they often deliberately fudge the analysis, selecting only some data to make the numbers look good, and in meta analysis, leaving out the large, well designed negative studies.
Further, many academics are also naive, and do not take into account deliberate cheating, so of course they are going to say there is no problem with the design of study X. an excellent example is Jaques Beneviste, who performed a succesfull trial of homeopathy. However, it was repeated twice and totally failed, and he was fired from the prestigious Pasteur Institute. Too bad they are not as diligent in the US, where millions of valuable research dollars are being wasted on free advertising by homeopaths, which is all CAM research is anyway. From 1990 to 2000, the US government gave CAM researchers over one billion dollars, and not one single CAM modality, no matter how rediculous has been publically denied. I would say it is time for a change at the NIH.

[geni]

Originally posted by Gold


it does not matter if you eat a handful or an entire case. the key is to take small amounts consistantly over a prolonged period of time.

The study I posted involved people doing just that.

[BillyJoe]

Goldbach???

gold does not use capitalization. why? because he does use other forms of punctuation and his sentences are well constructed.

He is also unusual in that he supports the usefulness of Homoeopathy but is at great pains to warn us of the potential risk which he seems to think are potentially hazardous.

Hmmm....I think....

GOLD IS A TROLL.


BillyJoe

[Prester John]

Just a quickie, if lack of belief protects us from nasty effects of homeopathic remedies, how can the said homeopathic remedies affect plants and animals, neither known for having especially strong beliefs ?

[Rolfe]

If you have to believe in it before you'll see any effect, doesn't that pretty much define it as "placebo"? It's a stretch on the use of the word, but essentially it does cover psychosomatic effects occurring because of the subject's belief that something inert will help or harm them.

I don't know how true the stories are about voodoo, but I've heard of people simply lying down and dying because they truly believed they'd been cursed. Sounds as if Gold is describing exactly the same thing. Which makes it a magic spell (http://www.bartleby.com/196/5.html), just like Darat said at the beginning of the thread.

So, does magic actually work? The homoeopath Harald Walach certainly thinks it does (http://www.vetlab.co.uk/voodoo/walach.pdf).

It's certainly the best (and maybe only credible) way round the very obvious and very embarrassing fact that all these really striking effects and dangerous reactions and so on invariably disappear the minute anyone tries to do any controlled, systematic observations on them. Because, as any member of a primitive society will tell you, the magic always goes away if you try to peek.

On the other hand, if you can't affect anyone who doesn't believe, I'm going with the psychosomatic effect.

Rolfe.

[Trinity]

Most alternative medicines require faith. They all have rituals to produce and support faith. Homeopathy has lots of rituals.

Trinity

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Gold
klaus linde has seen dozens of perfectly designed studies that pass all the requirements. ....Dozens? I don't think so. Here is the abstract. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9310601&dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000) It's difficult to extract the numbers, but I think Gold is being a bit over-generous here.

If you follow up the subsequent correspondence and re-analysis of this data, it gets more and more flaky. Re-evaluation of Linde's findings. (http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/alternat/homequal.html)

Linde in fact simply concluded that there was enough there that wasn't totally negative to justify further research. As I said, others who had a look at his reasoning begged to differ, but that's maybe not the point now. A full six years on, and all the well-designed studies that have tried to follow this up have produced a resounding blank. I think Geni can provide a bibliography of these.

Rolfe.

[Psiload]

Originally posted by Gold


you are correct. i do not know what is happening, but i do know that something is happening.

i proved some remedies and it was an absolute nightmare. to this day i often wonder if i successfully antidoted them. Would you be interested in doing this again? How about for a million smackers? I can't think of a single nightmare that I've ever had that I wouldn't mind reliving for that kind of scratch... even the one where I go to school naked.

Would you be willing to prove a homeopathic remedy vs. an inert remedy that hasn't had its quantum guitar strings plucked?

If the effects of homeopathic proving are really so dramatic, then it should be no problem to discern the difference between a non-homeopathic/inert remedy, and one that has not had the proper incantation, and succession ritual performed on it, no?

You're making a very definite, very bold claim here, and you're being offered one million dollars to give a simple demonstration of your claim in action.

When you fail to accept this generous offer... which you certainly will, be honest with yourself, and ask yourself, "Why?"

The inevitable, and obvious answer may surprise you.

Note: J'ever notice how similar the homeopathic successing ritual is to the instructions for use of the holy hand grenade?

"And the shaking shall be ten... not nine, not eleven, eight is right out."

[Rolfe]

I was just about to post this as a separate thread, but it's become relevant here so I'll tack it on.

We had a discussion in an earlier thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28124) about how many trials would be necessary for an applicant to pass the preliminary trial if the ability involved a simply yes/no declaration (50% probability of a lucky guess). The confidence level for the preliminary test seems to be 1 in 1,000, which I think is the same as p<0.001.

T'ai Chi came up with a neat little list, which seemed to boil down to 10 out of 10, 14 out of 15, or 16 out of 18.

Since then, on the "Wanna vote?" thread (page 3, if you're looking for it, the thread is now so off topic it's out of sight), the discussion has been extended to the requirements necessary for the definitive test, which are apparently 1 in 1,000,000, which I think is p<0.000001

If we again assume that the probability of each outcome coming up at each test is 50%, how many trials would be needed to get this level of significance? Again, I'd be interested in how many with no mistakes, how many with one mistake, and how many with two mistakes. Geni thinks that 20 out of 20 would do it, but wasn't sure how high you'd have to go for one mistake or two mistakes.

The background to this is that one of the participants in Homeopathy Home expressed an interest in the Challenge, as she was certain that she could distinguish a homoeopathic remedy of her choice from the stock solvent. However, her proposed method was to take the stuff herself in a "homoeopathic proving", and she (like "Gold", apparently) was genuinely concerned that she might harm herself by taking a powerful preparation too often. We were trying to figure out how she could get to the one-in-a-million level actually having to take the test substance the minimum number of times.

Geni's suggestion on that front was "The trick here is to take a slightly different approach. You sent out the vials in groups of ten with one remedy in each group. The odds of getting it right in any one group are 0.1 so you only need 6 groups to get to million to one odds."

This does get the number of remedy ingestions down from about ten to six, but at the expense of enormously increasing the total number of trials (from 20 to 60).

I'd be interested to explore this area - just what is the simplest way of arranging this test with an acceptably low number of exposures to the (apparently toxic) homoeopathic product. And with any protocol, how does it affect the number if you allow one error, or two errors?

If you want my opinion, I think "Gold" has worked out even before coming trolling that he'd be faced with this challenge. He knows he can't do it, so he comes fore-armed with tales of the dreadful side-effects of homoeopathy, and his fear of permanent ill-effects. It's still an interesting subject though, and I'd like to know how to work it out. The Homeopathy Home lady, Anna Bryant, said she'd actually applied for the Challenge, so it might come up for real.

Rolfe.

[plindboe]

Hi Gold

Originally posted by Gold
i don't recommend anyone fool around with it due to the unknown consequences of adding these frequencies to the human body. i had an awfully nasty effect happen to me a while ago.

What was this awfully nasty effect you experienced, and why do you think it was because of the remedies?

[Quasi]

Originally posted by Rolfe
I was just about to post this as a separate thread, but it's become relevant here so I'll tack it on.

We had a discussion in an earlier thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28124) about how many trials would be necessary for an applicant to pass the preliminary trial if the ability involved a simply yes/no declaration (50% probability of a lucky guess). The confidence level for the preliminary test seems to be 1 in 1,000, which I think is the same as p<0.001.

T'ai Chi came up with a neat little list, which seemed to boil down to 10 out of 10, 14 out of 15, or 16 out of 18.

Since then, on the "Wanna vote?" thread (page 3, if you're looking for it, the thread is now so off topic it's out of sight), the discussion has been extended to the requirements necessary for the definitive test, which are apparently 1 in 1,000,000, which I think is p<0.000001

If we again assume that the probability of each outcome coming up at each test is 50%, how many trials would be needed to get this level of significance? Again, I'd be interested in how many with no mistakes, how many with one mistake, and how many with two mistakes. Geni thinks that 20 out of 20 would do it, but wasn't sure how high you'd have to go for one mistake or two mistakes.

The background to this is that one of the participants in Homeopathy Home expressed an interest in the Challenge, as she was certain that she could distinguish a homoeopathic remedy of her choice from the stock solvent. However, her proposed method was to take the stuff herself in a "homoeopathic proving", and she (like "Gold", apparently) was genuinely concerned that she might harm herself by taking a powerful preparation too often. We were trying to figure out how she could get to the one-in-a-million level actually having to take the test substance the minimum number of times.

Geni's suggestion on that front was "The trick here is to take a slightly different approach. You sent out the vials in groups of ten with one remedy in each group. The odds of getting it right in any one group are 0.1 so you only need 6 groups to get to million to one odds."

This does get the number of remedy ingestions down from about ten to six, but at the expense of enormously increasing the total number of trials (from 20 to 60).

I'd be interested to explore this area - just what is the simplest way of arranging this test with an acceptably low number of exposures to the (apparently toxic) homoeopathic product. And with any protocol, how does it affect the number if you allow one error, or two errors?

If you want my opinion, I think "Gold" has worked out even before coming trolling that he'd be faced with this challenge. He knows he can't do it, so he comes fore-armed with tales of the dreadful side-effects of homoeopathy, and his fear of permanent ill-effects. It's still an interesting subject though, and I'd like to know how to work it out. The Homeopathy Home lady, Anna Bryant, said she'd actually applied for the Challenge, so it might come up for real.

Rolfe.

Thats easy, just have a large batch of the homeopathic stuff (very dilute, like 30C,) made up, and someone like me will drink three glasses a day for a week, and a liter on test day. If the "control" person shows no health effects, its safe to assume the challenger can drink a few milliliters. Any other delay tactics.... er, problems to work out?

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Quasi
Thats easy, just have a large batch of the homeopathic stuff (very dilute, like 30C,) made up, and someone like me will drink three glasses a day for a week, and a liter on test day. If the "control" person shows no health effects, its safe to assume the challenger can drink a few milliliters. Any other delay tactics.... er, problems to work out? Don't be silly, Quasi! There are two perfectly standard objections to that.

First (and I think it's already been mentioned in this thread), taking a big dose all at once isn't reckoned to do anything, it's a tiny dose repeated every day you have to watch out for.

Second, Gold seems to belong to the school of thought that declares that you have to believe in it before it will affect you. Which I call a psychosomatic effect, but which if it could be done blind would certainly prove the existence of magic.

So the poor chap will have to do it himself, because the magic water won't affect an unbeliever.

:crazy:

Now, back to the statistics! :book:

Rolfe.

[Gold]

you skeptics sure are a negative bunch. you are lacking imagination, the ability to see the possibility of things that science can not explain -- YET.

you can point to study after study but this does not paint the true picture. the studies have question marks to begin with.

the famous randi prize is beyond ridiculous --question: do we get tossed for making this type of statement? what is a troll? is this the label given to people who are about to be bounced for disagreeing?

anyway, the rules of the experiment are deliberately designed to fail. proving remedies is never a sure fire method especially when a person is going to be taking dose after dose. the mind plays tricks and after a while everything becomes a blur. i don't know if anyone can take 20 remedies in a row and get them all correct.

the experiment is designed to fail.

homeopathy can deliver results but are these results safe? open your eyes people and see that you are making claims that you have no proof of.

[geni]

Originally posted by Gold
you can point to study after study but this does not paint the true picture. the studies have question marks to begin with.

Really what are they?


anyway, the rules of the experiment are deliberately designed to fail. proving remedies is never a sure fire method especially when a person is going to be taking dose after dose. the mind plays tricks and after a while everything becomes a blur. i don't know if anyone can take 20 remedies in a row and get them all correct.

There are other posible designs or you could have a group of homeopaths.


homeopathy can deliver results but are these results safe?

Provide evidence for the first part of this statement.

open your eyes people and see that you are making claims that you have no proof of.

No proof you say?

CONCLUSIONS: This study provides no evidence that adjunctive homeopathic remedies, as prescribed by experienced homeopathic practitioners, are superior to placebo in improving the quality of life of children with mild to moderate asthma in addition to conventional treatment in primary care.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...4&dopt=Abstract

CONCLUSION: Ultramolecular homeopathy had no observable clinical effects

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...1&dopt=Abstract

A double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of a homeopathic treatment of neonatal calf diarrhoea was performed using 44 calves in 12 dairy herds. Calves with spontaneously derived diarrhoea were treated with either the homeopathic remedy Podophyllum (D30) (n = 24) or a placebo (n = 20). No clinically or statistically significant difference between the 2 groups was demonstrated. Calves treated with Podophyllum had an average of 3.1 days of diarrhoea compared with 2.9 days for the placebo group.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...8&dopt=Abstract

We conclude that this systematic review does not provide clear evidence that the phenomenon of homeopathic aggravations exists.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...1&dopt=Abstract

CONCLUSION: The effect of homeopathic treatment on mental symptoms of patients with generalized anxiety disorder did not differ from that of placebo. The improvement in both conditions was substantial. Improvement of such magnitude may account for the current belief in the efficacy of homeopathy and the current increase in the use of this practice.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...9&dopt=Abstract

Swelling and use of analgesic medication also did not differ between arnica and placebo groups. Adverse events were reported by 2 patients in the arnica 6C group, 3 in the placebo group and 4 in the arnica 30C group. The results of this trial do not suggest that homeopathic arnica has an advantage over placebo in reducing postoperative pain, bruising and swelling in patients undergoing elective hand surgery.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...4&dopt=Abstract



Of course this evidence is not total proof but it is pretty good evidence.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Rolfe

Geni thinks that 20 out of 20 would do it, but wasn't sure how high you'd have to go for one mistake or two mistakes.


Yes, 20/20 would certainly do make p<.000001.

As far as how high you'd have to go for one mistake or two mistakes to achieve p<.000001: with 25 trials you can get 24, and with 29 trials you can get 27.


However, her proposed method was to take the stuff herself in a "homoeopathic proving", and she (like "Gold", apparently) was genuinely concerned that she might harm herself by taking a powerful preparation too often. We were trying to figure out how she could get to the one-in-a-million level actually having to take the test substance the minimum number of times.


Is she only able to distinguish the homeopathic water by actually ingesting it, or does she have any other ways of detecting it?

Does she know anything about the time effects of homepathy? That is, is she able to do an experiment now, and then wait a month or so (or however long it takes as to not build up the toxins or whatever) and then repeat another experiment?

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Gold
you skeptics sure are a negative bunch. you are lacking imagination, the ability to see the possibility of things that science can not explain -- YET.

you can point to study after study but this does not paint the true picture. the studies have question marks to begin with.

the famous randi prize is beyond ridiculous --question: do we get tossed for making this type of statement? what is a troll? is this the label given to people who are about to be bounced for disagreeing?

anyway, the rules of the experiment are deliberately designed to fail. proving remedies is never a sure fire method especially when a person is going to be taking dose after dose. the mind plays tricks and after a while everything becomes a blur. i don't know if anyone can take 20 remedies in a row and get them all correct.

the experiment is designed to fail.

homeopathy can deliver results but are these results safe? open your eyes people and see that you are making claims that you have no proof of.

Wow Gold you're sure a negative person. You want to hide behind your imagination and believe in things that defy the simplest laws of science.

You can't even point to a study about homeopathy that doesn't have question marks.

Your statement on the Randi prize is ridiculous- Question: doyou want want to get tossed for making this type of statement? Are you a troll?

Anyway, the rules of the experiment you obviously fail to grasp. Proving a method once is enough to get Randi's million. Even if the memory fails, there are rules set up before hand to keep things clear cut.

Your ability to comprehend this fails.

Homeopathy claims results. Where are these results? Open your eyes and see the claims Homeopathy advocates have no proof of.

[geni]

The simplest form of non harmful testing would involve plants. Unfotunetly not all haomeopaths claim that homeopathy can have an effect on plants so this would only work in some cases.

[Gold]

geni,
you can mine for all the studies that you want in order to support your opinion. it does not take away from the fact that these remedies do as claimed.

i believe that a person could undertake very controlled trials or provings as they are called and obtain the desired results.

was it btox who claimed to have swallowed an entire bottle? this is the wrong way to go about it. i also believe that if a person has their entire life invested in maintaining the idea that homeopathy is a hoax then provings will not convince him otherwise. i believe that the mind is a powerful thing and any symptoms brought forth would be dismissed by the skeptic.

it takes a person with an open mind to discover these truths. most of the people here have closed minds. man has yet to uncover many mysteries.

[Gold]

Your statement on the Randi prize is ridiculous- Question: doyou want want to get tossed for making this type of statement? Are you a troll? what is a troll, and do people get tossed for stating that one of randi's experiments is highly flawed?

it sounds to me like JREF holds all power as to what is allowed and what is not. --and i mean ALL the power.

[geni]

Originally posted by Gold
geni,
you can mine for all the studies that you want in order to support your opinion. it does not take away from the fact that these remedies do as claimed.

So I can produce as much evidence as I like and it wont change your mind but I should accept your view for which you have failed to present any evidence at all?

i believe that a person could undertake very controlled trials or provings as they are called and obtain the desired results.

I don't care what you belive. I am interested in what you can provide evidence for.

was it btox who claimed to have swallowed an entire bottle? this is the wrong way to go about it.

Perhaps. It depends on which brand of homeopathy you are dealing with.

i also believe that if a person has their entire life invested in maintaining the idea that homeopathy is a hoax then provings will not convince him otherwise. i believe that the mind is a powerful thing and any symptoms brought forth would be dismissed by the skeptic.

Any evidence to support this statement?
[/B]

Eddited to add: at this point I do not belive that there is enough evidence to show that gold is trolling. Mearly holding a view country to most of the sit members is not trolling.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Gold
what is a troll, and do people get tossed for stating that one of randi's experiments is highly flawed?

it sounds to me like JREF holds all power as to what is allowed and what is not. --and i mean ALL the power.

You been tossed yet Gold?

Actually, Randi holds ultimate power on what is allowed. You say that like it's a bad thing.
i also believe that if a person has their entire life invested in maintaining the idea that homeopathy is a hoax then provings will not convince him otherwise. i believe that the mind is a powerful thing and any symptoms brought forth would be dismissed by the skeptic.

it takes a person with an open mind to discover these truths. most of the people here have closed minds. man has yet to uncover many mysteries.

Yes, if a person believes one thing it's hard to dissuade them. Happily, most everyone here, if you present them with verifiable evidence, are willing to change their minds. Also, most everyone here knows the basic laws of science, understands them, and knows homeopathy tries to break these laws. It's not being closed mind. It's just good sense.

[Gold]

sorgath,

usually mothers are correct and in this case she is.

suezold,
never been here before. i don't know how fair you people are. from the agreement form i signed it sounds as though you are very fair. i did see the thing about trolls and that was the loophole which allows you to toss off all who disagree.

everyone's argument fails because it is coming from people who have never witnessed this phenomena up close and personal.

i seriously doubt that hans did an accurate proving. these things can be hit or miss at times. repetition may be the key.

[MRC_Hans]

To a degree you are right. JREF holds the power as they have laid out the rules, but the rules are in writing and published, so they can't run away from them either. The rules say that you must demonstrate a paranormal ability in a way that can be objectively verified.

In your case that would mean identifying a homepathic drug from placebo in a stastistically significant way. Not 20 drugs, just one 20 times. Since you say that you have exprienced nasty effects from a homeopathic drug, that should be no problem. 20 vials, pills or whatever, 10 of them just medium (water, alcohol, or lactose tablets), the other 10 a potentized homeopathic drug (over 12C) and without knowing the sequence in advance identify which are real drug, and which are duds, you can win 1 million$, and more importantly, make yourself famous and vindicate the system you believe in. Surely 10 nasty experiences are worth that? .... ehh, bach?

Hans

Disclaimer: I do not represent the JREF, the exact conditions of a trial must be negotiated with a representative of the JREF.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Gold
it takes a person with an open mind to discover these truths. most of the people here have closed minds. man has yet to uncover many mysteries.

Yes, there are many mysteries yet to be solved by science. However, homeopathy is not one of them. It has been around for more than 200 years. It was developed based on inaccurate knowledge of chemistry, physiology and physics. It has been tested ad infinitum and it simply does not work. Stop wasting your time on this and find a real mystery to work on.

[Psiload]

Gold posted:

you skeptics sure are a negative bunch. you are lacking imagination, the ability to see the possibility of things that science can not explain -- YET.

I'm not so much concerned with things that science is not able to explain, as I am with fantastic claims that no one seems able, or willing, to demonstrate.

I've got a great imagination... I have no problem imagining a miraculous remedy that contains essentially NO active ingredients, costs pennies per pound to manufacture, and is so powerful that you take your very life in your hands when you ingest it. I can imagine that all day long. Hell... I'll even add myself driving down the road in my gold-plated Rolls Royce with Britney Spears on my arm to prove to you how powerful my imagination truly is.

the famous randi prize is beyond ridiculous --question: do we get tossed for making this type of statement? what is a troll? is this the label given to people who are about to be bounced for disagreeing?

A troll is someone who obviously has not bothered to peruse the forum before making the assumption that people are bounced from this forum for disagreeing.

anyway, the rules of the experiment are deliberately designed to fail. proving remedies is never a sure fire method especially when a person is going to be taking dose after dose. the mind plays tricks and after a while everything becomes a blur. i don't know if anyone can take 20 remedies in a row and get them all correct.

By all means... feel free to suggest an experimental design that is designed to succeed.

Are you saying that there is no way to know when the effects of homeopathic remedies are being felt, and when the mind is merely playing tricks?

I'd tend to agree with this.

the experiment is designed to fail.

Once again... feel free to suggest an experiment designed to succeed.

homeopathy can deliver results but are these results safe?

Hmmm... let's see... how much malpractice coverage are homeopathic pratitioners required carry? I'd say that the level of danger associated with homeopathic remedies are perfectly proportional to that amount.

Show me one death certificate that lists the cause of death as "homeopathic poisoning", and I'll stand corrected.

open your eyes people and see that you are making claims that you have no proof of.

Claims? You seem to be the only one making a claim here... a pretty straightforward claim at that. We often hear the claim that homeopathic remedies are effective... that's one thing. However, you're going one step further and insisting they're dangerous!

If you honestly think it's impossible to test such a bold claim, then you're truly selling human ingenuity short.

How about testing your theory on animals? Veterinary homeopathy works, right? Perform a double blind, randomly controlled experiment... you show us a group of sick(or dead)monkeys in the homeopathic group vs. a group of hale and hearty monkeys in a control group... and take home your million smackers.

Whaddya say?

**edited to correct spelling- no monkeys were harmed during the editing of this post... yet**

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Gold
sorgath,

usually mothers are correct and in this case she is.

suezold,
never been here before. i don't know how fair you people are. from the agreement form i signed it sounds as though you are very fair. i did see the thing about trolls and that was the loophole which allows you to toss off all who disagree.

everyone's argument fails because it is coming from people who have never witnessed this phenomena up close and personal.

i seriously doubt that hans did an accurate proving. these things can be hit or miss at times. repetition may be the key.

Man... I wonder what it is about my user name that people can't spell it right....

So Gold you come sweeping in, announce you think skeptics are negative, you half-attempt to see if JREF will toss you, you admit you are new, and yet you say no one witnessed this phenomena. How do you know no one witnessed homeopathy? There are people here who have conducted experiments. There are those here who believed in it at one point and then no longer do. Where are your studies backing up the claim that homeopathy works? "these things" are not hit or miss. A verifiable test can be reproduced all over the world, with the same result over and over. There is no repetition required. It hits or it misses.

sorgath,

usually mothers are correct and in this case she is.

oh don't... I'll laugh myself to death. Usually mothers are correct???? what does making use of your reproductive system do that makes a mother superior in wisdom to girls and men?

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Yes, 20/20 would certainly do make p<.000001.

As far as how high you'd have to go for one mistake or two mistakes to achieve p<.000001: with 25 trials you can get 24, and with 29 trials you can get 27.

Is she only able to distinguish the homeopathic water by actually ingesting it, or does she have any other ways of detecting it?

Does she know anything about the time effects of homepathy? That is, is she able to do an experiment now, and then wait a month or so (or however long it takes as to not build up the toxins or whatever) and then repeat another experiment? Thank you very much, T'ai Chi. You're a great resource.

Geni, you were right. Even allowing two misses, the numbers don't have to go up very much to maintain the statistical significance. So, it's not that onerous a challenge, even at the definitive one-in-a-million level. (And if anyone could do the preliminary one-in-a-thousand, then follow up with that, I'd sure be convinced!)

Come on, how hard can it be? Ten, fifteen at the most provings. You get to choose the remedy, so pick one which is easy to recognise but not that nasty. You can stop as soon as you're sure you've got the remedy. And surely you can antidote it? (This is the medicine that's so safe it doesn't need to be regulated, remember.... :nope: )

T'ai Chi, there is no restriction on the method used. However, the claims that the magic water produces unmistakable effects on healthy people are the most obvious thing to test according to the homoeopaths themselves. The answer might be to get a small team together, but then they'd have to share the money I suppose. They differ on how long it might take. Some say only about three days. But then others say longer. Still, so long as the blinding was secure, it shouldn't matter how long they take, because there's no way to cheat apart from breaking the blinding code.

If even a tenth of the claims these guys make are true, they could walk off with the money. One has to wonder why they don't.

Rolfe.

[Prester John]

Originally posted by Gold
you are lucky that you do not believe in it. this will keep you out of trouble. it seems like anyone can devise a study that both proves and disproves homeopathy. there are plenty of both.

there is no question that the remedies can affect humans, animals, plants.

i have often wondered if these homeopaths are causing some type of long term negative effect in their patients. i believe that we need to have better regualtion of this practice to prevent homeopathic remedy harm such as i experienced.

Come on Gold answer some questions about this post.

1) Is faith(belief) required for homeopathic effects as implied by your first paragraph

2) If faith(belief) is required how does homeopathy affect animals and plants, or does it just need to be in the administrator, in which case your first paragraph is not neccessarily true.

3) i quite agree, evidence base homeopathy would be best for all concerned. This would include some form of adverse events reporting system : DHMO can be very dangerous.

http://www.dhmo.org/

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Gold
it takes a person with an open mind to discover these truths. most of the people here have closed minds. man has yet to uncover many mysteries. Man no doubt has to uncover many mysteries. But that will only be done by winnowing truth from fantasy. The most closed-minded people I've ever met have been homoeopaths.

Gold, can you stand back and read what you just wrote? Geni has posted a pile of evidence from respected, refereed journals (as I thought he would, thanks). You just repeat that reading these is closed minded, you with your open mind ignore them and cling to your belief regardless.

It's very difficult to prove a negative. It's relatively easy to prove a positive. Especially something with all the dramatic effects homoeopathy claims. How come every single time a suggestion is made for how this might be done, the homoeopaths find an excuse why it can't be done like that.

Seems to me it isn't us who are making claims we can't substantiate. We're not the ones claiming that shaken-up water has great healing powers and has a profound and recognisable effect on healthy people and so on.

We're claiming that you can't substantiate your claim. And I think we're doing pretty well with that one at the moment.

Trolls. I've been lurking in some very weird places. And it looks to me as if Hans is right, and there is good reason to suspect that Gold has come here with a clever back story (provings make me sick) so that he can keep making this ludicrous assertion that there is an effect there but of course he daren't try it even for a million bucks.

One of these weird places banned a bunch of people making the sort of arguments we've been making, summarily, no warning, deleted all their posts, and went back to navel-gazing. The other weird place seems to have banished the same people to a ghetto where they're allowed to talk among themselves, under pain of banning if they venture into the main arena. Of course the homoeopaths just ignore them.

And these people (including Hans and Prester John) who sound at all doubtful are immediately labelled trolls, just for expressing a dissenting view. Gold can take comfort that most of the fun of being here is debating with those of the opposition who have the guts to surface, and he's in no danger at all of being banned so long as he doesn't swear, post pornography or plagiarise too many abstracts.

Come on, Gold, I'm getting tired of the same old same old. Got any more magic effects you want to try and fail to substantiate?

Rolfe.

[Gold]

all i know is that it works based on trials. it seems that most of the people have never tried it except for hans. hans obviously went about it the wrong way. swallowing an entire bottle proves that he not only did not know how to do it but it also shows that he was trying to prove some type of point. but his point is something that actually backfires on him.

it is obvious that he did not do it in a way that demonstrated any type of seriousness.

have you, Rolfe, ever undergone a trial? have any of you undertaking a serious experiment from the standpoint of..."maybe this will work".

if several of you were to go about this method of a serious trial then some of you would no doubt experience symptoms. do it at your own risk.

seeing is believing.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Gold
all i know is that it works based on trials. it seems that most of the people have never tried it except for hans. hans obviously went about it the wrong way. swallowing an entire bottle proves that he not only did not know how to do it but it also shows that he was trying to prove some type of point. but his point is something that actually backfires on him.

it is obvious that he did not do it in a way that demonstrated any type of seriousness.

have you, Rolfe, ever undergone a trial? have any of you undertaking a serious experiment from the standpoint of..."maybe this will work".

if several of you were to go about this method of a serious trial then some of you would no doubt experience symptoms. do it at your own risk.

seeing is believing.

Gold, can you answer the questions posed above? Btox was showing that an overdose doesn't do a thing, which did not backfire on him. Overdose on homeopathic should be the same as overdosing on mainstream meds: SOMETHING should happen.

Whether or not Rolfe or anyone underwent a trial themselves is irrelevent. In fact, you've already readily discounted one person who did do an anecdotal trial appropriate to expect a reaction: Hans. Rolfe and others, as experienced scientists, doctors, researchers, etc, know better about how an experiment should be conducted than a layman. They know how to read results, and ask what external influences might affect an outcome.

And yes, there have been some of us who have tested homeopathic remedy, thinking perhaps "maybe it will work and maybe it won't." Is faith an ingredient for homeopathy, Gold?

Seeing it yourself is anecdotal, and therefore unrealiable. Repeated testing, reproducing experiments in labs all over the world... that is verifiable hypothesis.

You keep saying surely we haven't done it ourself, tried Homeopathy, or tested it. Gold, you are quite wrong.

Maybe for you seeing is believing, but sheer belief is not fact.

[geni]

Originally posted by Gold
all i know is that it works based on trials.

the ones I posted disagree on this point. Plese provide your trials.

it seems that most of the people have never tried it except for hans. hans obviously went about it the wrong way. swallowing an entire bottle proves that he not only did not know how to do it but it also shows that he was trying to prove some type of point. but his point is something that actually backfires on him.

That is what Btox not what MRC_Hans did. MRC_Hans followed hannerman proving procedures.

it is obvious that he did not do it in a way that demonstrated any type of seriousness.

The same could be said for homeopaths trials.

if several of you were to go about this method of a serious trial then some of you would no doubt experience symptoms. do it at your own risk.

Alturanivly we could get a whole group of people together and carry out a double blinded placebo controlled trial. Much better. Unfortunetly this produces negative results.

seeing is believing.

Really?
http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~psyc351/Images/SpiralIllusion.jpg

[BillyJoe]

SEEING IS BELIEVING

http://web.mit.edu/persci/people/adelson/images/checkershadow-AB.jpg

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Gold (aka Bach)
all i know is that it works based on trials.

Which trials?

it seems that most of the people have never tried it except for hans. hans obviously went about it the wrong way. swallowing an entire bottle proves that he not only did not know how to do it but it also shows that he was trying to prove some type of point. but his point is something that actually backfires on him.

it is obvious that he did not do it in a way that demonstrated any type of seriousness.

That is a straight lie, and you know it. I took increasing doses at intervals, just like Hahnemann describes. But how does taking a whole bottle (if somebody did that) invalidate anything? If we are talking about an effective drug, where the effect is dependent on dose, and that is what Hahnemann claims it is, taking a whopping big dose would surely knock your feet away

have you, Rolfe, ever undergone a trial? have any of you undertaking a serious experiment from the standpoint of..."maybe this will work".

if several of you were to go about this method of a serious trial then some of you would no doubt experience symptoms. do it at your own risk.

seeing is believing.

If several of us go about eating jelly-beans, some of us are sure to experience symptoms :rolleyes:

Tell me, is this what the fantastic regimen of homeopathic remedies has come to: If a lot of people take some drugs, some of them will feel something? That is not what I read in the Organon of Medicine! Hahnemann talked about "indubitable truths". Seems the price has gone down since that.

Hans

(edited to correct some silly typing errors)

[DickK]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
SEEING IS BELIEVING

Image excised for brevity That is the most annoying illusion, I even went into Paintshop to verify the damn RGB values were the same. Amazing!

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Gold
all i know is that it works based on trials. it seems that most of the people have never tried it except for hans....

have you, Rolfe, ever undergone a trial? ....

do it at your own risk."Based on trials". Gold seems to mean something different from what several people here have assumed. He doesn't mean objectively-observed, controlled trials, he means his personal n=1 experience. For him, this illusory (nice picture, BillyJoe) "seeing is believing" weighs far more heavily than all the meticulously-designed, closely-observed studies in the world.

Why should I undergo a "trial"? You yourself have been vocal in stating that you think the effect is dangerous (or did you forget that part till your last sentence?), and from what Hans tells us there's simply no way to do this that will satisfy a homoeopath - there is always someone who will declare that the methodology is wrong, and that will invariably happen until and unless the person taking the stuff suddenly experiences something that can be represented as "proving" symptoms. No way.

This is a mind thing. Belief is all, and once the belief is there everything will be interpreted as supporting it. Anything which patently doesn't support it will either be discarded on some excuse that the study wasn't "homoeopathic", or simply ignored. In contrast, anything which claims to support the belief will be eagerly and uncritically embraced, irrespective of protocol.

Gold simply thinks differently from us.

But who's "right"? Well, it seems to me that the scientific approach has a lot going for it. This is the approach that has made enormous strides in "real" medicine (where it has produced therapies which can actually be demonstrated not only to have an effect but often to have an extremely dramatic effect), and in other fields heats our homes, cooks our food, makes sure skyscrapers don't fall down, keeps aeroplanes flying and telephones and computers working, and even got a working robot to Mars.

So me, I'm sticking with it.

Rolfe.

[Gold]

it is clear to me that the checker boards A and B are the same shade. maybe i see things differently than the rest of you.

for all you people with the mental blocks, for partial proof just put a piece of paper with 2 little cutouts over the squares and then you will see what i saw from the first glance.

yes, homeopathy can be dangerous. proceed at your own risk.

[Gold]

ralphey,

the studies are ambiguous at best. many studies actually support homeopathy --others don't.

i choose to not believe any of the studies because homeopathy may not be a suitable match for clinical studies. there is far too much ambiguity.

danger, danger.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Gold
(snipped)

yes, homeopathy can be dangerous. proceed at your own risk.

Yeah you keep saying that Gold. Prove it.

[MRC_Hans]

Finally, my comprehensive take on what homeopathy is (cross post from another thread):

I have spent a lot of time on homeopathic BBs lately. The idea was to find out what makes homeopaths tick, although of course, some heated discussions (and one banning) ensued.

The result of this is an article on homeopathy, a review of the Organon of Medicine, and a fledgeling skeptic site by yours truly.


Enjoy!

Hans

Click here (http://www.hans-egebo.dk/skeptic)

[Gold]

just as sure that you think square A is the same as square B is the same as your certainty that homeopathy is a hoax.

appearances can be so deceiving, you just proved it.

you are really only basing your opinions on what "appears to make sense".

open your minds. see that something might possibly exist beyond your present understanding. forget about the studies. even forget about the positive studies -- none of it matters.

until you undertake a dangerous proving --and do it CORRECTLY-- you will continue to think that square A is same as square B.

[MRC_Hans]

And, Bach, what is the correct way to conduct a proving? Please specify the exact way to conduct a proving, in a way that produces a result that the homeopathic community will accept as valid.

Hans

[geni]

Originally posted by Gold
appearances can be so deceiving, you just proved it.

That is why I don't rely on aperiance but on what the evidence says.

you are really only basing your opinions on what "appears to make sense".

Did you mis all thoes papers I posted or would you like some more?

open your minds. see that something might possibly exist beyond your present understanding. forget about the studies. even forget about the positive studies -- none of it matters.

Homeopathy makes real world claims that can be tested. Therefor the studies do matter

until you undertake a dangerous proving --and do it CORRECTLY-- you will continue to think that square A is same as square B.
MRC_Hans followed hannerman proving principels. What more do you want?

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Gold
just as sure that you think square A is the same as square B is the same as your certainty that homeopathy is a hoax.

appearances can be so deceiving, you just proved it.

you are really only basing your opinions on what "appears to make sense".

open your minds. see that something might possibly exist beyond your present understanding. forget about the studies. even forget about the positive studies -- none of it matters.

until you undertake a dangerous proving --and do it CORRECTLY-- you will continue to think that square A is same as square B. [

homeopathy can deliver results but are these results safe? open your eyes people and see that you are making claims that you have no proof of.

all i know is that it works based on trials. it seems that most of the people have never tried it except for hans

Oh stop it already. You're doing a classic homeopathic Weasel trick. You say one thing, you say another. Even in the same post you say "forget the studies... believe...but you will have to do a dangerous proving [study] yourself." You assert your personal experience with fact, but dismiss clinical study as full of question marks. You even confuse verifiable results with opinions. Then you ignore statements asking for proof beyond your personal anecdotal belief.

Also, to add on: your metaphor sucks. You even admit A and B are the same thing.
it is clear to me that the checker boards A and B are the same shade

[Gold]

bach? you must be joking? this is xanta, and i have come to see what you mental cripples are up to.

danger danger

to those who do not know me -- i was a former skeptic just like yourselves, but i kept forcing myself to prove various remedies. most of them failed miserably but i kept trying.

eventually i discovered some of my mistakes. i slowly picked up momentum and now i have made a full shift to the other side.

i was a very negative, blockhead, skeptic up until 4 months ago. glad to be free of that prison.

you guys will never get it. NEVER. how many of you have the guts and the resolve to keep pushing on --failure after failure. isn't that the way thomas edison did it -- light bulb (in case any europeans don't know).

i feel a special kinship to all of you. i walked in your footsteps trying to crush all opinions that were not in keeping with my scientific point of view.

i am not alone there are many scientists who have come to see the truth----

homeopathy does indeed work ---- but i really don't know how or why --- maybe some of you physicists can figure that one out.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Gold
yes, homeopathy can be dangerous. proceed at your own risk.

Yes, it is. And let me tell you why. I will simply paste here what I just wrote in MRC_Hans' topic a little farther down this section of the forum:

My antipathy toward homeopathy has increased exponentially in the last few months.

When our baby twins were teething, a woman gave my wife some homeopathic teething medication. And there are currently ads on TV for homeopathic drops for kids who suffer from ear aches.

To sell a sugar pill or useless drops of who-knows-what to an innocent child in pain who can't even verbalize their problems is about as evil as it gets. And for those parents who are gullible enough to believe this crap works and give it to their kid only to see no improvement, well, I can't imagine the level of cognitive dissonance taking place there.

[geni]

Originally posted by Gold
to those who do not know me -- i was a former skeptic just like yourselves, but i kept forcing myself to prove various remedies. most of them failed miserably but i kept trying.

Are yes your former scepotic turned beliver stance. It is loseing credibility fast. The way you are aproaching reki and acupuncture is slightly odd for a sceptic don't you agree? the way you keep accepting the unserported tesonmny of others is also slightly odd.

eventually i discovered some of my mistakes. i slowly picked up momentum and now i have made a full shift to the other side.


Aparently mistakes Hannerman made.


you guys will never get it. NEVER. how many of you have the guts and the resolve to keep pushing on --failure after failure. isn't that the way thomas edison did it -- light bulb (in case any europeans don't know).

But homeopathy doesn't claim failer after failer. It claims to work. To exten your metaphore Edison didn't just try the same thing over and over again ignoring the failers but check to see which materials worked and if they didn't moved onto others.

i am not alone there are many scientists who have come to see the truth----

And yet not one of them has managed to produce a halfway convincing paper.

homeopathy does indeed work

You have 100's of remedies but not ione has been able to show its worth under properly controlled conditions. Not a single one. There is no remedy that has passed through the tests conventional medcine has why is that? Why has no attempt even been made? Are you frigtened of something?

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Gold
bach? you must be joking? this is xanta, and i have come to see what you mental cripples are up to.

danger danger

to those who do not know me -- i was a former skeptic just like yourselves, but i kept forcing myself to prove various remedies. most of them failed miserably but i kept trying.

eventually i discovered some of my mistakes. i slowly picked up momentum and now i have made a full shift to the other side.

i was a very negative, blockhead, skeptic up until 4 months ago. glad to be free of that prison.

you guys will never get it. NEVER. how many of you have the guts and the resolve to keep pushing on --failure after failure. isn't that the way thomas edison did it -- light bulb (in case any europeans don't know).

i feel a special kinship to all of you. i walked in your footsteps trying to crush all opinions that were not in keeping with my scientific point of view.

i am not alone there are many scientists who have come to see the truth----

homeopathy does indeed work ---- but i really don't know how or why --- maybe some of you physicists can figure that one out.

More Homeopathic Weasel tricks.
-If there is no way to prove what you are saying... get abusive.
-Try to establish kindship with "I was a skeptic until...." as if that makes you acceptable now, if you ever were a skeptic indeed. Give yourself away that you were not really a skeptic because you were looking to back up belief, not looking to verify a fact.
-Become incoherent. Establish more opinions and talk down to folks.
-imply homeopathy is so complex that a professional physicist will understand it, even though homeopathy doesn't even work on the level of the most basic sciences.
-Ignore (once again) the requests to prove the assertion you make.

[Gold]

http://www.healthy.net/asp/templates/article.asp?PageType=Article&id=2149

Homeopathic Remedies vs. the Placebo Effect

Richard Moskowitz M.D.

The art of homeopathic medicine today is all but unknown to the general public; and I would venture to say that a large majority of those who have heard of it, including most of our patients, believe in their hearts that the tiny granules that taste so sweet are in fact nothing but sugar pills, and that whatever results we may achieve clinically could just as well be attributed to our own personal or shamanistic powers, or to the patient's belief in them, or some combination of the two.

Nor does such a view necessarily imply any hostility to Homeopathy. Quite the contrary, it often reflects a deepening skepticism about all forms of treatment, especially the more aggressive modalities of conventional medicine, and even a humanistic preference for the "placebo effect", i.e., the ancient vis medicatrix naturae, the unassisted healing effort of the patient, as a model of the healing process in general.(1)

Moreover, it is a view that Homeopathy itself has never really refuted, partly because we still do not know how our medicines act, or how our patients are cured, and partly, I suspect, because our history as a persecuted minority makes us almost not want to know, or indeed to do anything else to attract further attention to ourselves. Nor is it by any means a simple matter to demonstrate the effectiveness of the high attenuations even to someone who is prepared to examine the evidence with an open mind.

Nevertheless, while it may be quite difficult to prove that our remedies actually work, there is a very substantial body of evidence that they do so; and, to refute the argument that they are placebos, it is not necessary to prove that they act curatively, which is of course a more complicated matter, but only that they act at all, that something happens as a result of their action, rather than simply on account of the interaction between the physician and the patient. Conversely, it is could be proved that our remedies were in fact nothing but placebos, let us by all means admit it with good grace, since,

CASE 1. Respiratory distress of the newborn.
8-pound baby girl, full-term, born at home in February, 1976, following a prolonged second stage. The baby was born covered with meconium, took a single gasp, and failed to breathe after that. Suctioning of the oropharynx yielded copious thick meconium; endotracheal intubation was unsuccessful (cords not visualized). Heart rate 60 per…………

[MRC_Hans]

Ahh Xanta, well one without punctuation or the other.... But I was finding out. By this point our wee Bach would be on the verge on loosing his temper and going into versals, heheh. And identifying you worked one way or the other ;).

Now, not Bach, but Xanta, I asked you a question. On this board, we answer questions. I know this is new to you, but do try to adapt.

Hans

[jj]

Rather than retype it.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27175

Hip waders and gas masks, please.

[Gold]

which one of you is my pal starburn? i don't know why but starburn is a likeable fellow. prester john is a bit blah. jazz bee is hilarious. hans is okay. catriona has a cool name --is it real?

[MRC_Hans]

Evading :rolleyes:

Hans

[geni]

Gold you have all this anicdotal evidence And yet when it is tested under controlled conditions homeopathy fails to show any effects different from the placebo effect.

[Gold]

The way you are aproaching reki and acupuncture is slightly odd for a sceptic don't you agree?

i have an enquiring mind and i want to find out the truth about these things.

when it comes to money some people are tighter than bark on a tree, but i think it is worth the investment in order to learn the truth. --so i paid for a reiki treatment thinking it would be a joke -- and i noted that.

instead i was shocked at the HEAT that was coming off her hands. (sure -- she was a goofball with the grandma thing -- but hey even goofballs can have value).

granted her hands were not exactly the equivalent of a blast furnace but the heat was extremely noticable. i am still baffled by it.

my lack of incredulity over certain things is due to some amazing transformation that i have undergone since discovering homeoapthy works. in truth, i feel like a fool for being such a know-it-all for most of my life.

i'm much freer than i was before.

[Prester John]

Perhaps rather than give personality profiles you should answer some questions. You claim to be a sceptic, scientist maybe but i have seen no evidence of such. You knowledge of science is indeed severely lacking if i recall some of the threads on hpathy correctly.

Now, you had some questions to answer.........

[Gold]

Gold you have all this anicdotal evidence And yet when it is tested under controlled conditions homeopathy fails to show any effects different from the placebo effect. this is open to debate.

it seems that homeopathy only wants to be discussed in terms of clinical studies.

the problem is that homeopathy seems to be a hit and miss, slightly wishy washy healing art. there is a lot of subjectivity to it and i believe that to a certain extent the practioner practiciing part art.

like i said before, my IBS symptoms have remained untouched. --but that does not mean it is a total failure. these things are complicated.

[geni]

Originally posted by Gold


i have an enquiring mind and i want to find out the truth about these things.

So the logical thing to do would be to start by finding out the results of any studies carried out into reiki. Did you do this?


instead i was shocked at the HEAT that was coming off her hands. (sure -- she was a goofball with the grandma thing -- but hey even goofballs can have value).

No you felt as if heat was coming off her hands an important distinction. The sceptical aproach at this point would have been to consider what other meciniasms would be posible.

my lack of incredulity over certain things is due to some amazing transformation that i have undergone since discovering homeoapthy works. in truth, i feel like a fool for being such a know-it-all for most of my life.

And yet you have been unable to provied any remotly convincing evidence that homeopathy works (yes I did read the anicdotal evidence you posted. I can find similar evidence for radium therapy).

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Gold


i have an enquiring mind and i want to find out the truth about these things.

when it comes to money some people are tighter than bark on a tree, but i think it is worth the investment in order to learn the truth. --so i paid for a reiki treatment thinking it would be a joke -- and i noted that.

instead i was shocked at the HEAT that was coming off her hands. (sure -- she was a goofball with the grandma thing -- but hey even goofballs can have value).

granted her hands were not exactly the equivalent of a blast furnace but the heat was extremely noticable. i am still baffled by it.

my lack of incredulity over certain things is due to some amazing transformation that i have undergone since discovering homeoapthy works. in truth, i feel like a fool for being such a know-it-all for most of my life.

i'm much freer than i was before.

So you fell for homeopathy and this convinced you to try reiki, which you also fell for.

Gold, I am a remote viewer. Please stop touching yourself and put some clothes on, for mercy's sake!

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Gold
*snip*

the problem is that homeopathy seems to be a hit and miss, slightly wishy washy healing art. there is a lot of subjectivity to it and i believe that to a certain extent the practioner practiciing part art.

like i said before, my IBS symptoms have remained untouched. --but that does not mean it is a total failure. these things are complicated. In other words, and mind you, I respect you for your openness, there is no real evidence of any causal connection between taking a homeopathic drug and having an effect. Sometimes people feel something sometimes they don't. Sometimes people get well, sometimes they don't. You could say the same about jelly beans.

Hans

[geni]

Originally posted by Gold
it seems that homeopathy only wants to be discussed in terms of clinical studies.

This is becauise clincal studies have the best record on these matters.

the problem is that homeopathy seems to be a hit and miss, slightly wishy washy healing art. there is a lot of subjectivity to it and i believe that to a certain extent the practioner practiciing part art.

The problem is that this is a preety good description of the placebo effect

like i said before, my IBS symptoms have remained untouched. --but that does not mean it is a total failure. these things are complicated.

As has been pointed out to you many time a n=1 study with no controlls has very little value.

[Gold]

Perhaps rather than give personality profiles you should answer some questions. what did i tell you. blah. (don't take that seriously)

i love science. i was a chemistry education major at Ohio State U. but switched to economics and woked on my MBA before starting my own telephony fiber optic installation business. sickness forced me to retire early.

i don't have the stats down the way some of you math/science eggheads do but --oh well.

i love organic chemistry more than any other subject -- i don't know why.

but i am a former big time skeptic. jehova witnesses used to make my month when they came knocking on my door. i would never fail to engage them in a long debate. one time i really pissed off a lesbian reiki healer -- she wanted to kill me. another guy who did reiki on horses still won't talk to me after i tried to embarras him.

in the end i am the fool. --and i feel bad for it.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Gold
this is open to debate.

it seems that homeopathy only wants to be discussed in terms of clinical studies.

the problem is that homeopathy seems to be a hit and miss, slightly wishy washy healing art. there is a lot of subjectivity to it and i believe that to a certain extent the practioner practiciing part art.

like i said before, my IBS symptoms have remained untouched. --but that does not mean it is a total failure. these things are complicated.

Yes, verifiable evidence is a good place to discuss things. Homeopathy, if it is hit or miss, or if it's so subject, is not a great benefit. Calling it an "art" is also an opinion.

I'm not touching your IBS symptoms, either.

[geni]

Originally posted by Gold

but i am a former big time skeptic. jehova witnesses used to make my month when they came knocking on my door. i would never fail to engage them in a long debate. one time i really pissed off a lesbian reiki healer -- she wanted to kill me. another guy who did reiki on horses still won't talk to me after i tried to embarras him.

Just because you dissagreed with these people does not make you a sceptic. Sceptism is a way of thinking which you no longer seem to follow

[Gold]

So you fell for homeopathy and this convinced you to try reiki, which you also fell for.

i didn't fall for reiki. i am extremely uncertain as to what it can do, but the heat from her hands blew me away. i am still wondering if trickery was involved but i don't think so. at firt i thought that maybe she applied capsicum to her hands???????

all i know is that i ended up with a headache later that day (and i hardly ever get headaches --3 a year). --and my toes got so cold they puffed up in the cold. something odd happened.

this is a simple thing to follow up on...... all one needs to do is barter with a reiki pro for a quick demonstration at a reduced price.

anyone out there think i am exagerating the heat thing???

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Gold


i didn't fall for reiki. i am extremely uncertain as to what it can do, but the heat from her hands blew me away. i am still wondering if trickery was involved but i don't think so. at firt i thought that maybe she applied capsicum to her hands???????

all i know is that i ended up with a headache later that day (and i hardly ever get headaches --3 a year). --and my toes got so cold they puffed up in the cold. something odd happened.

this is a simple thing to follow up on...... all one needs to do is barter with a reiki pro for a quick demonstration at a reduced price.

anyone out there think i am exagerating the heat thing???

Oh for goodness sake. First we go to homeopathy, then to reiki. Gold still doesn't answer any questions about the first subject and is already using "but I experienced it firsthand" on the second.
I'll tel you something since we're all having a sharing/caring moment: I can make heat generate from my hands too. It's not mystical, magical or hard.

[jj]

Originally posted by Luke T.


So you fell for homeopathy and this convinced you to try reiki, which you also fell for.

Gold, I am a remote viewer. Please stop touching yourself and put some clothes on, for mercy's sake!

:dl:

Luke, that was cruel. It was also funny.

[Gold]

suezoled,

this was different. this was strange. i kept asking her where the heat was coming from.

this is an easy one for you skeptics to test. --i know i know, you are waiting for the double blind placebo controlled testing.

concerning accupuncture -- starburn (is that you geno or genie or ???) (at first i thought rolfe was starburn) claims that placing the needles anywhere gives the same effect --- not true.

i have the studies on SHAM acupuncture that show that to be wrong.

but back to homeopathy. i am overwhelmed at the moment. i am currently debating the efficacy of probiotic therapy on IBS symptoms on my IBS board.

[Gold]

Oh for goodness sake. First we go to homeopathy, then to reiki. Gold still doesn't answer any questions about the first subject and is already using "but I experienced it firsthand" on the second.
I'll tel you something since we're all having a sharing/caring moment: I can make heat generate from my hands too. It's not mystical, magical or hard.

can you do it for 1 hour straight? obviously it can't be that hard if this goofball talking to her dead grandmother was able to do it, but still i am curious as to how she did it and why the heat was beyond anything i ever experienced before coming from a person's hands.

she got within an inch of my head and i felt the heat -- it was wild.

most of it was due to direct contact. i thought that they were not supposed to have direct contact but she did.

forget the reiki thing -- but it is another good point that shows what happens when we get off our rear ends and actually get some hands on experience with something.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Gold
suezoled,

this was different. this was strange. i kept asking her where the heat was coming from.

this is an easy one for you skeptics to test. --i know i know, you are waiting for the double blind placebo controlled testing.

concerning accupuncture -- starburn (is that you geno or genie or ???) (at first i thought rolfe was starburn) claims that placing the needles anywhere gives the same effect --- not true.

i have the studies on SHAM acupuncture that show that to be wrong.

but back to homeopathy. i am overwhelmed at the moment. i am currently debating the efficacy of probiotic therapy on IBS symptoms on my IBS board.

well if you know what a skeptic will ask for, why don't you provide it?
And actual studies for acupuncture vs. false acupuncture results are not yet available to the public. I don't know how you can claim to have verifiable controlled and approved studies. Quite simply, you can't.

can you do it for 1 hour straight? obviously it can't be that hard if this goofball talking to her dead grandmother was able to do it, but still i am curious as to how she did it and why the heat was beyond anything i ever experienced before coming from a person's hands.

Okay, first "it's different" says Gold; the reiki person is different as comparison to my ability to do it. Gold jumps the gun. Secondy, was it really one hour straight? A full 60 minutes? Fired it up like an electric fire place? "whoosh"? How does it differ from being able to raise the perception of heat in one's hands? Why has it not occured to Gold that she might have been deceived? Then again, I doubt Gold is a true skeptic.

[Gold]

Okay, first "it's different" says Gold; the reiki person is different as comparison to my ability to do it. Gold jumps the gun. Secondy, was it really one hour straight? A full 60 minutes? Fired it up like an electric fire place? "whoosh"? How does it differ from being able to raise the perception of heat in one's hands? Why has it not occured to Gold that she might have been deceived? Then again, I doubt Gold is a true skeptic.[

(yawn)

[Prester John]

Thats a lot of posts gold/xanta without actually saying much.You have questions to answer, evading will not wash it. You came here with a point to make, i suggest you start trying. Reason and evidence are required.

[geni]

Originally posted by Gold
i have the studies on SHAM acupuncture that show that to be wrong.

Lets see them then

[Prester John]

And that Shadow Illusion is amazing, 3 of us couldn't believe it until i went into paint and cut out 2 squares to compare. I have my doubts about anyone who says they see it as the same colour.
:D
PJ

[Gold]

prester john,

i am on overload. what specific question --- there are a lot of them floating around.

everything gets answered a hundred times over but it is never enough.

granted -- there are a lot of question marks out there. i have dozens of questions myself. i can't get good answers on many of them. most of it is very general.

besides any thing that gets answered just creates 3 more questions. it does not end.

but i will tell you this ---------- how i feel is though i am 2 steps ahead of all you people. --this is because i have truly walked your steps. granted, i was not as anal with the math and stats as some of you but i pounded scenario after scenario on how homeopathy could NOT work.

even when sarah (the online homeopath) had an answer for everything it did not satisfy me.

a lot of her answers were a joke. they left me with my mouth hanging wide open. however, some of her answers forced me to re-think some of my pre-conceived thoughts on the subject.

action is what solved the question ----and yes it works. this was determined through a lot of action and then a lot of questions which followed my action.

i am ahead of you people because i got off my rear end and learned the truth.

[Gold]

And that Shadow Illusion is amazing, 3 of us couldn't believe it until i went into paint and cut out 2 squares to compare. I have my doubts about anyone who says they see it as the same colour.

yes, i was just messing with you guys on that one. it blew me away. i had to cut 2 holes in paper to see that they were the same.

shocking!

well, i hope that example goes to show all you skeptics that you can be so 100% certain of something and yet it is . NOT TRUE

this is why i am 2 steps ahead of you people. i once thought that homeopathy (and the 2 squares were different shades), but now i know the truth.

when the student is ready the teacher will appear.

[geni]

Originally posted by Gold

well, i hope that example goes to show all you skeptics that you can be so 100% certain of something and yet it is . NOT TRUE


Which sceptic was 100% certian the two colours were different?

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by geni
Which sceptic was 100% certian the two colours were different? I've seen it before, and that time I did what Gold did and blanked out the rest of the image. It's only at that point I started to feel the statement that they were the same just might be true.

This time I used a handly little applet called Pixie, which gives rgb values for wherever your cursor is (I use it to match colours for web design). On that objective measurement the values were exactly the same. No arguing possible. Collapse of scepticism.

That's how you do it. Objective measurement. However sceptical you are when just eyeballing the image, you have to give in when you see the measurements. All the measurements I see for homoeopathic trials confirm me in my scepticism though.

Oh yes, see my sig line.

Rolfe.

[Gold]

will someone please tell me who rolfe is and geni? starburn is one of them and is there a person AKA jazz bee?

************************************************** *************************

i think the problem is that people are trying to take an incredibly complicated subject matter -- the human body and homeopathy-- and expect it to act in some manner that it may have trouble doing.

my guess is that homeopathy's effects would tend to be more of a gradual shift in a person's state of health. i am certain that extreme aggravations are also possible -- i had them myself.

but the gradual shift can be a tough thing to measure. much of this is very subjective.

so long as people are hung up on studies then they will continue to go around in circles.

[Prester John]

so long as people are hung up on studies then they will continue to go around in circles

You obviously do not understand science. I'm sure some others can post some specific questions for you, i don't have the time at the moment.

As for Starburn, no idea, and Rolfe is Rolfe, and Rolfe is da Man :D

[geni]

Originally posted by Gold
i think the problem is that people are trying to take an incredibly complicated subject matter -- the human body and homeopathy-- and expect it to act in some manner that it may have trouble doing.


Since quite a few test have been done for which it was agreed in advance by homeopaths that the tests should give posertive results I tend to dissagree.

my guess is that homeopathy's effects would tend to be more of a gradual shift in a person's state of health. i am certain that extreme aggravations are also possible -- i had them myself.

Perhaps but why then do we see all the claims of mirical cures? However the way round this is to test for proving symptoms which should be far more relible.

so long as people are hung up on studies then they will continue to go around in circles.

Studies are the most effective way that we have of judgeing these things. As such they are the best way to discover the validity of homeopathy.

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by Gold


yes, i was just messing with you guys on that one. it blew me away. i had to cut 2 holes in paper to see that they were the same.

shocking!

well, i hope that example goes to show all you skeptics that you can be so 100% certain of something and yet it is . NOT TRUE

this is why i am 2 steps ahead of you people. i once thought that homeopathy (and the 2 squares were different shades), but now i know the truth.

when the student is ready the teacher will appear.

If anything, you're just pointing out the problems with your own case here.

Do you not see the par