Non-Homeopathic Belladonna

[Mashuna]

Again, I believe that the "best evidence available" includes more than just randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. My alternative is to look at evidence as broadly as possible and make decisions on a case-by-case basis.

But would you agree that "best evidence available" would include DBRPC trials, and that you would not apply the same weighting to anecdotal evidence as you would to the trial evidence?

 

[Mojo]

But would you agree that "best evidence available" would include DBRPC trials, and that you would not apply the same weighting to anecdotal evidence as you would to the trial evidence?

Ah, but you're forgetting that (to quote Rodney) "we often hear in the media that a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial has proven something or other, only to have that finding contradicted down the road by another randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial", while anecdotes, being reports of single uncontrolled events, cannot possibly be contradicted.

 

[Mashuna]

Ah, but you're forgetting that (to quote Rodney) "we often hear in the media that a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial has proven something or other, only to have that finding contradicted down the road by another randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial", while anecdotes, being reports of single uncontrolled events, cannot possibly be contradicted.

Well, it's true that if something is reported by the media, then it's gospel truth.

 

[fls]

I don't have the time at the moment to analyze these studies, but if there was "conflicting evidence on the effectiveness of antitussives, expectorants, antihistamine-decongestant combinations, and other drug combinations compared with placebo," doesn't that indicate the studies were contradictory?

It could indicate a lot of things. If you really want to know, you need to look at the details of the actual results.

I'm not going to give you the answer, because it is my hope that if you actually look at the studies with a specific question in mind, you will learn something in the process. If you don't have time to do so, that is unfortunate. But you would have been unable to support your original claim, no matter how much time you had, anyway.

I don't have time to read the other thread right now, but I assume you're referring to the "pre-study odds" idea addressed in the John Ioannidis article "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False." To me, that idea is just a way of discrediting hypotheses that challenge the conventional wisdom. And I think Beth came down somewhere in the middle between your position and mine.

Beth was uncertain how to go about quantifying pre-study odds in that particular situation, but she confirmed the principle of the separation of significance testing and hypothesis testing.

The John Ioannidis paper isn't relevant, though (although his paper is an offshoot of these principles). The other thread is short, but the meat is in the several good/excellent papers referenced in the thread which would take longer to read. If you don't have time now, you should make note of the papers for later.

But your comment about discrediting hypotheses that challenge the conventional wisdom is not only wrong, but hypocritical. You are the one that proposed that scientists were too eager to accept Einstein's claim of special relativity - a hypotheses that was a much greater challenge to conventional wisdom than anything Cayce proposed. You cannot on the one hand claim that scientists discredit hypotheses that challenge conventional wisdom so they can ignore them, and then turn right around and claim they give them too much credit, based solely (it seems) on which one you feel like believing.

Not you personally, perhaps, but I think EBM is based on ignoring anecdotal evidence.

The "rules" for evaluating evidence were not developed by some old boys club trying to keep you out. They are rules that have been gradually revealed to us through empirical study, similar to the laws of nature. What you are implying is that it is unreasonable for scientists to make the rule that gravity varies inversely with the square of the distance between two objects, because it devalues your evidence that distant planets influence human personality traits.

Again, I believe that the "best evidence available" includes more than just randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. My alternative is to look at evidence as broadly as possible and make decisions on a case-by-case basis.

That still doesn't explain why you propose randomly harming large numbers of people by recommending they ingest untested substances or by neglecting effective treatment (in addition to the opportunity costs).

Linda

 

[Rodney]

But would you agree that "best evidence available" would include DBRPC trials, and that you would not apply the same weighting to anecdotal evidence as you would to the trial evidence?

Certainly yes to the first question, but there is no set answer to the second question. In some cases, yes; in other cases, no. It depends on what the specific facts are.

 

[Rodney]

It could indicate a lot of things. If you really want to know, you need to look at the details of the actual results.

I'm not going to give you the answer, because it is my hope that if you actually look at the studies with a specific question in mind, you will learn something in the process. If you don't have time to do so, that is unfortunate. But you would have been unable to support your original claim, no matter how much time you had, anyway.

Thanks for the zinger.

Beth was uncertain how to go about quantifying pre-study odds in that particular situation, but she confirmed the principle of the separation of significance testing and hypothesis testing.

The John Ioannidis paper isn't relevant, though (although his paper is an offshoot of these principles). The other thread is short, but the meat is in the several good/excellent papers referenced in the thread which would take longer to read. If you don't have time now, you should make note of the papers for later.

Okay, but I'm still trying to figure out how estimating pre-study odds is consistent with an objective scientific investigation.

But your comment about discrediting hypotheses that challenge the conventional wisdom is not only wrong, but hypocritical. You are the one that proposed that scientists were too eager to accept Einstein's claim of special relativity - a hypotheses that was a much greater challenge to conventional wisdom than anything Cayce proposed.

Now really, Linda, do you truly, cross your heart and hope to die, believe that?

You cannot on the one hand claim that scientists discredit hypotheses that challenge conventional wisdom so they can ignore them, and then turn right around and claim they give them too much credit, based solely (it seems) on which one you feel like believing.

The "rules" for evaluating evidence were not developed by some old boys club trying to keep you out. They are rules that have been gradually revealed to us through empirical study, similar to the laws of nature. What you are implying is that it is unreasonable for scientists to make the rule that gravity varies inversely with the square of the distance between two objects, because it devalues your evidence that distant planets influence human personality traits.

Aren't you the least bit troubled that the history of science involves the establishment ridiculing ideas that are too far outside the mainstream?

That still doesn't explain why you propose randomly harming large numbers of people by recommending they ingest untested substances or by neglecting effective treatment (in addition to the opportunity costs).

Linda

When have I ever proposed either of those? My point about the Tommy House case is that, if there was a medical consensus that he was going to die in a matter of hours, trying a radical treatment from an unconventional source that had been accurate before seemed to be the best way to go.

 

[Aepervius]

Aren't you the least bit troubled that the history of science involves the establishment ridiculing ideas that are too far outside the mainstream?

As far as I can tell from the part of the history of science I know of, the earliest part involve the people wanting to burn scientist for their non-mainstream theory, and the latest a lot of people not understanding/misusing theory (quantum physic) or downright rejecting them on personal ground (evolution for example, some aprt of the medicine by some religion etc...).

Note that I use the word theory here. Which is downright different than speculation. An example
of theory is the theory of :
* relativity
* newtonian gravity
* evolution
* quantum physic

An example of speculation is :
* telepathy is the brain using a sort of EM wave
* cayce healed people using belladona. Just kidding .
* alien land on earth on regular basis for anal probe and cattle slaying
* skeptic disturb most ESP by their negativism

How to tell the difference ?
A theory is something falsifiable based on existing phenomenon. While a speculation is an attempt of explaining a phenomenon which has not been proved to exist to begin with (note that using this definition what some qualify as scientific theory, are indeed more speculation than anything else. I know that and indeed I think they are).

What most people say about non-mainstream idea not being accepted by scientific are IN REALITY pure speculation on non-reproducible phenomenon (and I am generous here, most would say "non-existing" phenomenon).

IMHO your explanation (the way you present it) is speculation, because you have no idea what the illness of the child was to begin with, and thus you cannot falsify anything there. On the other hand if you have the hypothese that some illness (insert list) can be healed by (insert list) then please organize a double blind experiment for it. It does not matter whether this is mainstream or not (IMHO, we should avoid "mainstream" as this is mostly used by woo to prop up their own "woo" theory and paint themselves as martyr ignored by science). But until such a DB study is done you ahve NOTHING except speculation and mythos.

 

[BillyJoe]

(IMHO, we should avoid "mainstream" ...

You have to use the word "mainstream" because not all mainstream medicine is evidence based. The thing is to separate Evidence Based Medicine from Mainstream, Alternative, Complementary, and Integrative medicine.

The second thing is to decide what sort of evidence to admit.
Rodney obviously has a different idea to Linda on that issue.

 

[fls]

Thanks for the zinger.

Just trying to be altruistic.

It's not like I don't know this stuff inside and out, and don't already know what would be the best you could possibly come up with (and that it would be insufficient to support the premise).

Okay, but I'm still trying to figure out how estimating pre-study odds is consistent with an objective scientific investigation.

Well, you've been provided with a lot of reference material, and I've done a lot of explaining myself. I'm certainly willing to help you work through stuff you don't understand, but I really get the impression that the reason you don't understand it is because you wish to deny it.

Now really, Linda, do you truly, cross your heart and hope to die, believe that?

We are talking about his medical suggestions, right? Some of the other stuff he came up with (the Atlantis-related stuff, for example) is certainly out there. But suggesting some novel substances to try or novel situations in which to try standard substances, is a fairly mainstream idea. And individual stories of success are also an established source of inspiration for further investigation. Overturning our conception of spacetime and our perception of reality seems to be much more of a challenge than that.

Aren't you the least bit troubled that the history of science involves the establishment ridiculing ideas that are too far outside the mainstream?

It used to be, and it seems like it should be the obvious reaction. I have seriously considered this issue and read a lot of different perspectives. I used to consider it one of the flaws of the system, but I'm coming around to the idea that it is a strength - or at least considering that the argument for this is legitimate. Because it is the process of overcoming ridicule that filters out those ideas which have merit. And if you actually look at the ideas that are ridiculed and those that are not, the degree to which they are outside of the mainstream does not determine the degree of ridicule. It is the degree to which they are supported by evidence that determines the ridicule.

For example, the idea that gastric ulcers could be caused by an infectious agent was originally ridiculed because the evidence for the idea was weak. But the idea that various diseases can be caused by infectious agents, and that some of these connections are as yet undiscovered, is a solidly mainstream idea. As soon as evidence (i.e. information of the kind that not only confirmed the connection, but excluded reasonable alternate explanations) was presented, the idea was accepted. Compare that to String Theory, where the underlying idea is far, far away from the mainstream, yet the idea has been accepted as a legitimate field of exploration within mainstream physics because of the exquisite accuracy of the results and the ability of the idea to connect otherwise unconnected explanations. And it is String Theory's inability to provide proof that is now leading to ridicule among the physics community.

Most paranormal phenomena are simply phenomena without evidence for their existence. That that is the reason for their ridicule, not that the ideas surrounding them are not mainstream. Science has accepted, without ridicule, ideas far less mainstream than those which parapsychologists have proposed, on the basis of proof.

I realize that it is possible that ideas have died because their proponents did not have the fortitude to gather the evidence necessary to overcome ridicule. But I don't really know if it's a legitimate concern.

When have I ever proposed either of those? My point about the Tommy House case is that, if there was a medical consensus that he was going to die in a matter of hours, trying a radical treatment from an unconventional source that had been accurate before seemed to be the best way to go.

The proposal you provide above is an example. Which "radical treatment" that is proposed will depend upon happenstance. Sure Cayce happened to be the one present, so the proposed treatment was belladonna. But under slightly different circumstances, it could have been the medical medium next door to Cayce, or the faith healer passing through town, or the witch in the next county, or any one of hundreds of unconventional sources. And since the recommended treatment would be solely subjective and depend upon who you asked, rather than upon information that had been gathered in a more objective manner, the choice of treatment would depend upon chance. As the information available on these substances is inadequate to tell you what harm or what benefit could be expected, you can't exclude the possibility that you would be doing the patient more harm than good. And you are grossly over-estimating the existence of situations where the outcome is certain - where concerns over harm are negligible.

Also, as a systemic recommendation, it leads to a waste of opportunity. Useful information cannot arise as a result of these random experiments, so it does not add to the body of knowledge. And it encourages the existence of a system that as far as we can tell is a huge waste of time and money - time and money that could better be spent elsewhere.

And your suggestion that the occasional utterance of accurate statements is sufficient to suggest that all (or most, or some) future statements will be accurate is not only not supported by the evidence; the evidence shows this suggestion to be wrong.

Linda

 

[Rodney]

Just trying to be altruistic.

It's not like I don't know this stuff inside and out, and don't already know what would be the best you could possibly come up with (and that it would be insufficient to support the premise).

So what's your bottom line on randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. Should they be trusted: (a) always (b) almost always (c) usually, or (d) sometimes?

Well, you've been provided with a lot of reference material, and I've done a lot of explaining myself. I'm certainly willing to help you work through stuff you don't understand, but I really get the impression that the reason you don't understand it is because you wish to deny it.

I still haven't seen an answer as to how pre-trial study odds are objectively determined.

We are talking about his medical suggestions, right? Some of the other stuff he came up with (the Atlantis-related stuff, for example) is certainly out there. But suggesting some novel substances to try or novel situations in which to try standard substances, is a fairly mainstream idea. And individual stories of success are also an established source of inspiration for further investigation. Overturning our conception of spacetime and our perception of reality seems to be much more of a challenge than that.

If you believe that Cayce could tap into some sort of universal wisdom when he was unconscious, I think that undermines the scientific perception of reality more than anything Einstein ever did.

It used to be, and it seems like it should be the obvious reaction. I have seriously considered this issue and read a lot of different perspectives. I used to consider it one of the flaws of the system, but I'm coming around to the idea that it is a strength - or at least considering that the argument for this is legitimate. Because it is the process of overcoming ridicule that filters out those ideas which have merit. And if you actually look at the ideas that are ridiculed and those that are not, the degree to which they are outside of the mainstream does not determine the degree of ridicule. It is the degree to which they are supported by evidence that determines the ridicule.

For example, the idea that gastric ulcers could be caused by an infectious agent was originally ridiculed because the evidence for the idea was weak. But the idea that various diseases can be caused by infectious agents, and that some of these connections are as yet undiscovered, is a solidly mainstream idea. As soon as evidence (i.e. information of the kind that not only confirmed the connection, but excluded reasonable alternate explanations) was presented, the idea was accepted. Compare that to String Theory, where the underlying idea is far, far away from the mainstream, yet the idea has been accepted as a legitimate field of exploration within mainstream physics because of the exquisite accuracy of the results and the ability of the idea to connect otherwise unconnected explanations. And it is String Theory's inability to provide proof that is now leading to ridicule among the physics community.

Most paranormal phenomena are simply phenomena without evidence for their existence. That that is the reason for their ridicule, not that the ideas surrounding them are not mainstream. Science has accepted, without ridicule, ideas far less mainstream than those which parapsychologists have proposed, on the basis of proof.

I realize that it is possible that ideas have died because their proponents did not have the fortitude to gather the evidence necessary to overcome ridicule. But I don't really know if it's a legitimate concern.

I don't know how many ideas have died because of a failure of the scientific establishment to take them seriously, but I think acceptance has been significantly delayed in many cases. With regard to Cayce's medical treatments, I think we would have some definite answers by now as to their efficacy if they had been thoroughly investigated during his lifetime.

The proposal you provide above is an example. Which "radical treatment" that is proposed will depend upon happenstance. Sure Cayce happened to be the one present, so the proposed treatment was belladonna. But under slightly different circumstances, it could have been the medical medium next door to Cayce, or the faith healer passing through town, or the witch in the next county, or any one of hundreds of unconventional sources.

Yes, but in many cases, there is no good reason to believe the medical medium or faith healer has actually healed anybody.

And since the recommended treatment would be solely subjective and depend upon who you asked, rather than upon information that had been gathered in a more objective manner, the choice of treatment would depend upon chance. As the information available on these substances is inadequate to tell you what harm or what benefit could be expected, you can't exclude the possibility that you would be doing the patient more harm than good. And you are grossly over-estimating the existence of situations where the outcome is certain - where concerns over harm are negligible.

Also, as a systemic recommendation, it leads to a waste of opportunity. Useful information cannot arise as a result of these random experiments, so it does not add to the body of knowledge. And it encourages the existence of a system that as far as we can tell is a huge waste of time and money - time and money that could better be spent elsewhere.

And your suggestion that the occasional utterance of accurate statements is sufficient to suggest that all (or most, or some) future statements will be accurate is not only not supported by the evidence; the evidence shows this suggestion to be wrong.

Linda

What evidence are you referring to?

 

[fls]

So what's your bottom line on randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. Should they be trusted: (a) always (b) almost always (c) usually, or (d) sometimes?

I'm presuming that what you mean by that question is that the conclusions that can be drawn from the results are likely to be true. The answer is b) - i.e. the conclusions that can reasonably be drawn from RDBPCT can almost always be trusted. But that statement is essentially a tautology, as apparent exceptions will almost always be due to people attempting to draw conclusions that are not reasonably supported by the results.

I still haven't seen an answer as to how pre-trial study odds are objectively determined.

I don't understand exactly where your confusion lies on this issue, as it looks like you are asking for a course in epistemology, but I don't think that's what you mean. The short answer would be from the results of previous trials and other types of pre-existing information which (hopefully) lead to a convergence.

If you believe that Cayce could tap into some sort of universal wisdom when he was unconscious, I think that undermines the scientific perception of reality more than anything Einstein ever did.

Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? Wouldn't we just be interested in whether or not his ideas were useful before we starting worrying about where they came from? Other scientists have claimed weird sources of inspiration along the way.

I don't know how many ideas have died because of a failure of the scientific establishment to take them seriously, but I think acceptance has been significantly delayed in many cases.

Can you give an example where the delay wasn't due to the collection of evidence which would serve as proof?

With regard to Cayce's medical treatments, I think we would have some definite answers by now as to their efficacy if they had been thoroughly investigated during his lifetime.

I agree. And the same could be said about any other medical medium. So the question becomes, given that there are finite resources to dedicate to the pursuit of knowledge, what do we lose and what do we gain by following the leads provided by Cayce instead of those provided by the usual scientific methods? The results from the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine shows hardly any gain for a large loss in opportunity.

Yes, but in many cases, there is no good reason to believe the medical medium or faith healer has actually healed anybody.

How do you distinguish Cayce from them, other than publicity?

What evidence are you referring to?

The many statements made my Edgar Cayce that are wrong would be evidence. Another example would be Robert Lancaster's examination of Sylvia Browne's claims. The JREF newletters largely consists of examples of this evidence.

Linda

 

[Rodney]

I'm presuming that what you mean by that question is that the conclusions that can be drawn from the results are likely to be true. The answer is b) - i.e. the conclusions that can reasonably be drawn from RDBPCT can almost always be trusted. But that statement is essentially a tautology, as apparent exceptions will almost always be due to people attempting to draw conclusions that are not reasonably supported by the results.

Has anyone ever done a statistical analysis of RDBPCT; e.g., examining what such trials found in the 1970s and comparing them to what is now known?

I don't understand exactly where your confusion lies on this issue, as it looks like you are asking for a course in epistemology, but I don't think that's what you mean. The short answer would be from the results of previous trials and other types of pre-existing information which (hopefully) lead to a convergence.

With regard to parapsychology, there is a wide difference of opinion as to what has been established. For example, some parapsychologists believe that Ganzfeld studies have largely proven the existence of extrasensory perception, while others disagree. So what pre-trial odds would you use with respect to a forthcoming Ganzfeld trial?

Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? Wouldn't we just be interested in whether or not his ideas were useful before we starting worrying about where they came from? Other scientists have claimed weird sources of inspiration along the way.

Yes, but my point was that in many cases, there is no documentation at all for what is claimed.

Can you give an example where the delay wasn't due to the collection of evidence which would serve as proof?

No, but the problem lies in the willingness of the scientific establishment to collect and examine the evidence. For example, at the turn of the 19th Century, the Frence Academy of Sciences ridiculed the idea of meteorites and did not seriously investigate this phenomenon until there was a fortuitous nearby meteor shower.

I agree. And the same could be said about any other medical medium. So the question becomes, given that there are finite resources to dedicate to the pursuit of knowledge, what do we lose and what do we gain by following the leads provided by Cayce instead of those provided by the usual scientific methods? The results from the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine shows hardly any gain for a large loss in opportunity.

Can you link to those results?

How do you distinguish Cayce from them, other than publicity?

The fact that everything he said in trance from 1923 on was written down.

The many statements made my Edgar Cayce that are wrong would be evidence.

Everyone is wrong sometimes. Have you examined the entire record?

Another example would be Robert Lancaster's examination of Sylvia Browne's claims. The JREF newletters largely consists of examples of this evidence.

Again, the entire record must be examined in an objective manner.

 

[fls]

Has anyone ever done a statistical analysis of RDBPCT; e.g., examining what such trials found in the 1970s and comparing them to what is now known?

Yes, although not in the way that you are suggesting (i.e. as a sort of single, broad study). The validity of the information obtained by an RDBPCT is continually tested and retested as we add to the body of knowledge. And the use and design of the methods of obtaining information (including RCT's) is also re-examined and refined.

With regard to parapsychology, there is a wide difference of opinion as to what has been established. For example, some parapsychologists believe that Ganzfeld studies have largely proven the existence of extrasensory perception, while others disagree. So what pre-trial odds would you use with respect to a forthcoming Ganzfeld trial?

What does one do when direct information is unavailable? That's an important question (and certainly beyond the scope of this forum). We do know that the assumption of even odds is almost always likely to be wrong, though. Even a "ballpark" estimation is more useful, and there are techniques for using estimates.

The "effect" measured in the Ganzfeld trials has not yet been provably shown to be different from "bias", and the results continue to converge towards "no effect" as some attempts are made to eliminate the effects of bias. When you also consider that pre-existing information independent of the Ganzfeld trials also converges towards "no effect", it suggests that at best the odds are "low".

No, but the problem lies in the willingness of the scientific establishment to collect and examine the evidence. For example, at the turn of the 19th Century, the Frence Academy of Sciences ridiculed the idea of meteorites and did not seriously investigate this phenomenon until there was a fortuitous nearby meteor shower.

Yes, the ridicule depended upon the lack of evidence, and stopped once there was sufficient evidence collected. There is no "scientific establishment" that acts as a single body and is responsible for the collection and examination of evidence. Rather, it is whatever the result happens to be when individuals act on their own interests. Sure, whether or not something is investigated depends upon whether or not someone is interested in doing so. But curiosity seems boundless and without a priori constraints.

Can you link to those results?

Here is the site for NCCAM research results. And here is the PubMed search for NCCAM-funded publications.

The fact that everything he said in trance from 1923 on was written down.

Everyone is wrong sometimes. Have you examined the entire record?

Again, the entire record must be examined in an objective manner.

How much time and money should continue to be wasted on this?

There is no opportunity to investigate most claims. But when the opportunity is there, and investigation always leads to something mundane, at what point can we say, "this is fruitless"?

We ask for evidence to back of claims of accuracy from Sylvia Browne. And it isn't just that it is possible to find examples where she is wrong or only trivially correct. It's that every time that we find it possible to know whether she is right or wrong, she is wrong.

Same thing happens when we investigate medical mediums and healers. We hear wondrous claims, yet somehow that has never produced a single documented case. You can ask us to examine Cayce's entire record, but that won't really help, as the information available is inadequate to come to any conclusions (as demonstrated by the cases you've presented here).

I'm just saying that evidence is what gets other people interested. There's no point in whining about how conventional medicine doesn't take this or that seriously. All you have to do to be taken seriously is to come up with evidence that's roughly equivalent to that supporting conventional therapies. Quit presenting crappy evidence and then complaining that we are unreasonable when we say it stinks.

Linda

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

What does one do when direct information is unavailable? That's an important question (and certainly beyond the scope of this forum). We do know that the assumption of even odds is almost always likely to be wrong, though. Even a "ballpark" estimation is more useful, and there are techniques for using estimates.

Where can I get more information on this?

 

[fls]

Where can I get more information on this?

I'm not sure. Partly because it covers a wide area (stuff like frequency and dependent probabilities, cognitive biases), and partly because my own education has been from a variety of sources and I tend to figure out stuff on my own. I don't know if there's a reference that puts it all together and/or gives a good overview. It seems to be one of those things that gets dealt with in bits and pieces relevant to a particular subject. For example, it's very important to clinical decision-making, so a discussion there would cover the application of clinical experience (including cognitive biases), prevalence statistics (frequency), and research reports.

Are you able to be more specific about what you are looking for, and how rigorous you want to be?

Linda

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I'm not sure. Partly because it covers a wide area (stuff like frequency and dependent probabilities, cognitive biases), and partly because my own education has been from a variety of sources and I tend to figure out stuff on my own. I don't know if there's a reference that puts it all together and/or gives a good overview. It seems to be one of those things that gets dealt with in bits and pieces relevant to a particular subject. For example, it's very important to clinical decision-making, so a discussion there would cover the application of clinical experience (including cognitive biases), prevalence statistics (frequency), and research reports.

Are you able to be more specific about what you are looking for, and how rigorous you want to be?

Linda

Don't worry about it. I was just wondering if you knew of a source with some good examples. I'll continue looking

 

[Rodney]

Yes, although not in the way that you are suggesting (i.e. as a sort of single, broad study). The validity of the information obtained by an RDBPCT is continually tested and retested as we add to the body of knowledge. And the use and design of the methods of obtaining information (including RCT's) is also re-examined and refined.

But without a study, how do you know that RDBPCT are as accurate as you seem to think?

What does one do when direct information is unavailable? That's an important question (and certainly beyond the scope of this forum). We do know that the assumption of even odds is almost always likely to be wrong, though. Even a "ballpark" estimation is more useful, and there are techniques for using estimates.

The "effect" measured in the Ganzfeld trials has not yet been provably shown to be different from "bias", and the results continue to converge towards "no effect" as some attempts are made to eliminate the effects of bias. When you also consider that pre-existing information independent of the Ganzfeld trials also converges towards "no effect", it suggests that at best the odds are "low".

So, if I understand your position, if a well-designed Ganzfeld experiment were to show positive results at the 0.000001 significance level, you would factor in the low pre-study odds to evaluate those results?

Yes, the ridicule depended upon the lack of evidence, and stopped once there was sufficient evidence collected. There is no "scientific establishment" that acts as a single body and is responsible for the collection and examination of evidence. Rather, it is whatever the result happens to be when individuals act on their own interests. Sure, whether or not something is investigated depends upon whether or not someone is interested in doing so. But curiosity seems boundless and without a priori constraints.

I strongly disagree that there is no scientific establishment, although, fortunately, there are usually mavericks willing to challenge that establishment. However, the establishment can significantly delay acceptance of valid new ideas.

Here is the site for NCCAM research results. And here is the PubMed search for NCCAM-funded publications.

Thanks, although I was hoping to find an overview study showing "hardly any gain for a large loss in opportunity."

How much time and money should continue to be wasted on this?

There is no opportunity to investigate most claims. But when the opportunity is there, and investigation always leads to something mundane, at what point can we say, "this is fruitless"?

We ask for evidence to back of claims of accuracy from Sylvia Browne. And it isn't just that it is possible to find examples where she is wrong or only trivially correct. It's that every time that we find it possible to know whether she is right or wrong, she is wrong.

Same thing happens when we investigate medical mediums and healers. We hear wondrous claims, yet somehow that has never produced a single documented case. You can ask us to examine Cayce's entire record, but that won't really help, as the information available is inadequate to come to any conclusions (as demonstrated by the cases you've presented here).

I'm just saying that evidence is what gets other people interested. There's no point in whining about how conventional medicine doesn't take this or that seriously. All you have to do to be taken seriously is to come up with evidence that's roughly equivalent to that supporting conventional therapies. Quit presenting crappy evidence and then complaining that we are unreasonable when we say it stinks.

Linda

With regard to Cayce, what evidence would convince you that he was for real?

 

[digithead]

Not speaking for Linda or anyone else, but your questions are easily answered...

how do you know that RDBPCT are as accurate as you seem to think?

By the underlying statistical theory that's been developed over the past 100 or so years. Check out any research methods textbook and you'll see that RDB clinical trials are at the top of food chain when it comes to methodology because they are able to control experimental conditions to eliminate the influence of outside factors and reduce the variance components to solely the outcome, treatment and measurement errors...

So, if I understand your position, if a well-designed Ganzfeld experiment were to show positive results at the 0.000001 significance level, you would factor in the low pre-study odds to evaluate those results?

Practical significance is what's important here, not statistical significance. Statistical significance can be reached just by sample size alone. What matters is the difference that poses a practical difference to the human condition. Even if there is a true difference, if it's too small then it has no practical relevance to the human condition...

I strongly disagree that there is no scientific establishment, although, fortunately, there are usually mavericks willing to challenge that establishment. However, the establishment can significantly delay acceptance of valid new ideas.

Actually, I think you're right here, it's called peer review. A new theory has to withstand examination from outsiders and be repeatable before it's accepted as valid within a given discipline. It helps keep the kooks and dilettantes out...

Thanks, although I was hoping to find an overview study showing "hardly any gain for a large loss in opportunity."

So trading a viable, proven medical therapy for an unproven alternative procedure that results in death is not a "large loss in opportunity"?

With regard to Cayce, what evidence would convince you that he was for real?

Same as everyone else, his results should be replicable by anyone that tries them. Since Cayce has no medical treatments that have stood the test of time, he should be viewed merely as a sociological curiosity rather than a medical savior...

 

[fls]

But without a study, how do you know that RDBPCT are as accurate as you seem to think?

I didn't mean to imply that RCT's have not been studied in the manner you suggested, just not the exact comparison you suggested (it wouldn't be as useful as other comparisons).

So, if I understand your position, if a well-designed Ganzfeld experiment were to show positive results at the 0.000001 significance level, you would factor in the low pre-study odds to evaluate those results?

Yes. But it isn't only pre-study odds that influences the evaluation. Bias and power are also important. And that is why the results of the Ganzfeld aren't generally accepted, not because of the pre-study odds and the signficance level.

I strongly disagree that there is no scientific establishment, although, fortunately, there are usually mavericks willing to challenge that establishment. However, the establishment can significantly delay acceptance of valid new ideas.

I didn't say that there is no scientific establishment. I was talking about the flow of ideas - a bottom-up rather than top-down model.

Thanks, although I was hoping to find an overview study showing "hardly any gain for a large loss in opportunity."

The list provided was meant to give you an opportunity to search for some actual gain. Do you need me to look up the budget for the NCCAM, too?

With regard to Cayce, what evidence would convince you that he was for real?

RCT's showing that Cayce's suggested treatments for specific conditions were effective, and that these suggestions were novel rather than treatments that had been previously suggested or could be readily inferred.

Linda

 

[Mojo]

I was hoping to find an overview study showing "hardly any gain for a large loss in opportunity."

You were?