Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Homeopathy
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 91 of 142 (456341)
02-17-2008 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by subbie
02-17-2008 9:38 AM


Hi Subbie,
Several people here have described and linked the results of several scientific studies, so let's dispense with the "science ignores what it doesn't believe in" arrow from the crackpot's standard quiver, shall we?
Just because some studies were done that show negative results? If I looked into this seriously, I would want to know who did the studies and what their interests were, who paid for the studies, and I'd want to read the studies themselves to discover the methodoligies, how subjects were selected, etc. All of these things are relevant and can affect results. For example, I am aware of a recent vitamin E study which counted the results of people who had dropped out of the study, in the final results, and then declared that vitamin E supplements are useless. I am aware of another one which used the synthetic form of vitamin E, DL-alpha tocopherol, and then declared a similar result. Most people with any knowledge of vitamins already know that DL-alpha-tocopherol is next to useless. So why use it in a study? Pure ignorance, a desire for a negative result, or what? It happens. Then when people like me claim that studies can be biased, we are written off as bitter conspiracy theorists.
And anyone whose mind is already made up regardless of the evidence can ignore any study they want to.
In other words, more people with closed minds. How about a mind which is open to unbiased inquiry? Surely that's what every scientist should aim for.
What about all the people who attest that bigfoot, Nessie, engrams, or UFOs really exist? Or those who believe in tarot, phrenology, palmistry or kinoki foot pads?
And why are all of these things written off as crackpot notions? No offense intended, but have you seriously looked into the evidence that exists for any of them? For example there is a lot of compelling evidence for the existence of a large unknown primate, sasquatch if you will, and there are reports from every state in the US except Hawaii, documented by researchers and made by people who include scientists, police and lawyers. I could link you to a very good site that discusses all of these things in a scientific manner. Surely when this kind of evidence exists, the least science can do it give it a nod and say that it's worth looking into.
The fact that people believe it is hardly proof that it's legitimate.
And what kind of proof are you after? Scientific proof? When scientists decide to investigate any of these things in a proper organised, well-funded way, let me know. At the moment from what I can see, these topics are laughed off as magic and superstition. Undeterred, people remain open to them and use them or study them if they appear to have legitimacy in their eyes. What's more, it's entirely possible that the usual gold standard randomised studies will never produce positive results for something like Tarot readings, and scientifically they could be dismissed as meaningless. Maybe there are some phenomena that do not yield their secrets so well in these kinds of trials. But I am beginning to imagine a lecture from Percy here, he and I have been over this before. It's possible he may decide that if I continue to call scientific methodology into question and use this to try to legitimise "magic," I might be looking at my walking orders from this forum.
So instead you lump together all the scientists who have tested homeopathic claims and all the rational people who have rejected homeopathic claims and tell us that we are wrong, every last person. What's the difference? To me, it's more insulting to say to those who have systematically investigated it that they were fools in doing so than to suggest that those who haven't systematically investigated it are fools for not doing so.
Does that mean that someone who uses homeopathy is "irrational"? Why? Wouldn't you use something that was safe and made you feel better, if that was what you discovered it seemed to do?
I'm not dismissing everyone who has done a negative study on homeopathy. But how many people have investigated it systematically? I would want to have much more knowledge at my fingertips in order to pass comment on these studies. For example, the vitamin E studies I mentioned. If I hadn't known that DL-tocopherol is useless as a supplement, and if I hadn't discovered that this was what was used in that study, I might have been puzzled by the results it claimed. I don't know as much about homeopathy as I know about vitamins.
At the end of the day, are we going to persuade each other? Probably not. But people will continue to do what works for them, whatever that may be.
Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by subbie, posted 02-17-2008 9:38 AM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by subbie, posted 02-17-2008 11:22 AM Kitsune has not replied
 Message 95 by molbiogirl, posted 02-17-2008 11:35 AM Kitsune has not replied

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4601 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 92 of 142 (456345)
02-17-2008 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Kitsune
02-17-2008 8:52 AM


Science needs to establish that a positive effect from homeopathy exists
Tried and failed.
like Rupert Sheldrake is doing for telepathy, dogs who know their ownders are coming come
Tried and failed.
Then science needs to investigate how it works.
You presume that science has results that show there is something worth looking into.
BTW, no one is sure how homeopathy does work, though there are plenty of ideas.
None that are scientific. You must first establish that there is an actual effect before you start investigating its mechanism. Given that no study has shown a real effect its then up to the quacks to start making things up.
website talks a little about how water can be influenced by thought.
Let me be the first to say that its really aliens directing their thoughts into the water with lazer beams. My proof of course is egyptian pyramids, acupuncture, and the JFK assasination. Its all linked.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Kitsune, posted 02-17-2008 8:52 AM Kitsune has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Buzsaw, posted 02-17-2008 1:19 PM Vacate has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 93 of 142 (456349)
02-17-2008 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Kitsune
02-17-2008 10:58 AM


Just because some studies were done that show negative results? If I looked into this seriously, I would want to know who did the studies and what their interests were, who paid for the studies, and I'd want to read the studies themselves to discover the methodoligies, how subjects were selected, etc. All of these things are relevant and can affect results.
Well, have you done any of those things or not? I suspect not. Instead, you have fastened on to the notion that perhaps all of the studies that have ever been done all suffer from questionable methodology, and, if it's possible that they do, then you can dismiss them all and cling to your cherished belief.
When scientists decide to investigate any of these things in a proper organised, well-funded way, let me know.
You are hereby put on notice, based on Granny Magda's message 90, immediately above yours, that many studies and at least two meta studies have been done that found negative results. Now the ball's in your court. You can choose to completely ignore them and go on your merry way.
The one good thing you have going for you is that all you are going to be doing is drinking water, which at least can't do any harm. However, I'd strongly suggest that if you want medical help for anything more serious than a hangnail, that you talk to a real physician instead of relying on Dr. Moist.
Does that mean that someone who uses homeopathy is "irrational"?
Sometimes. Sometimes they're nothing more than dupes. It's not necessarily irrational to be taken by a con man. It could be a simple mental mistake, which we all make from time to time. However, if one is aware of studies which show the ineffectiveness of a discipline and one ignores those studies based on the reasoning that "It works for me so it must be legitimate," I'd say that that at least approaches irrationality, particularly if one is also aware of how often and how easily people fool themselves into believing something that just ain't so simply because they want to believe it.
Wouldn't you use something that was safe and made you feel better, if that was what you discovered it seemed to do?
In other words, would I pay good money to benefit from the placebo effect? Well, I certainly wouldn't if I had a genuine medical problem that could actually be helped or cured by someone who knew what he was doing.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Kitsune, posted 02-17-2008 10:58 AM Kitsune has not replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 94 of 142 (456350)
02-17-2008 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Granny Magda
02-17-2008 9:42 AM


Re: Tested and Failed
Thank you for your polite response Granny. It makes a refreshing change from some other debates I've had here.
But is it not just as condescending, more so even, to dismiss the large numbers of clinical trials that basically prove homoeopathy to be bunk? There are quite a lot.
I've just addressed this point in my message to Subbie, if you'd care to have a look.
Just look at the current effort by physicists to detect the Higgs Boson. It has never been observed, so physicists are searching for it, despite the fact that they cannot know for certain that it really exists for them to find. So I hope you will agree that the above statement is false.
I'm afraid I don't. Quantum physics has existed as a branch of science for decades and the Higgs Boson was predicted in mathematical models. Scientists are hoping they will find this particle because it fits so theoretically well into the way they already understand the quantum world to work. They will be puzzled if they can't find evidence for its existence.
What really interests me is how science could accept something as mind-blowing as quantum physics. It's difficult, if not impossible, to imagine how it could be married with what we see in the day-to-day world. I think science has hardly begun to address this. Everything we see, made up of quarks? Uncertainty about whether we have a wave or a particle? Good heavens, they're even asking us to believe in this non-stuff called dark matter. And yet . . . homeopathy? Ghosts? The healing power of prayer? Bigfoot? These are dismissed as delusion? Maybe they are rejected in this way because they can't (to our knowledge) be mathematically modelled the way quantum physics can be.
I hope you realise that these two statements are contradictory.
Not necessarily. It depends on why these studies in homeopathy were done and why they were negative. I would want to find out more about them. Again, I've explained this in more detail to Subbie. And my point was that a materialistic reductionist, which describes much of the modern scientific establishment, would never consider homeopathy worthy of study to begin with. This can be seen in the claim that in order to have an effect, a homeopathic remedy must retain some of the original diluted substance. The idea of energy or memory somehow being transmitted in the water is dismissed out of hand.
Regarding the two studies you have linked. The first is from the Lancet, and its abstract begins like this: "Homoeopathy is widely used, but specific effects of homoeopathic remedies seem implausible." Just a tad biased from the start then?
The second link calls for "further high quality studies." I agree. Bring 'em on.
Just to let you know, I've had this alt med/scientific method discussion a hundred times over with people here. We're butting heads really. Forgive me for being a little tongue in cheek at times but I'm aware that the skeptics here see me as irrational, contradictory and gullible. I'm sorry about that and I happen not to agree, but I enjoy conversation here anyway and I've learned a lot from it, even if it's not necessarily what people here are hoping to teach me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Granny Magda, posted 02-17-2008 9:42 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Vacate, posted 02-17-2008 12:07 PM Kitsune has not replied
 Message 99 by Admin, posted 02-17-2008 1:14 PM Kitsune has not replied
 Message 103 by Granny Magda, posted 02-17-2008 5:34 PM Kitsune has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 95 of 142 (456351)
02-17-2008 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Kitsune
02-17-2008 10:58 AM


Is this your MO? Show up every 6 months and repeat, verbatim, the same nonsense?
Message 12 writes:
You'd better tell mainstream British doctors that they are quacks too then, because homeopathy as well as acupuncture can be received through the NHS.
Message 83 writes:
There are even homeopathic NHS hospitals here in the UK; the government realises that it works.
Message 18 writes:
Is it "nothing but water"? A scientist would say so. The original idea was that the "memory" of the substance is retained in the water. Like I said, I haven't looked into it and I don't know enough to be able to comment knowledgeably. However, as you are well aware, I believe that there are potentially many aspects about the world we live in that are waiting to be discovered. We don't know it all. Maybe we don't even know it all about water.
Message 88 writes:
This website talks a little about how water can be influenced by thought. I've read Dr. Emoto's book. He doesn't talk specifically about homeopathy, but he has been investigating properties of water.
Message 18 writes:
If it works, it works. What's the deal?
Message 91 writes:
But people will continue to do what works for them, whatever that may be.
Do you have anything new to add?
One final note. Please stay on topic.
Rupert Sheldrake
DL-tocopherol
The "paranormal"
Bigfoot
Tarot
Ghosts
Prayer
are OT.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Kitsune, posted 02-17-2008 10:58 AM Kitsune has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 142 (456352)
02-17-2008 11:39 AM


Complexity Of The Body's Systems
I've been reading this thread and thinking along the way.
Perhaps the explanation of homeopathy lies in the ability of the body's intelligently extreme complexity to make it work.
The digestive systems of the body process all that goes into the body. Many health practitioners recommend around 8 glasses a day for optimal health. This does not translate into all the nutritional elements of consumed food being diluted by 8 glasses of water. It translates into processing the ingested nutritional solid elements being immersed into solution in order that the digestive organs can assimilate out of solution the needed elements of nutrition which the body needs to energize, cleanse, detoxify, repair, etc. only the not needed waste is eliminated along with the water minus the needful elements which the organs have extracted out of the water.
Please understand that I'm not speaking as authoritative on the topic. The above is logical stuff that came to mind as I was reading the responses.
LindaLou, you're contribution to the debates is greatly appreciated by me and I'm sure, others including many readers who we never hear from and in fact including your counterparts who may not admit it. I do hope you will keep on cranking on here!

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Kitsune, posted 02-17-2008 5:17 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 97 of 142 (456354)
02-17-2008 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Rrhain
02-17-2008 6:56 AM


Re: apologies
if people say it works, and you say it don't, if the argument is strong enough, examine the water.
if the water molecules are just water molecules, if the contaminates in the water are standard contaminates, and if there is zero reason the water could effect someone biologically(other than as water), then i conclude:
it isn't the water, but another source that is helping them.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Rrhain, posted 02-17-2008 6:56 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Rrhain, posted 02-17-2008 10:38 PM tesla has replied

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4601 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 98 of 142 (456360)
02-17-2008 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Kitsune
02-17-2008 11:26 AM


Re: Tested and Failed
What really interests me is how science could accept something as mind-blowing as quantum physics.
Quite simply because its reproducible and supported by evidence. It also does not rely upon anecdotal evidence.
And yet . . . homeopathy? Ghosts? The healing power of prayer? Bigfoot? These are dismissed as delusion?
Evidence. Continued belief in something that has no evidence to support it, has evidence against it, and relies on the testimony of believers as its only basis of support is something. Delusion is perhaps a slightly condecending title, but it does fit.
Maybe they are rejected in this way because they can't (to our knowledge) be mathematically modelled the way quantum physics can be.
Exactly. And they have no evidence.
And my point was that a materialistic reductionist, which describes much of the modern scientific establishment, would never consider homeopathy worthy of study to begin with.
Don't you find it odd that scienctists can "believe" in something so counter intuitive as quantum mechanics, but reject something as testable as homeopathy? Tests have been done, so to claim it is rejected out of hand is incorrect. The fact is that science does not automatically reject something that is counter intuitive but does reject something that not supported with evidence.
The idea of energy or memory somehow being transmitted in the water is dismissed out of hand.
Not true. You are attempting to put forward a mechanism for something that has not been shown to be effective. The mechanism (energy or memory) is not being "somehow transmitted", its simply not being transmitted at all. Its easy to dismiss this out of hand, because you have not shown that there is anything supported by evidence that would require a mechanism.
The second link calls for "further high quality studies." I agree. Bring 'em on.
The question then becomes - when does it stop? All results that have been put forward so far you have rejected out of hand. You demand more studies into a topic that has produced no results. These tests are not cheap and the proponents of these type of remedies have shown that they will never give up. No test will ever change the minds of the believers, so I ask you - how many tests would be enough before science can move on to the next psuedo science that demands more and more testing?
How much credibility should be handed over to the long line of people with such claims? The more testing that is done simply bolsters the proponents claims that its a topic worth investigating!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Kitsune, posted 02-17-2008 11:26 AM Kitsune has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 99 of 142 (456364)
02-17-2008 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Kitsune
02-17-2008 11:26 AM


Re: Tested and Failed
Hi LindaLou,
You're absolutely right that I have concerns about your participation. I have these requests:
  • Please stay on-topic.
  • Please address what people say. Your responses should not be new essays presenting your views from scratch yet again. Please quote what people say and respond to it.
  • Please stop posting about bias and closed minds and so forth. Your past visits have been characterized by many such accusations. Bias and so forth are human qualities, and last time I checked everyone involved in the homeopathy debate, from either side, was human, so general accusations of this type are a wash. Therefore, unless you have specific evidence of particular bias, etc., please do not bring this up again in this or any other thread, except in threads specifically intended to focus on bias and so forth.
I will suspend you each time you fail to honor the above requests. Please do not reply, this is a moderator request, not a discussion.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Kitsune, posted 02-17-2008 11:26 AM Kitsune has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 142 (456366)
02-17-2008 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Vacate
02-17-2008 11:14 AM


Homeopathic Science
Vacate writes:
LindaLou writes:
Then science needs to investigate how it works.
You presume that science has results that show there is something worth looking into.
Here is evidence that science is/has indeed being/been done on the theory of homeopathy .
1. Perhaps some would catagorize it as hypothesis rather than theory as the site states.
2. It applies some quantum aspects of science to the research model.
3. I am not qualified to support the science of the study/research except from a logical POV.
In this work, the authors springing from different scientifie disciplines set down in common their knowledge and experiences to provide one explicit model of the nature and of the working of "High Dilutions".
This original and multi disciplinary consensus has, as consequence, integrated the mechanism of the High Dilutions into the corpus of the Science and is in harmony with S.Hahnemann's statement: "Each science could only discuss objects that pertain to its domain".
This discovery has a lot of applications among which the modelling of Hahnemann's work is not the least. For 200 years, the questions of the founder of the homeopathy still remained to be solved: "How can weak doses of medication extended such as those used in homeopathy still have strength, high strength"? adding: "What happens really has to be at least possible".
When the matter disappears, it leaves what the authors called a "white hole" by opposition to the "black hole" in which the matter is super-dense. This implies that, for any dilution level up to Avogadro's number, remanent waves of neutronic nature are created, and will reorganize the structure of the diluent. This organisation subtends the concept of the Hyper-protons modelled as free protons in a space-time having singularities of "white hole" type.
So, a diluted and successed solution will contain contonian remanent waves whose quantity is proportional to the density of matter having disappeared and whose frequency is characteristic of this matter, which allows the authors to introduce the firts model of the drive of animated matter.
Therefore, this work brings an answer to the question, "Why do the High Dilutions operate?". In addition, the authors pursued their investigations and evidenced the emission of Beta radiations from these solutions whatever their concentrations are, so enforcing, in the field of the physics, the basics of their theory of High Dilutions.
To answer to the Samuel Hahnemann question : "What really happens has to be at least possible", four authors propose a theoretical model and the experimental validation of the diluted-succussed solutions used in the therapeutical frame of the homoeopathic doctrine.
This work under the direction of Dr Conte is multi disciplinary and interdisciplinary. It is presented in a book entitled Theory of High Dilutions & Experimental Aspects. The French and English versions of the volume I have been published in 1996 by Polytechnica (Paris) and versions of the volume II in 2000: Theory of High Dilution. Application to Life.
To order the books: Acheter Livre en Ligne - Histoire, Economie, Stratégie Militaire - Economica
Dr Yves Lasne (left) and Dr Rolland Conte discussing the Theory of High Dilutions - Application to life, published in 2000.
Summary of the volume I, by Paul Callinan M.Sc. N.D. D.Hom. can be found at
iiNet | naked dsl - broadband - adsl - phone - voip
A book review by Jay Yasgur in
http://www.minimum.com/reviews/jacondil.htm
Equipment and Method
Measurements were carried on a large range of diluted-succussed solutions, prepared under different physico-chemical situations well controlled, on human biological liquids, animal biological liquids (cats, horses, cows, snakes...), organ extracts and on cellular cultures.
The theoretical methods applied are based on the current corpus of science: Theory of Ethers, Quantum Theory of the Relativistic Fields, Contonian Statistics.
The experimental methods are those commonly used: Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (Minispec (20 MHz) from Brcker S.A), specially calibrated for water to get stable signal around 9000 microsec for the 90 pulse and twice that value for the 180 one. Liquid Scintillation (Tricarb 2300 from Packard S.A), Computers on a Local area Network (Hewlett Packard 850 MHz, Power Macintosh 400 MHz). The dilutions-succussions are performed according to the classical principles, the succussion machine allowing to remake exactly the same energy in every given diluted-succussed solution. The water used presented a minimum of relaxation time T2 equal to 2100 millisec to get the required high purity, and therefore comparable data. Finally, various conventional equipment are also used: ultrasonic devices, magnetic field generators, incubators, freezers, automatic pipettes, and so on ....
Edited by Buzsaw, : add word for clarity

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Vacate, posted 02-17-2008 11:14 AM Vacate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Admin, posted 02-17-2008 1:30 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 101 of 142 (456368)
02-17-2008 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Buzsaw
02-17-2008 1:19 PM


Re: Homeopathic Science
Buzsaw writes:
3. I am not qualified to support the science of the study/research except from a logical POV.
If you do not understand the Conte/Lasne theory sufficiently to describe it in your own words then you shouldn't be attempting to introduce it into this thread. From the Forum Guidelines:
  1. Avoid lengthy cut-n-pastes. Introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference. If your source is not on-line you may contact the Site Administrator to have it made available on-line.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Buzsaw, posted 02-17-2008 1:19 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 102 of 142 (456388)
02-17-2008 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Buzsaw
02-17-2008 11:39 AM


Re: Complexity Of The Body's Systems
I am sorry but I am unable to abide by the rules here. Debating topics like homeopathy by attempting to state studies is impossible. I believe there are different ways of approaching a discussion of a subject like homeopathy and that the way to the truth of something like this lies in the approach we take. What I am being asked to do is to state that I realise that most studies of homeopathy show negative results, that pure water cannot have any effect other than placebo, and that people who state otherwise are deluded and irrational. If I disagree I have to go to a separate thread and explain why. This doesn't work for me so I think I'm going to have to find another place to talk.
Buzsaw I only recently noticed that you popped by Herb Allure. I left you a PM there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Buzsaw, posted 02-17-2008 11:39 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Admin, posted 02-17-2008 6:19 PM Kitsune has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 103 of 142 (456389)
02-17-2008 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Kitsune
02-17-2008 11:26 AM


Re: Tested and Failed
LindaLou,
Starting with your response to Subbie, about clinical trials, I have to say that there are an awful lot of studies that debunk homoeopathy. Just look on Pubmed. All the information you request is obtainable. It's not like this stuff is being kept secret. I recommend the report that Rrhain cited, by Paris, Gonnet, Chaussard, et al. It seems like a straightforward study. It comes out against homoeopathy. Perhaps you would like to tell us where it goes wrong.
I'm going to leave the stuff about quantum physics aside, since it has been pointed out that this example is only going to lead us off course. Suffice to say that there have been several papers on homoeopathy cited on this thread. They demonstrate that your claim that scientists are unwilling to engage with homoeopathy, is false.
quote:
This can be seen in the claim that in order to have an effect, a homeopathic remedy must retain some of the original diluted substance. The idea of energy or memory somehow being transmitted in the water is dismissed out of hand.
Scientific consensus is that the "remedy" must contain some of the original substances because such represents the best explanation currently available. If you have a better model, feel free to explain it, but you'll have to do better than vague talk of "energy" (by which you appear to mean magic). As for the ludicrous claim that the "memory of water" theory was dismissed out of hand, I am astonished that you could talk such nonsense. The theory saw publication in Nature and the experiment was subsequently repeated. It failed. The results have not been replicated. The report debunking the finds was published in the very next issue of Nature after the initial paper was published. It is still available on-line. The whole thing was televised. I would be very surprised to hear that you had not heard of all this. Homoeopathy is only being subjected to the same scrutiny as other theories. If an experiment is not repeatable, it is assumed to have been in error. That is very different from an "out of hand" dismissal.
quote:
Regarding the two studies you have linked. The first is from the Lancet, and its abstract begins like this: "Homoeopathy is widely used, but specific effects of homoeopathic remedies seem implausible." Just a tad biased from the start then?
To be honest Linda, that is about as polite as it is possible to be with regards to Homoeopathy. Homoeopathy is implausible, in that it is in opposition to all known physics and it consistently fails at clinical trial. If I had written that paper, it would have started "It is of course well known that homoeopathy is bollocks...". Now that's bias!
quote:
Just to let you know, I've had this alt med/scientific method discussion a hundred times over with people here. We're butting heads really.
Yeah, I know. I'm pretty unlikely to change my mind as well, but, as CK says, it's all about the lurkers (and the pleasure of debate of course).
AbE; Oh. I notice that since I started writing this LindaLou has rendered herself inactive, as has Buz. That's a shame. I guess it's just me and the lurkers then...
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Kitsune, posted 02-17-2008 11:26 AM Kitsune has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 104 of 142 (456397)
02-17-2008 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Kitsune
02-17-2008 5:17 PM


Re: Complexity Of The Body's Systems
LindaLou writes:
What I am being asked to do is to state that I realise that most studies of homeopathy show negative results, that pure water cannot have any effect other than placebo, and that people who state otherwise are deluded and irrational.
Actually, you were asked to stay on topic, address what people actually say instead of repeatedly restating your case which has been your consistent modus operandi in the past, and to stop making spurious charges of bias and closed minds.
This thread concerns the merits of homeopathy based upon the scientific evidence. That's why this thread is in the [forum=-11] forum, because it's about the science.
Because of your history, and because your post addressed off-topic issues as well as my moderator request after I asked you not to, I'm suspending you indefinitely.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Kitsune, posted 02-17-2008 5:17 PM Kitsune has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 105 of 142 (456420)
02-17-2008 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by tesla
02-17-2008 11:55 AM


Re: apologies
tesla responds to me:
quote:
if people say it works, and you say it don't, if the argument is strong enough, examine the water.
And it has been. And it was found that the people who claim that it works were not accurate in that claim.
I have a touch of bursitis in my hip. About a year and a half ago, I was in London and had some time so I went to the British Museum. Stood in front of the Parthenon marbles and pined about how they really need to be sent back to Athens.
So when I woke up the next day without any pain in my hip, was it because of the "energy" of the ancient marbles that did it?
Or was it because I was exercising it like my physical therapist tells me to do?
That's the thing: Just because somebody tells you that it works doesn't mean diddly. There are so many other variables that could be involved that unless you stop and do a controlled study that specifically looks to account for the variables involved, you're just picking random bits out of the air.
But when we look at homeopathy under controlled circumstances, the "effect" vanishes.
And you haven't answered the question: If water has a "memory" of what was dissolved in it previously, then there is no possible way for homeopathy to work because the water would be overwhelmed with the "energy" of everything that had ever been dissolved in it. It is a self-refuting system. The very process by which they claim it works destroys any possibility of it ever working.
quote:
it isn't the water, but another source that is helping them.
But there isn't anything in there but water.
So if it isn't the water, then the conclusion is as what we see:
Nothing is happening. No biological effect is seen.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by tesla, posted 02-17-2008 11:55 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by tesla, posted 02-17-2008 10:48 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024