Sucessful trial of homeopathy [Archive]

Nucular

7th January 2005, 06:07 AM

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 deï¬nitive 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 â€˜stress testâ€™ 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 ï¬bromyalgia study [6] was performed within subjects, with a total sample size of 30; it did not specify dropout rate, standard deviations or conï¬dence 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 ï¬bromyalgia [6]. Given
the lack of deï¬nitive conventional treatments for ï¬bromyalgia, the
lack of improvement in pain over the natural history of the
condition [29] and the high rates of utilization of complementary
medicine by ï¬bromyalgia 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 beneï¬ts. 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 scientiï¬c evidence that homeopathic remedies have physicalâ€“chemical properties that differ from those of placebo [31â€“33].[from Reference list]
31. Rey L. Thermoluminescence of ultra-high dilutions of lithium chloride and sodium chloride. Physica A 2003;323:67â€“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;9:25â€“38.
33. Elia V, Niccoli M. Thermodynamics of extremely diluted aqueous
solutions. Ann NY Acad Sci 1999;879:241â€“8.Anyone familiar with these last studies or the claim they're used to support?

geni

7th January 2005, 06:17 AM

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

Yaotl

7th January 2005, 06:55 AM

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

7th January 2005, 07:42 AM

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

7th January 2005, 07:43 AM

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

7th January 2005, 02:59 PM

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

7th January 2005, 04:54 PM

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

7th January 2005, 06:44 PM

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 Laboratoriesâ€™ 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

7th January 2005, 06:44 PM

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

7th January 2005, 07:00 PM

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

7th January 2005, 07:28 PM

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

8th January 2005, 03:48 AM

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

8th January 2005, 03:57 AM

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

8th January 2005, 04:56 AM

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

8th January 2005, 05:02 AM

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

8th January 2005, 05:19 AM

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

8th January 2005, 05:30 AM

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

8th January 2005, 05:49 AM

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

8th January 2005, 05:51 AM

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

8th January 2005, 06:09 AM

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

8th January 2005, 06:12 AM

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

8th January 2005, 06:17 AM

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

8th January 2005, 07:36 AM

Jeff Corey

8th January 2005, 07:44 AM

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

8th January 2005, 08:38 AM

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

8th January 2005, 09:48 AM

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

8th January 2005, 09:52 AM

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

8th January 2005, 09:37 PM

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

8th January 2005, 09:40 PM

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

8th January 2005, 09:43 PM

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

8th January 2005, 11:40 PM

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

9th January 2005, 02:35 AM

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

/hypocrisy

MRC_Hans

10th January 2005, 04:09 AM

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 Ã¡ priori.

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

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

Hans

geni

10th January 2005, 04:16 AM

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

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

BillyJoe

10th January 2005, 06:23 AM

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 Ã¡ 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

10th January 2005, 06:31 AM

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

10th January 2005, 07:28 AM

And in your heart of hearts? :)

H'ethetheth

10th January 2005, 07:57 AM

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

10th January 2005, 08:01 AM

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

10th January 2005, 08:02 AM

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

10th January 2005, 08:20 AM

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

10th January 2005, 08:22 AM

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

10th January 2005, 08:51 AM

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

10th January 2005, 09:51 AM

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

10th January 2005, 10:04 AM

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

10th January 2005, 12:16 PM

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

10th January 2005, 12:26 PM

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

10th January 2005, 12:53 PM

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

10th January 2005, 03:31 PM

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

11th January 2005, 12:49 AM

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

11th January 2005, 01:16 AM

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

11th January 2005, 01:35 AM

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

11th January 2005, 01:38 AM

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

11th January 2005, 02:46 AM

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

11th January 2005, 03:07 AM

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

11th January 2005, 05:49 AM

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

11th January 2005, 07:14 AM

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

11th January 2005, 07:20 AM

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

11th January 2005, 09:47 AM

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

11th January 2005, 09:54 AM

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

11th January 2005, 10:05 AM

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

11th January 2005, 10:06 AM

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

11th January 2005, 10:21 AM

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

11th January 2005, 10:24 AM

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

11th January 2005, 10:32 AM

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

11th January 2005, 11:42 AM

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

11th January 2005, 12:00 PM

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

11th January 2005, 12:13 PM

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

11th January 2005, 12:20 PM

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 H<sub>0</sub>. 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

11th January 2005, 01:04 PM

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

11th January 2005, 01:36 PM

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

11th January 2005, 04:30 PM

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

11th January 2005, 06:14 PM

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

11th January 2005, 07:23 PM

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

11th January 2005, 08:15 PM

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

11th January 2005, 08:28 PM

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

11th January 2005, 09:41 PM

[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

11th January 2005, 10:20 PM

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 Kumarâ€™s. You're not stupid, after all - just incredibly biased, so it often seems like the same thing.

BillyJoe

11th January 2005, 11:23 PM

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

11th January 2005, 11:46 PM

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

11th January 2005, 11:59 PM

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

Rolfe

12th January 2005, 01:29 AM

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

12th January 2005, 01:55 AM

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

12th January 2005, 02:38 AM

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

12th January 2005, 03:37 AM

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

12th January 2005, 03:57 AM

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

12th January 2005, 04:21 AM

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

12th January 2005, 04:24 AM

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

12th January 2005, 04:29 AM

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

12th January 2005, 04:32 AM

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

12th January 2005, 04:48 AM

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

12th January 2005, 05:16 AM

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

12th January 2005, 05:36 AM

Hey, not a bad job of it guys! Ok, so Iâ€™ll reward youâ€™re sincere efforts, which I observe were rendered with very little in the way of the invective that had been creeping into the discussion, with a few comments to grace your morning. I respond to a few of your comments:

(addressed to sarah): Also we have to put our faith in you that the details of the case are as you have described

of course, the (approximate) reverse is true, as well. Just as you nit pik the details of the article at the front of this thread, we (or I) would nit pik your definitions of terms and control for confounding factors and the like. The situations, though, are not entirely comparable, because of the obvious, but oft-ignored or misunderstood, differences of method and purpose: you strive for replicability, so much of your â€˜dataâ€™ is available relatively (sic!) unchanged for post hoc analysis; but even in our cases, or some of them, lab evidence may be available. But that is really secondary.

The real issue, is that our cases are not replicable, or at least not to the same degree as a dbpc, or a lab experiment. The case study, in this sense, is not a template for a replicable experiment, as is the dbpc, but it is a template for a standardized format for reviewing case process, and assessing treatment outcomes â€“ remembering, for example, that even lab results can be a part of a case study. In short, case studies provide a lot of â€˜data,â€™ too, that must be analyzed according to the rules of the clinical game: numbers simply donâ€™t apply.

That is why I referred to dhawale and de schepper: I donâ€™t know the author that was referenced back to me, but in any case was not trying to elevate drâ€™s dhawale and de schepper to biblical heights, only to give you guys some resources that could, in my estimation, help you gain a better understanding of existing standards in clinical practice.

I would think expanding your knowledge concerning the objects of your (dis)affections would be considered a good thing â€“ as I consider ignorance of the subject not quite so blithely as you guys appear to do.

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.

A close but slightly amiss summary of my views: amending that, I would say that my basic position is that homeopathy is unquestionably effective, based on an enormous amount of data produced through clinical practice. As I consider that data to be very sound, and practically (though not technically) â€˜replicable,â€™ I have no reason to trust findings from a branch of research whose methods I find useful, but not infallible. In short, I find clinical data and methods (information, findings, procedures, standards for evaluation of outcomes, etc) to be reliable. I understand the limitations of the method; but I also understand the limitations as well as the strengths of statistical research, and have no reason whatsoever to place more faith in your methods than in mine. Iâ€™ve seen you fail too many times, especially in attempting to measure more dynamic processes, such as therapy compared to efficacy of conventional meds.

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?

Put that way, itâ€™s not even a question in which Iâ€™m interested, because you frame the question in terms of homeopathy compared to placebo: but that is a research scientistâ€™s agenda, and I donâ€™t much care about outcomes of those trials, for reasons mentioned in my last paragraph: I find your method flawed in this respect, so I have tried to present critiques and recommendations for improving the effectiveness of your trials in measuring what I have described as â€˜well-documented effects.â€™ see the fairly recent thread, â€˜scientific validity,â€™ at otherhealth, for a discussion of this question; that thread, I believe, also linked to the earlier â€˜whyâ€™ thread, and included a summary of my critique of a proving trial of belladonna.

Beyond that, before I can consider even giving your results more serious consideration, youâ€™d have to show a better ability to discuss the object of your investigations, because saying your method has succeeded in measuring so and so, does nothing to convince me that the errors of measurement I have identified, are not interfering in your trials of homeopathy.

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.

I donâ€™t know those puzzles, but they sound a bit like life.

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

They are not n=1. they are case studies. They mean a great deal if analyzed according to clinical guidelines; with regard to numbers, of course, a case study is not a statistical exercise, it is a medical exercise: its utility and quality is judged on clinical merits, not on statistical merits. This is why you need dhawale, or de schepper, or someone, so you can understand the science of clinical practice, as you already understand, but misapply, statistical methodology.

Really, the two should be complementary: as Iâ€™ve said, my practice has been informed by statistical research studies â€¦ when those studies are able to satisfy me that they measure something that is useful, accurately. To do that, you have to be able to translate your results into my terms, and do so with a reasonable ability to account for the complications of medical practice.

You are really bizarre. Since, however, you have everything you need in front of your eyes

This is one of the nubs of the matter. You are paraphrasing my words back to me, which is actually quite legitimate. In doing so, you have of course introduced a layered effect, as I had previously, obviously, used the same strategy on you guys. Sooo, do you get it now???? That it really does cut both ways â€“ your way as well as mine? From my pov, your failure is in being unable to discuss homeopathy intelligently, and that is a problem, strictly on practical grounds if nothing else, because my critique of your outcomes is that they have all been based on mis-measurement of the object (of homeopathy). Aaand, if you canâ€™t even describe the object accurately, there is no way you can assure me or anyone that your measurements are accurate: you know about the replicability of the dbpc, but you are not in position to align your measurements to the test subject, homeopathy, since you donâ€™t know its dimensions.

Even the snippets you take from the internet and miscellaneous resources, reflect what you see as confusion in the field, reflect that you have no clear idea what the heck it is you are even measuring; and that you are incapable of distinguishing schools of thought, or their practices; and that you are unable to sort through the apparent contradictions, to present a cogent summary of the state and variety of the art. Basically, I think you are ill-prepared for the work.

bach

Hydrogen Cyanide

12th January 2005, 08:21 AM

I think I would be more convinced that homeopathy is valid once someone finds a way to distinguish between UN-marked bottles which contains the homeopathic remedy and which contains the solvent (water or alcohol), or binder (like sugar pill). And that they can do this repeatedly and consistently. And that the method they devise can be reproduced by someone else repeatedly and consistently.

I have this vision of someone coming in a mixing up all the bottles in a homeopath's office.

In the anecdote front --- I have a relative who is convinced that the homeopathic treatment she has received has made her fatigue worse.

She has self-diagnosed herself with fibromyalgia or lupus or whatever depending on which internet forum she has been at --- the county psych ward has diagnosed her with bi-polar disorder. While she did feel better after being released from the psych ward, she still thought that her naturapath knew more than the psychiatrist. But she may have second thoughts... since the letter she wrote to explain her absence at a family holiday function specifically blaimed the homeopathy treatment for causing her fatigue.

RichardR

12th January 2005, 08:24 AM

Originally posted by Sarah-I
To answer your question Zep, no evidence would ever stop me either using or practicing homeopathy ever. The sign of the true closed-minded religious believer â€“ no evidence, no matter how strong, could ever change her mind.

bvw12

12th January 2005, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by Hydrogen Cyanide
I think I would be more convinced that homeopathy is valid once someone finds a way to distinguish between UN-marked bottles which contains the homeopathic remedy and which contains the solvent (water or alcohol), or binder (like sugar pill). And that they can do this repeatedly and consistently. And that the method they devise can be reproduced by someone else repeatedly and consistently.

this is a legitimate standard, and you have a right to prefer it to conclusions drawn on the basis of clinical practice. in fact, i would also like to see the distinction drawn reliably between verum and placebo, and in a manner capable of replication, whether that was through a (well-designed) dbpc, or through lab tests - but preferably both.

still, until 'you' can demonstrate a better grasp of homeopathic treatment, and the basic distinctions between mode of action of homeopathic remedies compared to allopathic medication, you are on shaky ground, applying statistical measures to clinical practices.

btw, the problems in research into clincal practice is not limited to homeoapthy. in particular, psychotherapy is at the center of similar disagreements, between practitioners and researchers, as well as between practitioners coming from differing theoretical points of view.

even the controveries over dreaming are amazing: do dreams reflect individual experience? are they merely superficial reflections of automatic neurological processes? statistical research is conducted by partisans on both sides of the question, and, predictably, results for each side tend to support their own assumptions. how is this possible? i'll presume to tell you: it is possible, because the person designing the protocol has certain definitions in mind, of what a dream is and how it connects to various situational, psychological, and physiological processes. this determines the structure of the experiment, and the standards of proof. bias is built into the design.

obviously, my point is that the same holds true for trials originally designed to measure conventional meds, then applied to (the supposed) measurement of homeopathic remedies: the questions asked are simply irrelevant to the purposes at hand, and guarantee a poor showing for homeopathy.

bach

Steven Howard

12th January 2005, 10:04 AM

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.

First of all, that's not what Zep asked.

Second of all: Really? You can't imagine any circumstances under which you'd stop using homeopathy? What if, for example, all your patients starting getting worse or dying? If every single patient you treated died, how long would you keep practicing?

And before you say, "That couldn't happen," let me make clear that this is a hypothetical question. I'm not saying it could happen. I'm asking what you would do if it could and if it did.

Rolfe

12th January 2005, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by bvw12
btw, the problems in research into clincal practice is not limited to homeoapthy. in particular, psychotherapy is at the center of similar disagreements, between practitioners and researchers, as well as between practitioners coming from differing theoretical points of view.Nobody is claiming that psychotherapy has a direct physiological effect on the patient. The whole disagreement about homoeopathy is whether or not the remedies have a physiological effect. We have no problem agreeing that all the case-taking and hand-holding involved in homoeopathy may well have a psychologically beneficial effect on the patients. Thus the two questions are quite different.

I would be perfectly willing to accept that homoeopathic remedies had a physiological effect if it could be shown clearly and repeatedly that a group of patients who were given their individualised remedies did objectively better than a comparable group who only thought they were getting their remedies. Or if any of the homoeopaths who claim that they can recognise proving effects were able to repeatedly demonstrate that they could tell a remedy of their choice from the stock solvent.

If a tenth of the grandiose claims of marvellous results in clinical practice and dramatic proving effects were even close to true, either of these tests should be simplicity itself. The very fact that nobody has been able to perform them successfully says about as clearly as needs to be said that the whole thing is a crock of hooey.

Rolfe.

bvw12

12th January 2005, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by Rolfe
Nobody is claiming that psychotherapy has a direct physiological effect on the patient. The whole disagreement about homoeopathy is whether or not the remedies have a physiological effect. We have no problem agreeing that all the case-taking and hand-holding involved in homoeopathy may well have a psychologically beneficial effect on the patients. Thus the two questions are quite different.

I would be perfectly willing to accept that homoeopathic remedies had a physiological effect if it could be shown clearly and repeatedly that a group of patients who were given their individualised remedies did objectively better than a comparable group who only thought they were getting their remedies. Or if any of the homoeopaths who claim that they can recognise proving effects were able to repeatedly demonstrate that they could tell a remedy of their choice from the stock solvent.

If a tenth of the grandiose claims of marvellous results in clinical practice and dramatic proving effects were even close to true, either of these tests should be simplicity itself. The very fact that nobody has been able to perform them successfully says about as clearly as needs to be said that the whole thing is a crock of hooey.

Rolfe.

regarding point one, in fact, it is claimed and demonstrated that psychotherapy has a physiological effect on patients, even down to being able to demonstrate specific cellular changes associated both with some cognitive behavioral interventions and medication.

but, though that is an interesting subject, it is really beside the point. and, although addressing the key issue more directly, your conclusion regarding the 'crock of hooey' cuts both ways, as i have argued, because, though you see negative results as reflecting on homeopathy, i see them as reflecting on the inadequacy of protocols designed to measure it. the only way, that i can see, for you to maintain your opinion, is to completely ignore, as you are wont to do, the mountains of clinical evidence that have accumulated around homeopathic practices.

after all, a disorganized, random sample of miscellaneous opinions from variegated sources within homeopathy and/or the general alt-med community, that results in a disjointed picture of homeopathic practice, is not a rational basis for criticising that practice, nor for justifying your research results. and labelling a case study n=1 is simply a semantical monstrosity ... what one might call 'intellectual hooey.'

bach

Hydrogen Cyanide

12th January 2005, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by bvw12
...obviously, my point is that the same holds true for trials originally designed to measure conventional meds, then applied to (the supposed) measurement of homeopathic remedies: the questions asked are simply irrelevant to the purposes at hand, and guarantee a poor showing for homeopathy.

bach

(note: It much easier to read what you write when you use your shift keys)

The "guarentee of a poor showing for homeopathy" is because it simply does not work. There is nothing to it... and if and when it does "work" it is usually due to the psychological reasons.

You cannot decide that what standards that are used to test real meds do not apply to homeopathy, just because they do not show homeopathy works. The rules of physics and chemistry apply equally in the real world -- you cannot move the parameters and boundary conditions around to suit the results you desire.

It reminds me of something my daughter told me yesterday. At recess they were allowed to play in the adjacent playfiels. As long as they did not stray past a boundary marked by a large snowball (remains of a snowman). The kids in their play occasionally pushed the snowball further out to expand the acceptible area.

This sounds much like what many homeopaths try to do. Trying to push out what is real science to some unmeasurable factor like "memory of water".

It just is not going to work... the real world goes by real rules, parameters and very real and definite boundaries. You cannot change or make them up to suit your purposes.

I forgot to add in my anecdote --- one of the reasons my relative was doing better before being discharged from the psych ward was that she was on real medication also. The gut-wrenching depression (which is probably why she feels she has a "fatigue" problem) and the soaring manic stages (of the type that caused her to panic enough to have her mother call 911 for help) were brought down to a more acceptable level. Something closer to "normal", not quite -- but what could be handled better, and where conversations were productive.

When she decided that her naturapath who was using homeopathy knew more than the psychiatrist (that is the kind that has gone through medical school, not a psychologist), she stopped taking the real meds. So, she is now back to where she started earlier this year, causing her parents more grief, heartache and financial losses (they try to help her pay her bills, since in her manic phases she does compulsive shopping).

That is one of the very REAL costs of pseudoscience.

Psiload

12th January 2005, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by Hydrogen Cyanide
(note: It much easier to read what you write when you use your shift keys)

The "guarentee of a poor showing for homeopathy" is because it simply does not work. There is nothing to it... and if and when it does "work" it is usually due to the psychological reasons.

You cannot decide that what standards that are used to test real meds do not apply to homeopathy, just because they do not show homeopathy works. The rules of physics and chemistry apply equally in the real world -- you cannot move the parameters and boundary conditions around to suit the results you desire.

It reminds me of something my daughter told me yesterday. At recess they were allowed to play in the adjacent playfiels. As long as they did not stray past a boundary marked by a large snowball (remains of a snowman). The kids in their play occasionally pushed the snowball further out to expand the acceptible area.

This sounds much like what many homeopaths try to do. Trying to push out what is real science to some unmeasurable factor like "memory of water".

It just is not going to work... the real world goes by real rules, parameters and very real and definite boundaries. You cannot change or make them up to suit your purposes.

I forgot to add in my anecdote --- one of the reasons my relative was doing better before being discharged from the psych ward was that she was on real medication also. The gut-wrenching depression (which is probably why she feels she has a "fatigue" problem) and the soaring manic stages (of the type that caused her to panic enough to have her mother call 911 for help) were brought down to a more acceptable level. Something closer to "normal", not quite -- but what could be handled better, and where conversations were productive.

When she decided that her naturapath who was using homeopathy knew more than the psychiatrist (that is the kind that has gone through medical school, not a psychologist), she stopped taking the real meds. So, she is now back to where she started earlier this year, causing her parents more grief, heartache and financial losses (they try to help her pay her bills, since in her manic phases she does compulsive shopping).

That is one of the very REAL costs of pseudoscience.

Homeopaths should take a cue from the astrologers who have decided to call themselves artists rather than scientists. Certain astrologers insist that astrology is not bound by scientific rules because it is an art rather than a science. Homeopaths should stop pretending at science, and content themselves to practice 'the art of homeopathy'.

Their "patients" probably wouldn't care one whit either way, and they'd get a lot less grief from scientists and skeptics.

bvw12

12th January 2005, 12:53 PM

i see, one size fits all. well, you're entitled to use any approach you like, i guess. but it's lousy science.

anyone care to address the question, how one evaluates the necessity to adapt a template to differing objects? or don't you bother? so far, mostly you don't seem to bother with it, as you don't bother trying to build a coherent case against homeopathy, but rely on scattered quotes from bulletin boards, and your own brand of anecdotal evidence - which i'm surprised to see that you use, considering how unreliable you consider it.

you know, opportunism is not generally considered a good academic procedure. you might try a more systematic review of the literature, or try formulating a cogent summary of the main themes of homeopathic practice, but i know you're not up to it.

anyone have an opinion how it is that statistics can support the notion that dreams are automatic neurological processes with no individualized content, and how statistics can also support the notion that dreams are, in fact, products of individual psychological process? might it have something to do with definition of terms and descriptions of (perceived) process?

in other words, might the contradictory findings be based in bias that is built into the protocol, that distorts the idealized objectivity of the dbpc. is anyone here even vaguely aware that the protection against bias provided by the dbpc is theoretical: that it is a characteristic of the dbpc as a template, and that there is no guarantee whatsoever that bias can't be introduced by the protocol, or that the implementation and supervision of the trial itself, might add a second layer of distortion to the results achieved by the ideally objective dbpc template? or doesn't it matter to you, since the distortions add up the same way every time you run the trial, giving the appearance of replicability?

no? never crossed your mind? hmmmm....

your dogged refusal to evaluate your methodology, or to inform yourself about the objects you are trying to measure, is beginning to irritate me. if someone can't do better than this, i'm done ... again ....

bvw12

12th January 2005, 02:10 PM

hc,

i'm just lazy, and i confess i like the ideosyncratic style of no caps. when i do use caps, you can take it to the bank that i typed out that post in Microsoft Word, which capitalizes things automatically.

one of these days i'm going to figure out how to modify the "Normal" template in Word, so i can get it to stop "fixing" what i'm doing! ;)

in the meantime, you can just file the present post under "personal confessions."

have a nice day.

bach

Jeff Corey

12th January 2005, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by bvw12
... is anyone here even vaguely aware that the protection against bias provided by the dbpc is theoretical: that it is a characteristic of the dbpc as a template, and that there is no guarantee whatsoever that bias can't be introduced by the protocol, or that the implementation and supervision of the trial itself, might add a second layer of distortion to the results achieved by the ideally objective dbpc template?....

Meaningless drivel. You obviously have no training in the design and implementation of experiments.

geni

12th January 2005, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by bvw12
i see, one size fits all. well, you're entitled to use any approach you like, i guess. but it's lousy science.

Homeopaths are entitled to use any aproach they like it is still lousy medcine (ok that isn't true lousy would be an improvment).

anyone care to address the question, how one evaluates the necessity to adapt a template to differing objects?

Very simple you examine the claims and then test them. You take two groups one of which has things done according to the claims and the other which does not but in such a way no one involved can tell which group is whc

or don't you bother? so far, mostly you don't seem to bother with it, as you don't bother trying to build a coherent case against homeopathy, but rely on scattered quotes from bulletin boards, and your own brand of anecdotal evidence - which i'm surprised to see that you use, considering how unreliable you consider it.

Evidence? I can support any claim I make about homeopathy with a lot of evidence.

you know, opportunism is not generally considered a good academic procedure. you might try a more systematic review of the literature,

Systematic review? Now there is an idea. My time is finite I don't have time to study all the liture (although I do know all the main papers and quite a few others) howver other people have done the job for me:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14762492

or try formulating a cogent summary of the main themes of homeopathic practice, but i know you're not up to it.

Neither are you (if you think you can explain the idea behind remedy machines and dowsing have fun (oh and applied kinesiology))

I can't do it because beyond like cures like and the theory of infinitesimals there are no common themes (and even those two get streached an broken a lot). I can do it for the various forms of homeoapthy without too much difficutly. It is not as if homeopathy is difficult Hahnemann said it should only take ~6 mounth to learn. Belive me compared to molecular orbital thoery homeopathy is a walkover

anyone have an opinion how it is that statistics can support the notion that dreams are automatic neurological processes with no individualized content, and how statistics can also support the notion that dreams are, in fact, products of individual psychological process? might it have something to do with definition of terms and descriptions of (perceived) process?

No relivant the problem of the way the human brain works is a lot of orders of magnetude more complex than testing homeopathy

in other words, might the contradictory findings be based in bias that is built into the protocol, that distorts the idealized objectivity of the dbpc. is anyone here even vaguely aware that the protection against bias provided by the dbpc is theoretical: that it is a characteristic of the dbpc as a template, and that there is no guarantee whatsoever that bias can't be introduced by the protocol, or that the implementation and supervision of the trial itself, might add a second layer of distortion to the results achieved by the ideally objective dbpc template? or doesn't it matter to you, since the distortions add up the same way every time you run the trial, giving the appearance of replicability?

You've seen me shred studies with flawed protocols both in thier practice of homeopathy and their statistical anaylsis.

no? never crossed your mind? hmmmm....

I always look for flaws. It is part of what I'm trained to do. Just as you never question homeopathy because that is part of what you are trained to do.

your dogged refusal to evaluate your methodology, or to inform yourself about the objects you are trying to measure, is beginning to irritate me. if someone can't do better than this, i'm done ... again .... [/B]

We don't have to. You do. You make the claims you back them up. Homeopathy first apeared in 1796 (well unless you want to be part of the group who claims homeoapthy dates back to mohamed or the greeks or acient india)Some time in the 19th centry (I can't recall the exact date) One of the leading homeopaths in paris was challanged to show that he could tell the difference between any ten of his remedies of his choice. He did not take up the challage. Over a centry latter the challange has not been answered. Today it is backed by a million dollars but that is only would only be a tiny part of the advantages homeopathy would gain by showing an effect. And yet this is not enough to tempt homeopaths. What more does it need? A billion dollars? A billion pounds? come on what do you need as an incentive to pass the challange. Come on all these amazing claims and you can't meet even the most basic of challanges. If someone challanged me to tell say asprin from sugar pill I could do it inside 15 minutes (and that is only because I'm not very fast at making up KBr discs).

The burden of proof lies on you. You are the ones claiming to heal. You are the one denying the null hypothesis. You are the ones taking money for claimed services. You are the ones who are trying to trying to deny a huge body of evidence. See bellow for how much that is about 1/3 of chem abs which contians a list of the chemistry papers publiched in each year (but not the papers themselves that would take up even more space). That is just some of the evidence you are trying to overturn. I don't think you can but feel free to prove me wrong

Kumar

12th January 2005, 08:33 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by geni
Homeopaths are entitled to use any aproach they like it is still lousy medcine (ok that isn't true lousy would be an improvment).Very simple you examine the claims and then test them. You take two groups one of which has things done according to the claims and the other which does not but in such a way no one involved can tell which group is whc

All biased can use any approach. Real effects are difficult to measure but can be be felt and observed, but if accompnied by adverse/harsh effects then are easily measurable.

Evidence? I can support any claim I make about homeopathy with a lot of evidence.
Systematic review? Now there is an idea. My time is finite I don't have time to study all the liture (although I do know all the main papers and quite a few others) howver other people have done the job for me:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14762492

Biased, pre-concieved, vested interest based & 'yet couldn't be measured' claims can have no value. Just support claims by survey of mass oservers & experiances.....of patient who are using it.

You've seen me shred studies with flawed protocols both in thier practice of homeopathy and their statistical anaylsis.

I always look for flaws. It is part of what I'm trained to do. Just as you never question homeopathy because that is part of what you are trained to do.

It is the only negative positive differance. You see 1/3rd empty portion of glass advertise/adocate acordingly wheras we see 2/3rd filled glass with fluid so follow & advocate accordingly

We don't have to. You do. You make the claims you back them up. Homeopathy first apeared in 1796 (well unless you want to be part of the group who claims homeoapthy dates back to mohamed or the greeks or acient india)Some time in the 19th centry (I can't recall the exact date) One of the leading homeopaths in paris was challanged to show that he could tell the difference between any ten of his remedies of his choice. He did not take up the challage. Over a centry latter the challange has not been answered. Today it is backed by a million dollars but that is only would only be a tiny part of the advantages homeopathy would gain by showing an effect. And yet this is not enough to tempt homeopaths. What more does it need? A billion dollars? A billion pounds? come on what do you need as an incentive to pass the challange. Come on all these amazing claims and you can't meet even the most basic of challanges. If someone challanged me to tell say asprin from sugar pill I could do it inside 15 minutes (and that is only because I'm not very fast at making up KBr discs).

Interested/biased people''s offer can be bit differant. Probably, if any independant agency can do it suitably. Any chemical can show measurable effects...real or real plus side/advese/toxic--can't be said.

The burden of proof lies on you. You are the ones claiming to heal. You are the one denying the null hypothesis. You are the ones taking money for claimed services. You are the ones who are trying to trying to deny a huge body of evidence. See bellow for how much that is about 1/3 of chem abs which contians a list of the chemistry papers publiched in each year (but not the papers themselves that would take up even more space). That is just some of the evidence you are trying to overturn. I don't think you can but feel free to prove me wrong

No it is on that agency who want to understand these in their language. I think you done 'earth's shape' & other aspects known as scientific- studies & shown proof--but not people & other related ones. Understand court's procedures-- police/procecutors have to prove crime.

Rolfe

13th January 2005, 01:37 AM

MRC_Hans

13th January 2005, 01:38 AM

Originally posted by bvw12 (emphasis by me)
*snip*
A close but slightly amiss summary of my views: amending that, I would say that my basic position is that homeopathy is unquestionably effective, based on an enormous amount of data produced through clinical practice. As I consider that data to be very sound, and practically (though not technically) â€˜replicable,â€™ I have no reason to trust findings from a branch of research whose methods I find useful, but not infallible. *snip*Here we go again. OK Bach, you have said that before, and I have, in vain, challenged you before:

Where IS this "enormous amount of clinical data"? Please, please produce at least SOME references to such data. .... Or I will have to conclude that such data exist only in your imnagination.

Hans

Zep

13th January 2005, 02:31 AM

Originally posted by 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..

Typical. Kumar cannot or will not answer a simple yes/no question. Lots of fluff and rubbish, no answer.

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?

But that's exactly what we DO get, Kumar. Lots of self-healing, NO homeopathy. Sheesh, haven't you been paying attention?

No, no - don't bother answering THAT question... :rolleyes:

Zep

13th January 2005, 02:53 AM

Originally posted by bvw12
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?

Put that way, itâ€™s not even a question in which Iâ€™m interested, because you frame the question in terms of homeopathy compared to placebo: but that is a research scientistâ€™s agenda, and I donâ€™t much care about outcomes of those trials, for reasons mentioned in my last paragraph: I find your method flawed in this respect, so I have tried to present critiques and recommendations for improving the effectiveness of your trials in measuring what I have described as â€˜well-documented effects.â€™ see the fairly recent thread, â€˜scientific validity,â€™ at otherhealth, for a discussion of this question; that thread, I believe, also linked to the earlier â€˜whyâ€™ thread, and included a summary of my critique of a proving trial of belladonna.

Beyond that, before I can consider even giving your results more serious consideration, youâ€™d have to show a better ability to discuss the object of your investigations, because saying your method has succeeded in measuring so and so, does nothing to convince me that the errors of measurement I have identified, are not interfering in your trials of homeopathy.

Oh, so I'm not worthy to discuss the subject of the results of homeopathy because you believe I'm some sort of a research scientist? More fool you for being self-inflated. I could have been a curious patient eager to seek treatment, but your total arrogance has just driven me out the door. Oh, so sorry - I'm not one of those ignorant people who fawn at your homeopathic feet...what a pity.

So do I take it, bach, you refusing to answer my very simple question: What will you accept as proof that you are wrong in your belief in the efficacy of homepathy? I see nothing but waffle and avoidance, a childish attempt to change the question. I'm guessing you are simply scared to answer, since that would reveal your underlying acceptance that homeopathy is all really a scam. If you were true in your belief you would stand up and say so straight away.

You're just plain chicken, bach, but I will wait and see if you want to try again.

bvw12

13th January 2005, 06:44 AM

rolfe,

well, as you outline it here, i have no quarrel with you. the problem is introduced when we consider an actual protocol, an actual 'realization' of the dbpc - or whatever test format you choose. the dbpc is, in principle, a scientific instrument that eliminates bias, but it does not exist in reality, except as a template. the problem with your statement, in short, is that bias is introduced into the testing situation in the process of creating the protocol.

i assume you do not agree with the idiot (ooops, pardon me!) from new york, who thought the idea of bias in a real trial was mindless drivel; and that you understand a therapeutic process is, in context of our current discussion, harder to measure than a chemical reaction - and is complex enough to introduce numerous confounders into a trial situation, even if treatment is not quite so complex as neuroanatomy: complexity in testing situations resides on a continuum, though many of your colleagues appear to prefer black/white, either/or, one/two, yes/no models of the universe - i trust (hope) you are not one of them.

anyway, to illustrate what i mean, i often refer to a yardstick on which numbers are randomly placed: ideally, a yardstick is a perfect tool for measuring objects, but if marked incorrectly the actual yardstick will return lousy numbers. you can even repeat the measurements, and get the same results every time, but all of the results will be meaningless.

it doesn't take much analysis, btw, to tear apart my little analogy, so please understand that i am only trying, in this, to illuminate my point about the dbpc as an ideal template, as compared to the "marked up" version, the actual protocol - i know that analogies can't prove a point, but they can, hopefully, clarify it, so i hope you see my distinction, and why i think it is critical to evaluate whether the protocol of any experiment aligns the testing instrument to the object of the test, in realistic terms, appropriate to the task at hand.

so, in fact, i agree with your very sparse statement, of control v placebo being a valid standard for determining efficacy ... IF the trial is adequately tuned to the task of measuring homeopathy, instead of allopathy.

hans,

perhaps this will help: i recently responded, i think to rolfe, regarding his use of the idea of 'n=1' as a descriptor for a case study. in short, this is what i called a 'semantical monstrosity,' since statistics simply don't apply to case studies - though the narrational data of the case study can, to be sure, be parsed out and analyzed statistically. the case study, the history, the symptom profile, the response to prescription - this is clinical 'data.' maybe it would help to call it 'information.' in short, you keep looking for statistical data, but that ain't there.

zep,

quit being paranoid and obnoxious. i said nothing about you, but only referenced my lack of interest in the methodology of research science, which you referenced pretty directly, by couching your question in terms of verum and placebo. soooo, if you can un-hook your ego from the situation for a moment, my response to that question is the same as before: i trust clinical data more than statistical data, for reasons enumerated many times, and can't imagine any research trial, therefore, whose negative outcome for homeopathy would outweigh the evidence i have from clinical practice in favor of homeopathy.

if you want to broaden the question to what evidence, of any kind, might convince me that homeopathy doesn't work, i would say: i haven't a clue. give me some examples. i know already, btw, that the anecdotal stories you guys like to come up with don't do it - they're no better than our anecdotal stories, and certainly far inferior to an actual, formal case study.

bach

geni

13th January 2005, 06:57 AM

Originally posted by bvw12
that you understand a therapeutic process is, in context of our current discussion, harder to measure than a chemical reaction

Ever tried to meause a chemical reaction? Any idea how hard it is?

MRC_Hans

13th January 2005, 07:00 AM

Originally posted by bvw12
*snip*
hans,

perhaps this will help: i recently responded, i think to rolfe, regarding his use of the idea of 'n=1' as a descriptor for a case study. in short, this is what i called a 'semantical monstrosity,' since statistics simply don't apply to case studies - though the narrational data of the case study can, to be sure, be parsed out and analyzed statistically. the case study, the history, the symptom profile, the response to prescription - this is clinical 'data.' maybe it would help to call it 'information.' in short, you keep looking for statistical data, but that ain't there.

*snip*
bach No it will not help any more than the last time I asked that question and you made roughly the same evation.

Please point out some reports (preferably "an enormous amount") that in your view constitute clinical data in favor of homeopathy. Now, how you propose to analyse such data without using statistics is at present beyond me, but let's discuss that when we see the data.

Where IS the data? Come on, man, some of it must be readily available online.

Hans

Kumar

13th January 2005, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by Zep
But that's exactly what we DO get, Kumar. Lots of self-healing, NO homeopathy. Sheesh, haven't you been paying attention?

Who knows, what one is getting--effects, side/adverse effects or both, if 'self healing' & 'placebo' have so much importance/effects, as Mr.Hans indicated(somewhat 80%++). Probably, it may then just be 'Lots of self-healing, NO any pathy+side/advese/toxic effects.

Kumar

13th January 2005, 09:07 AM

Can anyone clear it:-

http://www.hpathy.com/homeopathy/forum_posts.asp?TID=2627&PN=1

bvw12

13th January 2005, 09:28 AM

i'm sorry, hans, but this seems to be a pointless discussion. i can only say that you need to break out of your statistical cocoon.

bach

Psiload

13th January 2005, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by bvw12
i'm sorry, hans, but this seems to be a pointless discussion. i can only say that you need to break out of your statistical cocoon.

bach You can set your watch to it...

huh, Rolfe?

bvw12

13th January 2005, 09:36 AM

quote (geni): "Ever tried to meause a chemical reaction? Any idea how hard it is?"

your point echoes my own point regarding the problems i find with the skeptic's confidence in his outcomes, in the face of the great difficulty, in reality, of assuring anyone that we are measuring what we say we're measuring. taking deep chemical processes to be as complex, certainly, as neurological processes, which i've referred to earlier in this thread, yes, you are quite right in your response.

but if you are capable of actual congeniality, and are actually interested in an exchange of views, perhaps you will permit me to clarify that i was thinking more in terms of describing what happens when you mix "chemical A" with "chemical B," with a resulting "explosion." that sort of thing is, relatively, hard to muck up. but testing therapy is easy to muck up, for reasons i think should even be obvious to you.

bach

Carn

13th January 2005, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by bvw12
i'm sorry, hans, but this seems to be a pointless discussion. i can only say that you need to break out of your statistical cocoon.

bach

You cannot give references?
Or is it pointless to give references as Hans's "statistical thinking" mind will immiediately discard it as anectodal evidence and which then will cause a pointless discussion?

You know, we are all a bit slow here, so big jumps in argumentations confuse us, as to us they often look to be wrong.

Carn

geni

13th January 2005, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by bvw12
quote (geni): "Ever tried to meause a chemical reaction? Any idea how hard it is?"

your point echoes my own point regarding the problems i find with the skeptic's confidence in his outcomes, in the face of the great difficulty, in reality, of assuring anyone that we are measuring what we say we're measuring. taking deep chemical processes to be as complex, certainly, as neurological processes, which i've referred to earlier in this thread, yes, you are quite right in your response.

but if you are capable of actual congeniality, and are actually interested in an exchange of views, perhaps you will permit me to clarify that i was thinking more in terms of describing what happens when you mix "chemical A" with "chemical B," with a resulting "explosion." that sort of thing is, relatively, hard to muck up.

So you want me to measure something that happens in a tenth of a second? All I'm going say is I hope you have a big budget (millions) and I hope you don't mind waiting a while

but testing therapy is easy to muck up, for reasons i think should even be obvious to you.

bach [/B]

Oh it's easy to muck and often has been (often by the homeopaths themselves though which I find amussing). This does not mean that there is anything wrong with the DBPC protcol it just means there have been misstakes made in those tests. This does not mean that homeopathy should not be held to the same standards of accountibilty as real medicine.

Rolfe

13th January 2005, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by Rolfe
I would be perfectly willing to accept that homoeopathic remedies had a physiological effect if it could be shown clearly and repeatedly that a group of patients who were given their individualised remedies did objectively better than a comparable group who only thought they were getting their remedies.Originally posted by bvw12
well, as you outline it here, i have no quarrel with you. the problem is introduced when we consider an actual protocol, an actual 'realization' of the dbpc - or whatever test format you choose. the dbpc is, in principle, a scientific instrument that eliminates bias, but it does not exist in reality, except as a template. the problem with your statement, in short, is that bias is introduced into the testing situation in the process of creating the protocol.All right, can you explain to me why it is apparently impossible to design a protocol which will demonstrate the existence of an effect as self-evident as you describe? Can you go any way towards refuting the suggestion that you intend simply to dismiss any protocol which fails to reveal an effect as "faulty", no matter how carefully and homoeopathically designed? Because frankly, that's the way it looks.

Hans, the so-called "clinical data" which is available is in the form of "patient satisfaction surveys". Homoeopathic hospitals publish them quite regularly. They appear to demonstrate that the people who attend homoeopathic hospitals feel they have in some way benefited from the process. However, I have never seen anything to counter the suggestion that these people are responding to the psychological support of the case-taking process, or simply would have got better anyway.

What is totally lacking and always has been is any evidence of causation, as regards the actual remedies rather than the process as a whole. The only possible way to get this evidence is to do some sort of comparison between people who got the remedy they were prescribed and people who didn't (but got a sham instead). And Bach will only accept such a comparison as valid if the result is positive. No matter how meticulous the design, if it doesn't support his preconceived prejudice, the design must be at fault because his mind is already closed to any other possibility.

The irony is that any effect large enough to be the slightest use in a clinical context ought to be perfectly simple to demonstrate. And yet Bach and his mates are so blindly certain that what they see with their patients is physiological cause and effect rather than a combination of psychological support, coincidental recovery and wishful thinking that the incongruity of it all completely escapes them.

Rolfe.

bvw12

13th January 2005, 11:49 AM

geni,

quit being purposefully dense. all i'm suggesting is the simple hypothetical situation in which i want to determine whether mixing an ounce of A with an ounce of B will cause an explosion. if it does, and it can be replicatd a thousand times, i'd say that is an easy, cheap, and reliable experiment with a trustworthy outcome. your nitpiking that has no apparent purpose than to thrown a fog over the basic question, are some things easier to measure than others?

but you answer that question by answering a different question: can a simple experiment be modified to probe more deeply into a process? and if this is done, does the next experiment become more difficult to perform, and more expensive....

i am suggesting to you that measuring efficacy of a homeopathic remedy is not as easy as it looks, and don't tell me about the bias protection of dbpc or randomization ... they are irrelevant.

these two questions are not comparable:

1. does aspirin reduce pain?

2. does arnica reduce pain?

i suspect even you could give the superficial response, that individualization complicates the situation with arnica. and that should really be enough to cast give you a basic insight on the limitations to dbpc in measuring such effects. once you get the basics, then we can explore some of the deeper issues - or, better, just look up the thread 'scientific validity' at otherhealth.

carn,

i've had this discussion with hans many times, and it is no longer worth the effort. i'm sorry if it doesn't 'play well' on this forum, but from my pov, hans knows perfectly well where to find the data, what it looks like, and how to evaluate it. he just doesn't want to even admit that it exists. he surely believes, i think, that his views are correct, but it boils down to the fact that he perversely, doggedly refuses to acknowledge even the existence of any kind of evidence, or data, that is not statistical in nature, or readily reducible to statistics, and he won't participate in a (two-way) discussion, until i tacitly acknowledge that numbers are the only true form of data. geeesh, he can't even acknowledge that replacing the word 'data' with the word 'information' makes a difrference.

rolfe,

no, patient satisfaction surveys are not what i'm referring to. please look at my last post to hans, in which i tried to explain clinical 'data' as 'information,' i.e., the clinical literature. case studies (hold onto the table, rolfe, the faintness will pass, it's ok, the world won't collapse because someone prefers the narrative process to the numeric keypad!;) ).

counting from 'this' to 'that' means, simply, that you can offer a logical explanation for observed events, that adequately accounts for all or most observed details of the transactions you are attempting to explain.

quote: "The irony is that any effect large enough to be the slightest use in a clinical context ought to be perfectly simple to demonstrate."

rolfe, this statement can only be made by someone who is completely, or nearly completely ignorant of the structure and mode of functioning of the objects he is studying. it also helps, to be unaware of the role of definition of terms, or control of experimental conditions, in confounding the idealized objectivity of the template (the dbpc) as it is realized in the particular experimental protocol. i have seen this happen over and over, in trials of homeopathy and in trials of psychotherapy and in research into the mechanisms of dreams, to take your attitude very seriously: frankly, it is at best intellectually naive.

though in away, it might be more accurate to say that you're right, it should be easy to demonstrate ... once the appropriate protocol has been designed. you have a good protocol for demonstrating efficacy of aspirin, but haven't dented arnica yet. that same 'scientific validity' thread discusses some of the things that need to be discussed.

when i can get myself off my lazy butt, i've got a number of other points to make, and will publish, probably at one of the on-line homeopathy sites, a position paper on how to set up a good proving trial.

until then, i recommend the old saw, pride goeth before the fall. statistics and statistical research are most valuable tools of science, but they are not foolproof: their failure to demonstrate obvious and well-documented effects in homeopathy will one day be one of the sadest, funniest, most ludicrous chapters in the history of modern science. mark my words.

bach

RichardR

13th January 2005, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by bvw12
You are really bizarre. Since, however, you have everything you need in front of your eyes

This is one of the nubs of the matter. You are paraphrasing my words back to me, which is actually quite legitimate. In doing so, you have of course introduced a layered effect, as I had previously, obviously, used the same strategy on you guys.Really? Can you please point me to the post where you paraphrased someoneâ€™s words back to them the way I did? The post number would do, or if not that then the time of the post (and time zone your clock is set to) and the thread. Thanks.

geni

13th January 2005, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by bvw12
geni,

quit being purposefully dense. all i'm suggesting is the simple hypothetical situation in which i want to determine whether mixing an ounce of A with an ounce of B will cause an explosion. if it does, and it can be replicatd a thousand times, i'd say that is an easy, cheap, and reliable experiment with a trustworthy outcome. your nitpiking that has no apparent purpose than to thrown a fog over the basic question, are some things easier to measure than others?

Nope. It has a very real perpose it is to show you that homeopathy is not especialy hard to measure. In the above you have not measured the chemical reaction. You can't tell me the mechanism the rate equation or the products (the last one is a particulary basic failure). In short your experment has not measured the chemical reaction

i am suggesting to you that measuring efficacy of a homeopathic remedy is not as easy as it looks, and don't tell me about the bias protection of dbpc or randomization ... they are irrelevant.

these two questions are not comparable:

1. does aspirin reduce pain?

2. does arnica reduce pain?

Yes they are. Does aspirin reduce pain? Under certian conditions yes

Does arnica reduce pain? Homeopaths claim that under certian condions that it does (although personaly I would more clasify it as tissue healing)

i suspect even you could give the superficial response, that individualization complicates the situation with arnica. and that should really be enough to cast give you a basic insight on the limitations to dbpc in measuring such effects. once you get the basics, then we can explore some of the deeper issues - or, better, just look up the thread 'scientific validity' at otherhealth.

Otherhealth blocked my ip a while back I could get round it but I really can't be bothered.

Individualization really isn't that hard it just means throwing a second level of diagnosis.

no, patient satisfaction surveys are not what i'm referring to. please look at my last post to hans, in which i tried to explain clinical 'data' as 'information,' i.e., the clinical literature. case studies (hold onto the table, rolfe, the faintness will pass, it's ok, the world won't collapse because someone prefers the narrative process to the numeric keypad!;) ).

Where is this published (name of journal would be handy)?

[b]
until then, i recommend the old saw, pride goeth before the fall. statistics and statistical research are most valuable tools of science, but they are not foolproof: their failure to demonstrate obvious and well-documented effects in homeopathy will one day be one of the sadest, funniest, most ludicrous chapters in the history of modern science. mark my words.

bach

The list of other people who have made this prediction is quite impress. Hollow earth, alian abductees, flat earth, creationists that probably isn't even one percent. I hope you like the company you are keeping

patnray

13th January 2005, 04:15 PM

Dear Bach,

I am curious why you cannot imagine any fact or experiment that would cause you to change your mind. Real science thrives by imagining, and conducting, tests which could prove theories wrong. Real scientists do not refuse to perform such tests, they eagerly embrace them. Often there are competing theories to explain observations. Science advances by designing test that can distinguish between the theories. Tests and data are not very useful if the results are consistent with all the competing theories.

There are many things I believe in very strongly. Yet I have no problem imagining discoveries that would change those beliefs. For example, I believe there is an overwhelming body of evidence confirming the basic principles of the theory of evolution. Yet I know that if hominid fossils were found beneath dinosaur fossils in undisturbed strata it would cast doubt over the entire theory. I think such a find is unlikely. But I could deal with it if it happened. Indeed, I would welcome it as an opportunity to advance our understanding of the world. It would be an exciting and revolutionary discovery.

Similarly, I strongly believe that homeopathy is nothing more than exercise in self delusion. Nevertheless, I can imagine experiments that could prove me wrong. Many of them have already been discussed in this thread. Why do homeopathists refuse to perform tests which, if successful would revolutionize our understanding of medicine? Why do you insist on focusing on clinical data which you may take as confirmation of your beliefs but which DOES NOT refute alternative theories (and therefore does nothing to advance our understanding)?

Since you have trouble with your imagination, let me give you some help. Imagine that for one year you send all your patients to me to receive the remedies you prescribe. You keep meticulous notes on their progress, and after one year you have a book filled with the clinical â€œevidenceâ€ of the success of your technique. If I then came to you and told you that I had given your patients nothing but distilled water and sugar pills, would that cause you to question your beliefs? What I have described is surely unethical and is only intended as a thinking exercise. You may strongly believe that my trick would not work because you would realize something was wrong well before the year was over. I hope you are not so close minded that you cannot IMAGINE that if my ruse were successful you would have to carefully rethink your position. Or would you lose all touch with reality and join those who fanaticize that merely writing the remedy name on the label is enough to â€œpotentiateâ€ the placebos?

Why are you so insecure in your beliefs that you steadfastly refuse to conduct tests that have the potential to refute your beliefs? Why, if you believe so strongly, are you not eager to conduct tests that would soundly refute your critics? Such test would not only win you a million dollars, they would also win you a Nobel prize. Why do you focus on data that can never prove your beliefs because it does not refute opposing hypotheses? What are you afraid of?

Jeff Corey

13th January 2005, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by bvw12
...i assume you do not agree with the idiot (ooops, pardon me!) from new york, who thought the idea of bias in a real trial was mindless drivel.
bach
No, you misunderstood me. I said that your confused rambling about double-blind controls was mindless drivel and that you had no understanding whatsoever of experimental design.
However, I did not call you an idiot. Nor a feculant mass of avian droppings. Nor a credit to the race of troglodytic cretins that spawned you.

I cannot stoop that low, I have a lower back problem.

It usually takes only a class period to explain to the most befuddled undergraduates why double blind studies are insurance against the effects called "experimenter bias" and "placebo effect". In real trials.

bvw12

13th January 2005, 05:17 PM

richard,

if you are so interested in good documentation, try an academically serious effort at a review of the homeopathic literature. it would be refreshing to hear someone from your side presenting a comprehensive argument, complete with a lengthy bibliography and carefully selected citations.

geni,

ok, so you're not being purposefully dense.

ray,

what is it with you guys and this 'chicken' stuff? projection? hmmm. aaanyway, i don't like statistical research, it bores the sh*t out of me; further, the level of reasoning skills amongst skeptics, if not all researchers, typically borders on the borderline. but, nevertheless, i agree that these research technologies are important, and should be improved, so i do my part, i participate in tedious and insulting discussions with groups of people who, for the most part, are lacking in common social graces and wouldn't know collegiality if it bit them in the ass. i am working on a position paper that i believe will lay the foundation for a successful blinded trial, and i have previously published a critique of some statistical research into psychotherapy, that, while you guys - especially the idiot from new york - would probably think was lame, was intelligent enough to be published in a highly regarded, internationally acclaimed, peer reviewed medical journal.

ok, so i'm not as well versed in the subject as you are, and i'm not driven to spend my little bit of spare time actively involved in research projects. if it's ok with you and your parochial little world view, i like doing therapy better.

otoh, i also like money, so if you can talk randi into paying me to budget some of my time toward such a project, i'd actually look forward to it. i don't think i could spend the rest of my life doing research, but it would be fun to dig into a project like this, especially given the 'political' action bubbling up all over the place, in our little bulletin board entanglements.

if he pays me enough, i might even consider sitting in the cubicle next to yours ... but i'd really really miss my office - i have it done up, you know, just the way i like it.

bach

geni

13th January 2005, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by bvw12
geni,

ok, so you're not being purposefully dense.

I have no answer to thw power of this argument. I am forced to conceed that homeopathy works. If low grade insults is the you can do I would suggest not making chemstry refernces in future (in fact stay away from science entirly this will have a posertive effect on your abailty as a homeopath).

Flame wars is thata way. You might want to practice a bit first and remeber the mods here won't give you unconditional support.

If you want to debate you might want to have a go at the being polite thing and stop creatating stawmen.

RichardR

13th January 2005, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by bvw12
richard,

if you are so interested in good documentation, try an academically serious effort at a review of the homeopathic literature. it would be refreshing to hear someone from your side presenting a comprehensive argument, complete with a lengthy bibliography and carefully selected citations.OK so you lied when you said:

â€You are paraphrasing my words back to me, which is actually quite legitimate. In doing so, you have of course introduced a layered effect, as I had previously, obviously, used the same strategy on you guys.â€

I thought so.

The reason I paraphrased your words back to you was to demonstrate the vacuousness of your rhetoric â€“ just words, claims, without any evidence to back them up. You claimed this was invalid because you had previously done the same to others here. You had not. You lied.

A poor attempt to turn the tables and a poor attempt to turn the burden of proof back to me. You are the one who has been asked for evidence that your magic water works, and you are the one who needs to provide that evidence, not me.

Jeff Corey

13th January 2005, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by bvw12
... and i have previously published a critique of some statistical research into psychotherapy, that, while you guys - especially the idiot from new york - would probably think was lame, was intelligent enough to be published in a highly regarded, internationally acclaimed, peer reviewed medical journal.
bach
Well, the "idiot from new york" thinks you are a lying piece of feces. Send me the reference, and if you are not lying, I will notify this board that you have credibility and will humbly apoligize.

Kumar

13th January 2005, 07:46 PM

Do you know anything about it?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870748417#post1870748417

bvw12

13th January 2005, 07:47 PM

what do you know? after all, I can think of one thing that would change my mind about whether homeopathy works: if someone could demonstrate an alternative mechanism that could account for the changes I see in clinical practice. And I donâ€™t mean â€“ excuse me â€“ the glib, thumb sucking noises about placebo effect and coincidence that skeptics usually gurgle on about, whilst looking up occasionally from their numeric keypads. I mean, a practical demonstration of an alternate mechanism, to the homeopathic remedy, that explains the observed results. Numbers wonâ€™t cut nuthinâ€™.

re my paraphrasing back, 2nd and 3rd paragraphs in my reply 01-11-2005 05:07 AM.

as form my citation, i can't give that as i prefer anonymity. however, i am up at the lake for a few days now, but when i return home i will scan in the abstract or some other bit of typography from the published version, and post it to you.

even if i was a liar, though, you would still be well advised to accept responsibility for your own behavior, and display a better public profile than you do. beyond that, you still haven't answered my points, and you should do that whether you think i'm a liar or not - though i do believe, that for the most part, you think you have answered them. your problem, in a debate, is that you haven't scored your points either, if your opposition still thinks you misunderstand the issue. on that score, we both still have work to do.

and your suspicions reflect badly on your character, i have to say, as does your readiness to sink to the vilest forms of verbal abuse i can readily imagine. shame on you.

bach

Kumar

13th January 2005, 08:04 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by bvw12
... and i have previously published a critique of some statistical research into psychotherapy, that, while you guys - especially the idiot from new york - would probably think was lame, was intelligent enough to be published in a highly regarded, internationally acclaimed, peer reviewed medical journal.
bach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Well, the "idiot from new york" thinks you are a lying piece of feces. Send me the reference, and if you are not lying, I will notify this board that you have credibility and will humbly apoligize.
I feel bit sorry for these happenings. We can't exchange knowlege from abuses or 'this & that type' talks. Since, new talented people are discussing, we can try in gaining something instead of kicking them back. It is just my appeal. Thanks.

RichardR

13th January 2005, 09:48 PM

bvw12

You mean this:

geni
"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."

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.

Sorry, not the same thing at all. Geni made a valid point, which seemed to describe your approach, and your twisting his quote into something else did nothing to invalidate it. OTOH your quote was:

â€œthis 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.â€

- pure vacuous rhetoric, which actually describes you to a T. My shooting it back at you did not even come close to introducing â€œa layered effectâ€ as you claim, since it had nothing to do with the prior post. Nice try.

RichardR

13th January 2005, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by bvw12
the glib, thumb sucking noises about placebo effect and coincidence that skeptics usually gurgle on about, whilst looking up occasionally from their numeric keypads ...just insulting sophistry to hide the fact that you have nothing. Pathetic.

Sarah-I

14th January 2005, 03:02 AM

Journals where clinical studies can be found are Homeopathy International (The Journal of the Homeopathic Medical Association), The Faculty of Homeopathy Journal, the journal published by the Alliance of Registered Homeopaths and the journal published by the Society of Homeopaths. There is also The American Journal of Homeopathic Medicine. All these journals can be found online and many articles accessed.

MYMOP are the statistical scores that are used in our clinic and other clinics to provide patient data.

Homeopaths also take into account in cases the effect of the homeopathic consultation process in helping the patient and other lifestyle changes that they might have before we look at the remedy. We had a patient such as this in clinic yesterday and we took account of the process itself and there had still been a huge shift in symptoms above and beyond that.

Also, I sat in on a follow-up case of a patient that I had not seen for sometime and who had changed remedies and was being given a nosode remedy. The difference was amazing and I really do not believe that this change would have happened naturally at all. There is no other explanation other than the remedy. No conventional medication is being taken, just homeopathy.

MRC_Hans

14th January 2005, 03:17 AM

Originally posted by bvw12
i'm sorry, hans, but this seems to be a pointless discussion. i can only say that you need to break out of your statistical cocoon.

bach Now, Bach, I happen to think that is rather insulting. I asked you for a reference to the clinical data that you regard as evidence for homeopathy! Which of the words do you not understand? You claim that there is "an enormous amount" of such data out there, so why is it you cannot refer to even a little bit of it so we can discuss how it validated homeopathy? What is wrong with you really?

Hans

MRC_Hans

14th January 2005, 03:23 AM

Originally posted by Rolfe
*snip*

Hans, the so-called "clinical data" which is available is in the form of "patient satisfaction surveys". Homoeopathic hospitals publish them quite regularly. They appear to demonstrate that the people who attend homoeopathic hospitals feel they have in some way benefited from the process. However, I have never seen anything to counter the suggestion that these people are responding to the psychological support of the case-taking process, or simply would have got better anyway.

*snip*

Rolfe. Sorry, but no, that kind of information is not clinical data by any vocabulary. Not even Bach's, I think. Bach has been talking for long about data collected by clinical practitioners, and I await a reference for such data. I can find some for myself, but I want Bach to point to exactly the parts that HE considers valid evidence for homeopathy, so we can discuss that.

Hans

MRC_Hans

14th January 2005, 03:36 AM

Originally posted by geni
I have no answer to thw power of this argument. I am forced to conceed that homeopathy works. If low grade insults is the you can do I would suggest not making chemstry refernces in future (in fact stay away from science entirly this will have a posertive effect on your abailty as a homeopath).

Flame wars is thata way. You might want to practice a bit first and remeber the mods here won't give you unconditional support.

If you want to debate you might want to have a go at the being polite thing and stop creatating stawmen. Geni, for ed's sake, could you run your posts through a spell-checker? Or simply proof-read them??

:rolleyes:

Hans

Capsid

14th January 2005, 04:14 AM

The individualisation of a remedy is key here. So what is the evidence that lead homoeopaths to believe in this? Was it Hahnemann's original work or have studies been done to specifically demonstrate this or is it just 200 years of accumulated clinical evidence? If individualisation is so important I have not seen the supporting evidence to really nail this concept.

MRC_Hans

14th January 2005, 04:21 AM

Mmmm, summing up on the original subject, it seems that the main objection to the trial mentioned is the failed randomization. As this resulted in severe baseline differences between the verum and placebo groups, it pretty much invalidates the trial.

Second objection is that the provider of drug and placebo was not blinded. As this provider has a vested interest in a positive result, this is also a serious problem.

Other complaints are small groups, and the fact that above Avogadro dilutions were used.

OK, the mudfight can continue....

Hans

Rolfe

14th January 2005, 04:45 AM

Originally posted by bvw12
richard,

if you are so interested in good documentation, try an academically serious effort at a review of the homeopathic literature. it would be refreshing to hear someone from your side presenting a comprehensive argument, complete with a lengthy bibliography and carefully selected citations.Bach, we are asking you for published evidence to back up your assertions. First you declare that such evidence exists, but despite numerous requests you refuse to give any citations.

Then you tell us to do a literature review for ourselves????

Bach, if there is evidence available to support your views, why don't you link to the papers so that we can see that you are telling the truth?

Hans, I know that the "patient satisfaction surveys" aren't valid clinical data. However, they're the only published surveys of the effectiveness of homoeopathic treatment I'm aware of, so I thought it might be those that Bach was referring to. (The reason I know this is that homoeopaths who are keen to quote references seem only to have Kleijnen, Linde and friends, followed by the satisfaction surveys to support their position. This has been the only and repeated result of challenges to academically-literate homoeopaths to cite their evidence. So I feel there can't be anything else. Unless Bach knows different.)

I guess we'll never know unless he can be induced to quote his references.

Rolfe.

MRC_Hans

14th January 2005, 05:10 AM

Mostly for Bach: Just to sum up on my request for clinical data.

Shure I can go and find some, but it will then be MY data dredge. It is important that the data we assess is exacly the data YOU consider evidence.

After all, if you'll excuse me for being slightly suspicious (it has something to do with track records), if I find some case reports and proceed to schred them (rest assured that I will find some I am indeed able to schred), you will probably dismiss them as non-representative, or something, and we're back to square one. SO I need YOU to point to the ones you find valid and explain why you find them valid, and we can take it from there.

Hans

MRC_Hans

14th January 2005, 05:14 AM

OK, since Bach indicated he'd be away for a while, I'll give him a couple of days.

If no data comes forth, we can then use the thread for kitty pics. I have a bunch as I have been tending my daughter's kitten while they were on Tenerife. She (the kitten, not the daughter) is a bit of a little terrorist, but very cute (my daughter is not a terrorist after having grown up ;)).

Hans

Anders W. Bonde

14th January 2005, 06:24 AM

...and when he gets back, perhaps he can tell us why, with over 200 years of evidence of fantastic efficacy and safety, has no homeopath even been nominated for the Nobel Prize?

[psychic mode]...conspiracy theory comming up...[psychic mode/]

Rolfe

14th January 2005, 06:40 AM

Hah! There was a thread on one of the homoeopathy forums about a year ago where one of them was asserting that a homoeopath had been awarded a Nobel Prize. Well, no actually, in fact the prize was something commonly referred to as "the Alternative Nobel Prize". Which was then asserted to be just as good anyway.

Then the names of two or three long-ago Nobel Prizewinners were cited, claiming that these people were in fact homoeopaths. The prizes, however, had been awarded for other things, not for homoeopathy, and it seemed that the definition of "homoeopath" being used was "someone who has been said by someone to have once used homoeopathy, or perhaps spoken about it without actually swearing." Marie Curie was one of the names, as far as I recall.

These people are just amazing.

Rolfe.

Rolfe

14th January 2005, 06:51 AM

Sorry, extraneous post.

Sarah-I

14th January 2005, 07:37 AM

Yes Rofe, we are amazing which is why we have thriving and successful practices.

The MYMOP is what we use for stats purposes with patients in our clinic. This is different to a patient satisfaction survey.

scotth

14th January 2005, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by Sarah-I
Yes Rofe, we are amazing which is why we have thriving and successful practices.

The MYMOP is what we use for stats purposes with patients in our clinic. This is different to a patient satisfaction survey.

[Eddie Izzard]
Yes, because it is spelled differently.
[/Eddie Izzard]

patnray

14th January 2005, 08:09 AM

Dear bach,

I had hoped you would respond to my suggestion that it might be possible for you to imagine facts that would cause you to question your blind faith in homeopathy. Rather than respond to my argument you questioned my courage despite the fact I stated I am quite capable of imagining experiments that could prove me wrong.

So Iâ€™ll ask the question again. If, for one year, I gave all your patients placebos instead of homeopathically prepared remedies, and you could not tell the difference until I informed you of my ruse, would it cause you to question your believe in the efficacy of homeopathy?

Besides the objections already raised about your reliance on clinical data there is also a serious logical problem with this type of data: it cannot distinguish between competing theories and thus cannot be used, by itself, as validation of your, or any other, theory.

Consider an analogy. I claim to have invented a new color, which I call â€œgrueâ€. This color looks green right now, but I claim that at midnight on January 1, 2006 it will change to blue. I have a piece of paper painted with this new color, and sure enough, it looks green. Others say that Iâ€™m full of sh*t and the paper is just ordinary green. The next day the paper still looks green, exactly as I predicted it would. But this cannot be taken as confirmation of my theory because the opposing theory also predicts that it will be green. Since the observation that the paper is still green provides no new information it tells us nothing about which theory is correct. Only observation after midnight on January 1, 2006 can be used to distinguish between the two theories.

That is exactly the situation with your clinical data. There are opposing theories, and your clinical observations alone cannot distinguish between those theories. While you reject and belittle the opposing theories you do not provide any facts to negate those theories. Simply believing your explanation is the correct one does not change the fact the opposing theories are equally consistent with the clinical data you cherish so much.

Furthermore, there are several branches of homeopathy. While you may believe the version you practice is the â€œcorrectâ€ one, they all can point to clinical data, just like yours, that â€œprovesâ€ their approach works. If you believe that your clinical data â€œprovesâ€ your version of homeopathy then you must accept that the same kind of data â€œprovesâ€ their versions. On the basis of clinical data alone, then, you must accept as valid all versions of homeopathy. Tell me, then, what facts do you have that shows your version is correct and the other versions are wrong?

Anders W. Bonde

14th January 2005, 08:20 AM

Sarah,

Your inability to argue your case never seases to amaze me.
Appeal to popularity is evidence of nothing - let alone support of theories to explain homeopathy.

By your reasoning, Santa Claus is real, earth rays exist because dowsing is popular and Sylvia Browne and John Edwards are proof of the existence of an afterlife. And allopaths seem to be much greater in number than homeopaths, which just proves they're better, doesn't it?

Sarah - give us evidence - not logical or argumentative fallacies.

Oh - perhaps you have an idea why no homeopath as ever been nominated for or bagged a Nobel Prize?

Sarah-I

14th January 2005, 08:28 AM

Patnray,

That is an unfair question to put to Bach, as he is not actually a qualified or practicing homeopath. He readily admits this and his primary training and practice are of Psychotherapy. He is extremely interested in homeopathy though and is widely read on the subject and does in fact use it at times when he feels it is appropriate.

As part of your little experiment, it would depend on what happens with the patients when you give them placebo surely?

I have found in my practice that lots of patients have a placebo effect from the initial consultation itself. However, this effect is not long lasting at all and a remedy makes all the difference.

patnray

14th January 2005, 08:35 AM

Sarah-I: The experiment was a hypothetical question, which stated that after one year you could not tell the difference. I understand that you believe that you would be able tell the difference. But, hypothetically, if after one year you could not tell the difference, would it cause you to question your faith in the efficacy of homeopathy?

edited for spelling and typos...

patnray

14th January 2005, 09:03 AM

I don't think is was an unfair question to put to bach. Since he cannot imagine any facts that would cause him to question his faith in homeopathy, I was presenting an imaginary scenario that might help open his mind. Since he is not a practicing homeopath he can substitute "a practicing homeopath" in place of "you" in the scenario. Now, I understand very well that you both believe that the ruse would be detected. That is not the point. I wanted you to think about how you would react if it were not detected.

One way science advances is by imagining what kind of data would DISPROVE a theory, then conducting those experiments. This is just as important as conducting experiments to prove a theory.

Rolfe

14th January 2005, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by Sarah-I
I have found in my practice that lots of patients have a placebo effect from the initial consultation itself. However, this effect is not long lasting at all and a remedy makes all the difference. If Sarah/Naturalhealth ever says anything other than "I gave a patient a remedy and something happened which I'm sure wouldn't have happened without the remedy", wake me up, someone.

:s2:

Rolfe.

Jeff Corey

14th January 2005, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by Sarah-I
...That is an unfair question to put to Bach, as he is not actually a qualified or practicing homeopath. He readily admits this and his primary training and practice are of Psychotherapy...
Just what we need, another gullible "psychotherapist". I wonder if he has any qualifications whatsoever, since anyone without any training can call themself a psychotherapist in the US.

Sarah-I

14th January 2005, 02:30 PM

Jeff,

That is one question you would really need to ask him, but yes he does have qualifications in order to praactice.

bvw12

14th January 2005, 03:30 PM

this place is better than the zoo. hmmm - or worse, depending on how you look at it. ;)

i'm just going to make some brief remarks based on what i remember of the last page or so of new posts, so i apologize if i skip over any important points, or if i fail to react like a wounded bull to one of your insults ... if i miss something, just call my attention to it, please, and i'll try to get back later. i am, btw, still in touch with the computer, just some of my resources are back home.

regarding paraphrasing, i was called a liar. i demonstrated that i am not a liar. you can prattle on about the wonderful qualities of your arguments, and the pitiful quality of mine, but it would be gentlemanly at least to acknowledge that your rudeness was as wrong as it was unecessary in the first place, except for purposes of dragging the discussion into your sewer. (harrumph.)

hans, thank you thank you. i apologize for the insult, though you and i should be used to that sort of thing by now, don'tcha tink? i trust you will, in any case, survive it, as i will also.

but thank you thank you - that refers to the fact that i believe this is the first time you have clearly acknowledged that, in fact you really do know what i've been referring to, when i talk about 'clinical data.'

and this, rolfe, is the point i've been trying to get to, that i am talking about 'narrative data,' so to speak, not numerical data, not surveys, not statistical analyses - no, just narratives, of case process, of clinical observations in professional provings, that sort of thing. empirical science, emphasis on the observation. and categorization. and systematization. hahnemann, darwin, that sort of thing.

so, i don't mean to be annoying, but i am not going to link to any particular case studies. i will, instead, reference loosely some references i've given before, and then try to take the next step in this discussion, and explain why i'm uninterested, actually, in evaluating the quality of any particular case study - that's really not what i'm after here, hans, but i will try to explain why.

so, case studies i'd refer you to include the brief vignettes by tyler and weir found at the beginning of kent's repertory; the MMP and the CD; nash's leaders; freud's little hans, anna o, ratman; a wonderful case study of treatment of a borderline woman, by l. bryce boyer in about 1977, i think, in the psychoanalytic quarterly. and anything else you care to look at.

what would make my day, guys, is if you could look at some of these and come away saying, 'o, ok, i think i understand how so-and-so reached the conclusion that such and such meant this and that.'

i am not talking about statistics; i am not talking about experiments. i am talking about the fact that darwin sailed around for a long time on a little boat called the beagle and came back and said, look at all these things i saw, this is what i make of it.

that's what a case study does. that is what a theory does. and in clinical practice, one essentially - please note this carefully - one essentially gets on board the beagle all over again, and recreates the entire voyage, for every single case. THIS IS NOT MEANT TO BE merely a flower rhetorical gesture. please note: clinical treatment means that you put your observational eye glasses on, that you survey the clinical situation, the patient, from every pertinent pov, and try to take a very large amount of observational data and weave it into a cogent case profile.

as treatment progresses, day-by-day you will learn more and more about the patient, you will decide that some interventions were mistaken and try to correct the mistake; you will decide that some interventions were accurate, and succeeeded to a certain degree, but were no longer a prime concern, and you will proceed to reformulate the case .... as the process continues, one day you will read a case study by dr. genius, and recognize a feature of your own patient's pathology that had previously escaped your notice, and you will introduce a new wrinkle into your treatment, a wrinkle that, happily, produces a measure of additional progress. then, the next day, you read the results of a recent double blinded trial that reflected a risk or benefit to this or that type of intervention - and adjust your practice accordingly, if the conclusions of the study seem sound, and apply to your patient's situation.

no, this does not, certainly in any sense of finality, distinguish between competing theories. but you can't say to your patient, hold on, wait until the whole thing is resolved. clinical science - yes people, it is a science, as well as an art - clinical science is always evolving, we are always learning. as therapists, we are better at our craft, or so we hope, 10 years or 20 years later, than we were at the beginning.

is that really so different from youse guys?

do we make mistakes? yes - and, like youse guys, we try to learn from them.

is there controversy? yes.

are all the questions settled, now? no.

does that invalidate my pov? no.

can we learn things from a well constructed dbpc? yes.

can a group of people so badly misunderstand clinical process, that they repeat the same design errors, repeatedly, in developing new protocols that every trial they put on ends up with results that are worthless? that would be my suggrestion, yes.

way around it? read some case studies, and, before you evaluate them, try to figure out why they are being written in the first place, and what they are intended to accomplish. they are scientific, folks, but they are not formal nor repeatable experiments, and they are not reducible to numbers, without losing some of the broad explanatory powers of case analysis.

can a jungian analyse a case differently than a freudian. you betcha? which one is right? depends on whom you ask. kinda like dbpc's: ask hans if that one is a reliable study, and he says yes. ask me, and guess what: a horse of a different color. mebbe 'grue.'

btw, i am licensed, as one must be in the usa before one can, at least in my state, call one's self a 'therapist.' and the question is perfectly fair, at least as a hypothetical, regarding the little test to see whether i could accurately guage what remedy had been given. but i am forced to re-frame the question, because treatment, you will remember, is based on observation, and knowing what you are observing. if you are kept guessing, then you will not be able to put the pieces together in the same way you would otherwise.

i mean, honestly, it's a tough question. but it really doesn't challenge in any direct way, the experiential and evidential bases on which my convictions rest, at least not without introducing questions of my own, or anyone's, competency, questions of methodology and the importance to NOT be blinded: you know, blinding has the strength of guaranteeing a certain level of objectivity, but at the cost of diminishing available information.

you know: "sorry, mr. darwin, you can't look in that section of the island."

Anders W. Bonde

14th January 2005, 03:38 PM

...just imagine: A psychotherapist who doesn't even recognize his own cognitive dissonance...

Sarah-I,

Since you do claim to be a homeopath, whereas Bach apparently doesn't, perhaps you could shed some light on the serious and strange lack of due recognition of homeopathy: As homeopathy is so fantastically efficient, safe and revolutionary within virtually any field from medicine, through biology, chemistry, physics etc., why is it then, in your own opinion, that not a single, solitary homeopath has ever even been nominated for a Nobel Prize?

And, Sarah-I, why are there so many more allopaths around compared to the number of homeopaths, when what the allopaths are providing is inefficient as well as highly dangerous relative to homeopathy? Where have the authorities failed us?Why do so many people, even intelligent, sceptical, educated and informed ones, fall pray in such huge to the allopaths and never even bother to look up the far superior and perfectly safe alternative of a homeopath?

Edited to add:

Bach,

Do us all a favor, please: Get the case shift key on your computer keyboard fixed - it would make your posts so much more readable for so little extra effort on your part.

'nkyou.

Jeff Corey

14th January 2005, 04:00 PM

Trev, my dog is licensed. I'll bet Bach is not.

patnray

14th January 2005, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by bvw12

btw, i am licensed, as one must be in the usa before one can, at least in my state, call one's self a 'therapist.' and the question is perfectly fair, at least as a hypothetical, regarding the little test to see whether i could accurately guage what remedy had been given. but i am forced to re-frame the question, because treatment, you will remember, is based on observation, and knowing what you are observing. if you are kept guessing, then you will not be able to put the pieces together in the same way you would otherwise.

Correct me if I'm wrong. Near as I can tell this paragraph is your avoidance of answering my hypothetical question. Let me reiterate. A homeopath's patients are given placebos instead of remedies. A year goes by. He has a note book full of case studies that seem to show the efficay of his treatments and he has no clue that his patients have not been receiving actual remedies. (I know you have a hard time getting by this part. You so strongly believe that this would not be the case that you refuse to consider it even as a hypothetical). If that happened and the truth were then revealed, would it cause you to question the efficacy of homeopathy? "Yes" or "No" is all that's required.

I suspect the truth is not that you cannot imagine any data that would discredit homeopathy but that you absolutely refuse to imagine such a possibility. Your response seems to be, "It couldn't happen that way, so there's no sense imagining it."

Do you believe homeopathic remedies can be created by "vibrational energy machines"? Transmitted over the internet? Created in a bottle of water by placing a bottle of remedy next to? "Yes" or "No" is all that's required.

Anders: good one...

bvw12

14th January 2005, 06:17 PM

ahhh, yes/no is all that's required. yuk yuk yuk. thanks for confirming it.

i've answered your question, two ways: numerous times as regards blinded trials, and once regarding the type of evidence that would, in fact, convince me that homeopathy doesn't work.

as for the other questions in your post a few posts up, my last, lengthy post was intended to address some of the points you raise there.

i'll let radionics and dowsing and gmm's and such rest on the sidelines for the moment ... after all, some of the folks here are making my stomach turn rather uncomfortably, so before i get in too deep, i want to make sure i'll be able to tolerate the atmosphere here. i hope you can appreciate my attitude.

bach

Hydrogen Cyanide

14th January 2005, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by Anders W. Bonde
...just imagine: A psychotherapist who doesn't even recognize his own cognitive dissonance...
...

I wonder what his success would be with my relative's bi-polar disorder, the same one that now blames the homeopathic treatment she received from a naturapath for her fatigue.

I bet his licensing is in one of those states that have less than adequate requirements.

Jeff Corey

14th January 2005, 08:09 PM

Originally posted by Sarah-I
Jeff,

That is one question you would really need to ask him, but yes he does have qualifications in order to praactice.
Prove it.
Your statement is no proof.

RichardR

14th January 2005, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by bvw12
regarding paraphrasing, i was called a liar. i demonstrated that i am not a liar. The posts were unrelated and so there was no â€œlayered effectâ€ as you claimed. You dealt with my post by claiming you had previously posted something you had not. Call that what you will. It was dishonest, not true. A lie in my book. Goodnight.

RichardR

14th January 2005, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by bvw12
i have previously published a critique of some statistical research into psychotherapy, that, while you guys - especially the idiot from new york - would probably think was lame, was intelligent enough to be published in a highly regarded, internationally acclaimed, peer reviewed medical journal. :bs:

MRC_Hans

15th January 2005, 01:15 AM

Originally posted by bvw12
*snip*
hans, thank you thank you. i apologize for the insult, though you and i should be used to that sort of thing by now, don'tcha tink? i trust you will, in any case, survive it, as i will also.

but thank you thank you - that refers to the fact that i believe this is the first time you have clearly acknowledged that, in fact you really do know what i've been referring to, when i talk about 'clinical data.'

*snip* That is a straight lie, because we have been there before. What you are really hiding under your sarcastic thank yous is the realization that your straw man about me understanding only statistics has onece again been demolished.

Yeah, I'll survive the insult. As you have noticed, we say things more straight here. The big question is: Will what is left of your intellectual credibility survive if you once more evade this request:

Please point me to some clinical data that you consider solid evidence of homeopathy, so we can discuss it.

Hans

bvw12

15th January 2005, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
That is a straight lie,ahhh, hopping aboard the personal venom train that seems to depart and arrive at randiland on the hour, with stops in between at ... randiland. because we have been there before. What you are really hiding under your sarcastic thank yous is the realization that your straw man about me understanding only statistics has onece again been demolished. truly? where demolished? show me where you have ever previously acknowledged case studies as representing clinical data? or where you have acknowledged the existence of any clinical data whatsoever.

Yeah, I'll survive the insult. As you have noticed, we say things more straight here . like your coast-to-coast nitwits in san fran and ny? - yeah, very intellectual. The big question is: Will what is left of your intellectual credibility survive if you once more evade this request:

Please point me to some clinical data that you consider solid evidence of homeopathy, so we can discuss it.

Hans

you've already been pointed - see my last post. start discussin'. you can start with tyler and weir, if you want more specific direction, and anna o. or go to the mmp and cd, if you want to start with proving data.

Psiload

15th January 2005, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by bvw12
you've already been pointed - see my last post. start discussin'. you can start with tyler and weir, if you want more specific direction, and anna o. or go to the mmp and cd, if you want to start with proving data.

Sir John Weir (1879-1971)

Margaret Tyler M.D. (1875-1943)

Both of whom were practicing and publishing in the WWI era, and dead or retired before WWII had ended.

Fifty to one hundred year old, wholly anecdotal, references.

Note: Homeopaths had not even begun attempting to apply RCT trial methods to their research until after WWII.

bvw12

15th January 2005, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by Psiload
Sir John Weir (1879-1971)

Margaret Tyler M.D. (1875-1943)

Both of whom were practicing and publishing in the WWI era, and dead or retired before WWII had ended.

Fifty to one hundred year old, wholly anecdotal, references.

Note: Homeopaths had not even begun attempting to apply RCT trial methods to their research until after WWII.

i have been trying for some time to get you guys to understand that there are forms of evidence besides statistical. i am not interested in rct, especially, except as a professional consumer of the stuff for 20+ years, who is quite disatisfied with its quality when applied to clinical practices. hence, the dispute here is about the usefulness of different forms of evidence: clinical case studies, professional (not experimental) proving trials, etc., as compared to experimental trials. there has already been a tad of exchange on the subject in relation to questions raised by patnray (i think it was patnray). i'd love to see someone actually try to come to grips with the relative strengths and weaknesses of each.

Capsid

15th January 2005, 02:19 PM

Is no one going to answer my question about individualisation? It was not rhetorical, I'd really like to know how this concept was derived.

I see the issue with clinical data from homoeopath clinics is that it is subjective. Experimental trials are objective. Here is the big divide. Scientists regard subjective data as flawed, homoeopaths do not appear to.

But this has all been said before....and much better than by me.

Anders W. Bonde

15th January 2005, 03:01 PM

Bach,

Please use upper case at beginnings of sentences and for "I". Thanks.

I'm still curious, so I've rephrased my unanswered question for you again, since Sarah-I hasn't answered yet:

As homeopathy is so fantastically efficient, safe and revolutionary within virtually any field of science, from medicine, through biology and chemistry to physics etc., why is it then, in your own opinion, that not a single, solitary homeopath has ever even been nominated for, let alone won, a Nobel Prize? Why this gross injustice?

And why are there so many more allopaths around compared to the number of homeopaths, when what the allopaths are providing is inefficient as well as highly dangerous relative to homeopathy? Where, how and especially why have the authorities failed us? Why do so many people, even intelligent, sceptical, educated and informed ones, fall pray in such huge numbers to the allopaths and never even bother to look up the far superior and perfectly safe alternative of a homeopath?

And how do you develop trends from large masses of data without recourse to statistics?

Patnray,

Thanks. I find all your posts good...

Psiload

15th January 2005, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by bvw12
i have been trying for some time to get you guys to understand that there are forms of evidence besides statistical. i am not interested in rct, especially, except as a professional consumer of the stuff for 20+ years, who is quite disatisfied with its quality when applied to clinical practices. hence, the dispute here is about the usefulness of different forms of evidence: clinical case studies, professional (not experimental) proving trials, etc., as compared to experimental trials. there has already been a tad of exchange on the subject in relation to questions raised by patnray (i think it was patnray). i'd love to see someone actually try to come to grips with the relative strengths and weaknesses of each. The major strength of RCT methodology is that it rules out wishful thinking and delusion. The major weakness of homeopathic "proving trial" methodology is that it thrives on wishful thinking and delusion.

Now do you feel the love?

It's one thing to argue that it's difficult to determine the efficacy of a specific homeopathic treatment using RCT methodology... fine, I'll grant you a little wiggle room there. However, the problem is not a question of the efficacy of certain specific remedies. The problem is that homeopaths haven't been able to show the mere existence of any homeopathic effect from any homeopathic remedy using RCT methodology.

The sad FACT is that no one has yet to demonstrate the ability to differentiate between a homeopathic preparation, any homeopathic preparation, and nothing(an unprepared blank of stock water, alcohol, sugar pill)... despite a million dollars, and a Nobel prize incentive.

It's not nearly as complicated as you'd have us all believe.

bvw12

15th January 2005, 03:57 PM

capsid and bonde,

i didn't see this question before, but thanks for intelligent and civilized correspondence. i am, of course, unable to respond comprehensively in 25 words or less - or more - on a first or second stab, but please believe i am interested in serious ongoing discussion - that is to say, its a complicated subject and hopefully we can grope our way through the conceptual difficulties together.

and apologies for the typography, which has become something of a seemingly permanent blemish. your remark on the problem earlier got me to reminiscing, as it were, and i recall it was actually MS Word that got me started, for as it developed in its ongoing incarnations the ability to capitalize things for me, i stopped doing it myself. needless to say, that's not a problem when i'm in word itself, but at times appears to annoy people on-line.

i try to compensate, not always successfully, by maintaining a sense of proportion and courtesy in my dialogue.

capsid -

i don't know the history of the process of individualization, and don't even know if one's been written. but i think it's fair to say that individualization is intrinsic to clinical practice. it is not unique to homeopathy, but will be found in conventional medical practice as well, and in hypnosis, accupuncture, psychotherapy, even education.

it is, in a way - and all of this is my own opinion on the matter, with which other clinicians may or may not agree - it is, in any case, a practical necessity, and only secondarily a theoretical principle. for example, john shows up and has high blood pressure. his doctor gives him cozaar 5 mg tid, and his bp responds by going down to 60/20, as he is whisked to the emergency room (cute: i typed "toom" by mistake - no pun intended!).

anyway, clearly, his internist will on his next visit adjust the meds, reduce the size of dose or frequency of dosing or change the medication altogether. the doc does not say, "hey, listen, that dosing regime worked for sally last week, so just stay on it and i'm sure it will all turn out ok."

that much, i'm sure, is quite obvious. but derived from that, is the fact that all medical interventions must be individualized, to suit the individual quality of presenting symptoms as well as the individual qualities of the patient, apart from specific pathology, for example, overall state of health, how robust or fragile he appears physiologically and also psychologically; history of other illnesses or susceptibilities, such as allergies or a tendency to asthma, for example. family history and genetic inheritance may also be considered, as well as life-style factors.

all of this is considered in the case taking, whether you're a psychotherapist, a homeopath, or a cardiologist, though naturally many of the details of what we look for will be variable depending on our practice. over time, all of this becomes standardized, there are even forms and more forms and still more forms that professionals come up with to aid the process.

then, at the conclusion of a treatment episode, if the doc is so inclined, he will write up a case study, presenting the details of the case from taking the history, to response to the initial prescription, to the course of treatment, to ultimate resolution. most often, as has frequently been observed and not just by skeptics, case studies are presented for successfullly treated patients. the reason for this, though other less flattering reasons can certainly be aduced, is that we learn from success: do this and the patient improves.

but, of course, the mistakes we made are not ignored, and thus you also find plenty of discussion around problems: in conventional allopathic practice, you have adverse reactions reports; in homeopathic practice, you have discussions on how to minimize the dose in order to avoid aggravation; and in psychotherapy, you learn that even a correct interpretation, if given before the patient is comfortable enough in the process, will create too much anxiety or self-consciousness and precipitate a premature end to the treatment - the patient bolts.

the thing is, that the components of the case study are standardized, the elements we look for are generally the same from one case to the next. of course, it is not completely identical from one case to the next, because no patient is identical to another, but the format is generally capable of replication: but note, it is a loose replication, no therapy can ever be duplicated because the patient can't be duplicated, in fact, even the same patient cannot undergo the same treatment, because you can't return him to his original state, prior to the first treatmnt: his history and current situation have changed.

but clinically standardization of history taking sits in for replicability in the scientific experiment - and remember also, please, that treatment can, in some ways, be considered an experiment of sorts, since one never can be completely sure how the individual patient will respond to the prescription, or other intervention (such as therapeutic interpretation).

the judgment on the objective validity of our findings rests on a reasoned analysis of the data (information) we present, evaluated within the framework of clinical principles that have shown themselves to be efficacious through repeated practice by independent practitioners working with a variety of "experimental subjects," that is, patients.

there is nothing statistically valid in a case study, though the physician, in assessing the case, may appropriately rest some decisions on statistics that he has learnt of through rct's. but the case study, otoh, can not with our current technology, be analyzed statistically: it is not a trial. the common remark from your quarter, that the case study is an unreliable n=1 is plain silly, because it applies a statistical descriptor to a clinical entity.

in real life, information flows in both directions. in an ideal world, actually, i'd end up on your side, subscribing to dr. mccoy's amazing scanning thingamabob, that records all pertinent medical data in a single sweep over the patient's body, and fixes it before the enterprise enters orbit around trafanos iii. geeesh, that dr mccoy is great, ain't he?:)

one other thing: when statistics fail to show an effect, as in testing of homeopathy, ready recourse to placebo as an explanation doesn't cut it, not rationally, not clinically. clinically, you have to demonstrate the cause-effect relationship by analysis of the individual case. and this is the other strength of dr. mccoy's amazing scanning thingamabob: inside it's amazing electronic circuitry, resides all the data one needs to translate, if requested, the specific details of the problems identified on the scan of the patient, and the specific steps taken in correcting the problem: what frequencies or particles were emitted in order to correct which problems in the patient's gut.

i'll return in a bit to answer bonde's questions.

ttfn:)

bach

Anders W. Bonde

15th January 2005, 04:12 PM

Bach,

Can I take your approximately 61 word explanation regarding a reply to my question to imply that you will not attempt to answer my question?

Jeff Corey

15th January 2005, 04:25 PM

Gentlepersons, no fighting in the War Room.
Let's try to agree on terms.
Case studies typically involve one person observing the effect(s?) of a treatment on some dependent variable.
The threats to the internal validity of these cases depend on:
Trusting the measurements of the person who may be blinded by what Bachrach called "Hypothesis Myopia".
Trusting the subjective reports of participants who are not adequately blinded with a pointed stick.
{Check with Ethical Review Board on that one.}
And outside events, history, statistical regression to the mean, test sophistication, instrument decay, experimentress bias and demand characteristics, subject bias, placebo . Rosenthal mess you all.

bvw12

15th January 2005, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by Anders W. Bonde
Bach,

Please use upper case at beginnings of sentences and for "I". Thanks.

I'm still curious, so I've rephrased my unanswered question for you again, since Sarah-I hasn't answered yet:

As homeopathy is so fantastically efficient, safe and revolutionary within virtually any field of science, from medicine, through biology and chemistry to physics etc., why is it then, in your own opinion, that not a single, solitary homeopath has ever even been nominated for, let alone won, a Nobel Prize? Why this gross injustice?

i am confident that this oversight will be corrected, when Hahnemann is honored with a retrospective award of the coveted jug at the 2018 awards ceremonies. ;)

And why are there so many more allopaths around compared to the number of homeopaths, when what the allopaths are providing is inefficient as well as highly dangerous relative to homeopathy? Where, how and especially why have the authorities failed us? Why do so many people, even intelligent, sceptical, educated and informed ones, fall pray in such huge numbers to the allopaths and never even bother to look up the far superior and perfectly safe alternative of a homeopath?

And how do you develop trends from large masses of data without recourse to statistics?

Patnray,

Thanks. I find all your posts good...

sorry for the humorous response (underlined, interleaved with your text above): but you ask a historical question, and i am at a loss to explain it, other than by common sense observations as any of us can make, for example, regarding trends and fashions in society.

more important, imho, is your question about developing trends from large masses of data without recourse to statistics. perhaps an example will suffice: darwin. or another example: freud. or another: hahnemann.

you see, i'd suggest to you that the collection of large masses of data is itself not an easy thing: you have to know what you're looking for, or recognize the significance of a small mass of data, that other observers have not yet recognized as significant, and then step by step, over a lifetime of investigation, discover links between the data you've observed, catalogued, and systematized to date, and new pieces and bits and masses of data, and simultaneously, continue to review the evolving and growing mass of data for new internal relationships, etc.

i tell you, it is with the most deeply felt awe and regard for their epochal work in this regard, that i in all humility offer the achievements of freud, and darwin, and hahnemann. if not in terms of convincing you of the ultimate heuristic value of their oeuvre, at least consider as a monumental intellectual achievement, the vast work they each accomplished in their careers.

clinically, the value of their work is determined by at least two things: its ability to organize practice to a successful outcome, and the ability of the logical structure of the theory to account for every little detail observed in practice. and for the individual practitioner, it is this that permits successful adaptation of practice to the individual patient, for i learn, from my masters or, less fortunately, from my mistakes, that when i open my mouth too quickly, the patient can't tolerate the interpretation and leaves treatment in a rush.

there is, of course, nothing to keep the statistician from parsing out the details of the clinical oeuvre and making a field day of it for designers of dbpc's. hand in glove. likewise, there is nothing to keep me from analysing the dbpc, and finding it meets my needs, or doesn't. the load dropped by psi previously notwithstanding, it is more complicated than you guys realize.;)

bach

bvw12

15th January 2005, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by Anders W. Bonde
Bach,

Can I take your approximately 61 word explanation regarding a reply to my question to imply that you will not attempt to answer my question?

bonde,

the last line of the post immediately preceding this query states that i will return to answer your questions, which i have just done above, or tried to do.

Mojo

15th January 2005, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by Capsid
The individualisation of a remedy is key here. So what is the evidence that lead homoeopaths to believe in this? Was it Hahnemann's original work or have studies been done to specifically demonstrate this or is it just 200 years of accumulated clinical evidence? If individualisation is so important I have not seen the supporting evidence to really nail this concept.
I don't really see how homeopathic remedies can be individualised, seeing as all the remedies are going to be pretty much the same once they've been diluted past Avogadro's limit...

Kumar

15th January 2005, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by Mojo
I don't really see how homeopathic remedies can be individualised,

You can think so as it become difficut to test 'measurable harsh effects' of those susbstances & of those quantitities/potencies to which we are exposed to since long time-- as we are adapted to them. We therefore, may measure effects of UV, mirowave, IR rays if in excess quantity than their natural exposures to us, instantly but may not be able to measure effects of rays within visible spectrum--to which we are more exposed in more quantity. However we can eel their long term effects.

Instant Measurable Effects of any substance, may depend on its deviated applications on us from its natural exposure & adaptations.

Non-drinker may feel effects on taking very low quantity of drinks whereas heavy drinker may not feel it.

Carn

15th January 2005, 10:17 PM

Originally posted by bvw12
you've already been pointed - see my last post. start discussin'. you can start with tyler and weir, if you want more specific direction, and anna o. or go to the mmp and cd, if you want to start with proving data.

Bach, i think Hans really only wants something like this:

http://homeoint.org/books/kentrep/kentrepert.htm (scroll down till heading "Case I")

I hope i'm correct, that these are "the brief vignettes by tyler and weir found at the beginning of kent's repertory". And i read them and they are realy brief(and when i got through all our posts at otherhealth, i will give my thoughts).

About other case studies, i tried to google for homeopathic case studies and the only thing titled "case studies" i found, where actually shorter than the above ones and looked quite unformal, so maybe even you would characterize them as case stories.
I also tried to check the journals Sarah mentioned, and found 2 of them, but one requires some sort of membership to read anything online, while the other only has a few articles online and among those was nothing named "case study".

So it is partly a really technical problem, can you provide links to case studies?

As a try are these http://www.hpathy.com/casesnew/index.asp and these http://www.hpathy.com/casesold/index.asp case studies?

Carn

Kumar

15th January 2005, 11:47 PM

You can get some 'cured cases' at;

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=cured+cases+homeopathy&btnG=Search

bvw12

16th January 2005, 12:01 AM

hi carn,

thanks so much for the leg work, and apologies for being a very poor teacher and not providing the links myself; i have a few excuses, one of which is that i'm poorly organized, and my involvement with homeopathy, while fairly intense, really doesn't come up to standard for being organized or tracking resources rigorously. me bad, i know.

but yes, those are case studies. i'd really recommend, though, the freud case studies:

i have been meaning for awhile to look up freud on the internet, hoping to find much of his work past copyright protection, and available as is much of the older homeopathic literature, but my google just now reveals very scanty material on line, so far as his published papers are concerned. but i have found the link duplicated below, and have just now skimmed through it, and it looks quite interesting.

my reference to this link, or to the other freud case studies, is interesting to me, in context of the present discussion, since i am not really interested in examining case studies to determine whether they are 'good' or not, or whether they specifically lend credence to homeopathic claims or are open to challenge on this or that basis; rather, i am trying to introduce this element to the discussion, in order to review a variety of clinical documents to elucidate for our skeptic novices (in the arena of case analysis and clinical practice) what exactly a case study is all about, or clinical assessment in general (which would include all information gathering, for example, professional provings included).

this link is a case study pieced together by the author (davis) from freud's correspondence, and annotated by the author. the annotation is most interesting, as it seems to reflect (on my brief skim, at least) the kinds of processes we go through analyzing a case, and this is something i personally think has the potential to enrich skeptical commentary:

http://www.haverford.edu/psych/ddavis/freud_e.html

it strikes me that i should say something that i often say in discussing such a process, but haven't thought to mention here as yet: that it is possible to interpret a case in a variety of ways, and reach a variety of conclusions, and have all of them be correct! it may be that there is actually only one comprehensive analysis that would be complete, but in the nature of things, any therapy is likely to be partial, especially if one allows for differing perceptions and definitions of illness.

the point is to make a good analysis, construct a cogent synthesis of the case that accounts for all or the significant portion of symptoms, and guides practice. different therapists operating under differing theories will formulate the case differently, and probably achieve different results - but all the results, in principle, could represent a 'cure,' though each cure would leave the patient in a slightly different place. it might even be necessary for the patient to return to therapy later, perhaps to a therapist who uses a different modality, to enhance the cure, bring it closer to the ideal of a complete cure.

in this connection, one of the inadequacies of the dbpc, or any statistical research, is that it cannot, by its very nature, guide decision making in vivo. actually, it is unfair to call this an 'inadequacy,' as it is really more in the way of a 'limitation:' the research trial was never meant to provide that kind of information. but, similarly, the case study was never meant to provide a statistical sample, rather, it was designed, or evolved, as a representation of thought process and planning in clinical practice.

my argument here is essentially that research must eventually be able to explain every intervention and its effects in the same details as is done, live, by the physician, and to the degree a study lacks that depth of explanatory power, it can be criticized as falling short of the ideal. needless to say, i am not suggesting that any of us actually achieve the ideal, i'm just trying to clarify what that ideal is, and how it affects the truth or utility of the methods each of us choose to use in our practices.

thanks again, carn, for helping out with the links.

bach

Hydrogen Cyanide

16th January 2005, 01:02 AM

Originally posted by Kumar
You can get some 'cured cases' at;

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=cured+cases+homeopathy&btnG=Search

Not a good source... show us the specific studies from:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi

Editted to add: This source also indexes a few Homepathic journals... so you should be able to find SOMETHING!!!

More edits - Also... many, many years ago I remember a news story where I first learned what homeopathy was. It was a story on how Bastyr U. was going to study its effectiveness. This was well over 10 years ago (when they were still in an old school in Seattle, which was close to a bakery I used to go to -- the Honey Bear near Green Lake for those familiar with the area, and the school is up for lease again:
http://www.seattleschools.org/area/propertymgt/mcdonaldad.pdf). I have never heard of the results of that study --- It is not really listed on their website. I have a feeling the results were not what they wanted to publish.

Hydrogen Cyanide

16th January 2005, 01:11 AM

Originally posted by Anders W. Bonde
Bach,

Please use upper case at beginnings of sentences and for "I". Thanks.

...

He explained he is too "lazy" to follow standard grammatical standards when typing out long rambling answers.

Too "lazy" to hit a shift key is not a characteristic I would want in a health professional. Especially one who cannot understand basic chemistry or the scientific process.

So, how does a homeopath who cannot use either of keyboard's shift keys determine which of several unmarked bottles is the homeopathic remedy or just the solvent?

Also, how does a psychotherapist who believes so much in homeopathy deal with a bi-polar patient who has decided that the homeopathic remedies have caused more fatigue? How do you deal with the failures (other than ignoring them --- making sure they are never included in clinical trial results)?

Kumar

16th January 2005, 01:14 AM

Originally posted by Hydrogen Cyanide
Not a good source... show us the specific studies from:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi

Respective studies can be found at their related/respective links. Can you show credentials, cases, durg effects, durg informations etc. of modern system on homeopathic reputed sites?

Hydrogen Cyanide

16th January 2005, 01:22 AM

Originally posted by Kumar
Respective studies can be found at their related/respective links. Can you show credentials, cases, durg effects, durg informations etc. of modern system on homeopathic reputed sites?

It is up to YOU to show that it is effective... and I already told you that PubMed indexes Homeopathic journals. So go do some leg-work and find the proof that will convince us that homeopathy has validity.

Find research that the effects have been repeated with consistent results by a non-biased group.

Just find a research paper that showed they could determine from a set of unmarked containers what was the homeopathic remedy versus the solvent. Then show the matching report where someone else repeated the process and found the same result.

If homeopathy were true and scientific... those papers would exist.

Kumar

16th January 2005, 01:37 AM

Anyway one such case on your prefered site, which is the basis of this tread, I mentioned in 2nd post in this tread. it is;

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

Rest you can search here & there as both should be valid for you. Moreover, it is not a question of proving or satisfying us in consideration of mass.....aspect, but it is just to complete your books or for curicity. However, you may be needing to understand it in your language which can also be a duty/routine work of science. Just try to find & translate in your language, so that you can {probably} be able to understand it.

bvw12

16th January 2005, 03:44 AM

bonde,

a few thoughts come to mind regarding your history question, though they are really only of interest if one assumes, at least for the sake of argument, that homeopathy works:

first, as i understand homeopathic history - and i am not an expert at it - a few local victories have indeed been scored, in which legislation was overturned to favor homeopathy, statues erected, and the like, in deference to the (reportedly) phenomenal results of homeopathic hospitals in dealing with victims of epidemics, results which (reportedly) far outstripped performance in allopathic facilities.

second, the practice still remained a small fraction the size of the mainstream establishment, and it appears that there was quite a reaction in that establishment against homeopathy. the intensity of emotion stirred up even in these debates at randiland or at the homeopathy sites reflects certainly the kind of feelings stirred up in the community; let's not forget the persecution the established authorities have routinely waged, throughout history, against new movements, burning, decapitating, or hanging as heretics those with a different world view, or, more civilized, putting legal obstacles in the way of their practice.

it is possibly true, even, that hahnemann's own very critical rhetoric toward the old school stimulated some of this hostility, but i wouldn't want to take that too far, as i don't think it is too good an idea to be blaming the victim, in this or in other situations.

then there are the vagaries of society, in which a multitude of practices may be subsumed under the same name: just as there are success stories, in short, there may also be horror stories, that may be used irresponsibly or uncritically. cyanide even appears to think - if that word can be used in that connection - that homeopathy has something to do with chemistry.

and, of course, i have long since stopped expecting human behavior to routinely conform to logical expectations.

anyway, that's just a collection of miscellaneous thoughts that occurred to me. i hope you weren't expecting a thesis that aimed for a definitive treatment of the question, and that these meanderings contribute to some further discussion, if anyone desires it.

bach

Capsid

16th January 2005, 04:23 AM

Thanks for your response Bach.

I don't agree that clinicians individualise to the same degree as homoeopaths. Clinicians draw from a list of drugs that have been through a rigorous objective testing process before they can be used on patients. No such testing has been done with homoeopathic remedies. So I am still perplexed how originally a remedy was chosen and found to work on one person and not another and then from this how to decide the course of action. To me it seems unethical that the patient would be used as a guinea pig until the right remedy is found. Agreed there is an element of that in the use of drugs, but the side effects of these drugs and their efficacy rates have been carefully determined by clinical trials in thousands of patients.

Why not do a a trial on remedies that have in the majority of patients shown to be successful from the clinica notes that have been accrued? Arnica for bruising seems to be a common remedy that is said to work on most people. Such a study would provide compelling evidence. Look how the proper study of the OP has raised interest here?

bvw12

16th January 2005, 06:26 AM

Originally posted by Capsid
Thanks for your response Bach.

I don't agree that clinicians individualise to the same degree as homoeopaths. Clinicians draw from a list of drugs that have been through a rigorous objective testing process before they can be used on patients. No such testing has been done with homoeopathic remedies. So I am still perplexed how originally a remedy was chosen and found to work on one person and not another and then from this how to decide the course of action. To me it seems unethical that the patient would be used as a guinea pig until the right remedy is found. Agreed there is an element of that in the use of drugs, but the side effects of these drugs and their efficacy rates have been carefully determined by clinical trials in thousands of patients.

Why not do a a trial on remedies that have in the majority of patients shown to be successful from the clinica notes that have been accrued? Arnica for bruising seems to be a common remedy that is said to work on most people. Such a study would provide compelling evidence. Look how the proper study of the OP has raised interest here?

hi capsid,

clarification: i include homeopaths as clinicians, and psychotherapists - basically, any 'medical' specialist, as compared to laboratory or research work. but in the following, i will try to restrict myself to comparisons between clinicians who prescribe, mainly homeopaths and MDs.

but you are talking in your first point, about how much individualization goes on, while my discussion was intended simply to identify individualization as a necessary feature of clinical practice, which is dependent on taking of a comprehensive history, and which will differentiate which patient gets which intervention, or which pill, a differentiation that can not be made statistically - it is, in the nature of things, done on an individual basis. of course, i agree that elements of the history can be studied statistically and the results serve as an aid to the clinician in his daily work.

and that's the rub: we individualize to the patient, on the basis of a (hopefully) comprehensive assessment of his symptomatology - regardless how many different drugs are available, and then select the single drug that best matches up to the patient's. indeed, in conventional practice, there is, as you say, less individualization. in fact, to a good degree, the choice of medication is independent of the individualization: for allopathic meds are designed to target specific symptoms, and will do so regardless the 'totality' of the medical profile.

the trial of arnica you recommend is appealing, but i believe has already been done, with results you might imagine. the difficulty seems to be, even given arnica's well known reputation that you refer to, that individualization is, even at that, more extensive than you might expect, as between different remedies, and also as between different potencies of arnica itself.

finally, individualizastion in homeopathy may involve distinguishing initially between possible remedies on the basis of many, many symptoms, and then distinguishing between finalists on the basis of numerous possible 'fine points,' rare, peculiar, characteristic symptoms that must be determined in each specific case - i think in that regard, it is quite impossible to get a good sample population. for example, assuming it is otherwise a good match, arnica works well for patients who in general experience relief from discomfort by movement - so, give it to someone who is generally worse with movement and there is a good chance it just won't work. another common distinguishing feature, is found in remedies that are effective for people whose condition is made worse by heat: the remedy will be less likely to work if they are better with heat, or worse with cold. and besides that, these distinguishing features might not be decisive in every case.

it is still, even to me, frankly quite bizarre seeming. but that's the way it is.

finally, of course, the therapist will not always get it right the first time, maybe evaluating the significance of the broader symptom profile innacurately in the first place, leading to an unserviceable short list.

the problem is that clinical evaluation is really very hard work.

btw, i don't know what you are referring to as 'OP.'

these considerations create problems especially in treatment trials, though such trials can be designed to accomodate these complications. individualization per se is not an issue, on the other hand, in a proving trial.

thanks for your considered post.

bach

MRC_Hans

16th January 2005, 10:35 AM

Bach, cases: I repeat, I don't want links to lists of anecdotes. You understand the question, you are just evading. I want the exact cases that you hold as evidence and you reason for doing so.

Clinical data is not anecdotes.

Hans

bvw12

16th January 2005, 12:26 PM

hans,

you can't define my terms. read the links, try to understand the material, or drop it. o well, but i guess we're back to your usual dodge of not even admitting to evidence you can't recognize through your blinders.

either you want to have a two-way conversation, and try to actually grasp a little bit of the other pov, or you just want to waddle around in your own ideational soup for a few more years. make up your mind.

bach

bvw12

16th January 2005, 12:42 PM

quote (capsid): "So I am still perplexed how originally a remedy was chosen and found to work on one person and not another and then from this how to decide the course of action. "

i didn't directly address this point, but it seems important so i thought to go back to it.

first, do you understand that, originally, before a remedy is ever used, the substance itself is potentized and put through a procedure in which "provers" take the drug and record the symptoms they get in response to it. this is called a "proving," and after several, perhaps very many individuals prove the substance, the symptoms are all collected together and recorded in the homeopathic materia medica (mm).

then, before using the remedy on a patient, the 'totality' of the patient's symptoms are collected in the case taking interview. then, this totality is analyzed, according to standard criteria, and matched up against the remedies in the mm. the remedy from the mm, that provides the best match to the patient's symptom profile, is the one selected to give to the patient.

i know this is very basic, and apologize if it is too basic, but just want to be sure the basic procedure is understood, at least in simple outline.

in any case, some remedies may easily have hundreds of symptoms, and many symptoms are duplicated from one remedy to the next, so it takes a good deal of work to even narrow the list of candidate remedies to a few finalists, and then you really can't be certain the final choice is a match until you administer a dose and see how the patient responds. although this may seem like a shot-in-the-dark approach, putting the patient at risk, the fact is that homeopathic remedies are generally so safe, and given in such minute doses, that there is usually no serious damage, though mild, brief symptomatic outbursts (aggravations), of little more than nuisance value, are not uncommon.

then, watching the patient's response over time, you observe new symptoms appearing, old symptoms disappearing, etc, and as the symptom profile evolves, your selection of remedy changes accordingly.

that's in brief. does it help? got to go - i'm being asked to start a fire, as it's cold around here right now.

take care,

bach

Anders W. Bonde

16th January 2005, 02:37 PM

Bach,

I apologize for having been a bit slow and having punched "Submit Reply" actually after you wrote you would reply later. This you did.

However, if one were instead to assume that homeoptahy does not work as advertized by its proponents (but being explicable by other more mundane means ranging from combinations of Hawthorne effect, Placebo ditto, natural remission, confirmation bias and through a host of well documented and well understood human frailties of perception and reasoning), then there is, of course, the alternative option that the reason no homeopath has won a Nobel Prize or any other real science prize and recognition is that it simply isn't what its proponents claim it to be, but instead a combination of mundane factors, adding up to what may less charitably be termed as Pure Bunkum.

What evidence would you require to convince you that this alternative option were the correct one?

I find it rather odd that no branch of the natural sciences has ever, by chance or by sytematic search, happened across any of the salient mechanism espoused by homeopathy's proponents, let alone replicated research results of: 'Law of Similars', potensizing, memory (selective, at that!) of water, alcohol or lactose, effects of controlled versus non-controlled succusion etc. By now, 'mainstream' science should logically have come across at least some the phenomena if they are so obvious to homeoptaths, learned to understand them and applied them in medicine as well as in other fields of science and engineering for the benefit of Mankind. Why has this not happened - particularly when one considers all the other remarkable discoveries and applications of science we have witnessed in the last couple of hundred years?

I'm not an expert, however: The theory of Evolution is indeed based on correlation of masses of observations. However, these observations can be made independently of the bias of a subjective observer and a subjective client, who both stand to gain from a positive interpretation. In other words, I fail to see Evolution as a valid analogy to homeopathy in this respect. The Theory of Evolution has so far stood up exceedingly well to any barrage fired at it, whereas homeopathy goes down in flames as soon as it comes within firing range. Moreover, proper RPCDBT requires large test populations as well as independent replication - which is more similar to the foundations of Evolution than to a base a theory for a whole branch of medicine on highly subjective, non-replicated and non-replicable (individualization takes care of that) anecdotal case studies.

As no homeopath can by any means other than outright fraud distinguish between a trans-Avogadro remedy and a non-remedy, the whole homeopathic house of cards collapses both logically and empirically.

(BTW, I find your refusal to not use your shift key a sign of arrogance, not one of ignorance)

Anders W. Bonde

16th January 2005, 02:42 PM

Bach,

I forgot this:

Originally posted by Bach:
and, of course, i have long since stopped expecting human behavior to routinely conform to logical expectations.

There, at least, I fully share your sentiment...

bvw12

16th January 2005, 04:55 PM

hello bonde,

i won't argue the arrogance piece, but i would suggest that i am not alone in it, dontcha tink? :)

the alternate argument, as you point out, would be indeed that the failure to win a nobel is due rather to the fact that there is, in reality, nothing to homeopathy after all. i assumed that alternative would be obvious, but even so i confess to ignoring a little voice that told me to specify it anyway, for completeness of the case. sorry for the omission.

as for what evidence would convince me that homeopathy is bunkum, as you put it, i have stated this in an earlier post: a practical, palpable demonstration of an alternative model with the capacity to explain, in complete detail, all of the effects adduced presently by the homeopathic model. statistical models need not apply.

and, my comparison to the work of darwin was a comparison to a mode of scientific inquiry, and was not intended as a proof of content. simply put, i consider observation, cataloguing, systematizing - that sort of thing - a legitimate alternative to calculation, and superior in some respects.

bach

Carn

16th January 2005, 09:59 PM

Originally posted by bvw12

and, my comparison to the work of darwin was a comparison to a mode of scientific inquiry, and was not intended as a proof of content. simply put, i consider observation, cataloguing, systematizing - that sort of thing - a legitimate alternative to calculation, and superior in some respects.

bach

Although Darwin's theory is dealing with effects, that are hard to catch via repeatable exeriments, it has 2 distinctive advantage sover homeopathy:
It provides predictions that are observer independent and does not contradict all the rest of science.

Darwin's theory in all consequences suggested, humans and apes are relatives, therefore our ancestors were something half-ape half-man. As fossils can be found, this is a prediction that can be checked and the same fossil data can be checked by different persons, so observer independence can be acquired. Furthermore it does not contradict science, when it was published, it mainly contradicted church.

Hoemopathy does not give observer independant predictions and it does contradict science. Therefore the problem, that no series of experiments confirms homeopathy, is a serious problem, homeopathy has no anchor in reality, that guarantees its not completely nonsense.

E.g. Psychotherapy has this anchor. It does make sense, that talking and rethinking one's past could effect, how someone views and deals with that past and thereby effecting his today's personality, this is well within what sciences considers possible. And dreams are produced by a part of the same brain, that harbors the "consious" part of mind, so a connection between the 2, is actually very plausible.
Therefore the limited use of replicable methods does not discredit psychotherapy as much as it discredits homeopathy.

Carn

MRC_Hans

17th January 2005, 12:09 AM

Originally posted by bvw12
hans,

you can't define my terms. read the links, try to understand the material, or drop it. o well, but i guess we're back to your usual dodge of not even admitting to evidence you can't recognize through your blinders.

either you want to have a two-way conversation, and try to actually grasp a little bit of the other pov, or you just want to waddle around in your own ideational soup for a few more years. make up your mind.

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

Clinical evidence is something that can be presented as evidence, so why can't you do it?

OK, I'll tell you why: Because it isn't there. I can read case stories till I'm blue in the face (I already did), all I find is endless repetitions of:

- Patient complains of some ailment.
- Homeopath takes case more or less carefully.
- Homeopath prescribes one or several remedies, possibily (but rarely) with repeated takings in between.
- Patient reports recovery.

What I miss is:

- Verified diagnostic findings (I don't need an "allopathic" diagnosis, but an objective identification of symptoms that allows comparison between cases).
- Verified post-treatment findings ("feels better now" is just not good enough).
- Account of other ongoing treatments.
- Total clinical record from the clinician for the entire period; how many cases recovered, how many failed.

Hans

Kumar

17th January 2005, 08:26 AM

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

Clinical evidence is something that can be presented as evidence, so why can't you do it?

OK, I'll tell you why: Because it isn't there. I can read case stories till I'm blue in the face (I already did), all I find is endless repetitions of:

- Patient complains of some ailment.
- Homeopath takes case more or less carefully.
- Homeopath prescribes one or several remedies, possibily (but rarely) with repeated takings in between.
- Patient reports recovery.

What I miss is:

- Verified diagnostic findings (I don't need an "allopathic" diagnosis, but an objective identification of symptoms that allows comparison between cases).
- Verified post-treatment findings ("feels better now" is just not good enough).
- Account of other ongoing treatments.
- Total clinical record from the clinician for the entire period; how many cases recovered, how many failed.

Hans

Whether progressive long term effects/problems are 'instantly & scientifically measurable' in modern science? Do blood & other modern tests can check & confirm all stages? Is there anything in modern system which just define properties, effects etc. but not their science? If yes, will these be just assumption, observation, experiance...based not science based--still acceped in science. WHY??

It is the property of homeopathic remedies that these works as indicated, observed & experianced by mass...--HOW? Its science couldn't yet be known. Its scientifically measurable effects can be progressive & long term because common patients may be habitual & adapted to their minute quantities SO can be misinterpreted by those who desire/misunderstood accordingly--as self healing, placebo, other medicine effects or otherwise

Is it sufficient? ;)

bvw12

17th January 2005, 09:19 AM

hans,

once again: they are not annecdotes, and they are not 'case stories' your dogged insistence on insulting clinical practice and clinical methodology notwithstanding.

your reply illustrates, again, nothing more than that you don't understand the process of case taking, or clinical observation at all. i have repeatedly tried to illuminate some of these processes in the past, and have made some gestures in the present thread to explain the process in some little detail. i'm sorry if you don't get it. read the taylor and weir vignettes. read the freud link. think.

by your statements repeatedly made, that statistical research is easy, i take it that anyone with a third grade education could understand the scope of statistical practice after a one week course ... but i assume that this intentionally exaggerated statement is actually not satisfactory, and that somehow you would find a way to justify the complexity of statistical method, while still insisting on the ease with which you can adapt it to measuring the unknown.

you absolutely amaze me. does no one else here see the problem with this scenario:

bach: i suggest that X is true. i propose that Y and Z support this opinion.

hans: X is false. Y and Z provide unsatisfactory evidence. M and N are superior sources of evidence, and show that X is false. therefore, X is false.

bach

bvw12

17th January 2005, 09:37 AM

carn,

i repeat, the comparison to darwin is to illustrate nothing more than that observation is a valid method of scientific investigation. your perseveration on distinguishing between quality of evolutionary evidence and homeopathic, is nothing more than an extension of your argument, that you disbelieve homeopathy, and rests on misperceptions of homeopathic practice, and faith that current science holds no surprises for us.

your comments on psychotherapy might clarify the problem:

"E.g. Psychotherapy has this anchor. It does make sense, that talking and rethinking one's past could effect, how someone views and deals with that past and thereby effecting his today's personality, this is well within what sciences considers possible. And dreams are produced by a part of the same brain, that harbors the "consious" part of mind, so a connection between the 2, is actually very plausible.
Therefore the limited use of replicable methods does not discredit psychotherapy as much as it discredits homeopathy."

i hope it won't come as a surprise to you, but many people would disagree with you, that the connection between dreams and the personality is plausible. in fact, the whole of freud's fabric was and continues to be ridiculed by many, and in part on the basis of being incapable of testing by statistical methods. so, while i'm gratified that you find the practice of psychotherapy less problematic than the practice of homeopathy, i fail to see why i should even trust your opinion in this regard, as compared to the opinions of other scientists who would contradict you.

in this regard, we seem to have a dilemma regarding the reliability of research methodology in the first place, in arriving at contradictory findings, viz: statistical research does establish that dream processes are unrelated to personal situations, i.e., that they reflect automatic (essentially, instinctual) neurological processes; and it establishes that dreams are related to individual circumstance and individual personality.

how do you suppose that's possible?

bach

Rolfe

17th January 2005, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by bvw12
once again: they are not annecdotes, and they are not 'case stories' your dogged insistence on insulting clinical practice and clinical methodology notwithstanding.

your reply illustrates, again, nothing more than that you don't understand the process of case taking, or clinical observation at all. i have repeatedly tried to illuminate some of these processes in the past, and have made some gestures in the present thread to explain the process in some little detail. i'm sorry if you don't get it. read the taylor and weir vignettes.Bach, it seems to me that Hans understands the real process of case taking (as it would be carried out by a qualified clinician, not some re-definition introduced by non-medically-literate homoeopaths). I think he also understands how a real "case report" or "case series" would be presented in a real medical journal by people who had some idea of the meaning of "evidence". It is you who is lacking in understanding here. In fact, the more you type (and the more you rudely refuse even to try to make your prose more readable to people used to normal conventions of spelling, typography and grammar), the more it seems to me that your case is no more than a rather more intellectual re-statement of Kumar's "mass existing" broken record. Otherwise known as "a million lemmings can't be wrong" (and before half the forum jumps on me, it's a metaphor, I know lemmings don't really jump off cliffs).

Your persistent refusal to provide any links to anywhere we can read any of this mountain of alleged "evidence" is quite telling, I think. However, I think you will find that most people here have read these ancient and unverifiable "Tales from Hahnemann", and find that the laughing dog
:dl:
is wholly insufficient to describe their reaction to such fanciful interpretations of such scanty data.

Now, if you want to persuade us that these fairy-tales have more significance than our meagre brains have been able to perceive, perhaps you would care to choose one or two of your favourites and explain what makes them so compelling to you.

I would point out that an mountain of weak and unconvincing stories is little evidence of anything. So, show us your best ones.

Rolfe.

scotth

17th January 2005, 10:48 AM

Jeff Corey

17th January 2005, 11:19 AM

The mention of Freud's case studies is instructive. They too were subjective, biased reports of unreliable data. For example, Freud analysed "Little Hans" without talking to the child. He got the whole story from the father.
This is why there are relatively few practicing Freudian clinical psychologists today.

bvw12

17th January 2005, 02:03 PM

rolfe and company:

amazing. let's try it this way: you can, obviously, but really should not say things like, "i disagree with your argument, bach, and i don't like the evidence you use to support it. you see, bach, you silly boy, i like is this kind of evidence, so if you want to support your case, you have to use the kind of evidence i want you to use."

you'd be great prosecutors, which is essentially what you are, but you're lousy scientists: 'your honor, i move the defence be forbidden to present its case, as we can present a much better case on its behalf, though the defendant might not think so."

o, rolfe, you've regressed to the mean. congrats.

bach

Mojo

17th January 2005, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by Kumar
You can think so as it become difficut to test 'measurable harsh effects' of those susbstances & of those quantitities/potencies to which we are exposed to since long time-- as we are adapted to them. We therefore, may measure effects of UV, mirowave, IR rays if in excess quantity than their natural exposures to us, instantly but may not be able to measure effects of rays within visible spectrum--to which we are more exposed in more quantity. However we can eel their long term effects.

Instant Measurable Effects of any substance, may depend on its deviated applications on us from its natural exposure & adaptations.

Non-drinker may feel effects on taking very low quantity of drinks whereas heavy drinker may not feel it.
What does any of this have to do with homeopathy?

Or indeed eels?

geni

17th January 2005, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by bvw12
rolfe and company:

amazing. let's try it this way: you can, obviously, but really should not say things like, "i disagree with your argument, bach, and i don't like the evidence you use to support it. you see, bach, you silly boy, i like is this kind of evidence, so if you want to support your case, you have to use the kind of evidence i want you to use."

Well experince from the last 200 years has rather shown that the DBPC trial does seem to produce more reliable results than anything else whan it comes to medicine.

you'd be great prosecutors, which is essentially what you are, but you're lousy scientists:

You know I think there are a lot of people a lot more qualified to judge that than you who would dissagree. I suspect some people on this thread even have the bits of paper to prove it

'your honor, i move the defence be forbidden to present its case, as we can present a much better case on its behalf, though the defendant might not think so."

Strawman

Anders W. Bonde

17th January 2005, 02:38 PM

Bach,

What Rolfe and others are asking for is the very evidence that you yourself claim supports your position.

Surely, you must have some links that you can provide to recent, comprehensive clinical studies, and surely you can post excerpts here.

Continuing on your (irrelevant, BTW) courtroom analogy, your behaviour seems to me to be along the lines of:

Bach, countering the Defence of the alternative position that homeopathy is explainable by mundane means and that RPCDBT statistics are totally irrelevant: "I have the evidence to prove the defendant guilty, Your Honor"

"Fine, Bach, then please do present your evidence"

"No, Your Honor. I will not - I need not , since it is so overwhelming, self-evident and obvious to anyone that I do not need to present it. Besides, neither the Defence nor the Jury is knowledgeable enough to understand the evidence, so what's the point of even presenting it? Since neither the Defence nor the Jury have for themselves gathered the evidence that supports my case, they are a priori unqualified to argue against it, let alone see it"

"Bach, present the evidence anyway and let the Jury decide"

"No - they can bloody well go look it up themselves - I'm not the one making an extraordinary claim. They need to provide the evidence for their extraordinary claim!"

Jeff Corey

17th January 2005, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by bvw12
rolfe and company:...you'd be great prosecutors, which is essentially what you are, but you're lousy scientists: 'your honor, i move the defence be forbidden to present its case, as we can present a much better case on its behalf, though the defendant might not think so."
On the contrary. People have asked you for evidence and you refuse to provide any.
Where is C F Larsen when one needs him? Probably returning to Demark from Los Vegas.

Mojo

17th January 2005, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by bvw12
you'd be great prosecutors, which is essentially what you are, but you're lousy scientists: 'your honor, i move the defence be forbidden to present its case, as we can present a much better case on its behalf, though the defendant might not think so."
Actually, they are asking you to present your case: something that you seem to be unwilling (or perhaps unable) to do.

bvw12

17th January 2005, 02:57 PM

bonde,

very nice. except, if you recall, i presented the evidence, or the links, and was told by hans that he didn't want to consider 'anecdotes.' in short, i did present the evidence, was told it was inadmissible, and was directed to present a different sort of evidence. that amazing little courtroom maneuver seems to be endorsed, in fact, by most of the crowd here. but i repeat, you can not have a two way conversation in which you determine what the other guy has to say.

i have also referred you to the 'scientific validity' thread at otherhealth, in which i provide a more detailed critique of dbpc (o heck, here: http://www.otherhealth.com/showthread.php?t=3453&page=2) if you choose to consider that; and i have provided fairly lengthy discussions around a few issues in the present thread.

but all i'm ever told is that i'm not presenting statistical evidence, or compilations of clinical evidence that are systematized along lines you'd approve.

get a life. try responding to the argument, instead of telling me to use a different argument, or telling me i haven't presented an argument at all, because i haven't presented your argument.

bach

Jeff Corey

17th January 2005, 03:32 PM

But it was true. You presented no scientific evidence.
Trust me, I'm a practicing scientist. If I were any better at it, I wouldn't have to practice.
Sort of like Malcom Gladwell's new book, "Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking" which I haven't read.
I can recognize BS evidence at a blink.

As Daddy used to say, "Son, you have to tell the **** from the Shinola."
"Why's dat, Daddy?"
"You don't want **** on your shoes."

Hellbound

17th January 2005, 03:32 PM

Even in courtrooms (which are, by the way, hardly scientific in any sense) heresay is not allowed as evidence.

Do try to pick an analogy that supports you, please. As others have stated, do you have any actual case studies, or do you just have stories?

Mojo

17th January 2005, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by Huntsman
Even in courtrooms (which are, by the way, hardly scientific in any sense)
On the other hand they are very skeptical: you have to be able to back up any assertion you make in court with evidence.

Jeff Corey

17th January 2005, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by Mojo
On the other hand they are very skeptical: you have to be able to back up any assertion you make in court with evidence.
Quite right. With lab evidence and such.

bvw12

17th January 2005, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by Huntsman
Even in courtrooms (which are, by the way, hardly scientific in any sense) heresay is not allowed as evidence.

Do try to pick an analogy that supports you, please. As others have stated, do you have any actual case studies, or do you just have stories?

thanks for demonstrating the general skeptic inability to even recognize 'evidence,' let alone use it rationally.

in case you've forgotten - well, as you've actually demonstrated, you're unaware of the fact that analogies don't support a pov, but are rather intended to illuminate it. in short, golly, thanks so much for pointing out that courtrooms are not scientific labs. is that the depth of your insight?

hmmm, as you're already at the mean, you can't regress to it, so i wonder where you'll end up with you backslide? yuk yuk yuk.

but anyway, keep on truckin'. mebbe one day you'll find someone who's willing to let you decide what arguments they should present - in that case, you might even stand a chance of scoring a few points, since your 'opposition,' obviously, would be so frickin' lame.

:D :D :D

Hydrogen Cyanide

17th January 2005, 06:30 PM

This is interesting only to see how Bach turns a phrase, and does some kind of double-speak --- with absolutely no regard to the real meaning of the words "science", "evidence", "proof" or "statistics". Somewhat like Kumar -- only with bad grammar.

Since this past year I have been involved with many conversations about a relative's illness (note: if you ever WANT people to talk about you, decline to come to a family function and then write a letter to be read there). The comings and goings, the massive typing without regard to punctuation and grammar and the self-belief that all the imput that is contrary to his opinion make me think that Bach himself comes here to convince us that homeopathy is real during "manic" phase.

Amusing... but that is about it.

geni

17th January 2005, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by bvw12
thanks for demonstrating the general skeptic inability to even recognize 'evidence,' let alone use it rationally.

in case you've forgotten - well, as you've actually demonstrated, you're unaware of the fact that analogies don't support a pov, but are rather intended to illuminate it. in short, golly, thanks so much for pointing out that courtrooms are not scientific labs. is that the depth of your insight?

hmmm, as you're already at the mean, you can't regress to it, so i wonder where you'll end up with you backslide? yuk yuk yuk.

but anyway, keep on truckin'. mebbe one day you'll find someone who's willing to let you decide what arguments they should present - in that case, you might even stand a chance of scoring a few points, since your 'opposition,' obviously, would be so frickin' lame.

:D :D :D

<table bgcolor=black><td>TARGET AQUIRED
SCANING.........

TARGET IDENTIFED.
IDENTIFED AS FLAME

SUGGESTED ACTIONS:POST KITTEN PICS <td></TABLE>

Kumar

17th January 2005, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by Mojo
What does any of this have to do with homeopathy?

Or indeed eels?

Its effects can be long term & progressive so can be difficult to measure scientifically at early stages on their applications. In long term their effects can be misinterpreted/confused with other effects who may be willing for that.

Carn

17th January 2005, 11:17 PM

Originally posted by bvw12
carn,

i repeat, the comparison to darwin is to illustrate nothing more than that observation is a valid method of scientific investigation.

Observation alone is scientifically very questionable, some additional support is needed and i tried to illustrate, that Darwin and Freud both have that additional support, though Darwin's is far better.
Homeopathy has no additional support, it solely rest on observations, no predictions or possible plausible connections to something else.

Originally posted by bvw12

your perseveration on distinguishing between quality of evolutionary evidence and homeopathic, is nothing more than an extension of your argument, that you disbelieve homeopathy, and rests on misperceptions of homeopathic practice, and faith that current science holds no surprises for us.

I was pointing at the fact, that even if Darwin and Freud did mispercept and misinterpret things(Darwin did afaik), it does not invalidate the whole idea immiediately.

With Darwin the predictions offer safety, if the predictions are partly true, then it is reasonable to assume, that his errors, where not too big and with Freud it is the fact that the connection between dreams and personality does not contradict anything and therefore is plausible(exception maybe neurological, but i do not know).

If there are serious errors in Hahnemann's work, there is no safety belt, that could keep homeopathy from crumbling to dust, no confirmed predictions and no plausible connections.

Originally posted by bvw12

your comments on psychotherapy might clarify the problem:

"E.g. Psychotherapy has this anchor. It does make sense, that talking and rethinking one's past could effect, how someone views and deals with that past and thereby effecting his today's personality, this is well within what sciences considers possible. And dreams are produced by a part of the same brain, that harbors the "consious" part of mind, so a connection between the 2, is actually very plausible.
Therefore the limited use of replicable methods does not discredit psychotherapy as much as it discredits homeopathy."

i hope it won't come as a surprise to you, but many people would disagree with you, that the connection between dreams and the personality is plausible. in fact, the whole of freud's fabric was and continues to be ridiculed by many, and in part on the basis of being incapable of testing by statistical methods. so, while i'm gratified that you find the practice of psychotherapy less problematic than the practice of homeopathy, i fail to see why i should even trust your opinion in this regard, as compared to the opinions of other scientists who would contradict you.

I hope it won't come as a surprise to you, that my limited knowledge about the subject gives in my mind favor to the idea, that much of Freud's work is questionable and that a lot of it will be invalidated, if ever there is a better understandment of the subject.

And i do not think anyone would agree, that the basic idea itself, that there could be some connection between personality and dreams, is as weird, as the idea that after all atoms of a substance are gone, there is still a effect different than carrier substance.

If Freud would be right, there would be only small parts of science contradicted and those in fields, that has problems to find definite results, therefore it would not come as a huge suprise, that its partly wrong. If Freud is partly wrong, then he has still given a valuable contribution to the whole affair.

If Hahnemann would be right physics, chemistry and biology at least back to 1900, maybe even further, would be wrong down to the basics. All the evidence our cars, computers, plastics, food industry,.... stands against that. Therfore Hahnemann being right would shake the world. It would be the biggest suprise, in history of sciences so far. But if he is wrong he is just an example of how crazy ideas delusion can produce.

Originally posted by bvw12

in this regard, we seem to have a dilemma regarding the reliability of research methodology in the first place, in arriving at contradictory findings, viz: statistical research does establish that dream processes are unrelated to personal situations, i.e., that they reflect automatic (essentially, instinctual) neurological processes; and it establishes that dreams are related to individual circumstance and individual personality.

how do you suppose that's possible?

bach

Human mind is very complicated and there are ethical standards limiting the possiblities of replicable experiments.

Compared to that diseases are relativ easy, flu causes similar symptons(though of variable strength) in most patients.
So someone caliming to have something against flu is easy to test, take a hundred patients, give one half the wonder drug, the other placebo and see if there is any big difference.

Homeopathy does not predict anything, only vague statements, that would fit any astrologer.

Carn

Badly Shaved Monkey

17th January 2005, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by bvw12
thanks for demonstrating the general skeptic inability to even recognize 'evidence,' let alone use it rationally.

As ever the problem is that what you regard as 'evidence' is indeed evidence, but only in a trivial sense. The accumulation of trivial instances does not build a case, it's just a pile of trivial instances: see, for instance, Sarah's vacuous proffering of her pneumonia case in the misguided belief that it proved something- we can dispute the facts of that case, but it is her interpretation that is the big problem.

The fact that you use as your touchstone for clinical evidence, psychotherapy, or as the rest of the world calls it, a cup of tea and a chat, tells us more about the weakness of your standards of proof and nothing about the power of clinical evidence. It is simply impossible for you to add a tablet to your 'talking cure' and draw any sensible inference about it's potency and that is true whether the tablet was a real drug or one of your sugar pills. Your 'clinical evidence' contributes precisely nothing. and may even be worse than useless to the extent that it leads you to draw mistaken conclusions about the power of homeopathy.

The last and greatest mistake you make is in thinking that your process of clinical evidence gathering is itself capable of confirming its own validity. You argument is circular. Homeopathy has been developed as a method of justifying any possible outcome after giving a tablet. You look to homeopathy to explain the outcome of any case and because that outcome can be framed in homeopathic terms you think that it proves the validity of the framework. You have been presented over and over again with points at which that framework conflicts with reality and common sense (see for example my demolition of proving protocols) but you either cannot understand or blindly refuse to accept those disproofs. That leaves you locked in your little circular box. Fortunately, I'm sure your patients are quite happy with their hot beverage sessions with you and may even gain demonstrable subjective benefit, but that has nothing to say about homeopathy and our problem with homeopathy and homeopaths is when false claims are made about the power of sugar pills to cure real disease.

Rolfe

18th January 2005, 01:53 AM

Originally posted by bvw12
i presented the evidence, or the links, and was told by hans that he didn't want to consider 'anecdotes.'No, Bach, I don't think you did. I don't think you posted any links at all. Someone else did post a couple of links, but the best you seemed to be able to manage was vague exhortations to "read Kent's vignettes" and things like that.

Now, real scientists don't consider antique "vignettes" written by a strong proponent to be serious evidence for anything, if the claims cannot be verified or replicated in a modern context. As I said, most of us have read the stories you're talking about, and merely find them funny. So, I repeat,Originally posted by Rolfe
Now, if you want to persuade us that these fairy-tales have more significance than our meagre brains have been able to perceive, perhaps you would care to choose one or two of your favourites and explain what makes them so compelling to you.

I would point out that an mountain of weak and unconvincing stories is little evidence of anything. So, show us your best ones.Please pick an example of the evidence that you find so compelling, and explain to us what's so compelling about it.

Anders' courtroom analogy was very good. If you want us to understand your case, you actually have to present it.

Rolfe.

Sarah-I

18th January 2005, 02:34 AM

Well, as far as I am concerned, pneumonia is as real a disease as one can get, unless I have been mistaken for a long time.

Also, there is a very good clinical case study that I found in Homeopathy International the other day. This is the journal of the Homeopathic Medical Association. It is a case of male breast cancer. The patient was treated by a classical homeopath who was working for Frontline Homeopathy at the time. He was treated with four different remedies, as his symptoms indicated and this resulted in full cure over a course of 2 years. Homeopathy was used exclusively as treatment with no conventional medication at all.

There are no untruths told in case studies. There is no point in doing this. Everything is factual and correct.

Rolfe

18th January 2005, 02:42 AM

Come on, Sarah, you claim to have some sort of genuine medical education, I'm sure you can do better than that.

Age and lifestyle of patient. Full details of presenting signs. Diagnostic tests undertaken and their exact results. Full account of all treatment given, "conventional" as well as homoeopathic. Results of post-treatment examinations and tests, including the information on which you base the claim of "cure". Long-term follow-up for possible recurrences.

That for a start, before we consider this "case" as evidence of anything at all.

Rolfe.

Capsid

18th January 2005, 03:03 AM

Originally posted by Sarah-I

There are no untruths told in case studies. There is no point in doing this. Everything is factual and correct.
I don't disbelieve you, but let's get all the people together who have been treated successfully with say, arnica for bruising and treat them again (sorry you'll have to bruise them first). This time there will also be a control group that receive a placebo, such as a remedy that does not work for bruising. What would happen then?

Wouldn't information from such studies be useful to optimise the treatment? You might identify a subgroup of patients who respond better than others and this would lead to further studies to unravel why they do respond better?

What about doing double blind studies on animals, using inbred strains of mice for example. This approach might rule out some of the need for individualisation. I guess you'll say that genetics has nothing to do with homoeopathy (but how do you know this? The studies have never been done).

I anticipate that you will find fault with theses studies which is a shame because it is indicative that you don't really want to know.

IMO this is the difference between science and pseudoscience.

OP = opening post btw.

Rolfe

18th January 2005, 03:31 AM

Originally posted by Capsid
let's get all the people together who have been treated successfully with say, arnica for bruising and treat them again (sorry you'll have to bruise them first). This time there will also be a control group that receive a placebo, such as a remedy that does not work for bruising. What would happen then?

Wouldn't information from such studies be useful to optimise the treatment?As far as Bach is concerned, the fact that some effect was reported in the first place is everything, and if the study you outline shows no difference between treated and placebo groups that proves that the study design is at fault. Unfortunately he is unable to describe a study design which would be acceptable to him, as it is an article of faith that any study which doesn't show an effect is faulty by definition, no matter who designed it or how watertight it appeared to be before the event.

(There have been studies on arnica for bruising, using patients undergoing identical surgical procedures, carpal tunnel I think, and nothing different happened between the treated and control groups. This is one of the studies Bach believes must be wrongly designed, as it didn't produce the result he wanted.)

I think Sarah is just too wrapped up in self-satisfaction to want to question anything she does.

Rolfe.

bvw12

18th January 2005, 05:59 AM

quote (badly shaved...): "The fact that you use as your touchstone for clinical evidence, psychotherapy, or as the rest of the world calls it, a cup of tea and a chat...."

i'm just scrolling through this stuff at the moment, and probably won't respond in any detail for some time, but i had to thank you for this remark - a belly laugh, early in the morning! it would be good if we could share more of those...

bach

(ADD): ...and regrettably, it appears, pretty unlikely.

Badly Shaved Monkey

18th January 2005, 06:29 AM

Originally posted by Sarah-I
Well, as far as I am concerned, pneumonia is as real a disease as one can get, unless I have been mistaken for a long time.

One could question the competence of the diagnosis, but even accepting that pneumonia was accurately diagnosed you have remembered, haven't you, the difference between viral and bacterial pneumonia? Is pneumonia uniformly fatal without treatment in your vast medical experience such that a cure by homeopathy is the only explanation for that patient's recovery?

Once again, your deep naivety about medicine shows you to be someone who should be kept well away from diagnosing and treating sick people.

Rolfe

18th January 2005, 07:14 AM

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
Is pneumonia uniformly fatal without treatment in your vast medical experience such that a cure by homeopathy is the only explanation for that patient's recovery?As I remarked before, I was hospitalised with pneumonia some 15 years ago. No aetiological diagnosis was made, as I tested seronegative for everything from psittacosis to Legionnaire's disease and everything in between. I recovered pretty quickly, and although I was prescribed erythromycin, I always held a sneaky suspicion that I'd been on the point of beginning to recover anyway when that antibiotic was started. (An earlier course of amoxycillin had done precisely nothing.)

Now, if I can hypothesise that my recovery was spontaneous rather than attributable to the "allopathic medicine", why is it so impossible for Sarah to consider that the recoveries she sees might be equally coincidental?

Rolfe.

Psiload

18th January 2005, 07:57 AM

Originally posted by Sarah-I
Well, as far as I am concerned, pneumonia is as real a disease as one can get, unless I have been mistaken for a long time.

Also, there is a very good clinical case study that I found in Homeopathy International the other day. This is the journal of the Homeopathic Medical Association. It is a case of male breast cancer. The patient was treated by a classical homeopath who was working for Frontline Homeopathy at the time. He was treated with four different remedies, as his symptoms indicated and this resulted in full cure over a course of 2 years. Homeopathy was used exclusively as treatment with no conventional medication at all.

There are no untruths told in case studies. There is no point in doing this. Everything is factual and correct.

Let me get this straight...

Homeopathy can cure pneumonia and cancer, basically for free, yet there isn't a single accredited university in the United States offering a homeopathy degree?

Homeopathic remedies are powerful enough to defeat cancer, yet they're indistinguishable from sugar cubes and tap water?

Homeopathy cures cancer? Is this generally applicable, or does it only work in Crazytown?

bvw12

18th January 2005, 08:30 AM

quote (rolfe): 'Now, if I can hypothesise that my recovery was spontaneous rather than attributable to the "allopathic medicine", why is it so impossible for Sarah to consider that the recoveries she sees might be equally coincidental?'

yes, quite agree. no argument, no quibble, but i would like, still, to take the opportunity to explain, that this is the sort of analysis of alternatives that is deeply characteristic of case analysis - whether the 'case study' is extremely thorough, meeting the highest clinical, academic, and scientific standards, or is sub-par.

this is part of the reason why i abstain from 'debating' the merits of specific case studies, as it has the effect, simply, of repeating the debate on a second level, i.e., regarding the merits of the differing methods of gathering data. from my pov, it would be preferred if people actually read the case studies, and tried to learn how to analyze them clinically. i don't and never have challenged the value of analyzing, potentially, anything from the statistical angle, but don't see any reason to abandon other useful, scientific methodologies out of the starting gate - as i say, especially in view of some pretty shoddy research trials (should i call them research 'stories'?) i've seen over the years.

bach

scotth

18th January 2005, 09:35 AM

I'll try a different route here (though it is surely one that has been tried before).

bach,

You really need to study and understand the history of science and the development of the scientific method. One of the KEY lessons that science has learned is the we (humans) have a HUGE penchant for fooling ourselves. This is a very key observation. This is the main reason that the scientific method looks the way it does. Over the last couple hundred years, the ways in which we fool ourselves has been documented and cateloged. And nearly every aspect of the scientific method as it is used today is there to prevent self delusion. Peer review, the way we gather evidence, the types of evidence that is considered useful, all of it was developed by analyzing FAILURE and coming up with ways not to be fooled same way again.

The problem with Homeopathy is that when the methods are employed to prevent self deception, homeopathy falls on its face.

You guys deride these methods, but they work very well for every other field of inquiry that man has considered.

Your only reason for rejecting those methods seem to be because when they are used, you don't get the results you WANT so badly to get.

You think Homeopathy is the first field of study where someone wants things to come out a certain way? It certainly isn't.

I want certain aspects of psi to be true. I want it so bad I can taste it. And that is exactly why I find it especially important to use the lessons of science to prevent my own self deception.

And for some of you (Kumar for instance).... Have you ever heard the phrase, "There is no idea so outlandish that it will fail to find someone willing to believe it." Do you think this is a true statement? Have you considered that you just might be one of those people?

edited to add:

The 'evidence' that is consistently presented in favor of homeopath is usually exactly the type of evidence that is considered the least reliable. In fact, nearly worthless.

These scientific rules really are good stuff. Step away of homeopathy and learn them. See how well they really work. Learn the ways that people have fooled themselves in the past, and then come back to homeopathy and have a really good look.