Ok, peoples... I think we are not phasing properly anymore. This is supposed to be a science discussion, isn't it ? Because science deals with the "physical" world, not about wishful thinking. That's the domain of spiritism and religion. So unless what you want to say is that homeopathy is akin to faith healing, better be back in the "physical" world.
You claim that something has an effect on the body (healing), which is "physical". That effect is "physical", therefore, it can be "physically" measured. No evading here, please.
You claim that a homeopathic remedy is not a placebo. No matter that "physical" testing cannot tell the difference between it and plain water, it is supposed to have a "physical" effect on the body, to produce "physical" differences, ie symptoms or cure, which can be "physically" measured. To prove your claim, you must therefore compare your remedy (your dilution, prepared according to your protocol) with a non-active substance (plain untreated water) as to the "physical" effects they have on the body. The placebo effect, as was mentionned previously, is what happens when :
-people get better by themselves, without intervention
-people believe they are better, without intervention
-people get better, because they believe something will make them better
There is no complete explanation for the placebo effect, but clinical testers know of it and have learned to take it into account with double-blinding. Double blinding keeps the patient from knowing which substance he receives (so as to eliminate the effect of the belief he can have or not in the cure working) and the experimenter (so as to eliminate the effect of the desire of the experimenter to see his experiment successful, and the effect that can have on the reporting of results, and of course, accidental or purposeful transfer of the information to the patient).
When you gather results that way, and examine them using statistics, then you can truly know if something is working or not. No middle ground.
the Kemist
I would have to request you, kieran and Hans to stand by what you have stated earlier , QUOTE:
"krazyKemist #498
Ok, as long as the placebo group does not accept smokers and coffee drinkers too. Both groups have to be homogenized. Meaning having similar composition. And, the "infatuation" conventional medicine has with double-blinding is due to the placebo effect itself, the way people have of getting cured simply because they believe something is curing them. So to prove the claim that homeopathy has any effect at all, that it is not the placebo effect alone acting, there must be a placebo group, double-blinded. This is not about convincing us that something is a placebo with a physical test, but rather that a homeopathic remedy is not a placebo !
the Kemist"
"kieran #507
What will you prove other than some people got better? Nothing - there will be no indication that this would not have occured without the homoeopathic "remedy". Do you really not understand this vital point? Please answer this question directly and using a yes/no answer as it will indicate to me, and others, whether you are even worth debating with.
I am sorry but I am going to have to insist on my "blind infatuation with placebos and double blinding" here - and you will still have to come up with a reason why it is incompatible with homoeopathy. What is wrong with the 6 month trial you just proposed but with the following very minor tweaks? ...
find twice as many individuals (e.g. 40 to 60)
without the knowledge of the homoeopath or patient, only give half the patients the homoeopathy, and the rest a placebo
compare the results for the two halves to see if there is really any difference
This is basically your trial, with another one conducted alongside it (although no-one will know in advance what trial they are in). When you look back at the results, the (approximately) half of the people that were given the homoeopathic "remedy" constitute the exactly protocol you described above - I haven't really interefered with your experiment in any way, shape or form. However, the other half of the people are now are very useful comparison to see what the true effect of homoeopathy really is. How many of those showed signs of improvement? That is the vital piece of information you don't seem to care about. If homoeopathy works, then there should be a difference here. If homoeopathy doesn't work then you have something to hide so it is in your best interest not to even attempt to measure any such difference ...
How would the presence of the additional steps in my protocol prevent the half of the people that, in fact, exactly followed your protocol from not conclusively demonstrating the beneficial effects of homoeopathy over placebo???
Why does blinding and control have to prevent homoeopathy working? Why do you cling to your obstacles? I still don't believe you are actually interested in finding out the truth here."
"MRC Hans #509
Apart from this (as I already said) being contrary to normal homeopathic doctrine, you have also dismantled your own claim about a proving being not repeatable. You explanation above clearly shows that a proving IS repeatable, provided you use the same prover and the same environment.
Whether or not your claimed variables are valid, there is a way to deal with variables: Simply keep them constant. So, in your scenario above, we can see the proper protocol for a sound test: Let the same persons, in the same environment do the test, but vary the remedy (between remedy and placebo), and if the remedy is different from placebo, this wil lbe visible. This is called a cross-over test.
Thank you.
... Next smoke-screen, please! Seems we dispersed this one .
Hans"
KINDLY CONFIRM.
We may then be able to evolve the discussion further.
