The lawsuit against Winston is dropped

[WWu777]

Actually, it was dropped last Friday. Randi's lawyer emailed me last Friday morning and told me that after discussing it with Randi, they decided to drop the lawsuit against me. The day before that, I wrote them a letter apologizing for my mistake, clarifying that it was never my intention to defame Randi in that manner, and that it was an accident and mistake. They were reasonable about it, and decided to just let it go as a lesson that I learned about being more careful about what I post on the boards next time.

But anyway, I decided not to tell you folks right away since it seemed you were having too much fun making dire predictions about me. I figured that this lawsuit against me made your boring lives a little more interesting. And yes, it was amusing watching some of you make grim dire predictions about my situation, knowing full well I would have the last laugh in the end. It was quite amusing to say the least.

Also, I knew that some of you were delighted deep down that I seemed to be in trouble, and would delight at seeing me suffer damages from this. So I kind of didn't want to spoil it for them just yet.

But I couldn't be silent about it forever, so I think now's the time to spill the beans. The lawsuit is dropped and the fun is over.

But don't worry, if you ever get bored, you can always scroll through the exciting 800+ photo slides of my two Russia trip albums! Yipeeeeee! :) Here is the link to that again:

http://hometown.aol.com/wwu777/myhomepage/travel.html

And if you delight in seeing me suffer, you can read about my dramas again, seeing the black humor stories from my ex-fiancee Katya. lol

Anyway, I'm sorry if some of you are mad that I withheld the news from you until now. Only a few select among my comrades were informed last Friday. The rest of you, I decided to leave in the dark for a while.

Again, just for the record, my statement concerning this issue of defamation on this board is that I made a mistake, it was an accident, and that it was never my intention to defame Randi in that manner, and I will be more careful about what I post in the future, making sure not to do that again.

Regards,
Winston

[qII]

winston,

that sounds reasonable and i hope you will continue to post interesting information as you have done in the past.

since you did not write the things that were posted the case against you was very weak.

[thaiboxerken]

Wow, Randi was reasonable. That's a surprise. :rolleyes:

[Clancie]

Winston,

I never thought you'd wind up in court, but Randi was still quite benevolent in not making you squirm and worry about it longer.

I hope you can learn all future lessons so quickly and (relatively) painlessly.

:)

[qII]

Randi, they decided to drop the lawsuit against me. The day before that, I wrote them a letter apologizing for my mistake, clarifying that it was never my intention to defame Randi in that manner, and that it was an accident and mistake. They were reasonable about it, and decided to just let it go as a lesson that I learned about being more careful about what I post on the boards next time.

i wish i knew... did he do it because he is a nice guy? because he had a poor case? because a lawsuit is so draining?

anyway, apologizing was the correct thing to do even though randi does so many people wrong. i don't think he does it on purpose. i think that he and his minions are just clueless when it comes to the true nature of matter, energy, the human body. clueless as to the true reality of many unexplained matters.

i think that his mission is well meaning but his giant drag net snares too many legit researchers and legit phenomena.

he and his minions are clueless about homeopathy. 100,000 european doctors are not engaging in this treatment just to rip the patients off. they do it because it works.

5 lakh indian homeopaths are not screwing with the tens of millions of indians otherwise there would be no reason why the number would have swelled to 500,000.

ignorance is the root of all evil. evil is here at JREF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Kopji]

Well, amen to that.

[thaiboxerken]

he and his minions are clueless about homeopathy.

If only the evidence wasn't clueless about homeopathy as well. Homeopathy does NOT work, that is a fact.

[Suezoled]

*starts sprinkling salt to purify the area*

[Zep]

Winston,

If it is possible, would you please post a copy of the email from Randi's lawyer saying that the situation is resolved, complete with identification so it can be checked publicly.

thanks
Zep

PS. Kindly take your posts about your Russian trips elsewhere. Not only are they some of the most boring things on the Internet, you are spamming this forum with them once again. I understand the admins have been tolerant of you up to this point - so don't push your luck, OK?

[Checkmite]

Wu's witless prattle about Russian women has already been debunked by a Russian woman. It is of no further interest.

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by Suezoled
*starts sprinkling salt to purify the area*

Gonna take more than salt. Got's to kill everything.

*walks away, muttering about 50 tonnes of ricin, DDT and a couple o' 100 megaton nukes*

[Oleron]

Are we sure Wu is telling us the whole truth here?

Randi's commentary came out last Friday morning and contained references to the upcoming lawsuit (see the 'In conclusion').

If Wu is telling the truth then Randi had to have already decided to drop the case when he posted this commentary. Wu's letter would have been with him the day before the commentary.

Surely Randi would have informed the forum by now? It is 4 days since the case was dropped, according to Wu.

[qII]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
he and his minions are clueless about homeopathy.

If only the evidence wasn't clueless about homeopathy as well. Homeopathy does NOT work, that is a fact. you're an IDIOT!!!!!!!

judging by your posts you are rather simple. just thought i'd mention it.


http://www.hmedicine.com/news/guide/ncsu.php

Researchers at CalTech have discovered magnetic particles throughout the human brain. The Cal Tech team speculates that homeopathic dilutions create a higher level of the electromagnetic field, thus triggering the defense mechanisms of the body

[qII]

100,000 european medical doctors use homeopathy in their practice. they do so because they see it work.

[Rolfe]

Anybody want to know what I think of the general credibility level of "academics" who use the heading "PRINCIPLE BELIEFS" (sic) several times in the course of one article?

Rolfe.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Anybody want to know what I think of the general credibility level of "academics" who use the heading "PRINCIPLE BELIEFS" (sic) several times in the course of one article?

Rolfe.

Go on tell us.... ;)

[Darat]

Originally posted by Oleron
Are we sure Wu is telling us the whole truth here?

Randi's commentary came out last Friday morning and contained references to the upcoming lawsuit (see the 'In conclusion').

If Wu is telling the truth then Randi had to have already decided to drop the case when he posted this commentary. Wu's letter would have been with him the day before the commentary.

Surely Randi would have informed the forum by now? It is 4 days since the case was dropped, according to Wu.

Unless Randi prepares his commentry in advance or who ever uploads it requires it in advance.

[Prester John]

I see olaf has stopped posting his spam on the science forum !

Researchers at CalTech have discovered magnetic particles throughout the human brain. The Cal Tech team speculates that homeopathic dilutions create a higher level of the electromagnetic field, thus triggering the defense mechanisms of the body

With a link, might lead the average reader to assume that the link leads to a scientific paper that supports the above statement. But no, it leads to an opinion piece, and the above sentence is improperly referenced, making it hard for anyone who wants to actually judge for themselves what the Caltech research shows.

So as per usual we have more unsubstanciated claims, just like the 100,000 Drs. Then Xanta never did bother with the truth anyway, perhaps Xanta you should become a proffesional homeopath, you seem suited for it.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Anybody want to know what I think of the general credibility level of "academics" who use the heading "PRINCIPLE BELIEFS" (sic) several times in the course of one article?

Rolfe.
To be fair, the researchers would be scientists (as in "Yesterday I couldn't spell syentist but now I is one") :D

[Oleron]

Originally posted by Darat


Unless Randi prepares his commentry in advance or who ever uploads it requires it in advance.

I take your point about the commentary but it is Tuesday 27th now - why hasn't Randi let the forum know?

Even considering that everyone is entitled to a weekend off, surely he would have spread the news yesterday?

[davidhorman]

Originally posted by olaf
100,000 european medical doctors use homeopathy in their practice. they do so because they see it work.

I know that at least one doctor does it to get the whinging hypochondriac patients out of his surgery.

David

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Oleron
I take your point about the commentary but it is Tuesday 27th now - why hasn't Randi let the forum know?

Even considering that everyone is entitled to a weekend off, surely he would have spread the news yesterday?

I agree. I haven't seen one single message from neither Randi, Linda, the mods, that indicates that the lawsuit is off.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by olaf

i wish i knew...

No you don't wish you knew, because that would keep you from making witless guesses. Mmmm, no it wouldn't.

did he do it because he is a nice guy?

No because he is not a nice guy, at least not to people like Wu.

because he had a poor case?

No, because he had an excellent case.

because a lawsuit is so draining?

Well, you're getting closer. How about "Because dragging a clueless idiot lile Wu to court is a waste of valuable time"?

anyway, apologizing was the correct thing to

You bet! And since that is what he would have had to do anyway, had there been a case....

do even though randi does so many people wrong. i don't think he does it on purpose.

Then you'd better think again (I know you find that difficult, still...).

i think that he and his minions are just clueless when it comes to the true nature of matter, energy, the human body. clueless as to the true reality of many unexplained matters.

Ahh, but we await eagerly YOUR evidence.

i think that his mission is well meaning but his giant drag net snares too many legit researchers and legit phenomena.

How can they be snared? All they have to do is provide evidence. What is the problem?

he and his minions are clueless about homeopathy. 100,000 european doctors are not engaging in this treatment just to rip the patients off. they do it because it works.

5 lakh indian homeopaths are not screwing with the tens of millions of indians otherwise there would be no reason why the number would have swelled to 500,000.

Time to repeat the mantra :rolleyes:. Evidence? I thought not.

ignorance is the root of all evil. evil is here at JREF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, there is certainly ignorance. Yours.

Hans

[BillHoyt]

Pardon me, but I think I'll await official word from either JREF or Randi about this.

[shemp]

If it's true. I'm bummed. I was looking forward to watching this on Court TV, and hoping Randi would throw in a few magic tricks during the breaks.

[Anders]

Originally posted by olaf

he and his minions are clueless about homeopathy. 100,000 european doctors are not engaging in this treatment just to rip the patients off. they do it because it works.

ignorance is the root of all evil. evil is here at JREF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Actually, Olaf, in Sweden, which is a very European, country, MDs that practice H’pathy are considered quacks, and their license to practice medicine is revoked for ever or for a certain time period.

And calling JREF evil? Isn’t that a little over the top? I don’t call H’paths evil, I don’t call them anything. What I and most skeptics do is to challenge your claims, no more, no less. Let’s debate on a nice level, shall we?

[Nigel]

Isn't it a rule of responsible journalism (to take one example) to use more than one source? And to use credible sources, at that? Very possible the suit was dropped, imo, but I prefer to get my news the old fashioned way - from additional sources.

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Anders

Actually, Olaf, in Sweden, which is a very European, country, MDs that practice H’pathy are considered quacks, and their license to practice medicine is revoked for ever or for a certain time period.

And calling JREF evil? Isn’t that a little over the top? I don’t call H’paths evil, I don’t call them anything. What I and most skeptics do is to challenge your claims, no more, no less. Let’s debate on a nice level, shall we?
You'll learn about olaf, Anders, you'll learn. :)

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by shemp
If it's true. I'm bummed. I was looking forward to watching this on Court TV, and hoping Randi would throw in a few magic tricks during the breaks.
The best magic trick would be to not make his head shake or his eyes roll when he hears "it was never my intention to defame Randi." A better magic trick would be to make every head in the courtroom stop the head shaking and keep all eyes from rolling.

[Zep]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I agree. I haven't seen one single message from neither Randi, Linda, the mods, that indicates that the lawsuit is off. I haven't seen anything posted from WWu purportedly from Randi or his lawyers that supports WWu's claim that the case is settled. I imagine he would be posting it here like a shot if it were actually true.

Added note: A trawl via a number of Google search criteria turns up nothing at all about this.

I suspect it is more likely it is the charges and the court appearance date that is settled. WWu does have a way of seeing things his own special way.

But I remain open-minded...for the time being anyway.

[edit: added note]

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Zep
I haven't seen anything posted from WWu purportedly from Randi or his lawyers that supports WWu's claim that the case is settled. I imagine he would be posting it here like a shot if it were actually true.

I suspect it is more likely it is the charges and the court appearance date that is settled. WWu does have a way of seeing things his own special way.


Hmmm . .must say I disagree.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Hmmm . .must say I disagree. With what, Ian? Do you have any references to anything purporting to come from Randi's lawyers saying that the case with Winston Wu is settled? Something that is NOT from Winston himself? I would love to see them. Truly.

I have also seen nothing from Randi himself saying that an apology has been accepted from Winston, so I gather the matter is still sub judice.

A forced apology is not an unfeasible outcome either - according to his own resume, Winston is working a menial job in Bellingham Washington currently, so he is hardly likely to be rich pickings for damages (and not that I expect Randi is in it for Winston's money). A public apology and retraction would be a fair outcome for both parties, I imagine. But I'm not Randi, so I don't know what IS a fair outcome in his eyes.

But all this is speculation - there's no evidence, so no conclusion can be reached. Typical skeptic attitude!

[Psi Baba]

Winston, congratulations. Unfortunately, we've all just decided to file a class action libel suit against you for defaming us by saying that we have "boring lives," and for calling us "clueless" and "minions." Have a nice day.

Originally posted by olaf
http://www.hmedicine.com/news/guide/ncsu.php

Researchers at CalTech have discovered magnetic particles throughout the human brain. The Cal Tech team speculates that homeopathic dilutions create a higher level of the electromagnetic field, thus triggering the defense mechanisms of the body
Just a few thoughts on this delightful article you linked to:
There is no physical trace of the original ingredient after the process is completed.
So homeopathy is in fact magic, then?
Therefore, homeopaths can prescribe remedies based on your symptoms.
Then why do homeopaths complain that real medicine only treats the symptoms, not the illness. This statement demonstrates that homeopathy focuses only on the symptoms, and not the underlying causes.
Homeopathy is a highly individualized form of treatment. The homeopathic perspective is that there are no diseases, only diseased people.
Whoa. This was pretty much disproven centuries ago. If there are only "diseased people" how do homeopaths explain contagion?
The basis of this perspective stems from the idea that we all experience disease in different ways. It is too limiting to diagnose a person with a specific disease and expect one form of treatment to work on everyone. Therefore, homeopaths prescribe medicines that take into account both physical and psychological symptoms each person experiences.
How then does one account for all the over-the-counter homeopathic remedies available? Are these not expected to "work on everyone"? If not, how are they tailored to each individual? Is it like when you buy windshield wipers, there is a huge chart where you look up what kind of individual you are and then buy the bottle with the matching code number? But the way I read it, there should be a bottle with my name on it, right?
Homeopathy individualizes treatment to a person’s unique pattern of symptoms.
Symptoms again.
It is not known what the precise mechanism of healing is.And why do you suppose that is?
It is difficult to prove its effectiveness through contemporary scientific methods. There is no direct scientific evidence to prove, or disprove, why homeopathy is effective.This is usually true when there is no phenomenon to even investigate in the first place.

Homeopathy, as a system of medicine, is considered highly safe.Plain water is generally considered "safe."

Homeopathic theory states that taking random remedies will not cause any harm.Throwing caution to the wind, in the name of science, I'm going to mix Perrier, Evian, Dasani, and Deer Park together and see what happens. Wish me luck!

It is hypothesized that only the correct remedy will interact with the brain to trigger the healing response.How convenient.

Modern medicine fails in this aspect with upwards of 200,000 deaths caused by prescription drugs according to the Journal of the American Medical Association in the early 90’s.If only it were possible to conduct an experiment whereby for one year no one at all took any kind of prescription drug and just used homeopathy, and then see how many people die. Of course, you can't do such an experiment which is why lunatics like you can make such stupid and untestable arguments.

olaf, I think you should talk to TLN. I'll bet he'll have some advice for you.

[Clancie]

Posted by Oleron

I take your point about the commentary but it is Tuesday 27th now - why hasn't Randi let the forum know?

Even considering that everyone is entitled to a weekend off, surely he would have spread the news yesterday?
My guess is that part of the deal was for Winston to apologize publicly, since his post was public. We'll probably hear something soon.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Zep
With what, Ian? Do you have any references to anything purporting to come from Randi's lawyers saying that the case with Winston Wu is settled? Something that is NOT from Winston himself? I would love to see them. Truly.

I have also seen nothing from Randi himself saying that an apology has been accepted from Winston, so I gather the matter is still sub judice.


No, I only know as much as you. This is simply my opinion. For one thing there doesn't seem to be much gained by lying about it.

Also previous evidence suggests that he was quite concerned about this lawsuit. But he initiated quite a few threads 2 days after he alleges it was dropped. This would be consistent with the relief brought about by the knowledge it was being dropped.

Thirdly, as this woman said several years ago about me, I'm never wrong about anything :p

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Clancie

My guess is that part of the deal was for Winston to apologize publicly, since his post was public. We'll probably hear something soon.

Hmmm . . an interesting hypothesis.

[Oleron]

Originally posted by Clancie

My guess is that part of the deal was for Winston to apologize publicly, since his post was public. We'll probably hear something soon.

Maybe you're right. I suppose we'll find out soon enough.

[ca3799]

Originally posted by Clancie

My guess is that part of the deal was for Winston to apologize publicly, since his post was public. We'll probably hear something soon.

I thought so, too. I also thought 'what a sorry apology offering it was...'

[richardm]

Originally posted by WWu777


Again, just for the record, my statement concerning this issue of defamation on this board is that I made a mistake, it was an accident, and that it was never my intention to defame Randi in that manner, and I will be more careful about what I post in the future, making sure not to do that again.


Originally posted by ca3799
I thought so, too. I also thought 'what a sorry apology offering it was...'


Do you think that was intended to be the apology that called off the dogs?

340-odd words along the lines of "Hahaha ! Tough Luck, Skeptic Pig-Dogs! Hahaha!"

Followed by "oh yeah, by the way, I made a mistake". That's not an apology, that's a statement saying "I won't do it again".

[Suezoled]

*sighs* Wwu's lawsuit does seem to be dropped. I also have the distinct notion Wwu isn't all smug, but relieved as well. He would have, after all, had to kiss a lot of @ss and suck a lot of d*ck to be forgiven. Now he's trying to post the Russian women thing as a way to divert attention.

Child tricks.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Suezoled
*sighs* Wwu's lawsuit does seem to be dropped.

Where'd you hear that, Suezoled?

[kookbreaker]

Was Randi going after anyone besides Wu? Like the person who wrote the stuff that Wu posted? Maybe Randi hasn't dropped the bigger fish on the line.

I'm not surprised this has happened. THe case was strong, but Wu has probably got diddley-squat to compenstae. I would much rather have seen a full-blown public apology as opposed to a letter to Randi.

[qII]

Originally posted by Suezoled
and suck a lot of d*ck to be forgiven.

Child tricks.

i don't even know how to respond to this. what woman talks like this?

no wonder no one wants you. no wonder you are all alone and have to find all of your social interaction on the net.

you are disturbed.

that statement is so classless that i don't think ms rolfe would be interested in you if you were the last human on this planet -- no matter how many times you tell her she is sexy.

EITHER POST LIKE A GROWN UP OR GET OUT OF HERE!!!!

[coalesce]

Originally posted by olaf


i don't even know how to respond to this. what woman talks like this?

no wonder no one wants you. no wonder you are all alone and have to find all of your social interaction on the net.

you are disturbed.

that statement is so classless that i don't think ms rolfe would be interested in you if you were the last human on this planet -- no matter how many times you tell her she is sexy.

EITHER POST LIKE A GROWN UP OR GET OUT OF HERE!!!!

Much like the way you said:

you're an IDIOT!!!!!!!

on the previous page.

Curious...

Michael

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by olaf


i don't even know how to respond to this. what woman talks like this?


One who is infinitely smarter than you are.

Which is not saying much.

[Darat]

Originally posted by kookbreaker


One who is infinitely smarter than you are.

Which is not saying much.

And one who is funny.

Seems as if olaf is also a sexist.

[jackmott]

hey olaf

demonstrate to me, or to randi, that homepathy works, or please shut up.


Originally posted by olaf


i wish i knew... did he do it because he is a nice guy? because he had a poor case? because a lawsuit is so draining?

anyway, apologizing was the correct thing to do even though randi does so many people wrong. i don't think he does it on purpose. i think that he and his minions are just clueless when it comes to the true nature of matter, energy, the human body. clueless as to the true reality of many unexplained matters.

i think that his mission is well meaning but his giant drag net snares too many legit researchers and legit phenomena.

he and his minions are clueless about homeopathy. 100,000 european doctors are not engaging in this treatment just to rip the patients off. they do it because it works.

5 lakh indian homeopaths are not screwing with the tens of millions of indians otherwise there would be no reason why the number would have swelled to 500,000.

ignorance is the root of all evil. evil is here at JREF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Nigel]

Originally posted by olaf


i don't even know how to respond to this. what woman talks like this?

no wonder no one wants you. no wonder you are all alone and have to find all of your social interaction on the net.

you are disturbed.

that statement is so classless that i don't think ms rolfe would be interested in you if you were the last human on this planet -- no matter how many times you tell her she is sexy.

EITHER POST LIKE A GROWN UP OR GET OUT OF HERE!!!!
Olaf, or whoever you are, or even whatever you are, I refuse to get upset by your idiotic rants masquerading as posts. The words you post are so moronically immature and full of sh** they aren't worth responding to. Except I'll do it this once, then not again.

I presume Suez is an adult. As such, she has the right (subject to the rules of the forum) to speak as she likes.
Your comment that she is alone and no one wants her turns my stomach.
Lastly, you've made no attempt that I've seen to even communicate in any way above the level of a fourth grader. From the comments I've read from others, and from what I've read of your own posts, I should hardly be surprised. I'm not saying any of this to change you, because no amount of coercion, logical or otherwise, would do that. You apparently live in your own twisted, bitter little world, in which you make the rules. If so, boy, do I feel sorry for you. In the meantime, I may or may not put you on ignore, but I doubt seriously I'll bother to respond to your posts, or even read the worthless tripe you write. You're nothing but a worthless worm and your being on these boards is nothing short of a waste of my time.

[Bjorn]

All originally posted by olaf
no wonder no one wants you.
no wonder you are all alone
you are disturbed.
nothing but idiots.
you fools
IDIOTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

EITHER POST LIKE A GROWN UP OR GET OUT OF HERE!!!! :i:

[qII]

Originally posted by Suezoled
and suck a lot of d*ck to be forgiven.

Child tricks.
*****************************************

one thing i am not and that is crude and vulgar.

[qII]

a comment like that shows no class and is disgusting. i have no choice but to lobby the moderators for her permanent ban from these forums.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by kookbreaker
Was Randi going after anyone besides Wu? Like the person who wrote the stuff that Wu posted? Maybe Randi hasn't dropped the bigger fish on the line.
I'm curious about this as well.

Originally posted by olaf
no wonder no one wants you. no wonder you are all alone and have to find all of your social interaction on the net.

you are disturbed.

that statement is so classless that i don't think ms rolfe would be interested in you if you were the last human on this planet -- no matter how many times you tell her she is sexy.


If nobody else wants Suezoled, I'll take her! :D

[An Infinite Ocean]

Originally posted by olaf
no wonder no one wants you. no wonder you are all alone and have to find all of your social interaction on the net.

you are disturbed
How's your anus, Xanta? Healed over with scar tissue yet?

What am I saying, of course it hasn't. You're still talking through it.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by olaf
a comment like that shows no class and is disgusting. i have no choice but to lobby the moderators for her permanent ban from these forums.

Read the rules, oaf.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by olaf
a comment like that shows no class and is disgusting. i have no choice but to lobby the moderators for her permanent ban from these forums.

lobby all you like, since she has broken no rules, I sincerely doubt that your effort will come to anything.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Read the rules, oaf. He's right, olaf. No one gets banned because of a single post. The "jerk" rule is the closest applicable rule and that usually takes a loooong pattern of behavior (i.e. many, many posts).

[Cynical]

On a less serious note, guess what, Pokemon Bill? I caught a pokemon yesterday - on the new game "Pokemon Ruby" which is awesome. The pokemon looks exactly like your avatar, so I nicknamed it Billyhoyt, in honor of you! It's real name is Unown.

I swear, if that avatar of your is supposed to reflect you in some way, you really should take up pokemon.:cool:

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by olaf
a comment like that shows no class and is disgusting. i have no choice but to lobby the moderators for her permanent ban from these forums.

Oh, dear...you've really done it this time, haven't you Sue?

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Upchurch
The "jerk" rule is the closest applicable rule and that usually takes a loooong pattern of behavior (i.e. many, many posts). Do you see anyone getting close at the moment? :)

[jimerson]

If the lawsuit has really been dropped, I wonder why the libelous remarks are allowed to remain.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Do you see anyone getting close at the moment? :) Not my decision to make, thankfully.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Do you see anyone getting close at the moment? :)

I do, but that may be an artifact created by my telescope.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by olaf
a comment like that shows no class and is disgusting. i have no choice but to lobby the moderators for her permanent ban from these forums.

(insert 100000 'laughing dog' smilicons here)

Oh... Stop it... Please... Now I've got to wash the coffee from my monitor... Ah, my side aches.

You really are comedy incarnate.

[Nigel]

Hey, is there any way to capture Olaf/olaf/oaf/xanta/etc./et al, and sell him/her/it/them for scientific experiments? Maybe there's a Department for the Study of Advanced Idiocy at a college somewhere.

[Bearguin]

Hal has announced Winston is banned. Reasons to come.

Not going to speculate, just wondering why it took so long. (And I don't need an answer).

[EGarrett]

Good riddance is all I have to say.

Hopefully he'll get a lucrative job at the Spam factory...

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Gods Advocate
Hal has announced Winston is banned. Reasons to come.

Not going to speculate, just wondering why it took so long. (And I don't need an answer).
Did he announce by e-braille?

[Mr Manifesto]

:( :( :(

He was funny. Oh, well. I'm sure other nut-balls will fill the void.

Actually, I shouldn't be so glass-is-half-empty: Olaf is providing plenty of comedy.

Why does everyone put his name in small type, btw?

[Lisa Simpson]

I don't know why others do, but to me it denotes the smallness of her mind.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by EGarrett
Hopefully he'll get a lucrative job at the Spam factory...

"Sperm".

[Lisa Simpson]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Did he announce by e-braille?

I noticed underneath Winston's name it now says "Banned due to Libel"

[geni]

Originally posted by Upchurch
He's right, olaf. No one gets banned because of a single post. The "jerk" rule is the closest applicable rule and that usually takes a loooong pattern of behavior (i.e. many, many posts).

Xanta isn't looking at the "jerk" rule. Xanta is used to forums that have rules against being sceptial. The lack of such a rule here is causeing Xanta problems.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Originally posted by EGarrett
Hopefully he'll get a lucrative job at the Spam factory...
"Sperm". "lubricative"



No, I really didn't just say that

[geni]

Originally posted by Lisa Simpson


I noticed underneath Winston's name it now says "Banned due to Libel"

there is an anouncement at the top of the forums

[ca3799]

I appreciate that Hal wrote "Banned due to Libel" under WW's name. That way when all his friends come here to see WW's posts, it will be clear to them that he wasn't banned just because he was a 'believer' on a skeptic board or was otherwise unpopular.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by ca3799
I appreciate that Hal wrote "Banned due to Libel" under WW's name. That way when all his friends come here to see WW's posts, it will be clear to them that he wasn't banned just because he was a 'believer' on a skeptic board or was otherwise unpopular.

Like that'll stop 'em. The beauty about being a believer is that you can shape reality to fit your beliefs.

[ca3799]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Like that'll stop 'em. The beauty about being a believer is that you can shape reality to fit your beliefs.

True, but maybe it'll be another tiny grain of sand in the giant mountain of common sense needed by so many.

Oh, wait. It's Winston we're taking about. Nevermind.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Like that'll stop 'em. The beauty about being a believer is that you can shape reality to fit your beliefs.

Sadly, I think you are right.

Part of me thinks that he wanted to get banned, precisely so he could go around crowing about how the eeeeeevil skeptics banned him because they didn't want to hear "The Truth"

[Reginald]

He's sorry.....

But anyway, I decided not to tell you folks right away since it seemed you were having too much fun making dire predictions about me. I figured that this lawsuit against me made your boring lives a little more interesting. And yes, it was amusing watching some of you make grim dire predictions about my situation, knowing full well I would have the last laugh in the end. It was quite amusing to say the least.

He's skint.....

But don't worry, if you ever get bored, you can always scroll through the exciting 800+ photo slides of my two Russia trip albums! Yipeeeeee! :)

I'm changing my name to Van Der Reginald.

[figtertype]

*pout* *grumblegrumblegrumble*

Ah, well. At least the point got made with Winston being banned.

[chipotle]

First, Winston "only" reposted someone else's stories. Stories that are told all the time, and posted all the time. The irresponsibility came from not attributing the quote, and an apology is the appropriate remedy, and it's already been provided by Winston. That's all wrapped up, and I wish Winston well back in Taiwan.

But if that's the end of the story then the people Winston got this from are uncorrected.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by ca3799
I appreciate that Hal wrote "Banned due to Libel" under WW's name. That way when all his friends come here to see WW's posts, it will be clear to them that he wasn't banned just because he was a 'believer' on a skeptic board or was otherwise unpopular.
I appreciate that Hal clearly stated that the lawsuit was not dropped. Now watch the credophile spinmeisters distort that fact.

Oh, wait, they already have, haven't they?

[Clancie]

Posted by chipotle

First, Winston "only" reposted someone else's stories. Stories that are told all the time, and posted all the time.
chipotle,

Stop, please. Unless you're being ironic, the attempt at...disingenuousness...is only making Winston's attitude seem worse. Benneth's comments were ugly smears, period. And that was Winston's intent in repeating them. Period.
The irresponsibility came from not attributing the quote, and an apology is the appropriate remedy, and it's already been provided by Winston.
No, reposting it was an intentional effort on Winston's part to unfairly impugn Randi's reputation and morality. As such...not "irresponsibility". Just "wrong". (And that wasn't much of an apology, either, so I hope he got the message better than you).

And, olaf....

re: your comment about Suezoled. It is unkind (which is kind of crude, so undermining your defense :( ) to say that to someone...anyone. Her original comment was pretty crude, too, (and I think if Ian had said it, he'd be roundly criticized)...but note how so many people respond only to attack you.

So...unsolicited comment....The "in group" (that's Suezoled) can usually get away with being rude here easier than the "out group" (in terms of this board...that's, um, us). So...not much critical will be said to/of her...but lots of flames directed at you. My (completely unsolicited) advice is to try to avoid and ignore the personal insult side of posts here, even when they're directed at you, as much as you can. Just a friendly thought. In the end, whatever mud-slinging you attempt (like Winston, hopefully, learned) just backfires--especially when you're in the minority.

[An Infinite Ocean]

Originally posted by Clancie
So...unsolicited comment....The "in group" (that's Suezoled) can usually get away with being rude here easier than the "out group" (in terms of this board...that's, um, us).
When you throw your lot in with Olf/Xanta, you really have to worry about the sort of company you're keeping, because his/her stench will rub off on you.

Besides, the reason Oaf is getting so much abuse is that he/she/it said something incredibly nasty about someone, whereas Suezoled's comment was merely crude and not especially insulting. The irony of such a deeply rude and insulting person complaining about rudeness is not lost on most people.

Still, I suppose when you're only a pretend doctor with a pretend medical practice and a red-hot ringpiece, you're bound to get a bit tetchy.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by chipotle
First, Winston "only" reposted someone else's stories.

This is at least the third or fourth time (that I am aware of, I will bet there are others) that Winston has "only" reposted these stories.

He posted them in usenet (sci.skeptic) originally with a "hey, I heard this" kind of opening -- and was shown earlier posts, links, and evidence that this was a smear campaign.

Then, a few months later, he posts it again. Like all his posts, he starts it as a new round of "hey, I heard this" -- completely ignoring the previous infromation given to him.
After another, similar, series of replies -- he once again disappeared for a bit.

And then, some months later -- guess what? -- he did the same bit.

Now, fast forward to Randi's own message board and Winston "only" reposted this story yet again.

This was not an innocent error. This was not an inadvertant repost of material that Winston was unfamiliar with. this was not a mistake.

This was a blatant smear campaign that Winston engaged in -- and engaged in with the full intent to harm Randi's reputation through a vile charge and innuendo that Winston knows -- remember, he's been told at least three times previously -- is false.

Moreover, his "apology" fails to meet any acceptable standard for the word, given his history and malicious intent.

N/A

[Clancie]

Infinite Ocean,

I'd replaced that post, but I've restored it because otherwise yours makes no sense. (You owe me one, yes? :) ) I'm not siding with olaf. I thought his comment was rude and uncalled for. But I think if Ian had said what Suezoled did, the whole response would have been different. I wanted to point out what I see as a reality here to olaf, just in case he hadn't noticed it yet.

Moving on....
Posted by Bill Hoyt

I appreciate that Hal clearly stated that the lawsuit was not dropped. Now watch the credophile spinmeisters distort that fact.
Well, say it isn't dropped, if you like, but at least make clear that it wasn't even filed yet. (Or is this too "credophil-ish" for you?)
From Hal's announcement
...legal papers shall not be filed at this time against Mr Wu.
Bill, legal papers won't be filed. That means "no law suit" is occurring. The process has beensuspended.

The JREF has not, I repeat not, "dropped" the lawsuit, but rather has declined to pursue it due to Mr. Wu’s apology.
No, the lawsuit hadn't been filed yet, so it isn't "dropped". And, yes, if they filled out the paperwork, then "suspended" the process, they can always file in the future. "Dropped" or "declined to pursue it" all adds up to "no lawsuit is filed", Bill. (Hope you're not too disappointed with the truth--or Randi's benevolence in not making Winston worry about it more. Even if no suit ever went to court, one could make someone quite anxious about it for quite a long time--and cost them quite a bit of money just for legal advice, too. I hope Winston realizes that he got off very lightly, under the circumstances).

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger

Moreover, his "apology" fails to meet any acceptable standard for the word, given his history and malicious intent.

N/A

Yeah, but wasn't it cool to hear about the six pounds of crow he had to deep-throat to avoid a lawsuit?

"Oh pleeeease don't sue! I'm just a poor little monkey with a face like a smacked arse and I have to go back to Taiwan where I have nothing but a fantasy girlfriend..." I do like it when someone bites off more than he can chew and ends up whining like a little bitch.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Clancie
So...unsolicited comment....The "in group" (that's Suezoled) can usually get away with being rude here easier than the "out group" (in terms of this board...that's, um, us). [/B]

Clancie:

Unsolicited comment: since Olaf has called everyone on JREF (presumably the "out group," the "in group," the "left group," the "right group," as well as the up, down, strange, and charmed groups) evil incarnate, he may not get much slack.

I also note that most or all of the people who have responded to him have been directly called liars (and worse) in the past.

Under those circumstances, I would say that Olaf's responses are more in the "reap what you sow" category than the "poor persecuted" category.

N/A

PS:

the vast majority of posters have slammed neither olaf nor suezoled. I personally don't approve of foul language, but you'll note I have not taken anyone to task -- not even I Ian (any one of his last half dozen froth-fests probably top the Suezoled post hands down, IMO). In short, I usually do not consider it my business to reign in posters, all of whom I consider "big boys and girls." This applies doubly or triply to Olaf, whether she is a big or little girl, as "she-who-dishes-it-out-must-take-it, and then some."


I have not called on Olaf for civi

[Rolfe]

Oh... Stop it... Please... Now I've got to wash the coffee from my monitor... Ah, my side aches.:dl:

The stuff that has been going on here while I was otherwise occupied! But don't challenge Xanta on homoeopathy here, it's all been done ad nauseam both in Science and Medicine, and H'pathy. We can even do her side of the conversation as well if need be.

(Infinite Ocean, it's not Xanta that has the pretend medical practice, that's Naturalhealth ("Homeoskeptic", God help us all). Xanta is a deluded acolyte, because 2 of her (count it) 20 distinct symptoms of irritable bowel disease seemed to ease up when she took a homoeopathic remedy.)

Now, I must away.

The Lord hath delivered Wrath of the Swarm into my hands, trussd and glazed, with a nice little apple in his mouth.

Blessed be the name of the Lord.

And Wrath is a lot more fun as a cat-toy than Xanta will ever be.

Rolfe.

[chipotle]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
This is at least the third or fourth time (that I am aware of, I will bet there are others) that Winston has "only" reposted these stories.

cut

This was a blatant smear campaign that Winston engaged in -- and engaged in with the full intent to harm Randi's reputation through a vile charge and innuendo that Winston knows -- remember, he's been told at least three times previously -- is false.



It's a blatant smear campaign, but Winston is not running it. The guy Winston was quoting is. If all the attention was on Winston, then the real problem is ignored.

[qII]

scuzoled needs to be slapped down. there is no need for her nastiness or her filthy mouth. children could be reading this.

i realize that i am open for attack when i state my opinion on people like rolfe (a very sick human being by the way).

the humorous thing about all this is that i was once a closed minded skeptic like those i do battle with. i got off my rear and actually tested the things i support. i have been on both sides of the fence that gives me more information -- the correct information!!!

i feel superior to the dopes who sit on their @$$ all day and attack things just by listening to the opinions of others.

"...machines can't fly!!!"

flat earth dopes!!!

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by olaf
scuzoled needs to be slapped down. there is no need for her nastiness or her filthy mouth. children could be reading this.


i feel superior to the dopes who sit on their @$$ all day and attack things just by listening to the opinions of others.



I love it when morons parody themselves. :roll: :roll: :roll:

[qII]

there is a big difference between calling someone a dope and "sucking d*ck".

there is no excuse for the 2nd expression, and i will get her thrown off for that comment.

[Zep]

[snide-comment]
I'm surprised Winston isn't moving to Russia, where the girls are all beautiful and willing!
[/snide-comment]

I'm not at all convinced that Winston will actually be moving to Taiwan as he says he is. I suspect it is either a ploy to avoid legal prosecution or an imaginative but empty promise. He has lived in the same city (Bellingham, WA) for at least the last two years, and is currently employed full-time, so he is most likely neither homeless nor destitute.

I would not be calling what he posted here an "apology" in any way. It is way less "apologetic" in tone than what we skeptics normally post when we admit to our own mistakes. To me, it looks more like a concocted excuse after being caught out, rather than any apology. And to make it worse, Winston used the same post to piggyback yet another spam of his odious Russian teen porn.

I suspect Winston is laughing at us in the mistaken belief that he has "beaten" Randi's lawsuit and JREF, and that he has gained kudos with his "paranormalist peers" by being banned from JREF. I expect we shall see commentary to this effect appear very shortly. The other, smarter grubbies will be in no doubt as to the reality and gravity of this situation, but so far it seems to have eluded Winston completely.

To be frank [personal comment], I would have urged Randi and JREF to pursue Winston to a more onerous retraction - at least to the point of writing the complete apology text for him, and ensuring that it was properly posted wherever necessary. And given the (lack of) apology he DID post, I would have resumed the lawsuit promptly on the grounds that the settlement conditions had not been met.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Clancie
Her original comment was pretty crude, too, (and I think if Ian had said it, he'd be roundly criticized)...but note how so many people respond only to attack you.

[/B]

Her comment was crude I agree. But I honestly don't mind woman being crude as long as the insults are not directed towards me! LOL

Hmmm . .I guess Suezoled's next post will be pretty predictable! LOL

Edited to add: Oh well! LOL

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by olaf
there is a big difference between calling someone a dope and "sucking d*ck".

there is no excuse for the 2nd expression, and i will get her thrown off for that comment.

You know, I can't compete with pure comedic hypocricy. Some things are so well done that it can't be faked.

[ca3799]

Originally posted by Zep
[snide-comment]
I'm surprised Winston isn't moving to Russia, where the girls are all beautiful and willing!
[/snide-comment]

I'm not at all convinced that Winston will actually be moving to Taiwan as he says he is. I suspect it is either a ploy to avoid legal prosecution or an imaginative but empty promise. He has lived in the same city (Bellingham, WA) for at least the last two years, and is currently employed full-time, so he is most likely neither homeless nor destitute.

I would not be calling what he posted here an "apology" in any way. It is way less "apologetic" in tone than what we skeptics normally post when we admit to our own mistakes. To me, it looks more like a concocted excuse after being caught out, rather than any apology. And to make it worse, Winston used the same post to piggyback yet another spam of his odious Russian teen porn.

I suspect Winston is laughing at us in the mistaken belief that he has "beaten" Randi's lawsuit and JREF, and that he has gained kudos with his "paranormalist peers" by being banned from JREF. I expect we shall see commentary to this effect appear very shortly. The other, smarter grubbies will be in no doubt as to the reality and gravity of this situation, but so far it seems to have eluded Winston completely.

To be frank [personal comment], I would have urged Randi and JREF to pursue Winston to a more onerous retraction - at least to the point of writing the complete apology text for him, and ensuring that it was properly posted wherever necessary. And given the (lack of) apology he DID post, I would have resumed the lawsuit promptly on the grounds that the settlement conditions had not been met.

I completley agree.

[geni]

Originally posted by Zep
To be frank [personal comment], I would have urged Randi and JREF to pursue Winston to a more onerous retraction - at least to the point of writing the complete apology text for him, and ensuring that it was properly posted wherever necessary. And given the (lack of) apology he DID post, I would have resumed the lawsuit promptly on the grounds that the settlement conditions had not been met.

To be honest though what's to be gained? Winston is smal fry. he's anoying sure but that about all he's not relly worth going after and hopefull a few people higher up the feeding chain will have got the message.

[Zep]

Originally posted by geni

To be honest though what's to be gained? Winston is smal fry. he's anoying sure but that about all he's not relly worth going after and hopefull a few people higher up the feeding chain will have got the message. Practice?

I suspect the higher food chain types might possibly rework Winston's "lucky escape" into a propaganda bonus. And this IS a propaganda situation. Winston himself is oblivious to the reality of the situation, and we are fairly sure why - he's oblivious to reality full stop.

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by Nigel
You'll learn about olaf, Anders, you'll learn. :)
Hm! BigFig on meds? :confused:

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Bah. This just makes Randi and JREF look weak.

They should have crushed Winston utterly, then gone after his voowoo masters.

[Z]

Hey, olaf,

50,000,000 ELVIS FANS!

Yep, he's alive. Gotsta be. I won't even get into 500,000 PEDOPHILES - you figure it out.

Oh, but wait, that's right- you've TESTED ?? homeopathetic practices, and you KNOW ?? they work!

Right.

Well, I've tested them, too - They make really nice Nerds, if you don't mind the lack of fruit flavor. Kind of like you - except you seem to have plenty of fruit to go around.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Crushing nutjobs doesn't have much payback.

~~ Paul

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Money? It's not about the money?

"What is best in life? To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the weeping of their woos."

[Wally]

Originally posted by olaf
scuzoled needs to be slapped down. there is no need for her nastiness or her filthy mouth. children could be reading this.


Sue's words are far less harmfull than exposure to homeopathy:D

Well actually exposure to homeopath can't cause any harm cause, well you know.:D

[Roadtoad]

I would suggest rereading Hal's message, (and, damn, it's great to see that he's around!!!!!), mainly because the lawsuit is not dropped. It's on hold for the moment. At ANY time, it can, (and probably will) be picked up again.

I'm sorry to see it dropped. I know Randi wouldn't have gotten a cent from Winston, but dammit, this cannot be allowed to stand in ANY way, shape, or form! I'm willing to bet those who wrote the original articles are likely going to be getting subpoenas in the mail, and probably pretty damn quick.

Olaf, you're beyond an idiot. Homeopathy gets debunked time and time again in scientifically conducted tests, and in the real world. (Sadly, on the latter, the debunking usually involves someone dying.) And you want to rail against people on THIS forum not having lives? Not having intelligence? Oh, please....

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
I would suggest rereading Hal's message, (and, damn, it's great to see that he's around!!!!!), mainly because the lawsuit is not dropped. It's on hold for the moment. At ANY time, it can, (and probably will) be picked up again.

I'm sorry to see it dropped.

LOL :)

[qII]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Hey, olaf,

50,000,000 ELVIS FANS!

Yep, he's alive. Gotsta be. I won't even get into 500,000 PEDOPHILES - you figure it out.

Oh, but wait, that's right- you've TESTED ?? homeopathetic practices, and you KNOW ?? they work!

Right.

Well, I've tested them, too - They make really nice Nerds, if you don't mind the lack of fruit flavor. Kind of like you - except you seem to have plenty of fruit to go around.

the whole model of western medicine is wrong. this is something that you skeptics will be the last to catch on to.

[Suezoled]

Xanta said: the whole model of western medicine is wrong. this is something that you skeptics will be the last to catch on to.

The whole model of modern medicine is wrong? What about immunizations, surgical procedures, mammograms, kidney transplants, hormone replacement therapy, insulin for diabetes, bone growth stimulators, artificial limbs, cardiac catheters, sephanic vein transplants, stress tests, EKG's, amnioncentesis, antibiotics, epeneprhine and norepinephrine, anesthesia, physical therapy, holter monitors, anti-inflamatories, gastric bypasses, nutritional counseling, etc etc? Can the so called alternative therapists reattach a severed limb? Modern medicine has that chance. How about treating a rotting tooth? A compund fracture? Can homeopathy truly soothe and reduce the time a person has mononucleosis?

Tell me what it is about modern medicine that is complete wrong.

[qII]

oh good scz is still up. she can read my post on "the harm".

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by olaf
oh good scz is still up. she can read my post on "the harm".

I'll take that as a "no once again I am flinging accusations around that I can't back up because I have only recognize the language of flinging my feces at other people I don't like and screeching."

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by WWu777
Actually, it was dropped last Friday. Randi's lawyer emailed me last Friday morning and told me that after discussing it with Randi, they decided to drop the lawsuit against me. The day before that, I wrote them a letter apologizing for my mistake, clarifying that it was never my intention to defame Randi in that manner, and that it was an accident and mistake. They were reasonable about it, and decided to just let it go as a lesson that I learned about being more careful about what I post on the boards next time.

Good. I'm glad there was a reasonable conclusion to this that avoided unpleasantness for all.

But anyway, I decided not to tell you folks right away since it seemed you were having too much fun making dire predictions about me. I figured that this lawsuit against me made your boring lives a little more interesting. And yes, it was amusing watching some of you make grim dire predictions about my situation, knowing full well I would have the last laugh in the end. It was quite amusing to say the least.

And yes, I hoped you wouldn't stoop to petty games with this post, but there you go. I've read enough.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Stop, please. Unless you're being ironic, the attempt at...disingenuousness...is only making Winston's attitude seem worse. Benneth's comments were ugly smears, period. And that was Winston's intent in repeating them. Period.

Yes, we really should speak out against everyone who smears people, shouldn't we?

Originally posted by Clancie
And, olaf....

re: your comment about Suezoled. It is unkind (which is kind of crude, so undermining your defense :( ) to say that to someone...anyone. Her original comment was pretty crude, too, (and I think if Ian had said it, he'd be roundly criticized)...but note how so many people respond only to attack you.

olaf has nothing to offer this forum except insults. And you wonder why he is "attacked"?

Originally posted by Clancie
So...unsolicited comment....The "in group" (that's Suezoled) can usually get away with being rude here easier than the "out group" (in terms of this board...that's, um, us). So...not much critical will be said to/of her...but lots of flames directed at you. My (completely unsolicited) advice is to try to avoid and ignore the personal insult side of posts here, even when they're directed at you, as much as you can. Just a friendly thought. In the end, whatever mud-slinging you attempt (like Winston, hopefully, learned) just backfires--especially when you're in the minority.

You simply can't stop turning each thread into a whining oh-we-non-skeptics-are-so-persecuted-waah-waah-waah one? If you want to try to avoid the personal insults, why don't you??

Originally posted by Clancie
I'd replaced that post, but I've restored it because otherwise yours makes no sense. (You owe me one, yes? :) ) I'm not siding with olaf. I thought his comment was rude and uncalled for. But I think if Ian had said what Suezoled did, the whole response would have been different.a I wanted to point out what I see as a reality here to olaf, just in case he hadn't noticed it yet.

What would we do without your well-meaning posts, Clancie?

[Ladewig]

the whole model of western medicine is wrong. this is something that you skeptics will be the last to catch on to.

Well, if western medicine is wrong and homeopathy is correct, then we have to add physics, chemistry and biology to the list of things that are wrong.

Olaf, I'd like to know if your medicine chest has full strength aspirin in it or a 100C dilution of some pain-causing substance. If you hit your thumb with a hammer, do you take western medicine to reduce the pain or do you turn to dilutions?

Also, I have a question about homeopathic studies. I see you've posted some showing homeopathy works, do you know of any that show what the ideal dilution is? Is there no limit to how potent a dilution can become or do the useful effects taper off after some point? Without that information, the idea of putting these "cures" on the market seems dangerously premature. Also, is it possible to overdose on a homepathic medicine? Are there studies showing ideal dosages?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Anders

Actually, Olaf, in Sweden, which is a very European, country, MDs that practice H’pathy are considered quacks, and their license to practice medicine is revoked for ever or for a certain time period.



England is a very European country. The NHS do not see homeopathy as 'quackery', in fact they recommend it.

http://www.ubht.nhs.uk/homeopathy/

[Z]

The whole model of western medicine...

Wow... so those billions of people properly treated, properly cured of their illnesses, with their limbs reattached, their hearts repaired, their vision corrected... I guess it's all just placebo effect, eh? Or just lucky chance?

Olaf, why don't you try posting here again once you've GRADUATED grade school and know what's real and what's not.

Even your most specious arguments are easily refuted. You have absolutely NO arguments to support Homeopathy which cannot be shot down in flames by anyone using half a brain.

It's almost sad to see the strength with which the child-mind clings to her fantasies.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
England is a very European country. The NHS do not see homeopathy as 'quackery', in fact they recommend it.

http://www.ubht.nhs.uk/homeopathy/

Use of homeopathy in NHS not justified

No evidence exists to justify the use of homoeopathy in the NHS, an in-depth analysis of published data has concluded.

The study, carried out by the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, based at York University, reviewed data from over 200 randomised clinical trials of homoeopathy in a variety of conditions.

It concluded that not only was there little evidence to support the efficacy of homoeopathy, but the data that did exist were of poor quality and came from trials that were often deeply flawed.

Full story: British Journal of Medicine (http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/324/7337/565/a)

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen




Claus, you are not up to speed with developments:
http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/en.asp?TopicID=121&AreaID=1310&LinkID=913

"Treatment

There is no accepted drug or behavioural treatment for CFS. Treatments which may help relieve particular symptoms for some people may prove ineffective or counterproductive in others. Early diagnosis, pacing rest with activity, targeted drugs to control certain symptoms and self-help measures may aid recovery.

Common treatments include:

some antidepressants (eg prozac) for fatigue with depression
other drugs for specific symptoms eg muscle pain
graded exercise (graded activity) programme
low dose anti-depressants (or herbal such as St. John’s Wort)
painkillers
cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) benefits physical functioning
complementary therapies such as osteopathy, nutritional therapy, and homeopathy may help. "

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
complementary therapies such as osteopathy, nutritional therapy, and homeopathy may help. "

But does it? Please provide the evidence that it does.

Do you have any comments on the link I posted? How about this?

British Journal of Medicine: Trial shows that homoeopathic arnica is no better than placebo (http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprint/326/7384/303/c)

[reprise]

Not only did Randi promise to keep us all informed about the progress of this case but Winston has posted the emails about the lawsuit elsewhere. Why would he not have posted the communications from Randi and/or Randi's lawyer about the lawsuit being dropped when he's posted every other communication about it?

Why isn't it all over Victor's website if Randi has backed down?

You guys call yourselves skeptics...

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


But does it?

Why yes. Indeed it does. I am really surprised you were that out of touch with these developments.

"The NHS Plan and the National Service Frameworks (NSFs) health care strategies identify clinical priority areas for the health of the nation. Homeopathy can help deliver positive patient outcomes in these categories. Homeopathy is already a recognised provision in the NHS through 5 homeopathic hospitals and some notable PCT initiatives. Homeopathy can help meet local health needs and help meet NHS Plan targets through more local provision at PCT level."

http://www.nhsdirectory.org/default.asp?Page=Homeopathy

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Why yes. Indeed it does. I am really surprised you were that out of touch with these developments.

"The NHS Plan and the National Service Frameworks (NSFs) health care strategies identify clinical priority areas for the health of the nation. Homeopathy can help deliver positive patient outcomes in these categories. Homeopathy is already a recognised provision in the NHS through 5 homeopathic hospitals and some notable PCT initiatives. Homeopathy can help meet local health needs and help meet NHS Plan targets through more local provision at PCT level."

http://www.nhsdirectory.org/default.asp?Page=Homeopathy

That is not evidence that homeopathy works, but merely a statement from...yes, you guessed it: The Society of Homeopaths.

But, then, I didn't expect you to provide evidence of your claims. You never do: "Questions for Lucianarchy" (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21701)

[Z]

He he he I love when someone does this...

"Here's evidence that snot-reading is an effective means of choosing your stock options:VV VV VV.snot-reading-support-organization-with-little-or-no-validity.org..."

Why is it, every time you see what might ALMOST pass as decent evidence, it's usually from the same, untrustworthy sources?

Luc, dear, please understand - getting supporting statements from the supporters of homeopathy is like saying Michael Jackson is innocent because he says so. It's really a very weak, very poor way to support your arguments. Much more compelling if you can get such statements from a non-Quack organization - a group with some creditablility (other than self-support) would be fine.

This is a lot like saying, "The Bible is true because God inspired it - the Bible says so." Your post is meaningless drivel as a result.

[reprise]

Given what Benneth has posted about Randi and the JREF over at The Proving in the last few days I'd be very, VERY upset if the lawsuit has been dropped and I think I would lose all respect for Randi and Hal if they didn't pursue this through the courts to the bitter end. I know that you can't sue every single person who says something bad about you, but this one has gotten WAY out of hand.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


That is not evidence that homeopathy works, but merely a statement from...yes, you guessed it: The Society of Homeopaths.



No. You are incorrect. It is a statement from the NHS. The NHS states that " Homeopathy can help deliver positive patient outcomes [...] Homeopathy is already a recognised provision in the NHS through 5 homeopathic hospitals and some notable PCT initiatives. Homeopathy can help meet local health needs."

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
He he he I love when someone does this...

"Here's evidence that snot-reading is an effective means of choosing your stock options:VV VV VV.snot-reading-support-organization-with-little-or-no-validity.org..."

Why is it, every time you see what might ALMOST pass as decent evidence, it's usually from the same, untrustworthy sources?

Luc, dear, please understand - getting supporting statements from the supporters of homeopathy is like saying Michael Jackson is innocent because he says so. It's really a very weak, very poor way to support your arguments. Much more compelling if you can get such statements from a non-Quack organization - a group with some creditablility (other than self-support) would be fine.



Zaydrugon, perhaps you missed the fact that these statements come from the UK's National Health Service;

"Homeopathy can help deliver positive patient outcomes [...] Homeopathy is already a recognised provision in the NHS through 5 homeopathic hospitals and some notable PCT initiatives. Homeopathy can help meet local health needs."

[geni]

Lucianarchy

I'll see your stament that largly exists for historical reasons and raise you this lot

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/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12668794&dopt=Abstract

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

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/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14650548&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/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12725251&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/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12716269&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/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12562974&dopt=Abstract


have fun

[Ed]

Save your breath.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Zaydrugon, perhaps you missed the fact that these statements come from the UK's National Health Service;

"Homeopathy can help deliver positive patient outcomes [...] Homeopathy is already a recognised provision in the NHS through 5 homeopathic hospitals and some notable PCT initiatives. Homeopathy can help meet local health needs."

No, this statement comes from an organisation calling itself the NHS Directory of Complementary and Alternative Practitioners. I see nowhere on the site that it claims to be part of the NHS.

[Ed]

The point will never be acknowledged. Save your breath.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet


No, this statement comes from an organisation calling itself the NHS Directory of Complementary and Alternative Practitioners. I see nowhere on the site that it claims to be part of the NHS.



"Welcome to The NHS Directory of Complementary and Alternative Practitioners compiled and managed for use by NHS healthcare professionals by the NHS Trusts Association, the leading professional association for primary care in the UK."
http://www.nhsdirectory.org/default.asp

"The NHS Trusts Association (formerly the Association of Primary Care Groups & Trusts, APCGT) held its inaugural meeting in Westminster on 27th April 2000, attended by the press and addressed by senior members of the Department of Health.

The meeting unanimously approved the Constitution and appointed Dr David Tod OBE FRCGP Chief Executive. The NHS Trusts Association’s membership is now approaching 70% of PCTs, with new members joining on a regular basis. It is an associate member of the NHS Confederation and a full member of the Federation of Primary Care Societies and the International Hospital Federation based in Geneva." http://www.apcgt.org/

[Z]

Yes, actually, and from the NHS' own disclaimer on their site:

The NHS Directory is the copyright of The NHS Trusts Association. Whilst every effort is made to ensure all information on this site is accurate by the Association and its Publishers, information relating to the various therapists, schools, organisations and businesses listed on this site is as supplied to us by those people and organisations . Although we do try to ensure that the information published on this site is accurate and up-to-date, it is up to you to inform yourself fully as to the validity of such information before you accept any treatment or service provided by anyone listed on this site. To be listed here is not a proof of professionalism or that the persons or organisations are qualified and competent.

(emphasis mine - source: http://www.nhsdirectory.org/disclaimer.htm)

In other words, they just continue the feed. They don't even swear by the validity of what they're pushing - they request you to 'inform yourself fully' and do what any good skeptic would do - question the quacks and come to an informed decision.

Plus, did you read the four cited sources at the base of the article?
1) Dr. D. Reilly, from the Glasgow Academic Departments for Homeopathy
2) Thomas KJ, Coleman and Nicholl JP. Results form a follow-up national survey - in other words, an opinion piece.
3) House of Lords blah blah - a political report. Certainly not good science.
4) Ward, A & Christie, EA, Society of Homeopaths, 1996.

So, in other words, half of the cited souces are direct from the homeopaths, one from an opinion piece, and one from a political report. Nothing at all from legitimate resources that are outside of the usual homeopathy sources. Therefore, invalid.

As to where the rest of this article comes from, I have little doubt that it was written by other than a homeopath supporter - obviously - and just because one organization supports something does not make it any more valid than anything else. This appeal to authority is only slightly more intelligent than '100,000 European Doctors' and at least has some source to it, but it's no more valid at all.

Go back a few years and count the agencies and organizations that claimed positive medical benefits from cigarette smoking. Remember those? I still have some radio programs on tape that mention doctors and health organizations claiming positive benefits from the use of cigarettes. Remember all the people who thought thalidamide (sp?) was an OK drug for pregnant women? What about all the children regularly suffering from exposure to Ritalin?

Just because some organization supports something, doesn't mean it's good. THis applies just as well with 'legitimate' medicine - in fact, I rarely accept any medical treatment on the advice of a doctor. Rather, I go forth, seeking the truth, and learn all I can before trying to place faith in what someone prescribes for me.

I've even tried homeopathy. It's bunk, plain and simple. Those it works for have faith that it will work, or would have gotten better regardless of homeopathy. It's either coincidence, or placebo - nothing more.

If the NHS supports homeopathy, you also have to consider that it supports every popular trend in altmed out there today - with absolutely no more validity or proper scientific testing than homeopathy. It's no more of a valid endorsement than if the NRA decided to endorce Homeopathy, or all the fallen stars who support 10-10-220 ads, or LaToya Jackson and her 'psychic friends'.

SO, yeah, it's mroe of the same.

And, as Jag pointed out - it's a website with NHS splattered all over it - and not once, do the words 'National Health Service' actually appear.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Ed
Save your breath.

Oh don't be such a spoilsport.

And if there is one thing the Big L does bring here it is a textbook case of how someone will plumb the depths of dishonesty, personal attacks and lies rather then acknowledge that they could ever be wrong.

Anyone wanting some amusement (and some evidence for my claim of the Big L’s dishonesty, personal attacks and lies) should read this over at the Fortean Times message board:

http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=13511&perpage=15&pagenumber=1

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by geni



have fun

Have health. Regardless of whatever small number of negative or flawed results you can wave; what works, works. The NHS say that in practice homeopathy has "positivce outcomes" for their patients. There are 5 homeopathic modelled UK National Health Service registered hospitals.

[Darat]

See Ed what did I tell you? Already a classic example.

To paraphrase "Doesn't matter what evdience you have I know it works."

[Z]

And where are their clinical trials supporting this opinion?

I can tell you how much I'm certain me having sex with beautiful models positively affects the economy of Japan, and that statement is NO LESS VALID - and no less real.

The truth is, there is scientific evidence that says Homeopathy does nothing at all. This is all that matters. It's bunk, end of story.

50,000,000 Elvis fans can't be wrong, though, can they?

[geni]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Have health. Regardless of whatever small number of negative or flawed results you can wave; what works, works. The NHS say that in practice homeopathy has "positivce outcomes" for their patients. There are 5 homeopathic modelled UK National Health Service registered hospitals.

And you know why they exist don't you? Something to do with the royal family Having a thing for homeopathy. And what about that london brougher that recently terminated it's contract with one of these hospitals?

As for the tests being flawed read the first two. As for the number thats just one years worth.

[Roadtoad]

To put this all back on track, no, the suit has NOT been dropped. It's on hold. That's what Randi and Hal have said. I'm willing to bet that this is only first gear.

Second gear and all hell breaking loose, coming up.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon


And, as Jag pointed out - it's a website with NHS splattered all over it - and not once, do the words 'National Health Service' actually appear.

Are you joking? It's published by the NHS Trusts Association. The NHS have The Royal London Homeopathic Hospital, the leading centre for complementary medicine in the NHS, which is one of five current NHS homeopathy hospitals.

For some reason, you seem to be finding it difficult to accept the fact that the NHS use homeopathy. It is a fact. It is strange to find that a few of you had not yet been informed or educated.

[Darat]

Oh and look, a little bit of “personal attack” creeping in.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
The NHS have The Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital, the leading centre for complementary medicine in the NHS, which is one of five current NHS homeopathy hospitals.

Have...what? Isn't there something missing in that sentence? What does the NHS "have" the RLHH?

Does the NHS own the RLHH? I don't understand the sentence.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Have...what? Isn't there something missing in that sentence? What does the NHS "have" the RLHH?

Does the NHS own the RLHH? I don't understand the sentence.

It is a hospital registered by the NHS as a clinic for making NHS patient referrals for homeopathic treatment.

Were you really unaware of this?

[Z]

he he he he - Once again, proving the invalidity of the 'NHS' -

Who wants to face facts, Luci? The royals love Homeopathy - they also love marrying relatives. They have lots to blow to support their pet peeves - so the NHS makes them happy and arranges to help build a few homohospitals - I'm sorry, I meant homeohospitals - thereby getting loads of royal pounds for offering water and sugar pills to every hypochondriac sucker.

Yet, not once, does the claim that homeopathic remedies work come with actual, proper, irrefutable trial evidence.

As far as the NHS itself goes, I'll admit to being woefully ignorant of European medical practices and organizations. I just know that, after searching carefully through their website, all I could find was one indirect reference to the National Health Service, dozens to this AP--- whatever, I don't feel like looking it up again - and nothing I would recognize as being official, legal, or right... but then, I wouldn't know how British laws require such organizations to be identified anyway. If it were a US group, I'd know exactly what to look for. If the NHS were supposedly American, it'd be fried. Plus, I'll admit, at first I thought it meant National Homeopathic Services or something similar.

But - even if the House of Lords themselves, the Queen and her Kids, the Pope, David Brenner, and Madonna ALL claim to support Homeopathy, I'll still not believe one word about it that they say. Science cannot lie (though scientists can) - and every properly done clinical trial has exposed the lie about homeopathy. Even a few of the non-proper trials have. Homeopathy is a bald-faced lie, flat out. NHS support just goes to show that the Emperor has New Clothes.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Have health. Regardless of whatever small number of negative or flawed results you can wave; what works, works. The NHS say that in practice homeopathy has "positivce outcomes" for their patients. There are 5 homeopathic modelled UK National Health Service registered hospitals.

What, exactly, does this mean, "positive outcomes"?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon


As far as the NHS itself goes, I'll admit to being woefully ignorant of European medical practices and organizations.

OK. No problem. But now at least you know that the NHS uses 5 Hospitals in the UK and that homeopathy actually delivers positive outcomes for patients of the NHS, that is the evidence that homeopathy provides positive benefits for patients.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


What, exactly, does this mean, "positive outcomes"?

"The NHS Plan and the National Service Frameworks (NSFs) health care strategies identify clinical priority areas for the health of the nation. Homeopathy can help deliver positive patient outcomes in these categories. Homeopathy is already a recognised provision in the NHS through 5 homeopathic hospitals and some notable PCT initiatives. Homeopathy can help meet local health needs and help meet NHS Plan targets through more local provision at PCT level."

[geni]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


OK. No problem. But now at least you know that the NHS uses 5 Hospitals in the UK and that homeopathy actually delivers positive outcomes for patients of the NHS, that is the evidence that homeopathy provides positive benefits for patients.

5 small hospitals 3 of woch are out paicent only. They only exist because of roly patronage 50 years ago and are currently starting to run into a load of problems (people are starting to ask questions) I note that you have failed to show how the studies I listed are flawed.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


OK. No problem. But now at least you know that the NHS uses 5 Hospitals in the UK and that homeopathy actually delivers positive outcomes for patients of the NHS, that is the evidence that homeopathy provides positive benefits for patients.

Thats not evidence, thats an assertion. Show us the double blinded, placebo controlled properly conducted, repeatable trials - thats evidence.

Of course you can't because there aren't any, but hey you knew that already, you just like to lie about it, as with so many other things.

[Ed]

Originally posted by geni


5 small hospitals 3 of woch are out paicent only. They only exist because of roly patronage 50 years ago and are currently starting to run into a load of problems (people are starting to ask questions) I note that you have failed to show how the studies I listed are flawed.


It won't.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
"The NHS Plan and the National Service Frameworks (NSFs) health care strategies identify clinical priority areas for the health of the nation. Homeopathy can help deliver positive patient outcomes in these categories. Homeopathy is already a recognised provision in the NHS through 5 homeopathic hospitals and some notable PCT initiatives. Homeopathy can help meet local health needs and help meet NHS Plan targets through more local provision at PCT level."

Yes, I read it. No need to repeat it. Explain it.

What, exactly does it mean, "positive patient outcomes"?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Ladewig
If you hit your thumb with a hammer, do you take western medicine to reduce the pain or do you turn to dilutions?


Is the correct homeopathic response not to hit your thumb with the hammer again, but really, really gently?

[Reginald]

It should be pointed out that these 5 hospitals were included at the time the NHS was formed in 1948. They have not been aquired recently.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet


Is the correct homeopathic response not to hit your thumb with the hammer again, but really, really gently?
The homeopathic response is: try a smaller hammer.

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


"The NHS Plan and the National Service Frameworks (NSFs) health care strategies identify clinical priority areas for the health of the nation. Homeopathy can help deliver positive patient outcomes in these categories. Homeopathy is already a recognised provision in the NHS through 5 homeopathic hospitals and some notable PCT initiatives. Homeopathy can help meet local health needs and help meet NHS Plan targets through more local provision at PCT level."
I admit I haven't studied this issue, but positive patient outcomes can simply mean the patients lived. Not necessarily than they've been helped, or cured. In doublespeak, negative patient outcome often means the patient died. So in reading this post, I gather that homeopathy didn't kill anyone. And for medicine to not kill its patients, that certainly would be a "clinical priority area", wouldn't you think?

[Reginald]

I think this thread has drifted.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet


Thats not evidence, thats an assertion. Show us the double blinded, placebo controlled properly conducted, repeatable trials - thats evidence.


No, people actualy experiencing a positive health outcome through treatment with homeopathy is actualy demonstrating the effectiveness of treatment. We all know that there are some in favour and some which don't. The fact of reality though, is that, away from the lab and the pseudo-skeptic, in the real world patients can benefit from homeopathic treatment.

[Darat]

Oh and more personal attacks..

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


No, people actualy experiencing a positive health outcome through treatment with homeopathy is actualy demonstrating the effectiveness of treatment. We all know that there are some in favour and some which don't. The fact of reality though, is that, away from the lab and the pseudo-skeptic, in the real world patients can benefit from homeopathic treatment.
Really? Then one wonders why the necessity of using weasel words such as "positive health outcome." One also wonders why real doctors can speak of cures. Are homeopathic testicles as tiny and impotent as their ridiculously dilute nostrums?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
No, people actualy experiencing a positive health outcome through treatment with homeopathy is actualy demonstrating the effectiveness of treatment.

What does that mean, "effectiveness"? Does it mean they are cured due to the homeopathic whatever-they-took?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Yes, I read it. No need to repeat it. Explain it.

What, exactly does it mean, "positive patient outcomes"?

In the context of the text from which it comes, I could not possibly provide you with a satisfactory answer as it is a claim published by the NHS trust assoc. You must ask them for yourself if you do not understand. I know what it means to me because I have experienced the effectiveness of some of these treatments.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
In the context of the text from which it comes, I could not possibly provide you with a satisfactory answer as it is a claim published by the NHS trust assoc. You must ask them for yourself if you do not understand. I know what it means to me because I have experienced the effectiveness of some of these treatments.

Whoa, just a second! So, you have absolutely no idea what it means, but you believe it means what you hope it means, because you yourself have "experienced the effectiveness of some of these treatments".

In other words, you base it on wishful thinking and personal anecdotes.

Welcome back to the board, Lucianarchy! :D

[Anders]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


England is a very European country. The NHS do not see homeopathy as 'quackery', in fact they recommend it.

http://www.ubht.nhs.uk/homeopathy/
England, or perhaps better, the UK, is indeed a European country. That doesn't change the fact that in Sweden, MDs that practice H'path, reflexology, remote healing, or any other supernatural health treatment, are indeed considered quacks and are relived of there license to practice medicine.

[Z]

OK. No problem. But now at least you know that the NHS uses 5 Hospitals in the UK and that homeopathy actually delivers positive outcomes for patients of the NHS, that is the evidence that homeopathy provides positive benefits for patients.

No, I know that the NHS uses 5 hospitals in the UK. The rest of your statement is a bald lie, as this statement asserts without proof things which are unproven and detestably ignorant.

Insert 'Placebo' for 'Homeopath' and at least it sounds more honest.

As usual, here's someone who mistakenly thinks they got 'better' off of water or sugar pills, and now has to support their own feelings by latching on to any authority that agrees with them, while denying simple, scientific proof. Shameful.

Might as well become a Christian, Luci - and stop lying. You're about as skeptical as a Jim Jones fan.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Anders

England, or perhaps better, the UK, is indeed a European country. That doesn't change the fact that in Sweden, MDs that practice H'path, reflexology, remote healing, or any other supernatural health treatment, are indeed considered quacks and are relived of there license to practice medicine.

"supernatural"? lol! It sounds like you're in the Dark Ages over there. It actually seems against Human Rights to deny people of a non invasive, non addictive, non toxic, relatively cheap treatment which has been found to be helpful for patients of the NHS.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon


No, I know that the NHS uses 5 hospitals in the UK. The rest of your statement is a bald lie.



Do you consider this to be a lie?:

"The NHS Plan and the National Service Frameworks (NSFs) health care strategies identify clinical priority areas for the health of the nation. Homeopathy can help deliver positive patient outcomes in these categories. Homeopathy is already a recognised provision in the NHS through 5 homeopathic hospitals and some notable PCT initiatives. Homeopathy can help meet local health needs and help meet NHS Plan targets through more local provision at PCT level."

Or these people to be credophiles:?

http://www.apcgt.org/

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
"supernatural"? lol! It sounds like you're in the Dark Ages over there. It actually seems against Human Rights to deny people of a non invasive, non addictive, non toxic, relatively cheap treatment which has been found to be helpful for patients of the NHS.
No it has not.
In fact, any quacks who criminally deceive sick people into taking water rather than empirically proven medicine should lose their license, at the very least.
Bravo to Sweden!

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Do you consider this to be a lie?:

"The NHS Plan and the National Service Frameworks (NSFs) health care strategies identify clinical priority areas for the health of the nation. Homeopathy can help deliver positive patient outcomes in these categories. Homeopathy is already a recognised provision in the NHS through 5 homeopathic hospitals and some notable PCT initiatives. Homeopathy can help meet local health needs and help meet NHS Plan targets through more local provision at PCT level."

Or these people to be credophiles:?

http://www.apcgt.org/

I consider it to be an unproven assertion. You accept it as truth.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Or these people to be credophiles:?

http://www.apcgt.org/

those people are NHS trust managers. They are hard-nosed businessmen who know it's important to give the punter what they want.

Check their questionnaire on Complementary medicine commissioning:

If you do not fund complementary therapy at the moment, should there be an increase in public demand for such therapies would you consider funding them?

Increase in public demand - no worries about whether it is any good or not.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Do you consider this to be a lie?:

"The NHS Plan and the National Service Frameworks (NSFs) health care strategies identify clinical priority areas for the health of the nation. Homeopathy can help deliver positive patient outcomes in these categories. Homeopathy is already a recognised provision in the NHS through 5 homeopathic hospitals and some notable PCT initiatives. Homeopathy can help meet local health needs and help meet NHS Plan targets through more local provision at PCT level."

But you have just admitted that you cannot explain what it means. You accept this statement, yet don't know what lies behind it?

Who is a creduloid, then?

[Prester John]

The NHS trusts association in its own words:

The NHSTA strives to make relevant information available to patients.

So as you can see its an information service. I think you will find that one of the homeopathic hospitals in London has lost its NHS contract, because it was a waste of money.

Homeopathy has a big problem, it cannot prove that it does anything. All its effects are pure anecdote, when it is tested under controlled conditions it is no better than placebo. To become part of the NHS it must be able to prove its effectiveness. Talk to a homeopath and they will offer a hundred excuses as to why it doesn't work in controlled circumstances, but none can give an acceptable reason. The few homeopathic hospitals that have NHS patients referred to them are there as a result of political pressure, nothing to do with efficacy.

Homeopathy makes testable claims, ie it can cure disease and improve peoples health. These claims do not stand up to investigation.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


"supernatural"? lol! It sounds like you're in the Dark Ages over there. It actually seems against Human Rights to deny people of a non invasive, non addictive, non toxic, relatively cheap treatment which has been found to be helpful for patients of the NHS.

Belief without proof is a hallmark of religion which was characteristic of the Middle Ages.

I might point out that precisely the same arguments (with the same amount of support) could be made for the healing power of prayer.

Tell me, given that your requirements for proof are what they are, do you believe in the healing power of prayer? If not, why not?

[An Infinite Ocean]

Originally posted by Rolfe
(Infinite Ocean, it's not Xanta that has the pretend medical practice, that's Naturalhealth ("Homeoskeptic", God help us all). Xanta is a deluded acolyte, because 2 of her (count it) 20 distinct symptoms of irritable bowel disease seemed to ease up when she took a homoeopathic remedy.)
Whoops, I knew that. But let's face it, they are so similar to one another (brainless, full of bile), it's an easy mistake to make.

[Thinking in CT]

Just wondering, is JREF considering any legal action against any other defendants with respect to the libelous statements posted to this forum?

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Thinking in CT
Just wondering, is JREF considering any legal action against any other defendants with respect to the libelous statements posted to this forum?
If so, they haven't posted it. Of course, I reserve the right to have missed it, though I believe it was Hal who said there are things going on behind the scenes. Can anyone else confirm?

[chipotle]

Originally posted by reprise
Given what Benneth has posted about Randi and the JREF over at The Proving in the last few days I'd be very, VERY upset if the lawsuit has been dropped and I think I would lose all respect for Randi and Hal if they didn't pursue this through the courts to the bitter end. I know that you can't sue every single person who says something bad about you, but this one has gotten WAY out of hand.

Thanks Reprise. I do wish people wouldn't hijack this thread with homeopathy. Reprise, can I ask you to please post summaries and links to those Benneth postings. Benneth says this stuff all the time, and James manages not to notice. But once James isn't around to defend himself, we will all hear it all the time, that James was fill in Benneth fantasy of your choice and that James could have defended himself against the accusations, but didn't because they were true.

You should have no trouble reposting Benneth's claims in a way that doesn't draw the wrong kind of attention to yourself. If you prefer, just mail them to James.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Prester John
The few homeopathic hospitals that have NHS patients referred to them are there as a result of political pressure, nothing to do with efficacy.



You are wrong, misleading and / or deliberately dishonest.

The Department of Homeopathic Medicine in Liverpool is part of North Mersey NHS Community Trust. 5,500 patients every year.

An audit of efficacy of DHM patients being treated for asthma, 77% showed a moderate or significant improvement, while for eczema the figure was 68%, for depression 66%, for migraine 66% , menstrual-related problems 100% and irritable bowel syndrome 100% with moderate or significant improvement reported.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


But you have just admitted that you cannot explain what it means.



I have told you that the words were used by someone else and for them to provide you with your answer. Regarding the UK's National Health Trusts Assoc. they are a highly credible professional organsisation of NHS professionals.

I am aware that you have a history of pedantry and therefore cannot and will not answer claims on behalf of another.

I am also aware of the real world efficacy in practice within the NHS and know that it can help.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
I have told you that the words were used by someone else and for them to provide you with your answer.

But you are the one who points to that paragraph to support your claim. But you can't explain what it means.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Regarding the UK's National Health Trusts Assoc. they are a highly credible professional organsisation of NHS professionals.

Completely irrelevant. You were the one taking it as a truth, but cannot explain what it means.

Who is the creduloid again, Lucianarchy?

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
I am aware that you have a history of pedantry and therefore cannot and will not answer claims on behalf of another.

I am aware that you have a history of avoiding questions like the plague and will not answer any.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
I am also aware of the real world efficacy in practice within the NHS and know that it can help.

So you say. Should we believe you, a known liar?

If you won't explain it, then I won't understand it.
If you can't explain it, then you don't understand it.

Tell me something, Lucianarchy: Does the NHS support the use of placebo? Does placebo have an effect?

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by olaf
100,000 european medical doctors use homeopathy in their practice. they do so because they see it work.

UP UNTIL VERY RECENTLY, THE GREAT MAJORITY OF MEDICAL DOCTORS WOULD BLEED THEIR PATIENTS. THEY DID SO BECAUSE THEY COULD SEE IT WORK (Though, of course, some of them died before the full benefit of the cure could be appreciated)

[Timble]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


You are wrong, misleading and / or deliberately dishonest.

The Department of Homeopathic Medicine in Liverpool is part of North Mersey NHS Community Trust. 5,500 patients every year.

An audit of efficacy of DHM patients being treated for asthma, 77% showed a moderate or significant improvement, while for eczema the figure was 68%, for depression 66%, for migraine 66% , menstrual-related problems 100% and irritable bowel syndrome 100% with moderate or significant improvement reported.



Oi, Lucianarchole you forgot to post the link where this comes from. Not exactly an unbiased source is it?

At:
http://www.trusthomeopathy.org/case/cas_hos.html#5

The audit was over two weeks, so that's not a lot of patients.

A few things the NHS actually says about homeopathy.

At:
http://www.nelh.nhs.uk/hth/homeopathy_asthma.asp

http://www.nelh.nhs.uk/hth/arnica.asp

I can't find anything on the National Institute of Clinical Excellence's site - but then it favours evidence-based medicine.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Timble
Oi, Lucianarchole you forgot to post the link where this comes from. Not exactly an unbiased source is it?

At:
http://www.trusthomeopathy.org/case/cas_hos.html#5

The audit was over two weeks, so that's not a lot of patients.

Oi, Lucianarchy. Up to your old games again, posting somebody else's work as your own?

Tsk, tsk...haven't you learned by now that you will be discovered?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Timble


The audit was over two weeks, so that's not a lot of patients.
Look closely, as it gets better. Luci rewrote it to make it look as if those were the results of said audit. They weren't. The site says an audit is currently underway, and reports "results so far."

Nudge, nudge, twist, twist, clip clip; we'll puff up the data and make it look right nice.

This is a disgusting, distorted hijacking of a distorted Wu thread, now, isn't it.

[Darat]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
...snip...

This is a disgusting, distorted hijacking of a distorted Wu thread, now, isn't it.

Are you sure "And if there is one thing the Big L does bring here it is a textbook case of how someone will plumb the depths of dishonesty, personal attacks and lies rather then acknowledge that they could ever be wrong." doesn't count towards the million?

Perhaps Randi will spot me a couple of hundred thousand now?

[Lucianarchy]

"DONCASTER AREA HOMEOPATHY CLINIC’S SUCCESS
Service now offered across South Yorkshire and beyond

A first-of-its-kind NHS homeopathy clinic has proved so successful in trials on the west side of Doncaster that it is now being offered to patients across the whole of South Yorkshire and further afield.
[...]

More than 3,000 homeopathic medicines are available and they are particularly helpful for people who cannot take conventional drugs because of the side-effects, such as older people and pregnant women. For every conventional medicine there is a homeopathic equivalent and evidence is increasingly highlighting the success of these natural alternatives.

“We can provide remedies for people having cancer treatment to help with the side effects, and many other conditions. Homeopathy has been available through the NHS for over 50 years but its value still remains relatively untapped”, said Dr Fitton."

http://www.doncastercentralpct.nhs.uk/pressreleases/details.asp?ReleaseID=624

Some of you can't accept the fact that the NHS use homeopathy to good effect

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
You are wrong, misleading and / or deliberately dishonest.

You are a liar, a cheat and a fake.

[An Infinite Ocean]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
[B]"
“We can provide remedies for people having cancer treatment to help with the side effects, and many other conditions. Homeopathy has been available through the NHS for over 50 years but its value still remains relatively untapped”, said Dr Fitton."
The key word there is 'we'. The piece was written as a publicity article, nothing more.

The fact that cancer patients are being exploited makes me feel physically sick. I might write to my MP about these homeopathy so-called hospitals.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Timble


Oi, Lucianarchole you forgot to post the link where this comes from. Not exactly an unbiased source is it?

At:
http://www.trusthomeopathy.org/case/cas_hos.html#5

The audit was over two weeks, so that's not a lot of patients.

A few things the NHS actually says about homeopathy.

At:
http://www.nelh.nhs.uk/hth/homeopathy_asthma.asp



lol! The audit covered more patients than the one you have provided above!

The NHS even state in the link you provide that one of the problems with your study is that not enough patients were used and that it, in your words, is "not enough patients". lol!

So it looks like you are bieng selective with the data. Isn't that a bit dishonest of you, Timble? You have been hoist by your own petard here!

So I have to ask, Timble, why would you want to misinform people who may otherwise gain health benefits from a non toxic, non invasive, relatively cheap treatment?

Isn't that far, far worse than any psychic phoneline scam??

It seems like a few of you are again reaching hysteria levels whilst experiencing the cognitive dissonance of being faced with the reality that the UK NHS use homeopathy to positive patient effect.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by An Infinite Ocean

The key word there is 'we'. The piece was written as a publicity

The fact that cancer patients are being exploited makes me feel physically sick. I might write to my MP about these homeopathy so-called hospitals.

Get your facts right first. The fact is cancer patients are not being exploited, so I'd be very careful if I were you. If not for your own legal safety, at least have some respect for those patients who have actually been helped by homeopathy treatments whilst undergoing standard chemo and radiotherapy, particualrly from the Centre in Bath, which I can confirm from personal experience has been helpful as a compliment to the standard therapies. Why would you want to stop others from getting this help by being misleading?

[CFLarsen]

Lucianarchy,

From the site:
An audit is currently underway at Liverpool in which outcomes for a total of 150 patients in various categories, including all new referrals in one particular month and all new arthritis patients during two consecutive months, are being scrutinised.
...
An overview of two weeks' clinics shows of patients being treated for asthma, 77% showed a moderate or significant improvement, while for eczema the figure was 68%, for depression 66%, for migraine 66% while for patients with menstrual-related problems and those with irritable bowel syndrome, the figure was 100% with moderate or significant improvement.

Your post:
The Department of Homeopathic Medicine in Liverpool is part of North Mersey NHS Community Trust. 5,500 patients every year.

An audit of efficacy of DHM patients being treated for asthma, 77% showed a moderate or significant improvement, while for eczema the figure was 68%, for depression 66%, for migraine 66% , menstrual-related problems 100% and irritable bowel syndrome 100% with moderate or significant improvement reported.

The first quote deals with 150 patients. You make it look as if we are talking about 5,500.

You are a liar, a cheat and a fake.

[An Infinite Ocean]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy Get your facts right first. The fact is cancer patients are not being exploited, so I'd be very careful if I were you. If not for your own legal safety[...]
Cancer patients are being exploited. I will shout it from the rooftops. Tell anyone you like. If someone wants to sue me, I would absolutely love to 'out' them as the snake-oil peddling scum that they really are, in a court of law.
at least have some respect for those patients who have actually been helped by homeopathy treatments whilst undergoing standard chemo and radiotherapy
None have been helped by homeopathic treatments, any more than they would have been helped by (far cheaper) normal placebo.
particualrly from the Centre in Bath, which I can confirm from personal experience has been helpful as a compliment to the standard therapies. Why would you want to stop others from getting this help by being misleading? [/B]
Homeopathy does not work. It is a lie. You will forgive me if I don't take your conformation of homeopathy's amazing abilities as gospel. Show me some high quality, replicable scientific studies however, and I might be swayed.

Preying on cancer victims is just about as low as you can go.

My apologies for continuing this thread derailment...

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Darat


And if there is one thing the Big L does bring here it is a textbook case of how someone will plumb the depths of dishonesty, personal attacks and lies rather then acknowledge that they could ever be wrong.



lol! Your level of projection here, Tara, is truly staggering. One only has to go back and read your posts in this thread to see the shoe you are trying get rid of is stuck firmly where it fits, in your own big mouth. lol! It is hilarious though, that you are completely unaware of your own psychological faux pas / wet pants, and will be laughed at by the descendants of your family for many generations to come. The best bits are when you go running around shreiking hystericaly whenever the 'Big L' appears. lol! You remind me of those characters off Yellow Submarine, you know, the ones with the spinning heads and 'woo-woo' siren. lol!

[Darat]

And the personal attacks continue.

As I said a textbook example.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
The Department of Homeopathic Medicine in Liverpool is part of North Mersey NHS Community Trust. 5,500 patients every year.

An audit of efficacy of DHM patients being treated for asthma, 77% showed a moderate or significant improvement, while for eczema the figure was 68%, for depression 66%, for migraine 66% , menstrual-related problems 100% and irritable bowel syndrome 100% with moderate or significant improvement reported.

How many people does this audit deal with?

(I might as well warn you, liar, this is a question that will haunt you until you answer it - with a number.)

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


The first quote deals with 150 patients.

Indeed, far more than the "limited" (NHS quote) study being waved around here by you minority pseudo-skeptics.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by An Infinite Ocean

Cancer patients are being exploited. I will shout it from the rooftops. Tell anyone you like. If someone wants to sue me, I would absolutely love to 'out' them as the snake-oil peddling scum that they really are, in a court of law.


Then, brave Sir, be good to your word and hot-air and take your claim to the NHS hospitals for scrutiny. Oh, and be sure to come back and let us know how you get on. LOL!

Something tells me you are full of methane...

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Indeed, far more than the "limited" (NHS quote) study being waved around here by you minority pseudo-skeptics.

So you agree that the audit deals with 150 people, and not 5,500? Yes or no, please.

[An Infinite Ocean]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Then, brave Sir, be good to your word and hot-air and take your claim to the NHS hospitals for scrutiny. Oh, and be sure to come back and let us know how you get on. LOL!

Something tells me you are full of methane...
What, I should walk into a homeopathic hospital and shout loudly that they are a bunch of frauds? What are you suggesting I do?

If you have some suggestion of a means by which I can show that I am not 'full of methane', then please do share it with me.

[Timble]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
lol! The audit covered more patients than the one you have provided above!


References please or shut the phuque up.


The NHS even state in the link you provide that one of the problems with your study is that not enough patients were used and that it, in your words, is "not enough patients". lol!


Yes, the point is that the study doesn't and indeed couldn't prove anything.


So it looks like you are bieng selective with the data. Isn't that a bit dishonest of you, Timble? You have been hoist by your own petard here!



No.

So I have to ask, Timble, why would you want to misinform people who may otherwise gain health benefits from a non toxic, non invasive, relatively cheap treatment?



That's a 'Have you stopped beating your wife?' type of question.

I'm not misinforming them about a practice which emerged around 200 years ago, at the same time that the roots of modern medicine were being laid down, but which still has to prove that it's more effective than tea, sympathy and bit of tlc

Non toxic? in the pharmacology course they said that if a drug didn't have side effects it was because it didn't have any effects.


Isn't that far, far worse than any psychic phoneline scam??


So that's how you're peddling your RV claims these days.



.... cognitive dissonance of being faced with the reality that the UK NHS use homeopathy to positive patient effect.



No dissonance, it keeps some patients happy because they think they're problem is being seen to, so it keeps doctors happy.

Actually, I'd never tell anyone to throw away their alternative medicine...no point in needlessly upsetting people. But I'd tell them to keep up with the conventional medicine as well...and if it was they had something serious try hard to persuade them to see a conventional doctor if they hadn't already.

[Lucianarchy]

Once again, being confronted with reality, Liarson resorts to pedantry and twitches once again into clinical obsession rather than deal with the fact that the study demonstrates efficacy to a greater degree and over a wider patient base than the selective data being waved by the pseudo-skeptics. :rolleyes:

...and the fact that the UK NHS uses homeopathy to positive effect for its patients.

[An Infinite Ocean]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
...and the fact that the UK NHS uses homeopathy to positive effect for its patients.
What percentage of the UK population is referred to a homeopathic hospital or practitioner by an employee of the NHS in a professional capacity? Any figures?

If it's more than 0.02% I'll be amazed.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by An Infinite Ocean

What, I should walk into a homeopathic hospital and shout loudly that they are a bunch of frauds? What are you suggesting I do?

If you have some suggestion of a means by which I can show that I am not 'full of methane', then please do share it with me.

lol, just a minute ago you were going to shout it from the rooftops. lol! Now you have calmed down and perhaps the reality of the situation has got the better of you, it looks like indeed you are full of it. If not, why aren't you taking this up right away with those NHS hospitals, the Govt, etc? How can you let those 'scammers' get away with what you see as such disgraceful behaviour? If you know such things it is your duty to report such criminal offences otherwise you are colluding with it.

Lol!

[An Infinite Ocean]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
lol, just a minute ago you were going to shout it from the rooftops. lol!
You realise that is just an expression, do you? If I stood on a rooftop and started yelling I'd be arrested.
Now you have calmed down and perhaps the reality of the situation has got the better of you, it looks like indeed you are full of it.
It looks like you're unable to comprehend standard English expressions. Ever been tested for autism?
If not, why aren't you taking this up right away with those NHS hospitals, the Govt, etc? How can you let those 'scammers' get away with what you see as such disgraceful behaviour? If you know such things it is your duty to report such criminal offences otherwise you are colluding with it.

Lol!
Why are you laughing? That's exactly what I'm going to do. I had no idea that the NHS was funding homeopathy or exploiting cancer patients. I shall be writing a letter to my MP at the very least.

If the NHS does dump homeopathy the world will have you to thank, Luci. Well done.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Timble



Yes, the point is that the study doesn't and indeed couldn't prove anything.



Interesting! That is the exact same study which the skeptic-quacks are busy waving around as proof that homeopathy doesn't work. It is good that you have admitted that this isn't the case, as the NHS say that it needed a wider patient base because as it stands the study is "limited". So the study at Liverpool actually increases the patient base and provides positive evidence of efficacy.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Once again, being confronted with reality, Liarson resorts to pedantry and twitches once again into clinical obsession rather than deal with the fact that the study demonstrates efficacy to a greater degree and over a wider patient base than the selective data being waved by the pseudo-skeptics. :rolleyes:

...and the fact that the UK NHS uses homeopathy to positive effect for its patients.

Answer the question, you liar:

Do you agree that the audit deals with 150 people, and not 5,500? Yes or no, please.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by An Infinite Ocean


Why are you laughing? That's exactly what I'm going to do. I had no idea that the NHS was funding homeopathy or exploiting cancer patients. I shall be writing a letter to my MP at the very least.



Excellent! Who is it? Promise to let us know what the outcome is?
Be sure to be honest now, tell them you believe that the NHS are exploiting cancer patients and remember to provide your references and sources. Try to avoid terms like 'snakeoil' though. lol.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Answer the question, you liar:


lol! Since I have not claimed what you are asking about, I suggest you Just add it to your little listy thingy with all the other irrelevant nonsense and obsessions you harbour there. .:rub:

[Timble]

THERE IS NO STUDY AT LIVERPOOL.

It is an audit of a disparate group of patients with different disorders. Probably, from the evidence of the article no more than twenty or so ofany one disorder. There's no control group and there's no blinding to prevent observer bias.

Where is the reference for this study?

The problem with homeopathy is that individually the studies are too small, and the meta-analyses don't show anything much either.

Did you get tired of mind-games with remote viewing?

[An Infinite Ocean]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Excellent! Who is it? Promise to let us know what the outcome is?
Be sure to be honest now, tell them you believe that the NHS are exploiting cancer patients and remember to provide your references and sources. Try to avoid terms like 'snakeoil' though. lol.
I shall report the response on this forum once I recieve it - it may be that I have to write to someone in a specific part of government, but my MP will do for a start.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Ed


Belief without proof is a hallmark of religion which was characteristic of the Middle Ages.

I might point out that precisely the same arguments (with the same amount of support) could be made for the healing power of prayer.

Tell me, given that your requirements for proof are what they are, do you believe in the healing power of prayer? If not, why not?

[Darat]

And it continues.

Dishonesty

Personal attacks

Lies

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Timble
THERE IS NO STUDY AT LIVERPOOL.



No need to shout. It makes you look fanatical.
Yes, there is a study at Liverpool. You are getting hysterical. Stop and think for a minute. Are you in denial here? The facts exist. They are out there. The NHS uses homeopathy to provide positive results for their patients.

Patient benefit survey: Liverpool Regional Department of Homoeopathic Medicine



Abstract
We report an Outcome Survey carried out at Liverpool Regional Department of Homoeopathic Medicine, over a 12-month period between 1 June 1999 and 31 May 2000, using self-assessment by the Glasgow Homoeopathic Hospital Outcome Score (GHHOS). Overall 76.6% of patients reported an improvement in their conditions since starting homeopathic treatment, while 60.3% scored +2,+3 or+4 on the GHHOS. Fifty-two percent of patients reduced their conventional medication.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
lol! Since I have not claimed what you are asking about, I suggest you Just add it to your little listy thingy with all the other irrelevant nonsense and obsessions you harbour there. .:rub:
Very well. Let's fantasize that you did not deliberately try to convey the impression that 5,500 people took part in the audit.

Nevertheless, we should get the facts straight:

Do you agree that the audit deals with 150 people, and not 5,500? Yes or no, please.

[An Infinite Ocean]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
The NHS uses homeopathy to provide positive results for their patients.
No need to repeat yourself, it makes you look fanatical.

Besides which, one soundbite doth not make a fact. We can provide any number of quotes about the uselessness of homeopathy, but choose not to repeat them ad infinitum.
Abstract
We report an Outcome Survey carried out at Liverpool Regional Department of Homoeopathic Medicine, over a 12-month period between 1 June 1999 and 31 May 2000, using self-assessment by the Glasgow Homoeopathic Hospital Outcome Score (GHHOS). Overall 76.6% of patients reported an improvement in their conditions since starting homeopathic treatment, while 60.3% scored +2,+3 or+4 on the GHHOS. Fifty-two percent of patients reduced their conventional medication.
And this sounds like a clinical trial how? It sounds like a meaningless survey to me. Without knowing the full details of how it was carried out, and the medical histories of the people involved, how can anyone possibly draw any conclusions from this? If you think that's proof of anything, then you really are clueless.

Plus of course, it's put together by homeopaths. Who, let's face it, aren't very good with the whole science thing.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Reginald (two pages ago)
I think this thread has drifted.

Yes, I'm beginning to get that impression, too.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


No need to shout. It makes you look fanatical.
Yes, there is a study at Liverpool. You are getting hysterical. Stop and think for a minute. Are you in denial here? The facts exist. They are out there. The NHS uses homeopathy to provide positive results for their patients.

Patient benefit survey: Liverpool Regional Department of Homoeopathic Medicine



Abstract
We report an Outcome Survey carried out at Liverpool Regional Department of Homoeopathic Medicine, over a 12-month period between 1 June 1999 and 31 May 2000, using self-assessment by the Glasgow Homoeopathic Hospital Outcome Score (GHHOS). Overall 76.6% of patients reported an improvement in their conditions since starting homeopathic treatment, while 60.3% scored +2,+3 or+4 on the GHHOS. Fifty-two percent of patients reduced their conventional medication.

Woa, woa, woa. Back up a minute. If fifty-two percent of patients were able to reduce their conventional medication, that implies that the people in the survey were also under conventional medical care. Therefore, how can anyone conclude from this that it was Homeopathy rather than the conventional treatment (or the simple fact that a lot of ilnesses will just get better with time) that made the patients better?

[Wrath of the Swarm]

I bet placebos would help people reduce their medicinal intakes, particularly with painkillers.

Doesn't mean the placebos have any active powers whatsoever.

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Yes, I'm beginning to get that impression, too. Heh, I clicked on the thread, read a few posts, and wondered if I'd clicked on the wrong thread.

Uh guys? What hath any of this to do with the destitute Mr. Wu or his brush with the legal profession?

[An Infinite Ocean]

Originally posted by Aoidoi
Uh guys? What hath any of this to do with the destitute Mr. Wu or his brush with the legal profession?
Fair point. I won't post any more homeopathy related stuff in here.

I'm not sure who was to blame, but the good money's on Luci.

[Timble]

Sometimes you need to shout to get an answer, apart from playing silly beggars LA could have given us the reference from the start.

BTW mods, this is my own abstract of the data I'm not lifting the text except where directly quoted: which I think it's probably in the 'fair use' limit.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richardson WR. Patient benefit survey: Liverpool Regional Department of Homeopathic Medicine. British Homeopathic Journal 2001:90:158-162.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aims:
The study aimed to determine what sort of patients the clinic was treating; assess the overall outcomes for these patients; compare outcomes for different diagnostic groups; determine if homeopathy enable convention medicine to be reduced.

Patients:
Patients attending a follow-up clinic between 1 June 1999 and 31 May 2000, who had completed at least two courses of homeopathic treatment and who not attended the clinic more that twenty times and who did not have cancer.


Assessments
The Glasgow Homeopathic Outcome Score a patient completed questionnaire.

Results:
- 1,00 patients were surveyed
- 814 were taking conventional medication, 424 (52%) were able to reduce their medication
- overall 76.6% of patients reported an improvement in their conditon since starting homeopathic therapy
- the most common complaints were musculosletal, for example 15.1% of patients had osteoarthritis, 80.1% of this group reported some improvement
- skin disorders were next most common, e.g. 9.8% of patients had eczema, with 83.3% reporting a recovery, however, only 53% of the patients with psoriasis reported an improvement
other disorders that affected more that 5% of the patients were chronic fatigue (7.6%), asthma (5.5%), anxiety/panic attacks (5.1%) - improvement rates for these disorders were 79.7%, 78.6%, 85% and 78.6% respectively.
-1.7% of patients had PMS, 89.5% reported some improvement

Discussion:

'Many of the patients had chronic disease and had already had extensive allopathic treatment so it seems likely that improvement was die to homeopathy but it would be useful to have this confirmed.'

'This survey makes no claim to be definitive research.' Far too many variables are involved for these results to be anything but a rough guide.'


Timble adds:
The author also comments that the notes that a problem is that they don't know how may of their patients returned their questionnaires and that people with poor outcomes might be less inclined to do it.

I think the first assertion about the efficacy of homeopathy is debatable, since it may have been the long term use of their ordinary medicine that effected the improvement, or maybe they just recovered on thier own - there isn't a control group.
Also there's only the one efficacy assessment, it would have been helpful to see some sort of physician assessment and some objective test results.

There is an agenda, to get primary care physicians to refer more patients, and to lobby for more funding, but isn't that always so.

It's interesting but all a bit soft as data goes.

BTW Lucianarchy if you'd actually answer questions as to where things come from rather than play 'I'm a smartarse', you could have intelligent discussions....but I guess you'd rather score points.

[Reginald]

Forgive me if I butt in and go off-off-topic. But apart from the change to Wu's destination, do we have any other info. For example it's been stated that comments have been made on other boards or sites, anyone know where?

Yes, it's a kind of rubber necking, but so what.

[HenDralux]

maaan...Winston is banned? He was my whole source of entertainment for a Thursday night!

Loved reading his threads.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


Woa, woa, woa. Back up a minute. If fifty-two percent of patients were able to reduce their conventional medication, that implies that the people in the survey were also under conventional medical care. Therefore, how can anyone conclude from this that it was Homeopathy rather than the conventional treatment (or the simple fact that a lot of ilnesses will just get better with time) that made the patients better?
Irrlevant. We gave them water. They got better. The homeopathic researchers said it. I believe it. That settles it.

What, you want controls? What? That would be too much like science. Go wash your mouth out with homeopathic soap.

Home homeo remedy: Homeopathic soap.

Proving: dirt makes you dirty. ergo, active ingredient must be dirt.

Recipe: 1 pound red Georgia clay : 10 gallons nuclear grade water
Succus.
Decant 1/10 of volume, add 10 gallons nuclear grade water.
Succus.
(Repeat 10,000 times)
Success!

That'll be $ 35, please. Pay Dorothy Goodbody on your way out.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by HenDralux
Loved reading his threads.
That's just what the JREF attorney said! Wow, have you been remote viewing?

[Zep]

AHEM.

Sorry, EVERYONE, but I have just ploughed through the last half of this lengthy thread only to find it contains SUBJECT MATTER COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO THE TOPIC!!!! While this was going on, did anyone care to take a look at the thread TITLE by any chance? Obviously not. From some of you I expect autonomic hijacking and rants once you sniff your favourite topic, but others...well, I'm surprised and a bit disappointed at your continuance.

If you want to have unlimited three-minute rounds, bareknuckle rules, on your favourite topics then CREATE A NEW THREAD, OK????

Thank you
Zep

[Pyrrho]

It has been suggested that this thread should be split, but given the dynamic nature of discussions here, it is best to leave it alone.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Zep
[B]AHEM.
Does it serve credophiles to hijack threads found to be unsavory to credophiles? Discuss amongst yourselves...

[Roadtoad]

Sorry, all, but this is one of the reasons we can assume that Lucianarchy is a fumb duck, just the same as Jedi Knight was. His selfish hijacking of a serious thread regarding matters that are of far greater concern than his affinity for homeopathic quackery demonstrates this.

(BTW: loved your spelling, Timble, of phuque. I'll have to remember that.)

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Zep
Sorry, EVERYONE, but I have just ploughed through the last half of this lengthy thread only to find it contains SUBJECT MATTER COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO THE TOPIC!!!! While this was going on, did anyone care to take a look at the thread TITLE by any chance?Now, Zep, you know my predilection for a good homoeopathic fist-fight. And I was reading this thread all the while.

Not a syllable did I respond to! :cool:

Well, actually, Luci's "arguments" were so stale I just couldn't be bothered.

I hope Randi is still on Wu's case too.

Rolfe.

[Pyrrho]

Once again, it has been suggested that the homeopathy discussion should be split from this thread. Because the thread involves the legal situation between Winston Wu and Mr. Randi, we are not going to try splitting this thread. Recent difficulties with copying threads have resulted in lost posts which had to be restored, and I am just not willing to take that risk with this thread. If people stop responding to the homeopathy discussion, it will end.

[tedly]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
[
(BTW: loved your spelling, Timble, of phuque. I'll have to remember that.) [/B]

Typo alert - 'phoque' is French for seal. You don't want to insult those beautiful animals by comparing them to "dumb ..

[HenDralux]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

That's just what the JREF attorney said! Wow, have you been remote viewing?


Nope. I've been printing Winston's threads out, and transforming them into comic format, complete with illustrations.

Hope he doesn't ask for royalties.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
Once again, it has been suggested that the homeopathy discussion should be split from this thread. Because the thread involves the legal situation between Winston Wu and Mr. Randi, we are not going to try splitting this thread. Recent difficulties with copying threads have resulted in lost posts which had to be restored, and I am just not willing to take that risk with this thread. If people stop responding to the homeopathy discussion, it will end. Thank you, Pyrrho.

Perhaps I should get WAY more sleep - rereading my post I sounded just like somebody's angry dad. Sorry if I sounded grumpy, folks. :(

[Ceinwyn]

Ok Lucianarchy,

ever had surgery or been in the hospital or been to the doctor?

Did they prescribe homeopathic medications?

Would you want them to?

Of course, I don't expect an answer to my questions.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Zep
Thank you, Pyrrho.

Perhaps I should get WAY more sleep - rereading my post I sounded just like somebody's angry dad. Sorry if I sounded grumpy, folks. :(
Are you kidding? You helped gather a bit of evidence that the credophile whines about Wu's original post were pony poo.

[Zep]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Are you kidding? You helped gather a bit of evidence that the credophile whines about Wu's original post were pony poo. Heh. You should see what Reprise found! C'mon, Reprise! You found it, you post it! Or have I missed this somewhere else...

[Ceinwyn]

Yes Reprise. We all want to see where Winston totally screwed himself.

[Timble]

Sorry about wandering off-thread Pyrrho et al. have a tendency to do that. The homeopathy debate would have been better off in ‘The Harm’ thread, so if it comes up here again I’ll be ignoring it and confining comments on this one, if any, to Mr Wu leaving the building.

[Anders]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


"supernatural"? lol! It sounds like you're in the Dark Ages over there. It actually seems against Human Rights to deny people of a non invasive, non addictive, non toxic, relatively cheap treatment which has been found to be helpful for patients of the NHS.
Well, my friend, I wouldn't call Sweden a country in the dark ages, nobody, except you, would. It's just that the lawmakers has decided that every medical treatment that can't be proven that it in fact does something medical significant can’t be used on children under a certain age or on cancer patients. And it doesn’t have to be proven scientifically, proven experience that it works is quite enough.

And supernatural treatments like H’path and reflexology, remote healing, etc just can’t be proven that it works, neither with experience nor scientifically.

Water-memory is be definition supernatural, because it has no support in science.

[Z]

This will be my last homeopathy hijack here, sorry to do this, but I missed a day of fighting.

Luci, dear, the fact is that you are looking at biased sources of slanted information. You are reading surveys (i.e. questionairres asking the patients 'Do you feel better?') that SUGGEST that Homeopathy might have helped (but only when interpreted by Homeopaths). You haven't once quoted a single, unbiased, properly conducted double-blind study. In this, you are identical to every other idiot that comes by here blabbing about 100,000 MDs or shouting anecdotes from the virtual rooftops.

What a skeptic requires are unbiased, reproducible, verifiable facts. A simple series of double-blind properly controlled studies.

Every time a homeopath insists that patients have been helped by homeopathy, they are unable to show verifiable proof that it was the remedies they prescribed that helped - because either a) the patient would have gotten better anyway (or with the use of a placebo) or b) they were under other, logical, scientific treatment. Every time a hospital or clinic makes these sorts of claims, again, the patients would either have gotten better anyway, or were under other extensive treatments.

By the same token, one could argue for the efficacy of a hospital chaplain's presence, or the presence of entertaining reading material, or sexually stimulating nurses. Any or all of these could appear to be making positive results, but we know the truth.

The truth, Luci - the undeniable, actual, real, scientifically proven truth - is that homeopathy is no more effective than a placebo. EVERY properly done scientific analysis and double-blind test proves this. If you can hold up for us to see any single properly done, verifiable and reproducible, unbiased double-blind scientific study that proves homoepathy to be statistically better than a placebo, please do so. Otherwise, hold your biased sources, anecdotes, and pathetic cries to authority to yourself. And I mean that. I will no longer bother replying to moronic outpourings of "But they say it works" or "My patients looked like they got better" or "100,000 MDs can't be wrong." Proof, Luci.

And preferably in the proper threads this time.

There. OUt of my system. Thank you for your tolerance.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Zep
Thank you, Pyrrho.

Perhaps I should get WAY more sleep - rereading my post I sounded just like somebody's angry dad. Sorry if I sounded grumpy, folks. :(

Sleep? What's that? The word's missing from my dictionary. Along with the word, 'life'.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Sleep? What's that? The word's missing from my dictionary. Along with the word, 'life'. I'm old. I need more sleep now. I been and done all my partying years ago when I was young, slim, and handsome. You know grandpa in the Simpsons???

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by buki
Ok Lucianarchy,

ever had surgery or been in the hospital or been to the doctor?

Did they prescribe homeopathic medications?



Maybe you are not paying attention, Buki, but I have already explained in this thread my own personal experience of the effectiveness of homeopathy and other complimentary medicines, particularly in respect of treating the effects of radio and chemo therapies for cancer through the centre at Bath.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon


What a skeptic requires are unbiased, reproducible, verifiable facts. A simple series of double-blind properly controlled studies.



However, some people simply can't wait for eternity or some magical number of tests to be replicated to the standards of pedantry. There have been many db properly controlled studies, some are positive, some aren't. The pseudo-skeptics simply discard the positive ones. :rolleyes: Patients, on the other hand require treatment. The Bristol, Bath and Liverpool NHS clinics have shown that there are indeed positive outcomes for patients who use homeopathy as a complimentary treatment.

That's the bottom line, people go for what works, not the opinion of the prejudiced or the pedantic.

[Zep]

Lucianarchy, you dun bin told ONCE today. WRONG THREAD. Take it elsewhere.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Timble


BTW Lucianarchy if you'd actually answer questions as to where things come from rather than play 'I'm a smartarse', you could have intelligent discussions....but I guess you'd rather score points.

All I am doing here is providing factual data. I think you, like Tara, need to look closely at your psychological behaviour before you start using terms like "smartarse" and "point" scoring. Here's two of your "intelligent discussions" in this thread: "Oi, Lucianarchole" & "shut the phuque up." :rolleyes:

All I've done here is correct your knowledge base to the current factual state of how the NHS use homeopathy in the 21st century, and prevent some misguided souls from turning away from homeopathy as a complimentary treatment due to the sickening and potentialy harmful misinformation being touted by a a tiny minority of vociferous pseudo-skeptics.

[geni]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
All I've done here is correct your knowledge base to the current factual state of how the NHS use homeopathy in the 21st century, and prevent some misguided souls from turning away from homeopathy as a complimentary treatment due to the sickening and potentialy harmful misinformation being touted by a a tiny minority of vociferous pseudo-skeptics.


Go and vist the science forum and make your case there. There are plenty of threads avaible or you can start a new one.

[Z]

Luci, your creditability is pretty much shot anyway - so a liar supporting other liars is hardly cause for embracing the use of water and/or sugar pills to treat illness.

Damn, I said I was done. It's so easy to be drawn into arguments by these nitwits! My apologies to all sensible folks.

Moderators, feel free to ban me for a week or two, I'm a terrible, terrible, horrible person. Blah...:D

[Ed]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


All I am doing here is providing factual data. I think you, like Tara, need to look closely at your psychological behaviour before you start using terms like "smartarse" and "point" scoring. Here's two of your "intelligent discussions" in this thread: "Oi, Lucianarchole" & "shut the phuque up." :rolleyes:

All I've done here is correct your knowledge base to the current factual state of how the NHS use homeopathy in the 21st century, and prevent some misguided souls from turning away from homeopathy as a complimentary treatment due to the sickening and potentialy harmful misinformation being touted by a a tiny minority of vociferous pseudo-skeptics.

What about the power of prayer?

[Tanja]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


All I've done here is correct your knowledge base to the current factual state of how the NHS use homeopathy in the 21st century, and prevent some misguided souls from turning away from homeopathy as a complimentary treatment due to the sickening and potentialy harmful misinformation being touted by a a tiny minority of vociferous pseudo-skeptics.

[Nitpicking mode]

From Oxford Dictionary:

Complementary:
1) combining with something as to complete a whole
2) relating to complementary medicine

Complimentary:
1) Expressing a compliment
2) Given free of charge

[/end of nitpicking mode]

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Luci, your creditability is pretty much shot anyway -

Is that right? lol!

Since were talking about verifiable facts about the NHS, I really don't care what your opinion of my personal 'credibility' is. lol! Those statements from the NHS, NHSTA, hospitals etc,. are not mine to take credence with, cretin. lol!