Sucessful trial of homeopathy

[MRC_Hans]

What do you think of this:

Full text article (http://rheumatology.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/43/5/577)


Cheers,
Hans

[Kumar]

It is also available on your preffered link;

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14734789

It was indicated by Sarah here;-

http://otherhealth.com/showthread.php?p=55212#post55212

[El Greco]

This is interesting. I'd like to read the whole study. The way I understand it the results were based only on subjective evaluation of pain and general well-being; no lab results of any kind. Also, the study was conducted by the "Department of Psychiatry" ???

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Kumar
It is also available on your preffered link;

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14734789

It was indicated by Sarah here;-

http://otherhealth.com/showthread.php?p=55212#post55212 Yes, it was Sarah's reference that made me post it here. I was looking for comments, not for additional links, Kumar, one link is enough to read it.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by El Greco
This is interesting. I'd like to read the whole study. The way I understand it the results were based only on subjective evaluation of pain and general well-being; no lab results of any kind. Also, the study was conducted by the "Department of Psychiatry" ??? Yes, that one puzzled me a bit, too.

My further reservations are:

1) The potency is a 1/50,000 dilution LM, and thus not a trans-avogadro dilution. This limits the prediction value for trans-avogadro remedies.

2) There was a baseline difference between the verum group and the placebo group. While the statistical assessment did attempt to compensate for that, it will always introduce a level of doubt on the result.

3) The study was not blinded to the supplier of remedies. There is no account of any safeguards for the integrety of the verum remedies. To put it bluntly, we have only good faith as a barrier against the supplier supplying remedies with some active ingredience in them. This would be fraud, but fraud does happen.


However, interesting it is. I guess we'll have to await replication.

Hans

[CFLarsen]

Only 53 people completed the treatment protocol. Pain is notoriously difficult to measure objectively. And the conclusion is flat-out wrong:

This study replicates and extends a previous 1-month placebo-controlled crossover study in fibromyalgia that pre-screened for only one homeopathic remedy. Using a broad selection of remedies and the flexible LM dose (1/50 000 dilution factor) series, the present study demonstrated that individualized homeopathy is significantly better than placebo in lessening tender point pain and improving the quality of life and global health of persons with fibromyalgia.

When you give different remedies, you haven't replicated anything.

[Oleron]

Participants were randomized to receive oral daily liquid LM (1/50 000) potencies with an individually chosen homeopathic remedy or an indistinguishable placebo.

Excuse my ignorance but what is LM?

Does this mean the remedy was given to the patient at 1/50000 potency? Is this a one part in 50000 part solution? If so, this is quite strong for a homeopathic solution.

[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

[geni]

Originally posted by Oleron
Excuse my ignorance but what is LM?

Does this mean the remedy was given to the patient at 1/50000 potency? Is this a one part in 50000 part solution? If so, this is quite strong for a homeopathic solution.

LM means that each sucessive dillution is 50,000 to 1 rather than 100 to 1 in in C remedies and 10 to 1 in X remedies. So LM 1 would be 50,000 to 1 and LM2 would be 50,000² to 1. this picture is slightly complicated by the the remedies being prepared from ann intial 3C solution rather than a mouthher tincture. I seem to recall the LM remedies become ultra molecular around LM 7.

The study could just be due to chance. There are well over 20 studies into this area so a normal bell curve should have given some posertive results by now.

[CFLarsen]

You can't have numbers larger than 4000 in Roman Numerals. "LM" is meaningless: They didn't say "50" x "1000". They added the numerals, they didn't multiplicate them.

They could write 50,000, but that would be an "L" with a stroke above it.

Source (http://www.wilkiecollins.demon.co.uk/roman/intro.htm)

Source (http://www.gwydir.demon.co.uk/jo/roman/number.htm)

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
You can't have numbers larger than 4000 in Roman Numerals. "LM" is meaningless: They didn't say "50" x "1000". They added the numerals, they didn't multiplicate them.

They could write 50,000, but that would be an "L" with a stroke above it.

Source (http://www.wilkiecollins.demon.co.uk/roman/intro.htm)

Source (http://www.gwydir.demon.co.uk/jo/roman/number.htm)

I can't imagine that this would stop a homeopath though.:)

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
You can't have numbers larger than 4000 in Roman Numerals. "LM" is meaningless:

Wouldn't LM be 950? Although I understand the subtracting-a-smaller-prefix was a late addition to the system.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Matabiri
Wouldn't LM be 950? Although I understand the subtracting-a-smaller-prefix was a late addition to the system.

See CLarson's link (http://www.wilkiecollins.demon.co.uk/roman/intro.htm)

The subtracted number must be no less than a tenth of the value of the number it is subtracted from

[MRC_Hans]

Puleeze! Who f*cking cares about roman numerals?

Hans

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Puleeze! Who f*cking cares about roman numerals?

The Romans, I believe.... ;)

It merely emphasizes that we are dealing with rubbish here.

[MRC_Hans]

The Romans (those who used Roman numerals) are dead, I believe.

I hardly think that faulty use of Roman numerals invalidates the report. What I would like to know is:

Has it been replicated?

Does anybody see any problems in the protocol?

Hans

[The Don]

IIRC from my long, long ago schooldays

Latin is a language
as dead as dead can be
it killed the ancient Romans
and now it's killing me

[Nucular]

Only had time to incredibly quickly skim the article itself - some interesting bits:[from Analysis section]
This study was designed as a feasibility or pilot study rather than a definitive clinical trial, with adequate power planned to detect a large effect in the outcome variable likely to be most sensitive, i.e. tender point pain on palpation (a type of ‘stress test’ of pain reactivity, as opposed to a pain rating on a standardized questionnaire, such as the McGill Pain Scale, completed while at rest). The previous fibromyalgia study [6] was performed within subjects, with a total sample size of 30; it did not specify dropout rate, standard deviations or confidence intervals to permit statistical power analysis.[from end of Discussion section]
This is the second study in which homeopathy performed better
than placebo in treating patients with fibromyalgia [6]. Given
the lack of definitive conventional treatments for fibromyalgia, the
lack of improvement in pain over the natural history of the
condition [29] and the high rates of utilization of complementary
medicine by fibromyalgia patients [30], homeopathy emerges as a
potentially low-risk, evidence-based option in an integrated
package of care. Homeopaths claim that patients need at least
1 month of active treatment for every year of illness. With that reasoning, the present sample would have required a 12-month, not a 3 to 4 month, trial to assess optimal benefits. In the doubleblind optional crossover phase of this study, persons who stayed with active and placebo group assignments for the full 6 months maintained their divergence on the outcome variables [9]. Well-designed randomized controlled trials on larger samples, for longer periods of time, are now indicated, especially in view of
emerging basic scientific evidence that homeopathic remedies have physical–chemical properties that differ from those of placebo [31–33].[from Reference list]
31. Rey L. Thermoluminescence of ultra-high dilutions of lithium chloride and sodium chloride. Physica A 2003;323:67–74.
32. Bell IR, Lewis D, Brooks AJ, Lewis S, Schwartz GE. Gas discharge visualization evaluation of ultramolecular doses of homeopathic medicines under blinded, controlled conditions. J Alt Complement Med 2003;9:25–38.
33. Elia V, Niccoli M. Thermodynamics of extremely diluted aqueous
solutions. Ann NY Acad Sci 1999;879:241–8.Anyone familiar with these last studies or the claim they're used to support?

[geni]

I know the Thermoluminescence paper. contamintion has not been ruled out.

[Yaotl]

A quick read of this (http://rheumatology.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/39/4/343?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=fibromyalgia&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1105109254148_1027&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=10&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=1&journalcode=rheumatology) and I'm confused as to what they were treating. It seems to be just a symptom, and a not-quite-understood on at that. I don't see how it's valid seeking to alleviate symptoms of something that isn't constant in the first place.

[anonimouse]

Does the study account for the bias of the adminstrator of the remedy? Did it say whether the administrator of the remedy knew whether they were going to give the patient a placebo or not? You would think they'd have to in order to create an individualized remedy.

My point is this - if much of homeopathy's "benefits" are the whole detailed consultation process, would the attitude of the person dealing with the patient make a difference as to whether the patient trusted the remedy would work or not? If a patient isn't convinced the remedy will work, they're more likely to perceive'pain than someone who thinks the remedy would.

Was that accounted for anywhere in this study?

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
See CLarson's link (http://www.wilkiecollins.demon.co.uk/roman/intro.htm)

Interesting that it says "the rule is"... does anyone know if there was actually a stated rule, or just that no counter-examples have been found?

[Xeriar]

Originally posted by Matabiri
Interesting that it says "the rule is"... does anyone know if there was actually a stated rule, or just that no counter-examples have been found?

The latter, sort of. The think also gives the perceived reason for this - that is, that's how the abacus worked.

[Dr. Imago]

I think the vast majority of physicians will be delighted by the results of this trial. I'm certain that they will be more than happy to recommend their fibromyalgia patients to see naturopaths for therapy, once all other potential more serious etiologies of their pain have been ruled out.

In other words, misery loves company.

-TT

[Nucular]

Originally posted by sodakboy93
Does the study account for the bias of the adminstrator of the remedy? Did it say whether the administrator of the remedy knew whether they were going to give the patient a placebo or not? You would think they'd have to in order to create an individualized remedy.Yes, it was a double-blind study - which means the administrators of the remedies did not know which patients were in the treatment group, and which were in the placebo control group.

In the method, though, it is stated thatOnly the methodologist in Tucson and Hahnemann Laboratories’ pharmacist in California had access to the randomization code during the study.which, I guess, is a potential 'hole' (though one which would be acceptable in an RCT of a conventional drug). The individualised remedies were prescribed prior to randomisation.My point is this - if much of homeopathy's "benefits" are the whole detailed consultation process, would the attitude of the person dealing with the patient make a difference as to whether the patient trusted the remedy would work or not? If a patient isn't convinced the remedy will work, they're more likely to perceive'pain than someone who thinks the remedy would.No, absolutely - but this is overcome in the double blind design. Whatever a patient's attitude, or that of the prescriber, if randomisation and blinding are correctly executed, there should be no difference between the two groups resulting from this.

[BillyJoe]

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

Where is it?



[This is a] double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trialWas it truely all these things?
...treated in a homeopathic private practice setting.Was the trial also conducted by homoeopaths?
Participants were randomized to receive....individually chosen homeopathic remedy or an indistinguishable placebo.Did ALL the participants have an individually chosen homeopathic remedy prepared before they were then randomized to receive either that individually chosen homeopathic remedy or an indistinguishable placebo?
Homeopathic visits involved joint interviews and concurrence on remedy selection by two experienced homeopaths Was this done for ALL the participants - those who received the individually chosen homeopathic remedy AND those who received an indistinguishable placebo? And was there true double-blinding?
Tender point count and tender point pain on examination by a medical assessor uninvolved in providing care.....were the primary clinical outcome measures for this report.They say "uninvolved in providing care" but was the assessor also blinded (this would make it a triple-blind trial, but they say double-blind)
Participants on active treatment showed significantly greater improvements in tender point count and tender point pain, quality of life, global health and a trend toward less depression compared with those on placebo What do they mean by "significantly"? It would seem unusual that they improved on ALL symptoms assessed for?



I do not know the aswers to these questions but what I DO know is that there IS a flaw somewhere.

BillyJoe

[Nucular]

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

[snip]

I do not know the aswers to these questions but what I DO know is that there IS a flaw somewhere.Well, not necessarily - as geni pointed out, as one of several such studies, it could just fall on one side of the bell curve. That's why the proof of the pudding is in the repeating.

Certainly we should try our best to demolish it, because that's how science works; but I'm not so comfortable with the position that it's flawed a priori, and we just have to figure out how.

Edited for formatting

[BillyJoe]

Nucular,

The abstract implies that the participants who recieved the individually chosen homoeopathic remedy showed significant improvement in all symptoms assessed. This, to me, implies a flaw in the study rather than a chance result.

BillyJoe

[Nucular]

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 abstract implies that the participants who recieved the individually chosen homoeopathic remedy showed significant improvement in all symptoms assessed. This, to me, implies a flaw in the study rather than a chance result.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.

[Nucular]

Differences between the groups at baseline are interesting. 33% of the active group were taking an antihistamine or expectorant, compared to none of the placebo group.

Reanalysis without these people included still showed significance, but n wasn't that high in the first place, power must have been lost in the reanalysis. Bit iffy, that.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Nucular
Differences between the groups at baseline are interesting. 33% of the active group were taking an antihistamine or expectorant, compared to none of the placebo group.

Reanalysis without these people included still showed significance, but n wasn't that high in the first place, power must have been lost in the reanalysis. Bit iffy, that.

Something's fishy here. It would be unlikely to have 33% of the active group and none of the placebo group taking those drugs if the groups were, in fact, randomly assigned.
I can't get anything but the abstract. To do a chi squared or Fisher's test, I need the raw data for the 62 subjects.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Something's fishy here. It would be unlikely to have 33% of the active group and none of the placebo group taking those drugs if the groups were, in fact, randomly assigned.

Good point. This stinks.

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
I can't get anything but the abstract. To do a chi squared or Fisher's test, I need the raw data for the 62 subjects.

53. You can't do anything with people who didn't complete the trial.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Good point. This stinks.
53. You can't do anything with people who didn't complete the trial.
62. I'm making this point about the initial "randomization". For example, if 10 out of 30 "treated" subjects were on those drugs and 0 out of 32 placebo subjects were, the probability that they were randomly assigned would be .000279. Highly significant. Moreso than any of their results..

[BillyJoe]

Nucular,

With all clinical trials you look for flaws but, in the case of homoeopathy, you will expect to find one. Do you at least agree with this?

Well, it seems you are hot on the trail in any case.

BJ

[Nucular]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
With all clinical trials you look for flaws but, in the case of homoeopathy, you will expect to find one. Do you at least agree with this?Hi BJ,

Yes, I completely agree with that :) I certainly expect to find flaws which could explain the results, I just don't know they're there. Just being picky, I guess...

[geni]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Nucular,

The abstract implies that the participants who recieved the individually chosen homoeopathic remedy showed significant improvement in all symptoms assessed. This, to me, implies a flaw in the study rather than a chance result.

BillyJoe

Not really. Unless the varibles are independant it doesn't matter hoiw many are significant.

[Nucular]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
62. I'm making this point about the initial "randomization". For example, if 10 out of 30 "treated" subjects were on those drugs and 0 out of 32 placebo subjects were, the probability that they were randomly assigned would be .000279. Highly significant. Moreso than any of their results.. True. It is acknowledged in the article that this is highly significant (p<0.001), but why this should be is not discussed (unless I've missed it).

There are one or two other smaller differences between the groups at baseline: Tender point pain on exam is slightly higher in the treatment group (p=0.08); POMS depression score is again higher in the treatment group (p=0.04); and POMS anger-hostility score was also higher in the treatment group (p=0.03).

Analyses were adjusted to compensate, at least for the two POMS scores - but as MRC_Hans said earlier, it still introduces a bit of doubt.

I have a pdf of the article, but obviously I can't post it due to forum rules/copyright. I'd be happy to email it to anyone who PMs me, but I have a feeling this would also violate forum rules. Am I right?

[geni]

Originally posted by Nucular
I have a pdf of the article, but obviously I can't post it due to forum rules/copyright. I'd be happy to email it to anyone who PMs me, but I have a feeling this would also violate forum rules. Am I right?

No. Since you would not be usieng to forum to store or transmit the material.

[Nucular]

Originally posted by geni
No. Since you would not be usieng to forum to store or transmit the material. Ah! In that case, if no-one has a problem with it, I'll email it to people who want it.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
62. I'm making this point about the initial "randomization". For example, if 10 out of 30 "treated" subjects were on those drugs and 0 out of 32 placebo subjects were, the probability that they were randomly assigned would be .000279. Highly significant. Moreso than any of their results..

Hm..if there was a documented effect from those drugs. But I don't like the fact that nobody in the placebo group took drugs. What's the chance of selecting people like that?

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Hm..if there was a documented effect from those drugs. But I don't like the fact that nobody in the placebo group took drugs. What's the chance of selecting people like that?
I won't be able to say until I get the article, but according to Nuclular's post above, it was less than .001.

[Jeff Corey]

Slogging through the article now, but the 4th author is G.(Gary)E. Schwartz, U. of A. Hmmm?

By some strange coincidence, the data I made up before (10 out of 30 in the "active" group and 0 out of 32 in the placebo group taking antihistamine or expectorants) was what they got. The p value = .000279.
I have no idea whether those drugs could cause any of the pain related effects, but it is a potential confound.

[Nucular]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Slogging through the article now, but the 4th author is G.(Gary)E. Schwartz, U. of A. Hmmm?Haha yes, I noticed he was co-author of reference no. 32 with many of the same authors as here, but somehow missed that he was a co-author in this study too!

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Slogging through the article now, but the 4th author is G.(Gary)E. Schwartz, U. of A. Hmmm?

Oops. What does Ol'e Gary know about homeopathy?

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
By some strange coincidence, the data I made up before (10 out of 30 in the "active" group and 0 out of 32 in the placebo group taking antihistamine or expectorants) was what they got. The p value = .000279.

You're psychic!!

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by geni
Not really. Unless the varibles are independant it doesn't matter hoiw many are significant. I see what you mean.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Nucular
Ah! In that case, if no-one has a problem with it, I'll email it to people who want it. Thanks.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Slogging through the article now, but the 4th author is G.(Gary)E. Schwartz, U. of A. Hmmm? Does everyone agree now that there just HAS to be a flaw. :D

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Does everyone agree now that there just HAS to be a flaw. :D

The Downward Spiral of Gullibility applies to Schwartz as well. He will believe weirder and weirder things....

[Nucular]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Does everyone agree now that there just HAS to be a flaw. :D Erm... :D

/hypocrisy

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Does everyone agree now that there just HAS to be a flaw. :D No, I don't agree. It is unscientific and not compatible with a true skeptical atitude to reject a notion á 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

[geni]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Oops. What does Ol'e Gary know about homeopathy?


$$$$ research funding (and ££££ to at the moment).

[BillyJoe]

Hans,

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 á priori. This is a good general guide.

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
True, it is unlikely that homeopathy works...Unlikely? I would say that there is no way that it can work. Not only is there no known mechanism by which it could work, but there is no possible way in which it could be made to work.

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
...but we MUST take any result of a properly designed trial seriously. Surely we must first determine whether it is a properly designed trial.

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Because it is unlikely that homepathic remedies have any effect, it is fair to look hard for flaws in such a trial. It is more than unlikely that homepathic remedies have any effect. It is impossible.

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Effect of homeopathic remedies is an extraordinary claim. Homoeopathy is more than an extraordinary claim, it is a totally irrational claim.


Perhaps for the homoeopaths or for the fence-sitters, we have to (make a show of) taking it seriously. But how can we, in our heart of hearts, really take it seriously, knowing what we do about the impossibility of homoeopathy. Should we take flat-Earthers seriously as well? Surely the only point in bothering ourselves at all about a clinical trial of a homoeopathic remedy is to try to prevent the fence-sitters from falling on the wrong side of the fence.

BillyJoe

[MRC_Hans]

I think we should be past labelling anything "impossible". If only because it would leave us open in a debate to the long list of things that were labelled "impossible" at the start of the 20'th century, but which nevertheless turned out to be possible later.

Homeopathy is unsupported by any current knowledge of medicine and physics.

Homeopathy is also largely unsupported by any valid practical observation.

Finally, homeopathy is contradicted by a long chain of accepted facts within physics and pathology.

From a scientific POV, that is about as close to impossible as you can get, but not quite there.

Hans

[BillyJoe]

And in your heart of hearts? :)

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
I think we should be past labelling anything "impossible". If only because it would leave us open in a debate to the long list of things that were labelled "impossible" at the start of the 20'th century, but which nevertheless turned out to be possible later.

Homeopathy is unsupported by any current knowledge of medicine and physics.

Homeopathy is also largely unsupported by any valid practical observation.

Finally, homeopathy is contradicted by a long chain of accepted facts within physics and pathology.

From a scientific POV, that is about as close to impossible as you can get, but not quite there.

Hans

I'm a bit confused. It appears that I don't quite understand what homeopathy includes and what it doesn't. I thought homeopathy included things like herbal medicine and things like that. Some of which seem to be things that could affect health.
Or are the parts of homeopathy that conceivably actually work not homeopathy but just regular medicine?

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
I'm a bit confused. It appears that I don't quite understand what homeopathy includes and what it doesn't. I thought homeopathy included things like herbal medicine and things like that. Some of which seem to be things that could affect health.
Or are the parts of homeopathy that conceivably actually work not homeopathy but just regular medicine?

Quite common, it has nothing to do with herbal medicine or real medicine... here you can read up on it:
http://www.skepdic.com/homeo.html

[bvw12]

overall a good discussion.

one point for consideration, is the objection to individualized treatment that has been made a couple of times here: as the essence of homeopathy is individualization, how exactly does one measure homeopathy without it? i suggest this is the rock and the hard place, the reason you guys think homeopathy fails all 'reliable' research trials, and the reason why we think the dbpc has had so much trouble measuring well-documented effects.

[geni]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
And in your heart of hearts? :)

Some of us prefer to think with the organ that was designed for the purpose.

[geni]

Originally posted by bvw12
overall a good discussion.

one point for consideration, is the objection to individualized treatment that has been made a couple of times here: as the essence of homeopathy is individualization, how exactly does one measure homeopathy without it? i suggest this is the rock and the hard place, the reason you guys think homeopathy fails all 'reliable' research trials, and the reason why we think the dbpc has had so much trouble measuring well-documented effects.

As has ben been explained to you many many times it is quite posible to carry out individualization in a DBPC trial. Also individualization is not required when testing provings.

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by Hydrogen Cyanide
Quite common, it has nothing to do with herbal medicine or real medicine... here you can read up on it:
http://www.skepdic.com/homeo.html

Ah, thanks!

[bvw12]

Originally posted by geni
As has ben been explained to you many many times it is quite posible to carry out individualization in a DBPC trial. Also individualization is not required when testing provings.

that's not the point: i raised the issue because earlier in this thread it was argued that "When you give different remedies, you haven't replicated anything," a reference i should have made in the first place. in any case, my point is, that you cannot test homeopathic remedies in the same straightforward manner as is done with conventional medication. the fact that dbpc can be individualized, doesn't mean that it has been done so satisfactorily, or that individualization has even been attempted. the quoted passage gives the appearance of rejecting individualization altogether, as undermining utility of test results.

i would add, also, that the need for individualization is less in a proving trial, than in a treatment trial, but it is still an issue to be accounted for, a fact that has also been explained numerous times.

[Nucular]

Originally posted by bvw12
that's not the point: i raised the issue because earlier in this thread it was argued that "When you give different remedies, you haven't replicated anything," a reference i should have made in the first place.I took Claus' meaning to be that the fact that one study pre-screened in order to use only one remedy, whilst the second did not, constitutes a big enough protocol change to argue that this is not a replication. I agree, if he did mean this.in any case, my point is, that you cannot test homeopathic remedies in the same straightforward manner as is done with conventional medication. the fact that dbpc can be individualized, doesn't mean that it has been done so satisfactorily, or that individualization has even been attempted.No, but we can read their protocol in the m,ethod of the study, and criticise it if needed. Do you have any criticisms here?

You seem to be a supporter of homeopathy (correct me if I'm wrong); what did you think of the potential randomisation problem in the current study? What did you think of the study overall?

[bvw12]

Originally posted by Nucular
I took Claus' meaning to be that the fact that one study pre-screened in order to use only one remedy, whilst the second did not, constitutes a big enough protocol change to argue that this is not a replication. I agree, if he did mean this.No, but we can read their protocol in the m,ethod of the study, and criticise it if needed. Do you have any criticisms here?

You seem to be a supporter of homeopathy (correct me if I'm wrong); what did you think of the potential randomisation problem in the current study? What did you think of the study overall?

regarding the first paragraph above: i would need to hear his clarification of the remark and then consider. my point, though, would probably stand: in one way or another, the individualized nature of homeopathic practice needs to be reflected in the trial design, and results interpreted in context of how well this requirement was met.

regarding the second paragraph: i haven't even read the study. i stopped by here just to see what you guys have been saying about it, as hans mentioned this thread over at otherhealth.com. overall, i have found this discussion, as i said in my first post, to be well considered.

the point made about 'randomization' - or its lack - is disturbing, to say the least.

the point made about one of the author's being also an author in the citations is neither here-nor-there, at least from my pov of not having seen the bibliography. if he cites only or mostly just himself and his colleagues, that could signal an 'experiment' with an axe to grind; of course, it could also signal the fact that there is so little research in this field, that someone favorably inclined to the subject has to draw on ... so that would require more detailed assessment; i can easily imagine myself being charitable to the guy ... or not!

[geni]

Originally posted by bvw12




i would add, also, that the need for individualization is less in a proving trial, than in a treatment trial, but it is still an issue to be accounted for, a fact that has also been explained numerous times.

No it hasn't the statistical power of normal provings is so low that any level if required indivdualisation must be pretty much zilch in order for them to get any results

[BillyJoe]

geni,

Originally posted by geni
Some of us prefer to think with the organ that was designed for the purpose. Somehow "In your brain of brains?" doesn't quite work.

What about you, geni? Do you make that concession for homoeopathy so as not to give homoeopaths the "closed mind" come back, which in turn would give them the excuse to close their minds to you, or so as not to get the fence-sitters off side, or do you really truely believe, deep down in some place perhaps not open to public scrutiny, that there could be some possible way that homoeopathy could work?

"In your hearts of hearts?" was an attempt on my part to get an honest, as opposed to politically correct, opinion from you.

bj

[bvw12]

Originally posted by geni
No it hasn't the statistical power of normal provings is so low that any level if required indivdualisation must be pretty much zilch in order for them to get any results

i'm not sure i'm understanding your sentence correctly - mebbe there s/b a comma in there some place? aaanyway, are you saying proving trials can't be individualized because their capacity for providing significant statistical data is so low anyway that any further compromise to the trial in the way of individualization would totally waste the results?

if that's the case, then i'd simply have to say that, if you are right, we have no choice but to toss the whole project: if individualization is necessary, as i have said, and if the significance of data out of a proving trial is typically marginal as you have said, and if the two factors together undermine any semblance of reliability to the findings, then we're sunk. it basically can't be done.

i don't mind that outcome - if that's the situation we just have to live with it. i don't agree that we have to use the dbpc just because it's 'the best available,' as has been suggested to me before: simply put, if it's not up to the task we ought to just toss it.

however, i'm not sure i'd agree that that's the problem. i am fairly confident that homeopathy ought to be testable, and verifiable, through dbpc, though the compmlexity, and the number of potential confounding factors does make me hold my breath a bit. but my general attitude is that such trials have been poorly to very poorly designed and implemented, because of failure of the researcher to understand the requirements of homeopathy in terms of testing it. and using homeopaths as consultants has not helped, primarily because homeopaths are lousy researchers.

a couple of threads over at otherhealth and hpathy include some discussions at length about these subjects ... the 'why' thread about a year ago, and a thread at otherhealth from this fall called 'scientific validity,' if i recall correctly. if you are interested, and can't find them, let me know and i'll try to provide a better link.

just for example: someone raised in this thread the possibility that antihistamines and whatever, consumed by 30% of the verum group (and 0% of the placebo group!) could possibly have the effect of enhancing pain relief in the verum group. by comparison, in a study of a proving trial of belladonna, which i reviewed in the above-mentioned 'why' thread, 80% of the test subjects were women, and 50% of these were on birth control pills; other medications were also common, as was drinking, smoking etc etc among the largely young, college-town crowd that was recruited for the trial. in short: lots of confounding factors, that is, possible antidoting influences that could have the opposite effect, of suppressing symptom production in the verum group, thus obviously affecting trial outcome. these confounders were mentioned in the body of the paper and not even referenced as concerns for validity of outcome in the conclusion.

there's lots more, but i really just want to establish a base position, that homeopathy most likely should be testable, but needs to be done so within its own terms, which means among other things 'individualization,' because without that it isn't homeopathy, and the trial outcome simply doesn't matter. how we individualize is another matter, that will vary depending on the research project, but individualization must be accounted for.

[Kumar]

bvw12,

Individualization in homeopathy is very important consideration. However, it become tough job to individualize any remedy for any particular individual. It is the capability of any homeopath to find individual remedy among so many remedies. Accordingly there can be some mistakes & oversights as possible in other systems with big volume of work. Moreover, there can be some differances in provings between individual to individual. Common, prominent & peculier symptoms are considered for MMs purpose.

Any remedy can be decided by considering few peculier symptoms which I think may be representing one or few(not all) constituents of raw remedy substance of that remedy.

Any organic/multiple-elemental/simple-compound based raw remedy substance will be a combination of several elements/simple-compounds. Some of these simple compounds can be some individual homeopathic remedies. Accordingly, any complex/organic based remedy can be a combination/sum of several remedies. But I feel that individual remedy in any complex crude substance based remedy can behave differantly in differant individuals.

Does it then, not make this "Individualization" bit difficult/unclear?
Will it not be better to make individual remedies first & then make combinations of these as per the requirements/symptoms?

We can understand this concept by understanding the chemistry & 'quantum science' of differant elements/compounds--as how these behave & effect us, physiologically, in their physical(atomic & molecular) & energized (photons, M.Wave..forms) forms. But we have to first invidiualize remedies in their simple compound/elemental form--to understand their chemistry.

If it can be done (as Kent, 'Jan Scolten' tried), we may get better results.

[bvw12]

that's really not my focus at the moment, kv. the main point, i guess, that i was making is that homeopathy has 'real' effects that should be measurable through dbpc, though certain characteristics of homeopathic action make it more difficult to measure, as compared to the more targeted action of conventional meds.

in designing an adequate protocol, individualization must be taken into account, but this will not be accomplished in a stereotyped fashion - which rather undermines the whole idea of individualization, doncha tink? in a proving trial, for example, it is basic that all trial participants are given the same remedy: in this situation, individualization might be accomplished by varying how long the remedy is given, that is, discontinuing administration of doses only when symptoms appear, so subject A will take a remedy for 2 days, while subject B might take it for 2 weeks.

... otoh, why not give individualized remedies in a proving trial, in an effort to match subjects to remedies they might be most likely to respond to? one might, in that case, simply re-frame the trial in terms of testing efficacy of individualized prescriptions, rather than efficacy of a specific remedy. after all, if one individualizes all trial participants, and possibly introduces an appropriately designed crossover (ie, with a suitably lengthy interval between sessions), the double blind process should cover that situation, too!

[geni]

Originally posted by bvw12
i'm not sure i'm understanding your sentence correctly - mebbe there s/b a comma in there some place? aaanyway, are you saying proving trials can't be individualized because their capacity for providing significant statistical data is so low anyway that any further compromise to the trial in the way of individualization would totally waste the results?

No I'm saying that the trials homeopaths use and claim to extract useful data from have such a low power that if indivulisation was required then there is no way any useful data could be extracted.


if that's the case, then i'd simply have to say that, if you are right, we have no choice but to toss the whole project: if individualization is necessary, as i have said, and if the significance of data out of a proving trial is typically marginal as you have said, and if the two factors together undermine any semblance of reliability to the findings, then we're sunk. it basically can't be done.


It can be done. Homeopaths however do not do it



i don't mind that outcome - if that's the situation we just have to live with it. i don't agree that we have to use the dbpc just because it's 'the best available,' as has been suggested to me before: simply put, if it's not up to the task we ought to just toss it.


It is more than up to the task. comparded to some of the things it has been used on over the year homeopathy is pretty easy


however, i'm not sure i'd agree that that's the problem. i am fairly confident that homeopathy ought to be testable, and verifiable, through dbpc, though the compmlexity, and the number of potential confounding factors does make me hold my breath a bit. but my general attitude is that such trials have been poorly to very poorly designed and implemented, because of failure of the researcher to understand the requirements of homeopathy in terms of testing it. and using homeopaths as consultants has not helped, primarily because homeopaths are lousy researchers.

Im my experebce there is no one better at finding flaws in homeopathic protocol than the one who has just been presened with some negative results. The factor that most homeopaths don't really follow a proper protocol when treating people and within thier own provings is normaly overlooked


a couple of threads over at otherhealth and hpathy include some discussions at length about these subjects ... the 'why' thread about a year ago, and a thread at otherhealth from this fall called 'scientific validity,' if i recall correctly. if you are interested, and can't find them, let me know and i'll try to provide a better link.


Don't bother all the sceotical posts have been wipped along with any quotes of them.

just for example: someone raised in this thread the possibility that antihistamines and whatever, consumed by 30% of the verum group (and 0% of the placebo group!) could possibly have the effect of enhancing pain relief in the verum group. by comparison, in a study of a proving trial of belladonna, which i reviewed in the above-mentioned 'why' thread, 80% of the test subjects were women, and 50% of these were on birth control pills; other medications were also common, as was drinking, smoking etc etc among the largely young, college-town crowd that was recruited for the trial. in short: lots of confounding factors, that is, possible antidoting influences that could have the opposite effect, of suppressing symptom production in the verum group, thus obviously affecting trial outcome. these confounders were mentioned in the body of the paper and not even referenced as concerns for validity of outcome in the conclusion.


Now here we run into an interesting occurence. When homeopathy is carried out in the field as it were it is a robust system of medcine that can cure everything from colds to cancer with no real difculty. Once we apply a few controls it suddenly becomes a delicate flower

there's lots more, but i really just want to establish a base position, that homeopathy most likely should be testable, but needs to be done so within its own terms, which means among other things 'individualization,' because without that it isn't homeopathy, and the trial outcome simply doesn't matter. how we individualize is another matter, that will vary depending on the research project, but individualization must be accounted for.

Not with provings. If there a certian percentage of people who don't prove ever then that can be accounted for by increaseing the size of the trial. Indivdualisation is not required.

[geni]

Originally posted by bvw12
in designing an adequate protocol, individualization must be taken into account, but this will not be accomplished in a stereotyped fashion - which rather undermines the whole idea of individualization, doncha tink? in a proving trial, for example, it is basic that all trial participants are given the same remedy: in this situation, individualization might be accomplished by varying how long the remedy is given, that is, discontinuing administration of doses only when symptoms appear, so subject A will take a remedy for 2 days, while subject B might take it for 2 weeks.

So we run the trial for two weeks. The problem with your suggestion is that if you run the trial long enough everyone is bond to get at least some proving symptoms by chance alone


... otoh, why not give individualized remedies in a proving trial, in an effort to match subjects to remedies they might be most likely to respond to? one might, in that case, simply re-frame the trial in terms of testing efficacy of individualized prescriptions, rather than efficacy of a specific remedy. after all, if one individualizes all trial participants, and possibly introduces an appropriately designed crossover (ie, with a suitably lengthy interval between sessions), the double blind process should cover that situation, too! [/B]

Assumming the time between the two parts opf the crossover is subinfinite them someone will try and use that as a critism.

[bvw12]

quote: "No I'm saying that the trials homeopaths use and claim to extract useful data from have such a low power that if indivulisation was required then there is no way any useful data could be extracted."

still not understanding you. what trials that homeopaths use are you referring to? if you are referring to actual research trials, based in dbpc for example, then i'd have the same concerns whether those trials were conducted by homeopaths or skeptics: it is harder to design adequately to test homeopathy than is generally acknowledged - or understood - by the skeptical community, as reflected in your own fairly standard remark, regarding how 'easy' it is to test homeopathy; homeopaths are certainly no better at this task than professional researchers, skeptical or otherwise.

and, just to repeat, it is easier (probably) to test homeopathy than many homeopaths think, who don't really understand double blinding and randomization. you know: put a homeopath, who doesn't understand blinding, together with a skeptic, who doesn't understand homeopathy, and have them design a trial: they'll get it wrong from two directions at the same time.

aaanyway, back to your quote: if, on the other hand, you are talking about clinical data, that is, data derived from professional provings and actual clinical practice - treatment - then your standards for 'useful' data don't apply: you need to be able to assess information in its own frame, and then, ultimately, bring competing (or complementary) frames into harmony. otherwise, you are only saying that your methods are better than our methods, and then saying that you've proven it: 'see, my methods show that your methods don't work.' a bit circular, doncha tink?

ultimately, clinical and statistical methods must agree in the conclusions they reach; if there is no agreement, then one of the methodologies is in error. from this vantage, one can easily say, and i do, that statistical research has a very long record of failing to measure well documented effects. ... this is primarily a problem of poor definition of terms and poor understanding of process. for example, if you are measuring the wrong process with the wrong method, increasing the size of the trial for a proving, as you suggest, does nothing but increase the number of inaccurate, or irrelevant, measurements.

[bvw12]

Originally posted by geni
So we run the trial for two weeks. The problem with your suggestion is that if you run the trial long enough everyone is bond to get at least some proving symptoms by chance alone

Assumming the time between the two parts opf the crossover is subinfinite them someone will try and use that as a critism.

these two statements are quite a pair: you dismiss findings because you think too much time is allotted for the trial, but won't let us dismiss findings because not enough time is allowed. the fact is, no findings are ever perfect, even a statistically valid result is less than 100% confidence level. but reasonable assessment of outcomes requires that critique be permitted from both sides. you can't arbitrarily decide what is 'too much' or 'too little,' you have to review the evidence and listen to competing analyses, and then decide.

quote: "m my experebce there is no one better at finding flaws in homeopathic protocol than the one who has just been presened with some negative results. The factor that most homeopaths don't really follow a proper protocol when treating people and within thier own provings is normaly overlooked."

otoh, in my experience, there is no one better at ignoring flaws in homeopathic protocol, than the one who is interested in defending a negative outcome.

in short, all you are really doing here, is stating, again, that you prefer statistical data to clinical data, and calculation to analysis. to paraphrase your last sentence: "The factor that most skeptics don't really follow proper clinical guidelines when evaluating trial outcomes is normaly overlooked." you see, i already know that this is what you believe: simply re-stating the point doesn't prove it.

regarding your assumption that everyone will produce proving symptoms by chance, given enough time, i'd suggest a double blind trial lasting a year, in which everyone, 'verum' as well as placebo, received placebo - with a crossover, of course;) ! outcome ought to be 100%, according to your hypothesis.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by bvw12
the point made about one of the author's being also an author in the citations is neither here-nor-there, at least from my pov of not having seen the bibliography. if he cites only or mostly just himself and his colleagues, that could signal an 'experiment' with an axe to grind; of course, it could also signal the fact that there is so little research in this field, that someone favorably inclined to the subject has to draw on ... so that would require more detailed assessment; i can easily imagine myself being charitable to the guy ... or not!

I think you'll find that the problem is more with the specific individual, given his past history (see many, many previous threads) than with the fact an author is cited as a source.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by bvw12
the main point, i guess, that i was making is that homeopathy has 'real' effects that should be measurable Originally posted by bvw12
it is harder to design adequately to test homeopathy than is generally acknowledged - or understood - I think these quotes encapsulate the problem with your thinking.

You propose that homoeopathy has real effects which should be measurable. So far, so good. However, whenever someone fails to measure anything, you invariably blame the design of the experiment rather than consider the alternative possibility - that homoeopathy in fact has no real effects, and what you take for real effects are simply what would have happened anyway viewed through rose-coloured glasses.

The difference between the cavalier behaviour of homoeopaths "in the field" as it were, and your carping and nitpicking about the controlled trials is a case in point.

The provings we read about which are conducted by the homoeopathic "colleges" never say a word about coffee, or the contraceptive pill, or alcohol consumption. I've certainly never seen a proving where it was stated that every prover was forbidden from these things before and during the proving, and indeed some of the proving diaries do, I think, mention drinking and so on as part of their records. However, as soon as someone publishes a controlled proving trial in which no effects of the homoeopathic preparation are demonstrated, you start making assumptions that participants were on the pill or whatever, and asserting that this invalidates the whole exercise.

No. If it invalidates the exercise when it didn't work, it equally invalidates the exercises where it was claimed there was an effect.

When someone takes a homoeopathic remedy and reports an improvement, this is immediately hailed as evidence that the remedy has "worked". However, when nothing happens, you start trawling their habits and behaviour to find something to label as the "antidote". But hey, the chances are that many of the people who reported the improvement were taking exactly the same thing - you just didn't ask.

Your excuse for all this is that you believe that the subjective effects of homoeopathy are so striking and unmistakable that you refuse to consider the possibility that you might be mistaken. There must be an effect there, you're so sure, and no other possibility will be entertained.

However, you must see the problem with this. Well-designed controlled trials are capable of identifying very subtle effects indeed. There are a number of examples of situations where an adverse effect (for example) hasn't even been suspected on anecdotal grounds by the people treating the patients, but has been demonstrated by such a study. Self-evident, striking effects should be a complete doddle to demonstrate.

Yes, I take your point about the individualisation. However, as Geni says, this is quite easy to incorporate into trial design, and that has been done. Problem is, there was no difference between the treated group and the control group, even then.

The other problem is that although you go on and on about individualisation when you want to reject a study you don't like, examining homoeopaths' general procedures reveals much less individualisation than you'd think. Every knock or bruise gets arnica. And so on.

And when you look at the homoeopaths' forums it's even worse. Someone only has to mention a single symptom, or even the name of an "allopathic" diagnosis, and three or four homoeopaths jump in with remedy suggestions, usually without knowing anything at all about the patient, and without asking any relevant "individualisation" questions.

For a prime example, consider Naturalhealth's disdainful dismissal of de Verdier Klingenberg's paper on calf diarrhoea (http://www.slu.se/page.cfm?page=3) (there is an English summary) as having no individualisation, and yet she herself, when presented with a similar situation involving a group of diarrhoeic calves which she hadn't even seen and about which she had almost no information, simply suggested a remedy (http://www.b5-dark-mirror.demon.co.uk/JREF/calves.html) without any questions and without any consideration of the individual differences between the animals.

If all these factors of individualisation and abstention from coffee or the pill and so on are so important, then they should be important and observed in the "successful" cases as well as the unsuccessful ones. It's simply dishonest to take no account of them whenever you get the result you like, but then to dismiss results you don't like on these grounds.

The essential problem remains. Homoeopathy is an entire system of medicine which claims self-evident, dramatic effects at the individual anecdote level, but when examined in controlled circumstances these dramatic effects suddenly retreat to the borders of statistical noise.

Hey, if the tiny, marginal, infinitesimal effects claimed by the allegedly successful trials were real, sure it would revolutionise chemistry and physics. (So how come chemistry and physics aren't interested? Maybe because they know statistical noise when they see it?) But get this, it would still be medically unimportant, because, to quote Bandolier, if that's the best you can do, why bother? Once looked at in a controlled manner, the aggregate effects of homoeopathy are seen as simply not worth having. Wow, a cold lasted six hours less in the treated group. The treated group had one loose stool fewer on day three (but no difference on days two or four) compared to the control group. That's the sort of result you find in the studies the homoeopaths claim as success!

Nothing worth having clinically, nothing repeatable, nothing predictable, nothing self-evident, all the dramatic "cures" turning out to be entirely explicable as pure coincidence.... do you wonder people get sceptical? Even before the complete absence of a mechanism of action is considered?

If a tenth of what is claimed by homoeopaths was true, it would be so easy for them to demonstrate it to us that we wouldn't be having this conversation, and the physicists and chemists would be sweating over their drawing boards.

Ain't happening.

Rolfe.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
geni,

Somehow "In your brain of brains?" doesn't quite work.

What about you, geni? Do you make that concession for homoeopathy so as not to give homoeopaths the "closed mind" come back, which in turn would give them the excuse to close their minds to you, or so as not to get the fence-sitters off side, or do you really truely believe, deep down in some place perhaps not open to public scrutiny, that there could be some possible way that homoeopathy could work?

"In your hearts of hearts?" was an attempt on my part to get an honest, as opposed to politically correct, opinion from you.

bj I think I made my feelings in the matter quite clear. However, this was intended as a debate. We can all just say "homeopathy sucks, period", and Bach et al can say "nay, it is great", and it pretty much stops there, except for the ad hominems, but, we've been there, done that.

Hans

[geni]

Originally posted by bvw12
otoh, in my experience, there is no one better at ignoring flaws in homeopathic protocol, than the one who is interested in defending a negative outcome.

Click here to expand your experience (http://www.globalhomeopathy.org/cgi-bin/forum/default.asp)


in short, all you are really doing here, is stating, again, that you prefer statistical data to clinical data, and calculation to analysis. to paraphrase your last sentence: "The factor that most skeptics don't really follow proper clinical guidelines when evaluating trial outcomes is normaly overlooked." you see, i already know that this is what you believe: simply re-stating the point doesn't prove it.


Clinical data? homeopaths don't even record that properly (or a least I'm not aware of any nation wide record of ill effect expearence while using homeopathic remedies which should be a bare minium for a safety point of view lbefore we start worry about weather it works or not.

regarding your assumption that everyone will produce proving symptoms by chance, given enough time, i'd suggest a double blind trial lasting a year, in which everyone, 'verum' as well as placebo, received placebo - with a crossover, of course;) ! outcome ought to be 100%, according to your hypothesis.

Nope I said long enough. It depends on the remedy there are some which have symptom lists that probably would be reported by everyone over a year (and remeber back on hpathy it was suggest that a sceptic would need to take a remedy for a year to get an effect so it is not really that long a timetable on that basis).

[bvw12]

rolfe,

quote: "You propose that homoeopathy has real effects which should be measurable. So far, so good. However, whenever someone fails to measure anything, you invariably blame the design of the experiment rather than consider the alternative possibility - that homoeopathy in fact has no real effects..."

i consider the efficacy of homeopathy every day, in practice. you consider the efficacy of the dbpc every day, in practice. we both have lots of data to back up our respective pov. the problem is still getting the outcomes to coincide: you and like-minded skeptics can repeat ad nauseum, that you have controlled for confounding factors, or that it is easy to test homeopathy, but your discussions reflect simply that you don't understand the process.

in a nutshell: you present no coherent precis of homeopathic practice, but pull examples of variability in practice and results randomly from the literature, from bulletin board discussions, and from, i presume, the air (i've seen that done, too).

if, for example, you want to actually try to understand why results appear to be easy to get in practice, and appear difficult to replicate in testing situations, you should consider that the apparent contradiction is in your own perceptions, lack of rigor in gathering and evaluating quality of evidence. or, you might read dhawale's or de scheppers textbooks, or try to repertorize a case, or try to fit the oft-repeated dictum, a month of treatment for every year of illness, into your simplistic notion that homeopathic cures are easy to come by.

or consider that 'miracle cures' do happen, in homeopathy as in allopathy, cases of dramatic, rapid improvement from a single intervention. or do you think your allo-doc has no dramatic cures to recount? in any case, you take braggadocio on a bulletin board as a substitute for a comprehensive survey of patterns of treatment and treatment response. this is intellectually and professionally irresponsible.

if you feel it is unnecessary to understand homeopathy in order to test it, fine: just keep testing it and coming up with negative results, but don't pretend that you have the understanding to align your findings with clinical processes you admit to not understanding. if, on the other hand, you feel you do have an adequate knowledge of homeopathy, then for pete's sake, struggle with the fact that the credentialed practitioners keep giving you an 'F' on your mid-term. because your discussions of homeopathic practice specifically, and clinical practice generally, are certainly as inadequate as is the grasp many homeopaths posess, of the double blind technology.

[bvw12]

well, geni, i said it once, and you quoted it back without responding to it, so mebbe it will help to say it again:

in short, all you are really doing here, is stating, again, that you prefer statistical data to clinical data, and calculation to analysis. to paraphrase your last sentence: "The factor that most skeptics don't really follow proper clinical guidelines when evaluating trial outcomes is normaly overlooked."

number crunching and national data banks do not constitute clinical guidelines.

[Rolfe]

I wonder if we would gain anything by turning this around?

My hypothesis regarding homoeopathy, one I think is shared by many on this forum, is that the effects reported are simply what would have happened anyway, filtered through homoeopathy's well-honed system of having an explanation from virtually anything that might happen, couched in terms of the remedies having an effect.

So, the dramatic "cures" are simply examples of coincidental recovery. The repeated reports of alleviation of minor symptoms are again coincidental recovery, as these minor symptoms tend to resolve anyway, combined with a tendency to view the symptoms in a more favourable light after having taken a remedy. The "aggravations" and other adverse effects are also simply coincidence, in this case homoeopathy finding a way to explain things when the patient is unco-operative enough to deteriorate. And the provings are simply the normal bodily sensations and experiences of very self-absorbed people, collated by someone who knows the nature of the substance being proved and is thus looking out for appropriate "themes" to highlight.

When we examine the homoeopathic literature from this standpoint, we simply don't find convincing evidence to challenge that point of view. This latest study being discussed here once more presents enough ambiguity and design problems that it doesn't seem to be cutting it in this respect either.

So, can any of the homoeopaths go any way at all to disproving the null hypothesis? "I gave someone a homoeopathic remedy and something happened", which is a fair summary of most of the attempts (especially originating from Sarah/Naturalhealth) is ruled out from the start, as "that was going to happen anyway" simply can't be disproved at all for n=1.

I would really like to see a serious attempt at this. Any takers?

Rolfe.

[geni]

Originally posted by bvw12
well, geni, i said it once, and you quoted it back without responding to it, so mebbe it will help to say it again:

in short, all you are really doing here, is stating, again, that you prefer statistical data to clinical data, and calculation to analysis.

I prefer trial under controled conditions.


to paraphrase your last sentence: "The factor that most skeptics don't really follow proper clinical guidelines when evaluating trial outcomes is normaly overlooked."

"proper clinical guidelines". We are dealing with homeopathy here. There are no proper clinical guidelines. Oh you can go back to the oragon and try working from that but I can find plently of homeopaths who dissagree with the oragon. So where are these guidlines. There aren't any. As long as I make a vage attempt at following the law of simulars and the whole dilution thing then whatever I am doing is homeopathy to someone. Now you can try and specify clasical homeopathy but I have to ask why? Why is it any more valid than the practices of the group who call thenselves practical homeopaths or the groups I call new age and Dabbler?


number crunching and national data banks do not constitute clinical guidelines. [/B]

See above for my comments on homeopathic clinical guidelines. National data banks are important for safely info otherwise you tend not to get enough data to spot rare side effects.

[bvw12]

rolfe,

'turning it around' has pretty much been my own agenda for some time, now, but my objective, obviously, is to turn it around from a scrutiny of homeopathy, to a scrutiny of statistical research.

on a priori grounds, that is as a working assumption, i would suggest that there is internal consistency to my position, that there is no way, given the current state of affairs, to decide the following proposition in favor of you guys or in favor of us: that if the findings from homeopathy and from statistical research do not coincide, then (at least) one set of findings is wrong.

as it is an open question, i suggest that it is fair for me to assert that negative showings for homeopathy in dbpc reflect failure of dbpc to measure well-documented effects.

such at least is my hypothesis. re-stating your opinion is of course an option, but does nothing to move us closer to resolving the disagreement. demanding (suggesting) that the issue be resolved via a convincing realization of the null hypothesis simply keeps the game in your home court. i counter by requesting a detailed clinical examination of your assumption, that, for example, any particular case of symptom resolution in homeopathic treatment is coincidence, placebo, or normal healing.

our methodologies must agree in their outcomes, or one of them, at least, is wrong. we are simply batting the same challenge to the other side, and, mutually, expressing our refusal to accept conclusions based on what we each perceive to be inadequate "data" from the other pov.

[bvw12]

geni,

it is different because it is different. i'm sorry if the real world is too complex to reduce to a convenient format for the purposes of replicating reliable and believable research studies. i know it makes your job more difficult, but that doesn't excuse you from trying to systematically review the situation and to define accurately what it is you are testing for (EDIT: or which variety of clinical practice you are testing).

differences of opinion and practice in the real world are unavoidable. failing to control your own practices, to target your research to specific real world practices, is inexcusable. differences of opinion and practice in the real world is called society; but research filters, or selects its data, so that studies can be replicated. your disregard for systematizing your samples and your protocols is alarming.

[bvw12]

Originally posted by geni
I prefer trial under controled conditions.



just to reiterate, i have not and do not deny the value of formal research trials, but it is important to distinguish this, and i would think even obvious, that there is a difference between a formal trial with statistical outcomes, and professional clinical practice.

both perspectives provide a wealth of data. in the end, in the ideal world when all is ideally apprehended, both points of view must come to agreement. if there is disagreement, one of the points of view (at least) is in error.

as compared to your personal preferences for 'trial under controled conditions,' my personal preferences are for clinical practice with live patients. statistical research can and has informed my practice; but it does not do so automatically, just because the researcher insists his data is good.

to improve your level of understanding, and the credibility of your arguments, you need to study more deeply. for clinical guidelines, try dhawale's or de schepper's text books; both of whom, btw, are M.D.'s: their intelligence and rigorous training shows in these text books, which i think are landmarks that could with profit to all point the way to future developments in the standardization of mainstream (classical) homeopathic (clinical) technique.

bach

[geni]

Originally posted by bvw12
geni,

it is different because it is different. i'm sorry if the real world is too complex to reduce to a convenient format for the purposes of replicating reliable and believable research studies. i know it makes your job more difficult, but that doesn't excuse you from trying to systematically review the situation and to define accurately what it is you are testing for (EDIT: or which variety of clinical practice you are testing).

I know what I'm testing for. Any effect that shows there is a diufference between ultramolecular homeopathic remedies and the stock solvent. Now there are a million things I could test. My core area is chemistry so I would start by running them through every sort of spectrographic machine I could get my hands on a run a few biochemical reactions with them either as reactants or solvents to see if there was an effect. At this point we are not worrying about homeopathic protcol at all because I'm simply seeing if I can find evidence to to support the claim that homeopathic remedies differ from the stock solvent.
Assuming no results here we move on to trying to replicate homeopath's clinical claims. Now here we hit a problem. What are those claims. What excatly do homeopaths claim?

On the surface it seems pretty simple. Something along the lines that a person treated by a homeopath using homeopathic principles and being given real remedies will do better than the person reciving placebos. Pretty simple huh? All we need is some homeopaths who do that should be pretty simple. Except it isn't. Which type of homeopath should we use. Clasical homeopaths claim they are the only ones doing it properly and practical homeopaths claim they are the only ones doing it right. The evidence they present for these claims is aprox smeg all and what is presented (a few fragmented anicdotal claims) is identical between the two.

So bvw12 how would you decide? How would you set up the protocol? If I had unlimited resources I know how I would do it if I had unlimited resources but how would you do it?


differences of opinion and practice in the real world are unavoidable.


Yep. So you find out which opion is better suported by the evidence. For somereason homeopathy seems to be unable to do this.


failing to control your own practices, to target your research to specific real world practices, is inexcusable. differences of opinion and practice in the real world is called society; but research filters, or selects its data, so that studies can be replicated.


Which of the 1000s of real would practices would you like to be targeted? Every trial I have seen in homeopathy would be accepterble under at least one real world practice.


your disregard for systematizing your samples and your protocols is alarming. [/B]

I don't dissregard them.

[geni]

Originally posted by bvw12
just to reiterate, i have not and do not deny the value of formal research trials, but it is important to distinguish this, and i would think even obvious, that there is a difference between a formal trial with statistical outcomes, and professional clinical practice.

True the first support the second while the second relies on the first


both perspectives provide a wealth of data. in the end, in the ideal world when all is ideally apprehended, both points of view must come to agreement. if there is disagreement, one of the points of view (at least) is in error.


However for the data from clinical practice to be of any use at it need to be collected on a huge scale say over a paicent population of 10 million plus. even then it's use is somewhat limited


as compared to your personal preferences for 'trial under controled conditions,' my personal preferences are for clinical practice with live patients. statistical research can and has informed my practice; but it does not do so automatically, just because the researcher insists his data is good.


Provide a good solid logical basis for this preferance. I can provide on for mine.


to improve your level of understanding, and the credibility of your arguments, you need to study more deeply. for clinical guidelines, try dhawale's or de schepper's text books; both of whom, btw, are M.D.'s: their intelligence and rigorous training shows in these text books, which i think are landmarks that could with profit to all point the way to future developments in the standardization of mainstream (classical) homeopathic (clinical) technique.

bach [/B]

Why should I think that homeopathy according to dhawale's or de schepper's will work any better than homeopathy according to Michelle Langdon (also an MD).

[geni]

Originally posted by bvw12

as it is an open question, i suggest that it is fair for me to assert that negative showings for homeopathy in dbpc reflect failure of dbpc to measure well-documented effects.

Why should homeopathy be special in this case? there are plenty of other well documented effects that have turned out to be false on investigation. Sacrificing people to make the sun rise is rahter an extream example but there are plenty of others


such at least is my hypothesis. re-stating your opinion is of course an option, but does nothing to move us closer to resolving the disagreement. demanding (suggesting) that the issue be resolved via a convincing realization of the null hypothesis simply keeps the game in your home court. i counter by requesting a detailed clinical examination of your assumption, that, for example, any particular case of symptom resolution in homeopathic treatment is coincidence, placebo, or normal healing.


Looks like you don't understand the reasons behind H₀. I would sugest you study that area before continuing otherwise you will make misstakes


our methodologies must agree in their outcomes, or one of them, at least, is wrong. we are simply batting the same challenge to the other side, and, mutually, expressing our refusal to accept conclusions based on what we each perceive to be inadequate "data" from the other pov. [/B]


I assume you belive on dowsing? It certianly has at least as good eveidence as homeopathy to support. It fails trials again and again (there are a lot of trials since it is pretty easy to test). Once whichcraft was a well documented effect. It isn't any more.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by bvw12
i counter by requesting a detailed clinical examination of your assumption, that, for example, any particular case of symptom resolution in homeopathic treatment is coincidence, placebo, or normal healing.Well, do you have any particular case to present for our examination?

First, such cases seem never to have anything close to sufficient data for any sensible opinion to be formed even in that instance. However, you're repeating your fallacy with your continual reference to "any particular case", or the n=1 instance.

Expecting n=1 to prove anything at all is ridiculous. Even at the most extreme case, that of anaesthetics, one isolated case can't do it. All right, it's pretty damn unlikely that I give a wide-awake (and maybe struggling) patient this anaesthetic preparation and he immediately falls asleep by sheer chance. But you know what? If it only ever happened once, I'd have to face up to it.

You need repeatability. Which of course leads to predictability. When I observe that one after another, wide-awake patients given the anaesthetic promptly fall asleep, I'm beginning to get somewhere. From that, I can predict, before I give the anaesthetic, that the patient will fall asleep.

Yes, classically it's the same anaesthetic every time. But there's no bar to individualisation. If you want to do it like that, it's still valid. I gave the individualised preparation, and the patient promptly fell asleep.

Oh dear, but it's not like that. Actually, any falling asleep at all during the next two days counts, actually. And the patient doesn't necessarily actually sleep, sometimes they just close their eyes for a minute - that counts too. And we never said that every single person would fall asleep....

Then of course there's the final test. Are people given the anaesthetic preparation more likely to fall asleep (and to be really fair, we'll even allow variable times to falling asleep, and count short eye-closings too, so long as the same criteria apply to both groups) than people not given it? Oh dear, somehow or other there's no way this can be adapted to apply to homoeopathy. Why not? For no other reason than that when you do, it shows that there's nothing happening with the homoeopathic preparation that isn't happening just as frequently to the control group.

Homoeopathy falls down on two counts. Repeatability of outcome, and different outcome from control group. The outcomes are different between different people, and when we look at people who didn't get the homoeopathic preparation, gosh, exactly the same outcomes happened to them.

Bach, completely at sea, thus declares that the problem is with the experimental design. Because he knows that there is a real effect. He's been saying this for years, and it isn't going to change.

What he wants to do is take individual patients, and select out the ones he wants and ignore the inconvenient ones who didn't do the right thing. And he wants to look at these in isolation, without looking at what might have happened to similar people who didn't get the homoeopathy. And then declare that this amazing catalogue of success proves his point, and that this "evidence" is of superior quality to carefully-planned studies designed to see if anything different happens to homoeopathically-treated patients compared to those who didn't get the treatment.

Pathetic, really. I guess some people really have a problem thinking.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Bach, just to try one more time. Can you describe in any detail what you think is wrong with the controlled testing protocols, other than that they inexplicably fail to show the effect you're so convinced is there?

And can you suggest any protocol at all which you think would demonstrate that any homoeopathic preparation of your choice is distinguishable in any way at all from a the unpotentised stock solvent?

Rolfe.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by bvw12
...on a priori grounds, that is as a working assumption, i would suggest that there is internal consistency to my position, that there is no way, given the current state of affairs, to decide the following proposition in favor of you guys or in favor of us: that if the findings from homeopathy and from statistical research do not coincide, then (at least) one set of findings is wrong.

as it is an open question, i suggest that it is fair for me to assert that negative showings for homeopathy in dbpc reflect failure of dbpc to measure well-documented effects...
Well, I certainly agree that you are wrong.
It is not an open question.
The scientific method has tested many hypotheses and falsfied many and confirmed some. Your "well documented effects" are about as much schmatta as the Shroud of Turin.

[BillyJoe]

Hans,

Okay, I understand what you are saying.
Perhaps it's because homoeopathy is not such a big deal in this part of the world as elsewhere that I tend to dismiss it so readily. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone here using these remedies or defending their use.
On the other hand I do enjoy reading the discussions, especially those emanating from posters eruditely defending the use of such a discredited (sorry!) modality as homoeopathy.

BillyJoe.

[Kumar]

bach,

Sorry, I am bit restricting because I know the result of 10 people pulling a rope toward negative side & one towards positive side.. Anyway, if you feel so strong, you can just try. I also know current status as positive in 'observations & expriences of mass & well distributed people.... --which can be supported by survey of homeopathic clinincs & patients all over the world.

I also know its pure scientific status as ; 'its working science couldn't be yet known/found by science with their current available technologies. However still, I, you & some others are just trying & helping their best, to find the science of this mass existing system under ' current status of science', but it looks bit doubtful. I think we may have to wait till new research/technologies are found to this effect. Somewhat like--'Information stored in remedy's substances by energies travel on energies-atoms/molecules interactions' OR 'Part changes/excitations & persistances in atom's/molecule's normal energy levels on potentisation' OR CPE/CE OR Body's energies changes due to changes in acid-base & water balances on applying any remedy's substances...can be some possibilities & tips.

You may get measurable effects through dbpc as ; Common/general- by complex remedies, specific- by simple molecular remedies as tissue salts, provided you take lower potencies/MT OR by isopathical/related remedies relevant to those biochemical which are in excess or accumulated in system due to any patho-physiological disorder & creating symptoms of any disease. You can define it as physical/physiological common effects, Energetic/potentizwd individual effects on Individualization or otherwise.

Anyway you can carry on.

Best wishes.:)

[BillyJoe]

Kumar,
(Do you play cricket?)

Originally posted by Kumar
Sorry, I am bit restricting because I know the result of 10 people pulling a rope toward negative side & one towards positive side.. The positive will always win in the end, never mind if it is 100 or just 1 pulling. The trick is to pick the positive side.

Originally posted by Kumar
Anyway, if you feel so strong, you can just try. It is insufficient to be strong if you are on the wrong side.

Originally posted by Kumar
I also know current status as positive in 'observations & expriences of mass & well distributed people.... --which can be supported by survey of homeopathic clinincs & patients all over the world. People also fervently believe that prayer works but this is weak evidence. The strong evidence of a clinical trial is against it. However, this rarely helps to convince those who want to believe or who cannot see the insufficiency of anecdotal evidence.

Originally posted by Kumar
I also know its pure scientific status as ; 'its working science couldn't be yet known/found by science with their current available technologies. However still, I, you & some others are just trying & helping their best, to find the science of this mass existing system under ' current status of science', but it looks bit doubtful. It is worse than this. There is not even any possible way in which it could work. That "bit doubtful" is actually "extremely doubtful". And I'm refraining from saying "impossible".

Originally posted by Kumar
I think we may have to wait till new research/technologies are found to this effect. Somewhat like--'Information stored in remedy's substances by energies travel on energies-atoms/molecules interactions' OR 'Part changes/excitations & persistances in atom's/molecule's normal energy levels on potentisation' OR CPE/CE OR Body's energies changes due to changes in acid-base & water balances on applying any remedy's substances...can be some possibilities & tips. There is no conceivable way in which these pseudoscientific ideas, even if correct, could provide a mechanism for homoeopathy.

BillyJoe

[bvw12]

thanks, kv. but don't worry about me, i'm with ya - this bunch is really bizarre. since, however, they have everything they need in front of their eyes, i think i'll consider my work finished here, hoping a seed will sprout somewhere in the recesses of a brain or two. they're not stupid, after all - just incredibly biased, so it often seems like the same thing.

rolfe - read the 'why' thread and 'scientific validity' for all the detail you want. or read the case vignettes at the beginning of kent's repertory, by tyler and weir, for a clue as to what the purposes and methods of case recording might be. or read freud's case studies of anna o, little hans, etc. really, anything to get you out of your very little, very well organized box.

billy joe - no need for apologies. i never object to differences of opinions, nor even to being dismissed out of hand, so long as i am not hog tied, or splattered with drool. after all, i don't have much regard for your position, either, so as long as we remain reasonably civil, it can be a good time.

geni - you seem pathologically unable to entertain curiosity or doubt. i'll give you a special clue: to paraphrase vous, "Why should the dbpc be special in this case? there are plenty of other well documented effects that have turned out to be false on investigation." hmmm, do i hear your brain cracking into little pieces of fury? try thinking instead, it might get you somewhere.

bach

[Kumar]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BillyJoe
Kumar,
(Do you play cricket?)

No, even I hate to see it now, as I consider; 'excess of everything is bad'.:D

The positive will always win in the end, never mind if it is 100 or just 1 pulling. The trick is to pick the positive side.It is insufficient to be strong if you are on the wrong side.

True, therefore I picked TRS--abs. positive side.



People also fervently believe that prayer works but this is weak evidence. The strong evidence of a clinical trial is against it. However, this rarely helps to convince those who want to believe or who cannot see the insufficiency of anecdotal evidence.

Bio-chemical/physiological changes--slow or fast--sooner or later do occur in any mass....system. You accept belief/faith/self healing effect as placebo can also show effects. All systems may just initiate this type of effects-- sooner or later with or without adverse effects.

It is worse than this. There is not even any possible way in which it could work. That "bit doubtful" is actually "extremely doubtful". And I'm refraining from saying "impossible".

There is no conceivable way in which these pseudoscientific ideas, even if correct, could provide a mechanism for homoeopathy.

BillyJoe

All those I mentioned may be 'pending to research'.:)

[RichardR]

Originally posted by bvw12
thanks, kv. but don't worry about me, i'm with ya - this bunch is really bizarre. since, however, they have everything they need in front of their eyes, i think i'll consider my work finished here, hoping a seed will sprout somewhere in the recesses of a brain or two. they're not stupid, after all - just incredibly biased, so it often seems like the same thing. You are really bizarre. Since, however, you have everything you need in front of your eyes, I think we'll consider our work finished here, hoping a seed will sprout somewhere in the recesses of your brain or Kumar’s. You're not stupid, after all - just incredibly biased, so it often seems like the same thing.

[BillyJoe]

I have one of those ring puzzles on my desk. At the back and sides the rings are completely separate. At the front they intertwine for a while. This forum is a bit like that.

BJ

[Zep]

Kumar believes homeopathy works because lots of people tell him so. Millions of people also believe the world is flat, so he will believe that too. There's also billions of people who think the sun revolves around the Earth, and guess what - he'll believe that too. That's what "mass existing" means to Kumar. He's both mindless and clueless.

Bach is a different case. Here's a question for you, sir: What will it take to convince you that homeopathy does NOT work any better than placebo? What will you accept as proof that you are wrong in your belief? I don't want any extraneous waffle about what skeptics believe or not, or about or level of doubt or openness of mind. Or personal invective. Just read and answer that question - it is for YOU, and I would value your honest response.

[BillyJoe]

It sounds like bach won't be back. :cool:

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Zep
Bach is a different case. Here's a question for you, sir: What will it take to convince you that homeopathy does NOT work any better than placebo? What will you accept as proof that you are wrong in your belief?I think Bach has left the building. He often does that when he's cornered.

I asked him exactly that question on the H'pathy board some months ago. I got an answer. The answer was that there was no possible evidence he could imagine that would overturn his belief, because he considered the anecdotal "case records" evidence to be unassailable.

I don't think it's possible to persuade Bach to reconsider. He's much more hide-bound than Barb or even Sarah/Naturalhealth. He's been coming out with essentially the same stuff for a very long time. His basic position is that homoeopathy is unquestionably effective, and therefore if controlled trials fail to demonstrate an effect, there must by definition be something wrong with the trials. He likes to compare this to trying to measure time with a ruler. Getting him to consider falsifying the null hypothesis, or designing an effective trial, or even clearly stating what's wrong with existing protocols is futile. He's utterly convinced that he has superior insight, and that's that.

Oh well.

Rolfe.

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Zep
Kumar believes homeopathy works because lots of people tell him so.
[b]What will it take to convince you that homeopathy does NOT work any better than placebo? What will you accept as proof that you are wrong in your belief?

If this question would have asked to me also then I would have asked the proof as; Confirmation from mass & well distributed people who are using homeopathy, that they experiance/feel it as "placebo". This can be the only best proof as several healing agents do sometimes fail/shows severe adversities(as DBI so banned) in people's practical experiances inspite of all tests, precutions, proofs, anticipations, recommendations etc. of several years.

[Sarah-I]

So, Little 'Hans' grew up into big 'Hans' and I think he still needs some more therapy to help him with his problems!!!:D

To answer your question Zep, no evidence would ever stop me either using or practicing homeopathy ever. I have seen it work too well on too many patients to stop using it.

How about a case I saw just recently. A case of pneumonia - is that serious enough for you? The patient had a sudden onset of a chill down the back one evening and felt very unwell. Went to bed and the next day awoke with a high fever, pleuritic chest pain and a dry cough. Was seen by GP who diagnosed pneumonia. GP prescribed antiobiotics which the patient did not take. A chest x-ray also confirmed this diagnosis.

The patient's case was treated classically as an acute case and they were given two indicated remedies as the symptoms of the case changed and as was indicated by these changes.

The patient recovered uneventfully within a few days. A repeat chest x-ray was clear.

This patient was treated with nothing more than the two homeopathic remedies indicated in the case and recovered well.

Diagnosis was performed by the patient's GP and with a confirmatory chest x-ray at the local hospital.

[BillyJoe]

Sarah,

It could have been a case of viral pneumonia, from which the patient could have either recovered (mild case) or died (severe case) regardless of any treatment given.

Also we have to put our faith in you that the details of the case are as you have described and (1) we don't know you from a bar of soap, (2) we don't know if the details are first hand (how could they be?), second hand or even third hand, (3) if the details are first hand, we have to rely on the accuracy of your observations/understanding of the case, and (4) if they are second/third hand, we have to rely on the testimony of someone we haven't even heard of as well as your accurate interpretation of what was told to you.

Sorry if I sound too dismissive but....

BillyJoe

[Carn]

Originally posted by Sarah-I

To answer your question Zep, no evidence would ever stop me either using or practicing homeopathy ever. I have seen it work too well on too many patients to stop using it.




No evidence ever stoping to use homeopathy? If you say never, that means all evidence that might one day be gained and revealed. What about the most extreme evidence i can imagine?
Let's see:

So imagine that some being comes along claiming its God and finally is fed up with hidding behind that multitude of religions and prophets and just comes to the open. Being demonstrates its powers by reviving anyone, who has died the past 50 years and changing earth so there is no space problem and causing all wars to end immiediately. Also this being somehow manages to talk with every human being for as long as the human wishes.
After you have asked all the questions you had long in mind to ask god, hoping this being is realy god, you just remeber to ask how to help those poor close minded sceptics, who will always keep themselve from seeing homeopathy working.
The being starts looking sad(it has changed to a human form) and answers: "i hoped you would never ask, you're desire to help others is so beautiful, plese keep that in spite of what i say next. I have to tell you, the sceptics are mostly right, a homeopathic remedy is in absolute no way different from the carrier substance, you could give your patients sugar pills as well, as long as they do not know it. Sorry, i made this universe and its rules, there is no way for homeopathy working in the way you and all the other homeopaths think, you have given your patients all the time just water."


Would this experience give you some doubt, about the efficiancy of homeopathy?

I can tell you the other way round i would get strong doubt that homeopathy is not working above placebo, after all, any being performing the above feats, needs to know a lot about everything, so its comments cannot be dismissed.

Carn

[Rolfe]

Regarding Sarah's "pneumonia" case, as I said in an earlier post, n=1 anecdotes prove exactly nothing at all. (In fact I had pneumonia once myself, and "recovered uneventfully within a few days", and although there were antibiotics involved there I always harboured the sneaky suspicion that I'd have recovered just the same without them.)

Selected n=1 anecdotes still mean absolutely nothing, even if you produce a list of them.

Sarah has repeatedly said that a group of patients treated homoeopathically will recover more quickly than a group of patients not given homoeopathy. Now that would be evidence, unfortunately there's no reliable record of that ever having been demonstrated, and it seems that Sarah herself has never invesigated it systematically and is merely relying on her subjective impressions.

Anyone involved in medicine can produce a string of examples of patients who got better with no treatment, more quickly than expected, or even against expectations. Simply attributing this sort of occurrence to the homoeopathic remedy you happened to give, while ignoring the cases which weren't so co-operative, and the fact that just as many recoveries seem to occur with no intervention, is superstition, not science.

Rolfe.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Kumar
If this question would have asked to me also then I would have asked the proof as; Confirmation from mass & well distributed people who are using homeopathy, that they experiance/feel it as "placebo". This can be the only best proof as several healing agents do sometimes fail/shows severe adversities(as DBI so banned) in people's practical experiances inspite of all tests, precutions, proofs, anticipations, recommendations etc. of several years. Like I said, there's billions of mass & well distributed people who will tell you that the sun revolves around the Earth. Lots more than believe in homeopathy. Does that make it a proven fact for you that the sun revolves around the Earth? Yes or no, Kumar.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
To answer your question Zep, no evidence would ever stop me either using or practicing homeopathy ever. I have seen it work too well on too many patients to stop using it. That is not an answer to my question. You have actually answered a different question (Namely: Would you ever stop practicing homeopathy?). I don't care if you continue to practice homeopathy or not - that's not my question. How serious or otherwise your particular cases are is not germane to this question either.

Let me repeat my question for you, and please read it carefully this time: What will it take to convince you that homeopathy does NOT work any better than placebo? What will you accept as proof that you are wrong in your belief?

[Zep]

Originally posted by Rolfe
I think Bach has left the building. He often does that when he's cornered.

I asked him exactly that question on the H'pathy board some months ago. I got an answer. The answer was that there was no possible evidence he could imagine that would overturn his belief, because he considered the anecdotal "case records" evidence to be unassailable.

I don't think it's possible to persuade Bach to reconsider. He's much more hide-bound than Barb or even Sarah/Naturalhealth. He's been coming out with essentially the same stuff for a very long time. His basic position is that homoeopathy is unquestionably effective, and therefore if controlled trials fail to demonstrate an effect, there must by definition be something wrong with the trials. He likes to compare this to trying to measure time with a ruler. Getting him to consider falsifying the null hypothesis, or designing an effective trial, or even clearly stating what's wrong with existing protocols is futile. He's utterly convinced that he has superior insight, and that's that.

Oh well.

Rolfe. Well, I'm perfectly willing to let Bach supply his own answers here. But, as you say, I probably live in vain hope...

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Zep
Like I said, there's billions of mass & well distributed people who will tell you that the sun revolves around the Earth. Lots more than believe in homeopathy. Does that make it a proven fact for you that the sun revolves around the Earth? Yes or no, Kumar.

As on today, this three billions aspect just looks like your assumption. Today's people(well existing) are bit differant--not so fools as you think (can be if made so by...?). Moreover, no one knows, what can be what ,unless any concept/theory is personally experienced/seen by majority of population(refer discussions about earth's shape)--in view of your acceptance/indication that 'nothing is-yet/can't be 'absolute' in your preffered system/s & everything remains open for new research/amendmet/discontinuation..etc..

In view of your anticipation of 'self/placebo healing possibilities'--all systems should be re-studied/re-assessed for this+adverse effects. Are we not getting self healings only?

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
I have seen it work too well on too many patients....No, you haven't. If you had, you could show us the evidence.

What you have seen is patients who either were better or said they felt better after getting homoeopathic treatment. This in no way proves that the homoeopathic treatment caused this effect.

If the effect you claim was real, it would be simplicity itself to demonstrate to the satisfaction of even the most hardened sceptic that the remedies were producing some physiological effect. Doesn't it worry you even the tiniest bit that nobody has ever succeeded in doing this?

Rolfe.

[bvw12]

Hey, not a bad job of it guys! Ok, so I’ll reward you’re si