Sucessful trial of homeopathy [Archive] - Page 3

patnray

26th January 2005, 02:59 PM

Don't be misled by the all the talks about proofs,evidence etc.People laughed when it was told that earth was round.They wanted proof.

Iâ€™m glad you brought that up. Homeopaths are the modern equivalent of the Flat Earthers: people who rejected all evidence that the earth is curved.

It is quite natural to believe that the earth is flat. Just look around you. It certainly seems flat to our senses. Until you look more carefully. We now know that what seems like â€œcommon senseâ€ is wrong. As people developed analytical tools and measuring devices they made many observations that were inconsistent with the flat earth model. Over 2000 years ago the Greeks had sufficient knowledge that they could not only show that the earth is curved, but they could measure the curvature with astonishing accuracy. Yet many people did not understand or trust the methods used to reach this conclusion and continued to insist that the earth is flat because they could plainly see that it is. As the years went by more and more evidence accumulated, and the population became more educated, until very few people continued to deny this reality.

200 years ago our knowledge of medicine and biology was quite primitive. There were many theories about disease and health, but we lacked the tools to distinguish truth from falsehood. The proponents of virtually every theory could point to cases where their treatments seemed to work and declare them as proof of their point of view. At that time homeopathy was as viable as any other theory. Since that time, however, we have developed reliable tools for evaluating the efficacy of therapies. We have developed a fantastically rich and detailed understanding of anatomy, physiology, and biochemistry. We now know what causes disease, how the body fights disease, why some people get sick and others donâ€™t when exposed to the same pathogens. We can rate the virulence of different strains of pathogens. Along the way the old theories have been disproved and discarded. We now know that the principles of homeopathy are at odds with our understanding of biology, chemistry, and phisiology. Yet there are some who, like the Flat Earthers, refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence against their beliefs and declare that they know it works because itâ€™s common sense and they can plainly see that it does.

You shoot yourself in the foot with this argument. Reasonable people can see that you are paralleling those who refused to accept any and all evidence of the earthâ€™s curvature.

My wife was diagnosised with cervical displasia,and all the gynecs,were unanimous in their opinion that,the hysterectomy was overdue,and has to be performed immediately.

How sad that you cannot understand that the way you presented and used this anecdote was intellectually dishonest.

Mojo

26th January 2005, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Anybody remember "A Day at the Races" With Marx bros.?

"The party of the foist part is hereafter referred to as the party of the foist part."
"Wait! I don't like that part!"
"Well OK, then.." [rrrip!]
"The party of the second part is ....."
...etc.

Hans
No...

It's from A Night at the Opera.

http://www.searchlores.org/contract.html

"You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause." :D

Anders W. Bonde

26th January 2005, 05:00 PM

On the nail! Excellent post, Patnray.

What I find a damned sight more interesting than homeopath's 'theories' are the psychological and sociological mechanisms that lead those fools to believe in the nonsense. With more knowledge in those departments - we actually already have mountains of knowledge - we may be able to better counter those dangerous belief systems (including religion). It seems to me, that despite our knowledge, we are still not very good at convincing the Blievers that they are on a mental detour, nor at finding quick and easy ways to goad them in a direction that relates to physical reality.

patnray

26th January 2005, 05:28 PM

Thanks Anders. I, too, find the psychology of belief fascinating.

Now, one more time, how do you homeopaths discount the vast improvements in health and average life span wrought by scientific medicine over the last century?

Mojo

26th January 2005, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
I too am retiring for the night.
If you're a practising homeopath, this isn't nearly long enough.

Psiload

26th January 2005, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by patnray
Thanks Anders. I, too, find the psychology of belief fascinating.

Now, one more time, how do you homeopaths discount the vast improvements in health and average life span wrought by scientific medicine over the last century? Uh... you do realize that they actually believe that homeopathy can take much of the credit for this, don't you?

Honest injun... I once heard a homeopath insisting that homeopathy is responsible for longer life spans and declining infant mortality.

My jaw nearly went through the floor.
:jaw:

Gavinimurthy

26th January 2005, 07:01 PM

I am not runnig away.:)

I had a good night's sleep,and time to go to office.I wil be back in a few hours.I am so happy that this thread is generating lot of interest.

The viewer count has increased by a thousand,in the last 36 hours.Imagine the popularity.I am sure atleast half of them are having an open mind about homeopathy.

As I keep telling,repeatedly,my effort is directed towards them.

It doesn't mean I will not answer the skeptics.I will do so,at the aprropriate time,when I feel my readers too can understand,the justification,I am giving.

You,skeptics,may continue with your tirades.I enjoy them.May be I will learn a bit ,on other topics like history,religion,science etc. also.

See you later,friends.

Murthy

Gavinimurthy

26th January 2005, 07:08 PM

geni

26th January 2005, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by Psiload
Uh... you do realize that they actually believe that homeopathy can take much of the credit for this, don't you?

Honest injun... I once heard a homeopath insisting that homeopathy is responsible for longer life spans and declining infant mortality.

My jaw nearly went through the floor.
:jaw:

I've run across one claiming that homeopathy wipped out small pox.

Badly Shaved Monkey

27th January 2005, 12:19 AM

Since the Board will be down for a few days, Murthy could do some homework.

An Accurate View of the Organon (http://www.hans-egebo.dk/skeptic/oom.pdf)

and, please forgive the duplication, but he has steadfastly refused to even consider these problems, so I'd like to make explicit what he is shying away from;

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
Since the subject of provings has come up again, It might be timely for those new to this to see what Sherr says about provings in his crapulous little book.

In case anyone is worried, I got it via library loan and did not pay money to this fraud in order to read it. (Do authors get money for library loans?)

Just read this rubbish, but don't dare tell a homeopath that they need to throw out their renedies because all the provings are ill-founded.

"These are some gems from Jeremy Sherr's book "The Dynamics and Methodology of Homoeopathic Provings"

Homeopathy is not really safe if it does what it is supposed to do

"However it is true that a small number of provers do not emerge unscathed. Usually these sufferings do not last long, but on rare occasions I have known problems to last for months or even years"

Logical fallacy 1

"In any proving there is a statistical possibility that some provers will get their simillimum just by chance. If a patient with the hydrogen disease proves hydrogen she will be cured. it is amazing to see how many people do get better from a proving. During each of my provings there have always been a number of lucky provers who have experienced a substantial benefit to their health"

Given the thousands of remedies that already exist and the near-infiinite number that could exist, what are the odds that several provers from a group of 15-20 would get a positive effect?

Logical fallacy 2

"Many well known remedy keynotes and "pictures" arise from only one or two idiosyncratic or sensitive provers"

So, never mind all the other methodological problems with provings and after all the supposed effort put into analysing the process for genuine effects, sometimes things that happen to literally one or two provers are allowed to dominate the claimed results solely because the organiser of the proving has decided for himself somehow that they have access a unique expression of the remedy's effects. Does anyone see the scope for bias and invention here?

Logical fallacy 3

Only if one person mastered the entire process [of collating results] would the proving have the necessary cohesion.

More scope for bias and invention? For all that this is supposed to be the definitive guide to how to do this is not made clear at what level in the hierarchy and stage in the process the blinding of the operators ceases, but from other remarks about the lack of need to conform to 'scientific protocols and also the complete absence of objective criteria for analysis set a priori, I think it would be impossible for the collator to work in a blinded manner. The whole process depends on the exercise of judgement by that collator "choosing symptoms", "identifying similar symptoms in different provers" and "sensing [sic] the general theme of the proving which will help in the process of validating or rejecting symptoms".

Logical fallacy 4

"The double-blind test is supposed to compensate for bias in the observer and faith in the patient, but has never been empirically tested or proved for either of these factors"

The fact that it is logically obvious and inevitable seems not to matter.

Logical fallacy 5

"Homoeopathic provings are often run on a double-blind basis now, but previous to this [20th] century most proving substances were known to the provers"

In other words, if you think that proper blinding is important the archival provings should be abandoned wholesale, but we shall see that this is not to be the case because,

Logical fallacy 6: it's a big one

"...of course a homoeopathic proving does not need testing for efficacy - our long tradition of proving has served us well, mostly without the use of placebo"

No need for comment!

Logical fallacy 7

"Careful controls and limited use of placebo can eliminate false data and should be incorporated"

So do we use placebo controls or not?

One for Catriona

Thus every prover must invariably experience some effect from the remedy

or not as in her case.

Lies, damned lies and statistics 1

"Experience show as that 5 people will suffice for a small project, and that 15-20 will produce a very full remedy."

Even only those most marginally conversant with data analysis will appreciate how inadequate these numbers are given the complexity of the data that are produced.

Lies, damned lies and statistics 2

"I have often heard the opinion that a good proving needs a hundred or more provers. In my experience this number is far too large and will lead to an over-proved remedy. The danger here is overcrowding, with many common symptoms which will overload the repertory and inflate the remedy out of proportion to other remedies"

This is very close to being a definition of a data dredge. Since the collator has no proper criteria for including or excluding symptoms, more provers just yields more symptoms and no basis for judging their relative merits. If there were an enormous number (1,000 or 1,000,000) of provers the remedy being proved would yield an astronomical number of symptoms, with the result that all the remedies would appear the same. The quote is thus tantamount to an unacknowledged admission that the only difference between remedies is the bias brought to bear on the analysis by the collator, who happens to know what the remedy is and is in a position to bias the results provided he is given a tractably small set of symptoms to fit to his pre-conceived ideas.

Logical fallacy 8

"In my opinion such methods [equal numbers receiving placebo, crossover trials] are cumbersome and time consuming, with little real benefit in the end.

They may be time consuming, but this is how reliable data are obtained.

Logical fallacy 9

How are we to use the placebo generated symptoms, if any?

Well, what do you think? How about using them for telling whether the remedy really does anything or nothing by comparing them? Instead the author answers his rhetorical question immediately and with;

Logical fallacy 10

Good provers are not always easy to come by - why should we waste them on placebo?

I think everyone can answer this one for themselves.

Logical fallacy 11: another big one

"Furthermore it is interesting to note that placebo provings occasionally seem to produce similar symptoms to the proving symptoms, thus casting further doubt on the use of this medium in provings"

which implies that the placebo should not be used rather than that the symptoms should be excluded for precisely the reason that they appeared in placebo and verum provers. nothing more needs to be added to emphasise that any commitment to objectivity is just paying it lip-service.

Logical fallacy 12

"Instead I have relied on a smaller percentage of placebo and extra careful scrutiny in verifying symptoms."

This can only be true if the collator is unblinded and makes my earlier point for me concerning the collator's ability to introduce bias and mould the results into any form he chooses.

Logical fallacy 13

"Meticulousness and clinical experience are the best protection and verification"

No they are not. "Meticulousness" is an interesting word to use, bearing in mind its original pejorative meaning of an obsessive attention to detail that detracts from the meticulous person's ability to gain a correct perspective on the subject at-issue.

Logical fallacy 14

"Provings do not conform to Cartesian thinking, as the experimenter is part of the experiment"

Damn right he is, moulding the data to his preconceptions!

Logical fallacy 15

"...most homoeopaths are very conscientious about not fabricating symptoms. Those who still doubt the validity of reports could ask provers to swear on the Bible, as Hahnemann did."

Well that would solve the problem of bias. Wouldn't it?

Lies, damned lies and statistics 3

Hahnemann's materia medica contains no less than 11447 symptoms from a particular prover named Cajetan Nenning"

Data dredging and small-number bias in one step. A neat trick.

Logical fallacy 16

"2) if the prover is under the influence of the remedy (as can be seen by a general appearance of symptoms), then all [author's emphasis] other new symptoms belong to the proving"

Just this bald assertion is made, supported by a quote from the Organon (para 138).

Logical fallacy 17

"11) The inner knowledge and conviction of a prover that these symptoms do not belong to her are a definite and reliable consideration"

So, no need for the Bible then.

Logical fallacy 18

"All the above factors [referring to a list of 11, of which 2 and 11 are quoted and in which placebo control is not mentioned] may still never give us 100% certainty, until the final proof - clinical experience and verification"

Well, if you think that provides 100% certainty then I have some stock certificates for a large item of civil engineering in Brooklyn that you may wish to purchase.

Logical fallacy 19

"It is my opinion that a proving should be a pure document, devoid of interpretation and therefore prejudice"

Devoid of interpretation? I beg to differ. What happened to "choosing symptoms", "identifying similar symptoms in different provers" and "sensing [sic] the general theme of the proving which will help in the process of validating or rejecting symptoms"?

Well, there we have it. There's plenty more to disagree with, but these are the most straightforward and concisely explained problems. The book is out of print but is readily available via libraries if anyone wants to pursue these issues.

Another major issue is the implicit overwhelming emphasis on psychological symptoms, which feeds my view that never mind all the claims to cure physical diseases like cancer etc, most of what really happens in homeopathic practice is the creation of effects on psychological symptoms, which are precisely those that are most open to influence by placebo effect.

This book claims to be a definitive guide to modern provings. If this is the best then I think we can infer the shakiness of other proving protocols and the philosophies behind them."

(I've correctd a few typos in re-posting this)

Actually, let's add a specific question. Murthy, for all your self-satisfied confidence, have you ever read a single proving or have you rever read a single proving protocol? If you wish to defend homeopathy, answer all the logocal fallacies listed above and produce for us a single proving that has been performed in a manner capable of producing usable information. I'll give you a clue, no such proving exists. So then, answer the supplementary question. Given that provings are nonsense why is the use of remedies derived from those provings anything other than, at best, a demonstration of how to apply the placebo effect or, at worst, simply a demonstration of how unreliable observers can infer any result they like given the set of excuses that homeopathy has built-in?

Badly Shaved Monkey

27th January 2005, 12:42 AM

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
The viewer count has increased by a thousand,in the last 36 hours.Imagine the popularity.I am sure atleast half of them are having an open mind about homeopathy.

It is a forgiveable human tendency to pause and view a car wreck. Perhaps you should have stopped to reconsider whether it was really wise to bring your clown car out onto the public highway.

Gavinimurthy

27th January 2005, 02:57 AM

I will answer Rolfe first.

She goes to the homeopath first,as she got relief earlier and,hence natural.This is the information given,in the example.

I don't know about other countries,but,in India,you have to study four and half years in a regular college,and the courses include anatomy,physiology,and all other subjects ,a normal medical graduate studies.Instead of Pharmocology,they study materia medica,philosophy.

The doctors coming out of these colleges are capable of handling surgery also,if required.The degree is called B.H.M.S. (Bachelor of homeopathic medicine and surgery).So,obviously,these people can order investigations themselves,and get reports from labs.

These people are well capable of diagnosing a disease.They know the limitations of homeopathy,and if there are advanced structural changes,they know,homeopathy,or for that matter even allopathy, can't reverse them.But,palliation is faster in allopathy,so,if I were to be that homeopath,I will send her to a regular hospital.

It is naive to think that homeopathic doctors don't know,any thing about diseases.They are as well versed as any of the regular doctors.They know,when a patient is beyond cure,and refer only such cases to a regular hospital.

This is regarding qualified homeo doctors.But,an enthustiastic practitioner like me,without a medical degree, will always consult a professional homeopath,if such cases come for our help.We will infact,refuse to handle such cases,and handover the case,to a professional homeopath.

You,perhaps are aware,that there are more self taught homeopaths,(whom perhaps you call quacks),compared to qualified ones,and they handle majority of simple cases,in their neighborhood.

So,we,homeopaths know our limitations,and also our strengths.Perhaps,it is pertinent to tell here that if your child is treated with homeopathy,since birth,his chances of a happy life,without any complications ,are much better,than the child,who was treated by the allopathic way.It is because,we treat the patient,as a whole,not based by his parts.

The way we look at a patient is entirely different.We can handle problems ,even before the pathology develops,and is observed in pathological reports.A person feeling ill,since the last few days,with a slight fever,which later may develop into typhoid,can be made well and the fever aborted in flat two days,and all the suffering can be avoided.In fact,he will never know,that,left to its own course,it would have resulted ,in typhoid.

How many of you,reading this thread,have not felt,the sense of heat of your body,without actual fever?What does the allopath say to you,if you go to him at that stage.He will tell you,nothing wrong with you.You have to go back to him,when that sensation further develops,into a pathologically recognisablre problem.

But,go to a homeopath,in that state,he will prescribe a medicine for you,and that sensation will leave you in no time.It aborts,the whole process of disease,and makes you healthy again.

Can't believe it? Come along with me. I will tell you how it is possible.

Murthy

Gavinimurthy

27th January 2005, 03:05 AM

The discussion about provings,and other questions,have to wait,till we reach that particular postulate of Organon.

Let us discuss,all the doubts,regarding the first three postulates of organon,which are before you,and any doubts,within the perimeters of the above,three postulates will be clarified.

All other doubts will either be ignored,or will be taken up at the appropriate stage.:)

Murthy

Anders W. Bonde

27th January 2005, 04:00 AM

Evasion noted.

BillyJoe

27th January 2005, 04:07 AM

Murthy,

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
But,palliation is faster in allopathy,so,if I were to be that homeopath,I will send her to a regular hospital. How do you recognise that she has the sort of illness that needs to be referred to hospital?
(Actually, Murthy, "allopathy" would be able to cure that particular patient, not just palliate her.)

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
...an enthustiastic practitioner like me,without a medical degree, will always consult a professional homeopath,if such cases come for our help.We will infact,refuse to handle such cases,and handover the case,to a professional homeopath. How do you recognise, without a medical degree, cases that you cannot handle?

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
You,perhaps are aware,that there are more self taught homeopaths,(whom perhaps you call quacks),compared to qualified ones,and they handle majority of simple cases,in their neighborhood. How do they identify, without a medical degree, which cases are simple?

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
The way we look at a patient is entirely different.We can handle problems ,even before the pathology develops,and is observed in pathological reports.A person feeling ill,since the last few days,with a slight fever,which later may develop into typhoid,can be made well and the fever aborted in flat two days,and all the suffering can be avoided.In fact,he will never know,that,left to its own course,it would have resulted ,in typhoid. :D
(He would have developed typhoid but my treatment prevented it - Nobody could prove you wrong could they?)

BillyJoe

Anders W. Bonde

27th January 2005, 05:01 AM

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy:

She goes to the homeopath first,as she got relief earlier and,hence natural.

What do you mean by 'natural'? Aren't homeopathetic 'remedies' prepared and administered by humans, just like evil alloapthic stuff.

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy:

I don't know about other countries,but,in India,you have to study four and half years in a regular college,and the courses include anatomy,physiology,and all other subjects ,a normal medical graduate studies.

Oh yes - India has the World's finest public health system and the lowest disease and mortality rates of any nation. Maybe it's really due to all the astrologers and 'godmen' that also reside in that country...

Actually, it's rather ironoc that the culture of Ayurveda has adopted the western (German) silly-notion of homeopathy, as the obsolete bunkum has generally flowed from east to west, recently. It probably shows something about a culture accustomed to magical thinking. At the same time, it seems thousands of bright real scientists and computer experts leave India for the West.

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy:

Instead of Pharmocology,they study materia medica,philosophy.

...which is where it all falls apart. Instead they should be taught about critical thinking and the errors of human perception and reasoning. Courses on proper clinical and RPCDB trials would be in order, too.

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy:

The doctors coming out of these colleges are capable of handling surgery also,if required.The degree is called B.H.M.S. (Bachelor of homeopathic medicine and surgery).So,obviously,these people can order investigations themselves,and get reports from labs.

Well, then - according to The True Disciples of Hahnemann, these BSHM cannot be homeopaths - what, with the way they are in bed with the Evil Allopathic Enemy and all that...

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy:

These people are well capable of diagnosing a disease.They know the limitations of homeopathy,...

They obviously don't. They are not taught about the limitations of homeopathy. If they were, they wouldn't practise the nonsense.

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy:

...But,palliation is faster in allopathy...

...because there isn't any in homeopathy...

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy:

It is naive to think that homeopathic doctors don't know,any thing about diseases.They are as well versed as any of the regular doctors.They know,when a patient is beyond cure,and refer only such cases to a regular hospital.

What they don't know about is critical thinking and the traps of human perception and reasoning - including their own cognitive dissonance.

If a patient is 'beyond cure' why then do anything at all other than pray? If Evil Allopathy can't cure the patient either then why torture the poor doomed patient with the stuff at all?

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy:

But,an enthustiastic practitioner like me,without a medical degree...

HELLO LURKERS! Do you need medical treatment or medical advice? Then do go see the enthusiastic, uneducated medical tinkerer wanna-be-doctor Quack Gavinimurthy or another of his homeopathetic friends in his garage. No guarantees given - except Gavinimurthy expects you to take his word for whatever he says is true.

Hoenstly, Gavinimurthy, can't you even see just a little glimmer of how foolish you appear?

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy:

We will infact,refuse to handle such cases,and handover the case,to a professional homeopath.

It stays scary:

If you don't have a medical degree, how do you know when to refuse a case and send it to another quack, rather than just doing the sensible thing? Let medical professionals do their job without quack middlemen such as yourself. Your lot should be behind bars in order to keep the population safe from your quackery.

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy:

You,perhaps are aware,that there are more self taught homeopaths,(whom perhaps you call quacks),compared to qualified ones,and they handle majority of simple cases,in their neighborhood.

Well, thanks for confirming that particular suspicion. Yes, we also call the 'qualified ones' quacks.

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy:

So,we,homeopaths know our limitations,and also our strengths.

You obviously don't - otherwise you wouldn't be exposing yourself in the embarassing way you are doing here.

And if you knew your strengths, Randi would have parted company with the million to a homeopath long ago...

If you knew your strengths, homeopathy would have been scientifically developed to an incredible extent, and into other fields of science, such as communication, liquid computers, water and sewage treatmet plants etc. etc. Why hasn't it?

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy:

Perhaps,it is pertinent to tell here that if your child is treated with homeopathy,since birth,his chances of a happy life,without any complications ,are much better,than the child,who was treated by the allopathic way.It is because,we treat the patient,as a whole,not based by his parts.

Care to support these claims with just one single piece of evidence?

BTW, 'My Pink Unicorn does much better mileage than yours because I say so on an internet forum'-type of 'evidence' will not be considered evidence...

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy:

We can handle problems ,even before the pathology develops,and is observed in pathological reports.

Care to support these claims with just one single piece of evidence?

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy:

A person feeling ill,since the last few days,with a slight fever,which later may develop into typhoid,can be made well and the fever aborted in flat two days,and all the suffering can be avoided.In fact,he will never know,that,left to its own course,it would have resulted ,in typhoid.

In fact, he will never know, that, left to its own course, it would not have resulted in typhoid.

Gavin, fevers that last a few days and then clear up by themselves are about one of the most prevalent human ailements. My little son, and everyone else on this planet has several times had fevers that last a few days, and then go away without any treatment whatsoever, not even hoemeopathetic Magick Water.

But at least you are demonstrating how it is you come to believe in the homeopathetic nonsense...

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy:

How many of you,reading this thread,have not felt,the sense of heat of your body,without actual fever?What does the allopath say to you,if you go to him at that stage.He will tell you,nothing wrong with you.You have to go back to him,when that sensation further develops,into a pathologically recognisablre problem.

But,go to a homeopath,in that state,he will prescribe a medicine for you,and that sensation will leave you in no time.It aborts,the whole process of disease,and makes you healthy again.

Exactly the same situation as outlined previously:

Leave it alone, it goes away after a week.

Treat it with homeopathetic Magick water, it goes away after 7 days.

If it gets worse, it's due to Evil Allopathy.

If it doesn't, homeopathy did the trick.

Notch another victory for homeopathy.

Either way, you never even tried to find out what it was when it went away by itself.

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy:

I will tell you how it is possible.

Finally! Please do! We're into over 500 posts on this thread so far and you have explained exactly nought so far...

But do expect us to require your explanations to be supported by hard evidence...

Gavinimurthy

27th January 2005, 06:04 AM

I don't feel embarassed to declare myself a non medical homeopathic enthusiast.Remeber that,I can claim to be a qualified doctor,and you don't have any means to verify it.So,don't worry about my lack of intelligence to tell you facts.

why do you bother about me? I am not going to treat any of the prospective converts to homeopathy,who are reading this thread.I always tell them to choose a good homeopath, with good reputation.

What I am interested is to enthuse people,to try homeopathy.If they understand,the philosophy behind homeopathy,they will venture on their own,to try it,and they themselves will tell others about its virtues.This is how,homeopathy is growing worldwide.

A person,benefitted by homeopathy,will not bother about evidence and proofs.He knows,it works,and he tells others it works.That's it.

Come back to Organon,and tell if anything is wrong with the first three postulates.Don't talk generally.You will have lot of opportunities to nail me,as we procced.For the time being confine yourself,to these three postulates.

Murthy

geni

27th January 2005, 06:12 AM

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
I don't feel embarassed to declare myself a non medical homeopathic enthusiast.Remeber that,I can claim to be a qualified doctor,and you don't have any means to verify it.So,don't worry about my lack of intelligence to tell you facts.

I think you underestimate our abailities

why do you bother about me? I am not going to treat any of the prospective converts to homeopathy,who are reading this thread.I always tell them to choose a good homeopath, with good reputation.

Strange these famous good homeopahts with a good reputation can't produce much in the way of evidence ehtier it seems to be a common theme

What I am interested is to enthuse people,to try homeopathy.If they understand,the philosophy behind homeopathy,they will venture on their own,to try it,and they themselves will tell others about its virtues.This is how,homeopathy is growing worldwide.

Homeopathy is growing therough missinformation

A person,benefitted by homeopathy,will not bother about evidence and proofs.He knows,it works,and he tells others it works.That's it.

So? doesn't mean that homeopaths are not quacks doesn't mean that homeopathy works beyond the placebo effect

Come back to Organon,and tell if anything is wrong with the first three postulates.Don't talk generally.You will have lot of opportunities to nail me,as we procced.For the time being confine yourself,to these three postulates.

Murthy [/B]

I showed you problems in them.

Ashles

27th January 2005, 06:18 AM

Just so Gavin is clear on another little matter. I am one of the many people who are regularly viewing this thread.

I am finding it very interesting.

Before it I was totally convinced that Homeopathy didn't work.

Now I am even more convinced (which I didn't think was possible!) and have yet further evidence to back up my opinion.

I have been entertained, but also slghtly saddened by the delusion and refusal to look at facts displayed by the pro-homeopathy users.

When asked to argue their case all they can do is pretty much quote verbatim from their silly books.

They avoid perfectly good questions and say over and over again how homeopathy has its limitations. These limitations appear to consist of only being able to treat diseases that can disappear by themselves.

Gavin, please don't fool yourself. Any fence-sitters viewing this thread are almost certain to be by now utterly convinced of the total inefficacy of homeopathy.
Your arguments have been torn to shreds repeatedly.

I personally hope thousands of people read this thread. Who knows, it could even save a couple of lives.

Gavinimurthy

27th January 2005, 06:29 AM

You people quote entire posts,even when not required.Why don't you highlight those portions,specific to these three postulates,which,I didn't answer?

Is it not correct that physician has to cure?

Is it not correct that that cure,has to be gentle,total and permanent,in the shortest, most reliable,and harmless way?

Is it not correct to say that the physician should know about the disease,about the medicine,how to select the correct medicine for the disease,and also about the correct dosage,and the ability to perceive when repetetion will be required?

What is objectionable in this.Forget my comments.Confine yourself to these three postulates.Do you find anything wrong with them?

We can argue,when it is required.

But,as far as three postulates are concerned,I don't think any sane person can find fault with them.

What do you say,silent readers?

I can hear lot of claps.:) :) :)

Murthy

Rolfe

27th January 2005, 06:31 AM

I will answer Rolfe first.[/b][/quote]If you actually look, you will see that you haven't answered any of my questions.Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
She goes to the homeopath first,as she got relief earlier and,hence natural.This is the information given,in the example.What possible relief could a homoepath give such a patient? Have you any idea what is wrong with her? Specifically, have you any idea how grave an emergency that presentation might be? Please answer, do you know what will happen if that patient doesn't get proper medical treatment? (And yes, what makes homoeopathy "natural"?)

You are also evading the question. I know the example said her reason for going to a homoeopath was that she was a supporter of homoeopathy. But you implied that you thought that was the right thing for her to have done. Why, if all the homoeopath can do is tell her to go to a real doctor?Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
I don't know about other countries,but,in India,you have to study four and half years in a regular college,and the courses include anatomy,physiology,and all other subjects ,a normal medical graduate studies.Instead of Pharmocology,they study materia medica,philosophy.Study nonsense for four years, or ten years, it remains nonsense. Knowledge of anatomy and physiology is no use at all if you do not understand the causes of disease, how to discover them, and what treatment to give.Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
The doctors coming out of these colleges are capable of handling surgery also,if required.The degree is called B.H.M.S. (Bachelor of homeopathic medicine and surgery).So,obviously,these people can order investigations themselves,and get reports from labs.That isn't homoeopathy though, is it?Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
These people are well capable of diagnosing a disease.They know the limitations of homeopathy,and if there are advanced structural changes,they know,homeopathy,or for that matter even allopathy, can't reverse them.So, what disease do you think that woman has? And why is it important that she gets real medicine quickly?Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
But,palliation is faster in allopathy,so,if I were to be that homeopath,I will send her to a regular hospital.You do realise that you have just flatly contradicted the first statement you made?

Also, how do you know that she needs real medicine? What is it about this case that makes you decide that she should go to a real hospital?

(BillyJoe, we have to decide how to define "cure". Real medicine would be able to give that woman a normal life, but it would not be able to take away the cause of the disease. She would always have to be taking tablets. So perhaps "cure" isn't the right word, though neither is "palliate". "Manage successfully" would be the phrase, I think.)Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
It is naive to think that homeopathic doctors don't know,any thing about diseases.They are as well versed as any of the regular doctors.They know,when a patient is beyond cure,and refer only such cases to a regular hospital.How can that be? You have said several times that homoeopaths neither need nor want to know what the underlying cause of the disease is. Homoeopaths tell us that they do not recognise "allopathic" diagnoses, and that they prescribe purely according to the symptoms. So why should we believe that homoeopaths have any useful diagnostic knowledge at all?Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
This is regarding qualified homeo doctors.But,an enthustiastic practitioner like me,without a medical degree, will always consult a professional homeopath,if such cases come for our help.We will infact,refuse to handle such cases,and handover the case,to a professional homeopath.

You,perhaps are aware,that there are more self taught homeopaths,(whom perhaps you call quacks),compared to qualified ones,and they handle majority of simple cases,in their neighborhood.Back to the main question again. How can you or any other homoeo know when a patient has a genuinely serious condition that needs real medicine? (Not much use sending anyone from one homoeopath to another, is there, since all the remedies are the same and do nothing, why should it matter who prescribes them?)Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
So,we,homeopaths know our limitations,and also our strengths.Perhaps,it is pertinent to tell here that if your child is treated with homeopathy,since birth,his chances of a happy life,without any complications ,are much better,than the child,who was treated by the allopathic way.It is because,we treat the patient,as a whole,not based by his parts.You have yet to demonstrate that you have any idea at all of your limitations, except perhaps sufficient native cunning to realise that the case Rolfe has described to you is likely to be one in which real medicine is essential. But you have not explained how you would know this, or what might happen if the patient doesn't get the proper treatment.

Talk is cheap, Murthy, and all that "happy life" sounds so pretty, but you have absolutely nothing to back it up. It's only words. We know that neither you nor any homoeopath can tell a potentised remedy from the blank sugar pills, and one of the ways we know that is that nobody has ever shown that people who took the potentised remedies showed any benefit compared to people who only took the blank sugar pills.

And all this "whole patient" stuff is complete nonsense. Real medicine considers the whole patient. It has to. Homoeopathy on the other hand only looks at a collection of symptoms, not the patient. "Whole patient" is a good line in advertising and public relations, but it has nothing to do with the facts.Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
The way we look at a patient is entirely different.We can handle problems ,even before the pathology develops,and is observed in pathological reports.A person feeling ill,since the last few days,with a slight fever,which later may develop into typhoid,can be made well and the fever aborted in flat two days,and all the suffering can be avoided.In fact,he will never know,that,left to its own course,it would have resulted ,in typhoid.

How many of you,reading this thread,have not felt,the sense of heat of your body,without actual fever?What does the allopath say to you,if you go to him at that stage.He will tell you,nothing wrong with you.You have to go back to him,when that sensation further develops,into a pathologically recognisablre problem.

But,go to a homeopath,in that state,he will prescribe a medicine for you,and that sensation will leave you in no time.It aborts,the whole process of disease,and makes you healthy again.One has to admire this, in a twisted sort of way. You see someone with a mild fever, who would have got better in two days without treatment, you give him the magic sugar pills, and you tell him that if he hadn't had these silly pills, he would have developed typhoid! Complete nonsense, but unfalsifiable as far as the individual patient is concerned, and terribly good for business.Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
Can't believe it? Come along with me. I will tell you how it is possible.So far, the evidence is as compelling as the suggestion that the moon is made of green cheese.

Murthy, what you need to try to take on board is that you don't just type words here, and expect people to believe you. You have to be able to show evidence for your claims, and to explain why alternative explanations of that evidence (such as the very obvious observation that you have shown nothing that couldn't very easily have been expected to happen even without the sugar pills) are not valid.

If you just go on typing words, with nothing to back them up, people are just going to stop reading.

Now, back to the patient. What is it about that patient that makes you think she needs to see a real doctor?
Can you name or even describe the disease she probably has?
Do you know what will happen if she doesn't get real medicine?
Do you know the name of the drug she needs?Less of the evasions, and more demonstration that you have even the foggiest idea what you are talking about.

Rolfe.

Mojo

27th January 2005, 06:35 AM

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
Is it not correct that physician has to cure?

Is it not correct that that cure,has to be gentle,total and permanent,in the shortest, most reliable,and harmless way?
The problem for homeopathy is the word "reliable."

Is it not correct to say that the physician should know about the disease,about the medicine,how to select the correct medicine for the disease,and also about the correct dosage,and the ability to perceive when repetetion will be required?
Homeopathy doesn't worry about knowing about the disease, it just attempts to treat the visible symptoms.

What is objectionable in this.Forget my comments.Confine yourself to these three postulates.Do you find anything wrong with them?[/B]
In any case, what does any of this have to do with whether homeopathy works?

Gavinimurthy

27th January 2005, 06:44 AM

Too late,Rolfe.

The discussion is back to the three postulates.Ask,if you have any doubts,as to the validity of those three postulates.

Do you find anything objectionable with them?

Incidentally,would you like to see how many people will be interested to read on my nonsense,even, if you people don't interrupt me?

We will have this test,when the forums resume.Then,perhaps we will understand,whether people want to see a good fight,or they want genuine information.

I can tell you,none of you skeptics,has read Organon,the way,you should do.Once,you read it with an open mind,you will really appreciate it.

Murthy

Anders W. Bonde

27th January 2005, 06:57 AM

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy:

I don't feel embarassed to declare myself a non medical homeopathic enthusiast.

Perhaps not - but you should. That is, if you didn't suffer from severe cognitive dissonance.

Imagine someone going to a doctor:

"Sir, are you a doctor?"

"No. But I find playing doctor to be fun, and it makes me feel special!"

"Okay - I'll trust my health in your hands then..."

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy:

Remeber that,I can claim to be a qualified doctor,and you don't have any means to verify it.

Wrong. If you really believe that then you really are incredibly ignorant.

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy:

So,don't worry about my lack of intelligence to tell you facts.

I'm not worried about your oft demonstrated and self-professed lack of intelligence - but I do worry about your unsuspecting, gullible victims.

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy:

why do you bother about me? I am not going to treat any of the prospective converts to homeopathy,who are reading this thread.I always tell them to choose a good homeopath, with good reputation.

It makes no difference how people fall into your or any other homeopaths clutches. Reputation of a scammer doesn't enter into it. Whether the scam works or not is the issue. And it doesn't work.

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy:

What I am interested is to enthuse people,to try homeopathy.If they understand,the philosophy behind homeopathy,they will venture on their own,to try it,and they themselves will tell others about its virtues.This is how,homeopathy is growing worldwide.

Proselythising, as always.

Gavin, mindlessly repeating your totally useless request for people to make uncontrolled experiments (on themselves, even) with n=1 doesn't make the request anymore useful. It only proves your ignorance.

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy:

A person,benefitted by homeopathy,will not bother about evidence and proofs.He knows,it works,and he tells others it works.That's it.

If said dupe doesn't 'bother about evidence', then said dupe has absolutely now way of knowing whether 'it [homeopathy] works' or whether some other mechanism is in operation. You are basing a whole 'medical system' [homeopathy] on blind faith, ignorance and errors of perception and errors of reasoning; thus your scam becomes a religious belief. If you don't think that matters, then I can only conclude that you are an ignorant, closed-minded fool.

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy:

Come back to Organon,and tell if anything is wrong with the first three postulates.

Planet Earth calling Gavin: Has it completely escaped your notice that these postulates have been addressed several times on this thread and numerous other occasions and have gone down in flames each time?

Get your fingers out of your ears, stop humming and open your eyes.

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy:

You will have lot of opportunities to nail me,as we procced.

We've done so without fail so far. Why must you commit intellectual suicide so blatantly?

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy:

For the time being confine yourself,to these three postulates.

Are you unable to grasp what people write?

Planet Earth calling Gavin: Has it completely escaped your notice that these postulates have been addressed several times on this thread and numerous other occasions and have gone down in flames each time?

Get your fingers out of your ears, stop humming and open your eyes.

Gavinimurthy

27th January 2005, 06:59 AM

Deleted.Double post.

Murthy

Gavinimurthy

27th January 2005, 07:01 AM

Organon says

The cure has to be reliable.

It says the physician should have knowledge about disease.

Homeopathy means following Organon.

It is very strange that you people think homeopath doesn't know anything about disease.If he doesn't know about disease he is not a homeopath.

Who told you that homeopaths don't bother about the knowledge of disease.Pl.understand that knowledge of disease is different from the knowledge of what causes it.

Forget your concept of homeopathy.You don't know what is homeopathy.That is what I have all along been telling.The concept of homeopathy is Organon.First,try to understand what is homeopathy,and then ,at later stages,you will know,how it works.

Murthy

Rolfe

27th January 2005, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
Too late,Rolfe.What? Because you have refused to answer, and evaded the questions, you think you can just declare it is "too late"? You can't be forced to answer, of course, but we can all conclude that you simply haven't a clue what was going on in the case I described, and only said you'd refer the patient to a real doctor because you suspected that I might be trying to trap you.Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
The discussion is back to the three postulates.Ask,if you have any doubts,as to the validity of those three postulates.

Do you find anything objectionable with them?I'm quite in favour of home, mother and apple pie too, but that doesn't prove anything about the quality of your baking.Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
Incidentally,would you like to see how many people will be interested to read on my nonsense,even, if you people don't interrupt me?What a cheek!

This thread was well advanced before you even joined the forum. People were viewing it and posting to it before they'd even heard your name. And even now, what evidence do you have that anyone is reading this thread for your posts? Perhaps it is all the reasonable and logical arguments against your nonsense they find so interesing.

If you want a platform for your own views, the first thing you could do is start a thread of your own on the subject. Of course you'll still be "interrupted", but at least it would be your own topic.Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
We will have this test,when the forums resume.Then,perhaps we will understand,whether people want to see a good fight,or they want genuine information.Nope, still don't get it. How do you propose to tell what the spectators think? So far, not one person has come into the thread to agree with you - not even Bach or Sarah, which actually I find quite surprising as they were here earlier, but maybe they realise when the heat of the kitchen is too much.

And bear in mind that registering multiple identities to agree with yourself is against the rules here. That's how Xanta got banned..Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
I can tell you,none of you skeptics,has read Organon,the way,you should do.Once,you read it with an open mind,you will really appreciate it.Ah, so you realise that many of the people posting on this thread have indeed read the Organon. Your problem is that they have not read it with a totally credulous attitude, ready to believe every piece of nonsense and superstition Hahnemann dreamed up. No, Murthy, you wouldn't recognise an open mind if it bit you on the ankle. You're so closed-minded on the view that homoeopathy works that you don't even seem to read the arguments against it, never mind think about them

So less of the fairy tales, and a bit more fact please.

And if you want to counter the assertion that you don't have a clue what was wrong with the patient in my example, what would happen to her if she didn't get real treatment, or what that treatment would be, then answer the questions.

Rolfe.

Ashles

27th January 2005, 07:10 AM

Gavinmuthy, you sound a bit desperate in your defence of homeopathy now.

If someone asks about the effectiveness of a new set of antibiotics does a doctor say this:

Dr: "Let me tell you about the Hippocratic Oath"

P: "But doctor the antibiotics...?"

Dr: "No, listen to the Hippocratic Oath. Part of it says 'Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.'
Do you agree with that statement?"

P: "Well yes, of course, What has this got to do with the effectiveness of the antibiotics?"

Dr: "Once you understand the Hipocratic oath you will understand antibiotics, and by extension all medicine"

P: "Aren't there just some trials you can tell me about?"

Dr: "That's not how it works"

P: "Have there been trials?"

Dr: "Yes, and the antibiotics failed to work when tested. But that's not important. Anyway, back to the Hippocratic Oath..."

Would you be convinced by a doctor like that?

Homeopathy should work whether we understand Organon or not. But it doesn't.

Edited to fix spelling (I spelt 'Organon 'as 'Oregon'. Oops)

Gavinimurthy

27th January 2005, 08:04 AM

Medical Hypotheses, Volume 64, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 575-578

Copyright Â© 2004 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved.

Prevalence of atopic diseases and the use of topical corticosteroids. Is there any connection?

By Alexander N. Pampura
Department of Allergology and Clinical Immunology, Moscow Institute of Pediatrics and Child Surgery of the Ministry of Public Health, Taldomskaya Street 2, 125412 Moscow, Russian Federation

Summary

The prevalence of atopic diseases (atopic dermatitis, bronchial asthma, allergic rhinitis) has considerably increased for the last 40 years. This tendency has coincided with the beginning of the epoch of the use of the topical corticosteroids, which have a potent immunomodulation action. This fact itself as well as a number of research results has allowed to formulate the following hypothesis: the use of topical corticosteroids in children of early age contributes to the increase of prevalence of atopic diseases in the developed countries. The offered hypothesis can explain lower prevalence of atopic diseases in rural areas and in children from families with the anthroposophic life style. In other side this hypothesis also capable to give explanation of increased level of atopic diseases among people with high socioeconomic level and in children from 1 child families. It is of a note that corticosteroids use in developing countries is limited due to economic reasons and active use of complementary medicine.

Hmmm....

Murthy

Ashles

27th January 2005, 08:17 AM

Oh, well that proves homeopathy works. Thanks that's cleared that up.

I haven't personally used topical corticosteroids and I don't have any atopic diseases.

Does that mean that because I don't step on the cracks in the pavements I haven't developed these illnesses?

scotth

27th January 2005, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
Medical Hypotheses, Volume 64, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 575-578

Copyright Â© 2004 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved.

Prevalence of atopic diseases and the use of topical corticosteroids. Is there any connection?

By Alexander N. Pampura
Department of Allergology and Clinical Immunology, Moscow Institute of Pediatrics and Child Surgery of the Ministry of Public Health, Taldomskaya Street 2, 125412 Moscow, Russian Federation

Summary

The prevalence of atopic diseases (atopic dermatitis, bronchial asthma, allergic rhinitis) has considerably increased for the last 40 years. This tendency has coincided with the beginning of the epoch of the use of the topical corticosteroids, which have a potent immunomodulation action. This fact itself as well as a number of research results has allowed to formulate the following hypothesis: the use of topical corticosteroids in children of early age contributes to the increase of prevalence of atopic diseases in the developed countries. The offered hypothesis can explain lower prevalence of atopic diseases in rural areas and in children from families with the anthroposophic life style. In other side this hypothesis also capable to give explanation of increased level of atopic diseases among people with high socioeconomic level and in children from 1 child families. It is of a note that corticosteroids use in developing countries is limited due to economic reasons and active use of complementary medicine.

Hmmm....

Murthy

Thats nice.

And what exactly does it have to do with whether or not HOMEOPATHY works?

Ashles

27th January 2005, 08:30 AM

Patient: "Doctor do these new antibiotics work?"

Dr: "Well this study shows that people who drink mercury tend to feel very ill. People who don't drink mercury don't show symptoms of mercury poisoning.
Some people who don't drink mercury have used these antibiotics - and not one of them has shown mercury poisoning.
I think that answers your question."

Patient: "Hmmm..."

Gavinimurthy

27th January 2005, 08:34 AM

This was the last sentence of that report.

It is of a note that corticosteroids use in developing countries is limited due to economic reasons and active use of complementary medicine.

Atleast now,have you understood the connection?

Murthy

Badly Shaved Monkey

27th January 2005, 08:45 AM

Mojo

27th January 2005, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
This was the last sentence of that report.

It is of a note that corticosteroids use in developing countries is limited due to economic reasons and active use of complementary medicine.

Atleast now,have you understood the connection?

Murthy
This just means that corticosteroids are not used very much in developing countries because of cost and because people are using quackery instead. It says NOTHING AT ALL about whether homeopathy works.

Edited to add: if it was suggested that people in some part of the world do not fly by aeroplane much because they were attempting to fly by flapping their arms instead, would you think that it meant that they could actually fly by flapping their arms?

scotth

27th January 2005, 08:54 AM

Mojo beat me to it... pretty much exactly what I wanted to say.

And some more reading material for while the board is down.

Here is a link to the for the Position Paper on Homeopathy by the National Council Against Health Fraud.

http://www.ncahf.org/pp/homeop.html

Some highlights... bolding mine of course.

Homeopathy's principles have been refuted by the basic sciences of chemistry, physics, pharmacology, and pathology. Homeopathy meets the dictionary definitions of a sect and a cult--the characteristics of which prevent advances that would change Hahnemann's original principles. Most homeopathic studies are of poor methodological quality, and are subject to bias. Homeopathic product labels do not provide sufficient information to judge their dosages. Although homeopathic remedies are generally thought to be nontoxic due to their high dilutions, some preparations have proved harmful. The ostensible value of homeopathic products can be more than a placebo effect because some products have contained effective amounts of standard medications or have been adulterated.

Gavinimurthy

27th January 2005, 09:02 AM

The prevalence of atopic diseases (atopic dermatitis, bronchial asthma, allergic rhinitis) has considerably increased for the last 40 years. This tendency has coincided with the beginning of the epoch of the use of the topical corticosteroids.

This is what homeopathy tells,and it is a proof that streroids drive in the disease.

That is what I have been telling all along.

That is the connection.

The report also says,people who don't use steroids are much better.

So,you silent readers,decide which therapy is best.

This is a report by Department of Allergology and Clinical Immunology.A sub sub super speciality.

Murthy

patnray

27th January 2005, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
This is what homeopathy tells,and it is a proof that streroids drive in the disease.
No, it is not proof. This is the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. You must provide evidence that this is not just coincidence or that there are not other factors that explain the facts. Perhaps increases in air poluution in developed countries contributed to the rise in the diseases you point out? Or some other confounding factor.

Of course, if you understood the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy you would have to discard most of your "evidence" that homeopathy works.

anonimouse

27th January 2005, 09:19 AM

Gavinimurthy

27th January 2005, 09:24 AM

O.K.Friends.

If the forum is active tomorrrow,we will meet again.

Otherwise,whenever it resumes.

Meanwhile,please keeep thinking.A part of what was told 200 years back,is being proved now.Scientifically.!!!.

So,it is not naive to assume that the remaining part also will be proved sooner than later.

Be prepared at least to read what was told.Not hearsay.Have it from the original.Without bias,and with an open mind.You won't regret it,at the end of it.

Good night.

Murthy

anonimouse

27th January 2005, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
O.K.Friends.

If the forum is active tomorrrow,we will meet again.

Otherwise,whenever it resumes.

Meanwhile,please keeep thinking.A part of what was told 200 years back,is being proved now.Scientifically.!!!.

So,it is not naive to assume that the remaining part also will be proved sooner than later.

Be prepared at least to read what was told.Not hearsay.Have it from the original.Without bias,and with an open mind.You won't regret it,at the end of it.

Good night.

Murthy

Good night, Kumar-Lite.

Chris Haynes

27th January 2005, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
... snip of steroid evasion..

So,you silent readers,decide which therapy is best.

...

Could you please answer the questions I posted earlier? They are very specific.

Which is a better treatment for syphilis (you know, one of those things that is a "miasm")? .... Homoepathy or antibiotics?

What is a better treatment for tetanus? .... Homoepathy or antibiotics --- or a preventative vaccine? (Okay, I added that last part, since the mortality rate of tetanus is 25%, sometimes even WITH antibiotics)

patnray

27th January 2005, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
Meanwhile,please keeep thinking.A part of what was told 200 years back,is being proved now.Scientifically.!!!.

So,it is not naive to assume that the remaining part also will be proved sooner than later.

No, not scientifically. Homeopathy rejects scientific methods. It refuses to use proper controls. It refuses to perform tests that could disprove it. It rejects statistics. When facts are at odds with it's postulates it rejects the facts rather than change it's postulates.

If you want to wrap yourself in the mantle of scientific respectability you must actually use science and reason.

You, however, are proving that you have no understanding of logical fallacies, the scientific method, or intellectual honesty.

Ashles

27th January 2005, 09:53 AM

Be prepared at least to read what was told.Not hearsay.Have it from the original.Without bias,and with an open mind.You won't regret it,at the end of it.
And just remember that, amazing as homeopathy claims are ("Try it yourself you'll notice the difference immediately!"), they are never supported by actual testing results

Hmmm...

Of course if you choose homeopathy instead of real medicine, then you really might come to regret it.

A quick visit to the homeopathy forums (which should put any fence-sitters off the idea of homeopathy for life) has yielded this complaint from a poster:
Hello,
I have been suffering from ulcerative colitis for several years now. For the past few months I was taking mercuris corrosivus 200C (along with allopathich medication)and the disease was in remission. When I stopped taking Mer. Corr. the disease come back and now even with taking Mer. corr. for the past 4 days the bleeding is not stopping.
How long does it take for Merc. Corr. to take effect?
Should I take something else besides this?
Please help.
Many thanks
Nirmal Chaudhary
The reply:
Generally Merc is a short acting remedy and your body has now ceased to respond - it may be a couple of years before it will work again. The best bets to follow it are Hep Sul or Carbo Veg.
So you can build up a resistence to Homeopathic medicines? Is that right?

Psiload

27th January 2005, 10:44 AM

I'd like to take this lull in the fun to chime in with the following observation...

Once again, a proponent of homeopathy makes the case against homeopathy more convincingly than any critic could ever hope to.

Rolfe

27th January 2005, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
....streroids drive in the disease.....

The report also says,people who don't use steroids are much better.

So,you silent readers,decide which therapy is best.That reminds me (can't think why....)

Murthy, remember that hypothetical patient I described to you, the one you refused to answer any questions about?

What was the drug she needed urgently to prevent her dropping down dead? (Oops, I think I just gave away one of the answers Murthy obviously didn't know.)

You can't possibly think what sort of drug it might have been? Something absolutely 100% essential, otherwise the patient will definitely die if she doesn't get it? Nothing at all spring to mind here?

Rolfe.

He's completely delusional, isn't he? All these little fantasies about the silent readers, none of whom ever chips in to support him, not matter how badly chewed out he gets.

I think it's the H'pathy forum. They treat him and those like him like demi-gods, and he's come to think that's the natural order of things. Sorry, Murthy, you're a nut-job, pure and simple.

anonimouse

27th January 2005, 11:54 AM

Oh, his claim about the "silent readers" isn't likely delusional at all. Rather, he'll probably go to another board and claim that the evil skeptics at Randi are squashing dissenters to the pharmamedical party line, or other such nonsense.

It's like Tim Bolen's millions of health freedom fighters, or the thousands of people that were cured by those cancer quacks. They're all out there, they're just being silenced by the evil majority.

patnray

27th January 2005, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
Medical Hypotheses, Volume 64, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 575-578
...

This fact itself as well as a number of research results has allowed to formulate the following hypothesis: the use of topical corticosteroids in children of early age contributes to the increase of prevalence of atopic diseases in the developed countries.
Since you misrepresented the facts in a case you presented earlier in this thread, I have to ask you if the paper you cite contains anything other than hypotheses and speculation? Have you actually read this paper? Are there any facts or research demonstrating any mechanism for the alleged relation between atopic diseases and corticosteroids? What other explainations for the rise in these diseases are considered? What percentage of the increase does the author ascribe to corticosteroids compared to other possible causes? Is this a research paper supported by clinical data or is it totally speculative?

We already know that you deleted this part from the summary you posted:

"If the proposed hypothesis is correct, a revision of the therapeutic approaches is necessary concerning the attitude towards application of topical corticosteroids in children suffering from various forms of eczema. The direct proof of this hypothesis can be found during prospective studies."

Why did you delete this important qualifier from what you posted?

For those who don't know, this journal has somewhat different standards for publication than scientific journals :

"Medical Hypotheses takes a deliberately different approach to peer review. Most contemporary practice tends to discriminate against radical ideas that conflict with current theory and practice. Medical Hypotheses will publish radical ideas, so long as they are coherent and clearly expressed. Furthermore, traditional peer review can oblige authors to distort their true views to satisfy referees, and so diminish authorial responsibility and accountability. In Medical Hypotheses, the authors' responsibility for the integrity, precision and accuracy of their work is paramount. The editor sees his role as a 'chooser', not a 'changer': choosing to publish what are judged to be the best papers from those submitted.

Papers in Medical Hypotheses take a standard scientific form in terms of style, structure and referencing. The journal therefore constitutes a bridge between cutting-edge theory and the mainstream of medical and scientific communication, which ideas must eventually enter if they are to be critiqued and tested against observations."

Medical Hypotheses Web Site (http://www.harcourt-international.com/journals/mehy/)

Mojo

27th January 2005, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
The prevalence of atopic diseases (atopic dermatitis, bronchial asthma, allergic rhinitis) has considerably increased for the last 40 years. This tendency has coincided with the beginning of the epoch of the use of the topical corticosteroids.
Even if it is the case that corticosteroids cause allergies (and you haven't provided any real evidence that they do, have you)
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HOMEOPATHY!
This is what homeopathy tells
No it doesn't, homeopathy "tells" that like cures like. Homeopathists like to say that proper medicine causes diseases in order to get gullible people to use their dubious services. Just because they say something, it doesn't make it true. Where's the evidence?and it is a proof that streroids drive in the disease.No it isn't! It's not even good evidence.That is what I have been telling all along.

That is the connection.What connection?

Mojo

27th January 2005, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by sodakboy93
Oh, his claim about the "silent readers" isn't likely delusional at all. Rather, he'll probably go to another board and claim that the evil skeptics at Randi are squashing dissenters to the pharmamedical party line, or other such nonsense.

It's like Tim Bolen's millions of health freedom fighters, or the thousands of people that were cured by those cancer quacks. They're all out there, they're just being silenced by the evil majority.
While his claim may be delusional or otherwise, I don't think his "silent readers" actually exist. This thread seems to be following the usual 10:1 views:replies ratio, which I think has been mentioned elsewhere on the forum (although I can't be bothered to look for the reference right now).

Hellbound

27th January 2005, 02:10 PM

Actually, if all those symptoms are caused by topical steroids, then shouldn't those same steroids be the homeopathic remedy? You know, dilute em down and go to it! So no real problem here.

Badly Shaved Monkey

27th January 2005, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
The prevalence of atopic diseases (atopic dermatitis, bronchial asthma, allergic rhinitis) has considerably increased for the last 40 years. This tendency has coincided with the beginning of the epoch of the use of the topical corticosteroids.

This is what homeopathy tells,and it is a proof that streroids drive in the disease.

That is what I have been telling all along.

That is the connection.

The report also says,people who don't use steroids are much better.

So,you silent readers,decide which therapy is best.

This is a report by Department of Allergology and Clinical Immunology.A sub sub super speciality.

Murthy

You buffoon. If you knew anything about medicine, you would also know that a fairly strong hypothesis is that allergy correlates to a recent tendency to over-clean our domestic environments in the West. That would equally well explain the observed patterns of prevalance. It's even been discussed here http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46704&highlight=allergy+hygiene

You really are a desperate and dangerous amateur.

Badly Shaved Monkey

27th January 2005, 04:19 PM

Isn't it interesting that every time you scratch the surface of a woo proponent that solipsistic madness bubbles to the surface? It's that smug certainty, which underlies their stupidity, that I find most frustrating- the sight of their knuckles whitening around the wrong end of the stick.

Mojo

27th January 2005, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
If you knew anything about medicine, you would also know that a fairly strong hypothesis is that allergy correlates to a recent tendency to over-clean our domestic environments in the West. That would equally well explain the observed patterns of prevalance.
The article Murthy quoted was about an alleged link between steroids as a treatment for eczema and allergies. I think I vaguely remember something about a proposed link between eczema in babies and peanut allergies turning out to be because they were treated with skin creams containing peanut oil, thus sensetizing them. Or it could just have something the press ran with for a few days, and then forgot about, of course. A quick google search didn't turn up anything conclusive. Anybody know?

patnray

27th January 2005, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
Isn't it interesting that every time you scratch the surface of a woo proponent that solipsistic madness bubbles to the surface? It's that smug certainty, which underlies their stupidity, that I find most frustrating- the sight of their knuckles whitening around the wrong end of the stick.
Equally frustrating is the complete misstatement of facts. The article appears to be merely a discussion of a hypothesis, yet Gavin represented it as a study that proved the connection. And he left out the part of the summary that made the difference clear.

Perhaps he'll learn that here we will check references...

Gavinimurthy

27th January 2005, 06:53 PM

Yes.It is a hypothesis.It is clearly mentioned in the body of the message itself.

The further study portion is, anyway,the corollory of that,as any hypothesis need to be followed up.And why loose sleep over omitting that portion?

The more you call me names,the more I am amused.I can feel your blood pressure rising.The use of homeopathy,makes one's mind serene,and makes you not to bother about these distractions.It makes you capable of laughing away these insinuations.

Anyway,we will meet again with more wisdom from Organon.

When the forums resume.

Bye,bye,till then.Take care of your health.

Murthy

Carn

27th January 2005, 11:49 PM

Originally posted by Rolfe

And even now, what evidence do you have that anyone is reading this thread for your posts?

Rolfe.

Sorry, Rolfe,
as a part time spectator(i have made a few posts),
i have to say, that i'm mainly reading this thread because of Gavin's posts. Your post's are quite boring compared to Gavin's, they do make sense, while Gavin's posts show a fascinating ability to nearly completely ignore rationality.
I cannot often see that.

Carn

Badly Shaved Monkey

28th January 2005, 12:45 AM

The disordered thinking that is present in the homeopaths is quite an interesting topic.

We've seen several patterns but there is a lot of commonality among them. We've seen hypomanic raving: grandiosity, lack of perception of the impression they are giving to others. There is plenty of evidence of inferiority complexes. There is often a Messianic conviction that they have special knowledge with which they can save the world.

HYPOTHESIS: Given that belief in homeopathy is fundamentally irrational, is it possible that, in order to acquire a sufficiently deep belief in it to become a public advocate rather than merely a casual purchaser of remedies there must be a level of genuine psychological pathology? In other words, vigorous advocacy of homeopathy is itself a symptom of genuine psychological disorder.

Unlike the idea that topical steroids cause allergy, I'd suggest that this is an hypothesis that does fit the facts well.

It is interesting, as I have previously pointed out, that the homs all seem to use homeopathic remedies routinely to help maintain 'health'. Their web forums often read more like patient support groups than discussion venues for professionals.

By debating homeopaths we feed that pathology because we effecttively validate that disordered thinking by taking it seriously. Am I am not right in thinking that if someone is under the delusion that they are Napoleon then discussing the layout of the armies at Waterloo is unlikely to be helpful to them? So they are incapable of being broken out of their delusional thinking by our arguing debtaing points and evidence with them. The purpose of debate can only be to do what Murthy seems to enjoy so much i.e. parade the irrationality before third parties. Perhaps only a bad experience that they can blame on homoepathy would make them shift their focus onto something else. Unfortunately, as geni says, homeopathy is a system of excuses masquerading as medicine, which makes it very difficult for them to break out of the circle: any experience, no mater how bad, can be justified within their own rules.

In the meantime I guess we should just keep displaying the freaks for others to see how they dance and let the uncommitted draw their own conclusions.

I've exhausted my amateur knowledge of the subject. Does anyone here have genuine psychological expertise to take this idea further?

(edited for typo)

Carn

28th January 2005, 01:23 AM

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey

I've exhausted my amateur knowledge of the subject. Does anyone here have genuine psychological expertise to take this idea further?

(edited for typo)

You could get realy nasty and ask Bach.

Carn

Anders W. Bonde

28th January 2005, 01:29 AM

Originally posted by BSM:

...any experience, no mater how bad, can be justified within their own rules.

...which is why homeopathy is best described as a religion.

I see your point, though, BSM.

I agree that discussing the issue with a 'goner' such as Gavinimurthy is in a way only a bolster for his delusion. What makes it worthwhile, though, is him displaying for the lurkers and fence-sitters very publicly indeed the madness of his belief system and the woo's inability to argue. He is simply to ignorant to see how stupid he makes himself and the homeopathetic woo appear.

FWIW:

[anecdotal evidence]

The only people I know who use steroids had allergies before they began receiving treatment with steroids, and I know many who have allergies but have never touched steroids.

[/anecdotal evidence]

geni

28th January 2005, 02:06 AM

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
[B]Yes.It is a hypothesis.It is clearly mentioned in the body of the message itself.

The further study portion is, anyway,the corollory of that,as any hypothesis need to be followed up.And why loose sleep over omitting that portion?

Omitting important data is lying by omition

The more you call me names,the more I am amused.I can feel your blood pressure rising.The use of homeopathy,makes one's mind serene,and makes you not to bother about these distractions.It makes you capable of laughing away these insinuations.

Nah my blood pressure is pretty stable.

Anyway,we will meet again with more wisdom from Organon.

How about some of the interesting bits.

Anders W. Bonde

28th January 2005, 02:27 AM

Gavinimurthy,

This forum could not care less about your repetition ad nauseam your of Guru's "wisdom", which most of us already have read and found more than severly wanting in all departments anyway - we have repeatedly been asking you and other proponents of homeopathy to provide EVIDENCE that homeopathy works, but that appears to have gone unnoticed by you, Sarah-I and Bach. You might as well tell us to read the bible in order to obtain proof of gawd's existence: Your circular 'reasoning' is less than useless as 'evidence' - and please do remember the topic and title of this thread, 'kyou. Hahnemann's rantings do in no way whatsoever constitute evidence of succesful trials of homeopathy - but if you are of the opinion they should, at least make an effort to convince us that you are right.

No EVIDENCE for the support of homeopathetic claims have come forth so far - all that's been presented by the homeopathetic proponents so far is reliably, readily, predictably and repetedly explained by other factors. Would you care to change that trend?

And would you please show us that in this debating forum you are capable of the good grace and civilized conduct of actually answering the other poster's questions before you mindlessly ignore them and continue your automaton recitals of your religious scriptures. K'you.

BTW, Gavinimurthy: Are you at all familiar with the word 'evidence'?

Gavinimurthy

28th January 2005, 05:38 AM

The forum is still active.!!

Fine.Perhaps a chance for me,to reiterate my position again.

As we go along with Organon,the rational mind can see that,this is the therapy,which will benifit them.

Evidence?There is lot of evidence.If,you want to close your eyes,and say,what ever is presented to you is not evidence,I feeel pity on you.

I will continue with organon.Unless you understand ,what is homeopathy,how can you comment on that?

So,first let us complete the study of organon.I will answer,any questions,on the postulates of organon,as and when rised.

Once,we complete the study of organon,we will go to general questions.Right?

Let us agree on this format and proceed.

If you are not interested in discussing about the postulates of Organon,you are welcome not to post.Just,read all the postulates silently,and at the end you can ask questions.

I shall continue,after the forums resume,if you people don't manage to remove my membership by then.:) :)

Murthy

Rolfe

28th January 2005, 05:49 AM

Originally posted by Carn
Sorry, Rolfe,
as a part time spectator(i have made a few posts),
i have to say, that i'm mainly reading this thread because of Gavin's posts. Your post's are quite boring compared to Gavin's, they do make sense, while Gavin's posts show a fascinating ability to nearly completely ignore rationality.
I cannot often see that.The teensy little snagette with this is that Murthy actually thinks that the "silent readers" are on his side.

Calling all "silent readers"!!! Would anyone who thinks that Murthy is talking sense please come out of hiding and say so? (OK, we will take Bach, Sarah and Barb as read.)

Murthy, why on earth would we want to remove your membership? You may be a closed-minded, superstitious creduloid, but the forum would be a dull place without the amusement provided by your bizarre belief system.

However, I for one would very much prefer if you would start a new thread if you want to make a point of discussing Hahnemann's Organon. As things are, it is going to be relatively difficult for us to reference this discussion later (as one of the best examples we've ever had of the closed-mindedness of homoeopaths), starting in the middle of a thread which was originally about other things.

Rolfe.

Jeff Corey

28th January 2005, 05:58 AM

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
...HYPOTHESIS: Given that belief in homeopathy is fundamentally irrational, is it possible that, in order to acquire a sufficiently deep belief in it to become a public advocate rather than merely a casual purchaser of remedies there must be a level of genuine psychological pathology? In other words, vigorous advocacy of homeopathy is itself a symptom of genuine psychological disorder...
Making such a diagnosis based on this individual's posts is very risky. It would be risky, even if based on a face to face interaction.
It could be that the person is deluded, but a strong possibility is that (s)he is posting these lies about his wife and other cases just as an attention getting device.
The only thing we can know for sure is that they are lies and deserve ignoring.

Gavinimurthy

28th January 2005, 06:53 AM

O.K. Rolfe

I think your suggestion is good.I will open a seperate thread about Organon.

Bye,friends.

Murthy

Mojo

28th January 2005, 07:26 AM

Originally posted by Rolfe
Murthy, why on earth would we want to remove your membership?
If he usually inhabits homeopathy forums, that's probably what he expects.

Murthy, it's not the practice here to ban people because they disagree with the majority. We rely on rational argument to settle disagreements.

Anders W. Bonde

28th January 2005, 07:39 AM

Thanks, Murhty - at least it shows you are capabale of paying attention - when it suits you...

Moderator:

Is there any way that the portion of this thread can be merged with Gavinimurthy's new 'Organon' thread from the point where Gavinimurthy joined this thread?

Ashles

28th January 2005, 07:52 AM

A question for Gavinmurthy (or any other homeopath) - can homeopathy cure or treat anything?

Because every time I visit these homeopathic forums (http://www.abchomeopathy.com/forum2.php/17763/) I see people asking advice about many different, serious conditions.

On my latest visit I have seen people asking whether homeopathy can treat grand mal epilepsy.

The query even asked this:
What I would like to know is whether it is unrealistic to expect a seizure-free existence and whether the fits that I am having in my sleep are as dangerous as my neurologist suggests.
She's asking a homeopath if her neurologist is wrong about grand mal epilepsy?

Some replies on the subject:
Homeopathy cures epilepsy-and I know this for a fact.

It is a very individualized medicine and each person is a different "case" even if allopathic diagnosis is the same. However it is not the case for on-line treatment but requires close management AFTER taking the remedy.
You nedd to go to a professional (and possibly experienced) homeopath.
(Interesting to note how a distinction is drawn between 'professional' and 'experienced' homeopath. Obviously even a newcomer to homeopathy can set themselves up as a professional... I'll let the crowds of silent fence-sitters judge for themselves what that might imply)
I have witnessed myself seeing Epilepsy patients cured. There can't be a quick fix for the problem. You can start with Stramonium-30 in the evening and Belladonna-30 in the morning. This is the begining point.

and from the same poster...

Either way it is a guessing game. You round up symptoms and few remedies and try the best suitable one first. And exactly this is going on this website also.

Homeopathy is the art of guessing.

...

The fact is if you go to 10 Educated Homeopaths you get 10 different Educated Diagonosed.

The about two medicines I recommended are the most probable medicines and I also mentioned that this is just the begining point to observe the patient.

and this post which sums up the whole lunacy of homeopathy:
This is from Boericke's repertory-all these remedies cured someone who (among other symptoms) had epilepsy (probably only one witll cure, the rest will have either no or insignificant effect). Besides these remedies there are others, not yet included, like bothrops.

EPILEPSY (grand mal) -- Absinth., Ã†th., Agar., Am. br., Amyl, Arg. n., Art. v., Ars., Aster., Atrop., Aur. br., Avena, Bell., Bor., Bufo, Calc. ars., Calc. c., Calc. p., Camph., Can. ind., Caust., Cic. mac., Cic., Cim., Cocc., Con., Cupr. ac., Cupr. m., Ferr. cy., Ferr. p., Gels., Glon., Hep., Hydroc. ac., Hyos., Ign., Illic., Indigo, Irid., Kali br., Kali cy., Kali m., Kali p., Lach., Mag. c., Mag. p., Meli., Methyl. bl., Nit. ac., Nux v., Ã†nanthe, Op., Å’strus, Passifl., Phos., Picrot., Plumb. m., Psor., Salam., Santon., Sec., Sil., Solan. c., SpirÃ¦a, Stram., Strych., Sul., Sumb., Tar. h., Tub., Val., Verb., Viscum, Zinc. cy., Zinc. v., Zizia.

How long would it take you to try all of those? Ages.
And the seizures will happen at irregular intervals so there will be periods when attacks aren't happening. So the chance of a period of time when all is well and you are taking some form of homeopathic 'medicine' will be basically 100%.
Once again they encourage people to make a false connection.

The arrogance of homeopaths is terrifying. They refuse to admit there are any medical problems homeopathy can't treat so they just make lists of potions. Keep trying them until something changes. Then if it's a positive change we'll pretend it was the homeopathy.
There are even two threads on curing AIDS. They refuse to accept they can't do this.
One poster:
Aids is a real challenge for homeopathy. As Prof Kent once said - "Homeopathy Never Fails -- Only the Person Administering it."

I had never realised how dangerous the delusions of homeopathy can be.

Chris Haynes

28th January 2005, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
...Evidence?There is lot of evidence.If,you want to close your eyes,and say,what ever is presented to you is not evidence,I feeel pity on you.
..

Okay, let me try again....

Please present the evidence of the effectiveness of homeopathy versus antibiotics for syphilis.

Also, please present the evidence of which is a better treatment or prevention of tetanus: Homepathy, antibiotics post infection or prevention through vaccine.

Also, please present the evidence on how a homeopath would diagnose hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in a teenager (especially one who does like to be questioned for 90 minutes).

Also, please present the evidence of how an homeopath would treat an infant with neo-natal seizures.

Thank you.

As before, I will accept the fact that Gavin, Sarah, Bach (and Barb) have not addressed nor answered these issues satisfactorily as their admittance that homeopathy fails on all counts for these conditions.

Badly Shaved Monkey

28th January 2005, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Making such a diagnosis based on this individual's posts is very risky.

Agreed if we were petending to diagnose a single individual's psychology on an internet forum but my hypothesis was a generalised one based on the observation that every homeopath I have seen facing a challenge to his or her beliefs generates this solipsistic lunacy whenever the veneer is scratched by an oponent. There would have to be a grand homeopathic conspiracy to pesent the same lunatic face to the world if was not their true views.

My hypothesis is that defending the demonstrable falsehoods that comprise homeopathy can only be done by the mad, the bad and the stupid. Previously we have discussed them in terms of being "quacks, knowing or unknowing" i.e. bad or stupid, but my impression is that few, if any, of the ones we have interacted with are genuinely consciously criminal. I think most are stupid, but I think that that is blended with real madness and the maddest are the ones that are most vigorous in their defence in the face of overwhelming counter-arguments and damning evidence. Almost by definition, the ones keenest to take on the sceptics are a self-selecting group of the mad.

In this regard homeopathy is different from religion. Homeopathy is capable of being falsified and has been falsified yet they still efend it, so whatever your views of the religious, a somewhat different psychology is at work here, though clearly there are common themes.

patnray

28th January 2005, 09:29 AM

Gavin, you posted an incomplete summary of a paper that was merely a discussion of a hypothesis. You omitted the part of the summary where the author stated that tests would be required to prove the hypothesis. Then you posted this:

The prevalence of atopic diseases (atopic dermatitis, bronchial asthma, allergic rhinitis) has considerably increased for the last 40 years. This tendency has coincided with the beginning of the epoch of the use of the topical corticosteroids.

This is what homeopathy tells,and it is a proof that streroids drive in the disease.

The paper is not a proof of anything. To represent that is a proof is dishonest. This is the second time you misrepresented the facts in trying to make you case. When your lies are exposed, rather than admit that you were attempting to mislead us you respond with denial and claim it wasnâ€™t relevant to you point anyway:

And why loose sleep over omitting that portion?

The more you call me names,the more I am amused.I can feel your blood pressure rising.The use of homeopathy,makes one's mind serene,and makes you not to bother about these distractions.It makes you capable of laughing away these insinuations.

Apparently it makes you not bother about the truth, either. It isnâ€™t that you omitted that portion, but that you then claimed this paper proves something it doesnâ€™t. Why should anyone pay attention to you when you repeatedly show a disregard for truth and honest debate?

This is a skepticâ€™s forum. You can count on people checking facts and verifying references here. Nothing personal. We do it to each other, too. You may choose to â€œlaugh away these insinuationsâ€ rather than admit that you have been dishonest. But it is a fact, not an insinuation, that you made misrepresentations in your posts. I hope you will learn from this and commit yourself to honest debate in the future. We truly do enjoy having you here to debate with us. But if you try to deceive us, you can count on your lies being exposed.

Badly Shaved Monkey

28th January 2005, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by patnray
We truly do enjoy having you here to debate with us. But if you try to deceive us, you can count on your lies being exposed.

Helluv an echo in here! :)

Olaf/QII

21st June 2005, 04:54 PM

posted by billy joe:

does everyone agree that there must be a flaw?
[QUOTE

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MRC_Hans
No, I don't agree. It is unscientific and not compatible with a true skeptical atitude to reject a notion Ã¡ priori.

True, it is unlikely that homeopathy works, but we MUST take any result of a properly designed trial seriously.

Because it is unlikely that homepathic remedies have any effect, it is fair to look hard for flaws in such a trial. Effect of homeopathic remedies is an extraordinary claim.

Hans

I agree with Hans. To reject a study outright is confirmation of your pseudo-skepticism.

The fact is that SOMETHING is going on with respect to utra-dilute solutions and the U of Arizona study is just one more that confirms it.

http://www.mercola.com/2003/jun/28/homeopathy.htm

The notion that water retains a memory of substances once dissolved in it is central to homeopathy. While the claim has brought about much controversy, evidence has come out to support the claim scientifically.
Although the structure of hydrogen bonds in pure water should be identical to those in homeopathic dilutions of salt solutions, the evidence finds that the structures are actually very different.

Researchers used thermoluminescence to study the structure of solids. The process involves bathing a chilled sample with radiation and then observing a pattern of light, which reflects the sampleâ€™s atomic structure, that is released when the sample is warmed up.

When researchers used the method on ice, they saw two peaks of light. They then looked at solutions of lithium chloride

Zep

21st June 2005, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by Olaf/QII
I agree with Hans. To reject a study outright is confirmation of your pseudo-skepticism.

The fact is that SOMETHING is going on with respect to utra-dilute solutions and the U of Arizona study is just one more that confirms it.

http://www.mercola.com/2003/jun/28/homeopathy.htm

The notion that water retains a memory of substances once dissolved in it is central to homeopathy. While the claim has brought about much controversy, evidence has come out to support the claim scientifically.
Although the structure of hydrogen bonds in pure water should be identical to those in homeopathic dilutions of salt solutions, the evidence finds that the structures are actually very different.

Researchers used thermoluminescence to study the structure of solids. The process involves bathing a chilled sample with radiation and then observing a pattern of light, which reflects the sampleâ€™s atomic structure, that is released when the sample is warmed up.

When researchers used the method on ice, they saw two peaks of light. They then looked at solutions of lithium chloride Xanta, why are you dragging up this 6 month old thread to post something that is ENTIRELY NOT RELATED to the topic of the thread? This must be the third or fourth such time you have done this recently, including various attempts to personally malign Eos. One would have to start suspecting you are up to your spamming behaviour again...you do know what that means, don't you, spamming?

apoger

21st June 2005, 05:12 PM

The notion that water retains a memory of substances once dissolved in it is central to homeopathy. While the claim has brought about much controversy, evidence has come out to support the claim scientifically.

Yes, but not remotely enough to be convincing.

Olaf/QII

21st June 2005, 10:29 PM

Originally posted by apoger
Yes, but not remotely enough to be convincing.

does it or does it not offer up a mechanism?

it does.

"it is trustworthy physics" according to the physicists who examined Louis Rey's work.

zep,

hans has brought up an interesting study and an interesting point. the point being that a true skeptic will not reject a study a priori.

Donks

21st June 2005, 10:44 PM

Originally posted by Olaf/QII
"it is trustworthy physics" according to the physicists who examined Louis Rey's work.
Who were these physicists (plural)?

Mojo

22nd June 2005, 03:22 AM

Originally posted by Donks
Who were these physicists (plural)? The only references I can find to this phrase in this context are are to the quotation from Raphael Visocekas in the New Scientist article, just below where it says:Martin Chaplin from London's South Bank University, an expert on water and hydrogen bonding, is not so sure. "Rey's rationale for water memory seems most unlikely," he says. "Most hydrogen bonding in liquid water rearranges when it freezes."

He points out that the two thermoluminescence peaks Rey observed occur around the temperatures where ice is known to undergo transitions between different phases. He suggests that tiny amounts of impurities in the samples, perhaps due to inefficient mixing, could be getting concentrated at the boundaries between different phases in the ice and causing the changes in thermoluminescence.

Donks

22nd June 2005, 03:25 AM

Originally posted by Mojo
The only references I can find to this phrase in this context are are to the quotation from Raphael Visocekas in the New Scientist article, just below where it says:
Oh, I know that... I just wanted to point out to Xanta that she's "misrepresenting" the truth.

BillyJoe

22nd June 2005, 04:55 AM

Originally posted by Olaf/QII
I agree with Hans. To reject a study outright is confirmation of your pseudo-skepticism. I agree with Hans as well.

What I was trying to say was that, although I would look critically at any study that comes my way (in other words, I would look for flaws in all of them), if the study in question suggested, for example, that the bitter flavour in unripe pineapples is due to a particular organic compound, I'm not especially expecting to find a flaw, but if it purports to show the a particular homoeopathic preparation works, I am expecting to find a flaw because, to date, no confirmed, methodologically-sound, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial has ever shown an effect, and there is no known mechanism to explain how it could possibly work.

If my friend shows me a photo he took of a tasmanian devil in the wild, I might look for evidence of a doctored photo, not especially expecting to find it. If he shows me a photo he took of a tasmanian tiger, I'm expecting to find evidence that the photo was doctored.

Does this sound reasonable?

BillyJoe

Zep

22nd June 2005, 05:33 AM

Originally posted by Olaf/QII
zep,

hans has brought up an interesting study and an interesting point. the point being that a true skeptic will not reject a study a priori. And what will a true skeptic do next, pray tell, having not rejected this report a priori?

Alkatran

22nd June 2005, 06:08 AM

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Because homoeopathy CANNOT work and this study shows a POSITIVE effect of homoeoathy, there MUST be a flaw somewhere.

And you wonder why homeopaths don't like skeptics? What happened to the being 'open minded' we always go on about?

BillyJoe

22nd June 2005, 06:21 AM

Alkatran,

I don't mind being open-minded, but I do mind losing my mind through a gaping hole in my skull. :D

But seriously, I've moved on from that.
Maybe comment on my last post.

BJ

BillyJoe

22nd June 2005, 06:23 AM

BTW, what does your avatar represent. I thought it was a magic eye image but I'm pretty good at those and I've confidently ruled that out.

Alkatran

22nd June 2005, 06:54 AM

Originally posted by BillyJoe
BTW, what does your avatar represent. I thought it was a magic eye image but I'm pretty good at those and I've confidently ruled that out.

Maybe you don't BELIEVE enough to see it... :D

Actually it's just a bunch of colors from that spray can in paint. Something to be recognized by on a forum (because no one really reads your name much, they just recognize the image)

Chris Haynes

22nd June 2005, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by Alkatran
...Something to be recognized by on a forum (because no one really reads your name much, they just recognize the image)

Though some of us set our accounts to not display avatars. It makes the page load faster... and I actually force myself to read the names (I get thrown when people change their avatars).

Olaf/QII

22nd June 2005, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Two way communication is what I am trying at. I want YOUR contribution, not just some vague mentionings of the "enormous amount of clinical evidence".

Hans That was my impression a few weeks ago, but it has changed. I do not believe you are open to communication.

Last week i answered a question that you asked and you nearly had a heart attack at my response. I haven't heard from you since.

It concerned Louis Rey's follow up work in thermoluminescence showing that the 2nd peak was NOT due to contamination.

I do not think that your mind is open even a small crack.

geni

22nd June 2005, 09:00 PM

You know one of the things about these studies is that they are a lot more open to the desk drawer effect than clinical trials.

treble_head

23rd June 2005, 12:41 AM

Quote: Dr Louis Rey using thermoluminescence can easily detect ghost lithium solutions from controls. This is a FACT.

CONSIDER THAT YOU MAY BE WRONG...

ummm... yeah

http://www.annieappleseedproject.org/annieappleseedproject/watmayretmem.html

I always consider that I may be wrong. I know very little, however, to quote Penn Juilette, "A real skeptic demands to be convinced, with evidence." Where is yours?

SezMe

23rd June 2005, 01:03 AM

Originally posted by Hydrogen Cyanide
Though some of us set our accounts to not display avatars. It makes the page load faster... and I actually force myself to read the names (I get thrown when people change their avatars).
What (s)he said.

MRC_Hans

23rd June 2005, 02:11 AM

Originally posted by Olaf/QII
That was my impression a few weeks ago, but it has changed. I do not believe you are open to communication.

Last week i answered a question that you asked and you nearly had a heart attack at my response. I haven't heard from you since.

It concerned Louis Rey's follow up work in thermoluminescence showing that the 2nd peak was NOT due to contamination.

I do not think that your mind is open even a small crack. What? Which answer was that? Seems it also induced amnesia in me ;).

Tell you what, Olaf, since most of your posts are without useful content, I have more or less stopped reading them, so this may be the reason you don't hear from me. Oh, and last week I was away on holiday. You see, I happen to have a life....

Hans

Nucular

23rd June 2005, 04:16 AM

Originally posted by Alkatran
And you wonder why homeopaths don't like skeptics? What happened to the being 'open minded' we always go on about? We already had this conversation on page one of this thread - BillyJoe moderated his position, or clarified what he meant, then.

I thought your avatar was a magic eye picture too :D

D'oh! Glad I didn't claim to see a dolphin in it or something.

Did anyone else tend to be hugely sceptical of Magic Eye pictures when they first came out? I used to spend hours standing in the poster shop, trying to do it and couldn't - little kids used to come in and go "oh, it's a car!", while I was going cross-eyed. But I used to think, there was usually a clue as to what it was supposed to be, like if it was a shark, the patterns might be fish and waves or something, and often there was a little version of the 'unmasked' picture at the bottom. And I also thought people might secretly look up what it was, and then ostentatiously 'perform' it in the shop to show off.

I really did think it might be an Emperor's New Clothes thing. Especially when my cousin did it before I could. But then when I did manage to do it, I heard myself sounding like a New Age convert, going "no, it's true, they are real, I used to think the same as you, but then I did it, and it's amazing!" Ironically, during that time of disbelief, I concurrently did believe in all manner of paranormal weirdness.

BillyJoe

23rd June 2005, 04:49 AM

Nucular,

I always found them easy right from the start. It's like looking at your window from a distance and then looking through it to what lies beyond. But don't worry, I know quite a few people who have never been able to do it no matter how long they try.

BJ

MRC_Hans

23rd June 2005, 08:55 AM

I'm one, or rather used to be. Recently learnt to do it reliably, although I never doubted they were real. My method is: Put it so clost to your eyes that its out of focus (that means anything less than a yard unless I wear glasses, heheh), relax and then move the picture away slowly. The trick is to suppress your reflex of trying to focus on the 3D picture as it starts to resolve, just keep staring at the infinity point.

That said, now I've seen them, I find them ... well, mildly amusing.

Hans

Bronze Dog

23rd June 2005, 09:03 AM

I regularly pick up and then lose the knack. Took me a long time for my first one because they didn't provide the two dots or any sort of guide to how you were supposed to do it. Just "cross your eyes."

BillyJoe

24th June 2005, 03:59 AM

BronzeDog,

Crossing your eyes is the reverse of what you should do. It does work, but you get a reversed image - a valley instead of a hill, for example. You need to focus behind the picture, not in front of it. Look through the picture to the wall behind. It works for me at least.

Try both ways on this one....

http://www.yeda.de/graf/stereogramm2.jpg

BJ

MRC_Hans

24th June 2005, 04:48 AM

HEY! I think that's the first time I have been able to see one on a screen.

..... I wonder if they could be animated?

Hans

Matabiri

24th June 2005, 04:53 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
HEY! I think that's the first time I have been able to see one on a screen.

..... I wonder if they could be animated?

I've seen animated ones, but it's quite confusing to make out what's going on in them.

BillyJoe

24th June 2005, 06:01 AM

Here's a crude one....

http://www.imm.dtu.dk/~uniaaa/MagicEye/animdisk.gif

BJ

steenkh

24th June 2005, 07:08 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
HEY! I think that's the first time I have been able to see one on a screen.

..... I wonder if they could be animated?

Hans
I could not find any animated 3D-pictures (though I have a video tape with some at home), but you can look for more 3D images at http://www.magiceye.com/.

Hey, I just see that BillyJoe has added 3D image! Splendid! The 3D effect is OK, but it is true that the artistic merits are not so high. It looks like the output of one of those programs that floated around ten years ago! It is easy to see that the 3D illusion is flawed because it has been necessary to move some dots around that would normally not move!

BillyJoe

24th June 2005, 07:43 AM

Originally posted by steenkh
It is easy to see that the 3D illusion is flawed because it has been necessary to move some dots around that would normally not move! This one is still crude but eliminates the problem of unnecessarily moving dots....

http://www.imm.dtu.dk/~uniaaa/MagicEye/animwave.gif

BJ

BillyJoe

24th June 2005, 07:46 AM

And an even better one....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/400px-Stereogram_Tut_Animated_Shark.gif

BJ

BillyJoe

24th June 2005, 07:47 AM

Now fancy that, this is the first time I 've ever seen animated magic eyes.

steenkh

24th June 2005, 07:50 AM

BillyJoe, those animated pictures are brilliant! I especially like the way it looks as if the shark is moving in water with sunlight making patterns on the shark and the sand!

Badly Shaved Monkey

24th June 2005, 09:41 AM

Those movies really should be in the migraine relief thread...or maybe not!

MRC_Hans

24th June 2005, 01:40 PM

BJ: Cool!

Hans

Olaf/QII

24th June 2005, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

Tell you what, Olaf, since most of your posts are without useful content, I have more or less stopped reading them, so this may be the reason you don't hear from me.

Hans

hans,

I think i have frustrated you by offering up credible answers to all of your objections.

I also think my DBPC in vitro studies have you completely flustered.

Badly Shaved Monkey

24th June 2005, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by Olaf/QII
hans,

I think i have frustrated you by offering up credible answers to all of your objections.

Dream on!

Rolfe

24th June 2005, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
HEY! I think that's the first time I have been able to see one on a screen.I couldn't see them on the CRT screen in my office, but found it very easy on the LCD screen at home - maybe because it's easier to get in close, maybe because of less distraction, or maybe because this time I tried the animated ones first and actually found them easier. Unfortunately the shark one seems to go a bit too fast on this computer - perhaps because of the processor speed?

Seriously cool. Did someone say there was a site somewhere explaining how they're made?

Rolfe.

Donks

24th June 2005, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by Rolfe
I couldn't see them on the CRT screen in my office, but found it very easy on the LCD screen at home - maybe because it's easier to get in close, maybe because of less distraction, or maybe because this time I tried the animated ones first and actually found them easier. Unfortunately the shark one seems to go a bit too fast on this computer - perhaps because of the processor speed?

Seriously cool. Did someone say there was a site somewhere explaining how they're made?

Rolfe.
There are bunches. Here's the first hit on google (:p)
Non-technical and technical explanation. (http://www.techmind.org/stereo/stereo.html)

Zep

24th June 2005, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by Olaf/QII
hans,

I think i have frustrated you by offering up the most extraordinarily INcredible answers to all of your objections.

I also think <strike>my</strike> some patent looney's DBPC in vitro studies have you completely flustered. Corrected.

No no, don't thank me - it's a free service.

BillyJoe

25th June 2005, 12:46 AM

Originally posted by Rolfe
.....maybe because it's easier to get in close.... You get better depth if you view them from further out.

BJ

treble_head

25th June 2005, 01:29 AM

Thanks, btw, BJ. Now I KNOW I'm lame at Magic Eye, and my head hurts. Like, a lot.

treble_head

25th June 2005, 01:32 AM

Owwww...

Nucular

25th June 2005, 05:38 AM

Nope, don't believe it. I see no credible evidence here that any of you are "seeing" some "image" in these magic pictures - the one you claim is a shark is called Animated_Shark.gif! You're all just trying to look clever! How dumb do you think I am?

Don't answer that...

I can see them really, I cracked it a few years ago - never seen an animated one though, they're brilliant. I wonder if you could make short cartoons, and add sound.

ETA: it's really weird, I thought it would be much more difficult to see an animated one, because I do it by lining them up, moving my eyes slightly, and they move too quickly to consciously do that - but my eyes just do it on their own, it's actually hard not to do it!

MRC_Hans

27th June 2005, 01:42 AM

Originally posted by Olaf/QII
hans,

I think i have frustrated you by offering up credible answers to all of your objections.

I also think my DBPC in vitro studies have you completely flustered. You think? Good show! Keep it up, and one day you may even get a thought right. Don't let your initial failures discourage you. Thinking IS the right way to go, it just takes some practice :D.

Hans

Stitch

28th June 2005, 06:39 AM

I appologise in adavcne if I suddenly become a bit of a post whore on this thread, I'm working my way through and responding as I see stuff - hope it doesn't get covered elsewhere!

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy

It is not important how long you live.

Considering the life expectancy figures in India and the popularity of homeopathy, that's a useful philosophy to have.

Stitch

28th June 2005, 06:41 AM

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
The homeopathic first aid is much more effective than allopathy.Infact,you can try it,on your own,with very little guidance.

This is because,in first aid situations,all patients more or less show the same symtoms,and hence individulisation is not necessary.

I do hate personal attacks, but...are you really that stupid to suggest an asthma attack and a gun shot wound would present the same symptoms to you? What about stabbing cf. a fall resulting in broken bones? What would the homeopathic treatment for these conditions be?

<sarcasm>
Also, why would non-individualised treatements only seem to be more effective where you don't have the time to ask a whole lot of questions? Does the water "know" time is of the essence in a given case and do the work for you? How does that work?
</sarcasm>

The need to go to a good homeopath arises in chronic problems.

I suggest ,you try this.In case your skin gets abraded,and there are streaks of blood,just swab the area with a diluted lotion of Calendula mother tincture.No need for any other medication.By next day,you can see granulation and perfect healing.

So,most of the homeopathic first aid suggestions are valid.It is so easy to try them.Why don't some of you try when you have an opportunity?

The proof of the pudding is in eating.

Murthy

BillyJoe

28th June 2005, 06:46 AM

Stitch, it seems that sometimes you get off that fence. BJ

Stitch

29th June 2005, 02:31 AM

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Stitch, it seems that sometimes you get off that fence. BJ

I have to say, having ploughed through 16 odd pages, on the subject of Homeopathy I think I have climbed down and am sitting on the "It's bunkum" side.

I'd be happy to climb back up if any of the homeopaths would like to actually present some evidence for consideration, however some anecdote compressed in to a couple of sentences is leaving me somewhat cold.

Zep

29th June 2005, 03:51 AM

We've been saying just that for some time now...

Dr. A Sheikh

29th June 2005, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Frankly I'm a bit uncertain about the LM levels. I think BSM knows the score. But yes, the way I read the report, this is well below the Avogadro limit, so we have some substance in those medicines.

Hans

Avogadro's law (actually a hypothesis) does not apply over homeopathic potencies.

Donks

29th June 2005, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by Dr. A Sheikh
Avogadro's law (actually a hypothesis) does not apply over homeopathic potencies.
Care to back this up with anything other than an assertion?

Psiload

29th June 2005, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by Dr. A Sheikh
Avogadro's law (actually a hypothesis) does not apply over homeopathic potencies.

This is like saying that the speed of light in a vacuum is not 299,792,458 metres per second, and even if it were, my mojo isn't photosynthetic.

Dude... Avagardo's number is one of the fundamental constants of chemistry. Crack open a book, and stop embarrassing yourself. Might I recommend:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0764554301/ref=sib_dp_pt/102-9083880-0714538#readerpage

Sarah-I

29th June 2005, 01:48 PM

LM potencies up to about LM 7 contain molecules of the remedy. After LM 7 and over is past Avagadro.

Mojo

30th June 2005, 02:56 AM

Originally posted by Psiload
my mojo isn't photosynthetic.Nor is mine. :D

MRC_Hans

30th June 2005, 03:24 AM

Originally posted by Dr. A Sheikh
Avogadro's law (actually a hypothesis) does not apply over homeopathic potencies. Dr. A.S, please stop making a fool of yourself, it is embarrassing to withness. Avogadro's law is throughly verified fundamental science and it applies fully to ALL kinds if dilutions, including homeopathic. The breaking up of come very complex molecules during dilution might give you one or two steps of reprive, but that is all.

The funny thing about this refusal to accept Avogadro's limit is that it runs contrary to basic homeopathic doctrine. Even Hahnemann acknowledged that there might be no molecules left in high dilutions, and the effect of potenized medicines is definitely NOT supposed to be a normal dose-dependent effect.

Seems you people don't even understand the basics of your own doctrines :nope:.

Hans

steenkh

30th June 2005, 03:39 AM

Originally posted by Sarah-I
LM potencies up to about LM 7 contain molecules of the remedy. After LM 7 and over is past Avagadro.
Yes, Sarah-I, these Pakistani homoeopaths believe that for some magical reason, Avogadro's limit does not apply to homoeopathic solutions, and that there are still remedy molecules present in higher potencies.

One wonders then, why they bother going above LM 7 if they rely on molecules being present?

Zep

30th June 2005, 03:51 AM

Originally posted by Dr. A Sheikh
Avogadro's law (actually a hypothesis) does not apply over homeopathic potencies. Actually, it's two things: a number and a law.

Now, what I'd really like to see is if you can give us details here of what the two are and why they are different, and also why they are related. This is fairly basic chemistry stuff that is taught in junior high school, and if you indeed have a doctorate in homeopathy including advanced chemistry, it should be something you can do straight out of your head without much thinking.

And no prompting from the peanut gallery, OK!

Sarah-I

30th June 2005, 03:54 AM

I really don't know. That is something that you would have to put to them directly.

I do know that Avagadro's Law does apply to solutions and to homeopathy.

Zep

30th June 2005, 04:20 AM

Well, Sarah, I was addressing (Dr) A. Sheikh with the question, but at least you are honest in admitting your own position on the basic chemistry.

Avagadro's Law may or may not apply to homeopathic remedy solutions - we shall have to wait for Sheikh's explanation on that, won't we! ;)

BillyJoe

30th June 2005, 06:10 AM

Zep,

Originally posted by Zep
Actually, it's two things: a number and a law. Seems it's three things:

Avagadro's Hypothesis: Equal volumes of gas contain the same number of molecules.
Avagadro's Law: The volume of a gas is directly proportional to the number of moles of that gas.
Avagadro's Number: The number of particles in a mole of substance (= 6.0221367 x 1023)

I have also seen Avagadro's Principal, but it is defined as for Avagadro's Hypothesis.

BJ
(But I stand to be corrected)

Rolfe

30th June 2005, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Avagadro's Hypothesis: Equal volumes of gas contain the same number of molecules.
Avagadro's Law: The volume of a gas is directly proportional to the number of moles of that gas.
Avagadro's Number: The number of particles in a mole of substance (= 6.0221367 x 1023)Exactly. "Avogadro's Law" is not what we are talking about as regards homoeopathic preparations. Since homoeopathic preparations aren't gases.

What we're talking about is the point at which serial dilutions run out of molecules, or at least have the probability of having one molecule in a defined volume of less than 1. If there is a proper term for this, defined in scientific textbooks, I'm not aware of it. I've heard people using the term "Avogadro's Limit", which (if that one isn't already taken by some other property of gases) seems like a good idea.

But whatever we do, could we stop referring to "Avogadro's Law" when we're not actually talking about the real Avogadro's Law?

Rolfe.

BillyJoe

1st July 2005, 05:54 AM

Originally posted by Rolfe
I've heard people using the term "Avogadro's Limit", which (if that one isn't already taken by some other property of gases) seems like a good idea. YES (http:http://www.physics.smu.edu/~pseudo/AlternativeMedicine/)

Avogadro's Limit

One mole of anything will contain Avogadro's Number of atoms (or molecules if apropriate).....This bit of very real physics produces a dilution limit. If you dilute one mole of anything by 10^24, you are not guaranteed to have even one molecule (atom) of the original substance left!

So, AVAGADRO'S LIMIT it is!

BJ

Badly Shaved Monkey

1st July 2005, 06:36 AM

Originally posted by BillyJoe
YES (http://www.physics.smu.edu/~pseudo/AlternativeMedicine/)

Your link no him work. My link him work.

Zep

1st July 2005, 06:47 AM

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Zep,

Seems it's three things:

Avagadro's Hypothesis: Equal volumes of gas contain the same number of molecules.
Avagadro's Law: The volume of a gas is directly proportional to the number of moles of that gas.
Avagadro's Number: The number of particles in a mole of substance (= 6.0221367 x 1023)

I have also seen Avagadro's Principal, but it is defined as for Avagadro's Hypothesis.

BJ
(But I stand to be corrected) BJ, folks, PLEASE!

All we are doing with this expounding of our consolidated knowledge is giving the homeopaths the answers to our own questions! Not only does it relieve them of the need to answer, it negates the requirement that they have to demonstrate that they do indeed know basic chemistry, enough to answer sensibly. See, all they have to do now is quote this information back to us and say that they DID know it! Even if they didn't really!

Honestly, do you think I would ask questions here to which I didn't already know the answers??

I know this sounds silly, but can I suggest that when someone asks a question of a homeopath here, please let's NOT all jump in and answer it for them to demonstrate how knowledgeable WE are. That is less than productive. This is like an examination, so don't give the sitter fully worked crib-sheets, OK?

BillyJoe

1st July 2005, 06:59 AM

okay

Zep

1st July 2005, 07:06 AM

Originally posted by BillyJoe
okay I know, and I'm sorry, because I do it too.

I think it's because we skeptics are prepared to do some research ourselves, have a go, and are not afraid to be proven wrong too. Such a response to questions is second nature to us - honest discourse of knowledge, so asking and attempting answers to questions is trivially easy, and an invitation to explore further.

Not so the homeopath side - asking questions and thinking and research comes hard to them, because they are afraid they might have to question cherished beliefs...and the sky might then fall in! Oh no! :D

Badly Shaved Monkey

1st July 2005, 07:40 AM

Look on the bright side. All those posts have got us onto page 17 away from the magic eye pictures which those of us with dial-up internet found very slow to load.

So, here we are on a brand new page waiting for an intelligent homeopath to appear. I suspect his name may be Godot.

Dr. A Sheikh

25th December 2005, 03:54 AM

Dr. A.S, please stop making a fool of yourself, it is embarrassing to withness. Avogadro's law is throughly verified fundamental science and it applies fully to ALL kinds if dilutions, including homeopathic. The breaking up of come very complex molecules during dilution might give you one or two steps of reprive, but that is all.

The funny thing about this refusal to accept Avogadro's limit is that it runs contrary to basic homeopathic doctrine. Even Hahnemann acknowledged that there might be no molecules left in high dilutions, and the effect of potenized medicines is definitely NOT supposed to be a normal dose-dependent effect.

Seems you people don't even understand the basics of your own doctrines :nope:.

Hans

Don't be annoyed with me. I am not fool. I said, avogadro's number game is only applicable on a compound where it is homogenous if the solution is not homogenous then it is not applicable. What is wrong in this opinion? Thuja contain so many soluble and insoluble elements when it prepares in water + alcohol solution.

Mojo

25th December 2005, 04:24 AM

Don't be annoyed with me. I am not fool. I said, avogadro's number game is only applicable on a compound where it is homogenous if the solution is not homogenous then it is not applicable. What is wrong in this opinion? Thuja contain so many soluble and insoluble elements when it prepares in water + alcohol solution.If the solution is not homogeneous, you are just as likely to end up with a sample containing less than the average than more. Over the course of your successive dilutions this is going to average out. How can you select for those parts of the solution that contain more of the solute?

It doesn't matter whether a substance has many elements. They will all be diluted out at the same rate.

26th December 2005, 04:18 PM

Hi BJ, it wasn't that contention I had a problem with - I think that's a valid point, it could be suspicious - what I didn't agree with was just that we "DO know is that there IS a flaw somewhere", just because it's homeopathy.

I personally think it's very likely there is a flaw, or fraud, but to say so we need a reason.The symptom measures used in the study were:
Tender point count
Tender point pain on palpation exam
McGill Affective Pain
McGill Sensory Pain
Appraisal of fibromyalgia (Quality of life)
POMS fatigue
POMS depression
POMS anger-hostility
Global Health Rating
In the abstract, it is claimed that significant improvements took place for the treatment group over the control group in:
Tender point count
Tender point pain on palpation exam
Quality of life
Global health
"A trend towards less depression"
In the study itself, we see that significance equates to p<0.05 for these measures (for tender point pain on exam p<0.01). Oddly, in the analysis section significance at the p<0.10 level is also reported for McGill Affective Pain, POMS depression & POMS anger-hostility, even though this is not a particularly convincing level of significance.

But anyway, not all primary outcome measures found significant improvements.

Edited just because.

I knew something stunk but it took me a day to think it thru. Hoyt pointed out this problem with another woo study and it has to do with sequential tests of significance on dependent variables from the same subjects.

In essence, if you do anything you would expect significance 5% of the time due to randomness. If you have a handfull of dependent variables, an inventory if you will, some will prove to give a significant result.

There is an elegant correction that Hoyt pointed out but generally a rule of thumb is to correct the significance levels by the number of measures being examined. So, a p<.05 in a series of 10 measures would be really .05 * 10 or p<.50, that is to say chance.

This exact thing came up with a prayer experiment by some loons somewhere in the US (I know, I know) where they had 25 or more measures and lo and behold, some turned up as being significantly affected by prayer. When you corrected the statistics, there was bupkus and all was once again well with the world.

When there are a lot of measures it is a fishing expedition and the unaware sceptic falls for the old "design" misdirection rather than carefully watching the statistics.

So, without going thru the whole thread and without having the full paper in front of me, I provisionally declare this experiment bogus.

And as it is with so much woosearch,

THEY SHOULDA KNOWN -Mallory Knox.

We oughta get bill here to comment though.

one other point, there should be some measure of the independence of the dependent variables. Was there? Beyond that, do the results make sense as presented? That is can one reasonably expect a significant result in one measure and not in another. Lack of an experiment holding together in such a way suggests bad something, design or, as in this case, analysis.