Wanna vote?

[Rolfe]

Yes, yes, I know I posted this before, but the poll is now showing its results, and I KNOW we can do better.

http://www.trusthomeopathy.org/

Should homoeopathy be available in the NHS in the UK?

Currently on 185 (79.4%) Yes, 48 (20.6%) No.

Get in there and change that!

Rolfe.

[HeyLeroy]

I just voted (No, natch.)
Results are now:
Yes: 75.2% (185)
No: 24.8% (61)

Looks like the Yes side is talled!

[clarsct]

I voted...we're up to 28%

Damn.


I wonder how long the vote lasts... I bet I could get my wife to vote from a different comp...

[geni]

I voted...we're up to 28%

Damn.


I wonder how long the vote lasts... I bet I could get my wife to vote from a different comp...


No is now up to 30.3%. The system appears to be based on IPs.

[clarsct]

*nod*

Figured..i'm posting from work, she'd post from home....so different IPs.
Sorry, I should have explained a bit, perhaps.

[AnotherSillyAlias]

Just voted.

We're now at:

69.4 Y
30.6 N


Problem with this poll is that it is on a homeopathy website. It's not hard to see who the majority of the respondents might be! No doubt they will use the results to "prove" that the majority of people in Britain want it! :rolleyes:

[clarsct]

Hmmmmmmm.

Which is why we need to spread it far and wide, just to mess up their bragging point....

[BillC]

It won't let me vote; presumably since someone with my IP has already done so. :mad:

[Zep]

Done. 33%...

[Soapy Sam]

Done
33.7%

[MRC_Hans]

It is not cookie based, it seems. I'll try to vote again from home.

Hans

[Soapy Sam]

No. I checked that.
Not that I'd vote twice of course.

[kmwmtd]

Not exactly deliberately. I voted once, but forgot to note the percentages. I couldn't find a way to view the results without voting - I hate polls like that - so I decided to try voting again. To my surprise, it let me.

'No' is now up to 34.8%, but I shall try to resist the desire to spend the day voting 'No'.

[Kumar]

It is not cookie based, it seems. I'll try to vote again from home.

Hans

Might be, alike you made it. Dishonesty accepted & proved.:D

[MRC_Hans]

Might be, alike you made it. Dishonesty accepted & proved.:DYes, I have no qualms cheating cheaters. They deserve it.

Hans

[kmwmtd]

Yes, I have no qualms cheating cheaters. They deserve it.

Hans

Surely that would be to descend to their level and to weaken our position. I think I will stay up here on the high ground for the time being. Well, as close to the high ground as I can get given that I voted twice.

[MRC_Hans]

Well, that was the level we were talking about, wasn't it? They put up a biased vote, and we counterbias it (or try to). Whether I summon my friend to vote, or vote twice myself makes little difference.

Hans

[Soapy Sam]

35%
Heh-heh!

Two networks, has Yoda

[MRC_Hans]

A dynamic IP allocation, at home, my prezzziouzz!

Hans

[Kumar]

Yes, I have no qualms cheating cheaters. They deserve it.

Hans

Ok, your style.:D

[kmwmtd]

Well, that was the level we were talking about, wasn't it? They put up a biased vote, and we counterbias it (or try to). Whether I summon my friend to vote, or vote twice myself makes little difference.

Hans
If the vote were, for example, in a political election to determine the next leader of a nation, there is a huge difference between getting a friend to vote and me voting twice! Where do you draw the line? Voting twice, three times, one hundred, one million? National elections, local elections, the local school board, a little vote on a deluded website?

Is that not also the top of the slippery slope that leads to a scientist inserting made-up results that confirm the theory being tested into experimental data? They do it, so why not me? Then sometime down the road, it is noticed, and the experiment, no matter how correct it was before the 'spoofed' results, is invalidated.

Anyway, we are only talking about one little vote, so it's not worth arguing about. I humbly suggest that we agree to differ, and let the thread do its intended job of gathering votes.

[Soapy Sam]

That explains it. The second network here will let me vote again.
However, for the sake of honesty, I asked several British colleagues to vote.
When I stopped hitting them, they complied.
36. something.

[MRC_Hans]

kmwmtd: You are right. In the real world. But not for joking with a joke poll. IMHO.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*However, for the sake of honesty, I asked several British colleagues to vote.
When I stopped hitting them, they complied.
36. something.Well, that was what I did too, really. I asked a colleague to vote, and she asked me to enter her vote.

Hans

[Zep]

37+% Will try harder...

[Rolfe]

I'm not sure how it works. I've got two completely different ISPs on my home computer, Demon and Compuserve, and I tried disconnecting the Demon connection and re-dialling Compuserve. Still said "you have already voted". Which suggests to me it might be cookie-based?

Anyway, doesn't matter, the point is to tell as many rational people as possible that the poll is there. This is typical homoeopath dishonesty, right on a par with the selected and biassed papers chosen for display in their "research" section. Put up a poll on a web page likely to be frequented mainly by homoeopathy supporters, and then claim victory when the majority vote your way. It just needs a bit of wider publicity.

Rolfe.

[Mongrel]

Done - we're on 37.2% and I'll put in another vote from home :)

[Soapy Sam]

Easy to check. Before posting from any machine, set Internet security to block all cookies.
Vote.
Check to see if you are blocked.
Dump all cookies and check again.

Anyway, I think we're all agreed it's better if genuine votes come from different sources-Some would say it's unethical for non-Brits to vote at all- but we have no idea how many 'yes' votes come from the very people who framed the poll. Interesting implications for the whole idea of online voting.

[Dragon]

Well, IP addresses, cookies or both - someone's found a way around it, take a look :cool:

[Rolfe]

Well, IP addresses, cookies or both - someone's found a way around it, take a look :cool:Oh dear. That's naughty. Too obviously an attack. Much better to get people to vote in ones and twos, and just let it stack up gradually. Oh well. Scuppers their plan, anyway.

Rolfe.

[Mojo]

Oh dear. That's naughty. Too obviously an attack. Much better to get people to vote in ones and twos, and just let it stack up gradually. Oh well. Scuppers their plan, anyway. And if they complain about it being fiddled, we can point out that the results of any polls they've conducted that have given positive results for homoeopathy are just as (un)reliable. :D

[geni]

Well, IP addresses, cookies or both - someone's found a way around it, take a look :cool:


AOL, NTL, earthlink, telstar. Only of those would allow you get that kind of result. Of course a popular blog would also be able to get that kind of result.

[MRC_Hans]

In you opening post you said:

Get in there and change that!

Rolfe.
That to a forum full of devout skeptics, many if which are at least part-time computer nerds. What did you expect ;)? Of course somebody would find a way to "potentize" votes and carry out m'lady's direct order.

Hans

[geni]

In you opening post you said:


That to a forum full of devout skeptics, many if which are at least part-time computer nerds. What did you expect ;)? Of course somebody would find a way to "potentize" votes and carry out m'lady's direct order.

Hans

Still not that easy though. If it works the way I think it does the only way I can think of doing it would be to cycle through TOR proxies (or some equiverlent)

[Zep]

:D

It seems to be IP-based - I have a number of PCs here at home on my network, but they share a common cable connection with one IP. So I can't vote again from another PC here at home... Grrrr.

[Rolfe]

:D

It seems to be IP-based - I have a number of PCs here at home on my network, but they share a common cable connection with one IP. So I can't vote again from another PC here at home... Grrrr.So why didn't it work when I hung up Demon and re-dialled Compuserve? (Not that it matters now that someone has obviously done a number on it, but it's of academic interest.)

Rolfe.

[geni]

So why didn't it work when I hung up Demon and re-dialled Compuserve? (Not that it matters now that someone has obviously done a number on it, but it's of academic interest.)

Rolfe.

either cookies or posebly session varariables

[Mosquito]

Yes: 42.6% (194)
No: 57.4% (261)

Only voted once.

Mosquito - who find the whole issue frightening

[kmortis]

Yes: 194
No: 263

I don't know who 262 was, but... :D

[Rolfe]

274 now.

When I went into the site from a colleague's computer, she was recorded as "already voted", even though she'd never been near the place in her life before. It seems as if our whole network is deemed to have "voted" on the strength of my single vote. Which makes me feel better about whoever jemmied the vote.

I wonder if these guys will do what the H'pathy admin team did, and simply change the results?

I'm a bad person. I just saved the page.

Rolfe.

[Mojo]

I'm a bad person. I just saved the page. And just in time! The poll's disappeared now.

It still says I've already voted though! Perhaps they're permanently blocking everyone who voted "no."

[geni]

they are useing this as their polling system. Looks pretty robust:

http://www.cgiscript.net/cgi-script/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=cgi.db&command=viewone&id=36

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

And just in time! The poll's disappeared now.

It still says I've already voted though! Perhaps they're permanently blocking everyone who voted "no."
I just placed a vote, and the results are now blank.

Looks like the poll has been taken down because the 'No's were winning.

:)

[jmercer]

I just voted, but for some reason, the totals didn't display...

[Grundar]

I voted last time this was mentioned. at that time no was winning.

Hans

[richardm]

I just placed a vote, and the results are now blank.

Looks like the poll has been taken down because the 'No's were winning.

:)

Same here. They obviously take the view that there's no point in having a poll if you don't get the right result ;)

[Rolfe]

Well, when I first mentioned this some little time ago the poll was like this, with no display of the results. Could be just a glitch.

Maybe.

Rolfe.

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

Well, when I first mentioned this some little time ago the poll was like this, with no display of the results. Could be just a glitch.

Maybe.

Rolfe.
OK, we'll go with that. :D

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I voted but no results come up.

I have however sent them this comment;

I wonder whether you wish to comment on the conflict between the headline on the content of this story;

"Homeopathy improves health of 70% of patients in hospital study

18-11-2005, 10:23 am

The results of a six-year study at Bristol Homeopathic Hospital (part of United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust), one of five NHS homeopathic hospitals in the UK, show that over 70% of patients with chronic diseases reported positive health changes after homeopathic treatment. "

http://www.trusthomeopathy.org/csArticles/articles/000000/000066.htm

The intellectual scumbags can't even manage to maintain a consistent story from headline to first sentence. The authors of the paper are, in fact, relatively careful about claiming causal links in the original publication. The implied causality has been carefully introduced in the spin applied to their survey.

[Dragonrock]

I voted, but all it did was thank me for voting. It didn't give me the current results.

[emperorchaos]

Yeah, and it's still not. But it doesn't matter. Rolfe saved the page so we'll know if they try to lie. Perhaps they'll just wait until the yes's pass the no's, if that will happen again.

That was pretty awesome though. We make quite a momentous force. I guess...

I do wonder how many non-Brits like myself voted though.

[Mojo]

Ah! I see (now that I've looked at it at home) that the option to vote is still there if you haven't voted already. I guess we'd better carry on encouraging people to vote "no".

[Soapy Sam]

I just logged on to check the current result. The histogram had vanished.
Incidentally- on the same link Rolfe gave, check out the want to find out more / campaigning page.

[Panelman]

I just voted . No results shown.

[Rolfe]

I just logged on to check the current result. The histogram had vanished.
Incidentally- on the same link Rolfe gave, check out the want to find out more / campaigning page.I can't find the throwing-up smilie.

By the way, did you know that John Saxton, [disparaging remarks about] veterinary surgeon, is actually the current President of this bunch of medical fruitcakes?

Rolfe.

[AnotherSillyAlias]

I just voted . No results shown.

Same for me, I voted from a different place and no reults were shown. Obviously they don't like the answer. Maybe they shouldn't have asked the question!

[burrahobbit]

Voted No

From India so have no (direct) dog in this fight but what the hell

No histogram now. Looks like the Nos still have their nose in front

[tim]

I just voted - no results shown.........

[Mojo]

Well the poll's still there to vote on, but still no results showing. You'd have thought they would remove the whole thing...

[Rolfe]

I wonder if they ever figured out where the attack(s) came from? (I say attacks, because the suggestion to get all your mates to log in and vote no wasn't in the same league as the obvious hack that happened on the morning of the 28th. Which we don't even know was connected to anyone on this thread, after all.)

Rolfe.

[PatKelley]

It looks as if they've started over, so get your voting hats on again, no histogram but I was able to vote once more.

[geni]

I wonder if they ever figured out where the attack(s) came from? (I say attacks, because the suggestion to get all your mates to log in and vote no wasn't in the same league as the obvious hack that happened on the morning of the 28th. Which we don't even know was connected to anyone on this thread, after all.)

Rolfe.

I'm not sure it was a hack in the clasical sense. The poll softwear they are useing is probably reasonable robust.

[Rolfe]

It looks as if they've started over, so get your voting hats on again, no histogram but I was able to vote once more.It's still telling me I've already voted. But I did find over the weeks that I was able to vote two or three times as now and again I did get the odd chance. I've no idea what dictated when that happened.

Rolfe.

[geni]

It's still telling me I've already voted. But I did find over the weeks that I was able to vote two or three times as now and again I did get the odd chance. I've no idea what dictated when that happened.

Rolfe.

At a guess I's say your IP is only semi static. Examples of this are NTL and earthlink.

[Mojo]

It looks as if they've started over, so get your voting hats on again, no histogram but I was able to vote once more.It's still letting me vote occasionally, but there's been no sign of any results since the 25th.

[clarsct]

Well......
I DID post about this over on SC and on the skepchicks fora.....

That's not bad, is it?

Hmmmm. We need a halo smiley....

I'll let them know what's going on......

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I've not been told I've voted yet. So I've either voted about a dozen times or none.

[John Bentley]

I've not been told I've voted yet. So I've either voted about a dozen times or none.

I just voted. No results shown.

[Rolfe]

I had a look at the html. The string that would provide the link to the results seems to have been deliberately inactivated, using <--- ! markings. I'm sure a geekier person could work out more.

Rolfe.

[gerdbonk]

I had a look at the html. The string that would provide the link to the results seems to have been deliberately inactivated, using <--- ! markings. I'm sure a geekier person could work out more.

Rolfe.


The URL in that string opens the same Poll Results page that shows no results. They've apparently turned off reporting in the polling application.

[Rolfe]

The URL in that string opens the same Poll Results page that shows no results. They've apparently turned off reporting in the polling application.I was actually trying to see if I could trace the current results, but I'm not geeky enough.

That's a funny web site, uses absolute links throughout I think which opens up lots of possibilities. It has some pages that only show for a few seconds then forward you to another, and I just can't help hacking a little to get a good look.

They're typical devious bastards, basically.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Too many posts, I'm editing this one.

There are 18 html pages and one pdf file in the area of the Faculty of Homoeopathy web site which is now unviewable. I've a feeling that there's just too much detail there, and stuff they figure might actually harm their case.

So, it's official, I definitely need a life. But I've snaffled all these pages and parked them where they can be viewed without the browser being almost immediately redirected to their Research in Homoeopathy contents page (http://www.trusthomeopathy.org/case/res_toc.html). I'm trying to edit the pages further to show internal links, but until that's done, any links in the following pages to a "cas_xxx.html" page will get you the redirect. If that happens, go back, and get the relevant page from the list below.

The site area is entitled "The Case for Homoeopathy". I suspect there are more than a few holes in it. So, here are the pages.

Overview (http://www.vetpath.co.uk/voodoo/fachom/cas_over.html)
What is Homoeopathy (http://www.vetpath.co.uk/voodoo/fachom/cas_what.html)
Homoeopathy in the NHS (http://www.vetpath.co.uk/voodoo/fachom/cas_nhs.html)
Growth and Popularity (http://www.vetpath.co.uk/voodoo/fachom/cas_grow.html)
Evidence for Homoeopathy (http://www.vetpath.co.uk/voodoo/fachom/cas_evid.html)
Efficacy (http://www.vetpath.co.uk/voodoo/fachom/cas_eff.html)
Safety (http://www.vetpath.co.uk/voodoo/fachom/cas_saf.html)
Cost-effectiveness (http://www.vetpath.co.uk/voodoo/fachom/cas_cost.html)
NHS Homoeopathic Centres of Excellence (http://www.vetpath.co.uk/voodoo/fachom/cas_hos.html)
Purchasers' Priorities (http://www.vetpath.co.uk/voodoo/fachom/cas_pur.html)
Dealing with Sceptics' Misconceptions (http://www.vetpath.co.uk/voodoo/fachom/cas_mis.html)
Attitude of Doctors towards Homoeopathy (http://www.vetpath.co.uk/voodoo/fachom/cas_drs.html)
Clinical Areas where Homoeopathy has Much to Offer (http://www.vetpath.co.uk/voodoo/fachom/cas_off.html)
Clinical Trials (http://www.vetpath.co.uk/voodoo/fachom/cas_cli.html)
Meta-Analyses (http://www.vetpath.co.uk/voodoo/fachom/cas_met.html)
Outcome Studies (http://www.vetpath.co.uk/voodoo/fachom/cas_out.html)
Cases where Homoeopathy has Brought Benefits (http://www.vetpath.co.uk/voodoo/fachom/cas_cas.html)
References (http://www.vetpath.co.uk/voodoo/fachom/cas_ref.html)
Opportunities for Homoeopathy within the New NHS (http://www.vetpath.co.uk/voodoo/fachom/resource_pack.pdf) (82-page pdf file)

Anyone interested in looking through the homoeopaths' laundry basket, carry on.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

It's too late to edit the previous post now, but I've checked it all, and the links now work. So, going to
The Case For Homoeopathy (http://www.vetpath.co.uk/voodoo/fachom/cas_over.html)
will get you all of the "hidden" section of the web site, properly linked, but if you click on any link to the currently-viewable part of the site, you will be taken back to the trusthomeopathy.org server and the main viewable pages.

Rolfe, who knows this is silly, but doesn't like homoeopaths who conceal things.

[Soapy Sam]

Still says I've voted. If it's still up in about ten days', I have a dynamic IP at home.

[Panelman]

I checked and it told me that I had voted. No results.

[Mojo]

I assume that this was the same poll as the one mentioned in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=46717) that Rolfe started on 29th October. The poll results stayed up until 25th November, by which time there were 194 votes in favour.

That's almost a month.

Does the British Homeopathic Association and Faculty of Homeopathy website really only get about 200 visitors per month who think homoeopathy should be available on the NHS?

Perhaps someone should tell Tony that this stuff may not may not be such a great vote-winner after all.

[Rolfe]

Yes, it's the same one. At the time I started that thread the poll appeared as it does now, with no results visible. Probably because of that, there was little interest. When I went back for a look later, the results were displayed, which led to the shenannigans detailed in this thread. I do have a saved copy of the page just before the results disappeared again.

I just checked again, and there's now a bit of text above the poll, presumably trying to wheedle people into a "yes" vote.There are five NHS homeopathic hospitals in the UK, as well as a number of NHS clinics, but some areas of the country have no access to homeopathic treatment. The BHA is campaigning for more access to homeopathy for everyone, regardless of where you live.Still no display of results, but it let me vote again!

Rolfe.

[Mojo]

I just checked again, and there's now a bit of text above the poll, presumably trying to wheedle people into a "yes" vote.Doesn't let me see that here, because it's got me down as "already voted", but I do remember seeing something like that when I originally voted on it. I'll have another look (and maybe another vote ;) ) when I get home.

[Rolfe]

Ah, I suspect you may be right. It's been a while since I've seen the option to vote.

Rolfe.

[Mojo]

Yes, it's the same one. At the time I started that thread the poll appeared as it does now, with no results visible. Probably because of that, there was little interest. I was just thinking about the numbers. We're constantly being barraged by claims that lots of people use homoeopathy, that lots of people want SCAM to be available on the NHS. The BHA has a membership of 3,000 and the FoH 1,400 (I don't know whether there is any overlap). And yet fewer than 200 people actually bothered to vote "yes" on the issue when a poll was posted on their own homepage.