The Top Ten Questions Homeopaths can't answer

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

At davefoc's suggestion, here is a handy edited list to wave in front any any homeopaths you meet.

1. Why do the effects of homeopathy, which are quite considerable when described anecdotally, dissapear when testing is performed under controlled conditions ?

2. What evidence do you have to support your assertion that "like cures like" is a natural law?

3. Exactly how does the solvent's "memory" of the active ingredient become selective, to somehow erase the intimate contact it has had with possibly millions of other compounds in its history and since the dilution process is supposed to dilute out the undesirable parts of the remedy's effects, and potentise the desirable parts, how does the remedy know which is which?

4. How is information stored in water? It's no good just saying that unexpected processes occur in solvents they must store energy and information in a completely faithful and stable manner?

5. How does the memory of water apply when the final remedy is dried onto a lactose pill?

6. How come you can prescribe for animals when you don't "prove" the remedies on animals?

7. Provings are demonstrably nonsense. In the vast majority no attention at all is paid to using controls. So it is vanishingly unlikely that many remedies in use today have the effects claimed for them in provings even if there was some validity behind the principles of homeopathy so that some remedies might truly work. So how come homeopaths using all the dodgy remedies claim success in using them? Doesn't the existence of this mass of defective remedies (even if we cannot identify them from a notional set of valid remedies) completely undermine the homeopaths' claims to make valid inferences from their much-vaunted 'clinical evidence'?

8. What can homeopathy not cure? How do these diseases differ absolutely from all the things they say it can cure. Can it cure genetic diseases?

9. What are the limits of homeopaths' credulity? Are there any alt med therapies they do not believe in? If there are really wild and weird things they do not believe in then please can they explain the rationale for making that distinction?

10. The Randi Challenge Special Question:

Is there any way to tell if a preparation is different from plain water or other solvent? Please do so and earn $1M (and no this is not a single dollar diluted homeopathically

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
At davefoc's suggestion, here is a handy edited list to wave in front any any homeopaths you meet.

1. Why do the effects of homeopathy, which are quite considerable when described anecdotally, dissapear when testing is performed under controlled conditions ?



To the awnser of first question refer my topic 'My new Question'

Q: We have to see that whether these(cosmic rays) are effecting us practically or not & if effecting, than is it practically a benificial or a damaging effect?

DaveW A: Yes, there can be an effect, but the likelihood of a measurable, noticable effect on the overall human body is so close to zero as to be indistinguishable.

However if we measure with long exposure, we may probably notice it. Homeopathic effect may be alike it.

What is E=mc2? can we convert mass in c2 or part of c2 by simple processes?

[CFLarsen]

Badly Shaved Monkey,

Excellent! Can I steal this for SkepticReport? :)

You can email me at webmaster@skepticreport.com for details.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Badly Shaved Monkey,

Excellent! Can I steal this for SkepticReport? :)


Most certainly!

[geni]

Originally posted by Kumar


However if we measure with long exposure, we may probably notice it. Homeopathic effect may be alike it.

prove it. anyway thats not what homeopaths claim. they claim fairly quick results

What is E=mc2? can we convert mass in c2 or part of c2 by simple processes? [/B]

E=mc² means energy = matter times the speed of light squared.

This means that if you convet say 2 kg of matter into energy you will end up with about 1.797*10¹⁷ jouls of energy

When you try this in practice the results tend to look like this

http://www.rmiembassyus.org/nuclear/images/able.jpg

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
Most certainly!

You need to email me. You need to be credited. :)

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
1. Why do the effects of homeopathy, which are quite considerable when described anecdotally, dissapear when testing is performed under controlled conditions ?
To keep you skeptics guessing.

2. What evidence do you have to support your assertion that "like cures like" is a natural law?
To be honest, when I first heard of Homeopathy I though it was something a bit like vaccination. Something alont the lines of "One small dosage of sterilized flu virus will protect you from the flu, homeopathy sounds a lot like another form of vaccination"...

Woohoo, imagine my surprise when I read up on homeopathy...

3. Exactly how does the solvent's "memory" of the active ingredient become selective, to somehow erase the intimate contact it has had with possibly millions of other compounds in its history and since the dilution process is supposed to dilute out the undesirable parts of the remedy's effects, and potentise the desirable parts, how does the remedy know which is which?
Mechanized automated gyroscopically involved channeling.

4. How is information stored in water? It's no good just saying that unexpected processes occur in solvents they must store energy and information in a completely faithful and stable manner?
Its like pressing your hand into some wet cement. Your hand is no longer there, but its impression (which metaphorically represents "information") remains. See the MAGIC process above.

5. How does the memory of water apply when the final remedy is dried onto a lactose pill?
How does Kraft Easy-Mac work? Just add water.

6. How come you can prescribe for animals when you don't "prove" the remedies on animals?
"Anything for a buck" is what I always says...

7. Provings are demonstrably nonsense. In the vast majority no attention at all is paid to using controls. So it is vanishingly unlikely that many remedies in use today have the effects claimed for them in provings even if there was some validity behind the principles of homeopathy so that some remedies might truly work. So how come homeopaths using all the dodgy remedies claim success in using them? Doesn't the existence of this mass of defective remedies (even if we cannot identify them from a notional set of valid remedies) completely undermine the homeopaths' claims to make valid inferences from their much-vaunted 'clinical evidence'?
[repeat ad nauseum]

10,000 medical doctors!!!!!1!1!!!!

[/repeat ad nauseum]

8. What can homeopathy not cure? How do these diseases differ absolutely from all the things they say it can cure. Can it cure genetic diseases?
[speaking to their handicapped son, Jimmy]

"Jimmy, God made you that way because your father and I used to make fun of disabled people in highschool".

- Southpark

9. What are the limits of homeopaths' credulity? Are there any alt med therapies they do not believe in? If there are really wild and weird things they do not believe in then please can they explain the rationale for making that distinction?
We homeopaths really really hate "mainstream medicine". Its success rate, its observable and demonstratable reliableness. WE'LL HAVE NONE OF THAT!

Oh, and our arch nemeses: The Allopaths. They are a bastardization of True Homeopathy™.

10. The Randi Challenge Special Question:

Is there any way to tell if a preparation is different from plain water or other solvent? Please do so and earn $1M (and no this is not a single dollar diluted homeopathically
[Insert typical "I dont have to prove myself to no one", "no one can win that challenge", and obligatory "Mr. Randi is a stupidhead" rant here]

[Kumar]

Originally posted by geni


prove it. anyway thats not what homeopaths claim. they claim fairly quick results


E=mc² means energy = matter times the speed of light squared.

This means that if you convet say 2 kg of matter into energy you will end up with about 1.797*10¹⁷ jouls of energy

When you try this in practice the results tend to look like this

http://www.rmiembassyus.org/nuclear/images/able.jpg geni thanks. May be, homeopaths using this c2 or part of it for fairly quick results.:D

[geni]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
1. Why do the effects of homeopathy, which are quite considerable when described anecdotally, dissapear when testing is performed under controlled conditions ?

Because of quantum effects. When you observe something you change it

2. What evidence do you have to support your assertion that "like cures like" is a natural law?

Quantum physics says that two eletrons can cancle each other out to form an antibonding orbital.

3. Exactly how does the solvent's "memory" of the active ingredient become selective, to somehow erase the intimate contact it has had with possibly millions of other compounds in its history and since the dilution process is supposed to dilute out the undesirable parts of the remedy's effects, and potentise the desirable parts, how does the remedy know which is which?

By quantum concioness


4. How is information stored in water? It's no good just saying that unexpected processes occur in solvents they must store energy and information in a completely faithful and stable manner?


They are stored in quantum strings


5. How does the memory of water apply when the final remedy is dried onto a lactose pill?


Quantum entanglement


6. How come you can prescribe for animals when you don't "prove" the remedies on animals?

Anaimals have the same underling vital force as humans which is of course supported by the mulit-demitional nature of matter as predicted by quantum string theory


7. Provings are demonstrably nonsense. In the vast majority no attention at all is paid to using controls. So it is vanishingly unlikely that many remedies in use today have the effects claimed for them in provings even if there was some validity behind the principles of homeopathy so that some remedies might truly work. So how come homeopaths using all the dodgy remedies claim success in using them? Doesn't the existence of this mass of defective remedies (even if we cannot identify them from a notional set of valid remedies) completely undermine the homeopaths' claims to make valid inferences from their much-vaunted 'clinical evidence'?

Thus you show you do not understand the quantum holistic nature of homeopathy

8. What can homeopathy not cure? How do these diseases differ absolutely from all the things they say it can cure. Can it cure genetic diseases?

Homeopathy can cure everything not caused by allopathy (I can't work out how to get the word quantum into this one).


9. What are the limits of homeopaths' credulity? Are there any alt med therapies they do not believe in? If there are really wild and weird things they do not believe in then please can they explain the rationale for making that distinction?

Anything that does not follow the strick hanneman protocols is not better than allopathy.


10. The Randi Challenge Special Question:

Is there any way to tell if a preparation is different from plain water or other solvent? Please do so and earn $1M (and no this is not a single dollar diluted homeopathically

Randi's prize would interfear with the nature of the quantum fields.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by geni


Because of quantum effects. When you observe something you change it


Quantum physics says that two eletrons can cancle each other out to form an antibonding orbital.


By quantum concioness



They are stored in quantum strings




Quantum entanglement



Anaimals have the same underling vital force as humans which is of course supported by the mulit-demitional nature of matter as predicted by quantum string theory



Thus you show you do not understand the quantum holistic nature of homeopathy


Homeopathy can cure everything not caused by allopathy (I can't work out how to get the word quantum into this one).



Anything that does not follow the strick hanneman protocols is not better than allopathy.



Randi's prize would interfear with the nature of the quantum fields.

All is revealed. Geni is a closet homeopath. BURN HIM! BURN HIM!!

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
*2. What evidence do you have to support your assertion that "like cures like" is a natural law?



In rep.& meteria medica on tissue salts, propotion of these tissue salts/elements in them, seems to be directly in proportion to the nos of problems. Silicea is for "Maximum problems". Probably, problems are directly proportional to our direct exposure to differant substances which may make it " like cure likes".:)

[Ladewig]

I would also like to know what homeopaths who make the stuff do with the rest of the solution they are diluting. Wouldn't pouring it down the drain where it could enter the water supply be quite dangerous?

Also, if these remedies are so powerful that a few drops can cure, is it possible to overdose on a homeopathic solution?

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Kumar
Probably, problems are directly proportional to our direct exposure to differant substances which may make it " like cure likes".:)

No it doesn't.

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Ladewig
I would also like to know what homeopaths who make the stuff do with the rest of the solution they are diluting. Wouldn't pouring it down the drain where it could enter the water supply be quite dangerous?

Also, if these remedies are so powerful that a few drops can cure, is it possible to overdose on a homeopathic solution? Used as & for preparing lower potenties. You can't furhthur awaken to an already awakend peson/cells by the remedies. However, there is a law of minimum dose in homeopathy.

BSM, why it doesn't?

[Brian the Snail]

Originally posted by Yahweh

[repeat ad nauseum]

10,000 medical doctors!!!!!1!1!!!!

[/repeat ad nauseum]

Strawman.

It is, of course, 100,000 medical doctors.

:rolleyes:

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey

3. Exactly how does the solvent's "memory" of the active ingredient become selective, to somehow erase the intimate contact it has had with possibly millions of other compounds in its history and since the dilution process is supposed to dilute out the undesirable parts of the remedy's effects, and potentise the desirable parts, how does the remedy know which is which?

4. How is information stored in water? It's no good just saying that unexpected processes occur in solvents they must store energy and information in a completely faithful and stable manner?

5. How does the memory of water apply when the final remedy is dried onto a lactose pill?

6. How come you can prescribe for animals when you don't "prove" the remedies on animals?

7. Provings are demonstrably nonsense. In the vast majority no attention at all is paid to using controls. So it is vanishingly unlikely that many remedies in use today have the effects claimed for them in provings even if there was some validity behind the principles of homeopathy so that some remedies might truly work. So how come homeopaths using all the dodgy remedies claim success in using them? Doesn't the existence of this mass of defective remedies (even if we cannot identify them from a notional set of valid remedies) completely undermine the homeopaths' claims to make valid inferences from their much-vaunted 'clinical evidence'?

10. The Randi Challenge Special Question:

Is there any way to tell if a preparation is different from plain water or other solvent? Please do so and earn $1M (and no this is not a single dollar diluted homeopathically





Awnsers to Point nos 3 to 7 & 10 may relate to this logic. (http://www.otherhealth.com/showthread.php?t=2791)

[geni]

Originally posted by Kumar


Awnsers to Point nos 3 to 7 & 10 may relate to this logic. (http://www.otherhealth.com/showthread.php?t=2791)

Well this chemistry student says that you are wrong.

[Pantastic]

Originally posted by Ladewig
I would also like to know what homeopaths who make the stuff do with the rest of the solution they are diluting. Wouldn't pouring it down the drain where it could enter the water supply be quite dangerous?


I find this notion deeply disturbing. Imagine one careless homeopath losing a single drop of solution down the drain, it would be diluted in the water supply of the entire area! Imagine the potency of such a solution! Thousands could be poisoned!

And this also occurs to me. What if you spilled some homeopathic solution on the ground, and it evapourated and then came down later somewhere else as rain? If you got a single drop of that rain in your mouth you could be killed instantly!

[Kumar]

Originally posted by geni


Well this chemistry student says that you are wrong.

OR geni
an Anti-homeopathy illuminati member says?

[Bottle or the Gun]

My question is why people and animals get sick at all.

Aren't there enough homepathic traces of whatever we may need in our immediate environment to continually cure us, maintain our health at desired levels?

Anybody?

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun
My question is why people and animals get sick at all.



It's all a conspiracy by Big Pharma. Fool!

OR

It's all natural. Enjoy it. Your mind is too small to see this BIG Truth. (http://www.hpathy.com/forum/display_topic_threads.asp?ForumID=2&TopicID=1397&PagePosition=1)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

All the stuff in the environment wasn't succussed correctly. You gotta succuss!

Furthermore, even if you succuss, when you dump it down the drain, it becomes desuccussed.

~~ Paul

[Prester John]

I'd have put a question in about how they QC remedies, what testing they do to confirm the remedies contain what they say they do :)

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Prester John
I'd have put a question in about how they QC remedies, what testing they do to confirm the remedies contain what they say they do :)

With the godlike power of editor arrogated to myself I decided that, while this is very pertinent, it is subsumed under the Randi
Challenge Special Question. Because if they can QC it then they can win the money.

[Ladewig]

Used as & for preparing lower potenties. You can't furhthur awaken to an already awakend peson/cells by the remedies. However, there is a law of minimum dose in homeopathy.

Well, that just brings up more questions.

13a. Why do cells "fall asleep" in the first place?

13b. When a homeopathic solution "wakes up" a cell, how long does this wakefulness last?

13c. Do cells ever "wake up" on their own?

13d. Can anything else (allopathic medicine, crystal energy, harmonic vibrations, meditation) "wake up" these cells?

14. If it is impossible to further wake up cells, why does the solution have to be "infinitly" diluted. Why can't a 2X solution relieve the symptoms just as well.

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun
My question is why people and animals get sick at all.

Aren't there enough homepathic traces of whatever we may need in our immediate environment to continually cure us, maintain our health at desired levels?

Anybody?

It is intresting question & should be researched. In "My New Question" I asked for the effect of atmospheric particles on us but no one has replied. We may get some homeopathic effects from tree droplets, Morning, evening droplets. We may crave or repulse for environment/atmospheric substances( crave to go out or come back to home etc.) We may get something by taking bath in differant water sources. I asked previously somewhere that if we take bath or drink pure/ distilled water free from all mineral, what will be the effect? These particles may be having some role in the benefits of Morning/evening walks.

[Prester John]

For the hardcore Homeopaths:

If illnesses are not caused by bacteria and viruses, why have we got an immune system ?

[Kumar]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ladewig


Well, that just brings up more questions.

13a. Why do cells "fall asleep" in the first place?

Just consider Insulin or other resistances. It is due to excess/physiological reason.

13b. When a homeopathic solution "wakes up" a cell, how long does this wakefulness last?

May be equal to the time uptill any remedy looks to be effective.

13c. Do cells ever "wake up" on their own?

Can be if any substance become in short suuply or due to any other stimulant. Consider fasting's, accupunture etc. logics.

13d. Can anything else (allopathic medicine, crystal energy, harmonic vibrations, meditation) "wake up" these cells?

Why not, it depends on type of any medication/treatment-- it can awaken & correct OR kill & treat?

14. If it is impossible to further wake up cells, why does the solution have to be "infinitly" diluted. Why can't a 2X solution relieve the symptoms just as well.

It may depend upon how deep their sleep is?

Eg; One can be awkened just by few water drops & other may need its full mug if not bucket.;)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

15. What do you do with your medical waste?

~~ Paul

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Just in case anyone was wondering about this thread it's still here and the homeopaths have still provided no answers.

Recently I posted the Ten Questions at Hpathy, which led them to delete the post and suspend my account, so I think we should take that as a pretty good indication that they really can't cope with them.

By the way some merry japester has registered at Hpathy as BadShavedMonkey and has posted very similarly to me. I suspect it may be one of their members doing it in the interests of satire, but this would imply an attempt at humour which is atypical of those po-faced self-aggrandisers. Would anyone here like to 'fess up to being the Bad monkey?

[Prester John]

If i can intecede on behalf of the homeopaths, i think you will find that all these questions have been adequatly answered already in this thread. Any attempt to get anactual answer will of course be trolling. If i had my way that would result in a rigged vote followed by banning of all who dare question the power of homeopathy. :D

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Prester John
If i can intecede on behalf of the homeopaths, i think you will find that all these questions have been adequatly answered already in this thread. Any attempt to get anactual answer will of course be trolling. If i had my way that would result in a rigged vote followed by banning of all who dare question the power of homeopathy. :D

Wot? Are you some kind of a psychic?

Oh...it's just what they always do in the face of hard questions.

[bvw12]

why were people discussing E=mc^2 earlier in this thread? it didn't seem to have much to do with anything, except for wildly speculative jawboning.

as far as your question no. 1, see my other thread. try to figure it out.

[Prester John]

Nicely done Bach. One small problem tho', our glorious faculty of homeopathy has a journal that publishes loads of "scientific" papers showing homeopathys effectiveness. The bitchin part is that when done by reputable labs under better controlled circumstances the effects disapear. Maybe you think the faculty is wrong to try scientific method?
Then i suppose not being a homeopath yourself you don't really understand the field as well as myself. Keep up the good work tho'.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by bvw12
why were people discussing E=mc^2 earlier in this thread?

Because Kumar brought it up and he is on your side!

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Prester John
Nicely done Bach. One small problem tho', our glorious faculty of homeopathy has a journal that publishes loads of "scientific" papers showing homeopathys effectiveness. The bitchin part is that when done by reputable labs under better controlled circumstances the effects disapear. Maybe you think the faculty is wrong to try scientific method?
Then i suppose not being a homeopath yourself you don't really understand the field as well as myself. Keep up the good work tho'.

PJ

As a homeopath, do you find there to be any authority that can remove your ability to prescribe to patients, if ,say, someone began to go blind with ocular haemorrhages, while you were fiddling away with your magic water?

I would hope that I could get your a*** struck off from some register so I don't have to go through the courts to prove that you led me to disaster. I hear homeopaths carry indemnity insurance, but that isn't going to stop you neglectfully damaging people is it?

[bvw12]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Prester John
Nicely done Bach. why, thank you! mebbe i should go home right now! :)One small problem tho', our glorious faculty of homeopathy has a journal that publishes loads of "scientific" papers showing homeopathys effectiveness. The bitchin part is that when done by reputable labs under better controlled circumstances the effects disapear. Maybe you think the faculty is wrong to try scientific method?] [B]ok, as long as you continue to ignore the fact that i support research - i'll rephrase the problem i tried to present to you: in the face of mountains of dbpc showing poorly for homeopathy, what are the two basic reasons that could explain these outcomes? the answer: homeopathy doesn't work or the dbpc's have been done poorly. of course, there's the possibility that your analysis of the society's research is inadequate, or that the results do not fit neatly in with your usual yes/no, right/wrong, works/doesn't work, black/white mindset. ok, so that's 4 things that might be going on here, not two, so shoot me. i know you'd love to.

aaaanyway, what could have gone wrong in all those 'well controlled studies' .... hummm, soooo tough to figure out. but munch on it, i've got another game coming up with tiger .... so i won't be around for awhile. ;) Then i suppose not being a homeopath yourself you don't really understand the field as well as myself. Keep up the good work tho'. ]oh thanks, what a standard bearer and leading light you be .[/QUOTE

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by bvw12
now what could have gone wrong in all those 'well controlled studies' .... hummm, soooo tough to figure out. but munch on it. OK, put us out of our misery. What was done wrong in all those well-conducted trials? And specifics, please, not inapplicable analogies.

And do try to use the quote facility on this forum properly - if you enclose your own text within the quote it won't appear in a subsequent quote without special manipulations. It's not that hard to close the quote, insert your own comments, then reopen it.

And don't add extra text to your posts ten minutes later without indicating it as such with an "Edited to add" flag or something similar.

Rolfe.

[bvw12]

Originally posted by Rolfe
OK, put us out of our misery. What was done wrong in all those well-conducted trials? And specifics, please, not inapplicable analogies. THEY LACK CREDIBILITY. THEY FALL APART ON CLINICAL (AS COMPARED TO STATISTICAL) ANALYSIS. PLEASE SEE MY ANALYSIS OF SOME BELL RESEARCH, IN THE "WHY" THREAD OVER AT HPATHY, MAYBE 3-5 PAGES INTO THE THREAD, FOR AN EXAMPLE. THE ANALOGY, BTW, WAS QUITE APPLICABLE, AS IT ILLUSTRATED THE POINT, THOUGH CERTAINLY DOESN'T PROVE ANYTHING, AS ANALOGIES NEVER DO.

And do try to use the quote facility on this forum properly I WON'T BE AROUND LONG ENOUGH TO BOTHER, OTHERWISE, YEH, THAT WOULD BE GOOD.- if you enclose your own text within the quote it won't appear in a subsequent quote without special manipulations. It's not that hard to close the quote, insert your own comments, then reopen it.

And don't add extra text to your posts ten minutes later without indicating it as such with an "Edited to add" flag or something similar.SORRY.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by bvw12
THEY LACK CREDIBILITY. THEY FALL APART ON CLINICAL (AS COMPARED TO STATISTICAL) ANALYSIS. PLEASE SEE MY ANALYSIS OF SOME BELL RESEARCH, IN THE "WHY" THREAD OVER AT HPATHY, MAYBE 3-5 PAGES INTO THE THREAD, FOR AN EXAMPLE. I read it. I thought it was complete nonsense. If you want anyone else to read it, the least you could do is to link to the page.

Over at H'pathy, all you get is sycophancy from people who understand things as little as you do yourself. When anyone with any real arguments against you comes along they get branded a troll, banned, and their posts deleted. So if you have any arguments worth making, that will stand up in a forum where debate is allowed and you can't ask for anyone who makes you look a fool to be banned, present them here.

If you can't be bothered to present your points here and debate them here, then it wasn't worth your while registering.

Rolfe.

[Prester John]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey


PJ

As a homeopath, do you find there to be any authority that can remove your ability to prescribe to patients, if ,say, someone began to go blind with ocular haemorrhages, while you were fiddling away with your magic water?

I would hope that I could get your a*** struck off from some register so I don't have to go through the courts to prove that you led me to disaster. I hear homeopaths carry indemnity insurance, but that isn't going to stop you neglectfully damaging people is it?

There are lots of qualifications you can do as a homeopath and even some clubs you can join.

Question dealt with.

edited to add: Forgot, important point, yes you can be kicked out of the clubs.

[Prester John]

Bach,

You didn't actually answer my point about whether the Faculty of Homeopathy should continue to do research including rdppc trials of homeopathy and publish them, as you clearly believe they are not applicable. Also what of the homeopaths who participate in the better trials ?

We have case studies on our side, but these are commonly regarded as the lowest form of evidence and alone are not really suitable for judging the value of a particular treatment due to bias problems.

Personally, i'm sure that if we do enough (about 20) good quality rdbpc trials we'll get at lest one showing significance at the p=0.05 level. Case Proven.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

PJ

"i'm frankly surprised homeopathy does as well as placebo"

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Bach

why, thank you! mebbe i should go home right now!

No, you should stay here where you will not get banned just for disagreeing, but will be held to account for talking rubbish.

The way a real debate works is that one side does not get to ban the other side and claim it as a moral victory. You're playing with the big boys now and the rules of your playground don't apply.

Mind you, you should really take sometime to correct Wim on his completely non-classical use of remedies;

http://homeopathyforums.hpathy.com//forum_posts.asp?TID=1583

I especially like the it where he chooses just to ignore a symptom;

"This cat has a slight gingivitis but that can be dealt with later in order not to give too many remedies at a time or even in_ too_rapid a sequence."

and prescribes multiple remedies.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Ladewig
Also, if these remedies are so powerful that a few drops can cure, is it possible to overdose on a homeopathic solution?
Randi's latest commentary has answered this question. (http://www.randi.org/jr/060404mass.html#1)
Depressed by the willingness of the insurance companies to encourage quackery, 23 Belgian skeptics announced that they would commit mass suicide by drinking a homeopathic cocktail of lethal poisons including arsenic, snake venom, and belladonna.
...
The media coverage was excellent, but the suicide attempt was a dismal failure...

[bvw12]

http://homeopathyforums.hpathy.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1076&PN=1

right, here's the link to the 'why' thread. my earlier posts were typed out on the fly, while i showered and packed and left for the office this morning. if i do stick around, i might even learn how to work the "quote" function.

[edited to read] "a recent post" said my arguments in 'why' were nonsense, btw. very convincing. is that the level of point for point debate you're used to here?

btw, prester, wouldn't reference to your standing as a homeopath represent argument from authority? tch tch.

[bvw12]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
PJ

"i'm frankly surprised homeopathy does as well as placebo"

hey, bsm, is that your idea, or did you take it from someone? aaanyway, i'm surprised to find that we're actually in agreement on this. but, given how i stumble inarticulately over my words, and i therefore have trouble explaining this situation, i wonder if i could impose on you for a little favor, to please explain how such a thing can happen [edited to add] - that is, the homeopathy could actually do worse than placebo!?

this might also have the benefit of demonstrating that you do indeed have a grasp of the issues i'm trying to lay out here, regarding "credibility" as necessary a criteria for judging research, as "reliability."

[geni]

Originally posted by bvw12
http://homeopathyforums.hpathy.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1076&PN=1

right, here's the link to the 'why' thread. my earlier posts were typed out on the fly, while i showered and packed and left for the office this morning. if i do stick around, i might even learn how to work the "quote" function.

Your cooment were delt with in situe by varius people at the time. Unfortunetly they have dissapeared for some reason.

However most of your points are about objecting to the statistcal analysis. (btw you argument about having to include poeple who improve on pre-existing conditions may run into the problem that to do such a thing would turn it into a two tail testi depend on how you decide to handle that)

Blunting all you critisms of this area run into a massive probelm; the low statical power of noraml provings. If these are reliable then there is no way it should be posible for either of the beeladona tests to fail.


btw, prester, wouldn't reference to your standing as a homeopath represent argument from authority? tch tch.

It might be if he was being entiry seroius.

[geni]

Originally posted by bvw12


hey, bsm, is that your idea, or did you take it from someone? aaanyway, i'm surprised to find that we're actually in agreement on this. but, given how i stumble inarticulately over my words, and i therefore have trouble explaining this situation, i wonder if i could impose on you for a little favor, to please explain how such a thing can happen [edited to add] - that is, the homeopathy could actually do worse than placebo!?

Since homeopathy is a placebo in a fair trial the placebo will do signifcantly better than the homeopathic remedy 1 time in 20.


this might also have the benefit of demonstrating that you do indeed have a grasp of the issues i'm trying to lay out here, regarding "credibility" as necessary a criteria for judging research, as "reliability."

The methods around dbpc trial all biol down to one thing. Remeber at learning about a fair test when you were at school?

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by bvw12


hey, bsm, is that your idea, or did you take it from someone?

No, it's not my idea. I took it from someone. You.

So, it's up to you to explain it.


So many impossible things to do believe before breakfast today. How will you find the time?

[Prester John]

Originally posted by bvw12
http://homeopathyforums.hpathy.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1076&PN=1

right, here's the link to the 'why' thread. my earlier posts were typed out on the fly, while i showered and packed and left for the office this morning. if i do stick around, i might even learn how to work the "quote" function.

[edited to read] "a recent post" said my arguments in 'why' were nonsense, btw. very convincing. is that the level of point for point debate you're used to here?

btw, prester, wouldn't reference to your standing as a homeopath represent argument from authority? tch tch.

The problem with that thread, is that understandably and quite justifyably it has been edited, large tracts of skeptical writings have been erased. For example, i was the thread starter in my previous incarnation as a skeptic. Airbrushed out of history. Surely you can do better than that obvious piece of censorship. This board can be harsh, but you won't get banned for being a homeopath here. Look at me :) If we're to convince the skeptics solid reasoned arguments must be used. Take it away Bach......

[bvw12]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey


No, it's not my idea. I took it from someone. You.

So, it's up to you to explain it.


So many impossible things to do believe before breakfast today. How will you find the time?

at the office, no patients for awhile. being self-employed has its advantages.

you know, when couples run into trouble communicating, a common strategy is that after one person speaks, the other person is required to paraphrase what he said. otherwise, one finds people often don't listen. it's also a way to demonstrate understanding, and to make one another feel its worth the effort to try communicating.

if i am not mistaken, i originally penned this idea, that it is sometimes amazing homeopathy does even as well as placebo, in that 'why' thread at hpathy. there are two reasons for the remark, btw: one is simply to be facetious, take a sarcastic jab at the inept management of the research design in that and other dbpc studies. hans, of course, prefering to think in very concrete terms, harps on the (apparent) illogic and incomprehension reflected in the comment.

nevertheless, there is at least one scenario (and i wouldn't be surprised if there were more) in which homeopathy (or evaporation, hint hint) could, conceivably, actually show worse than placebo. i won't challenge you for the exact example from the 'why' thread that i had in mind when i wrote that in the first place ... but it would demonstrate you at least understood my idea - even if you still don't agree with it - if you could identify the two elements that could conspire to produce this result. again: my little story in the evaporation thread pretty much spells it out.

but don't sweat it - if i haven't been as clear as a bell, which i rarely am since i mangle the language so badly most of the time, i'll be glad to identify these two factors for your edification and delight, i am sure.

[bvw12]

ok, never mind, here it is:

on the one hand, the bell trial under review in 'why' depressed the performance of verum, that is, drove down the numbers of symptoms produced, through antidoting influences such as medications, alcohol, etc etc. on the other hand, management of the trial could actually have enhanced the "performance" of placebo, as in the evaporation story, the 30-stroke handicap would actually give me a pretty sure bet at beating tiger woods in a match: in the trial, the medications in use, as well as the alcohol and other factors, could actually be responsible for producing symptoms that matched proving symptoms of bell: this would mean that the placebo group would show more symptoms of bell; now the researchers would count these as "fake" symptoms, so chalk up points for placebo response that it didn't deserve. in short, depress verum performance and enhance placebo performance, et voila, homeopathy does worse than placebo! you scoff ... i think it was a pretty cute idea.

ok, even so i'm stretching it, but not by that much. the idea after all was to point out significant problems with that and other dbpc's purporting to measure homeopathy. the comment was made in the context of a reasonbly detailed survey of a specific trial - the type of concrete, issue-oriented dialogue you're always claiming to look for. well, you have it, now how about addressing the issues i raised there, instead of trying to dismiss all the details of my critique offhandedly as nonsense? at least that would make me feel it might be worth sticking around here awhile....

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

For homeopathy to do worse than placebo, and barring statistical anomaly, it would have to be worse than doing nothing.

Do you want to pretend that homeopathy works every time but that when you measure it then the average patient will have got worse than doing nothing? Well isn't aggravation a handy excuse! Just those damn fool homeopaths who help with these studies getting it all wrong again. They really should be struck off...but from what!

Neat evading by the way, but the rest of us have noticed what the title of this thread is, though there is no big sis JanZy or Uncle Sigi to step in and say, "This thread is closed because it's going off-topic". The way it works here is we just keep pointing out to other readers when someone tries to run from questions they can't deal with, like this;

Hey, look folks, he's running from questions he can't deal with.

Let's return to No.1 on the list

" 1. Why do the effects of homeopathy, which are quite considerable when described anecdotally, disappear when testing is performed under controlled conditions ?" [Typo corrected before you get too excited by it]

Do you see the big word here? It's "considerable". Now answer if you can bearing in mind the overweening claims for potency that is made for homeopathy by its apologists.

Edited to add: posted at the same time as your later post, but the same points apply. My last paragraph still applies. You don't like the Bell proving for reasons that make sense to you but not to us. The general point applies to all the failed demonstrations of homeopathy in clinical trials.


If you want to start picking apart the protocols of provings you could start with the criticisms that have been posted here and elsewhere that show the whole lot of them to be worthless. Here's a link to the old thread at Hpathy.

[bvw12]

starburn,

on quick perusal, there are a number of issues i'd raise regarding the bell research - once again, thank you for the article, and the other links. to repeat my caveat, regarding my attitude when raising questions such as these, i am not trying to suggest that any one or combination of the factors i touch on represent a decisive and clearcut demonstration of a fatal flaw in the research, unless and to the degree i specifically state otherwise. i do think they all could be contributing factors, and may be worth looking into further.

1. about 80% of the provers were women - and in excess of 40% of the provers were taking contraceptive pills; i would imagine, perhaps wrongly, that this (the medication) was allowed simply because, without these subjects, the size of the population available for the experiment would have been reduced far below what was desired. in any case, taking medication is a reasonably serious problem for the reliability of the research findings - i won't pretend to say how serious, or if decisive, but it is at a level of significance that, to me, would require close analysis.

2. i would like to have details of the prover who developed severe abdominal pains, to evaluate clinically the likelihood that this might have been a proving symptom. statistically, of course, one notch for the provers would make little difference, but it is nevertheless an interesting situation.

3. about 14% of the subjects were smokers - a possible factor in reducing susceptibility to the remedy.

4. mean caffeine intake was over 2 cups per day for the whole verum and placebo population combined.

5. weekly alcohol intake (mean) for the entire group was 8 ounces.

6. the authors concede "possible undisclosed recreational drug intake" among this young population.

7. this is unfortunate, but i don't like the questionnaire format. it clearly limits the harvestable symptoms, and to me this implies more of a hit on the verum group than on the placebo group. i understand, as you pointed out, that the diary format of prior trials was criticized by members of the homeopathic community - so i apologize for treating you, essentially, as a ping pong ball and, truly, i empathize with what i imagine would be your frustration at being told, "no, do it that way," then, "no, do it the way you did it the first time." bottom line, i am unable to evaluate the relative merits of the two approaches, though that is clearly an issue that needs to be settled ... maybe by doing it both ways in different trials ... i just don't know.

8. i haven't as yet read through the provings you linked, except briefly, so i am still unclear whether they use dry pellets or whether they moisten them or increase dosage, as H required. if responses in clinically directed provings are commonly within hours, however, that's an important point, and a challenge to the homeopathy side.

9. on a scale of 1-6 (1=excellent health) the mean score for the group was about 2.1; this suggests that there was, in fact, room for "feeling better" after a dose; this possible response to the remedy was not considered, or at least not reported in the findings.

10. overall, the results of the trial, from the homeopathic side, are nevertheless pretty dismal. but i compare this to the situation in which one gives Remedy X for high blood pressure, or ulcers, or some other allopathic diagnosis: the design of the experiment is simply inappropriate, like measuring speed with a bathroom scale, as i have recently described it. the effects in the present study are not so blatant, but there do seem to be some problems with the study nonetheless. apart from the fact that the findings don't accord with clinical facts considered by the homeopathic community to be well-established.

bach



__________________
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
Albert Einstein

[Rolfe]

Totally off-topic, but what the heck.

BWV 12 (http://www.jsbach.org/bwv12.html) (fixing Bach's rather embarrassing typo - fancy not even getting your user name right!)

If anyone wants to know what the title of the cantata Bach picked for this particular incarnation means, it's "Weeping, wailing, grieving, fearing".

Kind of appropriate, no?

Rolfe.

[Prester John]

Its interesting that you choose to answer a generalised questions about why homeopathy fails to live upto its anecdotal evidence when tested in numerous trials with a critique of a single trial. This critique focuses on numerous behaviours that are quite normal in the population being tested. Whilst these factors could indeed have some sort of masking or skewing effect, this shouls only be a problem if the effects of homeopathy were thought to be small. Anecdotally, the effects are immediate, and quite drastic. It was a proving, performed using what would have been a perfectly acceptable protocol if it had been succesful. Your hypercriticism of this trial is limited to this trial. You do not apply it to all the other provings. I suggest if you did there would be very few left.

To return in a more general manner to your last point, rddpc trials being the wrong instrument to measure homeopathy with. This is simply not true. You use this line of argument because you have no other way to explain the lack of success in homeopathy under controlled conditions. Basically, homeopathy makes the claim that it can improve peoples health. This is measurable in lots of different ways. How homeopathy accomplishes this is irrelevant, and can be investigated seperatly. I don't need to understand antibiotics to show they can cure menigitis (bacterial naturally). The same with homeopathy. If it can cure / improve health then this is detectable. Many trial protocols have been tried, often with homeopathic input.

About your earlier story, homeopathy is not making a claim that water evaporates, it making the claim that it causes water to boil in the pan. We don't know how it makes the water boil, but we can measure the water loss caused by evaporation. we can record the temperature. The problem is only poor studies show an elevated temperature or water loss, when we examine it closely we just see a cold pot of water.

[Rolfe]

Now, Bach, since you're so clever, how about outlining to us a trial design you would consider acceptable?

The trouble is, if that in turn showed null-effect, you'd disown it, and the homoeopaths themselves would denounce you for poor trial design. No matter what.

If you look at the positive trials the homoeopaths like to boast about, there are just as many "fatal flaws" in these. But they are discounted because it doesn't matter what you do if it works. So you really are in Catch 22. Even if you picked an accepted homoeopathic trial and repeated it exactly, they'd find some procedural rod to beat you with.

A homoeopathic colleague of mine likes to cite a paper about the homoeopathic treatment of Cushing's disease. It's easy enough to shred it in normal scientific terms - the diagnosis wasn't confirmed in many of the cases, and even when it supposedly was, we weren't allowed to be privy to that information; there was no control group; there was no blinding; many patients weren't followed up for nearly long enough to know whether they were really any better or not; assessment of response to treatment was entirely subjective and the standard laboratory tests weren't done; the person doing the subjective assessing was the single author of the study. However, it's even easier to shred it in homoeopathic terms! A group of patients was selected based on an allopathic diagnosis; there was no individualisation, all of them got the same remedies; polypharmacy - a mixture of remedies was used; one remedy wasn't homoeopathic but isopathic; the other remedy was selected by dowsing, not by symptom-matching. (Oh yes, and in spite of the assertions that you inevitably have to persevere for months in cases where the patient has been ill for years, many of them inconsiderately recovered within a couple of weeks.) When the paper was critiqued to the homoeopathic proponent in the latter terms, he said that didn't matter because the trial had worked. However, if I was unethical enough to try to repeat it, but maybe doing the proper lab tests to see if the patients really improved, and got no effect, what do you think the same people would say about my protocol?

Rolfe.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

And another thing...

You used a rather inane analogy of a golfing handicap to imply that the placebo arm of a trial had been favoured unfairly. That is not true.

To apply your silly analogy correctly, for your criticism to be valid, both placebo and verum arms would have a handicap of 30 and for some reason the minimum score is 40.

The probem is that homeopathy is repeatedly claimed to give "unmistakeable" effects in even a casual prover, so there is no minimum score for the round.

Don't forget, homeopathy is supposed to be really powerful not producing some feeble p*ssy little effects at the margins of statistical significance. The fact that it doesn't reliably produce even p*ssy little effects rather adds to your problems.

[Rolfe]

And another thing.

Bach, could you please provide a citation to a satisfactory proving where effects were demonstrated and in which all these possibly confounding factors you mentioned were rigorously excluded?

(And just to repeat what BSM said, your claims for homoeopathy are that it produces striking observable effects. It should be a walkover to demonstrate an effect like that to anyone's satisfaction. What's your problem?)

(And to pre-empt a comment I've seen you make earlier, no, the fact that some people in the homoeopathy group get better doesn't count, if just as many people in the control group got better. That's why you have a control group. Check. That's why proper trials have a control group. That's why most trials by homoeopaths don't have control groups.)

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
By the way some merry japester has registered at Hpathy as BadShavedMonkey and has posted very similarly to me. I suspect it may be one of their members doing it in the interests of satire, but this would imply an attempt at humour which is atypical of those po-faced self-aggrandisers. Would anyone here like to 'fess up to being the Bad monkey? Someone also registered as "Rolfe" and posted something I might have written, but it wasn't me. Of course they thought it was, and banned the account instantly. Is it someone at JREF who is doing this? If so, would you care to let us in on the joke?

(While I'm in the thread, I'll mention that I had another look at the thread Bach linked to, and wow! Talk about Stalin's airbrush! It's very different from when I originally read it. Most of the posts now seem to be non-sequiturs, as the posts they replied to have been deleted. This also explains the strings of consecutive unconnected posts by the same person - they weren't consecutive originally. Also the posts which consist of nothing but "###############" - the censors have also deleted quotes from the banned posters. Also the occasional references to "Starburn" and "Catriona" and others - clearly people whose remarks were so threatening to homoeopathy that all trace of their existence had to be expunged. If the homoeopaths are so secure in their position, what are they so afraid of???)

Rolfe.

[geni]

Originally posted by bvw12
1. about 80% of the provers were women - and in excess of 40% of the provers were taking contraceptive pills; i would imagine, perhaps wrongly, that this (the medication) was allowed simply because, without these subjects, the size of the population available for the experiment would have been reduced far below what was desired. in any case, taking medication is a reasonably serious problem for the reliability of the research findings - i won't pretend to say how serious, or if decisive, but it is at a level of significance that, to me, would require close analysis.

I'm not aware that either of the natural hormones in the pill are antidotes for belladona

2. i would like to have details of the prover who developed severe abdominal pains, to evaluate clinically the likelihood that this might have been a proving symptom. statistically, of course, one notch for the provers would make little difference, but it is nevertheless an interesting situation.


There was alos a person with stomach pains in the other gruop. Trying to work your way up on a case by case bais is not god pratice. You have to decide on a set of standards. Justify them and apply them acorss the group.


3. about 14% of the subjects were smokers - a possible factor in reducing susceptibility to the remedy.

Consirding the level of somokeing among the population when most homeopathic provings were carried out I don't think this is a factor.

4. mean caffeine intake was over 2 cups per day for the whole verum and placebo population combined.


Chachahells shot this one apart on your own forum


5. weekly alcohol intake (mean) for the entire group was 8 ounces.


Ethanol is not an antidote for belladona

6. the authors concede "possible undisclosed recreational drug intake" among this young population.


No common recational drugs are included on the lists that I have of antidotes


7. this is unfortunate, but i don't like the questionnaire format. it clearly limits the harvestable symptoms, and to me this implies more of a hit on the verum group than on the placebo group. i understand, as you pointed out, that the diary format of prior trials was criticized by members of the homeopathic community - so i apologize for treating you, essentially, as a ping pong ball and, truly, i empathize with what i imagine would be your frustration at being told, "no, do it that way," then, "no, do it the way you did it the first time." bottom line, i am unable to evaluate the relative merits of the two approaches, though that is clearly an issue that needs to be settled ... maybe by doing it both ways in different trials ... i just don't know.


More renound homeopaths than you favor the questionair method. I perosonaly don't care one way or the other.


9. on a scale of 1-6 (1=excellent health) the mean score for the group was about 2.1; this suggests that there was, in fact, room for "feeling better" after a dose; this possible response to the remedy was not considered, or at least not reported in the findings.


Odds of being the correct remedy = pretty minimal (there is a way out of this claim but it destorys you in another area your choice)


10. overall, the results of the trial, from the homeopathic side, are nevertheless pretty dismal. but i compare this to the situation in which one gives Remedy X for high blood pressure, or ulcers, or some other allopathic diagnosis: the design of the experiment is simply inappropriate, like measuring speed with a bathroom scale, as i have recently described it. the effects in the present study are not so blatant, but there do seem to be some problems with the study nonetheless. apart from the fact that the findings don't accord with clinical facts considered by the homeopathic community to be well-established.


I can of course measure speed with a set of scales (assuming I know the mass of what is moving). The homeopathic comunity is icaperble of something as basic as deciding if their remedies work after going through an airport scanner.

[Rolfe]

Nice, Geni. Bach forgets that these points won't be deleted at JREF. (Oh, until the whole forum goes up in smoke in a few weeks, forgot about that for a minute....)

Rolfe.

[bvw12]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey


To apply your silly analogy correctly, for your criticism to be valid, both placebo and verum arms would have a handicap of 30 and for some reason the minimum score is 40.


of course the analogy was silly, because the realization of the dbpc under review is silly.

you all seem to enjoy digging your teeth into analogies, to show how they misrepresent reality, but that is, in a very real sense, the very purpose of an anology: to compare one thing to something else, to illustrate a point, not to represent an anatomically correct duplicate. in short, the kinds of objections you raise to the story or other analogies like the bathroom scale, are the kinds of things that i am trying to get you to grapple with, concerning scientific trials.

the fact is there are a host of potential antidoting factors at work in the bell research i cited, and they need to be controlled for. if you are incapable of even acknowledging that there are problems in such grossly incompetent management of a trial, then you are simply bullheaded, and uninterested in any discovery.

btw, i am amused at the thought of whomever it was who said they could do this, but would love to see him at the race track with his bathroom scale, measuring the speed of smarty jones. or, drawing i'm sure on his deep reservoir of talents, determining smarty's weight with a time clock.

you guys aren't concrete thinkers - you're brickheads. ;)

but this is getting very tedious. thanks for entertaining me, even though for such a short while, and for promising to keep my posts intact here, so i might return on occasion (hopefully less often than more) if i think of something i'd like to add. and don't let your insults, on my wait out the door, snap back and slap you in the smacker, guys.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by bvw12

you all seem to enjoy digging your teeth into analogies, to show how they misrepresent reality, but that is, in a very real sense, the very purpose of an anology: to compare one thing to something else, to illustrate a point, not to represent an anatomically correct duplicate. in short, the kinds of objections you raise to the story or other analogies like the bathroom scale, are the kinds of things that i am trying to get you to grapple with, concerning scientific trials.


Sssshhh...is he gone yet?

Did he really not notice that all these stupid analogies were his and all he has done is demonstrate why arguing by use of analogydoesn't work?

Argument by analogy is a hallmark of the woo. They get hold of some half understood concept then blow it up into an explanation..ooh..just like 'Weak' Quantum Theory, or the 'Vital Force'.

In an exhange with a physicist once, she came up with a very good point. Some concepts are not amenable to a 'common sense' understanding so you have to just 'do the maths'. We are dealing with a much lower level of conceptual difficulty here, but even so our opponents cannot cope with developing an understanding of the biological, medical and statistical concepts equivalent to 'doing the maths'. Instead they create analogies and then think these provide evidence for their arguments or they create analogies as ridiculous strawmen to attack.

Anyway, he's flounced off now, which is a pity: there are still the 10 Questions he hasn't been able to answer

[Prester John]

Nice piece of diversion there, bmw had made the topic of conversation his analogies, and would seem to be admitting that the analogies that he suggested were not actually very good. Maybe he thought that no one would notice but...


Hey, look folks, he's running from questions he can't deal with.



A rather debatable criticism of one study does not answer the question:

1. Why do the effects of homeopathy, which are quite considerable when described anecdotally, dissapear when testing is performed under controlled conditions ?

and theres the other 9 also................. :D :D :D :D

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by bvw12
the fact is there are a host of potential antidoting factors at work in the bell research i cited, and they need to be controlled for. I'd still like to see these references to the valid provings where they did control for all that stuff.

Rolfe.

[geni]

Originally posted by bvw12


of course the analogy was silly, because the realization of the dbpc under review is silly.

you all seem to enjoy digging your teeth into analogies, to show how they misrepresent reality, but that is, in a very real sense, the very purpose of an anology: to compare one thing to something else, to illustrate a point, not to represent an anatomically correct duplicate. in short, the kinds of objections you raise to the story or other analogies like the bathroom scale, are the kinds of things that i am trying to get you to grapple with, concerning scientific trials.

Try dealing with real life other than anogies


the fact is there are a host of potential antidoting factors at work in the bell research i cited, and they need to be controlled for. if you are incapable of even acknowledging that there are problems in such grossly incompetent management of a trial, then you are simply bullheaded, and uninterested in any discovery.

Excatly one is listed as a posible antidote the rest are just a waste of electrons


btw, i am amused at the thought of whomever it was who said they could do this, but would love to see him at the race track with his bathroom scale, measuring the speed of smarty jones. or, drawing i'm sure on his deep reservoir of talents, determining smarty's weight with a time clock.


Just make sure the guy runs full tilt into the set of scales and I will have no problem working out his speed. To mease his weight with a stopwatch I will need a vacume cahomber in zero G and a 1KG mass.



you guys aren't concrete thinkers - you're brickheads. ;)

but this is getting very tedious. thanks for entertaining me, even though for such a short while, and for promising to keep my posts intact here, so i might return on occasion (hopefully less often than more) if i think of something i'd like to add. and don't let your insults, on my wait out the door, snap back and slap you in the smacker, guys. [/B]

I trashed your "arguments". Stil I suspose that you have learn't a skill vital to homeopathy. The abaility to fool yourself.

[Tricky]

This just in:

ErsatzLabs has just announced development of a line of ultra-concentrated homeopathic medicines. These medicines take the healing power of homeopathic medecine and distill it down to it's essence.
"It is a remarkable breakthrough", gushed Professor Mocksham Factitious of ErsatzLabs. For the first time we have homeopathic medicine in an easy, portable form!"

But do they work? "Tests have shown," Factitious told us, that the new HomeoUltra line is every bit as effective as regular homeopathic medicine in every single case!"

How did ErsatzLabs make this amazing breakthrough? "Nothing to it," said the humble professor.
***
(Okay, I admit this is a repeat of a post in $Million Challenge, but it is more appropriate here. Sorry about spamming.)

[-=Vagrant=-]

My questions are these:

What homeopathic remedy became a similar successs like, say, modern heart drugs?

Are there any success stories for homeopathic medicine?

Where is their version for oxycontin?

[geni]

Originally posted by -=Vagrant=-
My questions are these:

What homeopathic remedy became a similar successs like, say, modern heart drugs?

They claim to have invented modern heart drugs (adimitly this claim is only true when true means very very faint link based on pure coincidence)


Are there any success stories for homeopathic medicine?


Loads except when you examine them closesly they become less sucessful and when compared to a placebo under controled conditions the effect vanishes completely.

[bvw12]

Originally posted by geni


I'm not aware that either of the natural hormones in the pill are antidotes for belladona


There was alos a person with stomach pains in the other gruop. Trying to work your way up on a case by case bais is not god pratice. You have to decide on a set of standards. Justify them and apply them acorss the group.



Consirding the level of somokeing among the population when most homeopathic provings were carried out I don't think this is a factor.


Chachahells shot this one apart on your own forum



Ethanol is not an antidote for belladona


No common recational drugs are included on the lists that I have of antidotes



More renound homeopaths than you favor the questionair method. I perosonaly don't care one way or the other.



Odds of being the correct remedy = pretty minimal (there is a way out of this claim but it destorys you in another area your choice)



I can of course measure speed with a set of scales (assuming I know the mass of what is moving). The homeopathic comunity is icaperble of something as basic as deciding if their remedies work after going through an airport scanner. [B]

well, geni, at least you tried to address each point, so that deserves some acknowledgement. but all of the items listed qualify as possible antidoting influences, especially if one recalls that antidoting doesn't have to be an all/nothing proposition. if you read directions for provings, or read them again, you'll find caveats against the kinds of things i've listed here.

bringing us to the questionaire method, my statement was similar to yours - not that i don't care, but i'm not sure which method is to be preferred, or if in a properly controlled study, it would even matter. it's a point for consideration in continuing design.

as for 'odds of being the correct remedy,' this is not quite right, as we are not looking for the similimum here, and since there are so many symptoms in so many remedies that match common symptoms in many individuals ... well, it's simply not un-common to experience some relief taking a wide variety of remedies, even though they don't touch the 'totality.'

finally, your idea that "You have to decide on a set of standards. Justify them and apply them acorss the group." nevertheless, results of the trial must be analyzed, and it is always appropriate to analyze individual outcomes, just as you nitpick figures. it is foolish to say you have to set standards up in the beginning, then pack away your intellect and never reconsider them. you don't do that with statistical methods, and there's no reason you should. for that matter, i'd be perfectly happy to look at the clinicals in both abdominal pain patients, except i can save you the time, as i am happy to agree that pain response to placebo is not a verum response. pain response to verum, however, could be interesting. putting on blinders doesn't tell us anything at all; asking questions otoh is always a good idea. it's scary for some, i guess, but you could end up learning something.

so anyway, your point for point response was a fair effort, to which i have tried to respond fairly.

i don't expect this to solve anything, or lead to agreement, but it would be nice to hear that you at least understand my objections. that, in any case, is where i will leave it.

[Prester John]

Bvws' ability to answer a question that was not asked is quite remarkable.

on the subject bvw is talking about:
I'd still like to see these references to the valid provings where they did control for all that stuff.


On the actual thread topic:
Hey, look folks, he's running from questions he can't deal with.

[Benguin]

Originally posted by geni


They claim to have invented modern heart drugs (adimitly this claim is only true when true means very very faint link based on pure coincidence)


I'm interested to know more ... have you a link?

[geni]

Originally posted by bvw12
[B]

well, geni, at least you tried to address each point, so that deserves some acknowledgement. but all of the items listed qualify as possible antidoting influences, especially if one recalls that antidoting doesn't have to be an all/nothing proposition. if you read directions for provings, or read them again, you'll find caveats against the kinds of things i've listed here.

That is where you are proving things that have never been proved before so homeopaths don't yet claim to know what the antidotes are.


as for 'odds of being the correct remedy,' this is not quite right, as we are not looking for the similimum here, and since there are so many symptoms in so many remedies that match common symptoms in many individuals ... well, it's simply not un-common to experience some relief taking a wide variety of remedies, even though they don't touch the 'totality.'

Which is at odds with basic homeopathic theory of like cures like.

finally, your idea that "You have to decide on a set of standards. Justify them and apply them acorss the group." nevertheless, results of the trial must be analyzed, and it is always appropriate to analyze individual outcomes, just as you nitpick figures. it is foolish to say you have to set standards up in the beginning, then pack away your intellect and never reconsider them. you don't do that with statistical methods, and there's no reason you should. for that matter, i'd be perfectly happy to look at the clinicals in both abdominal pain patients, except i can save you the time, as i am happy to agree that pain response to placebo is not a verum response. pain response to verum, however, could be interesting. putting on blinders doesn't tell us anything at all; asking questions otoh is always a good idea. it's scary for some, i guess, but you could end up learning something.


If you want to work on a case by case basis you have to do it blind otherwise You will end up concinessly or subconhessly altering the results (you certianly woulnd't trust me to do such ana analysis for exapmle.) SUre it would be interdsting for futer work if We could get some homeopaths to go through and do an unblined analysis now but the data would only be of use for expermental design rather than see if there was a proving effect for belladonna.

[Prester John]

Since we seem to be overun with homeopaths right now, since some of them have a lot to say for themselves too, lets just bump this thread, homeopaths - all you need to read is the first post, answers below pulease.:D

[Prester John]

Since the questions seem to have the effect of making homeopaths dissapear, perhaps we could prepare a homeopathic preperation of the questions and add it to the internet see what happens. I'm guessing a giant paradox will occur and the resulting vortex will destroy all the boards that mention homeopathy.

As a test i'm gonna try it on the JREF board, verrrry sooooon

mwhhaahahahaha :D

[Prester John]

Bumped to see if Corallinus knows her arse from her elbow.

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Prester John
Bumped to see if Corallinus knows her arse from her elbow.

Homeopaths need to know nothing of anatomy.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

It seems we're not the only ones who think the homeopaths have a big problem with their provings;

http://www.otherhealth.com/showthread.php?t=2989

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

It seems we're not the only ones who think the homeopaths have a big problem with their provings;

http://www.otherhealth.com/showthread.php?t=2989

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

It seems we're not the only ones who think the homeopaths have a big problem with their provings;

http://www.otherhealth.com/showthread.php?t=2989

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

It seems we are not the only ones that think there is a big problem with the provings archive;

http://www.otherhealth.com/showthread.php?t=2989

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

It seems we are not the only ones that think there is a big problem with the provings archive;

http://www.otherhealth.com/showthread.php?t=2989

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

It seems we're not the only ones who think the homeopaths legacy provings are a load of old rubbish, with rather serious implications for subsequent clinical outcomes ascribed to them;


http://www.otherhealth.com/showthread.php?t=2989



Well, homs I won't say I told you so, but...I told you so!

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Sorry folks, it seems that this weekend's forum problems include posts appearing to have not been accepted then turning up anyway!

If a passing moderator could delete all but one of these duplicate posts, I'd be grateful.

[exarch]

Originally posted by bvw12
http://homeopathyforums.hpathy.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1076&PN=1

right, here's the link to the 'why' thread. my earlier posts were typed out on the fly, while i showered and packed and left for the office this morning. if i do stick around, i might even learn how to work the "quote" function.You know, reading that thread just now is rather surreal, as it now looks like a bunch of homeopaths arguing with gosts responding to posts that were never made. This 7 page thread used to be over 10 or 12 pages long, so that should give you a nice idea of how many "banned skeptic troll™" posts were deleted.

The good part of deleting our posts (from their point of view anyway) is that only the arguments that they responded to are now left, and all our really good points, the ones they ignored, are all gone (or the posts that quoted them blacked out). How blissfull it must be to live in ignorance and shield your eyes from the painful truth.

[exarch]

Originally posted by bvw12
10. overall, the results of the trial, from the homeopathic side, are nevertheless pretty dismal. but i compare this to the situation in which one gives Remedy X for high blood pressure, or ulcers, or some other allopathic diagnosis: the design of the experiment is simply inappropriate, like measuring speed with a bathroom scale, as i have recently described it. the effects in the present study are not so blatant, but there do seem to be some problems with the study nonetheless. apart from the fact that the findings don't accord with clinical facts considered by the homeopathic community to be well-established.I just thought I'd point out a rather obvious indication that Bach really doesn't get it:

When Double blind placebo controlled trials are performed, and their results don't conform to the so called "facts" the homeopathic community considers "well established", then perhaps it should be obvious that those facts may not be so well established after all. Case in point, the homeopathic community considers the effectiveness of homeopathy as a treatment a "well established fact", however, they base this fact on wishfull thinking and many different misunderstandings about diseases in general. In reality, no "fact" exists, just an assumption that doesn't seem to want to be confirmed by scientific testing. Damn shame really ...

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by exarch
You know, reading that thread just now is rather surreal, as it now looks like a bunch of homeopaths arguing with gosts responding to posts that were never made. This 7 page thread used to be over 10 or 12 pages long, so that should give you a nice idea of how many "banned skeptic troll™" posts were deleted.I notice however that MRC_Hans was not a banned skeptic troll™. His posts are still there. Including:(quoting Bach)
if you can't figure out how to design a useful experiment to confirm findings grounded in our scientific methodology, with comparable findings grounded in your scientific methodology, that's not our problem.

(Hans himself)
No it is not easy to detect the effect, because despite the 200 years, no stastistically useful data exist. I will try once more:

What do YOU consider an objective fact for homeopathy? HELLO! Are YOU listening?? I have asked this question regularly for several months now within this community. There has been no answer, except "we know it works". HOW do you know it works?

You are making the claim. You (meaning the community as such) are telling peole you can cure them. You are taking their money to do it. YOU have a problem if you cannot back up your claim!

Not only can you not back it up, you can't even give a clear answer as to WHAT your claim is. I repeat my question from above; is this the claims of homeopathy:

1) A remedy taken by a healthy person will, with some probability, cause distinct symptoms characteristic for the remedy in question. This effect will differ from placebo.

2) Diseased persons will, with some probability, benefit from homeopathic treatment as compared to placebo.

Let's see for how long you can ignore it.

Hans.So far as I know, the answer to that last question in "forever". Very good points though, absolutely on the nail. Maybe we should resurrect them here?

Rolfe.

[exarch]

Good point indeed, WHAT is it that homeopaths claim as the penultimate truth about homeopathy? Maybe once we disprove that they'll be forced to consider upgrading their belief to a religion or shut up?

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by exarch
Good point indeed, WHAT is it that homeopaths claim as the penultimate truth about homeopathy? Maybe once we disprove that they'll be forced to consider upgrading their belief to a religion or shut up? Mmmm, look up "penultimate"? (Who am I to talk, the only Dutch I know is the Dutch for "do you speak English?"!) Did you mean "ultimate"? On the other hand, Hans did make two points....

Rolfe.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Mmmm, look up "penultimate"? (Who am I to talk, the only Dutch I know is the Dutch for "do you speak English?"!) Did you mean "ultimate"? On the other hand, Hans did make two points....

Rolfe.

There is a Philip K Dick novel called The Penultimate Truth. Could that be a source of confusion?

Over to you Exarch...

and no, I know even less Dutch than Rolfe.

[steenkh]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey

and no, I know even less Dutch than Rolfe.

There is a famous Monty Python sketch were Rolfe and you can learn some useful Dutch expressions - I think!

[Zamzara]

Another question I was hoping to ask them, before I got banned, was:

If the remedy consists of just water with information stored in it, how does the original substance know in what format the human (or animal) body expects to receive its information? Is the sulphur/water intelligent enough to know exactly how to give an input to the body in a format that the body will find meaningful?

[EHocking]

Originally posted by steenkh


There is a famous Monty Python sketch were Rolfe and you can learn some useful Dutch expressions - I think!
I thought that was Hungarian?

"My nipples explode with exitement!"

[exarch]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Mmmm, look up "penultimate"? (Who am I to talk, the only Dutch I know is the Dutch for "do you speak English?"!) Did you mean "ultimate"? On the other hand, Hans did make two points....Penultimate as in: IT WORKS !!!
??

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by exarch
Penultimate as in: IT WORKS !!!
?? :D

Rolfe.

[Yahzi]

Why do homepaths wash their dishes? Doesn't that make the left-over rotting food even more potent?

Oh, wait, here's the secret answer: homeopathy can never do any harm, it can only do good (or at worst, nothing).

It's all upside, see: no downside. So you can dump a gallon of billion-X into the ocean and it's ok, you can accidentally prescribe the wrong meds and its ok. You can't do anything wrong!

Frankly, there's a lot of people who shouldn't be trusted with anything more dangerous than homeopathy.

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Why do homepaths wash their dishes? Doesn't that make the left-over rotting food even more potent?

Oh, wait, here's the secret answer: homeopathy can never do any harm, it can only do good (or at worst, nothing).

It's all upside, see: no downside. So you can dump a gallon of billion-X into the ocean and it's ok, you can accidentally prescribe the wrong meds and its ok. You can't do anything wrong!

Frankly, there's a lot of people who shouldn't be trusted with anything more dangerous than homeopathy.

It's a good point ... maybe exposing them will drive the woos to pretending to be something more dangerous ...

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Benguin
It's a good point ... maybe exposing them will drive the woos to pretending to be something more dangerous ... It is a good point. But they only say it never does harm when they're in public. In private....If reactions to the remedies are too strong (too vehement) leave out the Iodum.That's Wim in his first set of utterly pointless suggestions for prolonging the suffering of the thyrotoxic cat. Tell is more about this "too vehement" part, Wim. Surely not an adverse reaction now, is it? Say not so!

Rolfe.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

bump

[Barbrae]

Yawn, why not bump the post where I did answer the questions?

[Darat]

Originally posted by Barbrae
Yawn, why not bump the post where I did answer the questions?

Can you provide a link to it?

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Here they are;

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42841&perpage=40&highlight=questions%20answered&pagenumber=2

Originally posted by Barbrae
1.Why do the effects of homeopathy, which are quite considerable when described anecdotally, dissapear when testing is performed under controlled conditions ?

The nature of homeopathy is difficult to test in such conditions. Being that it is based on individualization of remedy selection and is more often than not a process than a quick cure it makes perfect sense that control studies are not conducive to homeopathy. You are aware that even for acute conditions we can not prescribe on disease name but on individual symptoms so any study where all concerned got podophylum for diarrhea (example) are invalid. Even studies that are done where the remedy selection is done by a classical homeopath choosing a remedy based on individual symptoms are bound to not meet the criteria because it is very difficult to get the correct remedy (one out of 3000) on the first shot. Controlled conditions are not conducive to testing homeopathy.

2. What evidence do you have to support your assertion that "like cures like" is a natural law?

I agree that like cures like but have never asserted that it is a natural law. I believe in the Organon that Hahnemann does give examples of this. Examples of course are not evidence. I dont even know if I do agree that like cures like is a natural law. I tend to think it is more of a case that two similar diseases can not exist in the same body at one time and that is why homeopathy cures.

3. Exactly how does the solvent's "memory" of the active ingredient become selective, to somehow erase the intimate contact it has had with possibly millions of other compounds in its history and since the dilution process is supposed to dilute out the undesirable parts of the remedy's effects, and potentise the desirable parts, how does the remedy know which is which?

I have no idea, maybe it doesnt. Perhaps the provings show the effects of all ingredients involved. Regarding the dilution and potentising I have never heard it explained that way. Where did you come up with that. Diluting doesnt dilute out the undesirable parts of the remedy, it lessens a physical reaction (i.e. taking undiluted arsenic, not a grand idea) while potentising strengthens the energetic reaction. Not quite what you describe.

4. How is information stored in water? It's no good just saying that unexpected processes occur in solvents they must store energy and information in a completely faithful and stable manner?

I have no clue, but I am not the only one. I dont think anyone knows at this point do they? I am aware of some theories which I am sure you also know (probably better than I) but at this point no one know just how it occurs.


5. How does the memory of water apply when the final remedy is dried onto a lactose pill?

Because the memory is energy, and we are applying the energy of the substance which does not presumably evaporate. We are not talking on a physical level but an energetic level. Simply stamping the lactose pellets with an energies imprint.



6. How come you can prescribe for animals when you don't "prove" the remedies on animals?

Ah, good question (though again, we dont prescribe but recommend). I have often thought that I would love to have a reparatory and MM based solely on remedies proven on animals, but then I think this may be unethical to do so as animals certainly can not give their consent to do a proving, but then again we have donor animals who give blood without consent so who knows? However, we do our best to interpret the mental symptoms in an animal which admittedly can make remedy selection difficult but at this point it is what we have and of course we can match most physicals with what has been proven on humans. And not to be taken lightly is the information we have gotten from animal cases that have been cured/treated by homeopaths and who have supplied us with their knowledge learning from the experts so to speak. Of course it also helps to have some knowledge of animal anatomy and physiology and behavior.

7. Provings are demonstrably nonsense. In the vast majority no attention at all is paid to using controls. So it is vanishingly unlikely that many remedies in use today have the effects claimed for them in provings even if there was some validity behind the principles of homeopathy so that some remedies might truly work. So how come homeopaths using all the dodgy remedies claim success in using them? Doesn't the existence of this mass of defective remedies (even if we cannot identify them from a notional set of valid remedies) completely undermine the homeopaths' claims to make valid inferences from their much-vaunted 'clinical evidence'?

I am not sure what your question is here. Could you rephrase this?

8. What can homeopathy not cure? How do these diseases differ absolutely from all the things they say it can cure. Can it cure genetic diseases?

A difficult question. I know for sure that it cannot cure any disease or condition whose symptoms have never been shown through a proving. This is an absolute. For instance, we have no remedy that has grown a new limb in a proving so no remedy will be able to do that. Also cure is limited to the skill of the homeopath. Can it cure genetic disease? To be honest it depends on the genetic disease. Let me come back to this question a bit later. I havent given it the attention it deserves but plan to.

9. What are the limits of homeopaths' credulity? Are there any alt med therapies they do not believe in? If there are really wild and weird things they do not believe in then please can they explain the rationale for making that distinction?

I think this is a weird question to ask. This is of course a purely personal question you could ask the same question to MDs and get many different answers. There is no Homeopath handbook of beliefs in alternative therapies that we follow. I personally believe in chiropractic and acupuncture and TCM but dont really give any credence to Reiki or psychic healing. Not sure what other modalities you have an interest in. My rationale for what I believe in or do not believe in is based upon my experiences and what makes sense to me. It is based on my personal truth, what rings true for me and what I have experienced myself. I have already said that scientific studies mean little to me so that is not an issue.

10. The Randi Challenge Special Question:
Is there any way to tell if a preparation is different from plain water or other solvent? Please do so and earn $1M (and no this is not a single dollar diluted homeopathically

Not for me that I can think of as I am a notoriously low responder to remedies and have rarely proved any remedy I have taken. From what I understand the Randi foundation will not accept a proving done on a third party as ethical. Although I have thought of trying to prove a remedy on plants to see if there is a change in the plant and if that would work. Perhaps I should give that a shot. I am sure it wouldnt meet the Randi criteria but still it would be interesting.

Granted, Barb eventually put up some answers, but, of course they evaded the questions!

1. "Controlled conditions are not conducive to testing homeopathy."

Rubbish

2. " I agree that like cures like but have never asserted that it is a natural law."

No True Scotsman. Suggest you confer with Sarah.

3. "I have no idea, maybe it doesnt."

Either an honest "don't know" or a wilful refusal to face the issue.

4. "I have no clue, but I am not the only one."

Either an honest "don't know" or a wilful refusal to face the issue.

5. "Because the memory is energy, and we are applying the energy of the substance which does not presumably evaporate."

Stock answer of nonsensical wishful-thinking.

6. "However, we do our best to interpret the mental symptoms in an animal which admittedly can make remedy selection difficult but at this point it is what we have and of course we can match most physicals with what has been proven on humans."

A decent answer, and concedes the point to us.

7. "I am not sure what your question is here. Could you rephrase this?"

Doesn't understand the question.

8. "Let me come back to this question a bit later. I havent given it the attention it deserves but plan to."

Still waiting

9. "It is based on my personal truth, what rings true for me and what I have experienced myself. I have already said that scientific studies mean little to me so that is not an issue. "

An honest answer. Point conceded to us.

10. "Not for me that I can think of as I am a notoriously low responder to remedies and have rarely proved any remedy I have taken."

i.e. it's someone else's problem.

Overall, Barb, I think you honestly believe in what you do, but don't really understand how overwhelming are the arguments against it.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Barb,

There is one thing I need to make clear. I knew very little about homeopathy 2 years ago. I started with a vague notion that like acupuncture or herbal remedies there "might be something in it". I thought that potentisation could be some complex process that conceivably could impart real information onto the remedies, knowing nothing about what the term actually meant I assumed some complex jiggery-pokery went on for which a prima facie case could be made that it warranted further enquiry.

It was not evil scpetics that led me to my outright opposition but homeopaths themselves, starting with one I caught out telling outright lies about a case. Lies, which on further investigation, turned out not to be the aberrations of a rogue practitioner but the self-serving delusions that are intrinsic to homeopathic practice. You are your own worst enemies when it comes to defending homeopathy because, given its ultimate indefensibility, you hand us example after example where we can show it up for the nonsense it is.

Rolfe and I have discussed in private that, just when we think we have mapped the limits of the madness, up pops something like this "grafting" business that reveals yet again the magical superstitious beliefs that underlie the whole of your practice and confirm the case against you from within your own world-view.

Once you add something like NHCoraHSarah's intellectual bankruptcy, then you have plenty of reasons for us to want to fight against your intrusion into the world of medicine.

[Dr. Imago]

I'll take a whack at responding to your responses, since you did respond...

Originally posted by Barbrae
1.Why do the effects of homeopathy, which are quite considerable when described anecdotally, dissapear when testing is performed under controlled conditions ?

The nature of homeopathy is difficult to test in such conditions. Being that it is based on individualization of remedy selection and is more often than not a process than a quick cure it makes perfect sense that control studies are not conducive to homeopathy. You are aware that even for acute conditions we can not prescribe on disease name but on individual symptoms so any study where all concerned got podophylum for diarrhea (example) are invalid. Even studies that are done where the remedy selection is done by a classical homeopath choosing a remedy based on individual symptoms are bound to not meet the criteria because it is very difficult to get the correct remedy (one out of 3000) on the first shot. Controlled conditions are not conducive to testing homeopathy.


How about we design a study to get around the "individualization" issue thusly: we allow "individualization" of therapy in a protocol allowing as many "shots" as needed, except all of the proposed remedies in the "homeopathic arsenal" in one randomized arm would be placebo, and the other arm would be the actual standardized homeopathic remedies. Would that satisfy you? It would satisfy me, and convince me if there was a statistically significant difference in the cohorts.

Originally posted by Barbrae
2. What evidence do you have to support your assertion that "like cures like" is a natural law?

I agree that like cures like but have never asserted that it is a natural law. I believe in the Organon that Hahnemann does give examples of this. Examples of course are not evidence. I don't even know if I do agree that like cures like is a natural law. I tend to think it is more of a case that two similar diseases can not exist in the same body at one time and that is why homeopathy cures.


Common misconception that has been perpetuated often. Two similar disease can, in fact, occur in the body at the same time. There is no "rule", based on observation and study, that has objectively shown otherwise. People can very easily suffer from, for example, two separate infections from viruses simultaneously. This does not normally happen, though, not because of the body's innate ability to defend against this, but because we are often not exposed. Likewise, you can have "separate primaries" in cancer. I've seen this often, although it's not that common (and is indeed very unfortunate when someone gets this diagnosis).

Originally posted by Barbrae
3. Exactly how does the solvent's "memory" of the active ingredient become selective, to somehow erase the intimate contact it has had with possibly millions of other compounds in its history and since the dilution process is supposed to dilute out the undesirable parts of the remedy's effects, and potentise the desirable parts, how does the remedy know which is which?

I have no idea, maybe it doesn?t. Perhaps the provings show the effects of all "ingredients" involved. Regarding the dilution and potentising I have never heard it explained that way. Where did you come up with that. Diluting doesn't dilute out the undesirable parts of the remedy, it lessens a physical reaction (i.e. taking undiluted arsenic, not a grand idea) while potentising strengthens the energetic reaction. Not quite what you describe.


Huh? I think we're trying to understand how the 'potency' and
'specificity' of the purported homeopathic solution, something apparently not quantifiable by standard scientific measurement, is not "ruined" by other substances the diluent may have come into contact with. If water has "memory", how is it purified before the arsenic (your example) is added in order to erase all previous memory that the particular batch of water has been previously in contact with and render the homeopathic arsenic vehicle specific for the "like" it is intending to treat?

Originally posted by Barbrae
4. How is information stored in water? It's no good just saying that unexpected processes occur in solvents they must store energy and information in a completely faithful and stable manner?

I have no clue, but I am not the only one. I don't think anyone knows at this point do they? I am aware of some theories which I am sure you also know (probably better than I) but at this point no one know just how it occurs.


If we don't know and we can't describe it - and furthermore, no one can demonstrate significant, quantifiable differences between a homeopathic solution and "pure" water, do you understand why we are skeptical of homeopathy? Your camp doesn't even understand how and why it "works", nor are you able to reproduce your observations under controlled conditions. Furthermore, we are able to provide, using parsimony, more plausible explanations for the purported "treatment effects" seen in homeopathy. Is it reasonable that we remain skeptical?

Originally posted by Barbrae
5. How does the memory of water apply when the final remedy is dried onto a lactose pill?

Because the memory is energy, and we are applying the energy of the substance which does not presumably evaporate. We are not talking on a physical level but an energetic level. Simply stamping the lactose pellets with an energies imprint.


Please explain what you mean by making a distinction between "energy" and "physical level". These are fuzzy terms that don't really draw a distinction or elucidate your point.

Originally posted by Barbrae
6. How come you can prescribe for animals when you don't "prove" the remedies on animals?

Ah, good question (though again, we don't "prescribe" but recommend). I have often thought that I would love to have a reparatory and MM based solely on remedies proven on animals, but then I think this may be unethical to do so as animals certainly can not give their consent to do a proving, but then again we have donor animals who give blood without consent so who knows? However, we do our best to interpret the mental symptoms in an animal which admittedly can make remedy selection difficult but at this point it is what we have and of course we can match most physicals with what has been proven on humans. And not to be taken lightly is the information we have gotten from animal cases that have been cured/treated by homeopaths and who have supplied us with their knowledge ? learning from the experts so to speak. Of course it also helps to have some knowledge of animal anatomy and physiology and behavior.


First, can you just provide some examples of what's been "cured" or "treated" in animals with homeopathic preparations, preferable something that is objective (e.g., not observed "depression", etc.)

Originally posted by Barbrae
7. Provings are demonstrably nonsense. In the vast majority no attention at all is paid to using controls. So it is vanishingly unlikely that many remedies in use today have the effects claimed for them in provings even if there was some validity behind the principles of homeopathy so that some remedies might truly work. So how come homeopaths using all the dodgy remedies claim success in using them? Doesn't the existence of this mass of defective remedies (even if we cannot identify them from a notional set of valid remedies) completely undermine the homeopaths' claims to make valid inferences from their much-vaunted 'clinical evidence'?

I am not sure what your question is here. Could you rephrase this?


You are not controlling against standard therapy in your investigations. For example, why not compare standard (i.e., Western therapies) to homeopathic therapies for particular diseases? I'm sure that there would be people willing to consent to such tests.

Originally posted by Barbrae
8. What can homeopathy not cure? How do these diseases differ absolutely from all the things they say it can cure. Can it cure genetic diseases?

A difficult question. I know for sure that it cannot cure any disease or condition whose symptoms have never been shown through a proving. This is an absolute. For instance, we have no remedy that has grown a new limb in a proving so no remedy will be able to do that. Also cure is limited to the skill of the homeopath. Can it cure genetic disease? To be honest it depends on the genetic disease. Let me come back to this question a bit later. I haven't given it the attention it deserves but plan to.


Please do come back to this point. I'm most interested in your views on how homeopathy can be objectively demonstrated to effectively treat such things as Type 1 diabetes and documented carcinoma. I'm less interested in how it can treat depression, fibromylagia, and vague chronic pain.

Originally posted by Barbrae
9. What are the limits of homeopaths' credulity? Are there any alt med therapies they do not believe in? If there are really wild and weird things they do not believe in then please can they explain the rationale for making that distinction?

I think this is a weird question to ask. This is of course a purely personal question ? you could ask the same question to MD's and get many different answers. There is no "Homeopath handbook of beliefs in alternative therapies" that we follow. I personally believe in chiropractic and acupuncture and TCM but don't really give any credence to Reiki or psychic healing. Not sure what other modalities you have an interest in. My rationale for what I believe in or do not believe in is based upon my experiences and what makes sense to me. It is based on my personal truth, what rings true for me and what I have experienced myself. I have already said that scientific studies mean little to me so that is not an issue.


Well, MD's "believe" mostly in what's been shown through evidence-based trials, and tend to follow the scientific method based on the vast understanding of human physiology, biochemistry, and anatomy to render opinions on things where there is not as much evidence base. We are constantly on the "ramp of improvement" and are willing to abandon old theories and treatments when better ones come about. We routinely question "what makes sense" to us, despite the fact that it is based on years of specific training that is often based on decades of scientific research, to come to the best conclusions about what we collectively understand is happening in the body in a particular disease process. This methodology is not approached lightly, is grounded in objective, quantifiable observation and study, and is always open to scrutiny.

I just don't see the same latitude in homeopathy.

Originally posted by Barbrae
10. The Randi Challenge Special Question:
Is there any way to tell if a preparation is different from plain water or other solvent? Please do so and earn $1M (and no this is not a single dollar diluted homeopathically

Not for me that I can think of as I am a notoriously low responder to remedies and have rarely proved any remedy I have taken. From what I understand the Randi foundation will not accept a proving done on a third party as ethical. Although I have thought of trying to prove a remedy on plants to see if there is a change in the plant and if that would work. Perhaps I should give that a shot. I am sure it wouldn't meet the Randi criteria but still it would be interesting.

If you are admittedly "a notoriously low responder to remedies" and you "have rarely proved any remedy [you] have taken", why do you continue to grasp so firmly to the belief that homeopathy works? This is what many of us have a hard time understanding.

-TT

[Sarah-I]

Third Twin,

This is an extremely well considered and well phrased response and it is great that this is coming from one of the doctors of the future. It is only a shame that the likes of BSM et al cannot answer in this way rather than slagging us all off all the time and using derogatory terminolgy.

BSM,

Firstly, as I have said before my name is Sarah.

"Once you add something like NHCoraHSarah's intellectual bankruptcy, then you have plenty of reasons for us to want to fight against your intrusion into the world of medicine"

I also object to this comment about me. As well as my qualification in homeopathy I also have a BSc (Hons) degree in Nursing Sciences and various postgraduate qualifications, that have included nursing topics and also other things such as physiology and pathology, so yes, of course I have intellectual capacity.

As I stated before, homeopaths are not stupid and most homeopaths are educated extremely well.

If I wanted to be rude, which you very frequently are, then I could say that you demonstrate that you have no intellect and demonstrate only total ignorance by the tone and content of your posts.

Being rude about me specifically and rude generally about other homeopaths on this board is not the way to get any answers to any questions at all.

One more thing, Barb answered all your questions and did not evade them in any way at all.

I think you also demonstrated your complete and utter immaturity by trying to point score. "That's one more point to us". Who the hell is counting. Behaviour such as this is remiscent of the kids playground. If you want to behave in this fashion, then get back there!!

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
Third Twin,

This is an extremely well considered and well phrased response and it is great that this is coming from one of the doctors of the future. It is only a shame that the likes of BSM et al cannot answer in this way rather than slagging us all off all the time and using derogatory terminolgy.Well, since you find his reply so congenial, perhaps you would care to address the points he makes?Originally posted by Sarah-I
BSM,.....BSM is fed up with you, and I can't say I blame him. Although I'm prepared to believe that your name really is Sarah, none of us has forgotten your behaviour when you were posting under other names. Including your exhortation to me to leave the "Sarah" thread at H'pathy and "go kill some more animals".Originally posted by Sarah-I
As well as my qualification in homeopathy I also have a BSc (Hons) degree in Nursing Sciences and various postgraduate qualifications, that have included nursing topics and also other things such as physiology and pathology, so yes, of course I have intellectual capacity.

As I stated before, homeopaths are not stupid and most homeopaths are educated extremely well.I'm going to do you the courtesy of believing this. But I have to say that although you may be superficially "educated", what you seem to have done is merely learn these subjects by rote without any real understanding.

You then learn homoeopathy by rote, and without understanding that it contradicts completely what you learned in the other courses. You listen to what you are told, that patients are "responding" to remedies, without any semblance of critical thinking at all.

Yes, BSM and I have debated with veterinary homoeopaths too, and some of that is a matter of public record. And what we note is that in spite of the whole thing resembling beating your head against a brick wall, these guys actually do come up with some arguments. Arguments that hold as much water as a colander, but arguments nonetheless.

They quote publications (like Mark's paper) that we have to read and critique. They make suggestions about mechanisms of action - suggestions that show they understand nothing about quantum physics, but at least they tried.

All you ever so is make unsubstantiated and baseless assertions. Just repeating your rote learning as you learned it, with no capacity to understand the problems in what you're saying, or ability to support your position with anything more profound. Even your last, most welcome, attempt to address our questions is only an account of your personal practice, not a general discussion of why this is valid and the things you reject are not.

Perhaps "intellectual bankruptcy" is putting it a bit strong, but really, I know what he means.

Rolfe.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

NHCoraHSarah

I think it is useful to keep your track record in mind, so I'll use that monicker. Frankly, I cease to care if homeopaths regard me as rude. I tried being polite. It resulted in exactly the same evasions, lies and misrepresentations as we have had from you, NaturalHealthHomeoskepticCorallinus, so now I make the required arguments with sufficient vigour to drive the point home. If you want politeness then keep up your side of the discussion with sensible answers.

Originally posted by Sarah-I

I also object to this comment about me. As well as my qualification in homeopathy I also have a BSc (Hons) degree in Nursing Sciences and various postgraduate qualifications, that have included nursing topics and also other things such as physiology and pathology, so yes, of course I have intellectual capacity.

As I stated before, homeopaths are not stupid and most homeopaths are educated extremely well.

The way to demonstrate intelligence is to use it not just tell other people how clever you are. If your degrees had successfully taught you anything about the principles of medicine you would not have pursued the vanity of trying to be a doctor via the backdoor of homeopathy.

Originally posted by Sarah-I

One more thing, Barb answered all your questions and did not evade them in any way at all.


Yeah right, look at the answers. They are either wrong, she evades or she says she doesn't know.

Originally posted by Sarah-I

I think you also demonstrated your complete and utter immaturity by trying to point score. "That's one more point to us". Who the hell is counting. Behaviour such as this is remiscent of the kids playground. If you want to behave in this fashion, then get back there!!


Shall we parse the relevant clauses at all?

Point;

http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=point

10. Hence, the most prominent or important feature, as of an argument, discourse, etc.; the essential matter; esp., the proposition to be established; as, the point of an anecdote

http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=concede

Concede[d];

1. To yield or suffer; to surrender; to grant; as. to concede the point in question.

Once a point has been conceded in an argument then the debate acn move onwards, but you cannot then go back and re-use the defeated argument. If you have neither the wit nor the desire to keep track of what you are saying then there is no purpose debating at all

You have conceded that Wim practises on animals (or at least says he does) in a wholly non-classical manner. You have conceded that Mark Elliott's paper on Cushing's syndrome is not worth the paper it is written on. We have therefore made progress. Now you should address what the consequences are to you of making those admissions. If their practices use unacceptable methods why should we believe their claims of success? Your claims to successfully treat patients are based on exactly the same weak anecdotal evidence as theirs. Why are your claims any stronger at all?

And to return to your claim to be so thoroughly educated in medicine. Please tell us how a calcium plaque in the neck breaks loose and causes a stroke at all. All your thin-skinned whingeing about how badly you are treated needs to be set against the blatantly dishonest way you approach discussion. You have been asked repeatedly to justify your frankly weird explanation of how strokes occur and you have ignored the question again and again.

In one of the other threads, Rolfe reduced all the questions to their simple basics and you presented us with a little homily on how the perfect newbie hoomeopath says she works, the classic politician's tactic. "Well, John, the question you really meant to ask me was...and this is the answer...". We mean the questions we ask, because they cut through to the core of the problem. You fail to answer them either because you don't understand them, or as with the example of CVAs probably because you damn well know you have been caught out talking nonsense.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

p.s. Since Barb's best answers for the 10 questions that frame this thread were not very good. How about you have a go, but only once you have told us all about calcium plaques.

We've got the popcorn and sodas and are sitting comfortably.

[Dr. Imago]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
And to return to your claim to be so thoroughly educated in medicine. Please tell us how a calcium plaque in the neck breaks loose and causes a stroke at all. All your thin-skinned whingeing about how badly you are treated needs to be set against the blatantly dishonest way you approach discussion. You have been asked repeatedly to justify your frankly weird explanation of how strokes occur and you have ignored the question again and again.

I can answer this. But, I need a context first on how and why this came up, and what exactly Sarah is claiming.

-TT

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
We've got the popcorn and sodas and are sitting comfortably. BSM, sweetie, noting the time on that post, you weren't watching BBC1?????

I was gripped right up to 11.15, bad, bad behavoiur from a part of Big Pharma, and the regulator exposed as inadequate and spineless. Unless Panorama was a pile of fantasy, which I suspect it wasn't.

Going to start a thread on it now, it's just a pity that events like these make people like Rouser worse, fuel Barb's knee-jerk attacks on medicine that actually does something, and puts the people who ought to know better on the defensive.

But if a fairly strict and well-structured system of regulation can get stuff so wrong, where does that leave the risk from stuff that isn't regulated at all?

OK, back to the topic.

Calcium plaques and strokes, please, Sarah, and then a better try at the ten questions Barb really didn't handle so well.

Rolfe.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
Being rude about me specifically and rude generally about other homeopaths on this board is not the way to get any answers to any questions at all.

I switched off the computer, but had that niggling irritating feeling that I had let you get away with something. Acknowedging that I am "rude" to you belittles the real driving force, which is not rudeness but righteous anger. You and your colleagues are frauds, despicably exploiting sick people to fuel your own desire to play at being doctors. If that comes across merely as rudeness it is because I have to moderate my tone for a forum that minors may read.

It is not my problem that we have identified issues that scupper homeopathy. You cannot patch your leaky boat but complain about the nasty sharp rocks instead.

[Lisa Simpson]

I'd like to see Sarah's take on homeopathy and this (http://www.ednf.org) genetic disorder. Barb never really answered it to my satisfaction.

[Barbrae]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey

8. "Let me come back to this question a bit later. I havent given it the attention it deserves but plan to."

Still waiting


No your not - it was answered - go back and find it if you desire.

[Barbrae]

Originally posted by Lisa Simpson
I'd like to see Sarah's take on homeopathy and this (http://www.ednf.org) genetic disorder. Barb never really answered it to my satisfaction.

Lisa - I certainly tried, what is it that I didn't satisfy? BTW - do the member sof your family have soft gums that bleed easily? I have not found this to be an indication of EDS yet the EDS child I treat has this - also a very moveable palate.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Barbrae
No your not - it was answered - go back and find it if you desire. Most of us can either summarise the answer, or provide a link to the relevant post, when an important point we made has been overlooked. I certainly don't recall an answer. How about a clue?

Rolfe.

[Lisa Simpson]

Originally posted by Barbrae
Lisa - I certainly tried, what is it that I didn't satisfy? BTW - do the member sof your family have soft gums that bleed easily? I have not found this to be an indication of EDS yet the EDS child I treat has this - also a very moveable palate.

Specifically, how does homeopathy "fix" the problem of collagen that is abnormal on a genetic level. Does it fix the collagen before it is formed, i.e., fixing the genetic problem itself? Or does it fix it after the collagen has been formed and strengths it somehow?

My son doesn't have soft gums that bleed easily, although he does have a submucosal cleft palate and that is not uncommon amongst people who have EDS.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Barb

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870530532&highlight=genetic#post1870530532

Your answer was the triumphantly vague and evasive

"Are you asking if it could cure these or what the remedy would be. Your question sounded like you wanted to know the remedy but having no actual case info it would be impossible to tell you. If you are asking if it can cure that;s a different story."

Well that doesn't get us very far, does it!

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by ThirdTwin
I can answer this. But, I need a context first on how and why this came up, and what exactly Sarah is claiming.

-TT The subject was started in this post of Sarah's (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870611686#post1870611686), and you can follow the discussion from there. The specific mention of calcium plaques was made quite a bit later, here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870613378#post1870613378).

If you can bear to follow on, you'll see BSM and myself give our guesses about what she was on about. Our beef is the ignorant description of something quite a bit more complicated, the refusal to explain herself in any more detail despite saying that she understands biochemistry, physiology and the causes and treatment of stroke very well, and the fact that dogs hardly ever get strokes anyway.

Rolfe.

[Dr. Imago]

Originally posted by Barbrae
Lisa - I certainly tried, what is it that I didn't satisfy? BTW - do the member sof your family have soft gums that bleed easily? I have not found this to be an indication of EDS yet the EDS child I treat has this - also a very moveable palate.

Ehlers-Danlos is not a single disease entity. You can't simply say that a patient has "EDS", and expect it to be particularly meaningful without describing exactly which collagen is affected, how it is affected, and what that resultant defect is.

There are currently 11 routinely recognized disease entities in the Ehlers-Danlos family. Each has a variable clinical course, genetic heritability, and distinct disease manifestation. On occasion, molecular and/or genetic studues are required to determine the exact type of collagen is affected and how. Extensive genetic counseling is also required to determine and inform family of the differing probabilities of passing the disease to offspring, based on the EDS type as well.

So, when you say "I have not found this to be an indication of EDS" you have to indicate which EDS type the patient has for the discussion to be meaningful.

Those ever-present, pesky details... just won't go away, will they... ;)

-TT

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by ThirdTwin
You can't simply say that a patient has "EDS", and expect it to be particularly meaningful without describing exactly which collagen is affected, how it is affected, and what that resultant defect is.


What??? You mean that evil allopathy doesn't just stick a single disease label on all those patients like homeopath barb was trying to? Next you'll be telling me you take case histories and examine patients to try and find the best treatment. What are you, some kind of hippy?

[Dr. Imago]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
What??? You mean that evil allopathy doesn't just stick a single disease label on all those patients like homeopath barb was trying to? Next you'll be telling me you take case histories and examine patients to try and find the best treatment. What are you, some kind of hippy?

It truly scares me that some people attempt to pass off what they are doing as "treatment" without even being able to adequately and appropriately describe what they are treating. If I tried to pull that in the hospital... forget about getting a license, I'd fail out of school first!

-TT

[Lisa Simpson]

Well, to be painfully detailed, the EDNF has a paper that lists the nosology of EDS, changing it from 11 catagories to 6. My husband, and two of our three sons have hypermobility type. There are no distinctive biochemical findings by reseachers as yet.

However, classical type EDS has an abnormal electrophoretic mobility of the proa1(V) or proa2(V) chains of collagen type V. So talking about this abnormality works for me, since the hypermobility type doesn't yet have that kind of finding.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
Barb

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870530532&highlight=genetic#post1870530532

Your answer was the triumphantly vague and evasive

"Are you asking if it could cure these or what the remedy would be. Your question sounded like you wanted to know the remedy but having no actual case info it would be impossible to tell you. If you are asking if it can cure that;s a different story."Well, Barb, I'll make it clearer. CAN you cure this condition? Or maybe some of the sub-categories or something, I don't pretend to know much about it. But I don't care about the identity of the remedy, I want to know if you can really cure this disease.

Then, boring I know, I'm going to ask for your evidence.

(You know, it's really annoying when you post a blatant evasion of a question, like that, and then when re-challenged, just declare you already answered. You seem to want to think about what you do as a homoeopath. Well, how about it. Can you really provide any evidence that giving a "potentised" remedy does anything at all? If not, how can you in all conscience present yourself as willing to interfere in people's health?)

Rolfe.

[Barbrae]

Originally posted by ThirdTwin
Ehlers-Danlos is not a single disease entity. You can't simply say that a patient has "EDS", and expect it to be particularly meaningful without describing exactly which collagen is affected, how it is affected, and what that resultant defect is.

There are currently 11 routinely recognized disease entities in the Ehlers-Danlos family. Each has a variable clinical course, genetic heritability, and distinct disease manifestation. On occasion, molecular and/or genetic studues are required to determine the exact type of collagen is affected and how. Extensive genetic counseling is also required to determine and inform family of the differing probabilities of passing the disease to offspring, based on the EDS type as well.

So, when you say "I have not found this to be an indication of EDS" you have to indicate which EDS type the patient has for the discussion to be meaningful.

Those ever-present, pesky details... just won't go away, will they... ;)

-TT

TT - I am aware of all the info you just posted - however, this particular case does have the gum and palate issues which I have not found to be indicated as a symptom in any of the types of EDS.

[Barbrae]

Originally posted by ThirdTwin
It truly scares me that some people attempt to pass off what they are doing as "treatment" without even being able to adequately and appropriately describe what they are treating. If I tried to pull that in the hospital... forget about getting a license, I'd fail out of school first!

-TT

TT I am not "treating" EDS, nor am I diagnosing the condition, nor am I the persons primary caregiver. This child is under the care of several MD's and they came to see me for a condition unrelated to the EDS - Being a homeopath however I take a full case so that the symptoms of EDS are included.

I am quite educated in EDS by the way, more than I care to be.

[Dr. Imago]

Originally posted by Lisa Simpson
Well, to be painfully detailed, the EDNF has a paper that lists the nosology of EDS, changing it from 11 catagories to 6. My husband, and two of our three sons have hypermobility type. There are no distinctive biochemical findings by reseachers as yet.

Okay, I'm not going to argue with the EDNF. :D But, I'd be willing to bet that there are several dozens of abberrations that can be clinically distinct and run in the progeny of certain extended family lines. There are at least 50 separate known biomolecular errors of collagen and procollagen that result in the signs and symptoms of the various EDS family. Some of these necessarily will present with similar clinical features because they are affecting similar collagens, despite the fact that they would not be specific to a particular site in the collagen molecule, may actually effect an enzyme in post-translational modification, etc. So, the new EDNF distinction becomes more of a clinical one for simplicity sake, rather than a true descriptor of the genetic and biochemical abberration. This happens in several different clinical disciplines that have special foundations for certain diseases. It seems every few years, they feel the need to re-write their classification schemes. After all, this is a perfetly legitimate reason for the senior advisors of these boards to have conventions in exotic locales to... ahem... discuss such weighty matters. ;)

Originally posted by Lisa Simpson
However, classical type EDS has an abnormal electrophoretic mobility of the proa1(V) or proa2(V) chains of collagen type V. So talking about this abnormality works for me, since the hypermobility type doesn't yet have that kind of finding.

Find the pro-band in your husband's family (assuming it's not your husband) and you will narrow down your search for an exact cause. I wouldn't superficially classify it as Type I, as you've done, because it doesn't have the same clinical features. It sounds more like EDS Type III according to the "old" classification, and you're right - they still don't fully understand the biomolecular basis yet. I'd highly recommend specific genetic counseling if you haven't received it, especially since your boys would probably like to have kids themselves one day and should know their risk (when the timing is appropriate in their lives, of course).

-TT

[Barbrae]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Well, Barb, I'll make it clearer. CAN you cure this condition? Or maybe some of the sub-categories or something, I don't pretend to know much about it. But I don't care about the identity of the remedy, I want to know if you can really cure this disease.

Then, boring I know, I'm going to ask for your evidence.

(You know, it's really annoying when you post a blatant evasion of a question, like that, and then when re-challenged, just declare you already answered. You seem to want to think about what you do as a homoeopath. Well, how about it. Can you really provide any evidence that giving a "potentised" remedy does anything at all? If not, how can you in all conscience present yourself as willing to interfere in people's health?)

Rolfe.

Well honey, we shall see. So far this case has responded to treatment. I can't tell you if I can cure it until I do - can I? Until then you'll have to wait and see, just like me. I have however been able to provide positive results so far in the childs treatment - something allopathy can't do for this case - or this disorder.

[Dr. Imago]

Originally posted by Barbrae
TT - I am aware of all the info you just posted - however, this particular case does have the gum and palate issues which I have not found to be indicated as a symptom in any of the types of EDS.

You just don't know where to look. This is a hallmark of EDS Type VIII (according to the 1998 classification), also known as periodontal type. Of course, I don't know this for sure because I haven't seen this kid and I'm relying solely on the scant evidence you've provided. However, I'm sure that the MDs treating him already know exactly what he has. That's all that ultimately matters.

You fairly clearly intimated, if it was not expressly stated, in your previous post that you were treating his EDS. At least one other person besides myself got that impression as well. So, out of curiousity, what exactly are you treating him for then?

-TT

[Dr. Imago]

Originally posted by Barbrae
TT I am not "treating" EDS, nor am I diagnosing the condition, nor am I the persons primary caregiver. This child is under the care of several MD's and they came to see me for a condition unrelated to the EDS - Being a homeopath however I take a full case so that the symptoms of EDS are included.

I am quite educated in EDS by the way, more than I care to be.

Are you or are you not treating his EDS? Your post is very confusing. If you, as you state, are "not 'treating' EDS", but then go on to say you "take a full case so the symptoms of EDS are included" then you are, by definition, treating the EDS, right?

Barb, this double-speak is not getting us anywhere.

-TT

[Lisa Simpson]

We have had genetic testing, as well as seeing a neurologist to rule out other causes. The genetic test ruled out Marfan Syndrome but couldn't specifically point to any type of EDS. However, given the relative lack of skin involvement-their skin is somewhat fragile, but not really stretchy, coupled with the extreme joint mobility (my husband can fold his ankles over until those knobby bones on the outsides of his ankles are flat to the floor--then walk that way) the geneticist felt hypermobility type was the most likely. Given the family history, that would seem likely as hypermobility type is passed in an autosomal dominant manner. My husband's grandfather and mother both had the same symptoms. We had a 50/50 chance with each pregnancy and nailed it two out of three times, which is part of the reason we don't have four kids.

[Barbrae]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Well, Barb, I'll make it clearer. CAN you cure this condition? Or maybe some of the sub-categories or something, I don't pretend to know much about it. But I don't care about the identity of the remedy, I want to know if you can really cure this disease.

Then, boring I know, I'm going to ask for your evidence.

(You know, it's really annoying when you post a blatant evasion of a question, like that, and then when re-challenged, just declare you already answered. You seem to want to think about what you do as a homoeopath. Well, how about it. Can you really provide any evidence that giving a "potentised" remedy does anything at all? If not, how can you in all conscience present yourself as willing to interfere in people's health?)

Rolfe.

My god you folks are truly unbelievable. First BSM bumps this post up to imply the questions were never answered when I indeed answered them - I guess he just forgot that huh? and then you guys quote me asking HC what she meant with her question and then leave it hanging saying I never answered her - ARe you guys frigging NUTS or what - I see you provided the link to the origional post but managed to forget about this thread which I started just to answer her question http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42943 - Oh and guess what - SHOCK OF ALL SHOCKS - the answer to Lisa's question is there too -

And and this will really blow your damn socks off if you care to look - I also say that I feel conventional medicine is necesary and a good thing - My My MY - I guess this post must've just managed to slip past you - even thoguht you responded in it often.

[Barbrae]

here are some of those posts

Hi HC - I thought it was appropriate to put this in a new thread.

I would like those who champion the cause of homeopathy (including Kumar) to succinctly explain how and why a homeopathy would be better than a real doctor to the following conditions (most of which that I have very close experience with either myself or various family members, even though I may spell them wrong):

1) neonatal spasms, also known as infantile seizures

2) severe croup

3) strep throat

4) oral motor dyspraxia with some functional dysarthria

5) developmental dysphasia

6) pink eye or stye

7) contact dermatitis with eczema

8) allergic rhinitis (hayfever, achoo!!)

9) chicken pox

8) hypertrophic cardiomyopathy

9) breast infections

10) bladder infections (male and female)

11) mumps (I mostly remember not being able to swallow)

12) Bi-polar delusions

13) depression

14) migraine headaches

15) severe head trauma (10+ foot fall on concrete)

16) sprained ankles and wrist (at different times)

17) broken bones

18) bacterial pneumonia

19) bronchitis

There are probably more... but I cannot think of them right now -- some of these are from years ago, and some more recent.

For the conditions that are self limiting (like the broken bones and viral infections) I want to know how homeopathy drastically cuts down the healing time... "So if you take this remedy your cold will go away in 14 days, otherwise it will take two weeks".

Others are welcome to add more conditions to this list (like Addison's).

My goodness, that is a long list. For the vast majority of these illnesses/conditions homeopathy (assuming a correctly chosen remedy) will affect a relief of symptoms quicker than modern medicine and as importantly without the side-effects inherant in many drugs. In the instance of broken bones remedies will help the bone heal faster then simply setting the bone alone. In a case of viral infections homeopathy will lessen the severity of symptoms and cut down the time of an illness. For conditions like hypertrophic cardiomyopathy homeopathy could lessen related symptoms such as palpitations, fatigue and chest pain but I doubt and do not know if it could lessen the thickening of the muscle. For EDS it can help with the easy bruising, the loose skin and the loose joints but I doubt it would actually have the body prodcuign collagen correctly. For some of these conditions modern medicine has no real treatment and for others you must have modern medicine treatment because homeopathy simply ainÂ’t gonna set a bone, and when the risks of not using modern medicine can be damaging (bacterial pneumonia, strep). I hope I answered your question but I feel like I didnÂ’t. I wasnÂ’t quite sure what you were looking for as I think you already knew what a homeopaths reply would be.

[Barbrae]

From the post back in July

"Hi Lisa, the truth is I don't know if would effect the collegen production or not. I am currently treating one child with EDS (non-vascular type) and so far am having success with bruising and skin but it hasn't effected the loose joints. This is a recent case and was not brought to me for EDS symptoms but unrelated problems. The child is under the care of a rheumatologist as well (before someone claims I am irresponsable) but there is not conventional treatment for her at this time."

[Lisa Simpson]

Originally posted by Barbrae
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42943 - Oh and guess what - SHOCK OF ALL SHOCKS - the answer to Lisa's question is there too -



Here is your answer in that post re:EDS

For EDS it can help with the easy bruising, the loose skin and the loose joints but I doubt it would actually have the body prodcuign collagen correctly.

I am now asking HOW does homeopathy do that? What specifically does it do that helps with the easy bruising and loose skin? Does it tighten it up?

[Barbrae]

Originally posted by ThirdTwin
Are you or are you not treating his EDS? Your post is very confusing. If you, as you state, are "not 'treating' EDS", but then go on to say you "take a full case so the symptoms of EDS are included" then you are, by definition, treating the EDS, right?

Barb, this double-speak is not getting us anywhere.

-TT

It's not double speak - I am not treating EDS - I am however providing homeopathic care for the entire child - all the symptoms she exhibits.

[Dr. Imago]

Originally posted by Barbrae
For the vast majority of these illnesses/conditions homeopathy (assuming a correctly chosen remedy) will affect a relief of symptoms quicker than modern medicine and as importantly without the side-effects inherant in many drugs.

According to whom? You? The "patient"? What objectifiable measure are you using? You ever hear of the placebo effect?

Still, I think you lay down a pretty good challenge, though, and one that could win you the million dollars with this...

Originally posted by Barbrae
For conditions like hypertrophic cardiomyopathy homeopathy could lessen related symptoms such as palpitations, fatigue and chest pain but I doubt and do not know if it could lessen the thickening of the muscle.

Assuming that you completely understand what you're saying here, you make mention of palpitations - which is a specifically quantifiable endpoint. A palpitation in someone with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy is usually the result of ventricular premature beat (VPB, or PVC in the old-school vernacular). It would be simple to conduct a test where, given a baseline period, a set of patients wear a Holter monitor to record the number of VPBs they have in a given time frame. I'd use a cross-over design, where they were randomized to receive your homeopathic treatment or placebo for a set amount of time, and then flipped over to receive whatever treatment they hadn't received (again blinded and randomly) in the first part of the study. They would wear a Holter monitor throughout.

Now, at the end, we'd have a set of patients who would clearly demonstrate a treatment effect, if one was present. Personally, I'd be very interested in seeing the results of such a study.

So, care to apply for the million bucks? I'm sure you and Randi could work something out, if you'd agree to have your treatment tested.

-TT

[Dr. Imago]

Originally posted by Barbrae
It's not double speak - I am not treating EDS - I am however providing homeopathic care for the entire child - all the symptoms she exhibits.

What specifically are you treating her for?!??!? (MAN! This is like pulling teeth! :rolleyes: )

[Barbrae]

Originally posted by Lisa Simpson
Here is your answer in that post re:EDS



I am now asking HOW does homeopathy do that? What specifically does it do that helps with the easy bruising and loose skin? Does it tighten it up?

this case I am working with has easy bruising and loose joints and visible veins and loose skin (the skin is not very loose but has the soft texture common to EDS). Her bruising has lessened dramatically, I would say the bruising is of a non-EDS child at this pointa, joint looseness has gotten better as well and there has been no dislocations or sprains since treatment however I wouldn't classify this symptom as normal yet. Skin texture is the same.

Lisa, I hope you understand that all I can give you is my experience with this. I wish I could give you studies on homeopathy and EDS but none have been done that I am aware of.

[Barbrae]

Originally posted by ThirdTwin
What specifically are you treating her for?!??!? (MAN! This is like pulling teeth! :rolleyes: )

TT - do you understand homeopathy? It doesn't work that way - we don't treat for disease names. If you are asking what the condition is that her mother first came to see me for I quite frankly don't think the mother would want me to say as that particular area of the case is of a personal and private matter.

[Barbrae]

Originally posted by ThirdTwin
According to whom? You? The "patient"? What objectifiable measure are you using? You ever hear of the placebo effect?

Still, I think you lay down a pretty good challenge, though, and one that could win you the million dollars with this...



Assuming that you completely understand what you're saying here, you make mention of palpitations - which is a specifically quantifiable endpoint. A palpitation in someone with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy is usually the result of ventricular premature beat (VPB, or PVC in the old-school vernacular). It would be simple to conduct a test where, given a baseline period, a set of patients wear a Holter monitor to record the number of VPBs they have in a given time frame. I'd use a cross-over design, where they were randomized to receive your homeopathic treatment or placebo for a set amount of time, and then flipped over to receive whatever treatment they hadn't received (again blinded and randomly) in the first part of the study. They would wear a Holter monitor throughout.

Now, at the end, we'd have a set of patients who would clearly demonstrate a treatment effect, if one was present. Personally, I'd be very interested in seeing the results of such a study.

So, care to apply for the million bucks? I'm sure you and Randi could work something out, if you'd agree to have your treatment tested.

-TT

TT - this has been discussed a lot - please review the previous posts regarding this matter and the like.

[Lisa Simpson]

Originally posted by Barbrae


Lisa, I hope you understand that all I can give you is my experience with this. I wish I could give you studies on homeopathy and EDS but none have been done that I am aware of.

Well then, let's look at something less rare--in fact my pharmacist says it's overdiagnosed. Asthma. Have you ever treated a child with asthma? If so, how does homeopathy work to relieve it?

Son #3 has had chronic asthma in one form or another all his 9 years. Currently, he is taking Singulair and Albuterol for his rescue inhaler. The Singulair works by blocking leukotreines (I'm sure ThirdTwin can explain what those are, and BTW, ThirdTwin why does it have to be taken at night only for asthma?) and albuterol works by widening the air passages of the lungs. See? That is what I want to know about homeopathy. How specifically it works to solve a particular medical problem and without mentioning the vital force, which no one has been able to find.

Thanks
:)

[Dr. Imago]

Originally posted by Barbrae
TT - do you understand homeopathy? It doesn't work that way - we don't treat for disease names. If you are asking what the condition is that her mother first came to see me for I quite frankly don't think the mother would want me to say as that particular area of the case is of a personal and private matter.

Oh, come on! Don't cop out now. We have no idea who this person is, just as you have no idea who I am.

And, no, I'll admit I completely do not understand homeopathy. No one I've met has ever been able to explain it to me adequately, and I'm often left scratching my head about what it exactly is that you guys think you're doing. As far as I can tell, it provides absolutely no benefit beyond that expected of any other placebo. The "belief" that it works is the only true effect here.

And, let me just say that if you really don't have a goal or a direction in the care you're providing to this child, which is sort of what it sounds like, then what you are doing is completely unethical. The goal in allopathic medicine is to make and keep people well, and if there is nothing that needs to treated on the various axes (neurologic, psychologic, physiologic, etc.) to provide unncessary care is grounds for revocation of a license.

Now, having said that, you know that you are treating this girl for her EDS, or "complications" surrounding her EDS. Why don't you just admit that instead of playing these little games and claiming that you can't explain it to me and such because I don't even understand how homeopathy works.

YOU HAVE a GOLDEN opportunity here to convince a future physician the value of your services! Seize that opportunity!

-TT

[Dr. Imago]

Originally posted by Barbrae
TT - this has been discussed a lot - please review the previous posts regarding this matter and the like.

I am aware that you believe that homeopathy cannot be "tested" by the standard means. You probably are also aware that I see this is as a self-preserving copout. You've provided a testible, falsifiable claim here that is objective. Whether you're willing to admit it or not, it is objectifiable testible. If you're not willing to test it or accept the results of such a test, then we are at an endroads. You have proven nothing except that you are afraid of what the results may show.

So, let me give you some serious advice for the future. Do not even come close to even remotely attempting to make a claim such as it can "improve palpitations" or the like in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy unless you are (1) fully aware of what you're talking about and (2) willing to suffer the ramifications of a patient who heeds your advice. You're really playing with fire when you say such things, Barb.

If you kill a person because one of your treatments results in them suffering some lethal arrhythmia because they went off of their medication under the belief that you were making them better, that death will be on your hands.

You're not playing innocent little games here, Barb. You are involving yourself in the intimate aspects of people's lives. They are relying on you to help them. That's a huge responsibility that no one should take lightly. I admonish you to never forget that.

-TT

[Barbrae]

TT - you know as well as I do that there is no way in hell that anything I could provide you would convince you of anything. However, I do hope that, as a future physician you keep an open mind about treatments other than those "proven" to your standards. As someone who suffered at the hands of conventional medicine with no relief from a real disease I can tell you that had I stuck with your "proven" medicines and never looked elsewhere I would be living a life of zero quality. Even if my "cure" was based on placebo effect it's more than the many years of conventional treatments could offer and without horrible side-effects, so I'll take it. Even if you can't fathom that homeopathy works - there are thousands of us who believe we have had real results with it when your medicine failed us - don't take that hope away from your patients when you find your medicine is offering little more than supression of a condition with accompanying side-effects (I am not saying all of conventional medicine does this BTW - but you will for sure find many cases that you are hopeless to help and for those folks - have an open mind). Actually, I would love to challange you to speak with one of the many hundreds of MD's out there who decided to practice homeopathy instead of allopathy, or at least along with it. Find out why - find out from them. Maybe even visit one of their practices some day.

Regarding my EDS case - That is not a cop out - why would it even matter to me what the condition is that the mother took her to me for? As far as posting it I mean. Ihave mentioned this case a few times, starting several months ago and even then I didn't post the main complaint because of it's sensitive nature - it's not because you are asking now. Just to be very very clear again - This child is under the care of several physicians - They are aware that I am on her case. I have a direction of care clearly in my mind and things have been workign amazingly well with this case. As far as a direction of care - homeopaths look to a specific direction of cure and so far I am satisfied with how things are going -as are her MDs.

BTW - Thanks very much for the info on EDS and palate - I had scoured all my references for that.

[Barbrae]

Originally posted by Lisa Simpson
Well then, let's look at something less rare--in fact my pharmacist says it's overdiagnosed. Asthma. Have you ever treated a child with asthma? If so, how does homeopathy work to relieve it?

Son #3 has had chronic asthma in one form or another all his 9 years. Currently, he is taking Singulair and Albuterol for his rescue inhaler. The Singulair works by blocking leukotreines (I'm sure ThirdTwin can explain what those are, and BTW, ThirdTwin why does it have to be taken at night only for asthma?) and albuterol works by widening the air passages of the lungs. See? That is what I want to know about homeopathy. How specifically it works to solve a particular medical problem and without mentioning the vital force, which no one has been able to find.

Thanks
:)

I have never treated asthma

[Lisa Simpson]

Originally posted by Barbrae
I have never treated asthma

Fair enough.

What about you, Sarah?

[Barbrae]

Originally posted by ThirdTwin
I am aware that you believe that homeopathy cannot be "tested" by the standard means. You probably are also aware that I see this is as a self-preserving copout. You've provided a testible, falsifiable claim here that is objective. Whether you're willing to admit it or not, it is objectifiable testible. If you're not willing to test it or accept the results of such a test, then we are at an endroads. You have proven nothing except that you are afraid of what the results may show.

So, let me give you some serious advice for the future. Do not even come close to even remotely attempting to make a claim such as it can "improve palpitations" or the like in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy unless you are (1) fully aware of what you're talking about and (2) willing to suffer the ramifications of a patient who heeds your advice. You're really playing with fire when you say such things, Barb.

If you kill a person because one of your treatments results in them suffering some lethal arrhythmia because they went off of their medication under the belief that you were making them better, that death will be on your hands.

You're not playing innocent little games here, Barb. You are involving yourself in the intimate aspects of people's lives. They are relying on you to help them. That's a huge responsibility that no one should take lightly. I admonish you to never forget that.

-TT

TT - I see you don't know me or haven't taken the time or energy to read any of my previous posts. Let me repeat myself once again and be very clear here. I NEVER take a person off ANY current meds unless under the advise and supervision of their MD. I have gone so far as to tell a client I would no longer treat them when they went off a med without the consent of their MD (it was for an anxiety disorder) because they felt so well on homeopathy. I have this in writing and also verbalize the importance of this.

The vast majority of my clients (and might I say - the majority of any homeopaths clients) are people with chronic conditions for which your medicine has little hope for a cure. These conditions are ones that are typically not life-threatening but can be debilitating - Migraines, OCD, anxiety, ADD, Colitis, irritable bowel, allergies, autism, aspergers, chorea, PCOS... youget the picture.

I just want you to understand that I know all to well that these are lives we are talking about - people, with families, with loved ones, not statistics, not numbers. i spend hours with my clients and my goal - my ultimate goal is to bring them into a state of health - without the need for continued drugs, or treatments.

I take on any case for free that can not pay and I also offer partial refunds if clients don't feel they have benefitted to a certain degree by an agreed upon amount of time - can you tell me any MD that does that? I got that idea from an MD turned homeopath who does something somewhat similar. I'd be a lot richer had I gotten a refund for all those wasted years on conventional medicine for my disease.

[Barbrae]

Originally posted by Lisa Simpson
Fair enough.

What about you, Sarah?

Lisa - you know we can't tell you the mechanics of "how" it works. You are very aware of that. However, If youare looking to speak with someone who has had amelioration of asthma or a homeopath who has treated asthma I can get you email addys of both. Of course it would be anecdotal but that's the best I can do.

[Dr. Imago]

Originally posted by Lisa Simpson
The Singulair works by blocking leukotreines (I'm sure ThirdTwin can explain what those are, and BTW, ThirdTwin why does it have to be taken at night only for asthma?) and albuterol works by widening the air passages of the lungs.

Singulair makes some people sleepy. Also, nocturnal exacerbations of asthma are common, so it would make sense to have the drug reach it's maximal plasma concentration during the sleeping hours at night.

Leukotrienes are in the arachidonic acid pathway, and form compounds similar to the prostaglandins (the other half of the arachidonic acid pathway) called "leukotrienes" (as you state) that are responsible in inflammation. Aspirin, NSAIDs, and the COX-2 inhibitors block the cyclooxygenase half of the pathway. Leukotriene inhibitors block the lipoxygenase half of the pathway. Both are anti-inflammatories, by definition.

Albuterol is a beta-2 agonist and works by relaxing smooth muscle in the bronchioles. This is the "bronchoconstrictive" phase of asthma. The "inflammatory" phase of asthma, which is mediated by the immune system, responds to treatments such as Singulair and inhaled topical corticosteroids. Many patients take Advair, a combination of a topical inhaled corticosteroid (fluticasone) and a long-acting beta-2 agonist (salmeterol). There are other beta agonists used for asthma, but inhaled albuterol seems to be the best short acting one with the fewest side effects. If, however, he's using his albuterol more than twice a week or is using it at night a lot, he's probably suboptimally managed and should be re-evaluated by his physician.

I'm aware of no effective homeopathic remedies for PFT-documented asthma, including the cough variant variety.

-TT

[Lisa Simpson]

Thanks ThirdTwin, I was curious about that. The Singulair seems to be working well, for both the asthma and allergies he has. He's only had to use the albuterol once since we started it and that was when the Santa Ana winds were blowing. Very nasty days for asthma sufferers.

Barb-You seem like a smart person. Why are you treating people for medical conditions when you don't even know how your medicine works?

[Dr. Imago]

Originally posted by Barbrae
I NEVER take a person off ANY current meds unless under the advise and supervision of their MD. I have gone so far as to tell a client I would no longer treat them when they went off a med without the consent of their MD (it was for an anxiety disorder) because they felt so well on homeopathy. I have this in writing and also verbalize the importance of this.
...

i spend hours with my clients and my goal - my ultimate goal is to bring them into a state of health - without the need for continued drugs, or treatments.

I just don't believe you, Barb. You can offer anecdotes all you want. I just don't believe you. You're stating here that you are attempting to "cure" people, but in the same breath you repeatedly state that you have no idea how your treatments work. Incredible. By the very definition of that, you have no idea what the hell you are doing or why it works... which leads me to believe that you're just kidding yourself and the people you "treat", who seem willing to, for whatever personal reasons they may have, to play along. That's what you're doing. You're playing doctor.

I'm sure you could claim that you've cured several, dozens, hundreds, (?) of people. Am I right? But, I'd be more curious to know if what you think was a cure was actually a clinical cure. I don't believe you, and I don't really care about your anecdotes, because you can't even adequately describe what you do or provide any falsifiable evidence of what you do. Therefore, the only conclusion any reasonable person can come to is that what you do is nothing. It has actually no real clinical effect, except perhaps to make the person you're "treating" to feel better. I'm not denying that there is inherent value in that, but I think your methods of achieving that are cruel, misleading, dubious, and demonstrably lazy. You live in a fantasy world, pure and simple, where you have no accountability. Shame on you. The amazing thing to me is, through your self-delusion, you actually believe you are helping.

You are one of the "lost causes" that I referred to recently in another discussion. I just sincerely hope that your sphere of influence is so miniscule that you have no real opportunity to do true harm to someone.

-TT

[Barbrae]

Lisa - You are correct - we have no idea HOW homeopathy works. There are theories out there and many homeopaths will latch onto one of them and present it as the answer but the fact it we really do not know at all.

There have been, and I suspect still are, conventional medicines in use that we do not understand just how they work. I use conventional meds all the time and don't know how they work. Just about every person in this world has used a medicine without knowing how it works.

Heck I'd be willing to bet there are a rather large lot of MD's out there that prescribe medicnes without really understanding just how they work (you should hear the stories my good friend, a rep for SmithKline Beechem shares with me about his meetings with the MD's).

I use my car - no idea how it works, I use my camera - no clue how it works, I use my microwave and don't knwo how it works and yes, I use homeopathy and don't know how it works - I just know that when I take a remedy - I get results.

[Lisa Simpson]

I have only a vague idea of how my car, camera, and microwave work. If something goes wrong with one of them, I take it a mechanic, camera repairman, or microwave repairman. Someone who does know how it works and can fix it. I wouldn't take my microwave to the auto mechanic and expect him to fix it. Why should I go to a person for health advice who had no idea how it works?

[Barbrae]

Originally posted by ThirdTwin
I just don't believe you, Barb. You can offer anecdotes all you want. I just don't believe you. You're stating here that you are attempting to "cure" people, but in the same breath you repeatedly state that you have no idea how your treatments work. Incredible. By the very definition of that, you have no idea what the hell you are doing or why it works... which leads me to believe that you're just kidding yourself and the people you "treat", who seem willing to, for whatever personal reasons they may have, to play along. That's what you're doing. You're playing doctor.

I'm sure you could claim that you've cured several, dozens, hundreds, (?) of people. Am I right? But, I'd be more curious to know if what you think was a cure was actually a clinical cure. I don't believe you, and I don't really care about your anecdotes, because you can't even adequately describe what you do or provide any falsifiable evidence of what you do. Therefore, the only conclusion any reasonable person can come to is that what you do is nothing. It has actually no real clinical effect, except perhaps to make the person you're "treating" to feel better. I'm not denying that there is inherent value in that, but I think your methods of achieving that are cruel, misleading, dubious, and demonstrably lazy. You live in a fantasy world, pure and simple, where you have no accountability. Shame on you. The amazing thing to me is, through your self-delusion, you actually believe you are helping.

You are one of the "lost causes" that I referred to recently in another discussion. I just sincerely hope that your sphere of influence is so miniscule that you have no real opportunity to do true harm to someone.

-TT

TT - what exactly don't you believe? I have no idea how homeopathy works, so what - does that mean it doesn't work? You do know that throughout the life of allopathy there have been methods used before anyone knew how they worked don't you? Let me state that although I don't know how homeopathy workd I do know how other treatments that utilize work just fine. Although I don't know "how" it works I do know the why and I also pride myself on knowing what I am doing very well thank you.

Look - as I said I have no desire to change anyone's mind here about homeopathy. I do hope however that you - as a future doctor understand that you are dealing with people - real people - not statistics or numbers and your "proven" medicnes will fail you over and over and over again and for those cases you have a choice - you can find alternative treatments for them or you can tell them it's hopless and they need to live with it. I hope for their sakes you find it in yourself to look outside the paradigm you currently reside. I had to find that for myself - I wish I had a doctor who was willing to look elsewhere, it would have saved me much suffering.

[Dr. Imago]

Originally posted by Barbrae
Heck I'd be willing to bet there are a rather large lot of MD's out there that prescribe medicnes without really understanding just how they work (you should hear the stories my good friend, a rep for SmithKline Beechem shares with me about his meetings with the MD's).

WRONG!

How DARE you equate what you do with mainstream medicine, the rigorous controlled testing that pharmaceuticals undergo, and the incredibly strict regulations required of the FDA in order to get a legitimate pharmaceutical approved for sale in the U.S.!! You have REALLY crossed the line here, Barb. You may have no idea in hell what you are doing, but every medical doctor who prescribes a drug knows exactly what he/she is intending to treat, why that drug is the appropriate selection, and what the potential consequences of not knowing would be legally, ethically, and morally.

Why don't you share some of the stories of your rep friend? I'd love to hear what this person has to say, especially since SmithKline Beecham is no longer a self-standing, independent pharma company in the U.S. anymore, and no longer have a sales force. In fact, some more information that you probably didn't know: they were bought by Glaxo-Wellcome over three-and-a-half years ago. So, I'm sure your stories are real fresh. Or, is this just another example of your lying/exagerrating/not-knowing-what-you-do-and-why-you-do-it again?

-TT

[Dr. Imago]

Originally posted by Barbrae
I do hope however that you - as a future doctor understand that you are dealing with people - real people - not statistics or numbers and your "proven" medicnes will fail you over and over and over again and for those cases you have a choice - you can find alternative treatments for them or you can tell them it's hopless and they need to live with it. I hope for their sakes you find it in yourself to look outside the paradigm you currently reside. I had to find that for myself - I wish I had a doctor who was willing to look elsewhere, it would have saved me much suffering.

Don't you lecture me, Barb. I see more patients everyday as a student than you see in two months as a homeopathy quack, I guarantee it.

I will never recommend homeopathy to anyone. It's bunkum, pure and simple. I've offered you numerous chances to prove me wrong on this thread, and you just continue to reinforce what I previously thought.

No, I'm certainly not going to send a person with an incurable illness to someone like you, just so you can remove the remaining few dollars they have from their wallets without offering them any real treatment other than false hope.

-TT

[Barbrae]

Originally posted by Lisa Simpson
I have only a vague idea of how my car, camera, and microwave work. If something goes wrong with one of them, I take it a mechanic, camera repairman, or microwave repairman. Someone who does know how it works and can fix it. I wouldn't take my microwave to the auto mechanic and expect him to fix it. Why should I go to a person for health advice who had no idea how it works?

I understand yoru point - but what about my comment about the conventional meds in use whose method of how they work was unknown?

There is a difference of knowing how homeopathy works and knowing how health works and the latter I am very well versed in. In fact, regarding true health I would say I don't think conventional doctors knwo much about that at all.

So I may not be able to explain how to fix that car, microwave, camera but when you have been to the regular repair guy and he took your money over and over again and the problem is still there along with some added ones and then you come to me and I can't explain how what I am doing is going to fix your car, camera, microwave but when you leave they are working great and there are no unwanted other problems - hey would you really care then if I couldn't tell you why what I did fixed the car? or would you just be happy as hell to finally get it fixed.

I know you don't believe in it but just pretend for a second -
On a real note - if a homeopath cured your child of asthma and EDS - would it matter to you, as a parent, if they couldn't explain how it worked? I think for most of us, with serious conditions that conventional medicine can't help, we just don't care.

[Barbrae]

Originally posted by ThirdTwin
Don't you lecture me, Barb. I see more patients everyday as a student than you see in two months as a homeopathy quack, I guarantee it.

I will never recommend homeopathy to anyone. It's bunkum, pure and simple. I've offered you numerous chances to prove me wrong on this thread, and you just continue to reinforce what I previously thought.

No, I'm certainly not going to send a person with an incurable illness to someone like you, just so you can remove the remaining few dollars they have from their wallets without offering them any real treatment other than false hope.

-TT

hmm, wow - already on that high and mighty high horse and you aren't even a doctor yet - wow - you got that attitude down alrighty.

I bet you do see more patients than me - after all - you probably spend, what, all of 5 minutes with a case??

Perhaps you missed my repeated comment that I am not trying to convince you about homeopathy at all - but I would like you to have an open mind about alternative medicine - Hardly a lecture.

[Barbrae]

Originally posted by ThirdTwin
WRONG!

You may have no idea in hell what you are doing, but every medical doctor who prescribes a drug knows exactly what he/she is intending to treat, why that drug is the appropriate selection, and what the potential consequences of not knowing would be legally, ethically, and morally.

-TT

First - I am well aware it is now Glaxo- Smith Kline and actually my stories are rather fresh as I just had a conversation with this fellow a few days ago when he called me to see if I could recommend a remedy for his wifes broken foot and we had a discussion about the class action suit against them regarding Paxil.

Secondly, regarding the comment that aN MD knows what to treat and with what drugs is very different from understanding HOW every drug works and the nmechanics behind how it works. WHich is what I was saying and rather different from what you were saying.

[Barbrae]

Now - as much as I am enjoying this little heomeopaths should die fest of yours - it's late here and I am off to bed. Sweet dreams.

[Lisa Simpson]

Originally posted by Barbrae
I understand yoru point - but what about my comment about the conventional meds in use whose method of how they work was unknown?



I know you don't believe in it but just pretend for a second -
On a real note - if a homeopath cured your child of asthma and EDS - would it matter to you, as a parent, if they couldn't explain how it worked? I think for most of us, with serious conditions that conventional medicine can't help, we just don't care.

First point-I would bet most MD's have at least a passing knowledge of how modern medicine and pharmaceuticals work. By the time a drug gets passed the FDA, so much study of it has been done that at least some idea of the mechanism is understood.

Second point. Yes, I would care to know how homeopathy cured my child of EDS or asthma. So that if it should happen to pop again, I would know how to cure it again.

Third point--I don't think homeopaths should all die. I think they should educate themselves about anatomy, physiology, biology, and chemisty before even contemplating screwing around with the health of others. Of course, if they really understood those sciences (I won't even pretend I understand them, I was a history major) they wouldn't be practicing homeopathy.

Goodnight, and thanks for all the fish.

[Zombified]

Originally posted by Barbrae
Perhaps you missed my repeated comment that I am not trying to convince you about homeopathy at all - but I would like you to have an open mind about alternative medicine.
Well, we do, in fact, have an open mind, as long as you pay the small cover charge of providing at least some real evidence.

Ponder the case of a doctor (not a homeopath) who invents a new drug (an "allopathic" drug, if you must use that inaccurate term). He tries it out, and thinks he's cured somebody, and convinces himself that it works, and that he understands how it works. But when he tries to get FDA approval for it, all the studies come back showing that patients who don't use it get well just as often and just as quickly as those who do. What's he to think? Would it be ethical of him to insist that it works and prescribe it to patients? Would you criticize him for doing so?

I can guess right now how BSM or ThirdTwin or Rolfe would react to such a doctor: pretty much the same way they react to homeopaths, because the situation is analogous. No matter how vigorously somebody believes in a particular therapy, the question is, does it really help more people more quickly, or doesn't it?

There have been people who have spent years developing drugs that do have a rigorous theoretical basis, only to discover that they don't work as well in a trial as they hoped, or that they come with unacceptable side-effects (see Vioxx). But they're forced to accept the evidence.

I ask you respectfully (though I fear you will not react well to this) whether you really have as open a mind as you ask us to have. Are you willing to consider the possibility that you are wrong about homeopathy? Are you willing to contemplate the possibility that despite your fervent and no doubt sincere hopes and beliefs, homeopathy does not actually cure more people? Are you willing to entertain evidence that upsets your present opinion?

Please take all the time you need to answer, and enjoy some time with your daughter. ;)

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Barbrae
*snip* - but what about my comment about the conventional meds in use whose method of how they work was unknown?

Still, they can be showed to work. There are drugs (although the number is rapidly diminishing) about which we don't know the exact mode of action. But we can document that they work, and that is the point.

In contrast, homeopathy cannot come even close to a sensible explanation of how the entire system works, and not one of the medicines has been documented to have any efect over placebo.

There is a difference of knowing how homeopathy works and knowing how health works and the latter I am very well versed in. In fact, regarding true health I would say I don't think conventional doctors knwo much about that at all.

That is an extremely naive and somewhat arrogant claim. So you propose that your 200 year old thesis, and some personal experience is more valuable that thousands of man-years of research? Well, then please explain why you cannot show more spectacular results than assorted anecdotes?

So I may not be able to explain how to fix that car, microwave, camera but when you have been to the regular repair guy and he took your money over and over again and the problem is still there along with some added ones and then you come to me and I can't explain how what I am doing is going to fix your car, camera, microwave but when you leave they are working great and there are no unwanted other problems - hey would you really care then if I couldn't tell you why what I did fixed the car? or would you just be happy as hell to finally get it fixed.

Totally irrelevant straw-man. How to fix a car or microwave is an exact science, and the fact that incompetent mechanics exist is entirely beside the point.

I know you don't believe in it but just pretend for a second -
On a real note - if a homeopath cured your child of asthma and EDS - would it matter to you, as a parent, if they couldn't explain how it worked?

Let me rephrase that question: If your child had a serious disease, and you were about to seek help of some practitioner, would it matter to you whether of not that practitioner could document her skills and the eficacy of her medicines? It would to me.


I think for most of us, with serious conditions that conventional medicine can't help, we just don't care.

You don't care if the remedies you take do anything for you or not? Strange...

Hans

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Zombified
I can guess right now how BSM or ThirdTwin or Rolfe would react to such a doctor: pretty much the same way they react to homeopaths, because the situation is analogous. No matter how vigorously somebody believes in a particular therapy, the question is, does it really help more people more quickly, or doesn't it?

Have you been hacking into my e-mails? That is exactly the subject of the last letter I wrote for publication- complaining about unsupportable claims being made in print based on n=1 anecdote for a genuine product containing real chemicals.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Let's summarise where we have got to. In answer to a question about whether magic water can cure genetic disease, Barb regales us with a single anecdote about a disease whose genetics is obscure, and for sure she doesn't know the specific genetic error in her own patient, then she tells us about how the patient has got better by reference to the softest and most unreliable markers she could choose. Also note that she takes sole responsibility for the improvement she claims to see while also stating that the child is also under the care of doctors as well.

I'll pay more attention when she cures colour-blindness or haemophilia and as part of the cure removes the single most important clinical feature, the genetic error present in every cellular nucleus! I think the wait may be a long one. All you have done so far is show us how you can bend the variable symptoms of a rather protean disease to suit your own purposes and demonstrate to us the reasons why n=1 anecdotes are unreliable.

Also note that her position on the moral high ground preventing her patients from stopping their real drugs means that, if her homeopathic colleagues were reading this, she walks right into the problem of 'suppression'. For anyone who has not been following closely, homeopathy only makes sense as an alternative to real medicine. Its own shambolic principles fall to pieces if it is used as an adjunct to real medicine. Keeps them safer legally, but is bereft of logic.

[Zombified]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
Have you been hacking into my e-mails?:eek:
That is exactly the subject of the last letter I wrote for publication- complaining about unsupportable claims being made in print based on n=1 anecdote for a genuine product containing real chemicals.
Well, good: I'd hate to get busted by one of these fine people for guessing wrong, and here we have a fine example of scientists applying the same high standards to each other. See (to Barb etc), we're not just picking on homeopaths... everybody has to jump over this bar.

[Dr. Imago]

Originally posted by Zombified
See (to Barb etc), we're not just picking on homeopaths... everybody has to jump over this bar.

Thank you for making this important point. I agree wholeheartedly with this statement, and it is very important for everyone to remember.

-TT

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Barbrae
However, If youare looking to speak with someone who has had amelioration of asthma or a homeopath who has treated asthma I can get you email addys of both. Of course it would be anecdotal but that's the best I can do.I can do better than anecdote on that one.

WHITE, A., SLADE, P., HUNT, C., HART, A. & ERNST, E. (2003) Individualised homeopathy as an adjunct in the treatment of childhood asthma: a randomised placebo controlled trial. (http://thorax.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/58/4/317) Thorax 58, 317-321.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.And before anyone gets on their high horse, this was individualised. There were three homoeopaths involved, to ensure that the study wasn't blighted by one person's incomptence, they were allowed - indeed encouraged - to treat the patients exactly as they would in the usual run of things and to use whatever remedies their case-taking suggested, and they conferred frequently to assure each other that all were working by correct classical principles. They all agreed that the methods being used by all three were correct, and that the patients were progressing satisfactorily.

Pity the actual magic sugar pills turned out to have made absoluely no difference at all, really.

Barb, does this not worry you even a little? You're so sure there are self-evident effects there. But self-evident effects should be a piece of cake to demonstrate by this sort of trial. And yet every time one gets done, zilch. Zip. Nada.

You ask ThirdTwin to have an open mind. I recall ThirdTwin did approach this with an open mind - as indeed BSM did earlier, in fact all of us did. However, a perpetual state of indecision is not a virtue, when there is ample evidence there with which to come to a conclusion. I don't have an open mind on whether insulin is an effective treatment for diabetes. I have enough evidence with which to make a decision. And I believe I have seen enough evidence with which to allow me to draw a conclusion with regard to homoeopathy.

Now, we are concerned by your apparently tightly closed mind, that will not allow itself even to contemplate the possibility that it might be mistaken, in spite of the fact that there is a great deal of evidence suggesting exactly that.Originally posted by Barbrae
TT - you know as well as I do that there is no way in hell that anything I could provide you would convince you of anything.Now, Barb, that's simply not true, in the way you mean it, and you know it. Look at the strength of the evidence that insulin controls blood glucose in diabetic patients for example. Evidence of that strength would have the lot of us gobbling down the humble pie in no time. Evidence of the strength that exists for all drugs with regular product licences would do it. Just some clear, repeatable data that show that homoeopathic preparations actually do have an effect on the body.

However, we are rapidly coming to the conclusion that you do not have any evidence you can provide us with of anything close to that sort of strength.

Understand this. We may appear to have made up our minds about homoeopathy, and indeed most of us have. I see ThirdTwin rapidly starting to sound like Badly Shaved Monkey in his frustration over the combination of arrogance and ignorance and unsubstantiated assertion that's being dished up to support your position. However, we are always open to the implications of new evidence. We discuss with you because we want to be sure that we've heard the whole story, we've really taken on board the best of the arguments and evidence that homoeopathy has to offer.

If you've produced nothing of substance, then whose fault is that? When you are the one who is stubbornly refusing to examine her own position from anything but a standpoint of smug arrogance, then you've got a bit of a cheek asking others to "keep an open mind".

Rolfe.

[Deetee]

There was some correspondence about this
http://thorax.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/58/4/317#60

[Rolfe]

(This is of course directly linked from the page I linked too, quite hard to miss really.)

And? The fact that some homoeopaths immediately cried foul isn't very surprising. I read it all very carefully, and I wasn't persuaded that they'd cast any real doubt on the validity of the study's conclusions.

Rolfe.

[Deetee]

Originally posted by Rolfe
And? The fact that some homoeopaths immediately cried foul isn't very surprising. I read it all very carefully, and I wasn't persuaded that they'd cast any real doubt on the validity of the study's conclusions.

Rolfe.

Me neither. I'm right behind you guys/gals on this one.

[Barbrae]

but what about my comment about the conventional meds in use whose method of how they work was unknown?

Still, they can be showed to work. There are drugs (although the number is rapidly diminishing) about which we don't know the exact mode of action. But we can document that they work, and that is the point.

Hans - that was NOT the point in question however, it was about knowing HOW they work - period. So that was the point I was addressing

In contrast, homeopathy cannot come even close to a sensible explanation of how the entire system works, and not one of the medicines has been documented to have any efect over placebo.

There is a difference of knowing how homeopathy works and knowing how health works and the latter I am very well versed in. In fact, regarding true health I would say I don't think conventional doctors knwo much about that at all.

That is an extremely naive and somewhat arrogant claim. So you propose that your 200 year old thesis, and some personal experience is more valuable that thousands of man-years of research? Well, then please explain why you cannot show more spectacular results than assorted anecdotes?

So I may not be able to explain how to fix that car, microwave, camera but when you have been to the regular repair guy and he took your money over and over again and the problem is still there along with some added ones and then you come to me and I can't explain how what I am doing is going to fix your car, camera, microwave but when you leave they are working great and there are no unwanted other problems - hey would you really care then if I couldn't tell you why what I did fixed the car? or would you just be happy as hell to finally get it fixed.

Totally irrelevant straw-man. How to fix a car or microwave is an exact science, and the fact that incompetent mechanics exist is entirely beside the point.

I know you don't believe in it but just pretend for a second -
On a real note - if a homeopath cured your child of asthma and EDS - would it matter to you, as a parent, if they couldn't explain how it worked?

Let me rephrase that question: If your child had a serious disease, and you were about to seek help of some practitioner, would it matter to you whether of not that practitioner could document her skills and the eficacy of her medicines? It would to me.

That's not rephrasing the quesiton Hans, that's making up a new question


I think for most of us, with serious conditions that conventional medicine can't help, we just don't care.

You don't care if the remedies you take do anything for you or not? Strange...

Hans, you are way smarter than that. That is not what I said, not what I typed, not what I thought - and you know it. WHat was said was that it wouldn't matter if the person knew how it worked, just that it did - indeed - work. You have many valid and strong points to use in the argument against homeopathy - you don't need to make things up, especially things that I said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Barbrae
*sniiip* Hans, you are way smarter than that. That is not what I said, not what I typed, not what I thought - and you know it. WHat was said was that it wouldn't matter if the person knew how it worked, just that it did - indeed - work. You have many valid and strong points to use in the argument against homeopathy - you don't need to make things up, especially things that I said.Well, thank you, but are YOU smarter than all these semantics? Of course it does not matter to the average patient HOW things work, as long as they work, but.... that isn't really what we are discussing here, now is it?

What we are discussing, or at least what I want to discuss is: Does homeopathy work?

Hans

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Barbrae
but what about my comment about the conventional meds in use whose method of how they work was unknown?

Still, they can be showed to work. There are drugs (although the number is rapidly diminishing) about which we don't know the exact mode of action. But we can document that they work, and that is the point.

Hans - that was NOT the point in question however, it was about knowing HOW they work - period. So that was the point I was addressingI think it's quite a long time since we had drugs we really had no clue about the mechanism of action of. I do remember it - nobody knew how anaesthetics worked when I was a student, and all the detail ThirdTwin gave about anti-inflammatories is new since then too, as are some of the actual drugs, developed from first principles once the modes of action of the early ones were figured out.

But it's not just knowing that the preparations worked, with no doubt (if your patient routinely goes to sleep 100% of the time you administer the anaesthetic, there's not much doubt). It's knowing that there are molecules there that are perfectly likely to be bioactive and to interact in some way with the cells of the body.

In contrast, you say homoeopathy is "energies". No, it isn't. Like I keep saying, physics can measure the spin on a single electron, but nobody has been able to find the slightest energy in these preparations apart from the ordinary sort that's present in the carrier material in any case. The explanations that have been suggested aren't material at all, they're mystical. This is two-fold. You cannot point to anything at all rational and say, it could be something along these general lines that's happening. And you can't demonstrate that anything that happens after you gave a remedy wasn't going to happen anyway.Originally posted by Barbrae
I know you don't believe in it but just pretend for a second -
On a real note - if a homeopath cured your child of asthma and EDS - would it matter to you, as a parent, if they couldn't explain how it worked?Let me not rephrase that question. Supposing my child's asthma was a bit better after homoeopathic treatment, would I be justified in attributing this to the homoeopathy?

All the evidence I've seen says no.

Rolfe.

[exarch]

Originally posted by Barbrae
this case I am working with has easy bruising and loose joints and visible veins and loose skin (the skin is not very loose but has the soft texture common to EDS). Her bruising has lessened dramatically, I would say the bruising is of a non-EDS child at this pointa, joint looseness has gotten better as well and there has been no dislocations or sprains since treatment however I wouldn't classify this symptom as normal yet. Skin texture is the same.And you can be sure this is not because of the treatment the patient is getting from the conventional doctor because ... ???

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Barbrae
So I may not be able to explain how to fix that car, microwave, camera but when you have been to the regular repair guy and he took your money over and over again and the problem is still there along with some added ones and then you come to me and I can't explain how what I am doing is going to fix your car, camera, microwave but when you leave they are working great and there are no unwanted other problems - hey would you really care then if I couldn't tell you why what I did fixed the car? or would you just be happy as hell to finally get it fixed.--

From The Other Medicine on BBC Radio 4;

"CAM has something to offer them and when they receive CAM, even though it may be directed, acupuncture may be directed at a painful knee or a painful hip, and their pain doesn't seem to improve they still want to go on having acupuncture because it somehow improves their general wellbeing, it makes their problem easy to bear, it's something they will even pay for, although when we actually measure out CAM in terms of pain it doesn't necessarily seem to be helping their pain. So there's something there, it's about their quality of life, their feeling of wellbeing, perhaps a sense of coherence but the behaviour is very clear - people will go on having CAM and seek CAM but off their own volition, without any coercion because it offers them something that conventional medicine doesn't."

i've already posted this quote elsewhere, but it is relevant here as well.

Barb, you don't fix the car. The customer doesn't notice the grinding noise coming from the gear box because you're too busy telling him how well you polished the wing-mirrors.

[exarch]

Originally posted by Lisa Simpson
Well then, let's look at something less rare--in fact my pharmacist says it's overdiagnosed. Asthma. Have you ever treated a child with asthma? If so, how does homeopathy work to relieve it?Hey, I have a totally irrelevant single case anecdote about a girl I knew who had asthma. She once described to me how both her parents (who are totally the hippy alternative new age types) wouldn't send her to a real doctor for anything. She was telling me how at some point, she was lying in her room, flat on her back, gasping for air, unable to breathe because the homeopathy wasn't doing the trick.
Her parents told her not to create such a fuss and to just be patient for the homeopathy to kick in (ah yes, we al know the old excuse about how it can take several weeks before it starts working, and if you ever took real medicine, it may never work).

Anyway, somehow she got hold of some REAL medication (an inhaler she either "borrowed" from a friend with asthma, or she secretly saw a real doctor with her problem who prescribed her one). That sure did the trick. From then on, she knew this stuff worked, so she kept on sneaking behind her parents back with her inhalers, and to this day I'm sure her parents are convinced that homeopathy can cure asthma.

One thing I don't get is why, after lying there asphyxiating, she still believes homeopathy works :rolleyes:

BUT: this single anecdote sure proves that homeopathy doesn't work, right? I mean, I've seen it NOT WORK, it must be a fraud!! :D

(The last paragraph all in jest of course, I've seen it not work plenty of times, and so have lots of other people. In fact, I've never seen it work better than chance at all, and THAT'S why I am confident it doesn't work).

[exarch]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
From The Other Medicine on BBC Radio 4;

"CAM has something to offer them and when they receive CAM, even though it may be directed, acupuncture may be directed at a painful knee or a painful hip, and their pain doesn't seem to improve they still want to go on having acupuncture because it somehow improves their general wellbeing, it makes their problem easy to bear, it's something they will even pay for, although when we actually measure out CAM in terms of pain it doesn't necessarily seem to be helping their pain. So there's something there, it's about their quality of life, their feeling of wellbeing, perhaps a sense of coherence but the behaviour is very clear - people will go on having CAM and seek CAM but off their own volition, without any coercion because it offers them something that conventional medicine doesn't."

i've already posted this quote elsewhere, but it is relevant here as well.

Barb, you don't fix the car. The customer doesn't notice the grinding noise coming from the gear box because you're too busy telling him how well you polished the wing-mirrors.Ah yes, I have stories like that.

It's like cracking open someones computer case, removing the 128 MB memory unit, and replacing it with two 64 MB memory units.
You will run into those people again, and they will tell you how they have noticed their PC is working a little faster now because of the added memory (64 x 2 = 128).

Placebo works in so many mysterious ways :D

Often, just logging off their session and logging on as admin is enough to clear the memory and have them start clean again after not having had their PC turned off for months.

[exarch]

Originally posted by Barbrae
As someone who suffered at the hands of conventional medicine with no relief from a real disease I can tell you that had I stuck with your "proven" medicines and never looked elsewhere I would be living a life of zero quality. And your proof of this alternative universe where you continued your treatment and didn't get any better was collected how exactly ... ???

[Kumar]

http://www.homeoint.org/photo/hah2/hahnem96.jpg

BTW, WHO IS HE?:)

[Barbrae]

Originally posted by exarch
And your proof of this alternative universe where you continued your treatment and didn't get any better was collected how exactly ... ???

Based on the previous 10 years of having no results. What's the definition of a fool - someone who keeps doing the same thing but expects different results?

[Barbrae]

Originally posted by exarch
And you can be sure this is not because of the treatment the patient is getting from the conventional doctor because ... ???

She is under the care of a doctor - she is not recieveing "treatment" for EDS as there is no treatment for her.

[Barbrae]

Originally posted by Rolfe

You ask ThirdTwin to have an open mind. I recall ThirdTwin did approach this with an open mind - as indeed BSM did earlier, in fact all of us did. However, a perpetual state of indecision is not a virtue, when there is ample evidence there with which to come to a conclusion. I don't have an open mind on whether insulin is an effective treatment for diabetes. I have enough evidence with which to make a decision. And I believe I have seen enough evidence with which to allow me to draw a conclusion with regard to homoeopathy.

Now, we are concerned by your apparently tightly closed mind, that will not allow itself even to contemplate the possibility that it might be mistaken, in spite of the fact that there is a great deal of evidence suggesting exactly that.Now, Barb, that's simply not true, in the way you mean it, and you know it. Look at the strength of the evidence that insulin controls blood glucose in diabetic patients for example. Evidence of that strength would have the lot of us gobbling down the humble pie in no time. Evidence of the strength that exists for all drugs with regular product licences would do it. Just some clear, repeatable data that show that homoeopathic preparations actually do have an effect on the body.

However, we are rapidly coming to the conclusion that you do not have any evidence you can provide us with of anything close to that sort of strength.



First of all - I did NOT ask him to keep an open mind about homeopathy, not once - I did ask he keep an open mind about alternative health, which would include everything from nutrition to chiropractice to whatever. I said very clearly I didn't care what he thought of homeopathy, my point is and was that there are other treatments out there that have worked for people and as a responsible doctor you shouldn't close the doors to them simply because they haven't undergone the fallible testing methods you consider the be all and end all of medicine.

Secondly, you are just now coming to the conclusion that I have no evidence to convince you of homeopathies effectiveness? I made it clear fromt he first of my posts that my only evidence is based on my experiences - I said that many many times so why would you ever think I am somehow hiding some new bit of evidence somewhere?

Thirdly, I don't have a closed mind at all. I have conceded before that it is possible that there is some other force at work (placebo, coincidence) here but until those placebo effects and coincidences stop occuring I will contue to have faith in this system of medicne.

[Barbrae]

Originally posted by Lisa Simpson
First point-I would bet most MD's have at least a passing knowledge of how modern medicine and pharmaceuticals work. By the time a drug gets passed the FDA, so much study of it has been done that at least some idea of the mechanism is understood.

Second point. Yes, I would care to know how homeopathy cured my child of EDS or asthma. So that if it should happen to pop again, I would know how to cure it again.

Third point--I don't think homeopaths should all die. I think they should educate themselves about anatomy, physiology, biology, and chemisty before even contemplating screwing around with the health of others. Of course, if they really understood those sciences (I won't even pretend I understand them, I was a history major) they wouldn't be practicing homeopathy.

Goodnight, and thanks for all the fish.

Lisa - I wasn't reffering to you with regards to the homeopaths should all die comment.

[Lisa Simpson]

Originally posted by Barbrae

Thirdly, I don't have a closed mind at all. I have conceded before that it is possible that there is some other force at work (placebo, coincidence) here but until those placebo effects and coincidences stop occuring I will contue to have faith in this system of medicne.

Do you tell your patients that it might be placebo or coincidence?

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Kumar
[/IMG]http://www.homeoint.org/photo/hah2/hahnem96.jpg[/IMG]

BTW, WHO IS HE?:) Kumar, try renaming the file before you ask such hard questions!

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Barbrae
I made it clear fromt he first of my posts that my only evidence is based on my experiences - I said that many many times so why would you ever think I am somehow hiding some new bit of evidence somewhere?

Thirdly, I don't have a closed mind at all. I have conceded before that it is possible that there is some other force at work (placebo, coincidence) here but until those placebo effects and coincidences stop occuring I will contue to have faith in this system of medicne. Well, your evidence is so unconvincing that we do have difficulty understanding how you can bring yourself to advertise as I imagine you do, and take people's money for something that might be no more than coinicidence. So we do tend to wonder if you either have something better to present, or might think again when you really confront the deficiencies of your position.

Now, can we go back to the first part of that post of mine, the bit you cut off? You had said that you had nothing but anecdote to support your belief that homoeopathy could "cure" childhood asthma. I posted a link to a paper where a good double-blind study was done on homoeopaths (just like you) treating childhood asthma in their usual individualised way (just like you). The only wrinkle was that after they had decided on the remedy, a lawyer intervened to ensure that half of the group only got a sham sugar pill. And when the data were finally analysed, it turned out that there was no difference in the outcome whether or not the patients had been given the real remedy.

Don't studies like this worry you at all? Can you explain why this allegedly self-evident effect just isn't there when looked for by systematic means? By methods that are sensitive enough to show up tiny effects nobody just seeing patients in the clinics had suspected?

Rolfe.

[Barbrae]

Originally posted by Lisa Simpson
Do you tell your patients that it might be placebo or coincidence?

Does an MD? Placebo effect does occur in conventional medicine as I am sure you know. Yet, I have never been prescribed a drug with a notice that what I am taking could ameliorate symptoms based solely on placebo effect.

[Barbrae]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Well, your evidence is so unconvincing that we do have Rolfe.

Perhaps because I am not trying to convince you of anything?

[Barbrae]

Originally posted by Rolfe


Don't studies like this worry you at all? Can you explain why this allegedly self-evident effect just isn't there when looked for by systematic means? By methods that are sensitive enough to show up tiny effects nobody just seeing patients in the clinics had suspected?

Rolfe.

No it doesn't and I have repeatedly explained why.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Barbrae
No it doesn't and I have repeatedly explained why.

Oh, dear.

[Lisa Simpson]

Originally posted by Barbrae
Does an MD? Placebo effect does occur in conventional medicine as I am sure you know. Yet, I have never been prescribed a drug with a notice that what I am taking could ameliorate symptoms based solely on placebo effect.

The drug info may not tell if it could ameliorate symptoms based solely on placebo, but usually they tell you how a drug compares to placebo. From the info from my son's Singulair:

The efficacy of SINGULAIR in pediatric patients 6 to 14 years of age was demonstrated in one 8-week,
double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in 336 patients (201 treated with SINGULAIR and 135 treated with
placebo) using an inhaled β-agonist on an “as-needed� basis. The patients had a mean baseline percent
predicted FEV1 of 72% (approximate range, 45 to 90%) and a mean daily inhaled β-agonist requirement of
3.4 puffs of albuterol. Approximately 36% of the patients were on inhaled corticosteroids.
Compared with placebo, treatment with one 5-mg SINGULAIR chewable tablet daily resulted in a
significant improvement in mean morning FEV1 percent change from baseline (8.7% in the group treated
with SINGULAIR vs 4.2% change from baseline in the placebo group, p<0.001). There was a significant
decrease in the mean percentage change in daily “as-needed� inhaled β-agonist use (11.7% decrease
from baseline in the group treated with SINGULAIR vs 8.2% increase from baseline in the placebo group,
p<0.05). This effect represents a mean decrease from baseline of 0.56 and 0.23 puffs per day for the
montelukast and placebo groups, respectively.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Barbrae
No it doesn't and I have repeatedly explained why. Well, all I remember is you saying you didn't set much store by science. Which is in effect saying that you don't set much store by logic. Since science is just harnessing logic to find out how the world actually works. (You referred to "flawed" trial methods, I think you've just been listening to Bach too much. Can you actually point out the flaw in the study I linked to?)

I think I'll leave the rant about the utter ethical bankruptcy of anyone with that attitude setting themselves up as any sort of healthcare provider, and actually taking people's money for content-free, action-free sugar pills, to BSM. As he does it so nicely and anyway I can't quite trust myself here.

Rolfe.

[exarch]

Originally posted by Barbrae
The vast majority of my clients (and might I say - the majority of any homeopaths clients) are people with chronic conditions for which your medicine has little hope for a cure. These conditions are ones that are typically not life-threatening but can be debilitating - Migraines, OCD, anxiety, ADD, Colitis, irritable bowel, allergies, autism, aspergers, chorea, PCOS... youget the picture.Isn't this what we've been saying all along? Homeopaths only treat self limiting diseases? And very often chronic afflictions that flare up every now and then (but also subside every so often, which is attributed to the homeopathy of course).

When it comes right down to it, you have a whole bunch of desillusioned patients who have tried everything in the book, and they stick with whatever they were using when they suddenly got better by coincidence. It's like cures for warts. Do you know why there are so many of them? Because none of them works, but warts go away all by themselves if you keep them clean. So whatever hairbrain remedy someone was using at the time they went away is cited as yet another cure for warts.

Homeopathy works the same way: whatever potion someone was using when the patient got better by coincidence is penned down as another victory by homeopathy, and the remedy vindicated once again.
The reason there are so many discussions between homeopaths about what works and what doesn't, and the obvious diametrically opposed views they sometimes have should be a good indication that each is just talking from their own experience, and assuming that whatever they were doing at the time when the patient got better is the right way.
The most obvious conclusion that reconciles all those conflicting observations is that the patients got better all by themselves and the homeopaths didn't have any influence on the patients at all.

[exarch]

Originally posted by Barbrae
Secondly, regarding the comment that aN MD knows what to treat and with what drugs is very different from understanding HOW every drug works and the nmechanics behind how it works. WHich is what I was saying and rather different from what you were saying.The big difference is SOMEBODY knows how it works. Perhaps not the doctor, perhaps not the lab technician that is brewing the stuff, but SOMEBODY knows what it's supposed to do, and created the drug for that purpose, or discovered a beneficial side effect to an existing drug (like aspirin for hearth conditions, etc...).

In homeopathy NOBODY knows ANYTHING, just that patients tend to get worse or better randomly, and that they were giving them some water or sugar tablets at the time they did. So they just assume there's a link and call it a trade. They don't know if the effects are consistent (research shows they are not). They have no proof that anything is happening (research shows it is not). And they often have no idea if what they think they've cured is actually cured, and was actually what they think it was.

[exarch]

Originally posted by Barbrae
Thirdly, I don't have a closed mind at all. I have conceded before that it is possible that there is some other force at work (placebo, coincidence) here but until those placebo effects and coincidences stop occuring I will contue to have faith in this system of medicne.Ah see, that's the problem, the placebo effect WILL keep occuring, because it's an unconscious response of the patient to receiving (what they think is) medication from someone wearing a white labcoat and being all medical professional looking.

You can't eliminate the placebo effect, but you can test it, by giving people placebo and seeing how much better they get. You can also remove the effect by testing your homeopathic remedies against placebo. and it's precicely when that is done that it becomes apparent there is no difference between people getting homeopathy and people getting placebo. Exactly the same portion of people get better, exactly the same portion of people get worse.

so if you're convinced that helping people fool themselves into thinking they're getting better, why do you want them to shell out loads of money for remedies that are useless, and pay loads of practitioners loads of money for telling them to take a placebo?

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by ThirdTwin
I think your methods of achieving that are cruel, misleading, dubious, and demonstrably lazy. You live in a fantasy world, pure and simple, where you have no accountability. Shame on you. The amazing thing to me is, through your self-delusion, you actually believe you are helping.

You are one of the "lost causes" that I referred to recently in another discussion. I just sincerely hope that your sphere of influence is so miniscule that you have no real opportunity to do true harm to someone.Just noticing that ThirdTwin said it so much better than I did.

Rolfe.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by exarch
Isn't this what we've been saying all along? Homeopaths only treat self limiting diseases? And very often chronic afflictions that flare up every now and then (but also subside every so often, which is attributed to the homeopathy of course)....
The most obvious conclusion that reconciles all those conflicting observations is that the patients got better all by themselves and the homeopaths didn't have any influence on the patients at all.

I took this out of my Sig Line, but it seems Barb needs to be reminded of it given the little listing of her caseload she just gave us;

"And, incidentally, many many times the entire case presented by a patient is still focused squarely in the mental/emotional realm...with very, very few physicals.Â_"

(http://homeopathyforums.hpathy.com//forum_posts.asp?TID=1397&KW=squarely&TPN=1)

As Divina and Barb have admitted, most of their caseload is precisely that woolly edge of medicine where diseases come and go unpredictably. They all have a little stock of miracle cure anecdotes (i.e. remarkable coincidences) that they trot out from time to time and would be happy for us to conclude that the medical problems that were the subjects of those stories were typical of their caseload, but they are not. Half the time it's arguable whether the patient has anything really worng with them at all, beyond a need for someone to listen to them kindly.

Should I add it back to my Sig Line until Barb can confirm she has read it? :)

[exarch]

Originally posted by Barbrae
Originally posted by Lisa Simpson
Do you tell your patients that it might be placebo or coincidence?Does an MD? Placebo effect does occur in conventional medicine as I am sure you know. Yet, I have never been prescribed a drug with a notice that what I am taking could ameliorate symptoms based solely on placebo effect.No, because an MD has PROOF that the medicines do what they claim to do. i.e., the medicines were tested for efficacy, and they passed the tests.

Homeopathy however has not passed any efficacy tests, and those that were tried all failed miserably, despite vivid assertions that "IT WORKS!!". :rolleyes:

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by exarch
Does an MD? Placebo effect does occur in conventional medicine as I am sure you know. Yet, I have never been prescribed a drug with a notice that what I am taking could ameliorate symptoms based solely on placebo effect.No, because an MD has PROOF that the medicines do what they claim to do. i.e., the medicines were tested for efficacy, and they passed the tests.

Homeopathy however has not passed any efficacy tests, and those that were tried all failed miserably, despite vivid assertions that "IT WORKS!!". :rolleyes: [/QUOTE]

Actually, I tell quite a lot of owners that the improvement they have seen may be coincidental. Yes, I know my real drugs have pleny of proof that, on average, they help patients, but responses are variable and not all members of the population will receive that benefit. It is not merely out of pious pedantry that I stick to my principles and give these warnings, it is because I don't want clients to become superstitiously attached to medication and curtail my room for manouevre at a later stage when I reassess the case and have to declare that the drug is no longer effective or I need to change the regime.

There is some of the self-serving logic that the homeopaths use about this: if it gets better then maybe its the drug, if it gets worse then I've already told the owner it might not work so let's try somethng else. The difference between this and using homeopathy is that if I were using homeopathy, I could be sure that none of the improvements would be the result of my remedy. Instead, I have a reasonable base of concrete evidence to fall back on. But it's a messy old world out there and one just has to make best judgements using all the available evidence, but at least there's a fair chance that my drugs are helping most of the time rather than certainty that I am merely witnessing my patients' spontaneous outcomes.

[Benguin]

Also, raising questions about the validity of the testing methods behind this proof is not considered heresy.

Finding that results were misleading due to an unknown factor is likely to be considered very interesting and food for thought by us lot.

Questioning homeo studies is evidence only of our involvement with the big evil pharma conspiracy-coverup.

[Rolfe]

Also, BSM is talking about a subset of patients, where perhaps the condition isn't as well-defined as we'd like, or there isn't an obvious, really specific treatment.

If he started a diabetic on insulin, or an Addison's case on Florinef, or a Cushing's case on trilostane, or a hypoparathyroid on AT10, or a hyperthyroid on methimazole, or even a real case of FIA (Mycoplasma haemofelis, I mean) on doxycycline, etc., etc.,, there might be a number of cautionary things he'd say to the client, but the possibility that an observed improvement being coincidental isn't one of them.

This is one of our main difficulties with homoeopathy. Yes, we can always find conditions that real medicine doesn't have an answer for, or real medical treatments that don't always seem to do what it says on the bottle. But their entire system of medicine has nothing self-evident or even tangible across its entire range of effort.

Rolfe.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Also, BSM is talking about a subset of patients, where perhaps the condition isn't as well-defined as we'd like, or there isn't an obvious, really specific treatment.

Yep. I was sitting myself in the territory of arthritic old dogs or animals with chronic skin disease for the purposes of answering that question. If a hyperthyroid cat failed to get better on treatment, or an animal does not drop its blood glucose in response to insulin then there will be a good medical reason that one should seek to discover.

[Rolfe]

And if it does do it, we will not be speculating about coincidence.

I think Barb really has so little idea about what she's treating and about the true probability of coincidental recovery, that she just trills happily about "can't possibly be coincidence".

Yes it can. Only when you really understand not just what you're treating but what your chosen therapy does, and has both a good grasp of the existing literature on patient responses and enough experience to really know what usually happens, can one start to talk about things not being coincidental.

Rolfe.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Rolfe
I think Barb really has so little idea about what she's treating and about the true probability of coincidental recovery, that she just trills happily about "can't possibly be coincidence".

Also, as we have found out before, they all claim that they "can" treat cancer or similar serious diseases, but then we find that none of them ever actually have. I remember Divina/ChaCha/Nutty Nancy being particularly smug in her claims.


A lot of their miracle cures are just urban myths passed from one woo to another with no connection to any original reality.

[Rolfe]

To be fair, Barb is probably one of the least mad among them (though I don't suppose she'll be back after some of the epithets I and others have been hurling at her practices). At least she's been prepared to discuss. And her discussion, though not very rational, is less brain-dead than Sarah, or Bach, or Xanta.

Unfortunately she's not really much different from Bach when you really get down to it, as both simply reject the concept of applying logic to their practices, and maintain that instead superstition or blind belief are just as valid. The irony of trying to have a rational discussion and then at the end of it simply saying that she'd been clear all along that she rejected rationality is probably lost on her.

Did we really expect Barb or any of them to exclaim that the scales had fallen from their eyes and they now realised their error so they were going to retrain as physiotherapists? It's not going to happen. They so enjoy playing doctor that the relatively low-food-chain positions they could hope to aspire to in real medicine just wouldn't satisfy (not that I'm saying physiotherapists aren't valuable members of the health-care team, but Barb and Sarah want to be Doctor).

I note Sarah has simply buggered off. Not even stopping to tell us about calcium plaques in the neck and strokes. I don't see her as any loss, as her automated responses were like talking to the speaking clock. Sponsored by Helios. I wish they would stay and debate, but I expect it's too much to ask. When people realise they're close to having their entire world-view undermined, they do tend to retreat.

But I wanted to ask Barb how she reconciled her broadminded views about real medicine being necessary and beneficial with the views of many homoeopaths that real medicine causes harmful "suppressions" and will prevent homoeopathic treatment from having any effect.

Still, maybe Snoopy/Elaine or Divina/ChaChaHeels/Nancy will favour us with a visit some day?

Until then, I guess we still have Kumar, who has now talen to accusing us of being afraid of homoeopathy being validated scientifically.

Whoopee!

Rolfe.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Rolfe
I note Sarah has simply buggered off. Not even stopping to tell us about calcium plaques in the neck and strokes.

She's not been about much at Hpathy or Otherhealth either, so it's not just us that have been deprived of her presence.

She did post this at otherhealth yesterday

" I am currently doing a project on this and may even write an article about the way that craniosacral therapy and homeopathy can be used alongside each other and that one can enhance the effect of the other. I will be doing this, as during investigations for this project, I could find literature on both homeopathy and craniosacral therapy separately, but not together, so somebody suggested that I write the article myself."

Thus proving, as if we needed it, that she couldn't find her arse with both hands when it comes to doing research. I think I can write the first paragraph for her;

"I wanted to do a Really Big Project now I have my shiny new certificates so I decided to write a Big Long Essay about craniosacral therapy and how it is really really helpful with homeopathy. And I'm going to read some books and everything and I'm going to tell you what those books say and it'll be brilliant 'cos the books I've read are brilliant. And I've just treated simply loads of people and they all said thank you because it worked so well and that shows how homeopathy is brilliant at all at all

By Sarah. IQ 7 and a half

p.s. do you like my white coat I nicked it off a doctor when I worked in a hospital when I was a nurse.

p.p.s. I've got a pot plant AND a coffee machine in my office so I need to charge people oodles of money to pay for them

p.p.p.s. what's a calcium plaque? I've forgotten."

[chance]

Rolfe Has not Barbrae gone on record to say that she was going to do some experiments, on plants (I think) to test Homeopathy? I hope she has not backed down from that.

[Rolfe]

Oh, I remember. I'm not sure it was Barb though. Might have been Sarah? When she was being one of her other socks?

I have a couple of papers about homoeopathy and tobacco mosaic virus sent to me by a homoeopath. The methodology seems extraordinarily flaky, with a test like that I could prove that tobacco mosaic is a dancing banana. Anyway, I fail to see the point in it.

Homoeopaths don't practise on plants. Homoeopathy isn't a horticultural technique. How do you do a proving on a plant? So, if you played around and never found a preparation which could be shown to affect plant growth, what have you demonstrated? Nothing? You haven't tested an actual claim of homoeopathy, so it's impossible to say "this hasn't worked".

That's probably why it seems an attractive prospect. It's a no-lose situation. A positive result is a winner, and you get to plaster your triumph in Nature. But a negative result leaves your dignity intact. Like Benveniste. If he'd never found anything, it wouldn't have mattered, because nothing in homoeopathic belief claims that 30C IgE degranulates basophils.

So they'll tackle these sorts of things, even if they're quite complicated, but they won't tackle the simple one of showing, by demonstrating proving effects, that they can tell a potentised remedy from a sham. Although of course they claim that they can actually do this with the greatest of ease. Because it is absolutely central to homoeopathic teaching that these proving effects are real, and if they showed that they weren't in a decently-designed blind trial, their entire world-view would be threatened.

(Well, that's not quite true. After approaching hundreds of homoeopaths, my friend Niall got six of them to agree to try to identify whether or not they'd been given the remedy they were expecting or a sham, by proving it. Three of them could! :D We're waiting for the claim that this shows that 50% of homoeopaths really can tell remedy from sham by proving effects!)

But I'd still like to see the plant idea tried. It's just a pity that it doesn't test a definite prior claim of effect.

Rolfe.

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Rolfe
This is one of our main difficulties with homoeopathy. Yes, we can always find conditions that real medicine doesn't have an answer for, or real medical treatments that don't always seem to do what it says on the bottle. But their entire system of medicine has nothing self-evident or even tangible across its entire range of effort.


I think the tricky part in their arguments is that they misdirect attacks by treating conventional medicine as being based around some sort of 'philosophy' as most alt med is.

Treatment (real treatment) can only be judged on whether it helps. If something can be shown to help it really doesn't matter one jot if it seems to contradict all of our existing models. All that matters is it helps, the understanding and explanation bits can be sorted out by someone else in due course.

The medical profession will not feel its venerated institutions crumbling around on that day, it'll just be a new and interesting challenge to deal with.

May be a conundrum comes out of this;

Would Conventional Medicos accept the use and application of Homeopathy if evidence of its efficacy was forthcoming?
Yes or no?

Would Homeopaths reject the use and application of Homeopathy if evidence of its lack of efficacy was presented in a manner acceptable to them (eg. fulfilling their protocols)?
Yes or no?

This is where we may see Homeopathy is a religion.

[Dr. Imago]

Originally posted by Barbrae
Does an MD? Placebo effect does occur in conventional medicine as I am sure you know. Yet, I have never been prescribed a drug with a notice that what I am taking could ameliorate symptoms based solely on placebo effect.

Oh brother...

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, and again, WRONG! Barb, you are a proving yourself to be the stereotypical woo: uninterested in details, grossly misinformed, and adept at twisting (probably unintentionally) what bits and pieces you've heard and superficially investigated all to come the wrong conclusions.

I think I've pointed out several instances on this thread already where I've shown you've had the wrong information, to which you said afterwards something to the effect that you "knew that already". Utimately, I think you're probably just intellectually lazy, and you don't want to do the hard work required to actually derive and synthesize answers to difficult problems. At least, that's the way you're presenting yourself to me here. Then again, it might be that you just simply can't. Pesky details, Barb, pesky details. I know you're ilk doesn't like to have to deal with them; they make your brain hurt.

Anyway, back to your most recent misstatements...

Treatments are approved on the basis of a study's ability to detect a statistically significant difference from a placebo. This means that the treatment goes clinically meaningfully beyond that of the placebo arm's results. Now, what you are attempting to talk (slovenly unintelligently) about is the "placebo effect" seen in adequate and well-controlled clinical trials, which are scientific experiments that are heavily controlled and scrutinized much more so than real practice in the real world. Likewise, the placebo effect is seen most often in patient self-reported scales. For example, some patients taking a new anti-epileptic drug will complete a "seizure diary" as part of the study. After they are randomized to a particular and begin therapy with either the active drug or placebo, some will inevitably have less seizures on a clinical trial during the protocol's treatment interval - even if they are being given a placebo! Remember, no one knows until the study is over and the data is locked who's getting what. It's only until after the database is secured is the study unblinded and analyzed.

Now, there are MANY explanations surrounding this that have been explored and often found to be at work. For example phenomenons such as the Hawthorne effect (http://www.envisionsoftware.com/articles/Hawthorne_Effect.html) come into play, where in my example subjects will self-report fewer seizures or "don't count" some seizures (etc.) during the interval period. The point is, a "placebo effect" response in a clinical trial that relies, in any way, on subject self-reporting is always prone to bias. This is reflected in the placebo arm and the treatment arm, but the true effect will be seen overall in comparison between both arms. Can you follow that? I was in clinical research for 7 years before heading off to med school, so trust me when I tell you I know exactly what I'm talking about here, especially given this example (concerning which I also happen to be published on).

Now, this mainly accounts for self-reporting, but it can affect investigator observation too, especially if (despite being blinded) the investigator still really believes that a patient is getting better and it may interpret his impression of a test. Yet, the same rules as patient reporting applies and, if adequately controlled, the bias will still be balanced and minimized. Nonetheless, efforts are taking, sometimes at extreme cost, to minimize this type of bias. In one study I worked on, we even sent slides to a central pathologist at Sloan-Kettering who had absolutely no contact with the people at the study centers and was completely insulated from knowing even where the slides came from. We did this to completely remove any possibility that this study would be perceived as biased in the diagnosis part.

here is still a true treatment effect that is being tested, and if a study is large enough and adequately blinded the bias will be balanced between the arms anyway. If there is no treatment effect, both arms will show somewhat parallel (or at least not significant) results. Period.

Having said all of that, you STILL cannot bias purely objective data, especially when it is blinded! There are completely objective tests, such as blood sugar levels, that are completely immune to the placebo effect. You cannot consciously (or unconsciously) alter your blood sugar level when an anti-diabetic drug is administered. It's not physiologically possible. There is direct cause and effect. I see, everyday, patients who get (for example) an induction agent and they completely fall into a medically induced sleep. That either happens or it doesn't. There's no "placebo effect" when I push 200mg of propofol and the patient completely zonks out. You can't fake that, believe me.

To suggest that placebo effect is in anyway at play when drugs that have a direct physiologic effect are given and can be objectively measured is just naive, Barb. It shows that you have, at best, incredibly superficial knowledge when it comes to such matters you attempt to comment on. Recognize that you are doing it just to preserve your belief system. Make an earnest effort to stop deluding yourself otherwise, if you can.

I said it before and I'll say it again, you are just 'playing doctor' because it's probably fun , gives you a little sense of power, and makes you a little money. But, when push comes to shove, you have no clue what you are actually doing (and the saddest part is that you freely admit this yourself). The harm you potentially do is mostly in the fact that you are misleading people that you are actually and ultimately helping their problems. I'm not at all suggesting that there isn't value in just sitting and spending time talking with people - this can really help. Sometimes people just want to be heard, and as doctors (or future doctors) I'll be the first to admit that we don't always have the time to spend with patients that they want us to.

But, what you are doing by 'playing doctor' is adopting a treatment, authority role with your patients. They actually believe that you can help them. I'm horrified that a psychiatric patient asked you about going off his medication, and grateful that you at the very least had the good sense to tell him not to do this. You are really, really playing with fire, Barb. And, your intellectual laziness, and inability to grasp the seriousness of what you are doing - truly grasp and fully understand the responsibility you have to these patients as evidenced here - is what worries me most.

You appear to have no concept of the gravity of what you are doing in involving yourself into these people's lives, and most shockingly disappointingly you actually believe what you are doing, on some level, is improving their underlying disease. What you are only very clearly doing is adeptly demonstrating how "attention bias" occurs in the real world. I just hope, as I said before, you don't actually kill someone with your good intentions. I'm not worried about the empty, impotent snake oil you are passing off to them as "treatment" as much as I am about the fact that they may actually come to believe that your "treatments" are the reason why they they are getting better and they no longer need to see real, professional medical doctors.

-TT

[Barbrae]

SO if someone is given Zoloft for depression or Paxil for for anxiety youare saying it will either clinically work or it won't but there is no way the patient may feel better based on placebo effect? So if I take an inert substance I can have a placebo effect but if I take an actual drug it can't produce amelioration based on the same effect? How come my neighbor took her first dose of zoloft and within a few minutes said she immediatly felt calmer and more at peace? She was under the impression that Zoloft worked the same as her previous medication (Xanax). We both know Zoloft wouldn't work within minutes. I have another neighbor who swears by Advil migraine for her migraines, she said regular advil has absolutely no effcet - I haven't the heart to tell her it is exactly the same drug, just different packaging.

[chance]

A quick aside for members on either side of the homeopathy fence.

Every thing I know about homeopathy is what I have read here (plus provided links), The question I have is, is there another branch of Homeopathy or is the following a misconception?

A German company making mattresses with a homeopathic underlay (their words), may have used a poor choice of terminology, because the underlay comprises of dried herbs sewn into the fibre. While they make plenty of woo claims about the ‘healing powers’ and ‘health benefits’ of sleeping on a bed with some pot-puree in it, that is not Homeopathy is it? It’s herbal therapy.

[Barbrae]

Originally posted by Rolfe
To be fair, Barb is probably one of the least mad among them At least she's been prepared to discuss.
But I wanted to ask Barb how she reconciled her broadminded views about real medicine being necessary and beneficial with the views of many homoeopaths that real medicine causes harmful "suppressions" and will prevent homoeopathic treatment from having any effect.



I do believe that conventional medicine does, in many instances cause supression and that supression will need to be treated during hoemopathic care. There are a few homeopaths that believe you can not undergo homeopathic care and allopathic care at the same time and in fact this is warned against in the Organon. Of course in the time of the writing of the Organon the allopathic treatments were such that they would be definate maintaining causes of diseases like cupping., leeching, bloodletting, mercury poisoning, purging, etc. At that time it certainly made sense to rail agianst allopathy and it's treatments. Hahnemann believed in bathing, drinking clean, fresh water and getting fresh air during an illness - all of these things were against allopathic practices at the time. lf youfollowed allopathic methods at the time of the Organon you would be supressing illness but more importantly you would be maintaining the cause of the illness. In todays would things are very different. There is definate consideration, on my part, regarding who I treat at all, who I treat with homeopathic remedies and who I treat with herbal or vitamin or mineral supplementation or who I treat with just nutritional changes (my favorite cases). Part of the consideration regarding how I will treat a person is based on if they are currently on any medications at the time and if so - which ones. There is also consideration on if that medication is medically necessary. For instance - clients with migraines on the Birth control pill or as a recent clients main complaint - cycle irregularities after the depo provera shot. It is obvious in these instances that the drug is a maintainign cause of illness and no amount of homeopathy, vitamins or even conventional meds will fix the problem -of course conventional meds can cover the problem ie. migraine meds - but that would certainly only make matters worse. doe sthat answer your question?

[Barbrae]

Actually I don't know many homeopaths who think that allopathic meds will prevent homeopathy from having any effect.

[Barbrae]

Originally posted by chance
A quick aside for members on either side of the homeopathy fence.

Every thing I know about homeopathy is what I have read here (plus provided links), The question I have is, is there another branch of Homeopathy or is the following a misconception?

A German company making mattresses with a homeopathic underlay (their words), may have used a poor choice of terminology, because the underlay comprises of dried herbs sewn into the fibre. While they make plenty of woo claims about the ‘healing powers’ and ‘health benefits’ of sleeping on a bed with some pot-puree in it, that is not Homeopathy is it? It’s herbal therapy.

Chance that is correct and many folks often confuse the terms there are several "branches" of homeopathy but they all include the use of homeopathic remedies NOT herbal preps. The difference in the branches is of a matter of methods.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Barbrae
Actually I don't know many homeopaths who think that allopathic meds will prevent homeopathy from having any effect. Now I think you are being intentionally obtuse. Perhaps few homeopaths are claiming that allopating meds prevent homeopathy from having ANY effect, but they certainly claim that allopathic treatment interferes with the curative effect of homeopathy and may make patients incurable. The first and most notable homeopath to claim this was Hahnemann, but most homeopaths will follow suit, and you know this.

Hans

[Rolfe]

Post was made into wrong thread, deleted at Member's request.

[exarch]

Originally posted by Barbrae
SO if someone is given Zoloft for depression or Paxil for for anxiety youare saying it will either clinically work or it won't but there is no way the patient may feel better based on placebo effect?No, what he was saying is that when the drugs are tested (A), the influence of the placebo effect is taken into account by having a controlgroup (B) who are only subject to the placebo effect, and not the curative effect. Simple deduction (A-B=C) means that the difference in cure between the two groups (C) must be the curative effect of the drug itself.

When homeopathy is tested in this way, A-B=0, in other words, the miracle cure so loudly proclaimed is just not there.
Bach's claim that homeopathy can't be tested against placebo is of course complete and utter nonsense.
And in those trials where A-B did NOT equal zero, it was so close to zero (in some cases even below, i.e. homeopathy did WORSE than placebo) that it's very likely just a chance occurance.

You've asked us many times Barbrae, what would convince us that homeopathy works? Well, when in a properly conducted trial, A-B equals a number better than chance, we will immediately accept that homeopathy has merit. We are openminded, we just haven't seen anything yet to change our mind.

[Kumar]

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtonapple.gif

Q:two; What is this?

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Kumar

Q:two; What is this?

It's a smallish gif file.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Barbrae
SO if someone is given Zoloft for depression or Paxil for for anxiety youare saying it will either clinically work or it won't but there is no way the patient may feel better based on placebo effect? So if I take an inert substance I can have a placebo effect but if I take an actual drug it can't produce amelioration based on the same effect? How come my neighbor took her first dose of zoloft and within a few minutes said she immediatly felt calmer and more at peace?

Barb, you have homed straight into the area where answers as to 'real' placebo effect, coincidental recovery and patients misrepresenting their clinical state are hardest to separate.

With a disease that is characterised solely by an abnormal subjective experience I think it is possible that a patient may feel genuinely better from taking a chemically inert pill. The way this would be distinguished has been discussed already on this board, basically you would need to compare administration of an inert pill with no intervention at all. This would help to isolate the effect of coincidence from 'real' placebo effect.

For real pharmaceutical agents that test would be of only hypothetical interest, because all we ask is that the drug be better than coincidence and any kind of 'real' placebo effect. For practical purposes is doesn't much matter how much of the placebo arm is affected by different proportions of coincidence or placebo. Let's take a couple of examples: a remedy for the common cold has to contend with the disease's short time course so many patients given placebo would coincidentally get better quickly anyway; with a chronic psychological illness, coincidental genuine recovery over a given short period of follow-up is not very likely, but, I would suggest, that a self-suggested 'real' placebo effect is more likely, over a longer period of follow-up then coincidental recovery begins to be more significant.

This is what makes drug trials of psychoactive drugs difficult to interpret. No drug is 100% perfect and the diseases show high levels of coincidental fluctuation over long time courses and a propensity for subjectvity, so there is a risk of comparing a 60% improvement in the placebo arm with a 70% improvement in the treatment arm. If the study has enough subjects to give it statistical power then this may be a real excess benefit offered by the drug, but the question that then needs to be asked is whether it is worth the money. In these instances, when it comes down to the level of individual anecdotal experience there is absolutely no way for an individual's experience to tell you anything at all about the relative margin of benefit offered by the drug. This is precisely the conversation I have with clients from time to time. Sometimes I tell them that on occasion you must merely trust the trials that have been done and put your subjective assessment on hold because any opinion you have is no better than a guess.

An example from my world is the use of pheromones for behavioural problems. I am open to the possibility that they will have real effects, but I want to be able to say to people that there is trustworthy evidence because I know they will not be 100% effective and when they materials cost reasnable sums of money I want to be able to reassure people that even if they cannot readily tell that much effect has been produced that there is probably a marginal benefit that they cannot accurately report. Conversely I hate it when people tell me how marvellous something has been when really they have no reasonable basis for making that statement. If it has been some homeopathic nonsense they have bought I can happily tell them they are kidding themselves (suitably wrapped in polite terms) but I always feel awkward when people tell me how marvellously effective has been something I have sold them when I know they have no basis for that conclusion. It's even worse when I can measure something objective about the patient that gives the lie to their rosy assessment and for the animal's sake I have to let them down gently.

Here's an example. I am treating a little dog with chronic renal failure with severe anaemia. We are part way into an induction regime of erythropoietin. The owner is quite keen to tell me that after 3 injections the dog is feeling better. I don't know whether he is right. I do know the dog is still damn pale, and, though it has been my experience that animals whose anaemia is later shown to have responded will seem to have had an improvement in demeanour quite quickly, he may be looking through rose-tinted glasses. So, I don't comment much at the moment, because if the dog's blood count has not improved much when I next take a sample I am going to have to gently ask the owner to reassess his overly sunny view of progress and consider that it may have been more to do with wishful thinking.

This, Barb, is how a real clinician deals with placebo responses in a responsible way. The one thing he/she does not do is latch on to any subjectively reported improvement and claim the credit for the treatment.

It's been said before but it bears repeating. Some people want the voice of authority and would accept the definitive verdict of their doctor. But doctors are increasingly told to be more honest and less dictatorial, but the appearance of uncertainty disconcerts some patients. There is also a class of patient created by our society that has lost faith in all traditional authority, but they still yearn for an authority figure that they can trust. They need to believe, but the old structures of church and state seem to have let them down. What they find in people like homeopaths are practitioners who sufficently fail to understand the uncertainties of medicine that they can give the patient that authoritative approach again, albeit wrapped up under a consciously invented blanket of New Age philosophy to give their authority apparent legitmacy. These patients are looking for an excuse to believe in something and you give it to them.

Perhaps a genuine net benefit accrues to these patients, we don't know and nor do you. What we do know is that it has nothing to do with he contents of yor bottles and everything to do with you acting as if you have no doubt in your mind. This is the real moral conundrum. Maybe you do create real benefit, but it can only be created by maintaining a completely thorough misunderstanding of what you do so that you never give the game away to your patient. Of course this is all fine until the faith in magic water leads patients to reject real effective medicine for serious disease. While you fiddle on the fringes you have little scope to cause actual harm.

Edited to add:

Veterinary homeopathy fails under the analysis I have just presented. It is completely immoral. Homeopathy aplied to non-consenting humans, such as children, is almost always immoral: we can discuss the "almost" but it's a pretty narrow set of circumstances.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Kumar
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtonapple.gif

Q:two; What is this?

A picture of a man developing a formulation of gravity that has turned out to be only a low energy approximation.

"Newton got beaned by the apple good. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah."

You would be better considering another line;

"Mister Charles Darwin had the gall to ask. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah"

(Though a word that rhymes with gall is often sung by Mr Stipe)

It's to do with independence of thought Kumar not regurgitating other people's nonsense and real science you cannot comprehend.

[Kumar]

BSM,

Right, I gave you a "thought". Thought provoking, thinking, assuming, creativity...---differantly, makes a person differant, live & with some purpose to do something & help the humanity as Mr.Randi is doing something alike it here. But the problem is that we become so advanced in knowledge--we may not be able to create in present age of 'probably destrictive phase'. We can therefore just search, research, discover, uncover, find, know.....means all secondaries to prime creations, but I don't think creation is possible till we, at any date/age, able to add to energy & matter. Alike research,discover...., we just convert these from one form to other & say it as creation is not right(although commonly said & accepted for current purposes), the true creation will only be when we can be able to add to existing energy at any time may be now or after its.....???

Accordingly, if I do some re works, it can't be unjustified. Anyway, if we are so skeptic & preconvinced about modern science as stable, fixed alike absolute---we probably may not be able to gain in real sense. These are just my sentimental views--which you may not agree,mostly but still these may hold something good.

[Rolfe]

[Whistles airily....]

Who do we think is "pre-convinced" around here, chaps?

And who was it who was criticising medicine for not being "stable, fixed alike absolute", and, in fact, for being able to assimilate new ideas?

Not that I'm looking at Kumar's posts, at all at all at all....

Rolfe.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Kumar

Do you have any insight into how silly your questions and propositions are?

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Barbrae
I do believe that conventional medicine does, in many instances cause supression and that supression will need to be treated during hoemopathic care. ....

It is obvious in these instances that the drug is a maintainign cause of illness and no amount of homeopathy, vitamins or even conventional meds will fix the problem -of course conventional meds can cover the problem ie. migraine meds - but that would certainly only make matters worse. doe sthat answer your question? Barb, what is suppression? Please? I don't understand what you mean by the term. Or why it's a bad thing.

And why will migraine medication "certainly" only make matters worse, if a patient has migraines?

Rolfe.

[Zombified]

Originally posted by Rolfe
And why will migraine medication "certainly" only make matters worse, if a patient has migraines?
Ooh, I missed that comment.

As a migraine sufferer, I would appreciate it if Barb would follow up on this. I have had nothing but good news from migraine medication, and no evidence or suggestion that its made anything worse. (Hey, if anecdotes are good enough for Barb, here's mine...)

[Lisa Simpson]

While I don't have great things to say about migraine meds (I can't take them), I would love to hear about how they make migraines worse. Certainly, it's been my experience that ibuprofen doesn't make them worse.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
Barb, you have homed straight into the area where answers as to 'real' placebo effect, coincidental recovery and patients misrepresenting their clinical state are hardest to separate.
....

Veterinary homeopathy fails under the analysis I have just presented. It is completely immoral. Homeopathy aplied to non-consenting humans, such as children, is almost always immoral: we can discuss the "almost" but it's a pretty narrow set of circumstances. BSM, I just wanted to say I appreciated that post very much even if it may have rendered Barb completely punch-drunk.

Rolfe.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Rolfe
BSM, I just wanted to say I appreciated that post very much even if it may have rendered Barb completely punch-drunk.

Rolfe.

Thanks. I think I got nailed some of the things about placebo effect that I have never explained to succinctly before.

Also, I've previously hovered on the edge of that idea that homeopaths may do some good, but are only morally defensible if they act in ignorance of the truth and this was the first time I've actually managed to put it across straight enough in an answer here. Ironically, that means that precisely those who pop up on internet fora to discuss homeopathy and are confronted with the counter-arguments are the ones who are inexcusable. The ones quietly working in their clueless way have the defence of innocent ignorance. I was thinking about my attitude to clients who have got tangled up with this and I realised today visiting a kennels with a sign up for some hom rubbish that I don't find that woman personally offensive to me because she does not try to challenge me over it and takes my advice when told to use real drugs. Indeed as a kennels they are bloody good at acting responsibly with medical problems. The clients I have a problem with are ones such as the Irish Wolfhound breeder who is as mad as a hatter and brags to all and sundry about how marvellous homeopathy is. We have had to deal with both parvovirus and massive roundworm infestations in her puppies courtesy of her inexcusable stupidity. She, I find offensive.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
The clients I have a problem with are ones such as the Irish Wolfhound breeder who is as mad as a hatter and brags to all and sundry about how marvellous homeopathy is. We have had to deal with both parvovirus and massive roundworm infestations in her puppies courtesy of her inexcusable stupidity. She, I find offensive. Ah, the name is on the tip of my typing fingers....

Remember I mentioned my see-no-evil-hear-no-evil friend who was nevertheless convinced that CD knows entirely what he's doing, and was simply in it for the huge profit margins? Well I was having difficulty signing her up for the Voodoo Society because she's been doing research into dilated cardiomyopathy in the Wolfhound and she told me she had a breeder whose help in liaising with the other breeders and generally doing the donkey work was invaluable, and she couldn't do without it, but the bloody woman also went around handing out homoeopathic remedies. Even to her heart cases. She wasn't that worried because there was no interference with her treatment and the woman was giving the magic sugar pills away free, but the whole thing was very uncomfortable.

Well, friend has moved to Scotland and anyway I finally persuaded her that it was possible to be a member and not publicise it. But I suspect it was the same loon.

Fortunately my main contact with Wolfhounds is at the age of 6-8 weeks when I screen them for congenital portocaval shunts. No woo there. Just a horrible condition totally prevented from being sold on to an innocent owner. And even a puppy saved, if the breeder (as they so often do) turns into instant candyfloss and shells out for the (now very effective) surgery. Hey, another one for the list!

Barb, what is the homoeopathic treatment for persistent patent ductus venosus? Could you treat it?

Rolfe.

[Barbrae]

Originally posted by exarch


You've asked us many times Barbrae, what would convince us that homeopathy works? Please show me where I asked this many times - or even a few - or even once? I don't think I ever asked this because I have always known what would convince you.

[Barbrae]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
Barb, you have homed straight into the area where answers as to 'real' placebo effect, coincidental recovery and patients misrepresenting their clinical state are hardest to separate.

With a disease that is characterised solely by an abnormal subjective experience I think it is possible that a patient may feel genuinely better from taking a chemically inert pill. The way this would be distinguished has been discussed already on this board, basically you would need to compare administration of an inert pill with no intervention at all. This would help to isolate the effect of coincidence from 'real' placebo effect.

For real pharmaceutical agents that test would be of only hypothetical interest, because all we ask is that the drug be better than coincidence and any kind of 'real' placebo effect. For practical purposes is doesn't much matter how much of the placebo arm is affected by different proportions of coincidence or placebo. Let's take a couple of examples: a remedy for the common cold has to contend with the disease's short time course so many patients given placebo would coincidentally get better quickly anyway; with a chronic psychological illness, coincidental genuine recovery over a given short period of follow-up is not very likely, but, I would suggest, that a self-suggested 'real' placebo effect is more likely, over a longer period of follow-up then coincidental recovery begins to be more significant.

This is what makes drug trials of psychoactive drugs difficult to interpret. No drug is 100% perfect and the diseases show high levels of coincidental fluctuation over long time courses and a propensity for subjectvity, so there is a risk of comparing a 60% improvement in the placebo arm with a 70% improvement in the treatment arm. If the study has enough subjects to give it statistical power then this may be a real excess benefit offered by the drug, but the question that then needs to be asked is whether it is worth the money. In these instances, when it comes down to the level of individual anecdotal experience there is absolutely no way for an individual's experience to tell you anything at all about the relative margin of benefit offered by the drug. This is precisely the conversation I have with clients from time to time. Sometimes I tell them that on occasion you must merely trust the trials that have been done and put your subjective assessment on hold because any opinion you have is no better than a guess.

An example from my world is the use of pheromones for behavioural problems. I am open to the possibility that they will have real effects, but I want to be able to say to people that there is trustworthy evidence because I know they will not be 100% effective and when they materials cost reasnable sums of money I want to be able to reassure people that even if they cannot readily tell that much effect has been produced that there is probably a marginal benefit that they cannot accurately report. Conversely I hate it when people tell me how marvellous something has been when really they have no reasonable basis for making that statement. If it has been some homeopathic nonsense they have bought I can happily tell them they are kidding themselves (suitably wrapped in polite terms) but I always feel awkward when people tell me how marvellously effective has been something I have sold them when I know they have no basis for that conclusion. It's even worse when I can measure something objective about the patient that gives the lie to their rosy assessment and for the animal's sake I have to let them down gently.

Here's an example. I am treating a little dog with chronic renal failure with severe anaemia. We are part way into an induction regime of erythropoietin. The owner is quite keen to tell me that after 3 injections the dog is feeling better. I don't know whether he is right. I do know the dog is still damn pale, and, though it has been my experience that animals whose anaemia is later shown to have responded will seem to have had an improvement in demeanour quite quickly, he may be looking through rose-tinted glasses. So, I don't comment much at the moment, because if the dog's blood count has not improved much when I next take a sample I am going to have to gently ask the owner to reassess his overly sunny view of progress and consider that it may have been more to do with wishful thinking.

This, Barb, is how a real clinician deals with placebo responses in a responsible way. The one thing he/she does not do is latch on to any subjectively reported improvement and claim the credit for the treatment.

It's been said before but it bears repeating. Some people want the voice of authority and would accept the definitive verdict of their doctor. But doctors are increasingly told to be more honest and less dictatorial, but the appearance of uncertainty disconcerts some patients. There is also a class of patient created by our society that has lost faith in all traditional authority, but they still yearn for an authority figure that they can trust. They need to believe, but the old structures of church and state seem to have let them down. What they find in people like homeopaths are practitioners who sufficently fail to understand the uncertainties of medicine that they can give the patient that authoritative approach again, albeit wrapped up under a consciously invented blanket of New Age philosophy to give their authority apparent legitmacy. These patients are looking for an excuse to believe in something and you give it to them.

Perhaps a genuine net benefit accrues to these patients, we don't know and nor do you. What we do know is that it has nothing to do with he contents of yor bottles and everything to do with you acting as if you have no doubt in your mind. This is the real moral conundrum. Maybe you do create real benefit, but it can only be created by maintaining a completely thorough misunderstanding of what you do so that you never give the game away to your patient. Of course this is all fine until the faith in magic water leads patients to reject real effective medicine for serious disease. While you fiddle on the fringes you have little scope to cause actual harm.

Edited to add:

Veterinary homeopathy fails under the analysis I have just presented. It is completely immoral. Homeopathy aplied to non-consenting humans, such as children, is almost always immoral: we can discuss the "almost" but it's a pretty narrow set of circumstances.

So much info - I need to comment on your post but it will have to wait awhile, After this evening I won't be around much for probably a week, maybe a little less, maybe a little more - we will see.

[Barbrae]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Barb, what is suppression? Please? I don't understand what you mean by the term. Or why it's a bad thing.

And why will migraine medication "certainly" only make matters worse, if a patient has migraines?

Rolfe.

Rolfe, the suppression topic will have to wait until next week, kindly remind me to get back to it if I forget.

Regarding the migraine headache - I mean that if migraines are soley caused by the birth control pill and a person simply covers up the migriane by taking meds instead of riding themselves of the obvious maintaining cause then they will only be making matters worse by "covering up" a totally curable problem with soemthing that has serious potential for side effects. This was not a comment of migraine meds in general, rather a comemnt on homeopathically treating a person on a medication that is a maintaing cause of disease.

When I say the migraines are totally curable, I am of course refrencing this hypothetical case where the migraines are indeed caused by the BCP.

[Barbrae]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Barb, what is the homoeopathic treatment for persistent patent ductus venosus? Could you treat it?

Rolfe. Isn't that the same thing as an intrahepatic shunt? Commonly found in large breeds (I know the wolfhound is particularily susceptible). BTW, If I am mistaken - let's not all rip on me and call me stupid - I don't have the time to look it up right now and I am also not a vet. However, from what I do know about the liver shunts I would doubt very much that homeopathy would be able to manage to close down the ductus venosus. I doubt very much that a remedy has ever been proven to affect such a pathology.

My best friend of some 26 years has an Old English Sheepdog who had a liver shunt which was discovered when he was about 10 months old. They had to travel quite a distance to have the surgery which was very successful. He is now 7 years old.

see you next week

[Barbrae]

Originally posted by Rolfe
into instant candyfloss

what does candyfloss mean?

[Lisa Simpson]

Originally posted by Barbrae
what does candyfloss mean?

In 'merica we'd call it spun sugar.


I think

[Eos of the Eons]

In Canada we call it Cotton Candy
http://www.horsmonden.co.uk/temp_pics/DSC00014.jpg

[Lisa Simpson]

I've always seen it as cotton candy, but my mom always called it spun sugar. Maybe it's some strange term she brought with her from the mid-west.

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
Kumar

Do you have any insight into how silly your questions and propositions are? NO, because nothing alike that in those. But you find it like this--is your problem.

[Zombified]

Originally posted by Kumar
But you find it like this--is your problem.
No, Kumar, it really is your problem. You simply don't understand science well enough to have a meaningful dialog on the subject. You're just stringing words and ideas together like shiny beads and expecting us to be impressed. Sorry, it doesn't work like that.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Barbrae
So much info - I need to comment on your post but it will have to wait awhile, After this evening I won't be around much for probably a week, maybe a little less, maybe a little more - we will see.

I wait expectantly.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Kumar
NO, because nothing alike that in those. But you find it like this--is your problem.

TECH SUPPORT TECH SUPPORT TECH SUPPORT

The bloody Turing machine has broken completely now. Please deal with the matter.

[Zombified]

Originally posted by Barbrae
Regarding the migraine headache - I mean that if migraines are soley caused by the birth control pill and a person simply covers up the migriane by taking meds instead of riding themselves of the obvious maintaining cause then they will only be making matters worse by "covering up" a totally curable problem with soemthing that has serious potential for side effects. This was not a comment of migraine meds in general, rather a comemnt on homeopathically treating a person on a medication that is a maintaing cause of disease.

When I say the migraines are totally curable, I am of course refrencing this hypothetical case where the migraines are indeed caused by the BCP.
Well, I'm male, so the birth control pill thing doesn't really apply to my migraines. (I suppose there are people out there who think a latex allergy could give you a migraine, but...)

But seriously, migraine medications are not painkillers, they don't just dull the pain and suppress the symptom. What they do is interrupt the biochemical process that causes the migraine. They are most effective when taken early in a migraine, but you don't take them all the time, just when you notice the onset.

Now, migraines can be triggered by a variety of things. When I sought treatment for my migraines, my doctor didn't just tell me to take the pills and I'd be ok - we also discussed various things that are known or suspected to trigger migraines, and I tried to pay attention to what I'd eaten, or whatever, when a headache was looming. In any case, a year and a half later, my migraines are far less frequent than they were when I sought treatment.

Now, I don't know if I should attribute that change to change in diet, to getting more exercise, to getting more regular sleep, or just to time. I certainly don't attribute it to the medication, because we know the medication does not do that - it is only for acute treatment when you actually get one. Nonetheless, the medication did not make getting rid of the headaches any more difficult, and they certainly made those days when I do get one a hell of a lot easier on me. As for side effects, I got a bit dizzy the first time I took it, but it only happened that first time.

Now, I'm lucky: these new medications work great on me. They don't on everybody (I think it's Lisa Simpson, IIRC, that can't take these). IIRC it might be about 2/3rds that get good results but don't hold me to that.

Anyway, why am I relating all this, (when all us science people would dismiss it as a single anecdote)? Well, basically as an example of a couple of points I want to make. First, I suspect you are misinterpreting what modern migraine medications actually do. They aren't painkillers. Second, I think you have the impression that doctors aren't interested in treating the underlying cause, and my experience is the opposite: my doctor was very clear on the role the medication played in dealing with migraines, and what it can and cannot do. Third, it seems you believe that medications make it difficult or impossible to reduce the frequency of migraines, and that is certainly not the case with me.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Barbrae
Isn't that the same thing as an intrahepatic shunt? Commonly found in large breeds (I know the wolfhound is particularily susceptible). BTW, If I am mistaken - let's not all rip on me and call me stupid - I don't have the time to look it up right now and I am also not a vet. However, from what I do know about the liver shunts I would doubt very much that homeopathy would be able to manage to close down the ductus venosus. I doubt very much that a remedy has ever been proven to affect such a pathology.

My best friend of some 26 years has an Old English Sheepdog who had a liver shunt which was discovered when he was about 10 months old. They had to travel quite a distance to have the surgery which was very successful. He is now 7 years old.

see you next week Yes, you've got that right. The condition appears to be genetic, a simple Mendelian recessive, but not completely expressed. That is, the puppy has to have a pair of bad genes in order to get the condition, but by no means all puppies with a pair of bad genes will get the condition. In my view the sensible approach is just to screen all puppies at 6-8 weeks and then decide what to do with the affected ones, until such time as Jeff Sampson gets a DNA marker for the condition, and then it might be fairly expensive in the short term, but it should be quite easy to breed it out of the gene pool completely so we never have to worry about it again. The idea of not breeding from either of the parents or any of the litter-mates of every affected puppy is such a blunt instrument, it will mean that nearly 20% of the breed will be unfit for breeding, and it could produce all sorts of unintended consequences as regards other genetic characteristics.

I also doubt very much that homoeopathy could affect such a condition. In fact I'm entirely certain that it can't. Barb, "I doubt very much that homoeopathy has ever been proven to affect such a pathology." Don't be so dishonest. You know perfectly well that homoeopathy has never been proven to affect any pathology at all, you've admitted as much on several occasions. So why talk in terms that imply that it has?

Your friend was quite lucky to get such a good surgical result at 10 months. It's true that we did have about a 50% success rate at the time when we were merely mopping up the mess after the clinical signs had become evident, but now we can screen clinically well puppies, it's massively better. The wrinkle is that even if it's not posible to occlude the shunt very much in the first instance, these puppies grow very fast, and they simply grow round their ligature so that a defect which was significant at 6 weeks is nothing at 6 months, and it just gradually closes by itself.

I really do like dealing with methods of treatment that patently do work, and whose working can be easily explained!

Rolfe.

PS. I once came across a puppy that got better spontaneously. The shunt closed on its own between 2 and 4 months of age - we followed it by repeat testing. No treatment at all was given, but I can just imagine the excited claims if the owner had been trying any "alternative" treatment at the time!

This is why any claim of effect must be repeatable. Spontaneous recoveries do happen, and it's only when recovery can be shown to occur more frequently when a particular intervention is carried out that it's possible to declare that the intervention is (or may be) responsible for the recovery. Which we've all said many times, and it's where homoeopathy falls down.

Barb, is it possible to get you to understand that this isn't some rarified "science" - it's simple common sense and logic.

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Zombified
No, Kumar, it really is your problem. You simply don't understand science well enough to have a meaningful dialog on the subject. You're just stringing words and ideas together like shiny beads and expecting us to be impressed. Sorry, it doesn't work like that. Zombified, I therefore usually asks & if some doubts are there in practical, theoritical, technical or logical understanding/satisfaction--I just ask questions on your awnsers. I just want to really understand in complete not just read & remember or accept without any of these understandings. As you are aware some language & technical weaknesses are there but still so we may be discussing bit differantly. If you support skeptism--you can say that I am more skeptic than you as I go by logical & practical understanding instead just shown other understandings.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Barbrae
I mean that if migraines are soley caused by the birth control pill....

I am of course refrencing this hypothetical case where the migraines are indeed caused by the BCP. "Hypothetical case"? Please provide evidence that migraines can be caused by any brand of oral contraceptive.

I'm not a medic so I don't know for sure, but "migraines" are a very specific diagnosis. It's not just a word for a bad headache, it's a particular neurological condition. I would find it very surprising indeed to learn that it was possible for this to be caused by a few low-dose hormones.

Zombified has explained this perfectly well. And it is a feature of proper medical management of migraine that the patient is encouraged to identify all possible triggers to a migraine attack, so they these can be avoided. In other words, priority is given to removing the underlying cause wherever possible. If oral contraception was indeed identified as a factor the very first thing that would be done would be to switch the patient to another form of contraception - but as I said, I remain to be persuaded that this is ever actually the case.

The medication is simply to make the attacks more bearable, when they happen. My senior partner's wife has these, and she says she's lucky to be in the 80% of sufferers who respond extremely well to Immigran.

There is no suggestion at all that Immigran (or any other palliative treatment for a migraine attack) actually makes the situation worse. But still, anything that will reduce the frequency of attacks will always be explored. That's simple good medicine.

Barb, I think you're just making this up as you go along. Or you're just repeating what you've been told by someone else who was making it up as he went along. Listening to you guys is sometimes like being in a parallel universe, where a completely alternative physiology with no relation to actual physiology is being described.

Rolfe.