THIS is part and parcel of Holmes' ludacrous and uneducated statement: no homeopathic pharmacy makes a medicine if they "dilute the entire starting amount of the mother tincture." Once again, the 17th potency takes 17 test tubes worth of water. Any creative way that alludes anything to 10,000 Adriatic Seas is simply wrong...whether you or Holmes says "let us suppose" or not.
Do you or do you not understand that
it is true that a 17C potency
is equivalent to having the whole of the orignal mother tincture dissolved in a volume of ethanol 10,000 times the volume of the Adriatic? Do you or do you not see how it is both relevant and appropriate to illustrate this in the way Holmes did, in order to allow the reader to appreciate the insane levels of dilution actually reached using only these few ounces of actual ethanol?
If you don't, then frankly I don't know what to say. How do you actually cope with tying your shoelaces in the morning?
So, even after Andral told the world all of the serious problems with his "research," Holmes still chose to not change a word of his essay. I guess your standards for scholarship are different than mine.
So Andral "told the world", did he? Then you'll have no problem showing us where to find this information. And quoting exactly what he said. Nice long quotes, please, we know how you like to cherry-pick.
Now, I don't know whether Andral really did say what James claims he said - I doubt it, because so far we've seen that everything James claims Holmes said, he didn't actually say, or not as James chooses to interpret it anyway. However, even if he did - why does that oblige Holmes to agree with him? Holmes studied Andral's work and believed it was valid. He explained why. He was entitled to take that view.
Your critiques of these scientists are so weak that no serious journal has published your critiques. Please provide references to the published critiques of Elia, Rey, Roy, or Ennis in peer-review journals. Someone here has said that they have written a critique of Elia's work here, and I've asked to see it several times...but no body is home. As for Roy's work, is there anyone here who has published a similar body of research as Roy has (and thus, has shown some "scientific chops") and who has provided some solid critique of Roy's work on homeopathy? Put up or shut up. Please show me published critique of Rey's work. Ennis' work was replicated by 3 other labs, though later, one other lab didn't repeat it successfully. This one trial did not disprove her work, and if you think it did, this shows your inadequate understanding of the way evidence works.
Oh no, James. You announced that Holmes should have revised what he wrote because Andral's work was criticised. You didn't give any references for the criticism, or show it to be justified. In fact, as we have seen, Holmes was aware of the criticism, and didn't believe it was valid. He said so, giving his reasons. However, you continue to declare that Holmes was in error in not revising his essay.
Now, we point out that the work of people like Rey, Roy, Benveniste, Ennis and so on has been criticised. This is true. So, by that token, you should not refer to their work, and you should revise anything you have written to remove any references to their work. This is just goose and gander sauce.
Oh, but you now want the criticisms of these people to be
cited!! And
justified!!! You feel that unless you are persuaded, personally, that these criticisms are valid, then you should not be obliged to expurgate all mention of the work from your writings.
Double standards.
Can you not understand that, in just the same way as you feel justifued in continuing to refer to these authors' work, because you do not agree that they have been discredited, Holmes felt justified in continuing to refer to Andral's work, because he did not agree that the work was invalid.
At least Holmes had the integrity to include in his essay the information that Andral's work had been criticised, and a summary of the criticism (followed by his own excellent reasons for dismissing these criticisms). You have not even had the courtesy to reference a single word you claim Andral said.
You folks are good at ganging up on me here, but you seem unable or afraid to go out into the world to publish your scientific chops.
What makes you think that? I have a PhD, almost every single data point of which was analysed by me with my own fair hands, using samples collected by these same hands. I have a list of publications running to about four pages, both work done in the course of the PhD and later. I currently have the editor of one scientific journal and the chairman of one grant-awarding body chasing me to scrutinise papers and grant applications. Because of my reputation in my field, you see.
And if you want my opinion of Roy,
look over here.
If Holmes had such disrespect for Rush, why did he insist that medical students read his work, and later (and unrelated to Holmes) why do psychiatrists today still use his FACE on their organization's membership logo?
Holmes was suggesting that students look at Rush, as a prime example of the sort of arrogance and gung-ho prescribing that he wanted them to avoid. This is perfectly clear from what he wrote. Everybody else here can see that with no problem. Why do you persist in interpreting his use of Rush as an "awful warning" as "worship"?
More problems with reading comprehension?
I don't know anything about psychiatrists, and I don't see what that has to do with the discussion.
Holmes statement about the dilutions has already been proven to be hogwash and yet you continue to assert that it makes complete sense (in a completely nonesensical world only).
Of course it makes sense. Now if you have accepted that Holmes was not suggesting that homoeopathic manufacturers actually use 10,000 times the volume of the Adriatic of alcohol to make a 17C remedy, what do you think he was saying? He was saying that the final "concentration" of the mother tincture in the 17C preparation is the same as if the entire starting amount of the mother tincture had been dissolved in that amount of water. This is correct. How else would you like him to have explained this?
(As an aside, I remember seeing a TV programme about homoeopathy that illustrated the same point showing pictures of swimming pools and then on up. Nobody thought they were saying that actual swimming pools were used to make the remedies, and while some homoeopaths did have some criticisms of the programme - as had some sceptics - nobody took issue with this part.)
As for Andral's research...are you saying that YOU stand behind it? If not, give up defending it (heck, the author stopped defending it a LONG time ago). I bet that NOT A SINGLE PERSON HERE will stand up for Andral's work.
I have read what Holmes wrote about Andral's work. I am still waiting for you to provide the slightest smidgin of support for your assertion that Holmes was wrong about this, and ought to have known he was wrong, or even for your assertion that Andral later recanted. How about it?
The fact that Andral's work may have been the only reference to some type of controlled study in Holmes' work, and yet, the "solid foundation of science" that he was standing on was simply jello. This is not surprising when you consider that Holmes had only graduated from medical school just six years prior to writing this error-filled treatise on homeopathy.
Jello? You're thinking of the so-called scientific support base for homoeopathy, right? You know, I've met some pretty smart cookies doing some extraordinarily impressive work only six years after graduation. Fancy that.
Now, about that error-filled treatise. You were going to show us one single actual error, remember? How about it? And assertions that Holmes said things he did not in fact say don't count.
As for Holmes reading a homeopathic book, I still claim that he didn't. Just because he read a chapter or two from one of Hahnemann's reference books does not mean anything. Holmes never quotes Hahnemann's ORGANON, which was Hahnemann's treatise on homeopathy. One cannot understand his other books until/unless one reads his ORGANON (or similar book on the homeopathic methodology). Without it, you're flying blind...and I cannot help but laugh that "defenders of science" like to fly blind...and defend science (badly).
You claim he didn't. You clearly have no evidence for this at all.
You have simply shown that you, like our American President, will stand by your own (wrong and bone-headed) decisions, no matter what.
Your American President is
your responsibility, I'll take nothing to do with him. You seem to emulate him, however. The one standing by wrong opinions here is you, and that should by now be clear to you - if it weren't for that reading comprehension problem that seems to keep rearing its ugly head.
My recommendations for you to self-prescribe homeopathic medicines are for only acute non-life-threatening conditions only. Get beyond your own mindset and become a real scientist, an experimenter, not just arm-chair philosphers (you're all practicing that soft science of "philosophy," not science)...and yet, you think of yourselves as "defenders of science." Darwin just rolled over in his grave.
Good-bye...I'm going away again.
Fancy, you're not the first homoeopath to have suggested I try taking homoeopathic remedies. I actually did it. (On top of having been a homoeopathic patient in my youth.) Nothing at all happened. So what?
Where did I call myself a "defender of science"? What makes you think I've never done any experimentation? (I'll refer you back to my PhD thesis here.) And where does Darwin come into it?
Get real, James. You haven't a leg to stand on. You yourself derailed this thread from whatever it was about to showcase your precious critique of Holmes. Which has just ended up as a little pile of confetti on the floor.
Have the intellectual honesty to change it.
Rolfe.
