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 parallel here?

"You have a homeopathic cure that works for you! It works because you experienced it for yourself!"

"The colours are different when I look at them! They're different because I experience that for myself!"

However, TESTING both of these shows them to be false.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Gold


(yawn)

I will take that as an admission you are a liar.

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.

And once again you are a liar. Some teacher you are.


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.

It's already been shown by yourself you know nothing about science, the scientific method, testing, procedures. But if you need to hold on to your precious ego by saying "I'm ahead of you all" go right ahead. You're quite a wet cat.

[Prester John]

OK how about you clarify if faith is required for homeopathy?

I'm curious about how homeopathy has affected your IBS symptoms. Did it have much effect initally? How about longer term, with taking homeopathic remedies are your symptoms notibly reduced from say the previous year.
(I understand the questions are personal of nature so whether you answer or not is purely your choice and i will respect that choice)
PJ

[BillyJoe]

gold,

Originally posted by 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.well, admit it gold, before you took out your little piece of paper, those parallelograms ( ;) ) marked 'a' and 'b' seemed to be a different shade of grey.

then you conducted a little scientific experiment ( ;) ) and proved to yourself that they are the same shade after all.

i think all is not lost


billyjoe
(don't speak to interesting ian though otherwise, before long, none of us will any longer know what is right and what is wrong :D )

[BillyJoe]

Okay, I have caught up with the rest of the posts now and it seems my above reply is superfluous.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Gold
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.Let's dissect the thought processes.

First, one looks at the picture and assumes that the squares are different shades. Might not even occur to you to question it, left to yourself.

Second, BillyJoe says, "but A and B are the same shade".

This may be greeted with some degree of incredulity, but knowing that clever optical illusions are all over the place, the true sceptic considers the claim with an open mind.

Openmindedness allows objective experimentation. A crude pilot study is done, by blanking out everything but the two squares (rhombi, whatever) in question, and tentatively confirms that BillyJoe might actually be right.

To be certain, a completely objective test is done using Pixie or Paintshop or whatever. No possibility of faking the results of that, or of fudging the interpretation. Beyond argument, BillyJoe is right.

It doesn't actually matter which way round you play the analogy. BillyJoe might be seen as the sceptic here, as he questions what on the face of it seems to be self-evident. Or if you like, the viewer may be seen as being sceptical of BillyJoe's apparently preposterous claim.

The point is that both sides are prepared to put it to the test. Nobody is sticking their fingers in their ears and declaring that they don't care what Paintshop says, they KNOW from the evidence of their own eyes that the squares are different, nobody is insisting that the "true message" that they are the same should be accepted on faith. Both sides agree that the objective measurements are more reliable than our foolable eyes, and accept whatever the measurements show as the truth.

We say we have looked at the measured evidence for homoeopathy, and concluded that the numbers say there is no effect (beyond placebo). Gold says she doesn't care what the measured numbers say, she KNOWS from her own personal revelation that there is an effect.

Then she tries to twist the analogy by declaring that her personal experience is equivalent to the Paintshop measurement, so she KNOWS that the "superficial" assumption that homoeopathy is a scam is wrong. Nope, won't wash.

Gold, what we're trying to show to you here is that the evidence of your own personal, subjective, unmeasurable experience is the unreliable part. The reliable part is the repeated objective measurement. Prester John used Paint. I used Pixie. Several people in different places with different computers and different software packages all tried to measure the same thing and got the same result. Whatever we might have wanted to believe, we have to accept what the measurements tell us.

You homoeopaths are in the position of people looking at the unlabelled picture and insisting that you KNOW that A is lighter than B, anyone can see it, and you simply won't believe any evidence that suggests differently.

Who is being closed-minded here?

Rolfe.

[Gold]

pj,

homeopathy has had no effect whatsoever on my IBS symptoms. not even a trace. not any on day 1, 2, 3, 4......................120.

if this was placebo effect i would have achieved something. i also may have been inclined to state a positive response to some of the people on the hpathy board in order to get them to accept me especially since i was new. instead, i reported the truth --knowing that anything negative usually gets a reprimand from our latin dancing friend (whom i like despite her aggressive stance -- go cha cha)

[Rolfe]

Somebody posted this link in one of the other forum areas.

Alternative engineering. (http://www.theness.com/articles/alternativeengineering-nejs0204.html)

I thought it was priceless. And oh-so-relevant to this thread.

The thing is, when you're dealing with man-made objects like bridges, you are in a very unforgiving environment. Self-repair systems not really a common feature. Bridge falls down on cue. Dealing with the mammalian body, you've always got the self-repair systems working on your side, and the good old psychosomatic effect. Patient may well improve (or report a perceived improvement) regardless.

And so Gold clings to her beliefs.

Rolfe.

[Gold]

the main effect has been on my brain, but i also think that it somehow, someway got my body to recognize some not-so-friendly bug in my intestines, and got me to get rid of it.

the first 2 days after the dose i went through some type of serious dieoff or herxheimer reaction. i had the foulest smelling diarrhea and i felt somewhat sick --but not too sick for those 2 days.

after that my approx 7 years of irritabiltiy and toxic/sick feeling disappeared.

i absolutely can not explain it at all. it boggles my mind.

there are several more very interesting, strange phenomena that happened.

all the things that happened to me --- if it was in a lab setting--- would be ambiguous as judged by a researcher.

-------can't explain it, but somehow it works.

[Rolfe]

Sorry, double post.

[Gold]

all i can say is that i started playing around with homeopathy over 10 years ago and it was a colossal failure (except i thought i detected a very small improvement in sinus symptoms after taking a sinus formula).

the mere thought of homeopathy turned my stomach because it seemed so outlandish. ---so completely different from what i was used to.

but i kept reading both sides and finally that ever so slight crack of belief opened wider last July. --and the rest is history.

now I know what the people on hpathy are speaking about because i have experienced it myself.

i have seen something that you people have not seen.

it is like the shaded squares ...... all of you skeptics and me included thought they looked different........ we tested and found out otherwise. i kept testing homeopathy and i found out that my beliefs were wrong.

you skeptics keep looking at clinical studies, and i think that the problem lies there.

[Gold]

OK how about you clarify if faith is required for homeopathy? i don't think it is. however, if i could transport myself back in time to the peak of my skepticism --- roughly 1996 on up to early 2003--- and if i were to have been hauled off to a homeopath for a freebie....

....and if i had taken the same remedy i am fairly certain that i would have received the same response but i would have VERY EASILY chalked up the change to pure chance. i would have perceived it differently.

this is just one of the clues that leads me to think that clinical studies leave a lot to be desired. --------this whole problem is extremely complex and it relies on too much subjectivity.

all i know is that something powerful happened. --- can't explain it.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Gold
it is like the shaded squares ...... all of you skeptics and me included thought they looked different........ we tested and found out otherwise. i kept testing homeopathy and i found out that my beliefs were wrong.You really don't understand, do you?

Rolfe.

[Gold]

i understand perfectly where you are coming from. the testing is ambiguous. you can not prove homeopathy does not work. you can come up with studies showing it is worthless, but i can go mining for studies that show it works.

it seems like you are claiming that because something has not been conclusively proven then it does not exist.

back in the 1950's our veterinarians discovered that swine with ulcers had them due to a bacteria. they gave them tetracycline and bismuth (an antibacterial) and the ulcers healed. repeatedly the vets would bring this issue to researchers concerning human ulcers......

the evidence and the proof was there. yet for the next 40 years all the MD's knew better. they would say, "we have performed 1000's of autopsies -------- if there was bacteria in the stomach we would have found it ---- the stomach is TOO ACIDIC FOR BACTERIA" ---- "now shut up and accept the truth that ulcers are caused by STRESS"

yeah well --- they were wrong. they missed something that was so obviously, flipping smacking them in the face that it makes you wonder if they are plain stupid.

[geni]

Homeopathy claims to be able to cure nearly anything. We have hundreds of these anicdotal stories of it curing almost instantly. But what do we get when we test? Either we get a few results right on the edge of random noise that are explainable through methodlgical faults or we get zero. Why is this? Why do all of hoemopaths great claims crumble to nothing when exaimed under properly controlled conditons. If half of homeopath's claims were true it would be almost imposible to design a test that would fail to show a result. Why then so so many negative results? Why is the better the test is desighned the more likly it is to show negative results? I think I know the answer do you?

[geni]

Originally posted by Gold
(whom i like despite her aggressive stance -- go cha cha)

This would be the CCH that claims that HIV does not cause AIDS, that SARS was caused by the canadian vacination program and the BBC is funded by advets?

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Gold
i understand perfectly where you are coming from. the testing is ambiguous. you can not prove homeopathy does not work. you can come up with studies showing it is worthless, but i can go mining for studies that show it works.

it seems like you are claiming that because something has not been conclusively proven then it does not exist.No. The point is that all the claiming is being done by you. Homoeopaths are advertising and practising and taking money for alleged therapeutic effects for which there is no objective evidence at all. This is commonly referred to as "health fraud".

Our claim is simply that you haven't proved your case, or even come close. Your so-called "studies that show it works" have holes in them the size of the Channel Tunnel. The burden of proof is on you, and you have not satisfied it.

You are repeatedly showing us the picture of the chess-board and telling us that you can SEE the squares are different shades, and refusing to look at the Paintshop readings that tell a different story. The thing about the Paintshop readings being that they are objective, they can be repeated by anyone, and even someone who was convinced that the squares were different would get the same result.Originally posted by Gold
back in the 1950's our veterinarians discovered that swine with ulcers had them due to a bacteria. they gave them tetracycline and bismuth (an antibacterial) and the ulcers healed. repeatedly the vets would bring this issue to researchers concerning human ulcers......

the evidence and the proof was there. yet for the next 40 years all the MD's knew better. they would say, "we have performed 1000's of autopsies -------- if there was bacteria in the stomach we would have found it ---- the stomach is TOO ACIDIC FOR BACTERIA" ---- "now shut up and accept the truth that ulcers are caused by STRESS"

yeah well --- they were wrong. they missed something that was so obviously, flipping smacking them in the face that it makes you wonder if they are plain stupid. Would you care to provide a reference for this? Being as I'm a "veterinarian", and I have not the first clue what you're talking about. Ironically, the first I heard about Helicobacter pylori was when Horizon did one of their best-ever programmes about it.

Rolfe.

[Gold]

being a vet you should be aware of this. rather shocking.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Gold
being a vet you should be aware of this. rather shocking. POST YOUR EVIDENCE.

Rolfe.

[Gold]

are you looking for dbpc studies that they...

used bismuth in the feed

that farmers would lose many swine to ulcers

that when they cut them open they discovered the bacteria (not sure what type--enterococci??? h pylori???)

that they would treat them with bismuth (see above) and tetracycline

that they could then prevent loss of swine herds (a herd of swine??? a flock of swine?? a school)

i don't think there are dbpc studies on this. maybe this is why you are unaware of it. certainly glad to share with a vet a thing or two about bacteria.

[Gold]

I'm tempted, but I'm busy bashing homeopaths right now.

Hans


i'll bet you guys got picked on in school a lot. :D


i see you are harrassing the christians at the moment. i would join you but i grew a conscience over the last year. actually i support any resistance to these people (christians) taking over our school boards. i.e., skeptics are needed.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Gold
are you looking for dbpc studies that they...

used bismuth in the feed

that farmers would lose many swine to ulcers

that when they cut them open they discovered the bacteria (not sure what type--enterococci??? h pylori???)

that they would treat them with bismuth (see above) and tetracycline

that they could then prevent loss of swine herds (a herd of swine??? a flock of swine?? a school)

i don't think there are dbpc studies on this. maybe this is why you are unaware of it. certainly glad to share with a vet a thing or two about bacteria. I'm looking for any evidence at all that a single word of what you've just said is true. So far, not seeing it. (OK better qualify that. The incidence and treatment of ulcers in pigs isn't really the point. The point is whether any connection was made between this and the condition as it is seen in man.)

I'm looking for any evidence that anyone in the veterinary profession ever tried to convince the human-type gastroenterologists that they were wrong about the cause of human duodenal/peptic ulcers. This is, after all, the main thrust of the point you seemed to be trying to make. Where did you get that pile of disinformation from?

Enterococci and Helicobacter are quite different organisms, and you, my girl, don't have the faintest clue what you're talking about.

Rolfe.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Gold


i'll bet you guys got picked on in school a lot. :D


i see you are harrassing the christians at the moment. i would join you but i grew a conscience over the last year. actually i support any resistance to these people (christians) taking over our school boards. i.e., skeptics are needed.

I see you have neither wit to recognize the issues, the capacity to answer them, the ability to address your own assertions with verifiable fact. You are a liar and yet claim to have a conscience, implying you are of any moral fiber to be judging someone else's actions. You I do pity after all; you're so very special as well Gold. Poor poor pathetic burden, special child that you are Gold.

[Gold]

suezoled,

you're a real barrel of laughs. just by chance, do you torture small animals for fun?

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Gold
suezoled,

you're a real barrel of laughs. just by chance, do you torture small animals for fun?

Because I'm not nice to you I must be a horrible person who beats down on others, huh? You still can't answer the questions, address the issues or back yourself up; you are once again playing Homeopathic Weasel. Maybe you should just go back and play with yourself Gold. LukeT: stop spying on her.

[Lost Boy]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
SEEING IS BELIEVING

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

Sorry to divert the thread, but could one of you clever people with your image analysis software explain how the illusion is set up? Could one of you annotate the image to show the true brightness of each square?

Let's give Gold/Xanta some work as well. If homeopathy so so marvellous and can cure anything with one dose, why hasn't it cured your IBS? More to the point why don't you see your non-responsiveness as strong anecdotal evidence against it? How long do you have to keep trying it before you will finally conclude it's no use, or do you intend to keep going until a spontaneous improvement can be quickly declared a success?

[Gold]

hey there chuckles,

no matter what i post it gets dismissed. i understand this mentality. you think i am a liar but all i can say is that i did the same thing -- i dismissed everything i that i read and heard about homeopathy. acupuncture is something that i did not dismiss but i seriously questioned its power to affect great change.

i can only respond to questions after i have given them some thought, and i already admitted that i don't understand much of this. all i can do is tell my story.

if this did not work then i would still be criticizing it, but to my surprise things did happen -- many things...

i can only conclude that the 100's of thousands of people who are practising this worldwide scam (errr.... healing treatment) are on to something.

it is a mystery to me how it works but there is something going on. i can only conclude that there is something going on that is at the subatomic level -- but this could be completely wrong -- i don't know.

i am not surprised that testing gives ambiguous results. as i have posted above the reasons for this ambiguity i will not do it again at the moment.

**********************************************
why is luke spying on me? i imagine they can track the threads that i look at. very interesting information all over. seems to be a lack of open mindedness on some of the subjects. negativity??? maybe.

[MRC_Hans]

On the picture: tha illusion is not technical, it is in your brain. Our perception works to a great degree by pattern recognition. in this picture, we recognize two patterns:

1) The checker-board base.

2) The shadow of the cylinder.

While the picture is artificial, it could be real: In the shadow, a light square could attain the same color as a dark one outside the shadow. Our brain's image processing system compensates for this, enabling us to distinguish between light and dark squares, regardess of shadows.

Assuming this to be a real picture, the fact is not:

A and B are the same shade of gray.

But:

The light reaching your retina from square A and B happens to be identical.

Hans

[geni]

Originally posted by Gold

no matter what i post it gets dismissed.

Well you could try posting solid evidence (I did)

i can only respond to questions after i have given them some thought, and i already admitted that i don't understand much of this. all i can do is tell my story.

Your story is that your personal experiance is totaly relible. We know that this is unlikly

if this did not work then i would still be criticizing it, but to my surprise things did happen -- many things...

How do you know it worked? N=1 trials have aprox 0 value

i can only conclude that the 100's of thousands of people who are practising this worldwide scam (errr.... healing treatment) are on to something.

Or you can conclude that the placebo effect does work on you after all.

it is a mystery to me how it works but there is something going on. i can only conclude that there is something going on that is at the subatomic level -- but this could be completely wrong -- i don't know.

Saking water changes the way in which 1d strings that have not even been shown to exist behave? You do relise how this would mean if it was true?

i am not surprised that testing gives ambiguous results. as i have posted above the reasons for this ambiguity i will not do it again at the moment.

the results are not ambiguous. Homeopathy has no effect beyond the placebo effect.
[/B]


You have come here with a story. We have proplerly controlled scientfic expoeriments.

[Gold]

Let's give Gold/Xanta some work as well. If homeopathy so so marvellous and can cure anything with one dose, why hasn't it cured your IBS? i think it is a strong healing tool but obviously it has its shortcomings. i came across an american MD who states that it can not heal damaged tissue among other things.

many of these problems are very complex in nature. i have no clue as to whether or not it will solve or help IBS. IBS (in some people) could be due to post-viral syndrome of some sort or another. i.e., there could be some nerve damage that is irreversible.

it seems that the remedies have a very narrow focus of action. the remedy that i first took did its job that is all i know. its unexplainable.

i predict in the future that experiments will eventually shift the evidence in favor of showing that homeopathic remedies are capable of effecting change. eventually --in time-- all of this will be common knowledge. people will say, "it was so obvious" -- "so that is why the experiments were ambiguous!!!" "simply amazing"

[geni]

Originally posted by Gold
i think it is a strong healing tool but obviously it has its shortcomings. i came across an american MD who states that it can not heal damaged tissue among other things.

What happened to arnica?


i predict in the future that experiments will eventually shift the evidence in favor of showing that homeopathic remedies are capable of effecting change. eventually --in time-- all of this will be common knowledge. people will say, "it was so obvious" -- "so that is why the experiments were ambiguous!!!" "simply amazing"

Tell me when you have thoes experiments. At the moment to trend seems to be going the other way.

Remeber this not one homeopathic remedy would pass the test real medcine has to go through to get lisenced not one.

[Gold]

What happened to arnica?

never tried arnica. don't know much about it.

my guess is that when you sprain your ankle the tissue is not permanantly damaged.

instead your body releases various inflammatory prostaglandins and substance p that help your brain to know that the ankle is hurt and stay off it.

maybe the arnica helps to somehow alter these mast cell mediators or lessen them. sounds wacky and unreal but i think it works even though i have never tried it. i base my belief on some of the changes that i have undergone.

it is incomprehensible but that does not mean it is 100.0000000000000000% impossible. truth is stranger than fiction.

[geni]

Originally posted by Gold


never tried arnica. don't know much about it.

my guess is that when you sprain your ankle the tissue is not permanantly damaged.

My guess is that homeopaths don't know how fast people normaly heal (which is fair enough the rate varies tremdiously)

Backed up by this paper:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12562974&dopt=Abstract


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.

[Lost Boy]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
On the picture: tha illusion is not technical, it is in your brain. Our perception works to a great degree by pattern recognition. in this picture, we recognize two patterns:

1) The checker-board base.

2) The shadow of the cylinder.

While the picture is artificial, it could be real: In the shadow, a light square could attain the same color as a dark one outside the shadow. Our brain's image processing system compensates for this, enabling us to distinguish between light and dark squares, regardess of shadows.

Assuming this to be a real picture, the fact is not:

A and B are the same shade of gray.

But:

The light reaching your retina from square A and B happens to be identical.

Hans

No Hans, you misunderstand the question, I understand the neurophysiology, I'm asking how the image is actually set up, what are the actual values of the brightnesses of the various squares? A and B are equal, but what are their brightnesses relative to all their neighbours?

[Lost Boy]

Originally posted by Gold
why is luke spying on me? i imagine they can track the threads that i look at. very interesting information all over.

Errr...it was a joke. I don't think Luke was literally saying he could see you.

This curious literal-mindedness is an interestingly common symptom of the mind that is attracted to woo-woo. Do others agree? What is its significance? I think it is commensurate with their appeals to authority and wilingness to be impressed by superficially clever-sounding stories and arguments.

[Lost Boy]

Originally posted by Gold
i predict in the future that experiments will eventually shift the evidence in favor of showing that homeopathic remedies are capable of effecting change. eventually --in time-- all of this will be common knowledge. people will say, "it was so obvious" -- "so that is why the experiments were ambiguous!!!" "simply amazing"

If you sometime wake up and smell the coffee, you will notice that the actual trend across time is for studies to be performed better and give less support for shaken water magic.

Geni: just noticed you already said this. Clearly we have spooky psychic abilities

[Gold]

This curious literal-mindedness is an interestingly common symptom of the mind that is attracted to woo-woo. Do others agree? What is its significance? I think it is commensurate with their appeals to authority and wilingness to be impressed by superficially clever-sounding stories and arguments.
i am actually quite the opposite. i have seriously rebelled against authority my entire life.

your point on studies being conducted stricter and showing no results beyond palcebo may be spurious.

i ahve not looked at too many studies to prove this but i still think the evidence is ambiguous.

i suspect that the whole idea of proving remedies may be tenuous at best. i wonder if truly healthy people can easily get symptoms from taking something like belladonna. i have read that if the body does not need ti then the vibration does not register with the body and nothing happens.

many of the people in the studies have incredibly complex probelms and a simple remedy may not give clear results.

i tried to prove it wrong and it got turned around on me. can't expalin it. but i think this is why many of the MD's and other scientists have had to abandon their belief system same as me.

quick question.......... do you think your queen is crazy, misguided, delusional? i know.... it is only one person, but are we all nuts?

[geni]

Originally posted by Gold
i suspect that the whole idea of proving remedies may be tenuous at best. i wonder if truly healthy people can easily get symptoms from taking something like belladonna. i have read that if the body does not need ti then the vibration does not register with the body and nothing happens.

No. The ability of remedies to produce symptoms in a healthy person is one of the cornerstanes of homeopathy. Without it you no longer have like cures like. And without that you have an even less coherent system than you have at the moment.

many of the people in the studies have incredibly complex probelms and a simple remedy may not give clear results.

Did you even glance at the study I just posted? I clearly shows that your claim is incorect.

i tried to prove it wrong and it got turned around on me. can't expalin it. but i think this is why many of the MD's and other scientists have had to abandon their belief system same as me.

Science is not a belief system

quick question.......... do you think your queen is crazy, misguided, delusional? i know.... it is only one person, but are we all nuts?

As far I as know the Queen has no relivant qualifcations as such I don't care what she does or says.

[Gold]

This curious literal-mindedness is an interestingly common symptom of the mind that is attracted to woo-woo. Do others agree? What is its significance? I think it is commensurate with their appeals to authority and wilingness to be impressed by superficially clever-sounding stories and arguments

i recognize the quote above as being identical to something that i would have said in the past.

i think it is important to point out that i thought exactly like you people before i forced myself to repeatedly test these remedies and FINALLY discover the truth -- that they do indedd work.

i used to think that all religious people were weak in mind -- to some degree i still think along those lines. i read the dinosaur thread and it was rather humerous. i even went to the christianity thread but did not see hans over there.

i thought that homeopaths were kooks. same with anyone who practised something mysterious and not fully explained. i argued and debated with these people same as i am arguing with you people.

the difference is that i got off my rear end and kept trying over and over to discover the accuracy of the homeopaths claims.

hans, your attempt and failure does not surprise me. deep down you wanted it to fail and there were probably other problems as well. bach and others have outlined them. it may be true that if the vibration does not match up then it does nothing.

this may be why almost all of my trials failed.

[geni]

Originally posted by Gold
i think it is important to point out that i thought exactly like you people before i forced myself to repeatedly test these remedies and FINALLY discover the truth -- that they do indedd work.

you keep making this claim you keep failing to back it up.

the difference is that i got off my rear end and kept trying over and over to discover the accuracy of the homeopaths claims.

So did I. I've gone through more resurch papers into homeopay than I can recall at short notice.

hans, your attempt and failure does not surprise me. deep down you wanted it to fail and there were probably other problems as well. bach and others have outlined them. it may be true that if the vibration does not match up then it does nothing.

this may be why almost all of my trials failed.

But is does not explain why the trials with large groups failed. Remember it is posible to prove when taking a placebo.

[Gold]

But is does not explain why the trials with large groups failed. Remember it is posible to prove when taking a placebo. i believe the meta-analysis has shown some good results. --even after they weeded out the studies that were not the greatest.

are you positive that you are not exagerating that all the studies are coming back negative. are mining for studies that support the results you are looking for???

it seems that coming up with positive studies is pointless because they will be dragged with a fine tooth comb for the slightest inconsistancies.

[geni]

Originally posted by Gold
i believe the meta-analysis has shown some good results. --even after they weeded out the studies that were not the greatest.

I disagree. And remeber the studies I posted are very recent.

are you positive that you are not exagerating that all the studies are coming back negative. are mining for studies that support the results you are looking for???

I know that some studies come back posertive. However in 2003 I am aware of 5 negative and one posertive study

it seems that coming up with positive studies is pointless because they will be dragged with a fine tooth comb for the slightest inconsistancies.

It sem that comeing up with posertive studies is a waste of time as you will just ignore them. You have yet to show that even one study I have produced is flawed. You are yet to produce any studies at all.

[Gold]

As far I as know the Queen has no relivant qualifcations as such I don't care what she does or says. As far I as know the Queen has no relivant qualifcations as such I don't care what she does or says.

i find it to be rather humerous that the Queen of England knows something that you science skeptics don't -- that it does indeed work.

Long live the Queen.

i wonder if the Prince (charles??)knows it works. Tony Blair? probably not.

it works -- these people have experienced it and so they stay with it.

all i here is studies, studies, studies. they are ambiguous. the proof is in the pudding.

hansie and his single trial don't cut it. i certainly am glad that i persisted far beyond a single trial.

by the way, why would hansie even undertake a trial if a single trial (n=1) is so worthless? i mean why even do it.

why do anything? why? if none of it matters except for clinical trials why bother?



geni (starburn?),

i think you are too hung up on your specialty of analyzing studies. it seems to be your only tool. like a carpentor with a hammer --------------- all problems look like a nail.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Gold
i believe the meta-analysis has shown some good results. --even after they weeded out the studies that were not the greatest.



No. When quality of clinical trial was studied vs results, it was clear that the better quality trials show no effect for homeopathy.

As the quality score increases (better studies) the odds ratio (for homeopathy versus placebo) goes down, and goes down to about 1-2. The authors of the letter comment that:

"some (but by no means all) methodologically astute and highly convioncing homeopaths have published results that look convincing but are, in fact, not credible. Viewed in this way, the reanalysis.... can be seen as the ultimate epidemiological proof that homeopathic remedies are, in fact, placebos."



Source: bandolier homeopathy trials (http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/alternat/homequal.html)

[geni]

Originally posted by Gold
i find it to be rather humerous that the Queen of England knows something that you science skeptics don't -- that it does indeed work.

You have made this statment many many times in thread you have completly failed to back it up. Now do so or stop making the stament your choice.


it works -- these people have experienced it

So does the placebo effect you point?

all i here is studies, studies, studies. they are ambiguous. the proof is in the pudding.

Studies are far less ambiguous than anicdotal evidence.


by the way, why would hansie even undertake a trial if a single trial (n=1) is so worthless? i mean why even do it.

why do anything? why? if none of it matters except for clinical trials why bother?

To see what the homeopaths reaction would be

i think you are too hung up on your specialty of analyzing studies. it seems to be your only tool. like a carpentor with a hammer --------------- all problems look like a nail.

I think you are too hung up on personal experance. Read up on radium therapy. Look at the claims that were made. Then look at the claims of homeopathy.

[Gold]

I think you are too hung up on personal experance. Read up on radium therapy. Look at the claims that were made. Then look at the claims of homeopathy. radium therapy is a different situation. heck, people can make the same claim about antibiotics. --about how they were considered to be miracle drugs and how it was predicted that we would be able to wipe the palnet clean of any undesirable bacteria.

wrongo -- we have an even bigger problem on our hands due to bacteria mutating in various ways and becoming resistant.

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

if you were to ask your Queen how it worked you would get a similar answer as me. not really sure.

however, i know that it does based on my experience. you know that it does not based on your experience (--reading and applying logic... not actual use)

people can trust their own experience even though it is wrong on occasion. should all your experiences be determined to be false.

you are making claims based on ambiguous studies of homeoapthy -- some positive some negative.

[Rolfe]

Gold, am I mistaken or has your attitude changed? When you came on this thread you said that you thought that homoeopathic remedies did indeed exert an effect on the body, but that its nature was unknown and that you distrusted anything so powerful and yet so little understood. You said that you had proved remedies in the past, and you were still fearful that you might have failed to antidote them fully and might experience ill effects in the future. You said that homoeopathy shouldn't be allowed because it might be dangerous.

Nevertheless, you couldn't refrain from telling us (as everyone who questions homoeopathy seems to be told) that if we wanted to test homoeopathy for ourselves we should try proving a remedy personally. At our own risk of course. Hans' experience of having done that and felt nothing was promptly dismissed, of course.

Now, you seem to have switched right round. You are advocating homoeopathy as a convinced proponent. You contradict your assertion that it's too dangerous to mess with by telling us that you do in fact mess with it. But now, you think provings are valueless, probably a healthy person won't feel anything.

Come on, which is it? Arguing with someone whose ground is so fluid is an unrewarding exercise at the best of times.

By the way, you can tell Barb that she prompted me to do what I've been meaning to do for months, that is source and quote my sig line properly. It's a line from a TV show, for goodness sake! However, it does hide a deep truth. You can only help your patient when you understand what's going on. And the understanding is to be found in the numbers. Holding a hand and stroking a fevered brow is all very well, but I'm in the business of finding out why the brow is fevered in the hope of being able to do something about it.

What I'm talking about (http://www.hpathy.com/FORUM/display_topic_threads.asp?ForumID=6&TopicID=970&PagePosition=1), for the uninitiated. :D

And to return the favour, Barb's sig (you're not Barb, are you Gold?) makes me laugh. She's the best walking breathing example of cognitive dissonance I've seen in years.

Everybody else seems to have beaten me to the point about the better the trial the less the effect. Linde and Kleijnen published studies that didn't fully take that into account, and said "maybe there's something there?". The homoeopaths have been clinging to that ever since, completely oblivious to the fact that the trials coming out since then have been negative, negative, negative.

And this is a whole system of medicine. Not one single situation where anyone has been able to show a self-evident effect. Not good, Gold.

Rolfe.

PS. Still waiting to hear when it was that veterinary science told human medicine that it might be wrong about stomach ulcers.

[Gold]

Gold, am I mistaken or has your attitude changed? When you came on this thread you said that you thought that homoeopathic remedies did indeed exert an effect on the body, but that its nature was unknown and that you distrusted anything so powerful and yet so little understood.

rolfe,
there was this guy in my IBS forum, he was a retired scientist -- a geologist. he knew homeopathy worked but he used to tell everyone who asked about it to not use it because it was potentially dangerous. however, he also claimed that eventually he was going to try it again at some later point. apparently his first attempt had less than desirable effects.

i learned a lot from his posts even though he was very negative.

what can i say.... i have a weird sense of humor. i thought it was funny everytime he claimed that homeopathy was dangerous.

in all seriousness, i believe it has the potential to be dangerous if a person does not know what he is doing.

honestly, i would like it if some homeopath would poison you guys with a very high potency remedy (reversible of course).

if this is what it takes to get you to believe the Queen then so be it.

you know --- the Queen is correct. homeopathy does work. you guys just don't get it -- yet

i wonder why some english homeopath has not offered to dose randi with a 100M remedy -- every day for 6 months? would randi allow it?

[Darat]

Originally posted by Gold
...snip...

honestly, i would like it if some homeopath would poison you guys with a very high potency remedy (reversible of course).

....snip...

i wonder why some english homeopath has not offered to dose randi with a 100M remedy -- every day for 6 months? would randi allow it?

Well why don't you find one to try it? I for one am more then happy to act as a guinea-pig for any homeopathic magic.

I've been a volunteer several times in the past for people who wanted to "prove" that their magic worked so I've no problem acting as a volunteer for your type of magic.

[MRC_Hans]

Jesh. Gold, the word is not "know", its "believe". Now, this is a scientific forum, with lots of people skilled at logical reasoning. Why don't you stop waffling around, and present some evidence?

Any evidence will do. And could you make up your mind: Do homeopathic drugs produce symptoms in healthy people or do they not? (Hint: if you answer "not", you are denouncing on of the cornerstones of homeopathy, and contradicting Hahnemann.)


Finally, what would be the purpose of Randi or anybody else taking a remedy for six months?


Hans

[Rolfe]

I hope this has been helpful to Sorgoth (who started this thread) in understanding homoeopathy. For a demonstration of its essential "belief system" nature, I don't think Gold's contribution could be bettered.

I think one of the most disturbing aspects is this determined clinging to belief even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. No evidence at all to support homoeopathy is presented by Gold, except the continued, repeated insistence that she tried it herself, and "it worked". Or at least it seems to have worked for something, though other complaints have not yielded so readily.

The essay referred to at the start of the thread covered this aspect admirably.Suppose, then, a physician who has a hundred patients prescribes to each of them pills made of some entirely inert substance, as starch, for instance. Ninety of them get well, or if he chooses to use such language, he cures ninety of them. It is evident, according to the doctrine of chances, that there must be a considerable number of coincidences between the relief of the patient and the administration of the remedy. It is altogether probable that there will happen two or three very striking coincidences out of the whole ninety cases, in which it would seem evident that the medicine produced the relief, though it had, as we assumed, nothing to do with it. Now suppose that the physician publishes these cases, will they not have a plausible appearance of proving that which, as we granted at the outset, was entirely false?Homoeopathy fans, of course, are in a large part those who have experienced such a striking coincidence. They are a self-selecting sample. One of the "trolls" on the homoeopathy board compared it to a Lottery winners' club.

Gold is entirely deaf to any such suggestion. She "knows". She can't even quote any studies that might support her case. We know which studies she's referring to, because we've read them too, and we've discussed them with other homoeopaths. We also know the overwhelming body of evidence that says it does nothing. But Gold won't look at that either, because she "knows".

How is it that those who urge us to be "open-minded" in the examination of their claims, are the most closed-minded people on earth when it comes to considering the possibility that they themselves may be mistaken?

Rolfe.

PS. Still waiting to hear when it was that veterinary science told human medicine that it might be wrong about stomach ulcers. And ported from the Community forum discussion, the evidence that either of the TV expos&eacute;s of the degranulating basophils experiment were rigged to fail.

Gold seems happy to parrot any taradiddle told to her by her homoeopath friends (who don't seem too choosy about the truth), but won't even look at anything that might upset her pre-determined conclusion.

[Rolfe]

Sorry I just gotta post the next part of that quote, it's too relevant to leave out.Suppose that instead of pills of starch he employs microscopic sugarplums, with the five million billion trillionth part of a suspicion of aconite or pulsatilla, and then publishes his successful cases, through the leaden lips of the press, or the living ones of his female acquaintances, - does that make the impression a less erroneous one? But so it is that in Homoeopathic works and journals and gossip one can never, or next to never, find anything but successful cases, which might do very well as a proof of superior skill, did it not prove as much for the swindling advertisers whose certificates disgrace so many of our newspapers. How long will it take mankind to learn that while they listen to "the speaking hundreds and units, who make the world ring" with the pretended triumphs they have witnessed, the "dumb millions" of deluded and injured victims are paying the daily forfeit of their misplaced confidence!The utility of the "female acquaintances" in spreading the homeopaths' propaganda seems to be just as valuable today. (Sorry, that's not meant to be sexist, but Gold is such a living example it's hard not to point the parallel.)

Rolfe.

[geni]

Originally posted by Gold
radium therapy is a different situation. heck, people can make the same claim about antibiotics. --about how they were considered to be miracle drugs and how it was predicted that we would be able to wipe the palnet clean of any undesirable bacteria.

How is radium theropy different? Same claims same levl of evidence.

wrongo -- we have an even bigger problem on our hands due to bacteria mutating in various ways and becoming resistant.

Whoich means that we are back where we started so the net effect of antibitoics over time would be zero under your claim. Howver you have failed to consider the new antibiotics comeing online and the others being resurched.

if you were to ask your Queen how it worked you would get a similar answer as me. not really sure.

Get this; I don't care what the queen says.

however, i know that it does based on my experience. you know that it does not based on your experience (--reading and applying logic... not actual use)

Your experiance is entirly consistant with the p[lacebo effect and you know it.


people can trust their own experience even though it is wrong on occasion. should all your experiences be determined to be false.


Very funny. Experiance is subjective and is trumped by my objective evidence.

you are making claims based on ambiguous studies of homeoapthy -- some positive some negative.

I am makeing claims that are suporrted by science not just medical but biological chemical and physical. You are making a claim based on nothing more than your own experiance and we all know the value of that.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Rolfe

Gold seems happy to parrot any taradiddle told to her by her homoeopath friends (who don't seem too choosy about the truth), but won't even look at anything that might upset her pre-determined conclusion.

I already concluded Gold was a dog wagging her tail. Or rather, she is not a dog wagging her tail, but the tail itself being wagged by the dog.

[Gold]

what is with this "she" stuff? last time i checked i am a "he". a former construction company owner.

i don't care if you guys believe me or not but i used to be exactly like yourselves. science ruled -- it had to be proven or i would trash it -- i thought the homeopaths were as kooky as the astrologers, palm readers, psychics etc -- i bashed the "man walked with dinosaurs" people unmercifully.

right on down the line -- there was no difference between you and me.

the only difference is that i kept digging and digging for the answers on homeopathy. i went above and beyond what you people have done by forcing myself to conduct several trials. --and even after they kept coming back empty i forced myself to do more.

eventually the results became unmistakeable. i absolutely do not know why it works but it does work.

besides pamela anderson lee is into it and she is really hot.

the queen, cher -- i mean how much proof do you want?

but seriously --- it just works no matter how many failed experiments you can come up with. it works -------- unexplainable.

actually much of the negative clinical research can be explained by bach. also, the 20/20 experiment was a set up to begin with --- ammonium chloride????? you must be kidding?


( i read one of randi's quotes this morning about stating how the case is not closed yet -- that he thinks further study is necessary. i suspect that he has been bombarded with arguments and has a touch of skepticism himself -- maybe he has doubts in his convictions.)

[Gold]

Get this; I don't care what the queen says

this is too funny.

your queen must be crazy then -- or dumb. which is it. or gullible enough to get conned.

or maybe --just maybe this stuff works in some mysterious, unexplained manner that is kind of difficult to pick up on in testing.

--even though many studies ----well designed studies (linde)--- are very positive.

[geni]

Originally posted by Gold


right on down the line -- there was no difference between you and me.

the only difference is that i kept digging and digging for the answers on homeopathy. i went above and beyond what you people have done by forcing myself to conduct several trials. --and even after they kept coming back empty i forced myself to do more.

And yet the only studies you have been able to produce as Xanta are ones you cut and pasted off a website. You han't even read the full abstracts let alone the papers. That hardlyy shows any signs of real resurch. Soem of your recent posts as xanta show that you have an exreamly scetchy idea of what homeopathy is. You're story is not holding water (and your aproach to the idea that shinning light on someone's ear can make them better does not show any signs of sceptism).

eventually the results became unmistakeable. i absolutely do not know why it works but it does work.

But they are not unmistakeable are they. When we test them against a placebo we find no difference. If they are unmistakerble take the million go do it or don't you think you can?

besides pamela anderson lee is into it and she is really hot.

the queen, cher -- i mean how much proof do you want?

I will assume that that was a joke

but seriously --- it just works no matter how many failed experiments you caome up with it works -------- unexplainable.

Why excatly should I belive you? Once again read up on radium thearopy

actually much of the negative clinical research can be explained by bach.

No it can't I've seen her paragrim shift idea and it got taken to the cleaners by MRC_Hans over a hhbb

also, the 20/20 experiment was a set up to begin with --- ammonium chloride????? you must be kidding?

Provide a reference for this from a relible resourse.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Gold
what is with this "she" stuff? last time i checked i am a "he". a former construction company owner.

(snipped)

right on down the line -- there was no difference between you and me.

the only difference is that i kept digging and digging for the answers on homeopathy. i went above and beyond what you people have done by forcing myself to conduct several trials. --and even after they kept coming back empty i forced myself to do more.
(snipped)
besides pamela anderson lee is into it and she is really hot.

the queen, cher -- i mean how much proof do you want?

but seriously --- it just works no matter how many failed experiments you caome up with it works -------- unexplainable.

actually much of the negative clinical research can be explained by bach. also, the 20/20 experiment was a set up to begin with --- ammonium chloride????? you must be kidding?

He. Though I do know womenwho own construction companies of their own.
And then Gold mentions more celebrities who use homeopathy. And mentions they are hot. So he feels a need to guard his pride and show he's not so very female (or gay).

Why did you keep digging even when you found nothing? Sounds like were wanting to believe nad kept looking until you found something to believe in.

Tail. Wag. Dog.

[geni]

Originally posted by Gold


this is too funny.

your queen must be crazy then -- or dumb. which is it. or gullible enough to get conned.

Or maybe you are commiting this logiacl fallicy:

ad verecundiam or "Appeal to Authority" - committed when one attempts to support a conclusion by citing some person(s) who already asserts the same conclusion, but who is not qualified to assert that conclusion. (you can find a full list if these in forum help in the FAQ thread.

or maybe --just maybe this stuff works in some mysterious, unexplained manner that is kind of difficult to pick up on in testing.

For the 10^10^10th time provide evidence to back this up

--even though many studies ----well designed studies (linde)--- are very positive.

Now you really are grasping at straws (or didn't you read starburns sig)

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Gold
As far I as know the Queen has no relivant qualifcations as such I don't care what she does or says.

i find it to be rather humerous that the Queen of England knows something that you science skeptics don't -- that it does indeed work.

Long live the Queen.

i wonder if the Prince (charles??)knows it works. Tony Blair? probably not.

it works -- these people have experienced it and so they stay with it.
(snipped)

Geni: of course Gold's making logical fallacies. They're all over the place. It seems anyone who falls back "proof is in the pudding" and "celebrities use it" is grasping. Real scientists consider the Prince Charle's use of homeopathy, organic vegetables, etc as silly; neither Charles, nor Elizabeth have bring any awe to the scientific community. Tony Blair? Same thing.

And the 20/20 test? Just one test among many that failed. The procedure? The steps? The measurements? All the steps were overseen and approved by leading homeopathy advocates (in their countries). Maybe Gold should propose a better one... although how, I'm not sure, since Gold can only say "they worked but I'm not sure how" and all his tests failed themselves.

[Gold]

your logic seems very "logical". i have used it myself. --but for some reason it does not hold up.

think back over history. how many times have the men of science been so absolutely 100% positive that the "new idea" was absurd ---only to be discovered later that they were looking at the problem all wrong.

lack of scientific understanding means that many things are possible. you people have a closed mind just as i used to have,

concerning the ear thing -- i am skeptical but i have also had some very strange things happen at an NAET therapy session, but i was such a hostile skeptic that i got into a fight with the owner and her assistant. 2 days later i got a fedex envelope with my $200+ payment sent back to me. they wanted me gone.

i have close to 20 unexplainable strange phenomena that leads to the conclusion that chineses meridian /acupuncture theory is valid.

i have learned to shut my cynical mouth around the people who i used to label as kooks.

i did the legwork you didn't. i spent the money and the time on many therapies trying to systematically rule them out as being hoax.

chinese medicine, homeopathy are vaild.

[Gold]

and "celebrities use it" is grasping

suezoled,
if you can't tell that i am having fun with that then maybe you should re-take the autism test by that aussie guy's post.

(i wonder how many people end up with a lower score just to make themselves appear normal ---- "oh i love parties!!!" yeah well then why do you spend every waking hour on the computer?)

i answered it truthfully and the score was quite high..... filthy doctors with their mmr vaccines!!!

[no one in particular]

Originally posted by Gold

(i wonder how many people end up with a lower score just to make themselves appear normal ---- "oh i love parties!!!" yeah well then why do you spend every waking hour on the computer?)
'Cause they are not invited? At least, that is my reason.

[geni]

Originally posted by Gold
your logic seems very "logical". i have used it myself. --but for some reason it does not hold up.

Better philophers than you have produce this logic feel free to show flaws in it.

think back over history. how many times have the men of science been so absolutely 100% positive that the "new idea" was absurd ---only to be discovered later that they were looking at the problem all wrong.

And how many time has science been right?

lack of scientific understanding means that many things are possible. you people have a closed mind just as i used to have,

Form someone who endless states that homeopathy works and fails to back it up I find that ammussing. Tell me what would it take for me to convince you that homeopathy didn't work?

concerning the ear thing -- i am skeptical but i have also had some very strange things happen at an NAET therapy session, but i was such a hostile skeptic that i got into a fight with the owner and her assistant. 2 days later i got a fedex envelope with my $200+ payment sent back to me. they wanted me gone.

Yes they do seem to be afaride of people questioning them.

i have close to 20 unexplainable strange phenomena that leads to the conclusion that chineses meridian /acupuncture theory is valid.

List them I doubt that they are as in unexplainable as you think (remember if you went to a magic show you would be able to say the same thing)


i did the legwork you didn't. i spent the money and the time on many therapies trying to systematically rule them out as being hoax.

There are many types of legwork yours of course runs into the probelm that n=1 tests with no controlls have zero value (I can prove anything under those conditions)

chinese medicine, homeopathy are vaild.

Chinese medicine is a totaly different and more complex subject which is not rellivant. You have STILL failed to provide any half decent evidence for your claim regarding homeopathy.

[geni]

Originally posted by Gold

if you can't tell that i am having fun with that then maybe you should re-take the autism test by that aussie guy's post.

(i wonder how many people end up with a lower score just to make themselves appear normal ---- "oh i love parties!!!" yeah well then why do you spend every waking hour on the computer?)

This is a sceptics forum We know hat thew test has no real value so we don't care.

i answered it truthfully and the score was quite high..... filthy doctors with their mmr vaccines!!!

I would be very careful with statements like that on this forum unless you have the evidence to back them up.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Gold


suezoled,
if you can't tell that i am having fun with that then maybe you should re-take the autism test by that aussie guy's post.

(i wonder how many people end up with a lower score just to make themselves appear normal ---- "oh i love parties!!!" yeah well then why do you spend every waking hour on the computer?)

i answered it truthfully and the score was quite high..... filthy doctors with their mmr vaccines!!!

Gold,

You are so homeopathically wise Gold. So very... Tail of the Wagging Dog.

Now that you've added acupuncture and Eastern Medicine to your belief system.... and Reiki... you're just a load of alternative beliefs!

Do. You. Have. Proof?

[Gold]

And how many time has science been right? if you look at the history you would see that the men of science were wrong millions of times. repeatedly their theories, their certainties have not held up.

i am not anti-science but it no longer impresses me as it once did. i am now able to look much closer at the shortcomings.

i could post more studies but you would just slap a "appeal to ....blank" on it, or some other blanket dismissal. so what is the point.

i realize this is a big waste of time but i am enjoying it for the time being. who knows maybe the lightbulb will go on for one of you eggheads 10 years from now. with me it was a mass collection of little things that kept me digging for the truth.

plus, i was sick and modern medice was worthless, so i was forced to dig. you may say that i am resting false hope due to illness but the truth is that i have experienced the effects the same as....


.........your queenie!

[geni]

Originally posted by Gold
if you look at the history you would see that the men of science were wrong millions of times. repeatedly their theories, their certainties have not held up.

i am not anti-science but it no longer impresses me as it once did. i am now able to look much closer at the shortcomings.

Science is the most powerful system we have. Sure it's not perfect but it is better than anything else

i could post more studies but you would just slap a "appeal to ....blank" on it, or some other blanket dismissal. so what is the point.

More studies? You havn't posted any

i realize this is a big waste of time but i am enjoying it for the time being. who knows maybe the lightbulb will go on for one of you eggheads 10 years from now. with me it was a mass collection of little things that kept me digging for the truth.

Or a lighbulb migh go on in your head.


plus, i was sick and modern medice was worthless, so i was forced to dig. you may say that i am resting false hope due to illness but the truth is that i have experienced the effects the same as....

An yet homeopathy hasn't cured you and judging by some of your posts the symptoms are coming back

.........your queenie!

You're a multi-billionaire with a whole load of divorced kids?

[Gold]

i think that it was that i ran out of hope that modern medicine could help me ---- and when i ran out of hope i finally turned to the thing that i had INSISTED was a big joke --- homeopathy.

i mean i really was revolted by the idea of it, and that is why i put it off for so long (other than buying a $7.00 bottle at the local health food store now and then).

but it was a collection of postings on the internet that made me pause and think that maybe, just maybe i did not know as much as i thought i knew.

meanwhile the evidence kept coming in as semi-plausible -- i could not prove or disprove it. i eventually worked up the nerve and made the appointment. the rest is history.

the queen and i trust our experiences.

[Gold]

An yet homeopathy hasn't cured you and judging by some of your posts the symptoms are coming back

i don't BS. i tell it like it is. it has had a very narrow focus of action. the aggravations that it caused were unmistakeable.

it has had zero effects on my gut symptoms so far. i think that this is very important that i mention this fact of my gut symptoms.

i think it helps show how the results can be very dicey at best.

afterall, it is not a miracle. same with acupuncture -- it takes time.

[Lost Boy]

Originally posted by Gold
plus, i was sick and modern medice was worthless, so i was forced to dig.

But you still have unresponsive IBS. You fail even your own n=1 unblinded trial!

At least some of what you say makes us laugh unlike many of your po-faced fellow travellers, so stick around.

[geni]

Originally posted by Gold
but it was a collection of postings on the internet that made me pause and think that maybe, just maybe i did not know as much as i thought i knew.

Perhaps it's time to wounder if you still don't.

meanwhile the evidence kept coming in as semi-plausible -- i could not prove or disprove it. i eventually worked up the nerve and made the appointment. the rest is history.

You have failed to presentr this evidence. I have shown you some of mian you have failed to refute it.

the queen and i trust our experiences.

Then it is possible to push an egg through a wall. The laws of chance do not apply to packs of cards. It is posible to make that statue of liberty dissapear.

[geni]

Originally posted by Gold
i don't BS. i tell it like it is. it has had a very narrow focus of action. the aggravations that it caused were unmistakeable.

Can ou provide evidence to support the idea of aggravations?
I have evidence that htey don't exist:

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/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12725251&dopt=Abstract

and the important line:
In total, 50 aggravations were attributed to patients treated with placebo

The placebo can cause aggravations.

it has had zero effects on my gut symptoms so far. i think that this is very important that i mention this fact of my gut symptoms.

i think it helps show how the results can be very dicey at best.

afterall, it is not a miracle. same with acupuncture -- it takes time.

It takes excatly the same time as it takes a placebo.

[Gold]

Why did you keep digging even when you found nothing? Sounds like were wanting to believe nad kept looking until you found something to believe in. the reason i kept digging was because i have always been a very persistant person and every time i questioned something it always left a small amount of doubt in my mind. the more i questioned the more questions i had.

there was quite a bit of anger involved -- i took it personally that these 'kooks" would take advantage of sick people.

but since i was sick and needed a way out i continued to explore every nook and cranny of both western medicine and alternative medicine. eventually my efforts paid off.

no -- i did not drag a fine tooth comb over every study i came across and i am glad i did not. besides i already had my mind made up that it would not work. i had numerous scenarios on why it would not work. numerous inconsistancies. --and yet something does indeed happen. it has to be physics related -- only thing i can come up with.

[Gold]

concerning aggravations, my guess is that the sicker you are the more likely that these will happen.

eventually i will understand these issues better. i will admit that i am mystified as to what goes on when perfectly healthy people take a remedy and nothing or something happens. i don't understand it.

i have raised these questions to others recently on hpathy.

[geni]

Originally posted by Gold
the reason i kept digging was because i have always been a very persistant person and every time i questioned something it always left a small amount of doubt in my mind. the more i questioned the more questions i had.

Is there any doubt in your mind now that it does not work and if not why not? Once again what would I have to doe to make you decide that it does not work?

there was quite a bit of anger involved -- i took it personally that these 'kooks" would take advantage of sick people.

I would argue that they are taking advantage of you even to the point of getting you to fight thier battles for them (notice none of the others are ever here).

but since i was sick and needed a way out i continued to explore every nook and cranny of both western medicine and alternative medicine. eventually my efforts paid off.

But you admit that you are still sick

no -- i did not drag a fine tooth comb over every study i came across and i am glad i did not. besides i already had my mind made up that it would not work. i had numerous scenarios on why it would not work. numerous inconsistancies. --and yet something does indeed happen.

Prove it. Come on homeopathy has been around for 200 years surly it has some evidence that can stand up to a modicome of scrutiny.

it has to be physics related -- only thing i can come up with.

Before we start looking for explanations you need to establish that the effect is there. You have failed to do this.

[geni]

Originally posted by Gold
concerning aggravations, my guess is that the sicker you are the more likely that these will happen.

I'm not interested in your guesses allthough what you descripe sounds very like the sicker the person is the less likly they are to get better when you give them sugar and water.

eventually i will understand these issues better. i will admit that i am mystified as to what goes on when perfectly healthy people take a remedy and nothing or something happens. i don't understand it.

there are a few theories but they are internaly inconsistant

i have raised these questions to others recently on hpathy.

And what will you do If the people there can't answer them?

[Rolfe]

Gold's stream-of-consciousness is beginning to wear me down, I'm afraid. I just have trouble keeping up.

I'm with Geni. I don't care what the Queen thinks. If her great-great-whichever grandmother hadn't been so uncritical, a lot of trouble would have been averted. But woo-woo-ism seems to be hereditary in that family. Fortunately, they have enough real doctors that if she ever gets anything serious you can flat guarantee Peter Fisher won't be allowed within a mile of her. It was ever thus. Important people can have their little hobbies, but when they're sick it's a different matter. Didn't notice Tony Blair taking acupuncture for his paroxysmal tachycardia, or running to the London Homoeopathic Hospital when he had the stomach pains!Gold: --even though many studies ----well designed studies (linde)--- are very positive.Wow, the first (very sketchy) actual reference to an actual trial. This is what Gold is talking about. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9310601&dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000)INTERPRETATION: The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition.Yes, this is the very best they can come up with. If this is "very positive", I'm a Chinaman's uncle. This was a meta-analysis, and it included a number of papers by convinced homoeopaths which in retrospect had not really been assessed properly as regards controls and blinding and outcome measures. Further analysis of the same data (this is a good example (http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/alternat/homequal.html)) reveals the problems, and the verdict of one analyst (a professor who did his residency in a homoeopathic hospital and who is one of the editorial board of the journal Homeopathy) was:Viewed in this way, the reanalysis.... can be seen as the ultimate epidemiological proof that homeopathic remedies are, in fact, placebos.This is Gold's best!

Not only that, it is the most recent of the ones the homoeopaths dare to cite. And it is now over six years old. The authors suggested that more, better-quality research should be done. A lot has in fact been done (apply to Geni for list of links and pithy quotes from the abstracts). Nothing. Zip. Nada.

As Geni has asked several times, is there anything at all that could happen that you would accept as evidence that homoeopathy doesn't work? Patient gets better, it works. Patient gets worse, oh, an aggravation, remedy is clearly affecting the patient. Nothing happens, try another remedy until something does. In the end of course something will always happen.

Or, try a self-proving. Nothing happening? Oh, you haven't taken the right dose. Or the right remedy. Or taken it for long enough (funny, the homoeopaths consulted in one of those papers agreed in advance that two days a week should be enough to get proving symptoms). Or would you mind answering this very detailed questionnaire about the past few weeks? Oh, you had a headache Sunday morning? That's it then, you proved. No, the bottle of vodka you drank on Saturday night had nothing to do with it. YOU PROVED! Told you you would! Never fails!

Oh yes, not finished yet.Gold: also, the 20/20 experiment was a set up to begin with --- ammonium chloride????? you must be kidding?Gold, stop that! You have already been asked to cite your source for that allegation, preferably something credible. Do I have to accuse you of spreading lies yet again?

If that experiment had been falsified, it would be impossible to keep that quiet. Same with the BBC version of the same thing. It would make the Andrew Gilligan "sexing up" story look like a small slip of the tongue. I'm afraid I can have no respect for people who parrot lies without question when they happen to suit their world-view, but refuse even to look at well-respected publications which don't.

And talking of parroting lies, you still haven't enlightened me as to when and where and who it was in the veterinary profession who ever suggested to the human-type gastroenterologists that their take on the causes of peptic ulcer disease might need a re-think. Good parrot, Gold. Try checking your facts next time.

:nope:

Rolfe.

[Suezoled]

Not all evidence is equal. Not all posters can realize this without someone spelling it out for them. And not everyone can understand when they are merely the dog, or even less, the tail of the dog being wagged.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Gold

no -- i did not drag a fine tooth comb over every study i came across and i am glad i did not. besides i already had my mind made up that it would not work. i had numerous scenarios on why it would not work. numerous inconsistancies. --and yet something does indeed happen. it has to be physics related -- only thing i can come up with.

Enough of the bullsh!t. You're not fooling anyone here. No one believes your ridiculous story of the skeptic that now is convinced based on your own "cure". And your additional plugs for acupuncture and TCM only add fuel to the fire that you're a liar and a fraud.

[Gold]

And your additional plugs for acupuncture and TCM only add fuel to the fire that you're a liar and a fraud.

(yawn) prove it

[BTox]

The proof is in your posts. Try proving your inane claims. I won't hold my breath waiting...

[Gold]

Btox says........... only add fuel to the fire that you're a liar and a fraud. only add fuel to the fire that you're a liar and a fraud.

only add fuel to the fire that you're a liar and a fraud.

liar? fraud?

[Quasi]

I think one of the other interesting points Gold makes is a recurring theme in Alternative proofs. It is that science has been wrong, and has had crazy ideas that were rejected at first. Several good examples come to mind- Einsteins rejection of quantum physics, Hawkings discovery that black holes emmit radiation etc. However, Gold does not relalize that one, day to day scientists are wrong about a lot of things, which is why we need to do experiments to test our ideas. Publications only show the core of the research, and never include the many dead ends which were abandoned over months of research to make a six page document with pictures. And two, that Gold fails to see, which is obvious to many of us, is that CAM rarely tests for falsifiability and when it is proven false, they do not change their ideas or abandon failed practices. Just read what Pam Anderson admits- she will only live for a few years more because of a Hep C infection. Wait! She is on homeopathy so she will be cured, right? Wrong, she will die. How do you and homeopaths explain this total utter failure? How do you explain the fact that homeopaths still claim Hahnemann invented homeopathy? Once the facade starts to fall, you see the man behind the curtain. Essentially you are infrerring that CAM practitioners are never wrong. By attacking science, and making medical claims for CAM you are practicing what I call Passive Extortion. Essentially you are threatening people in the third person to avoid being accused of mafia like tactics. This is also similar to many religions claiming if you do not belong you will roast in hell forever, so when the collection plate goes around give and give generously. Most people do not stop and think "Gee there are so many mutually exclusive religions, how can they all be the one true faith?" Similarly, homeopathy (which claims all other medical modalities are allopathic,) chiropractic (all diseases caused by subluxations,) ayurvedic (all diseases caused by unaligned prahna flowing through the chakras,) etc. are also all mutually exclusive, however they are often all practiced at CAM centers. Hmmm. A little suspicious. I know, for marketing purposes, they have chosen to ignore their own dogma, but really people. I suppose in the end many people fall into the induction trap, where subjective experiences of deliberately engineered illusions appear real.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Gold
liar? fraud? You have made two assertions that I claim are lies, and will continue to claim are lies until you provide evidence.repeatedly the vets would bring this issue to researchers concerning human ulcers......To the best of my knowledge, nobody in the veterinary profession ever tried to persuade the medical profession that they were in error as regards the cause of human peptic ulcers. Gold lies.the 20/20 experiment was a set up to begin with --- ammonium chloride????? you must be kidding?This is a serious allegation, for which there is not the slightest evidence. None of the people actually involved in the exercise on the homoeopathy side have made any complaint to the broadcasting authorities. Gold lies.

Gold is a liar.

Rolfe.

[Prester John]

Not very impressive Gold. This thread has gone on for ages and you've yet to produce evidence to back your claims of efficacy for homeopathy.

I am suprised (well not really) that homeopathy has done nothing to help your IBS symptoms as it provides a cure for diseases and doesn't just prolong the symptoms as allopathic medicine does.

Homeopathy strikes me as a faith based system. It continues to believe in itself despite the lack of evidence for its effectiveness. What makes it difficult to argue with homeopaths is that they very often keep moving the target. I have yet to see an in depth debate about homeopathy that doesn't drift into medicine is bad, science/you doesn't/can't understand, or meaningless reasons as to why the questions are irrelevant and won't be answered.

[Suezoled]

Reiterating: just because Gold presents some pro-homeopathy/alternative "medicine" "evidence" doesn't make it equal to the many trials that were run at, say, Johns Hopkins Medical Center. Gold doesn't and can't recognize that all evidence is not equal. This in itself indicates Gold wasn't a skeptic to begin with.

[Starrman]

but i do know that this system of inducing some change (good, bad, dangerous) does exist.

This is actually true. Before I drink the magic water I feel quite normal. Not long after drinking it, I have to pee.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Starrman
This is actually true. Before I drink the magic water I feel quite normal. Not long after drinking it, I have to pee. Get real, Starrman! How much magic water do you think is involved here?

Actually, it's usually dehydrated magic water too, a drip of the stuff on a little sugar pill, let it evaporate, and take the pill. So much for the memory of water!

Except that I've seen some of them on the homoeopathy boards talking about "plussing" a remedy, by dissolving the magic sugar pill in some entirely new water and starting again. That was a new one on me.

Hey, like Geni said, you didn't expect this to make sense, did you?

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

I'm bored. Where's Gold gone?

Rolfe.

[geni]

Originally posted by Rolfe
I'm bored. Where's Gold gone?


Gold's normal posting time is sometime after midnight so if gold id still around you may have to wait a bit.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by geni


Gold's normal posting time is sometime after midnight so if gold id still around you may have to wait a bit. Oh, she'll just have to look for the last post where I called her a liar.

What is it with these airheads that they'll trot out any blatant nonsense fed to them by their lying homoeopath gurus, without question, but can't recognise a valid argument when it bites them on the ankle?

What was her reason for not wanting the JREF million dollars, again?

Rolfe.

[Suezoled]

Um, Rolfe, they're never in it "for the money" as that would be greedy. They don't have to "prove themselves" after a while. And they don't really answer the question of donating the million dollars to a charitable organization. They ad hoc at that point. Or ad hominem. Or declare that no true scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Rolfe
*snip*
Except that I've seen some of them on the homoeopathy boards talking about "plussing" a remedy, by dissolving the magic sugar pill in some entirely new water and starting again. That was a new one on me.

*snip*
Rolfe. Actually thats in the Organon. Then you succuss it ten times and it gets stronger.

More interesting is the notion of "grafting" (I think that is on the HHBB): You take a tablet (lactose with homeopathic med), put in a container with some lactose tablets add a bit of medium and let it dry. Now all the tablets are active! :rolleyes: .... That is NOT in the Organon ;).

All rituals, as Trinity would say.

Hans

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Suezoled
Um, Rolfe, they're never in it "for the money" as that would be greedy.Actually, the latest is to ask how many provings they'd have to do in order to satisfy the statistics for the definitive test. Answer is somewhere in the region of ten, which could be reduced a bit but at the expense of having to correctly identify a lot more sham preparations. They then announce that they couldn't possibly make themselves sick that many times.

I'm pretty sure that's why Gold came on declaring that homoeopathy is poewrful but dangerous, so she could say she wouldn't put herself at risk even for the million bucks. Except she changed her mind about the "don't touch it, it's not safe" part. She was only joking or something. In that case, go for it, why not?

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Suezoled
Um, Rolfe, they're never in it "for the money" as that would be greedy.Actually, the latest excuse for not taking the test is to ask how many provings they'd have to do in order to satisfy the statistics for the definitive test. Answer is somewhere in the region of ten, which could be reduced a bit but at the expense of having to correctly identify a lot more sham preparations. They then announce that they couldn't possibly make themselves sick that many times.

I'm pretty sure that's why Gold came on declaring that homoeopathy is powerful but dangerous, so she could say she wouldn't put herself at risk even for the million bucks. Except she changed her mind about the "don't touch it, it's not safe" part. She was only joking or something. In that case, go for it, why not?

Rolfe.

[Suezoled]

Is it? Well I don't like being out of the loop Rolfe. I feel so... yesterday's fashions!

[Prester John]

Oh, in answer to the threads title: A fiction that robs sick people of their money.

I'd just like to say hi to Cha Cha, Barb, Xanta and all the othere homeopaths who are reading this thread, and invite you all to participate. Don't worry we won't threaten to ban you for your point of view.

PJ

[Rolfe]

I'm sorry about the double post, but the system froze and I couldn't get back in in time to delete it before the hour's deadline. If a kind mod is listening, could you kill the first one? The second is slightly edited.

(Damn and blast Steve Grenard and his revisionism, it's all his fault we're locked out of our posts an hour after posting and can't even perform simple housekeeping tasks like this. And now he's slunk off in the huff without even coming back to us on that provings paper he was so sure must be defective if only he could get the full text. Grumble, complain.)

By the way, talking of the homoeopathy forums (or the "brain donors" as "Jazz Bee" likes to call them) and attitudes to money, take a look at ChaChaHeels/Divina's opinion (http://www.homeopathyhome.com/ultimate/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000394#000007): homeopathy will continue to grow and attract new patients as the internet becomes more and more accessible to more people. It's definitely become a powerful enough force to terrify conventional meds, with all its money and power. Well, she can correctly differentiate between "it's" and "its", but still, again quoting Jazz Bee, "What a depressingly stupid robot."

Remember, homoeopathy started life inside organised medicine. If it actually worked it would have stayed there. Even now, it still has a small (but vocal) foothold there, with a bunch of qualified medics and vets irrationally practising it alongside what they were trained to do. The reason it has become largely the provenance of amateurs is simply that it doesn't work, and most of medicine is supremely uninterested in it.

If there was any reason to suspect that it did actually work (about as likely as the sun rising in the west tomorrow but never mind), "conventional" medicine could and would have it back inside the fold before you could say "succuss and dilute", and the remedies would be prescription-only. Not only is it unlikely that ChaChaHeels will ever put the local doctors out of business, it's irrational even to imagine that's possible.

And if the remedies really can do harm, as they all insist they can (http://www.homeopathyhome.com/ultimate/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000396), they should be banned from using them to treat people anyway.

Rolfe.

[Suezoled]

[quote] Not only is it unlikely that ChaChaHeels will ever put the local doctors out of business, it's irrational even to imagine that's possible. /[quote]


*sighs* if Rolfe had as much affection for me as obviousy has for Chachaheels, I would be a happy little dragon. ;)


Rolfe, they believe the medical companies are in it for the money. They believe homeopathy works but can't prove it. Is it so unreasonable to assume they will have a growing legion of devoted homeopaths "thanks to the internet" and shove mainstream medicine out of the way? They are infiltrating mainstream, IRL. Why shouldn't they dream of world conquest? Blow homeopathy's effectiveness out of proportion. Blow the flaws of Mainstream Med out of proportion. Blow the population who support homeopathy out of proportion. Part of success is sometimes attitude; I hate that.

[Suezoled]

sighs* if Rolfe had as much affection for me as obviousy has for Chachaheels, I would be a happy little dragon.

I'm just teasing ya Rolfe

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Suezoled
Rolfe, they believe the medical companies are in it for the money. They believe homeopathy works but can't prove it. Is it so unreasonable to assume they will have a growing legion of devoted homeopaths "thanks to the internet" and shove mainstream medicine out of the way? They are infiltrating mainstream, IRL. Why shouldn't they dream of world conquest? Blow homeopathy's effectiveness out of proportion. Blow the flaws of Mainstream Med out of proportion. Blow the population who support homeopathy out of proportion. Part of success is sometimes attitude; I hate that. Yeah, why assume they're going to think logically in this way, they sure don't think logically in any other. But I don't think attitude is going to bring this lot any success.

And while we're on the subject of "in it for the money", have you any idea how much their tiddly little pots of sugar pills actually cost? And I saw one poster there complaining that a consultation he had booked was going to cost him $450, then $300 per follow-up. Nice work if you can get it!

Nevertheless, have you seen how dead that board is since they banned the "trolls" (definition of "troll, anyone who doesn't fully accept the efficacy of homoeopathy without expressing a syllable of doubt)? There's nobody there. Navel-gazing isn't in it.

Suezoled, I love you like a sister. :rub:

Rolfe.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Yeah, why assume they're going to think logically in this way, they sure don't think logically in any other. But I don't think attitude is going to bring this lot any success.

And while we're on the subject of "in it for the money", have you any idea how much their tiddly little pots of sugar pills actually cost? (snipped)

Nevertheless, have you seen how dead that board is since they banned the "trolls" (definition of "troll, anyone who doesn't fully accept the efficacy of homoeopathy without expressing a syllable of doubt)? There's nobody there. Navel-gazing isn't in it.

Suezoled, I love you like a sister. :rub:

Rolfe.

Well Rolfe, they're not in it for the money. They are doing it out of love for their fellow ailing man, and I'm sure they send that $300 or whatnot to save the Tibetan Mountains or something. Pure humanism. And of course, Rolfe, all the remedies are tailor-made for the specific person; unique to all the world (unlike those mass produced pre-measured doses of drugs made in far away companies). That, and special consultation, and monitoring progress.... it costs money, much as I'm sure they want to desperately do it all for free.

Someone once has a poster on their wall, and it essentially said: "Attitude will triumph. If you have the right attitude, it even overcomes facts." Alternative medicine people seem to have that mentality.

[Prester John]

Gold popped in earlier, but obviously had no the time to post.:D

[Johnny Pneumatic]

What IS homeopathy?-sorgoth




the most expensive water you can buy.

[Gold]

Gold popped in earlier, but obviously had no the time to post yeah, i hop around in the science forum. i find a lot of it interesting. i told you that i am one of you but most of you choose to see me different just because.......

...........just because i happened to discover ---same as the Queen--- that somehow, someway (some rather mysterious way) this stuff works. absolutely can not explain it but it does.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Gold
just because i happened to discover ---same as the Queen


What is this thing you have about the Queen? The British monarch is not elected on the basis of intellectual credentials. The narrowness of the family tree might suggest, rather, the converse tendency.

[MRC_Hans]

Gold, seriously: You are not a skeptic. Fine, you have had some experiences that intrigue you and make you feel there might be something to homeopathy. No problem about that! But facts do not come in different versions. This is not a religious issue, you are making a claim about the real world, and its a testable claim. If you call yourself a skeptic, you can't shy away from assessing evidence, and you can't shy away from seriously questioning your belief when heavy evidence is presented against it.

And, your reference to the English queen is ridiculous. That is what we call "appeal to false authority". Since that lady has no medical education, she is not an authority on homeopathy. As an aside, I personally doubt that she is an authority on anything much, but thats another story ;).

Hans

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Sceptical friends: this is Lost Boy, by the way. My account was screwed up by the crash and even Hal can't reactivate it so I re-registered.

I'll e-mail Rolfe in real the real world, so I can be vouched for if necessary.

By the way, I hadn't checked my PMs for a while before the crash, so if any required answers please resend them.

[Eos of the Eons]

I like this article on homeopathy:

http://www.geocities.com/healthbase/homeopathy_memory.html

:D

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Gold
yeah, i hop around in the science forum. i find a lot of it interesting. i told you that i am one of you but most of you choose to see me different just because.......

...........just because i happened to discover ---same as the Queen--- that somehow, someway (some rather mysterious way) this stuff works. absolutely can not explain it but it does.

Is there a fallacy called "I'm a true Scottsman?" Cuz I think i'm seeing it here.

[Gold]

clinical studies....some positive some negative.

many reasons have been given for some of the ambiguity. homeopathy is a little harder to validate than antibiotics and the effect that they have on an animal/human.

with homeopathy, there is a lot of murkiness in the data due to its subjectiveness.

the biggest problem with homeopathy is that you can't treat all subjects as though they are carbon copies of one another. human variability causes problems. incorrect remedies for a given person will muck up any study.

i can understand everyone's firmly entrenched resistance to homeopathy; i had it too. in fact, the realization that it works has been one of the most shocking things that i have ever discovered.

are we all crazy or have we discovered something that science has yet to explain and validate?

maybe --just maybe science has great difficulty with an oddball, fickle healing method like homeopathy.

[Prester John]

Fine, but a well designed study will get around the problems. The effects of homeopathy are so remarkable anecdotally, yet disapear when examined scientifically. Even if a homeopath helps design the study.

[geni]

Originally posted by Gold
clinical studies....some positive some negative.

many reasons have been given for some of the ambiguity. homeopathy is a little harder to validate than antibiotics and the effect that they have on an animal/human.

with homeopathy, there is a lot of murkiness in the data due to its subjectiveness.
or because homeopaths are good at coming up with excuses (hint they tend not to ojecyt to trials untill after the results come in why do you thinik that is)

the biggest problem with homeopathy is that you can't treat all subjects as though they are carbon copies of one another. human variability causes problems. incorrect remedies for a given person will muck up any study.

So we test for proving effects or aloew indivdualsation. I have studies that have tried both aproaches. they have not produced posertive results.

i can understand everyone's firmly entrenched resistance to homeopathy; i had it too. in fact, the realization that it works has been one of the most shocking things that i have ever discovered.


Perhaps it is time that you relise that the placebi can have the same effect.

are we all crazy or have we discovered something that science has yet to explain and validate?

All the avaible evidence say that you are mistaken.

maybe --just maybe science has great difficulty with an oddball, fickle healing method like homeopathy.

Or almost certianly there are no healing effects of homeopathy beyond the placebo effect.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Gold
[quote]
many reasons have been given for some of the ambiguity. homeopathy is a little harder to validate than antibiotics and the effect that they have on an animal/human.

with homeopathy, there is a lot of murkiness in the data due to its subjectiveness.

the biggest problem with homeopathy is that you can't treat all subjects as though they are carbon copies of one another. human variability causes problems. incorrect remedies for a given person will muck up any study.
You assume mainstream medicine treats all its patients as carbon copies? Homeopathy has been around longer than mainstream medicine. It's had far longer to prove itself. It has had ample opportunity and studies and financial backing to yield a result. Where is the proof?



i can understand everyone's firmly entrenched resistance to homeopathy; i had it too. in fact, the realization that it works has been one of the most shocking things that i have ever discovered.

are we all crazy or have we discovered something that science has yet to explain and validate?

maybe --just maybe science has great difficulty with an oddball, fickle healing method like homeopathy.

You're still not a true Scotsman.
And yes, there is plenty science can't explain. But as it is a self-correcting system, things are discovered, discarded, or moved into the realm of acceptability daily. Hourly.
And if it's really oddball and fickle, not just "dangerous" like you originally said, why use a method that can't even staticically state what would or would not fail a person?

[Gold]

Please take the time to carefully read the Lancet study, which probably summarizes all the issues better than any other single study. Many of the points being brought up here are already well-addressed in that article. If nothing else, the article provides a unique opportunity to try and discount each and every one of the positive studies which comprise the meta-analysis (yes, they included negative ones, too!). One can also keep in mind the criteria the authors used for inclusion, and the factors accounted for to avoid biased results.

Critics' letters to the Lancet stated the meta-analysis was completely state of the art, and yet 1) the results couldn't possibly be true, 2) the idea that more study is needed would be a waste of resources, and 3) the results bring the validity of double-blind studies into question.

This is the reception granted to a study printed in the Lancet, a major peer-reviewed journal. It was conducted by Klaus Linde, MD, a well-respected researcher within conventional medical circles. The belief that a positive study by homeopaths would be received more favorably is unfounded at best.

From this post (http://www.hpathy.com/FORUM/display_topic_threads.asp?ForumID=2&TopicID=985&ReturnPage=&PagePosition=1&ThreadPage=1#10658)

<table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=4 bgcolor=#333333 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=#333333><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#ffffff size=1>Edited by Upchurch:</font></td></tr><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=black size=2>This post has been edited to comply with forum rules.

As always, this decision may be appealed to Hal Bidlack (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/private.php?s=&action=newmessage&userid=1753)[/i]</font></td></tr></table>

[Suezoled]

http://www.heall.com/body/altmed/treatment/homeopathy/lancet.html

consider the source: pro alternative med

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9310601&dopt=Abstract

A truer interpretation of the study

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Gold
Or actually, not originally posted by Gold. (http://www.hpathy.com/FORUM/display_topic_threads.asp?ForumID=2&TopicID=985&ReturnPage=&PagePosition=1&ThreadPage=1#10658)If that link doesn't go directly to the post, you're looking for the one by David Johnson, which is about half way down the page.

Unless Gold is David Johnson, which I rather doubt because she's already claimed to be a different poster from that forum (and anyway this lot seems way to literate for Gold's usual style), this is a serious breach of the plagiarism rules.

I won't stoop to Gold's level by plagiarising the reply some way below that, but it's basically this link (http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/band116/b116-8.html).

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

You know, I'm getting sick and tired of hearing about that Linde meta-analysis. Not because it's so great, but because it's so much nothing, and because it's all most homoeopaths can seem to talk about. I've had it cited to me more times than I've had hot dinners. And it doesn't get any more impressive the longer you look at it.INTERPRETATION: The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition.That's the best the homoeopaths can some up with in a reputable journal to support their position. It's six years old, and although quite a lot of the further research they advocate has ben done, it's all been pretty much negative. Not only that, re-analysis of the actual studies Linde looked at has shown that the better quality the trial the more likely it is to show no effect (that's the article I linked to in the previous post).There were six re-analyses of the original meta-analysis. These showed that more rigorous study design was associated with less effect, making the overall effect insignificant.

A further 11 systematic reviews published between 1997 and 2001 were located. They were carried out in different conditions with different homeopathic remedies. Conditions included postoperative ileus, delayed onset muscle soreness, migraine, influenza, asthma, rheumatic conditions and osteoarthritis. The number of patients for each condition was as small as 150 and as large as 3,400.

None of these systematic reviews provided any convincing evidence that homeopathy was effective for any condition. The lesson was often that the best designed trials had the most negative result.These people keep telling us how great homoeopathy is. What a wonderful healing method. Look at all these miracle cures! If you follow CCH, she thinks that regular medicine has never helped anyone, and only homoeopathy can truly heal disease.

If it's so great, how come they can't find even one simple, self-evident effect that can't be quibbled or nit-picked away? This isn't just one questionable drug we're talking about here, it's an entire system of medicine. An entire system without anything at all that can be seen without statistical ambiguity.

Wow.

Rolfe.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Gold
[B]Please take the time to carefully read the Lancet study

Your naivety is exemplified better than I can otherwose explain by your referring to it as "the Lancet study" as if there was no other and as if The Lancet in some way itself lends some official authority to the contents of a single paper published therein.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by David Johnson
This is the reception granted to a study printed in the Lancet, a major peer-reviewed journal. It was conducted by Klaus Linde, MD, a well-respected researcher within conventional medical circles. The belief that a positive study by homeopaths would be received more favorably is unfounded at best. No, David, Gold et al. The reason this study was picked to pieces was that there was essentially nothing there. People are looking for solid evidence, and if there isn't any, that tends to be frowned on.

If anyone, committed homoeopath or not, produces clear-cut evidence in a well-designed study, it will be listened to. Don't blame your lack of message for your poor reception.

And by the way, I found the other follow-up page about the Linde paper. Here. (http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/alternat/homequal.html) This quote is actually from a researcher who did his training in a homoeopathic hospital and has studied the subject in great depth:Some (but by no means all) methodologically astute and highly convincing homeopaths have published results that look convincing but are, in fact, not credible. Viewed in this way, the reanalysis.... can be seen as the ultimate epidemiological proof that homeopathic remedies are, in fact, placebos.If it's that good, show us something we won't be able to ignore. Perhaps I could repeat my own earlier quote (http://www.hpathy.com/FORUM/display_topic_threads.asp?ForumID=8&TopicID=979&PagePosition=1&ThreadPage=2#10643) from the forum Gold is so fond of.Find 20 or 30 homeopaths, people who are confident of their own ability to "prove" a remedy of their choice, and recognise whether the proving effect is happening or not. Let each of them choose their own remedy, potency (over 12C) and dose regimen. Prepare the remedies according to their instructions. However, only half of them get the actual remedies, the other half get an identical placebo made from the appropriate stock solvent. Each of them has, say, a month (two months? - I suppose you have to call time at some point, that’s all) to come back and say which they got.I've already said I'd sit up and take notice if the homoeopaths could do that (without cheating). What's so hard? Why try to sweat the statistics of marginal, clinically insignificant trials, when you could easily "prove" it to all of us?

Unless you can't, of course.

Rolfe.

[Suezoled]

The belief that a positive study by homeopaths would be received more favorably is unfounded at best.

hey, if I'm willing to look at and accept a study from a magician/illusionsist/trickster, a homeopath conducting a fair study would receive the same attention and scrutiny.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Gold
Please take the time to carefully read the Lancet study, which probably summarizes all the issues better than any other single study. Many of the points being brought up here are already well-addressed in that article. If nothing else, the article provides a unique opportunity to try and discount each and every one of the positive studies which comprise the meta-analysis (yes, they included negative ones, too!). One can also keep in mind the criteria the authors used for inclusion, and the factors accounted for to avoid biased results.

Critics' letters to the Lancet stated the meta-analysis was completely state of the art, and yet 1) the results couldn't possibly be true, 2) the idea that more study is needed would be a waste of resources, and 3) the results bring the validity of double-blind studies into question.

This is the reception granted to a study printed in the Lancet, a major peer-reviewed journal. It was conducted by Klaus Linde, MD, a well-respected researcher within conventional medical circles. The belief that a positive study by homeopaths would be received more favorably is unfounded at best. <table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=4 bgcolor=#333333 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=#333333><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#ffffff size=1>Posted by Upchurch:</font></td></tr><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=black size=2>This post has been reported for plagerism.

Plagerism is not specifically against forum rules, but copyright infringement is. It is not clear that David Johnson on Hpathy Forums has given permission for Gold to use his words.

A PM will be sent to Gold to edit or site his post appropriately.

As always, this decision may be appealed to Hal Bidlack (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/private.php?s=&action=newmessage&userid=1753)[/i]</font></td></tr></table>

[Gold]

unbelievable!

originally when i wrote it i had put ---- (from dj) at the very top and then i posted it.

i edited it to bold the one sentence. then i tried highlighting it in blue but instead it just copied itself (or doubled) ------ so then i erased everything and started from scratch and that is when i forgot to include the -- (from dj) at the top.

besides, you petty people, ........... i had done an exhaustive job of addressing the issue back in december as my thread shows below.

http://www.hpathy.com/FORUM/display_topic_threads.asp?ForumID=8&TopicID=768&ReturnPage=&PagePosition=1&ThreadPage=5


J. Kleijnen, P. Knipschild, G. ter Riet,

Clinical Trials of Homeopathy

British Medical Journal, February 9, 1991, 302:316-323.

This is the most widely cited meta-analysis of clinical research prior to 1991. This meta-analysis reviewed 107 studies of homeopathic medicines, 81 of which (or 77%) showed positive effect. Of the best 22 studies, 15 showed efficacy. The researchers concluded: "The evidence presented in this review would probably be sufficient for establishing homeopathy as a regular treatment for certain indications." Further, "The amount of positive evidence even among the best studies came as a surprise to us."

____________________________________

Starburn,

One of the bigger critics of the above meta-analysis is Klaus Linde. You posted his paper which acknowledges that the evidence supports the hypothesis that homeopathy is effective.

However, Klaus is so dead against homeopathy that he goes on to state all the reasons why the results are inaccurate. His reasons are absurd.

His most ridiculous argument is that according to Bayesian scientists the studies on homeopathy should NEVER take place at all. The reason they should never take place is because – "everyone knows that homeopathy is a fake; therefore, if hundreds of double blind, placebo controlled experiments show efficacy then this is terribly dangerous".

The reason it is terribly dangerous is because we know that homeopathy is a fake. Once again, it does not matter if 100,000 studies prove that it is effective --- it is still a fake, and the studies should NEVER take place.

Klaus Linde sees the results of the meta-analysis but he can not deal with the conclusions so he must cling to his belief that every study – even the best – are faked. (klaus admits that the results support homeopathy)

This just goes to show that scientists can have the evidence jump right off the page and smack them right between the eyes, yet it fails to sway them due to bias.

In the end Klaus Linde nearly destroys much of what science/medicine is built around – the double blind, placebo controlled experiment.

[geni]

To quote from the conclusion of that study
CONCLUSIONS--At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homoeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1825800&dopt=Abstract

Hardly a ringing indorsement is it? And that study is over 10 years old got any more recent?

[geni]

Originally posted by Gold
unbelievable!

originally when i wrote it i had put ---- (from dj) at the very top and then i posted it.

i edited it to bold the one sentence. then i tried highlighting it in blue but instead it just copied itself (or doubled) ------ so then i erased everything and started from scratch and that is when i forgot to include the -- (from dj) at the top.

Then you will not make that mistake again?

besides, you petty people, ........... i had done an exhaustive job of addressing the issue back in december as my thread shows below.


Yes you coppied and pasted from a website somewhere and starburn systematicly went through and pointed out your selective quoteing which rather blew apart your case.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Gold
so then i erased everything and started from scratch and that is when i forgot to include the -- (from dj) at the top. I am now asking you to fix the mistake to keep the post in accord with forum rules. If you can not or don't know how, I will be happy do fix it for you.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Gold
This just goes to show that scientists can have the evidence jump right off the page and smack them right between the eyes, yet it fails to sway them due to bias.Just substitute the word "homoeopath" in there and you've got it about right.

Gold, when will it occur to you that you have to understand what you're asserting well enough to defend it? You continually post points made by others (whether correctly attributed or not), then fail to have even the slightest come-back when the fallacies are dissected out for you to see.

Have you yet realised that Klaus Linde didn't DO any experimental work in that paper? It's what is termed a "meta-analysis", where a group of scientists looks at all the earlier literature it can find, and tries to see if the totality of the work adds up to anything useful. This group seem to have been a bit trusting, and included anything that wasn't obviously blatantly biassed. They then said, "hmmm, somthing a bit funny going on here."

The trouble is, the thing that was "funny", though Linde was rather loath to admit it, was that he had included in good faith some studies by homoeopaths that seemed to show positive results, but when examined more closely were actually clever smoke-and-mirrors jobs. Maybe he just wasn't familiar with the homoeopath habit of telling lies - things like the BBC falsifying experiments, and Mark Twain and Marie Curie supporting homoeopathy, and vets having told gastroenterologists in the 1950s that they were wrong about the cause of human peptic ulcers, you know, that sort of thing.

This is so like the cold fusion d&eacute;b&acirc;cle. In about 1988 Fleischmann and Pons published a paper (and then a few more) apparently showing that they'd got a fusion reaction going at room temperature. Some scientists remarked that this was impossible, because the palladium lattice was too wide to bring the deuterium atoms close enought together.

However, there were the published results. Lots of people got really interested, and there were many attempts to try to replicate the effect. Some people thought they'd done it, others couldn't get anything to happen. But the positive experiments were all very different, with reactions happening at different times and different intensities and really nothing predictable going on. There was the occasional report of a big effect happening, but mostly it was tiny changes at unpredictable times. (This remind you of anything?)

The more work was done, the more confusing it got. People with a lot of expertise in electrochemistry started to design better experiments (closed cell instead of open calorimetry), and began to feel there was nothing there. Meanwhile Fleischman and Pons went on repeating the poor-quality open-calorimetry work and insisting that there was an effect.

In the end it was all shown to be a complete artefact, a combination of contamination of certain batches of palladium rods, and inaccurate open-cell measurements.

A lot of people had got very hot under the collar about it, and didn't like being shown to have been credulous fools, but in the end everybody had to accept the facts. This was inevitable, because, if your great energy source actually doesn't produce any energy, you're not going to be able to sell it to anyone. Also, few of the people involved had invested a religious level of commitment to the idea.

Homoeopathy perpetuates itself to some extent because the mammalian body has prodigious self-healing abilities, and it is relatively easy to find spontaneous recoveries to take credit for. But the main driving force is the religious belief in its efficacy held by the proponents, which makes them completely incapable of looking dispassionately at the evidence, and instead puts them in the position of physicists in 2004 who keep saying "But cold fusion is a real effect, look at those papers from 1988 that prove it," while resolutely refusing to look at the later accrual of evidence.

Rolfe.

[Phil63]

good grief - gold already stated who she is - not bach

[geni]

Has anyone refurded to gold as bach since gold declared that gold != bach?

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Phil63
good grief - gold already stated who she is - not bach

Gold thinks she's a he. Is gender dysmorphism an aggravation of homeopathic treatment? We should be told.

[Rolfe]

He or she, seems to have taken the weekend off. Any hope s/he's in a library somewhere trying to put together an argument that will stand up for more than a nanosecond?

Dammit, I could do a better job of putting the case for homoeopathy myself.

Rolfe.