More Fun with Homeopath Dana Ullman, MPH(!)

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I am sorry for the delay, it was unintentional.
I hope #734 #737 and #738 have resolved the issue?

No, they have not in any way resolved this issue.

Please select one of the two options presented;

Which do you want to admit, either homeopathy is scientifically testable or your entire clincal case record must be ignored? There is no third option. Which do you want to choose?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Your fetish for chemical/physical tests of the homeopathic remedies(placebo), double blinding / controls & c is all very well for conventional drug treatment efficacy - however homeopathy does not operate on the principles of conventional drugs.

WHAAAT? We're back to square one, and now you are being condescending? OK, we can do it that way....

Maioberoi, YOU are the one with a fetish. And your fetich is clinging to the illusion that just because homeopathy has another (alleged) mode of action, then it is magically untestable.

You don't have to keep telling us that homeopathy does not operate on the principles of conventional drugs, because we already know that.

I'd like to slightly rephrase BSM's question (in order to make it VERY clear and simple):

1) Do you claim that homeopathic treatment can make an observable difference for the patient?

2) Do you claim that homeopathic treatment can NOT make an observable difference for the patient?

Now, no diversions, no nonsense, no hand-waving. Answer the question, do you choose #1 or #2?


Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*;6C water potency is both a balancing potency and a cumulative potency - that is, it avoids grave aggravation, indicates when to stop, and effectiveness of remedy is cumulative by means of repetition.

The results here are fairly good even though use of potencies of 1M and 200C was made - ordinarily 30C has been used traditionally in homeopathic studies of the recent past - I feel there is need to change to 6C water potency. (presently vast majority of Indian homeopaths are using 10M, 1M, 200C which is quite likely to - and often does cause severe aggravation.

Could you do us a favor and stop wasting the time of all of us by posting nonsense like this.

We know you believe homeopathic remedies do all these things, but there is no need to fill us in on the details of your superstition. Concentrate on evidence.

Hans

 

[kieran]

manioberoi - and to think I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in post #720 ...

I think his level of "incoherency", whilst somewhat oscillitary, is tending downwards. He appears to have (for the moment) given up trying to claim that homoeopathy is untestable, and I am hoping that that it is slowly sinking in that his cut'n'paste anecdotes are irrelevant.

How does your new stance ...

Your fetish for chemical/physical tests of the homeopathic remedies(placebo), double blinding / controls & c is all very well for conventional drug treatment efficacy - however homeopathy does not operate on the principles of conventional drugs.

... fit in with your previous position (post #520) ...

As regards the rtial krazyKemist(498), kieran (507) and Hans (509) have suggested the basis for what I feel may be a highly workable plan of action for a homeopathic double blind trial.

...

You really do just make it up as you go along ... don't you? Your mind appears to be a vacuum into which random thoughts occasionally wander. Maybe you should consider the value of these thoughts before sharing them with anyone. (See my avatar for an illustration.) You have no interest in knowledge, only excuses.

Ask yourself - what are you afraid of here?

If you can't answer the question in post #742 - then you are pointless and pathetic. I'll repeat that question here because I don't see any point in anyone else chipping in on this thread until you have answered it ...

I'd like to slightly rephrase BSM's question (in order to make it VERY clear and simple):

1) Do you claim that homeopathic treatment can make an observable difference for the patient?

2) Do you claim that homeopathic treatment can NOT make an observable difference for the patient?

Now, no diversions, no nonsense, no hand-waving. Answer the question, do you choose #1 or #2?
Hans

 

[steenkh]

How does your new stance ...



... fit in with your previous position (post #520) ...

I can tell you what happened: he woke up and realised that there is no scientific evidence that homoeopathy works, and that it is unlikely that such evidence will ever show up. Instead of drawing the conclusion that homoeopathy does not work, he defaulted to excuse number one and claims that tests that for magical reasons homoeopathy only works when it is not being tested.

 

[fls]

Your fetish for chemical/physical tests of the homeopathic remedies(placebo),

The use of a control does not require any chemical/physical tests of the homeopathic remedies or of the control.

The use of a control does not require any chemical/physical tests of the homeopathic remedies or of the control.

double blinding / controls & c is all very well for conventional drug treatment efficacy - however homeopathy does not operate on the principles of conventional drugs.

The use of double-blinding and controls is completely unrelated to the principles on which the treatment operates. Double-blinding and controls are solely used to address issues of chance and bias - characteristics of the experimenter, not of the treatment.

Double-blinding and controls have no effect on the principles by which the treatment operates.

For a detailed understanding of these issues read:
http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/nel046v1.pdf

The article does not support your contention that the use of controls require physical/chemical tests.

The article does not support your contention that blinding disrupts the principles under which homeopathy works.

The article does point out that randomization and blinding may disrupt the trust within the relationship (an issue that is also present with conventional drugs). This criticism would be completely irrelevant to the cited study.

The observations in this paper should be kept in mind while attempting to evolve an acceptable frame of reference for homeopathic trials; suitable modifications could be made in the traditional mode of drug trials to incorporate the issues raised in this paper.

Yes. All of which have nothing to do with the issues you raised. Also, you previously held the opposite viewpoint when you (without any suggestion of reluctance) proposed a double-blind, controlled trial as an acceptable test of homeopathy.

Linda

 

[manioberoi]

manioberoi - and to think I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in post #720 ...



How does your new stance ...



... fit in with your previous position (post #520) ...



...

You really do just make it up as you go along ... don't you? Your mind appears to be a vacuum into which random thoughts occasionally wander. Maybe you should consider the value of these thoughts before sharing them with anyone. (See my avatar for an illustration.) You have no interest in knowledge, only excuses.

Ask yourself - what are you afraid of here?

If you can't answer the question in post #742 - then you are pointless and pathetic. I'll repeat that question here because I don't see any point in anyone else chipping in on this thread until you have answered it ...

#1 of course!

 

[manioberoi]

The use of a control does not require any chemical/physical tests of the homeopathic remedies or of the control.

The use of a control does not require any chemical/physical tests of the homeopathic remedies or of the control.



The use of double-blinding and controls is completely unrelated to the principles on which the treatment operates. Double-blinding and controls are solely used to address issues of chance and bias - characteristics of the experimenter, not of the treatment.

Double-blinding and controls have no effect on the principles by which the treatment operates.



The article does not support your contention that the use of controls require physical/chemical tests.

The article does not support your contention that blinding disrupts the principles under which homeopathy works.

The article does point out that randomization and blinding may disrupt the trust within the relationship (an issue that is also present with conventional drugs). This criticism would be completely irrelevant to the cited study.



Yes. All of which have nothing to do with the issues you raised. Also, you previously held the opposite viewpoint when you (without any suggestion of reluctance) proposed a double-blind, controlled trial as an acceptable test of homeopathy.

Linda

There is no inconsistency.
I said keep in mind the observations in the study ref to in #738- I did not altogether rule out double blinding - only if the double blinding hampers the second or subsequent remedy selection would this become an issue.

 

[manioberoi]

manioberoi, would you like to comment on the serious side-effects of a homoeopathic treatment mentioned here?

Surely you can not be blaming homeopathy for an act of God?

 

[Chris Haynes]

Surely you can not be blaming homeopathy for an act of God?

Can you be specific as to which "god" you are referring to, and give evidence that it was this "god" versus the homeopathic treatment that caused the problems?

 

[Mojo]

Surely you can not be blaming homeopathy for an act of God?

The "act of God" followed the homoeopathic treatment. If you're going to be consistent in your application of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, this means that the treatment caused the "act of God".

I hope you're not going to object that there is no known mechanism by which the treatment could have caused the storm.

 

[manioberoi]

Can you be specific as to which "god" you are referring to, and give evidence that it was this "god" versus the homeopathic treatment that caused the problems?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_God
Act of God or act of nature is a legal term[1] for events outside of human control, such as sudden floods or other natural disasters, for which no one can be held responsible.

 

[manioberoi]

The "act of God" followed the homoeopathic treatment. If you're going to be consistent in your application of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, this means that the treatment caused the "act of God".

I hope you're not going to object that there is no known mechanism by which the treatment could have caused the storm.

lol

 

[Mojo]

lol

On what basis can you take credit for positive outcomes that follow homoeopathic treatment, but claim that negative outcomes are nothing to do with it?

 

[Mojo]

manioberoi, you seem to be conceding that the fact that one event followed another does not necessarily mean that the first event caused the second.

How would you go about establishing that the homoeopathic treatment did not cause the storm?

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_God
Act of God or act of nature is a legal term[1] for events outside of human control, such as sudden floods or other natural disasters, for which no one can be held responsible.

Manioberoi,

Why is it that you keep weaselling out of answering this question;

Which do you want to admit, either homeopathy is scientifically testable or your entire clincal case record must be ignored? There is no third option. Which do you want to choose?

At the moment there is exactly the same quality of evidence to say that homeopathy caused those weather events as there is to say it "cured" patients.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Here you are manioberoi. Not only does homeopathy cause storms it also causes car crashes involving people not even taking the remedies.

http://www.hominf.org/rubber/rubframe.htm

"During the 7th week of the proving there were 2 car crashes outside my house. I have lived here over 4 years and have never seen one before"

See what you are meddling with once you start unleashing the Cosmic Power of "energy medicines".

Now, surely you are not going to deny homeopathy's responsibility for those car crashes!!! It is dangerous stuff and its use should be stamped out.

 

[MRC_Hans]

#1 of course!

So, homeopathic treatment makes an observable difference.

Then it will be easily testable by a double-blind trial.

Thank you.

Hans

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

So, homeopathic treatment makes an observable difference.

Then it will be easily testable by a double-blind trial.

Thank you.

Hans

So, manioberoi, your entire clincal case record must be ignored.

Are you also happy to agree with that?

 

[kieran]

I'd like to slightly rephrase BSM's question (in order to make it VERY clear and simple):

1) Do you claim that homeopathic treatment can make an observable difference for the patient?

2) Do you claim that homeopathic treatment can NOT make an observable difference for the patient?

Now, no diversions, no nonsense, no hand-waving. Answer the question, do you choose #1 or #2?

Hans

#1 of course!

Thank you for responding to the direct question with a direct answer.

There is no inconsistency.
I said keep in mind the observations in the study ref to in #738- I did not altogether rule out double blinding - only if the double blinding hampers the second or subsequent remedy selection would this become an issue.

One of us is being slow here ... we may have to resort to dictionary definitions of "inconsistency".

You said:

Your fetish for chemical/physical tests of the homeopathic remedies(placebo), double blinding / controls & c is all very well for conventional drug treatment efficacy - however homeopathy does not operate on the principles of conventional drugs.

What was the point of the word however there? To the vast majority of the forum population, this wording will suggest that the listed "double blinding / controls & c" are outside the principles homoeopathy - why else would you put a list of items and then a "however" if not to exclude them. Please clarify exacly what you were trying to say if you weren't saying that "double blinding / controls & c" were not applicable to homoeopathy. Then tell us why that isn't "inconsistent" with your claim that homoeopathy produces an observable effect on the patient.

If you weren't actually making a point with your "however" sentence, then please acknowledge the fact and try not to insert un-necessary and misleading noise into your posts.

We got past your waffle about "second or subsequent remedy selection" in the previous test protocols we discussed - you even said you were happy with the structure of those tests at the time - so there is no need to keep going back to it like it is some kind of obstacle to us here.