Equation for dilluting a substance too much?

[Rolfe]

This "energy", you know, the "subtle energy" in those remedies that gets all upset if the patient is given any steroid medication (but doesn't seem to mind all the natural steroids sloshing around everybody's body), how is it measured? What units are used? Does it obey the laws of thermodynamics?

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Sorry, double post.

Rolfe.

 

[Kumar]

The Problem of Evidence
The principle evidence-base of homeopathy is the case records of individual patients. These are interpreted on the basis that all changes in the patient that occur after a remedy has been taken are caused by that remedy. This includes both improvements, deteriorations (called "aggravations"), and changes in the range of symptoms shown. This means that from within the belief system, homeopathy is unfalsifiable. Its tools have been described as a narrative method that accompanies all eventualities with a story to explain those changes in homeopathic terms.
http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Homeopathy#Discussion )link provided by geni)

There can be difference in trial at home & trial at competitor's place esp when competitor's substances & views are used in decisions.

Rolfe,

 

[Donks]

There can be difference in trial at home & trial at competitor's place esp when competitor's substances & views are used in decisions.

May I suggest you read that quote you posted once again? It says nothing regarding differences in the location of the trials. It just means that homeopathy is a non-scientific belief system, since it allows no evidence to falsify it. Any positive event is seen as a benefit from the treatment. Any negative event is seen as the treatment working. This is the problem with the kind of surveys you prefer, there are no controls and the surveyor decides the results beforehand.
Oh, and you may want to look at the concept of invariance with regards to physics. What you are claiming is that the laws of physics are not translation invariant. You'll have to show why. Or alternatively, you'll have to show how every single study that doesn't find a positive result for homeopathy is biased and/or faked. Even those done by homeopaths themselves.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Not that it's exactly my business, but I'm curious, Kumar: what's your native language?

 

[Kumar]

May I suggest you read that quote you posted once again? It says nothing regarding differences in the location of the trials. It just means that homeopathy is a non-scientific belief system, since it allows no evidence to falsify it. Any positive event is seen as a benefit from the treatment. Any negative event is seen as the treatment working. This is the problem with the kind of surveys you prefer, there are no controls and the surveyor decides the results beforehand.
Oh, and you may want to look at the concept of invariance with regards to physics. What you are claiming is that the laws of physics are not translation invariant. You'll have to show why. Or alternatively, you'll have to show how every single study that doesn't find a positive result for homeopathy is biased and/or faked. Even those done by homeopaths themselves.

No, I usually oppose oppositions on any mass existing in well distributed..knowledge whether C or P, but may want to clear my dynamic thought prococations/irritations in those, if feel/find so. I do respect all knowledges & hard work done by many in those--so want their progress or existance. As indicated, I wait for any unclearity in those, till it is clear or die naturally. That I can do for both C & P--embed in your minds. Under routine irritating discussions on provakations something different can happen naturally, but that may be a acute stage may the reality or chronic. I feel/find myself quite justified to every & all, but still, it can be just my feeling/finding/constitution--so may be towards both way.

 

[Kumar]

Not that it's exactly my business, but I'm curious, Kumar: what's your native language?

Hi, not english, Asian.

 

[Donks]

No, I usually oppose oppositions on any mass existing in well distributed..knowledge whether C or P, but may want to clear my dynamic thought prococations/irritations in those, if feel/find so.

No, you are looking for a way to weasel out of the repeated failure by homeopathy to produce positive results in controlled trials.

I do respect all knowledges & hard work done by many in those--so want their progress or existance.

Like hell you do.

As indicated, I wait for any unclearity in those, till it is clear or die naturally.

Homeopathy should have died naturally already. It is people keeping it on life support, even when it was born acephallic, that prevent that. It's 200 years old, it produces no verifiable effects, let it die.

That I can do for both C & P--embed in your minds. Under routine irritating discussions on provakations something different can happen naturally, but that may be a acute stage may the reality or chronic. I feel/find myself quite justified to every & all, but still, it can be just my feeling/finding/constitution--so may be towards both way.

Hmm, yeah... this part I can't parse.

 

[Kumar]

This "energy", you know, the "subtle energy" in those remedies that gets all upset if the patient is given any steroid medication (but doesn't seem to mind all the natural steroids sloshing around everybody's body), how is it measured? What units are used? Does it obey the laws of thermodynamics?

Rolfe.

Be careful, being a doctor, you should be understanding differenciating/toxic effects can be in quantity may not be in quality. You said "subtle energy" at one hand and "somewhat toxic indirectly" on the other hand--bit contradictary.

 

[Kumar]

No, you are looking for a way to weasel out of the repeated failure by homeopathy to produce positive results in controlled trials.

Like hell you do.

Homeopathy should have died naturally already. It is people keeping it on life support, even when it was born acephallic, that prevent that. It's 200 years old, it produces no verifiable effects, let it die.

Hmm, yeah... this part I can't parse.

I indicated some reasons on Asthma study of so thought failure, which you are unable to find out...was not difficult to search. Pls defet me on those grounds. You can present any of your study with full details for my critical investigations. There can be something misunderstood/missed. If not agree, that there could have been something but misunderstood/missed.

By 200 year old, it may means persitent, stable, going near to absolute?

 

[Donks]

I indicated some reasons on Asthma study of so thought failure, which you are unable to find out...was not difficult to search. Pls defet me on those grounds.

I didn't say I was unable to find out. I asked you to provide a link. You refused, so I have to assume you didn't actually want to discuss it. If now you do, provide a link. I will not go looking for your evidence for you.

You can present any of your study with full details for my critical investigations.

Your "critical" investigations leave much to be desired.

There can be something misunderstood/missed. If not agree, that there could have been something but misunderstood/missed.

No, you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. In the other thread you claimed that the scientific method can't evaluate homeopathy. Here you claim it can. Obviously you are lying either here or there.

By 200 year old, it may means persitent, stable, going near to absolute?

Nope, I mean obsolete, useless, worthless, arcane, meaningless, irrelevant. Don't try putting words in my mouth. It's incredibly similar to your "I think" statements, you are always wrong.

 

[Kumar]

I didn't say I was unable to find out. I asked you to provide a link. You refused, so I have to assume you didn't actually want to discuss it. If now you do, provide a link. I will not go looking for your evidence for you.

Your "critical" investigations leave much to be desired.

No, you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. In the other thread you claimed that the scientific method can't evaluate homeopathy. Here you claim it can. Obviously you are lying either here or there.

Nope, I mean obsolete, useless, worthless, arcane, meaningless, irrelevant. Don't try putting words in my mouth. It's incredibly similar to your "I think" statements, you are always wrong.

Bad trial or bad luck, you couldn't find that. Those were recent discussions.Take help of others avoiding esp. Rolfe.

In short, Pains by swords/modern-arms can supress/overpower, pains by needles.

 

[Donks]

Bad trial or bad luck, you couldn't find.

More like "I didn't search for it." What part of "I will not go looking for your evidence for you" did you not understand? If you claim this study shows something regarding homeopathy, link to it.

Those were recent discussions.Take help of others avoiding eas/ Rolfe.

I should avoid Rolfe? Why? She seems like a perfectly nice lady.

In short, Pains by swords/modern arms can supress pains by needles.

So in short, you have noting but gibberish to offer. How novel.

 

[burrahobbit]

One thing the thread proves is that it is impossible to cure a belief in homeopathy. Kumar, if you have no data to support your view, why talk about proof. Just say " I believe it with no regard to the evidence or lack thereof"

It then becomes a religion and not a science and therefore leaves this particular forum.

BTW Art Vandelay I tried transliterating Kumars statements into both Hindi and Tamil(both Indian languages). Absence of sense continued.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I think Kumar is in Tailand.

Hans

 

[Rolfe]

I should avoid Rolfe? Why? She seems like a perfectly nice lady.

Kumar means that I know what study he's talking about. It's an excellent study that shows individualised homoeopathy to have no effect. Geni mentioned it, and I provided a link to the abstract just to rub Kumar's face in it.

He appears not even to have read the abstract. All he did was say, well, there may be errors in the study, the people who did the study might have been biassed. (The chief reseracher in the group interned at a homoeopathic hospital and trained as a homoeopath. He now believes homoeopathy to be totally worthless, but that doesn't mean he's ignorant about it. Quite the contrary.)

Anyway, if Kumar wants to put forward any actual, reasoned criticism of the study (as opposed to, "I don't like the result so I'm going to assert that it's faulty and biassed), then maybe he can link back to the abstract for us. As you said, Donks, why should we do all the work for him.

Kumar, you can't find anything concrete to criticise in that study.

Rolfe.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Anyway, if Kumar wants to put forward any actual, reasoned criticism of the study ...

That'll be the day.

The thing is that finally, after 200 years, homeopathy seems to be coming under serious fire. After hiding under that stone for ages, the heat is mounting. Another "widely accepted since long" fallacy is beginning to bite the dust.

As can expected, the reactions are desparate. Just look at the homeopathy forums: Some argue for trying to discredit "allopathy", Pakistani homeopaths move for not referring patients to surgeons that are not pro homeopathy, all the ancient strawmen are summoned, the long-dead horses are flogged yet again, etc, etc. Interestingly, not one of them suggests that they hurry up and prove that homeopathy works. Go figure .

Kumar, your emperor has no clothes .

Hans

 

[Kumar]

Rolfe,

It takes lot of time & brain to study not just read a study in full dynamically & contradict. You may be having such time. I have put my points by such studying once & don't want to repeat unless you also understand & contradict on my points, point by point. I know you know where is that/those posts. Still furthur to try dynamically & as a regards to you people, I am stll ready to comment on any study, which you consider as best on homeopathic effects, which you may present to me in full, to study it dynamically, even though it may waste my time which could be utilized for other good dynamic thioughts. Best.

 

[Blue Bubble]

The death throes of homeopathy

That'll be the day.

The thing is that finally, after 200 years, homeopathy seems to be coming under serious fire. After hiding under that stone for ages, the heat is mounting. Another "widely accepted since long" fallacy is beginning to bite the dust.
Hans

Hans is absolutely right on this. I think we really are witnessing the death of homeopathy - about time too.

It's going to get very interesting over the next couple of years (that's my prediction for how long it will take for the corpse to twitch and twitch before it finally dilutes and succusses itself into oblivion).

 

[MRC_Hans]

It takes lot of time & brain to study not just read a study in full dynamically & contradict.

And, since you elsewhere tell us that you spend 10 hours daily at the computer, we know it is not the time you are lacking .

You may be having such time.

No, Kumar. She has the brains.

I have put my points by such studying once & don't want to repeat unless you also understand & contradict on my points, point by point. I know you know where is that/those posts.

Translation: I am too lazy to try seriously, and anyway it's way over my head.

Still furthur to try dynamically & as a regards to you people, I am stll ready to comment on any study, which you consider as best on homeopathic effects, which you may present to me in full, to study it dynamically,

Translation: But if you will do some more of my homework for me, I'm always ready to misinterpret it and twist it beyond recognition.

even though it may waste my time which could be utilized for other good dynamic thioughts. Best.

Translation: Although I much prefer just to shoot silly ideas into space without any interference.


Hans