JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Tags alternative medicine , dana ullman , homeopathy

Reply
Old 8th June 2007, 04:29 AM   #121
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 25,411
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2007, 04:58 AM   #122
Cuddles
Decoy
Moderator
 
Cuddles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: A magical land full of pink fluffy sheeps and bunnies
Posts: 18,310
Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
When you consider that homeopathy became popular in the 19th century
Homeopathy didn't "become popular" in the 19th century it was invented in the 19th century.

Originally Posted by Badly Shaved Monkey View Post
How about calling the tablets "lactose" and the liquids "water/alcohol"?
I vote for calling them alcohol. And drinking them in copious amounts.
__________________
If I let myself get hung up on only doing things that had any actual chance of success, I'd never do anything!
Cuddles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2007, 07:24 PM   #123
Dana Ullman
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 201
Badly Shaven Monkey said that there was discussion elsewhere on this list that provided a critique of Rey's thermoluminesence work. I read a lot of study on this list about his work, but I saw no reasonable or good critique of it. Because it was published in such a high grade physics journal, the ball is in the skeptics' court to provide a specific critique. Please enlighten me.

I appreciate Hans remarks about me (calling me "literate"). Thanx Hans. You're one of the few gentlemen here. There is too much name-calling and knee-jerk reactions.

I was disappointed that nobody made any comment on my reference to the recent discovery of silica fragments falling off from the inner part of glass bottles in the making of the homeopathic medicines. Because homeopaths have always used a double-distilled water, this "contamination" with silica or silicate fragments may help us understand the possibility of a certain physicality to the homeopathic doses even beyond Avogadro's number.

Although Hans doesn't like it when I (or probably anyone else) uses the word "may," I prefer to remain humble in what I know (and don't know) until there is further verification (skeptics should appreciate this type of attitude rather than rebuke it).

The fact that double-distilled water has both silica fragments floating in it along with whatever was the original medicinal substance, I wonder if the structure of the water is changed.

I realize this concept of "structure of water" may be foreign to many people, but think of it this way: what is the chemical difference between a blank CD-ROM and a CD-ROM that has 18 encyclopedias on it? Structure actually is very important.

Another important question is: what is the chemical difference between graphite and diamond? Nothing...and yet, one of one of the softest elements and one is one of the hardest. It isn't the chemical composition that is so important as it is its structure.

As for the CDs: there is NO chemical difference between the two CD-ROMs. The difference between these 2 disks is that information is stored on one and there is no information stored on the other.

The bottomline here is that homeopaths may have found a way to store information in water. I realize that most of the people on this list tend to have a knee-jerk anti-homeopathic reaction, but I challenge you all to explore the possibility that the homeopaths may be right.

In the meantime, please also consider reviewing the other articles that I referenced earlier by the Italian chemistry professor Elia whose work has been published in grade A science journals.

I realize that some of you will try to pick out one error in my thinking, and I do not claim to be a techie...but I urge you to explore AND acknowledge what may be RIGHT in what I've presented here (this may be a rare one for you...but can it happen?).
Dana Ullman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2007, 10:03 PM   #124
Yahzi
Master Poster
 
Yahzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: AZ
Posts: 2,672
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Obviously, I really speak for nobody here but myself
Don't be so modest.

You're speaking for everybody with a brain.

__________________
ID lives in a cardboard refrigerator box and throws rocks through the windows of evolution's unfinished mansion. ---Beleth

Buy my book! www.WorldOfPrime.com
Yahzi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2007, 10:07 PM   #125
Yahzi
Master Poster
 
Yahzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: AZ
Posts: 2,672
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
How can you distinguish an active homoeopathic remedy from the inactive stock solvent?
What? That's easy!

An active remedy is one you pay me for.

__________________
ID lives in a cardboard refrigerator box and throws rocks through the windows of evolution's unfinished mansion. ---Beleth

Buy my book! www.WorldOfPrime.com
Yahzi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2007, 10:14 PM   #126
Yahzi
Master Poster
 
Yahzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: AZ
Posts: 2,672
Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
I realize this concept of "structure of water" may be foreign to many people, but think of it this way: what is the chemical difference between a blank CD-ROM and a CD-ROM that has 18 encyclopedias on it? Structure actually is very important.
It's not that the concept of structure of water is foreign to us; it is that the concept of structure is foreign to you.

Structure implies, well, structure. Water implies the opposite of structure; liquids are a state characterized by their lack of structure. Indeed, if they had structure, they wouldn't be liquids.

Ice has structure. Because it's, you know, solid. Ice particles don't move around.

Water does not have structure. Because it's, you know, liquid. Water particles move around.

You keep talking about CDs and information. Well, have you ever tried to write your name on water?

I can write my name on a CD with a pen, an old rusty nail, or a complicated CD writing machine. But the only way I can write my name in water, and read it 3 seconds later, is if I freeze the water first.

So it has, you know, structure.

Quote:
I realize that some of you will try to pick out one error in my thinking
The only difficulty was restricting myself to one.

Quote:
but I urge you to explore AND acknowledge what may be RIGHT in what I've presented here (this may be a rare one for you...but can it happen?).
Ah, nothing is more ironic than a post that begins with a plea for us to avoid knee-jerk namecalling, and ends with an insult to our integrity.
__________________
ID lives in a cardboard refrigerator box and throws rocks through the windows of evolution's unfinished mansion. ---Beleth

Buy my book! www.WorldOfPrime.com

Last edited by Yahzi; 8th June 2007 at 10:17 PM.
Yahzi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2007, 10:19 PM   #127
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 25,411
Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
I was disappointed that nobody made any comment on my reference to the recent discovery of silica fragments falling off from the inner part of glass bottles in the making of the homeopathic medicines. Because homeopaths have always used a double-distilled water, this "contamination" with silica or silicate fragments may help us understand the possibility of a certain physicality to the homeopathic doses even beyond Avogadro's number.
If the remedy in question is silica.

And would you like to clarify the apparent non-sequitur in that last sentence: "because homeopaths have always used a double-distilled water, this "contamination" with silica or silicate fragments may help us understand the possibility of a certain physicality to the homeopathic doses even beyond Avogadro's number"? are you suggesting that this effect wouldn't occur if non-distilled water was used?

Quote:
The bottomline here is that homeopaths may have found a way to store information in water.
The "bottomline" here is that there is no evidence that they have. Speculating about mechanisms for an alleged effect does not make that effect real.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

Last edited by Mojo; 8th June 2007 at 10:22 PM.
Mojo is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2007, 12:28 AM   #128
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: In the argyle
Posts: 17,137
Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
I do not answer really stupid questions like that. I'm more interest in controlled clinical trials. Are you? Are you or are you not interested in scientific experiments?

...I'm not as interested in theories as I am in controlled studies.

Said "controlled studies" shown to be bunk. 45 minutes later:

Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
Rather than discuss the clinical research literature or the basic science literature in homeopathy, let's first talk about more fundamental issues in homeopathy...how they may work. First...I do not know a single physician or patient who didn't take aspirin just because s/he didn't know its mechanism of action (and we only began to understand this just 20 or so years ago).

Likewise, just because we don't yet fully understand how homeopathic medicines work doesn't mean that they don't nor does any disproven theory about the mechanism of action disprove clinical efficacy (we can have this discussion at another time).
Seriously, James/Dana, have you no shame? I've never seen such a fast retreat back to the emotional safety of woo-woo "theory." What happened to your challenge to examine controlled studies?


__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links

Last edited by Gravy; 9th June 2007 at 12:31 AM. Reason: goalposts
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2007, 01:08 AM   #129
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 25,411
"When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled
Yes brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly chickened out."
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2007, 01:16 AM   #130
Michael C
Graduate Poster
 
Michael C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: N 49° 52' 3" E 8° 40' 21"
Posts: 1,881
Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
I realize this concept of "structure of water" may be foreign to many people, but think of it this way: what is the chemical difference between a blank CD-ROM and a CD-ROM that has 18 encyclopedias on it?
No, there's no chemical difference between the two CD-ROMs. But there is a vital difference between the CD-ROM with 18 encyclopaedias on it and some water that may or may not have information stored in it: we know exactly how to get the information into the CD-ROM and we know exactly how to get it out again. If we send the CD-ROM to somebody without telling them what's on it, they can find out. But what if we send them a bottle of water? They have absolutely no way of telling if the structure of the water contains information from arnica, nux vomica, pulsatilla or maybe nothing at all. And the best homeopathic laboratories in the world cannot help them.

So I'll repeat my question, because it would be nice to have a straight answer:

How do you know that the distilling of water removes all the "memory" that it had, but water that comes into contact with lactose and then evaporates will transfer its memory to the lactose?
Michael C is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2007, 01:32 AM   #131
Geckko
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 691
Quote:
I was disappointed that nobody made any comment on my reference to the recent discovery of silica fragments falling off from the inner part of glass bottles in the making of the homeopathic medicines. Because homeopaths have always used a double-distilled water, this "contamination" with silica or silicate fragments may help us understand the possibility of a certain physicality to the homeopathic doses even beyond Avogadro's number.
Wow,

So we're actually talking about the wonderous physiological efffects of "glass water" then.
Geckko is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2007, 03:42 AM   #132
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 37,868
Silica? Wow, Kumar lives!

Before speculating as to how homoeopathic remedies might "work", it is first necessary to show objectively that they do have some effect. Medically, we have seen nothing which can't be explained by coincidental recovery and wishful thinking. Individual reports of dramatic miracle cures retreat into statistical noise when any larger trial is done. The best anecdotes James has recounted are so old that nobody can check their veracity. Statistically positive reports are invariably published by homoeopathic proponents and open to much methodological criticism. Nobody has ever been able to design a satisfactory trial which gives repeatable results no matter who is carrying it out.

Proving trials are full of subjectivity and post hoc rationalisation. Where there are control subjects, they invariably report just as interesting symptoms as those given the remedy. While many homoeopaths insist that one only has to take a remedy and experience the proving symptoms to be convinced (and I have done this at the urging of one of them and experienced nothing out of the ordinary), none of them is able to distinguish between a real potentised remedy and the unpotentised stock carrier material in this way.

So why is there any need to propose weird and wonderful theories about the memory of water when we have no proven repeatable phenomenon which needs such an explanation? James, don't you realise that if you had a real effect there, one which you or anyone else could reliably demonstrate, the world's physicists and chemists would be all over it, trying to find out what's going on that apparently contradicts all they think they know about the universe? And hey, they'd start by examining the phenomenon, not by assuming the phenomenon exists and going off at a tangent looking for possible mechanisms which don't really relate to the phenomenon as described (for example, if the phenomenon is described in normal water, they won't be looking in deuterated water). Instead, all we see are one or two homoeopathic enthusiasts clearly in well over their heads, publishing work which is mainly composed of speculation about what might possibly cause a phenomenon they can't actually demonstrate.

First, demonstrate your phenomenon in a way that will convince reasonable people that there's more there than coincidence and imagination. Then we'll see. You could start by showing that you can actually tell a potentised remedy, the basic tool of your trade, from an unpotentised sham. Any way you like. Any way at all. If you can't do it, then what is there to explain?

Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
Because homeopaths have always used a double-distilled water, ....
Please demonstrate that Hahnemann, who after all claimed to have discovered the alleged phenomenon, did all the early investigation of it, and whose work is still held to be the basis of all homoeopathic practice, used double distilled water.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 9th June 2007 at 03:49 AM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2007, 06:52 AM   #133
Delusions_O_Grandeur
Unwilling Skeptic
 
Delusions_O_Grandeur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 240
JamesGully:

There really is only one hope left for homeopathy. Test a homeopathic remedy while carrying out proofings simultaneously. Take three randomly composed groups. Use group A to carry out the proofing. After those symptons occuring more often than expected in group A have been determined, see if these *specific* symptons also occur more often than expected in group B. It is imperative that the experimenters doing the proofing are not aware of the results from group B until they are done. If the spikes in group A were caused by chance, you will have little chance to find the same spikes again in group B. Group C will be your placebo control group. Any symptons occuring unusually often in this group are the result of bias, and may not be used to find common spikes between group A and B.
__________________
Delusions of grandeur? yes indeed, you are truly deluded to think that I am not great!

Burn the heretic, kill the mutant, purge the unclean. Ignore the skeptic.

Last edited by Delusions_O_Grandeur; 9th June 2007 at 06:55 AM.
Delusions_O_Grandeur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2007, 07:48 AM   #134
Dana Ullman
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 201
Before I reference some of the clinical trials, I thought I would first focus our discussion on a more difficult subject: how homeopathic medicines may work.

I still find it interesting that no one is responding to my references to the high quality basic science research published in grade A science journals, specifically the work of Rey, Elia, and Roy. Roy's work on the "structure of water" seems to be too technical for some of you. That's OK...I don't expect everyone to understand every area of science, but just because you don't understand how you can "write" on homeopathy doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.

P.W. Bridgman, PhD, former professor of physics at Harvard for a couple of decades, and he is a Nobel Laureate. He wrote a book called THE PHYSICS OF HIGH ALTITUDE. He found that whenever one takes water to certain altitudes and freeze it, it freezes in a different pattern based on the high pressure of altitude. However, he found that once water is frozen at one altitude, it "remembers" the structure of the water and refreezes in a similar pattern at a different altitude. Water does seem to have a memory, and you can seem to "write" on it.

Since some of you claim to be literate on homeopathy, I challenge you to answer one of the most basic questions about homeopathy: HOW DOES A HOMEOPATH DETERMINE WHAT A MEDICINE IS EFFECTIVE IN TREATING?

Several years ago, I debated Saul Green, PhD, a chemist and skeptic of homeopathy. He thoroughy embarrassed himself and fellow skeptics by answering this question by saying that it was "folk wisdom." Needless to say, that is not the right answer.

What do YOU think is the right answer?
Dana Ullman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2007, 08:18 AM   #135
Michael C
Graduate Poster
 
Michael C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: N 49° 52' 3" E 8° 40' 21"
Posts: 1,881
Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
Since some of you claim to be literate on homeopathy, I challenge you to answer one of the most basic questions about homeopathy: HOW DOES A HOMEOPATH DETERMINE WHAT A MEDICINE IS EFFECTIVE IN TREATING?
As far as I know, the process used is that known as "proving". A number of people are given a homeopathic preparation of a substance (30c potency seems to be popular) and any symptoms they report are noted. In the reports of proving that I've seen, the homeopaths and the provers apparently knew what the original substance was, and there seemed to be a lot of subjective analysis of data.

I'll be very grateful if you can give a detailed account of how proving is done, or point me to some references. In particular, two things interest me:

1. Are any provings done using double-blind methods?

2. If you had two homeopathic remedies with dissimilar effects, but had lost the labels on the bottles so that you no longer knew which remedy was in which bottle, could a proving enable you to find out which was which?
Michael C is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2007, 08:26 AM   #136
Pipirr
Graduate Poster
 
Pipirr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: North
Posts: 1,457
Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
I still find it interesting that no one is responding to my references to the high quality basic science research published in grade A science journals, specifically the work of Rey, Elia, and Roy. Roy's work on the "structure of water" seems to be too technical for some of you. That's OK...I don't expect everyone to understand every area of science, but just because you don't understand how you can "write" on homeopathy doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.

Dana, for a pithy comment Louis Rey's research, allow me to quote the man who kick-started the 'memory of water' idiocy, Jacques Benveniste:

Quote:
"This is interesting work, but Rey's experiments were not blinded and although he says the work is reproducible, he doesn't say how many experiments he did."

Quite so.

Perhaps you and your colleagues would like to put some of your large profit margins to good use, and try to repeat his work, using better designed protocols. Heck, if even Benveniste can see the faults, that piece of science must have really stunk.

So how about it? What plans do you have to increase the evidence base for homeopathy? Or are you just going to cling to opinion pieces and speculation by retired professors?
Pipirr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2007, 10:54 AM   #137
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 25,411
Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
Since some of you claim to be literate on homeopathy, I challenge you to answer one of the most basic questions about homeopathy: HOW DOES A HOMEOPATH DETERMINE WHAT A MEDICINE IS EFFECTIVE IN TREATING?
You're asking about homoeopathic "provings". A remedy is given to a number of volunteers and they report what they feel. It's often said that homoeopaths then use the remedy to treat patients suffering from a similar pattern of symptoms to those apparently produced by the remedy.

This isn't really how homoeopaths (or classical homoeopaths, at least) treat patients, though. They ask the patient for a detailed description of their symptoms, and then select an appropriate remedy. If this doesn't work, they select another remedy. This is repeated until the patient appear to show an improvement, or appears to get worse (this is described as an "aggravation"). The last remedy given is then identified as the correct one.

So in fact the way homoeopaths determine what a remedy is effective in treating is to apply the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy on an individualised case-by-case basis.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2007, 12:19 PM   #138
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: In the argyle
Posts: 17,137
Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
Before I reference some of the clinical trials, I thought I would first focus our discussion on a more difficult subject: how homeopathic medicines may work.
Still running away? It's been repeatedly explained to you that unless homeopathy can be shown to work, there's no need to hypothesize about its mechanism. Without properly controlled, repeatable results to point to, we may as well be discussing how prayer works or how unicorn bladders function.

Quote:
I still find it interesting that no one is responding to my references to the high quality basic science research published in grade A science journals, specifically the work of Rey, Elia, and Roy. Roy's work on the "structure of water" seems to be too technical for some of you. That's OK...I don't expect everyone to understand every area of science, but just because you don't understand how you can "write" on homeopathy doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.
Please direct me to the properly controlled, repeatable studies that demonstrate the efficacy of homeopathy.

Quote:
P.W. Bridgman, PhD, former professor of physics at Harvard for a couple of decades, and he is a Nobel Laureate. He wrote a book called THE PHYSICS OF HIGH ALTITUDE. He found that whenever one takes water to certain altitudes and freeze it, it freezes in a different pattern based on the high pressure of altitude. However, he found that once water is frozen at one altitude, it "remembers" the structure of the water and refreezes in a similar pattern at a different altitude. Water does seem to have a memory, and you can seem to "write" on it.
You're digging deeper and deeper. Evidence that water "remembers" a compound of which no molecules are present? Well?

Quote:
Since some of you claim to be literate on homeopathy, I challenge you to answer one of the most basic questions about homeopathy: HOW DOES A HOMEOPATH DETERMINE WHAT A MEDICINE IS EFFECTIVE IN TREATING?
A homeopath doesn't, since homeopaths don't use medicine. Feel free to prove me wrong by pointing to those trials and studies.

What seems to be the delay?
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2007, 11:55 PM   #139
Chris Haynes
Perfectly Poisonous Person
 
Chris Haynes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Wacky Washington Way Out West
Posts: 4,279
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
"When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled
Yes brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly chickened out."
Hence the term: Brave Sir Dana

Oh, I notice Mr. Gully is complaining that "no one responded to the "scientific" studies I mentioned" ... actually, we have. You just chose to ignore them. For instance the Rey studies have been discussed often on this forum, all you have to do is use the search feature to find them (hint, look at the bottom of the black banner on top of the page for the word "Search").
__________________
I used to be intelligent... but then I had kids

"HCN, I hate you!"
( so sayeth Deetee at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1077344 )...
What I get for linking to http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/
Chris Haynes is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2007, 01:00 PM   #140
Madalch
The Jester
 
Madalch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: The wet coast.
Posts: 9,436
Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
I was disappointed that nobody made any comment on my reference to the recent discovery of silica fragments falling off from the inner part of glass bottles in the making of the homeopathic medicines. Because homeopaths have always used a double-distilled water, this "contamination" with silica or silicate fragments may help us understand the possibility of a certain physicality to the homeopathic doses even beyond Avogadro's number.
If this were the cause of homeopathic "cures", then any water that's been in a glass container will work as well as any remedy, the only difference being in the kind of glass (fused quartz, borosilicate, etc) used. There'd be no difference between one "remedy" and another, or the water that comes straight out of the kitchen tap and into a glass.

Quote:
Another important question is: what is the chemical difference between graphite and diamond? Nothing...and yet, one of one of the softest elements and one is one of the hardest. It isn't the chemical composition that is so important as it is its structure.
The chemical difference between diamond and graphite is not nothing. They may have the same elemental composition (pure carbon), but the molecular structure is completely different- graphite contains sheets of sp2 hybridized carbons; diamond contains a lattice of sp3 hybridized carbons.

When we talk about structural differences, we're talking about molecular structures- that's why diamond is different from graphite, and ethanol is different from dimethyl ether (despite them both being C2H6O).

Water does not change its molecular structure. It's an oxygen with two hydrogens bonded to it, with approximately 109 degrees between the two O-H bonds.

Any further structure in the liquid state doesn't last for any significant amount fo time.
__________________
As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of resolving approaches zero. -Vaarsuvius
It's a rum state of affairs when you feel like punching a jar of mayonnaise in the face. -Charlie Brooker
Madalch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2007, 03:41 AM   #141
Lothian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Lothian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: https://twitter.com/CV4UK
Posts: 10,373
Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
HOW DOES A HOMEOPATH DETERMINE WHAT A MEDICINE IS EFFECTIVE IN TREATING?
I think the replies to this to date have looked at theory rather than practice.

In practice a homeopath will talk to the patient about the individuality of homeopathic treatments and how there are not general homeopathic medicines that always work, rather homeopathy is a delicate balance between medicine and the patient, a balance that needs a homeopath to manage. (Lets face it homeopaths don’t want a customer paying £2.30 a bottle down the local health shop when he can dispense within a £40 session).

What the homeopath will do is prescribe a different combination of placebos each ‘treatment’ and once the patient recovers he will determine that the last prescribed treatments were effective

Last edited by Lothian; 11th June 2007 at 03:44 AM.
Lothian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2007, 04:54 AM   #142
JJM
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,855
Linda (fls) asked what we get out of this. I replied that I learn from many of you.

I must ask- what does GullyUllman get from this? His profound ignorance and immunity to education are manifest; and he is clearly, intellectually outclassed.
JJM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2007, 05:46 AM   #143
Cuddles
Decoy
Moderator
 
Cuddles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: A magical land full of pink fluffy sheeps and bunnies
Posts: 18,310
Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
As for the CDs: there is NO chemical difference between the two CD-ROMs. The difference between these 2 disks is that information is stored on one and there is no information stored on the other.
Actually this is not quite true. Store-bought CDs have the information stamped onto them in a physical structure, that is true. However, homeopathy seems closer to recordable or re-writeable CDs where a blank CD can be written to and later wiped and used again. These CDs use a chemical dye that exists in two distinct forms which reflect the light in difference ways. When light of a specific frequency is shone on the dye it changes from one form to the other. The whole principle behind CDs is in fact chemistry. The difference between a blank CD-R and one with data is the chemistry.

Of course, the more important thing that you fail to noice is that chemistry is structure. That's all it is. Chemistry is all about the bonds between atoms and molecules. If the structure is different then so is the chemistry. That's the whole point of it. You can't say that something has a different structure but no chemical difference because the difference in structure is a chemical difference.

You claim there is no chemical difference between diamond and graphite? Clearly you have no understanding whatsoever of chemistry. The very big chemical difference between them is that in one each carbon atom has three covalent bonds while in the other each atom has four. I'll leave it as a class exercise for you to determine which is which.
__________________
If I let myself get hung up on only doing things that had any actual chance of success, I'd never do anything!
Cuddles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2007, 06:05 AM   #144
kieran
Critical Thinker
 
kieran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 296
Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
The fact that double-distilled water has both silica fragments floating in it along with whatever was the original medicinal substance, I wonder if the structure of the water is changed.

I realize this concept of "structure of water" may be foreign to many people, but think of it this way: what is the chemical difference between a blank CD-ROM and a CD-ROM that has 18 encyclopedias on it? Structure actually is very important.

Another important question is: what is the chemical difference between graphite and diamond? Nothing...and yet, one of one of the softest elements and one is one of the hardest. It isn't the chemical composition that is so important as it is its structure.

As for the CDs: there is NO chemical difference between the two CD-ROMs. The difference between these 2 disks is that information is stored on one and there is no information stored on the other.

The bottomline here is that homeopaths may have found a way to store information in water. I realize that most of the people on this list tend to have a knee-jerk anti-homeopathic reaction, but I challenge you all to explore the possibility that the homeopaths may be right.
I can, without wasting too much of my otherwise valuable time, devise extensive tests for whether a CD-ROM is blank or has 18 encyclopedias on it, and also whether a particular substance is graphite or diamond ... If these issues were in debate (and applicable for the JREF prize) then I'd be at the front of the cue to take a test.

Many people have tried to construct tests about whether there is any effect on the water or the patients with homoeopathy - but the best that can be said is that there is a very slight statistical anomaly in some studies.

Some people speculate about how it might work ... big deal.

I prefer not to waste my time speculating about how something (for which there is no evidence) may or may not, work. Am I taking a fundamentally stupid or lazy position?

If there was a shread of reasonable and reproducable evidence then I'd be more than happy to use up time and effort understanding or speculating on how it works. So homoeopaths may be right, but they are just completely inept at illustrating any kind of homoeopathic effect, so it is more likely that they are, in fact, wrong.

Now, what smoke-screen do you wish to move on to in order to cover up your actual lack of any evidence?
__________________
Ted: "Have you been studying this chart like I told you?"
kieran is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2007, 08:31 AM   #145
Chris Haynes
Perfectly Poisonous Person
 
Chris Haynes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Wacky Washington Way Out West
Posts: 4,279
Originally Posted by kieran View Post
I can, without wasting too much of my otherwise valuable time, devise extensive tests for whether a CD-ROM is blank or has 18 encyclopedias on it, and also whether a particular substance is graphite or diamond ... If these issues were in debate (and applicable for the JREF prize) then I'd be at the front of the cue to take a test.

..

...
To determine whether or not a basic CD-R is blank or has data written on it... turn it over, look at the business side of the disk. Since it is a dye that the laser writes on, the written part has a different color. It is subtle, but it is there (turn it about, you'll see a slight difference in reflectivity).

Now try that with a homeopathic remedy. Better yet, take several bottles... take off the labels, and then see if you can tell the difference between Natrum Mur 30C and Oscillococcinum 200C.

Of course, if anyone can really do that, there is a bunch of money to win!
__________________
I used to be intelligent... but then I had kids

"HCN, I hate you!"
( so sayeth Deetee at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1077344 )...
What I get for linking to http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/
Chris Haynes is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2007, 09:21 AM   #146
Dana Ullman
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 201
Wow. If that is the best critique that you skeptics can give on the serious basic science studies that I previously posted (no one has mentioned anything about the work by Elia on the thermodynamics of homeopathics), then, there must be some quiet supporters of homeopathy here.

Hydrogen Cyanide mentioned that there are many critiques of the work of the physicist Rey on this list, but when I read many (not all) of the responses on the randi list, I didn't find any reasonably good critiques. Please point me to what you consider to be the best one. I'm open to learning, but there is a lot of people on this list who think that they know what they're talking about, but who simply have not done their homework.

Speaking of H.C....if you will be convinced about homeopathy by a good experiment that will show that specific modern technologies can differentiate one homeopathic medicine from another and even one post-Avogadro's number and another, then I will soone expect you to be a leading advocate for homeopathy. The newest work by Rustum Roy is just that. The newest study will be published shortly, and you get info about it at the webcast press conference that was held last month. The Penn State / University of Arizona research webcast on ultra-dilue sols on May 16 -- a recording of it is attached for your use. Because I'm a newbie, you'll have to cut and paste this url:
infiniteconferencing.com/Events/nch/051607nch/recording-playback.html.

To remind you, Dr. Roy has published over a dozen articles in NATURE.

I'm also glad that some of you acknowledge the importance of STRUCTURE of elements, not just chemical composition. You will learn more about the importance of the structure of water by reading Rustum Roy's work.

Mojo is totally incorrect on the use of "provings" in homeopathy. Provings are either single- or double-blind trials that homeopaths or researchers conduct to determine the symptoms that a substance causes. Every adequately trained homeopath uses information from provings to find a medicine for a person. Good homeopaths prescribe a medicine based on the overall SYNDROME (the totality of physical and psychological symptoms) rather than just the disease.

Gravy wonders why I haven't listed clinical trials. I wonder why Gravy doesn't read previous references! You asked for replicated trials. Here's 3 trials by INDEPENDENT researchers testing Oscillococcinum in the treatment of the flu:
Casanova, P, Gerard R. Bilan de 3 annees d'estudes randomisees multicentriques Oscillococcinum/placebo. Oscillococcinum-rassegna della letterature internationale. Milan : Laboratoires Boiron; 1992:11-16.

J.P. Ferley, D. Zmirou, D. D'Admehar, et al., "A Controlled Evaluation of a Homoeopathic Preparation in the Treatment of Influenza-like Syndrome," British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, March, 1989,27:329-35.

R. Papp, G. Schuback, E. Beck, et al, "Oscillococcinum in Patients with Influenza-like Syndromes: A Placebo Controlled Double-blind Evaluation," British Homeopathic Journal, April, 1998,87:69-76.

Also...MA Taylor, D Reilly, RH Llewellyn-Jones, et al., Randomised Controlled Trial of Homoeopathy versus Placebo in Perennial Allergic Rhinitis with Overview of Four Trial Series, BMJ (August 19, 2000)321:471-476. This trial of 51 patients with perennial allergic rhinitis showed a substantially significant difference in the objective measure of nasal airflow in patients given a 30C potency of the specific substance to which they were most allergic, as compared to those patients given a placebo (P=0.0001). There was, however, no statistically significant difference in visual analogue scales. In reviewing the 4 trials with allergy patients (N=253), the researchers found a 28% improvement in visual analogue scores in those given a homeopathic medicine, as compared to a 3% improvement in patients given a placebo (P=.0007).

As for a replicated basic science trial, Professor Ennis (a FORMER skeptic of homeopathy) was a part of this replication trial: Belon P, Cumps J, Ennis M, Mannaioni PF, Roberfroid M, Ste-Laudy J, Wiegant FAC. Histamine dilutions modulate basophil activity. Inflamm Res 2004; 53:181-8. Four independent laboratories, each associated with a university, conducted a series of experiments using dilutions of histamine beyond Avogadro's number (the 15th through 19th centesimal dilution, that is 10 -15 to 10 -19. The researchers found inhibitory effects of histamine dilutions on basophil degranulation triggered by anti-IgE. A total of 3,674 data points were collected from the four laboratories. The overall effects were highly significant (p<0.0001). The test solutions were made in independent laboratories, the participants were blinded to the content of the test solutions, and the data analysis was performed by a biostatistian who was not involved in any other part of the trial.
Dana Ullman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2007, 11:35 AM   #147
JJM
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,855
Mr. GullyUllman, I know a sig-line meant for you-
Quote:
If you can't understand; maybe it's you: http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
It goes with Mark Twain's observation that
Quote:
ignorance gives rise to more confidence than does knowledge.
JJM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2007, 12:43 PM   #148
Lothian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Lothian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: https://twitter.com/CV4UK
Posts: 10,373
Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
Wow.............
Wow indeed, there is all this sound scientific evidence for homeopathy yet a little over 99.9% of scientists refuse to believe in it and denounce it as bunk. I wonder what they are missing? Unless, no, surely not, perhaps, I wonder, no that's daft, it can't be. James, Why do you think proper scientists aren't convinced by the wealth of solid evidence?

Am I right in thinking that Professor Ennis’s replicated basic science trial, is the same trail that spectacularly failed to replicate when conducted properly on the Horizon programme ?
Lothian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2007, 02:13 PM   #149
Michael C
Graduate Poster
 
Michael C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: N 49° 52' 3" E 8° 40' 21"
Posts: 1,881
Originally Posted by Lothian View Post
Am I right in thinking that Professor Ennis’s replicated basic science trial, is the same trail that spectacularly failed to replicate when conducted properly on the Horizon programme ?
The Horizon trial was similar to the Ennis trial, which was based on trials by Benveniste. Here's a reference to another trial that was unable to replicate the results of Ennis or Benveniste: http://www.vfk.ch/infos/fachliteratu...isberg2005.pdf
Michael C is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2007, 02:21 PM   #150
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 25,411
Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
Mojo is totally incorrect on the use of "provings" in homeopathy.
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
You're asking about homoeopathic "provings". A remedy is given to a number of volunteers and they report what they feel. It's often said that homoeopaths then use the remedy to treat patients suffering from a similar pattern of symptoms to those apparently produced by the remedy.

Oh well, I guess that's "like cures like" thrown out of the window then...
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2007, 02:24 PM   #151
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 25,411
Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
Wow. If that is the best critique that you skeptics can give on the serious basic science studies that I previously posted (no one has mentioned anything about the work by Elia on the thermodynamics of homeopathics), then, there must be some quiet supporters of homeopathy here.

By the way, I notice that you're still avoiding any discussion of evidence as to whether or not homoeopathy actually works.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2007, 02:26 PM   #152
Badly Shaved Monkey
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Badly Shaved Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Outside a banana and far from a razor
Posts: 5,272
I'm back, but we seem to have broken him.

Shame.
__________________
"i'm frankly surprised homeopathy does as well as placebo" Anonymous homeopath.
"Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment; you must also be right." (Robert Park)
Is the pen is mightier than the sword? Its effectiveness as a weapon is certainly enhanced if it is sharpened properly and poked in the eye of your opponent.
Badly Shaved Monkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2007, 02:41 PM   #153
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 25,411
Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
To remind you, Dr. Roy has published over a dozen articles in NATURE.

Was the article you're referring to published in Nature? If not, then this is not relevant: it's just an attempt on your part to give this particular paper an authority it may not have.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2007, 02:43 PM   #154
Baron Samedi
Critical Thinker
 
Baron Samedi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Kayfabe, Upper Canada
Posts: 488
Originally Posted by Delusions_O_Grandeur View Post
At least to some. This really was the last straw for me. I think I now at last understand why homeopathy is so incredibly persistent. It's persistency is the one thing that had me believe that "there had to be more to it than the placebo effect". I've been readin over the term 'emotional investment' without a second thought until it quite suddenly got stuck in my head and made me remember my experiences with homeopathy.

Healers in general (whether they are doctors or quaks) have a high social standing. Their patients concider them invaluable people in their lives. Homeopathy is an easy way for a person to achieve this standing. Once they have a stable circle of patients who keep telling them they feel better because of their treatments they will put themselves at the same level as a doctor. Because scientific research disproves the efficacy of their remedies they also start to think they know more then conventional doctors because those doctors can't even prove let alone understand how homeopathy cures people while they clearly see that they do. It's really not that hard to simply ignore or put down good scientific research when personal experience is valued above scientific research as a way of life.

Now imagine you're a 50 year old housewife with no higher education and you got all that. What happens when you give that up? From a noble and deeply spiritual healer battleing against sickness and prejudice of scientific researchers you are suddenly reduced to a deluded old woman who sells bottles of water, with virtually no chance of doing anything in the future that comes even close to the glory of her former position.

I tried to explain to my homepathic therapist that based on all the studies I had read that I could no longer believe homeopathy was effective, and that we both had to accept the concequences of that. I had to stop taking medicine, and since she always just wanted to make people's lives better, should close her shop. Well, I just kinda got shut out.
DOG, I just wanted to say what a good explanation you had here, and add in my two cents. You really hit the nail on the head. When I've talked to homeopaths, their successes are usually in the form of self referential follow-ups, as in, the "patient" comes back to the homeopath to say that they feel better. This kind of proof is never valid in any way (and I use the word "proof" very loosely here).

Think about companies who have a link on their web page, "Click here to contact us!" Who clicks that link? People whose comments are really complaints -- no one would ever take the time or energy to write back to say, "Hi, I bought your product and thought it was... well... okay." Same with homeopaths. They might treat 100 people with similar ailments, and of those, 10 come back to say that they feel "better". There's no comparisons against baseline, no control group, no comparisons against treating the ailment with a medicine, nothing but the 10 referrals. They have 10 positive feedbacks, so they continue, firmly in the belief that they did good. Forget about the other 90 people that didn't reply because the homeopathic remedy didn't work, or that the person cannot reply to anyone, period.

And yet, of course, the homeopath tells themselves, "Well, I was able to help just one person out there, and that makes it all worth while." It's that line, that reaching out of just one person, that sounds so noble, and yet shows how flawed their system is.
Baron Samedi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2007, 02:51 PM   #155
Badly Shaved Monkey
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Badly Shaved Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Outside a banana and far from a razor
Posts: 5,272
Mr Ullman,

You have chosen to lecture us on science but have shown no facility whatsoever in handling scientific evidence. Spouting the same old tired and discredited studies does not count and, more importantly, it does not show that you understand their content. Frankly if you did understand them you'd see why we find them funny. Anyway,

8. Explain, in yor own words, why those words of Beneviste's about Rey's experiments are so hilariously fatal to their credibility.

Come on, you like to talk the big talk. Show you can walk the big walk.

You have still not answered the other questions, so here they are again;

1. Can you tell us whether remedies are neutralised by airport X-ray scanners?

2. Can you tell us about 'grafting remedies' and whether you think that works.

3. Do you tell agree that during a homeopathic proving the people involve risk serious and long-term harm being caused?

4. Can you tell us whether either of these machines works?

http://www.bio-resonance.com/elybra.htm

http://www.remedydevices.com/voice.htm

5. Can you tell us whether "constitutional remedies" work?

6. what are the more likely explanations of the alleged successes reported in 19th century epidemic disease?

7. please explain why, in the context of homeopathic pharmacy, the use of double-distilled water is so utterly irrelevant. (Clue: do the arithmetic to find out the concentrations of substances other than H2O in DDW).

The problem here, is that we can track your evasions perfectly well and keep highlighting them. You are supposed to be one of homeopathy's "Big Hitters". Surely you can do better than this.
__________________
"i'm frankly surprised homeopathy does as well as placebo" Anonymous homeopath.
"Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment; you must also be right." (Robert Park)
Is the pen is mightier than the sword? Its effectiveness as a weapon is certainly enhanced if it is sharpened properly and poked in the eye of your opponent.
Badly Shaved Monkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2007, 03:01 PM   #156
Badly Shaved Monkey
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Badly Shaved Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Outside a banana and far from a razor
Posts: 5,272
Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
I was disappointed that nobody made any comment on my reference to the recent discovery of silica fragments falling off from the inner part of glass bottles in the making of the homeopathic medicines.
Were you? Bits of silica come off glass during washing. I think this is up with revelations like "The Sun is hot" and "Man finds arse with both hands". Undoubtedly true, but hardly relevant to your cause.

Mind you, I expect you can make all your remedies by grafting so the chemistry of water has no relevance to you. I wonder why you keep wanting to discuss these irrelevances. As has already been pointed out, you said you wanted to discuss trials. But, instead you keep banging on with these fairy stories of mechanisms for your non-existent effect.
__________________
"i'm frankly surprised homeopathy does as well as placebo" Anonymous homeopath.
"Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment; you must also be right." (Robert Park)
Is the pen is mightier than the sword? Its effectiveness as a weapon is certainly enhanced if it is sharpened properly and poked in the eye of your opponent.
Badly Shaved Monkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2007, 03:36 PM   #157
Dana Ullman
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 201
Mojo says that I haven't answered the question "Does homeopathy work?" My references to the randomized double-blind and placebo controlled trials on influenza don't count? How about my references to the work by Dr David Reilly and team on allergy and asthma? And how about the high quality studies on basophils by Ennis and a 4 university laboratories.

As the for BBC's Horizon trial...that one was totally laughable, laughable. This is one reason that I have no respect for James Randi. He has been informed of the "junk science" that the BBC and ABC's 20/20 created, and rather than stand on the side of good science, he stood on the side of "junk science." The producers of these experiments thought they were getting a replication trial of Ennis' work, but that is NOT what they got. According to Wayne Turnbull, the "lab technician" who did the study, he created his own study...but sadly, because he was ill-informed and inexperience (and unpublished) in basophil research, he created many embarrassing mistakes in the trial. For a full critique of Turnbull work, see:
homeopathic.com/articles/media/index.php (cut and paste it).

Note: Wayne Turnbull was the "scientist" (actually, he is a lab technician with no published research on basophils) who Horizon and 20/20 hired.

Briefly, The Horizon and 20/20 experiments used a chemical, ammonium chloride, that is known to destroy basophils, the type of white blood cell that was under study. The experiment was designed to fail even before any homeopathic medicine was administered. Because this chemical was not used in any of the previous studies that have been published in peer-review scientific journals, this study was "junk science" and that any results from this study are of no value.

• The Horizon and 20/20 experiments also used a chemical called "foetal calf serum" (the blood from a calf foetus). According to experts in basophils and experts who had previously conducted this experiment successfully, this chemical complex is not a "recognized medium" for laboratory experiments of this sort, and its effects on basophils are presently unknown. It should also be noted that the experiment produced by Horizon and 20/20 was created by an employee at a London hospital who didn't know the answers to some simple questions about basophils when asked by Professor Ennis. Also, to be done correctly, this experiment requires "clean" basophils, and the use of foetal calf serum alters the binding reactions of the basophils. Whooops.

• The Horizon and 20/20 experimenter left the blood containing basophils to be collected to sit and sediment for 4 hours. It is known that basophils are extremely fragile, thus, leaving them to sit for 4 hours disturbed their viability and rendered them useless for scientific experimental purposes. Whooops.

I will be curious if people on this list will stand with Turnbull. Come on, stand up and be counted. Stand with an unpublished lab tech or four university laboratories who used respected and well-published PhD scientists.

I've already answer Mr. Monkey's questions about which I care...re-read my previous emails.

As for Roy's research, I previously mentioned that he has had over a dozen articles published in NATURE. This fact suggests that he is a highly respected scientist.

One of the ways that I have observed the fundamentalist thinking of the participants on this list is that you NEVER admit error and NEVER admit to ANY studies or replications of studies. I'm still waiting for some critique of the flu trials, the allergy/asthma trials, the thermodynamics research by Elia, good critique of Rey, and good critique of Roy (not just the character assassination baloney that too many of you love to do)...

You've got some work to do. Now, who of you is brave enough to acknowledge that they MAY be some value and logic and science to homeopathy after all?
Dana Ullman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2007, 04:35 PM   #158
Lothian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Lothian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: https://twitter.com/CV4UK
Posts: 10,373
Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
You've got some work to do. Now, who of you is brave enough to acknowledge that they MAY be some value and logic and science to homeopathy after all?
I am certainly brave enough to acknowledge that they MAY be some value and logic and science to homeopathy after all. I am also brave enough to acknowledge that they MAY be aliens walking the earth disguised as humans.

Obviously the latter is far more likely but the evidence for that is lacking as well.

Now are you brave enough to consider why over 99.9% of scientists do not take homeopathy seriously ?
Lothian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2007, 04:54 PM   #159
Deetee
Illuminator
 
Deetee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,798
Quote:
"Mr. Monkey"
I absolutely love it!


Here is Mr Ullman's link to his Horizon response.
......which links to "Generally sexy information about homeopathy today!"

ETA: Not sure what he means by "today!" though - his latest info dates from 1997.
Any chance of a sexy update, Mr Ullman?
__________________
"Reci bobu bob a popu pop." - Tanja
"Everything is physics. This does not mean that physics is everything." - Cuddles
"The entire practice of homeopathy can be substituted with the advice to "take two aspirins and call me in the morning." - Linda
"Homeopathy: I never knew there was so little in it." - BSM

Last edited by Deetee; 11th June 2007 at 05:07 PM.
Deetee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2007, 05:40 PM   #160
fls
Penultimate Amazing
 
fls's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,236
Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
Wow. If that is the best critique that you skeptics can give on the serious basic science studies that I previously posted (no one has mentioned anything about the work by Elia on the thermodynamics of homeopathics), then, there must be some quiet supporters of homeopathy here.
I think what you are seeing is that sometimes we can't be bothered to mount a response to ideas that are without merit. It's not like you have demonstrated an ability to discuss the critques anyway.

Quote:
Gravy wonders why I haven't listed clinical trials. I wonder why Gravy doesn't read previous references! You asked for replicated trials. Here's 3 trials by INDEPENDENT researchers testing Oscillococcinum in the treatment of the flu:
Casanova, P, Gerard R. Bilan de 3 annees d'estudes randomisees multicentriques Oscillococcinum/placebo. Oscillococcinum-rassegna della letterature internationale. Milan : Laboratoires Boiron; 1992:11-16.

J.P. Ferley, D. Zmirou, D. D'Admehar, et al., "A Controlled Evaluation of a Homoeopathic Preparation in the Treatment of Influenza-like Syndrome," British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, March, 1989,27:329-35.

R. Papp, G. Schuback, E. Beck, et al, "Oscillococcinum in Patients with Influenza-like Syndromes: A Placebo Controlled Double-blind Evaluation," British Homeopathic Journal, April, 1998,87:69-76.

Also...MA Taylor, D Reilly, RH Llewellyn-Jones, et al., Randomised Controlled Trial of Homoeopathy versus Placebo in Perennial Allergic Rhinitis with Overview of Four Trial Series, BMJ (August 19, 2000)321:471-476. This trial of 51 patients with perennial allergic rhinitis showed a substantially significant difference in the objective measure of nasal airflow in patients given a 30C potency of the specific substance to which they were most allergic, as compared to those patients given a placebo (P=0.0001). There was, however, no statistically significant difference in visual analogue scales. In reviewing the 4 trials with allergy patients (N=253), the researchers found a 28% improvement in visual analogue scores in those given a homeopathic medicine, as compared to a 3% improvement in patients given a placebo (P=.0007).
This was not a trial of homeopathy, but of isopathy. There is no "law of similars" involved in the choice of treatment, but rather the selection of a causative agent - an idea at odds with rest of homeopathy. To claim that proof of one is proof of the other is false.

Also, it doesn't even serve as proof of isopathy in this particular study. There was no difference found between the two groups on the main outcome measure. Sure, the researchers pretended that they really meant one of the many other things they measured that happened to be different between the two groups, to be the main outcome measure. But their power calculations put the lie to that claim.

As for the rest of your clinical trials that prove homeopathy, even if you ignore the biases, you are simply picking out, post hoc, those trials which happen to fall above some arbitrary point on a Gaussian distribution as proof that the distribution isn't Gaussian.

So, homeopathy researchers demonstrate yet again that if you violate the assumptions of significance testing it is possible to "produce research findings when they should not be produced".* We get it already. You can stop any time now.

Linda

*Definition of "bias" cribbed from this.
__________________
God:a capricious creative or controlling force said to be the subject of a religion.
Evidence is anything that tends to make a proposition more or less true.-Loss Leader
SCAM will now be referred to as DIM (Demonstrably Ineffective Medicine)
Look how nicely I'm not reminding you you're dumb.-Happy Bunny
When I give an example, do not assume I am excluding every other possible example. Thank you.
fls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:44 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.