Dragon
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2002
- Messages
- 1,639
More Fun with Homeopath Dana Ullman, MPH(!)
- Thread starter sbernie87
- Start date
Badly Shaved Monkey
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,363
Second comment:
What is your opinion of the statistical methods used?
By the way, I would really hate to be wasting my time with this. I have paid real money, £28.43 to be precise, to download this paper and I would not be happy to be attempting to discuss its contents with a bullsh!tter who has not read the paper, but just tries to bluff his way using abstracts and second-hand quotations. So, simple question, what is the penultimate word on page 823?
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Since you are so keen on "intellectual honesty", I'll assume that it's your comprehension skills that are the problem. I'll reiterate what I posted here (and add to it). I'll try to type slowly this time.
At least you aren't referring to him as anyone's God this time. That's progress, I guess.
Do you have any evidence to support this assertion?
A good idea.
Here's the letter, dated 18th April 1849, from which that quotation was taken. Note the description of Gully's treatment: "the Water Cure".
And only 15 months later, in September 1850, he wrote:
Note that in the letters above, Darwin refers to Gully's regime as "the Water Cure". Note that he describes Gully as acting as a "Hydropathist", who needed a second "doctor", one "Dr. Chapman", to provide homoeopathic treatment for his daughter. Note the description of Gully's regime in this letter, from which you quoted the last time you told your Darwin story:
In your earlier post on this subject, you posted,
Thus giving the impression that he ascribed his "cure" to the homoeopathic treatment. Here's the letter from which your quotation comes; the whole sentence, of which you quoted only part, reads:
Even Gully does not seem to have been entirely convinced about the merits of homoeopathy. From here:
And, just in case you missed it the second time I posted it, I'll repeat what Darwin wrote about a year and a half after you claim he conceded that homoeopathy had cured him:
Last edited:
krazyKemist
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2007
- Messages
- 430
I took a look at the Elia paper. It does relate to an homeopathy concept indeed ('structure of water'). I have a slight problem however :
The actual experimental procedure, ie, materials & methods, type of water used ('bidistilled' looks cool, but does not tell me much), containers, ect. is incomplete.
The thing is that ultrapure water (water that has been purified up to having a resistance around 18 MOhms) will dissolve pretty much anything. Even some of the boron contained in ordinary glass (I personnaly have measured this). If walls of container were attacked somehow, it could explain slight deviation in calorimetric testing, without resorting to 'structure of water'.
The actual experimental procedure, ie, materials & methods, type of water used ('bidistilled' looks cool, but does not tell me much), containers, ect. is incomplete.
The thing is that ultrapure water (water that has been purified up to having a resistance around 18 MOhms) will dissolve pretty much anything. Even some of the boron contained in ordinary glass (I personnaly have measured this). If walls of container were attacked somehow, it could explain slight deviation in calorimetric testing, without resorting to 'structure of water'.
Last edited:
Dana Ullman
Thinker
- Joined
- May 22, 2007
- Messages
- 201
First of all it’s in Pediatr Infect Dis J. not PEDIATRICS
Pediatric Inf Dis J. : Impact factor 1.819
Pediatrics : Impact factor 2.710
BTW the article can be found here you might want to show it so we can all see what we are discussing.
But you are right, indeed most of the research in it is based on data from Nicaragua, from previously published data. It has been looked at quite extensively…
A report in May 1994 examined the homeopathic treatment of diarrhea in children who lived in Nicaragua [7]. On Day 3 of treatment the homeopathic group had one less unformed stool than the control group (3.1 Vs 2.1; p <.05). However, critics [8] pointed out that not only were the sickest children excluded, but there were no significant differences on Days 1, 2, 4, or 5. This suggests that the conclusion was not valid. Further, there was no assurance that the homeopathic remedy was not adulterated (contaminated). Finally, standard remedies which halt diarrhea were not used for comparison purposes.
And : The Nepal trial was not significant p=0.06 as you may have read in the paper you suggested
WELL...LOOK AT THE ENTIRE SET OF STUDIES...OR DO YOU PREFER TO SQUINT YOUR EYES SO MUCH THAT YOU CANNOT SEE THEM?
Just a few questions right of the bat…
1) Why do you think it is relevant or a good study?
BECAUSE THE TREATMENT GROUP DID SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER THAN THE PLACEBO GROUP, VERIFYING THAT THE PLACEBO "EXPLANATION" TO HOMEOPATHIC TREATMENT IS INADEQUATE.
2) What conclusion would you attribute to the fact that on day 3 there were less then 2 unformed stools but on the days before day 3 and after day 3 there was no significant difference?
ACTUALLY...FROM THE 1ST DAY TO THE 5TH DAY, THE TREATMENT GROUP EXPERIENCED LESS DIARRHEA (p=0.013).
3) What do you think has a better effect ORS or a homeopathic drug (yet undefined, since it changed according to the prescriber)
YOU MEAN ORT...SOMETIMES, IT IS NOT EITHER/OR. IN THIS CASE, THE GROUP WHO GOT HOMEOPATHY AND ORT DID BETTER THAN THOSE WHO JUST GOT ORT.
SYL
Chris Haynes
Perfectly Poisonous Person
An awful lot of shouting from someone who has yet to answer some simple questions, including mine.
I won't copy them all (again)... I'll just ask one simple one:
What is the success rate for syphilis with Hahnemann's homeopathic methods versus antibiotics? (knowing that one of the miasms that Hahnemann thought that existed was "syphilis").
I won't copy them all (again)... I'll just ask one simple one:
What is the success rate for syphilis with Hahnemann's homeopathic methods versus antibiotics? (knowing that one of the miasms that Hahnemann thought that existed was "syphilis").
Dana Ullman
Thinker
- Joined
- May 22, 2007
- Messages
- 201
Understanding Samuel Hahnemann, MD
Hey HC...
I apologize for the shouting. I haven't figured out how to do the quoting with a posting. I instead chose to differentiate my words from others by using capital letters.
Hahnemann was respected enough that he was voted as an honorary member of the NY medical society in 1832, though he was voted out in 1843 just one week after his death because the medical society said that homeopathy was too much of an ideological and "economic" threat.
Although many people who were uninformed about homeopathy make fun of Hahnemann's concept of miasms, this concept were some of the earliest sophisticated insights about genetic disease. Hahnemann determined that people with syphilis, gonorrhea, and TB didn't die immediately, but during their disease process they gave birth (or sperm), and this new human being's health was influenced by the diseases of the mother and father. Such child would not have syphilis, gonorrhea, or TB, but they would have specific symptoms that were associated with each of their "miasms."
As for other biographical info about the man, here's an excerpt from my forthcoming book:
In America’s capital city, Washington, DC, the only monument honoring a physician is one to the founder of homeopathic medicine, Samuel Hahnemann, MD (1755-1843). This monument was dedicated in 1900 by President William McKinley.
Although trained as a medical doctor, Hahnemann was a learned chemist and author of the leading German textbook for apothecaries (pharmacists) of the day. He was conversant in at least nine languages and even supported himself in his mid-20s teaching languages at the famed University of Leipic.
Learning these languages enabled him to become familiar with the latest developments in medicine and science throughout the western world. He further expanded his knowledge and his growing prestige by translating 22 major textbooks, primarily medical and chemistry textbooks (several of which were multi-volume works). Over a 29 year period, Hahnemann translated a total of 9,460 pages.
Prior to his discovery of homeopathy, Hahnemann’s respect as a physician brought German royalty to seek his medical care, and modern medical historians confirm that Hahnemann “showed sound balance and good judgment” in his advocacy of proper diet, fresh air, and exercise as a method of treatment. His promotion of hygienic measures during epidemics won him praise as a public health advocate, and his kind rather than cruel and harsh treatment of the insane granted him a place in the history of psychiatry (Rothstein, 1972, 152).
It is not surprising to know that Hahnemann was a Freemason, the esoteric fraternal organization and secret society of men who shared certain moral and metaphysical ideals.
Hahnemann stopped practicing conventional medicine of that day because he felt that he was doing more harm than good. Instead, he made a living for his family of 11 children as a translator. During the translation of a book by William Cullen, the leading physiologist of that time, Hahnemann noted that Cullen asserted that the reason that Peruvian bark was an effective drug for malaria was due to its bitter and astringent properties. Hahnemann thought this was a peculiar statement because he knew more bitter and astringent medicines, but they provided no benefit in the treatment of malaria. He then conducted an experiment upon himself where he took this herb twice a day until he developed symptoms of its toxicology, and here he discovered that it created a fever with chills as well as other symptoms that were similar to malaria. Hahnemann proposed that Peruvian bark (which contains quinine) may be effective for treating people with malaria because it has the capacity to cause similar symptoms.
Hahnemann ultimately conducted upon himself experiments with 90 other substances, and his colleagues and friends also engaged in these experiments. He had found a consistent pattern from these experiments, that is, he found that various substances in overdose create their own unique syndrome of symptoms and that whatever syndrome a substance causes in toxic dose, it can and will elicit a healing response when given in specially prepared small doses to people who have similar symptoms of pathology.
Hahnemann observed that sick people were hypersensitive to the medicine to which might cause similar symptoms as they were experiencing, and because of this, Hahnemann began using smaller and smaller doses. Being a chemist, he experimented with various ways to make these doses of medicines both safe and effective. At different times over the next 40 years, he diluted the medicines 1:10, 1:100, or 1:50,000, with vigorous shaking in-between each dilution, and he consistently found that exceedingly small doses of medicines had powerful therapeutic effects when prescribed according to his principle of similars.
Being the incredibly avid experimenter, Hahnemann did not come easily or quickly to his conclusions about the exceptionally small doses he and his colleagues found effective. In fact, he first wrote about homeopathy in 1796, and for the next 30 years (!) he primarily used doses that are today considered “low potencies.” Further, in 1829, a homeopathic physician wrote him about his successes in using potencies that were dilution 1:10 over 200 times, and Hahnemann expressed several skepticism for such actions until he himself found that these “higher potencies” were surprisingly effective Bradford, 1895, pp 455-6).
Although people who are unfamiliar with homeopathy have questioned the logic and the efficacy of the doses that homeopaths use, these people are inevitably inadequately informed of the history of development of homeopathy and are similarly ignorant of the body of scientific and empirical evidence of homeopathy’s successes.
Ultimately, Hahnemann authored three major books on homeopathy, including six editions of his seminal work on homeopathy, The Organon of the Healing Art, continually updating and refining this science and art.
Christoph Wilhelm Hufeland, MD (1762-1836), Germany’s most well known and respected physician of his day, was as famous as Goethe and Schiller in the early 19th century. As the editor of the leading medical journal in Germany called Journal of Practical Medicine, Hufeland published some of Hahnemann’s writings, and he held an extremely high regard for him. “I have discovered in him an amplitude of knowledge, clearness of mind, and a spirit of tolerance, which last is the more worthy of notice in him.” Hahnemann is “one of our most distinguished, intelligent and original physicians” (Everest, 186).
Even though Robert Koch first discovered the cholera bacteria in 1883, as early as 1831 Hahnemann ascribed the cause of the cholera epidemics that raged during that time to a “an enormously increased brood of those excessively minute, invisible, living creatures so inimical to human life, of which the contagious matter of the cholera most probably consists” (Hahnemann, 1831).
Nicholas Von Hoffman, a columnist for the Washington Post, wrote, “Samuel Hahnemann lived from 1755 to 1843 and, although this German physician never visited the U.S., for 70 years or more his ideas tore up and divided American medicine. No other single individual causes the settled and comfortable structures of this profession the trouble Hahnemann did, and even now many of the questions he raised have not been answered.”
Even many of homeopathy’s most severe critics have had kind words for Samuel Hahnemann. Morris Fishbein, the Executive Director of the American Medical Association, wrote that “the influence of Hahnemann was, on the whole certainly for the good. He emphasized the individualization of the patient in the handling of disease…and he demonstrated the value of testing the actual virtues of a drug by trial” (Fishbein, 1925, 37).
Despite Hahnemann’s significant contributions to medicine, pharmacy, chemistry, psychiatry, and public health, he remained a humble man. “I do not ask during my lifetime any recognition of the beneficent truth, which I, without any thought of myself, offer. What I have done, I did from higher motives for the world. Non inutilis vixi (I have not lived in vain).”
On the Hahnemann Monument in Washington, DC, are those Latin words. Indeed, Dr. Samuel Hahnemann did not live in vain.
Hey HC...
I apologize for the shouting. I haven't figured out how to do the quoting with a posting. I instead chose to differentiate my words from others by using capital letters.
Hahnemann was respected enough that he was voted as an honorary member of the NY medical society in 1832, though he was voted out in 1843 just one week after his death because the medical society said that homeopathy was too much of an ideological and "economic" threat.
Although many people who were uninformed about homeopathy make fun of Hahnemann's concept of miasms, this concept were some of the earliest sophisticated insights about genetic disease. Hahnemann determined that people with syphilis, gonorrhea, and TB didn't die immediately, but during their disease process they gave birth (or sperm), and this new human being's health was influenced by the diseases of the mother and father. Such child would not have syphilis, gonorrhea, or TB, but they would have specific symptoms that were associated with each of their "miasms."
As for other biographical info about the man, here's an excerpt from my forthcoming book:
In America’s capital city, Washington, DC, the only monument honoring a physician is one to the founder of homeopathic medicine, Samuel Hahnemann, MD (1755-1843). This monument was dedicated in 1900 by President William McKinley.
Although trained as a medical doctor, Hahnemann was a learned chemist and author of the leading German textbook for apothecaries (pharmacists) of the day. He was conversant in at least nine languages and even supported himself in his mid-20s teaching languages at the famed University of Leipic.
Learning these languages enabled him to become familiar with the latest developments in medicine and science throughout the western world. He further expanded his knowledge and his growing prestige by translating 22 major textbooks, primarily medical and chemistry textbooks (several of which were multi-volume works). Over a 29 year period, Hahnemann translated a total of 9,460 pages.
Prior to his discovery of homeopathy, Hahnemann’s respect as a physician brought German royalty to seek his medical care, and modern medical historians confirm that Hahnemann “showed sound balance and good judgment” in his advocacy of proper diet, fresh air, and exercise as a method of treatment. His promotion of hygienic measures during epidemics won him praise as a public health advocate, and his kind rather than cruel and harsh treatment of the insane granted him a place in the history of psychiatry (Rothstein, 1972, 152).
It is not surprising to know that Hahnemann was a Freemason, the esoteric fraternal organization and secret society of men who shared certain moral and metaphysical ideals.
Hahnemann stopped practicing conventional medicine of that day because he felt that he was doing more harm than good. Instead, he made a living for his family of 11 children as a translator. During the translation of a book by William Cullen, the leading physiologist of that time, Hahnemann noted that Cullen asserted that the reason that Peruvian bark was an effective drug for malaria was due to its bitter and astringent properties. Hahnemann thought this was a peculiar statement because he knew more bitter and astringent medicines, but they provided no benefit in the treatment of malaria. He then conducted an experiment upon himself where he took this herb twice a day until he developed symptoms of its toxicology, and here he discovered that it created a fever with chills as well as other symptoms that were similar to malaria. Hahnemann proposed that Peruvian bark (which contains quinine) may be effective for treating people with malaria because it has the capacity to cause similar symptoms.
Hahnemann ultimately conducted upon himself experiments with 90 other substances, and his colleagues and friends also engaged in these experiments. He had found a consistent pattern from these experiments, that is, he found that various substances in overdose create their own unique syndrome of symptoms and that whatever syndrome a substance causes in toxic dose, it can and will elicit a healing response when given in specially prepared small doses to people who have similar symptoms of pathology.
Hahnemann observed that sick people were hypersensitive to the medicine to which might cause similar symptoms as they were experiencing, and because of this, Hahnemann began using smaller and smaller doses. Being a chemist, he experimented with various ways to make these doses of medicines both safe and effective. At different times over the next 40 years, he diluted the medicines 1:10, 1:100, or 1:50,000, with vigorous shaking in-between each dilution, and he consistently found that exceedingly small doses of medicines had powerful therapeutic effects when prescribed according to his principle of similars.
Being the incredibly avid experimenter, Hahnemann did not come easily or quickly to his conclusions about the exceptionally small doses he and his colleagues found effective. In fact, he first wrote about homeopathy in 1796, and for the next 30 years (!) he primarily used doses that are today considered “low potencies.” Further, in 1829, a homeopathic physician wrote him about his successes in using potencies that were dilution 1:10 over 200 times, and Hahnemann expressed several skepticism for such actions until he himself found that these “higher potencies” were surprisingly effective Bradford, 1895, pp 455-6).
Although people who are unfamiliar with homeopathy have questioned the logic and the efficacy of the doses that homeopaths use, these people are inevitably inadequately informed of the history of development of homeopathy and are similarly ignorant of the body of scientific and empirical evidence of homeopathy’s successes.
Ultimately, Hahnemann authored three major books on homeopathy, including six editions of his seminal work on homeopathy, The Organon of the Healing Art, continually updating and refining this science and art.
Christoph Wilhelm Hufeland, MD (1762-1836), Germany’s most well known and respected physician of his day, was as famous as Goethe and Schiller in the early 19th century. As the editor of the leading medical journal in Germany called Journal of Practical Medicine, Hufeland published some of Hahnemann’s writings, and he held an extremely high regard for him. “I have discovered in him an amplitude of knowledge, clearness of mind, and a spirit of tolerance, which last is the more worthy of notice in him.” Hahnemann is “one of our most distinguished, intelligent and original physicians” (Everest, 186).
Even though Robert Koch first discovered the cholera bacteria in 1883, as early as 1831 Hahnemann ascribed the cause of the cholera epidemics that raged during that time to a “an enormously increased brood of those excessively minute, invisible, living creatures so inimical to human life, of which the contagious matter of the cholera most probably consists” (Hahnemann, 1831).
Nicholas Von Hoffman, a columnist for the Washington Post, wrote, “Samuel Hahnemann lived from 1755 to 1843 and, although this German physician never visited the U.S., for 70 years or more his ideas tore up and divided American medicine. No other single individual causes the settled and comfortable structures of this profession the trouble Hahnemann did, and even now many of the questions he raised have not been answered.”
Even many of homeopathy’s most severe critics have had kind words for Samuel Hahnemann. Morris Fishbein, the Executive Director of the American Medical Association, wrote that “the influence of Hahnemann was, on the whole certainly for the good. He emphasized the individualization of the patient in the handling of disease…and he demonstrated the value of testing the actual virtues of a drug by trial” (Fishbein, 1925, 37).
Despite Hahnemann’s significant contributions to medicine, pharmacy, chemistry, psychiatry, and public health, he remained a humble man. “I do not ask during my lifetime any recognition of the beneficent truth, which I, without any thought of myself, offer. What I have done, I did from higher motives for the world. Non inutilis vixi (I have not lived in vain).”
On the Hahnemann Monument in Washington, DC, are those Latin words. Indeed, Dr. Samuel Hahnemann did not live in vain.
SYLVESTER1592
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 307
Syl:
First of all it’s in Pediatr Infect Dis J. not PEDIATRICS
Pediatric Inf Dis J. : Impact factor 1.819
Pediatrics : Impact factor 2.710
BTW the article can be found here you might want to show it so we can all see what we are discussing.
But you are right, indeed most of the research in it is based on data from Nicaragua , from previously published data. It has been looked at quite extensively…
A report in May 1994 examined the homeopathic treatment of diarrhea in children who lived in Nicaragua [7]. On Day 3 of treatment the homeopathic group had one less unformed stool than the control group (3.1 Vs 2.1; p <.05). However, critics [8] pointed out that not only were the sickest children excluded, but there were no significant differences on Days 1, 2, 4, or 5. This suggests that the conclusion was not valid. Further, there was no assurance that the homeopathic remedy was not adulterated (contaminated). Finally, standard remedies which halt diarrhea were not used for comparison purposes.
And : The Nepal trial was not significant p=0.06 as you may have read in the paper you suggested
James:
WELL...LOOK AT THE ENTIRE SET OF STUDIES...OR DO YOU PREFER TO SQUINT YOUR EYES SO MUCH THAT YOU CANNOT SEE THEM?
Syl:
Just a few questions right of the bat…
1) Why do you think it is relevant or a good study?
James:
BECAUSE THE TREATMENT GROUP DID SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER THAN THE PLACEBO GROUP, VERIFYING THAT THE PLACEBO "EXPLANATION" TO HOMEOPATHIC TREATMENT IS INADEQUATE.
Syl:
2) What conclusion would you attribute to the fact that on day 3 there were less then 2 unformed stools but on the days before day 3 and after day 3 there was no significant difference?
James:
ACTUALLY...FROM THE 1ST DAY TO THE 5TH DAY, THE TREATMENT GROUP EXPERIENCED LESS DIARRHEA (p=0.013).
Syl:
3) What do you think has a better effect ORS or a homeopathic drug (yet undefined, since it changed according to the prescriber)
James:
YOU MEAN ORT...SOMETIMES, IT IS NOT EITHER/OR. IN THIS CASE, THE GROUP WHO GOT HOMEOPATHY AND ORT DID BETTER THAN THOSE WHO JUST GOT ORT.
SYL
Indeed a screemer, but I'll take your word for it that you were trying to differentiate the text. There are other ways to do that then using CAPS lock. (CAPS lock is basically considered rude/ bad behaviour) I suggest you play with the method of quoting, copying and pasting for a while. You just have to click the add quotation square before you reply. Then you move the /quote to the point you want to quote something. Move the start of the quotation to the start of the next part you want to quote.
If this sounds to complicated… Just select the add quotation square and edit out the parts you are not responding or which you want to skip for brevity. You can do this several times by copying and pasting the same original quote.
I have especially tried to be nice by asking the simple questions that would invite you into the discussion. There are a lot more general damning questions that can be asked about homeopathy…
So I propose you remain civil and try to look at them from an open point of view as we have.
----------------
Now for my questions…
Let me explain what is said here so you understand the criticism:
“A report in May 1994 examined the homeopathic treatment of diarrhea in children who lived in Nicaragua [7]. On Day 3 of treatment the homeopathic group had one less unformed stool than the control group (3.1 Vs 2.1; p <.05).”
I'll get back to this further down...
“ However, critics [8] pointed out that not only were the sickest children excluded, but there were no significant differences on Days 1, 2, 4, or 5.”
This points to something called selection bias. The significance of time is something I will get back to in a minute.
“ This suggests that the conclusion was not valid. Further, there was no assurance that the homeopathic remedy was not adulterated (contaminated).”
We don’t have a guarantee of what was actually given, so the actual effect and composition of the medication is at best dependent on hearsay. Remember that IR spectroscopy can identify crystals and salts, but needs preparation of the sample and the end result merely states that there was no difference between them, not what was in it.
“ Finally, standard remedies which halt diarrhea were not used for comparison purposes.”
So what was the benefit? If both ORT (=ORS in my part of the world) was given in together with homeopathic solutions, how do you know the effect was to be attributed to the homeopathic solution? How do you know it did better or worse than ORT?
The effects were compared in a meta-analysis of different population groups in different parts of the world with different causes of diarrhea, different water supply, general health etc…
They say they have no reason to think there was a difference between the groups, but show no data, furthermore cultural and socio-economic differences are to be expected between Nepal and Nicaragua. No data, just a statement without any foundation for it. Basically microbiological agents in different parts of the world are different with different virulence. No data again, not even a statement this time. Some of these are endemic, some are not, but I'll leave that out of this discussion. You have enough to worry about.
If we would compare the effect of homeopathic treatment here and in a third world country, I recon that in third world countries the effects might be better. At least they are getting clean water and enough attention…
---------------------
In response to :” WELL...LOOK AT THE ENTIRE SET OF STUDIES...OR DO YOU PREFER TO SQUINT YOUR EYES SO MUCH THAT YOU CANNOT SEE THEM?”
I am looking at the total picture… and at the details of the study like anyone with a critical mind would do. Since the criticism above is on half of the data, this is relevant to address.
-----------------
In response to: “2) What conclusion would you attribute to the fact that on day 3 there were less then 2 unformed stools but on the days before day 3 and after day 3 there was no significant difference?
ACTUALLY...FROM THE 1ST DAY TO THE 5TH DAY, THE TREATMENT GROUP EXPERIENCED LESS DIARRHEA (p=0.013).”
The p=0.013 tells you there is a difference between the two curves, but it does not tell you the end-result. It merely tells you that the curves are significantly different. When you look at the curves, they diverge on day 3, but come together on day 4 at day 5 they are almost the same as on day 2. This is why many of the better Infectious Disease Jornals require that you also give the percentiles table, which shows you the survival distribution for the first, median and third quartile of the survival distribution.
Kaplan Meier curves are often used to evaluate survival, this has a purpose because you can tell at a certain point in time that more or less people have survived after treatment. In this case the divergence of the curve occurs in the middle of the disease process during treatment. The end result however, does not seem to be affected.
By placing the cut-off point the way the authors did, a significant difference in the curves resulted is a difference achieved on day 3.1 vs 3.8, but looking at the curves of patients with diarrhea, you see they converge after day 3. This is questionable. Furthermore the reporting was done by the parents. This is not a very reliable way of doing so, and by measuring the number of stools, not volume or diaper weight. Furthermore, daily visit concerning the health of the child may lead to observer bias by the parent. So double blind
110 controls x 51.4%= 57 diarrhea , 53 cured
120 cases x 38.1%= 46 diarrhea, 74 cured
If you want to get this exact table the probability of the getting this exact table is p=0.013, but the significance of the Chi Square value for the Odds ratio’s (which is is Pearson uncorrected if you want it to be significant is 4.22 with p=0.047 in SPSS) is questionably significant (Yates corrected Chi-Square= 3.693 with a p= 0.055 this is normally done when one of the cells reaches 10 and df =1 because Pearson uncorrected Chi-Square becomes too unreliable, not strictly necessary but reveals a more certain evaluation of significance) and resembles the major contribution to the meta-analysis, the Nepal trial. This last trial was not significant. These numbers tell you something about the differences between the groups ( not the chance of getting the exact distribution, which has little to do with the effect of a drug). If you think I'm wrong, let me know...
Basically there is no or a barely significant improvement on day 5 when you look at it objectively and their results all pivots on what you call diarrhea, who you exclude, when you exclude them, who does your evaluation and how they do it, not to mention dredging for statistically significant results at all cost.
Furthermore the repeated study by the same author( presented by fls in her post) corrects her statements and says there is no significant difference. That should tell you enough...
--------------------
In response to:
3) What do you think has a better effect ORS or a homeopathic drug (yet undefined, since it changed according to the prescriber)
YOU MEAN ORT...SOMETIMES, IT IS NOT EITHER/OR. IN THIS CASE, THE GROUP WHO GOT HOMEOPATHY AND ORT DID BETTER THAN THOSE WHO JUST GOT ORT.
Now they both got a drug ORT and were treated for parasites and bacteria and all other diseases, yet the difference that was seen was attributed to the homeopathic solution….
These other things could be called confounding factors and they disrupt the analysis of the effect of the homeopathic solution, which does not seem to be very strong in the first place.
It also raises the question, what differences in the cause of the diarrhea were observed. A general remark is made but the numbers are absent. The cause of the diarrhea and the type of diarrhea seem important in the design of the study… Don’t you agree?
---------------
Now you said something interesting while answering the question why you thought this study was relevant or a good study: "BECAUSE THE TREATMENT GROUP DID SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER THAN THE PLACEBO GROUP, VERIFYING THAT THE PLACEBO "EXPLANATION" TO HOMEOPATHIC TREATMENT IS INADEQUATE."
You are saying that it is relevant or good merely because 1) homeopathy did better then the placebo 2)because the placebo explanation seemed inadequate.
This says nothing about the quality of the study or it's relevance to medical practice. It does however say something about the way you look at a study. The study was poorly designed, not well executed and poorly analyzed with the intent to show a significant result, overstating the significance and meaning of the results. Your answer to my question was not about the quality of the study or the relevance to medical practice or science as a whole, but about the importance of the study to the endorsement of homeopathy.
So let's not lecture about science, but rather try to contribute to it. We are all fallible, even scientists...
I don’t want to swamp you. So I’ll leave the other questions for the other members.
SYL
Last edited:
Mojo
Mostly harmless
All hail the post hoc fallacy.
SYLVESTER1592
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 307
BTW James
Many are aware of the medical history surrounding both conventional medicine and homeopathy. I don't think many of us would contradict that Hahnemann did some good in his time, when medicine was built on different foundations as modern medicine and used things such as blood letting and mercurochrome solutions. It is very well possible that his brand of medicine compared to the medical practice of his time was less bad for the patient and led to better results. Many things have changed, modern medicine has evolved using science to better itself. Homeopathy hasn't. There is the rub.
You might want to leave the past and look into the present and future...
It's more productive...
SYL
Many are aware of the medical history surrounding both conventional medicine and homeopathy. I don't think many of us would contradict that Hahnemann did some good in his time, when medicine was built on different foundations as modern medicine and used things such as blood letting and mercurochrome solutions. It is very well possible that his brand of medicine compared to the medical practice of his time was less bad for the patient and led to better results. Many things have changed, modern medicine has evolved using science to better itself. Homeopathy hasn't. There is the rub.
You might want to leave the past and look into the present and future...
It's more productive...
SYL
Mojo
Mostly harmless
you chose Darwin's letters as the text to consider, and claimed that they showed that he supported homoeopathy.
Can you produce any evidence that this is the case?JamesGully said:
Drosera?
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Of course, Darwin is famous for never publishing anything that he feared might upset prevailing viewpoints.
On the origin of Species... also shows us Darwin's approach to ideas he thought plausible but feared might be controversial: while reluctant to publish, he discussed the idea of evolution by natural selection in his private correspondence. If, as you claim, he supported homoeopathy but was reluctant to do so publicly, his letters would be the very place we would expect to see statements of his views on the matter.
What we actually find there is:
If he wished not to be seen as a supporter of homoeopathy, all he had to do was not support it. However, what we find is a clear opposing statement.
Michael C
Graduate Poster
So Charles Darwin, who was not afraid to shock the world by asserting that humans and apes descended from a common ancestor, would have been afraid to admit that he did something as daring as using a homeopathic treatment?
Professor Yaffle
Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs
Well after reading his "hydropathical diary", I find that part of the hydrotherapy treatment included an increase in exercise and an improved diet. Both (now) well known to be helpful in the promotion of good health...
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
Well, yes. Homeopathic procedure.
Yes, we are testing the remedy, because the only difference between the placebo group and the verum group is that the latter receives remedies.
Both groups are subjected to the "homeopathic procedure". So, if there is a difference, it must be due to a property of the remedies. If there is no difference, the conclusion is that the remedies have no properties different from placebo.
And yes, one of the claims of the skeptics is that homeopathic remedies equal placebo.
I still fail to see the difficulties. Admitted, a properly conducted trial, with individualized treatment, will be fairly complex. More complex than a single drug trial, but there are certainly no insurmountable problems.
A properly designed and executed double blinded, randomized, placebo controlled trial of homeopathy with a positive result would be considered important evidence that there is reason for further research.
The reason for this rather reserved position is that IF homeopathy works, a considerable part of present science will have to be revised, thus overthrowing the very solid body of evidence that exist for it. Therefore, such a revision will require extremely strong evidence (remember, even a statistical 99% confidence still leaves a 1% possibility of a spurious result)
Therefore, I don't think a single trial result, even if well conducted, will immidiately convert the scientific world in favor of homeopathy. It will, however, no doubt motivate further serious research. And it will certainly open the door to widespread publication.
Hans
manioberoi
Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 125
Unfortunately we all have our scam artists, whether it is the U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia, India, China etc but there is a legal system which does catch and at times punish such scamsters. The enforcement standards vary and we in India are gradually improving the standards of enforcement - aka India is the only country where PepsiCo is being compelled to put a seal of quality assurance "One Quality Worldwide" across all its product labels.
Good Manufacturing Practices have been legislated in India for manufacturing Homeopathic drugs. Homeopathic education is standardised under the relevant legislation. Homeopathic clinical field units and research centres have been set up across the country.
India takes quality in health very seriously - the Courts have stepped in very often on complaints of the public about poor standards in government health facilities - they are being upgraded and improved - re-usable needles are banned/ phased out.
As for the private sector this article from Canada is quite revealing about the high standards achieved in India:
"Medical tourism: Need surgery, will travel
CBC News Online | June 18, 2004
India
India is considered the leading country promoting medical tourism-and now it is moving into a new area of "medical outsourcing," where subcontractors provide services to the overburdened medical care systems in western countries.
India's National Health Policy declares that treatment of foreign patients is legally an "export" and deemed "eligible for all fiscal incentives extended to export earnings." Government and private sector studies in India estimate that medical tourism could bring between $1 billion and $2 billion US into the country by 2012. The reports estimate that medical tourism to India is growing by 30 per cent a year.
India's top-rated education system is not only churning out computer programmers and engineers, but an estimated 20,000 to 30,000 doctors and nurses each year.
The largest of the estimated half-dozen medical corporations in India serving medical tourists is Apollo Hospital Enterprises, which treated an estimated 60,000 patients between 2001 and spring 2004. It is Apollo that is aggressively moving into medical outsourcing. Apollo already provides overnight computer services for U.S. insurance companies and hospitals as well as working with big pharmaceutical corporations with drug trials. Dr. Prathap C. Reddy, the chairman of the company, began negotiations in the spring of 2004 with Britain's National Health Service to work as a subcontractor, to do operations and medical tests for patients at a fraction of the cost in Britain for either government or private care.
Apollo's business began to grow in the 1990s, with the deregulation of the Indian economy, which drastically cut the bureaucratic barriers to expansion and made it easier to import the most modern medical equipment. The first patients were Indian expatriates who returned home for treatment; major investment houses followed with money and then patients from Europe, the Middle East and Canada began to arrive. Apollo now has 37 hospitals, with about 7,000 beds. The company is in partnership in hospitals in Kuwait, Sri Lanka and Nigeria.
Western patients usually get a package deal that includes flights, transfers, hotels, treatment and often a post-operative vacation.
Apollo has also reacted to criticism by Indian politicians by expanding its services to India's millions of poor. It has set aside free beds for those who can't afford care, has set up a trust fund and is pioneering remote, satellite-linked telemedicine across India."
manioberoi
Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 125
Valid point.
manioberoi
Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 125
manioberoi
Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 125