Homeopathy is everywhere!

[Darat]

You have failed to address my points for the 6th time. Clearly you fail to understand why those points make experiments on TV weak science experiments, but not Science as a rigorous discipline, which is what science is.

I've conceeded that experiments can be done on TV. That doesn't mean that science as a discipline can be. The problems with doing science as a discipline I've pulled directly from that link you gave, so in what way is it irrelevant? That seems to be your excuse for not answering my questions.

Here they are again. Will I have to make a Larsen list for you?

[/b] [/B]

I am bemused why you feel I should answer questions about something I’ve not been discussing or claimed but you are free to post any list you want. If it is a “Larsen” style list I would suggest however that the questions be ones I have not answered about any claim I have made, as I think that is the intent behind the “Larsen” lists.

Again I will point out to you that you made this statement:

"Science ain't done on TV, no matter the credentials of the doers and the double blind etc. procedures"

I have shown that people who describe themselves (and seem to known by their peers) as "scientists" have "done" science on TV.

Therefore your statement was wrong, which you have now agreed with.

(Edited to add an "are".)

 

[athon]

Question - how do you wipe the memory of a water molecule? Get it drunk or something?

Seriously - distilling it simply turns it into a gas molecule. Does this do it? Does adding ample energy 'reset' this alleged memory? So wouldn't gases in the atmosphere surrounding the distillate then affect the molecules as they cooled?

Athon

 

[juninho]

Question - how do you wipe the memory of a water molecule? Get it drunk or something?

Seriously - distilling it simply turns it into a gas molecule. Does this do it? Does adding ample energy 'reset' this alleged memory? So wouldn't gases in the atmosphere surrounding the distillate then affect the molecules as they cooled?

Athon

[PEDANTRY]
Sorry to point out a glaringly obvious point in your description above but distilling a water molecule does NOT turn it into a gas molecule. It merely changes it's phase (at the point of distillation, not of the distillate) from that of liquid to gaseous. It remains a water molecule throughout)
[/PEDANTRY]

Interesting point of discussion for the believers in this nonsense would be this:

If you were to break down some water in a closed environment into its elemental parts (H and O), say by electrolysis and if you then recombined those elements by, say, combustion, would the resulting water have any memory?

In fact an even simpler question, if you simply took pure O and pure H and combined them in a totally sterile closed environment would the resultant water have any memory? Answers on a postcard all you believers.

 

[JamesM]

It is not sufficient for thaiboxken, James, Richard or now AlienX to merely say that tests or experiments in homeopathy fail consistently.

I didn't make that claim.

You have made a positive statement: homeopathy trials FAIL consistently.

Actually, I haven't. You could perhaps do us the favour of separating whatever claims were made by myself, tbk, RichardR and AlienX.

And James, it is precisely these anomalous attributes of water which is logically responsible for any effects claimed by homeopathy.

Here we must disagree. All the anomalous water experiments that have even a shred of credibility suggest that extremely diluted water may somehow retain some of the properties of the orginal solute. This is not enough to explain the effect of homeopathy. All it means is, that a succussed and diluted pint of solution that formerly contained, say, snake-venom, would share the same properties as a pint of genuine snake-venom. As they would be functionally equivalent, why does homeopathy only work with the diluted pint of snake venom, rather than the real snake venom?

If that objection could be overcome, one would still be left with the problem of 'like curing like'. Your analogy with immunology is flawed - the mechanism for how vaccination works is well known and has nothing to do with homeopathy.

it is the only unique substance of a different physical state that can be made up by combining two elements which are gases at the same temperatures and pressures at sea level earth (oxygen and hydrogen) ranges.

Your attempts to educate me on the subject of water are again appreciated, but you are preaching to the choir.

So thaiken, James or AlienX, can you provide evidence to back up your assertions or not?

You will have to come up with a Larsen-list for me, I'm afraid. Preferably, quote the claims that I have made and the questions you want me to answer.

I have access to several databases, so I am well aware that experiments on homeopathy have been written up in the literature. There are, however - as you are amply proving - rather a lot of them. So, the question I asked (emphatically not a claim) was whether any of these were independent replications of the positive results of previous works.

There was no burden on you to provide this information, it was a genuine question. I apologise if I have inadvertantly led you to think I was trying to prove some point. I merely asked as it would aid in narrowing the focus of this rambling and free-wheelin' discussion.

 

[SteveGrenard]

DOG the abbrev DIC really STANDS FOR: disseminated intravascular coagulopathy NOT COAGULATION, although this term has been used as well since coagulation does occur.

However, it is not the clots that cause the bleeding, it is
consumption coagulopathy. All the bodies clotting factors are used up so you don't clot and you bleed to death. That's in plain English. But one of the treatments is to administer a drug that causes bleeding, the anticoaguant: heparin. Like cures like.
The heparin stimulates or provokes the body to restore its clotting abilities. What a coincidence.

Also of interest is why quinine cures malarial fever? Anybody know?

 

[SteveGrenard]

BoTox: You give the same child 20 ug of amphetamine, no matter how prepared, it does nothing. This is a very basic principle of chemistry that homeopathy fails to comply to, which is one reason why it does not work.

How do you know this? Has it been tried? Is there a study somewhere? How about a homeopathic dilution down to zip
plus shaking? Has this been tried? I maintain you
do not know whether what you say is true or not. You are making an empirical statement based on your personal viewpoint but have no evidence t back it up. Otherwise provide that evidence.
TY

 

[SteveGrenard]

J: Actually, I haven't. You could perhaps do us the favour of separating whatever claims were made by myself, tbk, RichardR and AlienX.

Answer: Sorry.


Here we must disagree. All the anomalous water experiments that have even a shred of credibility suggest that extremely diluted water may somehow retain some of the properties of the orginal solute. This is not enough to explain the effect of homeopathy. All it means is, that a succussed and diluted pint of solution that formerly contained, say, snake-venom, would share the same properties as a pint of genuine snake-venom. As they would be functionally equivalent, why does homeopathy only work with the diluted pint of snake venom, rather than the real snake venom?

Ans: There is an old saw about everything is a poison, the only thing that separates a poison from a cure, is dose. I think Paracelsus said this.

J: If that objection could be overcome, one would still be left with the problem of 'like curing like'. Your analogy with immunology is flawed - the mechanism for how vaccination works is well known and has nothing to do with homeopathy.

Ans: I gave examples which go outside the field of immunotherapy. There may be more. Antifungal antibiotics that
derive from, er, fungal organisms, are another example.
Also the use of allergens to desensitize folks to those very same allergens. Too many coincidences. Like curing like stands and falls on its own so immunotherapy can rightfully be included. It is an additional leap to take that into the mysterious world of homeopathic dilutions. I don't disagree with that. BTW check the dates of Hahnemann's "discovery" of like versus like and compare that with the dates Pasteur, Jenner and others of that era did their work.

J: Your attempts to educate me on the subject of water are again appreciated, but you are preaching to the choir.

Ans: I know very little about it. This exercise was merely to point out to some people who make broad, un-informed and sweeping statements that they need to reference those statements before uttering them. I am sorry if I included you in that group.



J: I have access to several databases, so I am well aware that experiments on homeopathy have been written up in the literature. There are, however - as you are amply proving - rather a lot of them. So, the question I asked (emphatically not a claim) was whether any of these were independent replications of the positive results of previous works.

Ans: There are rather a lot of experiments and trials on every drug in current use, including many that have been previously vetted and approved for one thing coming back for something else. It is a never ending quest. I dont know the answer to your question about independent replications but obviously different workers have been cross confiming each others observations for decades. The two studies by the Univ Washington on diarrhea in children, one in Nepal and the other in Nicaragua, using different teams on the ground and different populations other than the principal investigators is a replication but not completely independent of each other.

 

[CFLarsen]

Steve,

I have not seen a post from you that explained what you meant about molecules and particles, except this:

Thanks for the Lego Lesson. I wish molecules and subatomic particles were Lego blocks and it would be all the more relevant but I appreciate the time you took to put forth an example of conventional physics.

In the meantime, I am not advancing any particular point of view but merely referring you all to the various theories that are out there and they are.

Enter "quantum physics and homeopathy" in Google to see what I mean. Or find yourself a serious book on the subject such as
(full article snipped)

Now, we both know that on this board, merely saying "I am not advancing any particular point of view but merely referring you all to the various theories that are out there and they are" doesn't work here, especially since you have not been "advancing" any points from the skeptical side. Therefore you were not "merely referring" us all "to the various theories that are out there".

Know how we know this? From how you entered this thread. You started off with ripping off text that wasn't your own. Then, you launched into an attack on Randi and CSICOP, your two favorite gripes. When called on your many claims, all unsubstantiated, you then lapsed into this booger-brained idea.

Of course, pointing to Google won't do, either. You know that, too.

Ergo:

• Please explain the difference between a molecule and a particle.
• Please explain why a particle could be present, even after all molecules were left.
• Please explain why it would be impossible to "displace" such particles from even the smallest dose of a homeopathic remedy.
• Please present the calculations that shows how quantum physics principles can explain homeopathy.
• Did you read the "serious" book "The Memory of Water: Homoeopathy and the Battle of Ideas in the New Science"?
• In the case you haven't read this book, how do you know it is "serious"?

Oh, and the rest, too:

The Horizon "Homeopathy" program

• What do you base your claim on that there were "no controls" on this trial?
  Answer: "The security arrangements, who prepared the solutions and the control solutions, who held them, etc were not mentioned in any account. I did not see the original program but I am told by those who did it was not discernible from that either. It was TV, it was edited, remember? It was a pile of rubbish."
• By whom were you told, Steve?
• If TV is edited, why did you have such problems acknowledging that Crossing Over was edited as well?
• Did you watch the program at all?
  Answer: "No, did you?"
  No. However, I have not made a lot of claims about a program I haven't seen. You have.
• Why can't a scientific experiment be conducted on TV?
  Answer: "It CAN BE but this doesn't mean it has any validity. No peer review, editing, etc."
• But results can be found on TV, right?
• Please show how Randi "engineered" the television stunt to "discredit" homeopathy.
  Answer: "You're not serious right?"
  Yes, I am. Please answer the question.
• How do you know that the scientist had a "preconceived bias against a possibly effective alternative treatment"?
  Answer: "The scientists were approved, perhaps even selected by Randi and the producers ahead of time. How do we know if they were biased or unbiased? Have we reviewed a record of their opinions on homeopathy before their involvement in this?"
• How do you know the scientists were approved and perhaps even selected by Randi?
• Did the protocol not exclude any bias on the scientists? If not, how so?
• Do you claim that the test was conducted differently than what you said should be done: "Usually the control substance (e.g. pure water) and the allegedly active substance are put into identical formats and labeled with numbers or letter or coded. The code is held by one person and locked in a safe. Both substance A and B or 1 or 2 or whatever are tested. Then the code is broken."?
  Answer: "The problem is from descriptions of the program as well as from those who viewed it, we don't know. (see above)."
• So, your claim was completely unfounded. Do you retract it?
• Do you maintain that judging was used, and not objective testing?
  Answer: "'Scientists' were chosen by Randi and the program and asked to give their opinion, their guess, their observation that they could not tell the difference between the control and the active substance. This is judging. You can call it anything you want. Who else besides these referees got to oversee their results? Even judges in courtrooms have judicial oversight. Who backed them up?"
• Now you are saying directly that the scientists were chosen by Randi. Please show your evidence of this.
• Please explain how the scientists could have cheated.
• Why would you need to be an expert on homeopathy to judge a result that needs to judging?
• How big a trial do you consider of "significance"? And why?
• Who among those backing the results claims that the trial was too small to be of significance?
• Please point to the evidence published in peer reviewed journals that "dictate" that homeopathy is real.
• In what "peer-reviewed", "scientific" journals did Schwartz publish his studies?
• The data from the homeopathy test were published. Why is Schwartz not publishing his?
• Why is this experiment "controversial", and not Schwartz' HBO-experiment?
• When you dissolve duck liver in water (a very common homeopathic cure), what "duck liver particle" do you imagine would be left in the dilution?

Schwartz

• If the Horizon experiment was not "scientific" because it was on TV, what about Schwartz' HBO-experiment?
  Answer: "Schwartz did studies before and after the televisied segment tapings and published all his results in a peer reviewed journal. I didnt see this happening with the Hotizons program or with any Randi challenge in fact. Schwartz studies were done on site at the University of Arziona, not on a TV studio stage. "
  Moving the goal posts. I asked about the HBO experiments, not what happened afterwards. Please answer the question: Was Schwartz' HBO experiments scientific or not?
• Was judging required at Schwartz' experiments?

CSICOP/JREF

• Please point to what the "party line of CSICOP, JREF or the other groups" is.
  Answer: "Who are the donors to CSICOP and CFI? Is this list available? Anyone connected to the development and manufacture of streptokinase or tissue plasminogen activator would do ... I will not say more at this time."
  What are you talking about?? Please answer the question or retract it.
• Please name the "other groups" you mentioned.
  Answer: "CSICOP has dozens of affiliates. And there are also other indie groups like The Skeptic Society but I was more thinking along the lines of the CSICOP branches."
  Please answer the question.
• How do you know the health of Randi?
  Answer: "Randi had open heart surgery and has a heart condition. He publicly revealed this information himself on television. otherwise it would be PHI and I would not mention it if I came by it in any other manner."
• How would "taking a kiddie aspirin" help the repercussions of open heart surgery?

Aspirin as treatment for coronary thrombosis

• Who are these people who "screamed the loudest and the longest" against the use of aspirin for this?
  Answer: "You have to read the S.I. for articles on this subject. CSICOP came out very heavily opposed to the validity of large scale studies showing that aspirin was of value. They questionned the fact that aspirin was such a miracle in this area."
  You made the claim that these people exist. You claimed to know who they were. Please tell us who these people are, by name. Also, provide the references of your claims of CSICOP "very heavily" opposing this.
• How do you know it has cost the patients or their insurers three thousand+ dollars a pop?
  Answer: "Treatment with TPA costs at least this much. It is a matter of record. I know it from personally being told this by a hospital pharmacist, however. When a pt is on aspirin, TPA cannot be given so its one less expensive treatment the pt can get for coronary thrombosis. Whether they'll admnit it or not, this irks the makers of TPA."
  You have not provided your evidence of your claim. Please do so, or retract your claim.
• Can you point to where CSICOP refuted the use of aspirin in coronary thrombosis/chest pain victims or as a prophylactic for coronary artery thrombosis?
  Answer: "Again, I would have to ferret out back issues of SI on this subject;"
  Please do so. Until you get back, the question remains.
• If they did, do they still hold these views?
  Answer: "The subject sort of died with them as the handwriting on the wall became apparent but somebody brought it up in SI about a year ago again but I dont remember the details."
  Again, you have not been able to back up your claim. Please provide the evidence hereof, or retract the claim.
• Please point to where you got the information that "many thousands probably died" due to CSICOP and JREF's "efforts to to discredit the treatment for this purpose".
  Answer: "I agree I am speculating. If you read the original articles on aspirin in SI and you believed them and you had a heart condition you would not have agreed to use aspirin and you would be increasing your risk of sudden cardiac death. Do I have specific cases? No, but some day there should be a congressional inquiry as to why CSICOP immersed itself in this. This is not over. Everything comes out in the wash sooner or later."
  Again, you have not been able to back up your claim. However, in this case, you retract your claim and admit that it was purely speculation.

Misc.

• Please point to the rule of this board that allows you to post a whole page from another site.
  Answer: "Fair used as confirmed by Pyrrho. The website itself gives permission for non-commercial and non-advertising. I posted those words above below the text. I was not finished adding to this post when you made your feeble attempt to silence a legitimate reply to the "there aint no evidence" claim based on b.s."
  By posting the words, you also admitted that your post violated copyrights: You did NOT include ownership.

Please either:

• address the questions, providing either a retraction or evidence of your claims, or
• state that, despite the evidence to the contrary, you still wish to believe what you claimed, or
• state that you refuse to answer.

 

[BTox]

How do you know this? Has it been tried? Is there a study somewhere? How about a homeopathic dilution down to zip
plus shaking? Has this been tried? I maintain you
do not know whether what you say is true or not. You are making an empirical statement based on your personal viewpoint but have no evidence t back it up. Otherwise provide that evidence.
TY

There are numerous dose-response studies on methylphenidate (Ritalin), as is required by FDA for approval of all ethical drugs. This is how dosage is determined, a pharmaceutical company wants to sell the minimum dosage that is effective AND safe (minimal adverse reactions). Do a search of medline, there are hundreds of in vitro, in vivo and clinical pharmacological studies done to determine the dosage of this, and every other drug, on the market.

Once again, this is a fundamental law of biochemistry and pharmacology that applies to all drugs, including homeopathic "remedies". And which is why they do not show any physiological activity, nor do they cure any disease or mitigate any symptom better than placebo.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Then BoTox you shouldve done some homework and you would have found the following seminal study on dose-response for methyphenidate (Ritalin). As you may recall, Ritalin came out in the early '60s, maybe even late 50s. But its value as an agent that paradoxically effects hyperactive children came much later and the standard dose was still 10 mg until new studies determined otherwise. I highlighted the most relevant aspects of this study in boldface so they won't be missed. Hmmm..whdda ya think is going on here? Doses as low as placebo? That would be homeopathic in some people's book, would it not?

There is some unpublished research with profoundly autistic hyperactive children that had to be kept caged. They'd bounce off the walls 24 X7. 1 ml of caffeine was diluted in 300 ml bottle of milk and shaken and they stopped what they were doing and fell asleep after two sips. Sorry its not published but is widely used by some group home mothers who are nurses, with their doctor's agreement , to allow such cases to sleep; otherwise they would die. The first time I saw this I thought the child had a cardiac arrest; I flipped out because they had so suddenly and completely outwardly shut down whereas nothing else would do this including the standard dose of methylphenidate.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dose-Response Effects of Methylphenidate on Ecologically Valid Measures of Academic Performance and Classroom Behavior in Adolescents With ADHD

Steven W. Evans
Department of Psychology
James Madison University

William E. Pelham
Department of Psychology
State University of New York at Buffalo

Bradley H. Smith
Department of Psychology
University of South Carolina

Oscar Bukstein
Department of Psychiatry
University of Pittsburgh Medical Center

Elizabeth M. Gnagy
Department of Psychology
State University of New York at Buffalo

Andrew R. Greiner, Lori Altenderfer, and Carrie Baron-Myak
Department of Psychology
University of Pittsburgh Medical Center


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ABSTRACT

The effects of methylphenidate on the academic performance and classroom behavior of 45 adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder were studied. During a 6-week, placebo-controlled medication assessment in the context of a summer treatment program, participants received a double-blind, crossover trial of 3 doses of methylphenidate. Dependent measures included note-taking quality, quiz and worksheet scores, written language usage and productivity, teacher ratings, on-task and disruptive behavior, and homework completion. Group data showed positive effects of methylphenidate on academic measures; however, the greatest benefit came with the lowest dose.

Although additional benefit did occur for some participants with higher doses, the largest increment of change usually occurred between the placebo and 10-mg dose.

Many adolescents did not experience added benefit with increased dosages, and in some cases they experienced deterioration. Guidelines for assessment of medication effects are discussed.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Again I will point out to you that you made this statement:

"Science ain't done on TV, no matter the credentials of the doers and the double blind etc. procedures"

I have shown that people who describe themselves (and seem to known by their peers) as "scientists" have "done" science on TV.

Therefore your statement was wrong, which you have now agreed with.

If you repeat yourself enough times, it still won't be true Darat.

I've stated that one can do very limited science experiments, yes, but not the discipline of Science. There is a clear difference (Mr. Wizard vs. Los Alamos, for example), surely you can see that.

You, again, in your quoting of me, edited out the points from your link that showed that it is more catering to a TV studio and audience than real science.

And you, most importantly, still haven't addressed how these very real problems make science, as a discipline not little experiments, on TV impossible.

 

[CFLarsen]

T'ai Chi,

You are arguing a point Darat never made. You, on the other hand, have gone from a blanket statement "Science ain't done on TV, no matter the credentials of the doers and the double blind etc. procedures" to "one can do very limited science experiments, yes, but not the discipline of Science".

You are simply moving the goal posts. Classic tactic for someone cornered. Give it up, admit your mistake and move on.

Like a skeptic would.

 

[Darat]

If you repeat yourself enough times, it still won't be true Darat.

I've stated that one can do very limited science experiments, yes, but not the discipline of Science. There is a clear difference (Mr. Wizard vs. Los Alamos, for example), surely you can see that.

You, again, in your quoting of me, edited out the points from your link that showed that it is more catering to a TV studio and audience than real science.

And you, most importantly, still haven't addressed how these very real problems make science, as a discipline not little experiments, on TV impossible.

Just a correction here. I keep quoting the claim you made, that you add other items into a post you make apparently in reply to mine is as I keep saying irrelevant to the evidence that I provided to show your statement


"Science ain't done on TV, no matter the credentials of the doers and the double blind etc. procedures""

was wrong.

However reading this post has made me realise why we have a misunderstanding.

To summarise it is that you are now making a new claim (or if you want to word it another way - expanding on your original claim), and it is your new claim you now want a response to.

However as I’ve said many times I have merely wanted to point out that your original, unexpanded claim i.e.


"Science ain't done on TV, no matter the credentials of the doers and the double blind etc. procedures""

was and is wrong, according to scientists engaged in "doing" science.

 

[T'ai Chi]

To summarize, you haven't addressed the points from your own link why it makes it impossible to do science on television.

Your argument is negated by information from your own link.

 

[CFLarsen]

Not a skeptic, then.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Then BoTox you shouldve done some homework and you would have found the following seminal study on dose-response for methyphenidate (Ritalin). As you may recall, Ritalin came out in the early '60s, maybe even late 50s. But its value as an agent that paradoxically effects hyperactive children came much later and the standard dose was still 10 mg until new studies determined otherwise. I highlighted the most relevant aspects of this study in boldface so they won't be missed. Hmmm..whdda ya think is going on here? Doses as low as placebo? That would be homeopathic in some people's book, would it not?

But do you have any REAL evidence? Such nonsense that you post doesn't really count, does it? Come on, SG. Bring a homeopath to the JREF and claim the million dollars. You are simply torturing data to try and "prove" that homeopathy works.

There is some unpublished research...

LOL. This is your "scientific" evidence?!

however, the greatest benefit came with the lowest dose.

Although additional benefit did occur for some participants with higher doses, the largest increment of change usually occurred between the placebo and 10-mg dose.

The benefits happened BETWEEN placebo and 10-mg. This is not homeopathy. With homeopathy, there is no active ingredient in the solution anymore. Why do you insist on trying to change definition of homeopathic medicine?

It's medical fact that dosage makes big differences in medicines, too little or too much can ruin results.

Now, do you have any REAL evidence that homeopathy works?

 

[BTox]

Then BoTox you shouldve done some homework and you would have found the following seminal study on dose-response for methyphenidate (Ritalin). As you may recall, Ritalin came out in the early '60s, maybe even late 50s. But its value as an agent that paradoxically effects hyperactive children came much later and the standard dose was still 10 mg until new studies determined otherwise. I highlighted the most relevant aspects of this study in boldface so they won't be missed. Hmmm..whdda ya think is going on here? Doses as low as placebo? That would be homeopathic in some people's book, would it not?

Perhaps you are not understanding the study you highlighted. I have read many of them. The standard dose is still 10 - 20 mg. The paper below shows, as many do, that there is a significant decrease in hyperactivity between the placebo group and 10 mg dose. Higher doses are not always more effective. The studies always show 5-10 mg is significantly better than placebo. Below 5 mg, there is no significance. Classic dose response.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Perhaps you are not understanding the study you highlighted.

I don't think this is a matter of misunderstanding the study. This is more likely an intentional misrepresentation of the facts in order to support his beliefs.

 

[BTox]

There is some unpublished research with profoundly autistic hyperactive children that had to be kept caged. They'd bounce off the walls 24 X7. 1 ml of caffeine was diluted in 300 ml bottle of milk and shaken and they stopped what they were doing and fell asleep after two sips. Sorry its not published but is widely used by some group home mothers who are nurses, with their doctor's agreement , to allow such cases to sleep; otherwise they would die. The first time I saw this I thought the child had a cardiac arrest; I flipped out because they had so suddenly and completely outwardly shut down whereas nothing else would do this including the standard dose of methylphenidate.

This is anecdotal and sounds absurd. Of course there are no published results of such hogwash.

PS caffeine is a solid. How can you get 1 ml? Did you mean 1 mg?

 

[Darat]

To summarize, you haven't addressed the points from your own link why it makes it impossible to do science on television.

Your argument is negated by information from your own link.

As I keep saying your statement

"Science ain't done on TV, no matter the credentials of the doers and the double blind etc. procedures"

is wrong.

No matter how many times you deny it the evidence won't go away.

The evidence clearly shows that your statement is wrong.

All the other points you make do not provide any evidence to support your statement.