• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Stem Cells & Healing?

Kumar said:
Still one can try to find something what they want here:-

http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/3/3/293

I have no time to go through and feel no need of theories against my practicals.
Click to expand...

After skimming through the article, I can only conclude that you did not read the article. This article presents zero new evidence. It is a systematic review of current literature about homeopathy. Thus, any conclusions it forms are only as valid as the studies they use to form these conclusions. This study provides no new research, no new clinical trials, and no new evidence for homeopathy.

ETA: Oh, and by the way, Paolo Bellavite, the lead author of this paper, is on the Board of Editors for the journal. Make of that what you will...
 
Last edited:
Whatever you people calculate here is need to be valid here. Whatever other people calculate there is need to be valid there.

Half cooked studies should not be an absolute & final evidance.

Many chronic diseases eg diabetes have life long outcome and complications usually come late in life after many years of disease/treatment. Unless life long DBPC studies with and withour medication are done, it can't be said for sure, what caused those complications--disease or treament.It can be considered unethical and impractical to conduct such type of studies. Odd outcomes from both are indicative even insulin resistance. So to base such half cooked studies and considering these as evidance for application is a big issue.

So till you can present fully cooked absolute and final evidances, any of your thing esp. when those can be with substancial adversities can just be a convention or popularity based but may or may not be fact based. In this consideration, let half cooked foods continue esp. those with least adversities.

Neither homeopathy nor conventional system is my property but I opt which is more useful to me. Therefore I mentioned C+P.

Hope every issue is now clear and so concentrate on real contribution instead of TTTT. "yes or no", repetitions & waste of time. :)
 
Kumar said:
Whatever you people calculate here is need to be valid here. Whatever other people calculate there is need to be valid there.

Half cooked studies should not be an absolute & final evidance.

Many chronic diseases eg diabetes have life long outcome and complications usually come late in life after many years of disease/treatment. Unless life long DBPC studies with and withour medication are done, it can't be said for sure, what caused those complications--disease or treament.It can be considered unethical and impractical to conduct such type of studies. Odd outcomes from both are indicative even insulin resistance. So to base such half cooked studies and considering these as evidance for application is a big issue.

So till you can present fully cooked absolute and final evidances, any of your thing esp. when those can be with substancial adversities can just be a convention or popularity based but may or may not be fact based. In this consideration, let half cooked foods continue esp. those with least adversities.

Neither homeopathy nor conventional system is my property but I opt which is more useful to me. Therefore I mentioned C+P.

Hope every issue is now clear and so concentrate on real contribution instead of TTTT. "yes or no", repetitions & waste of time. :)
Click to expand...

Kumar, I've said it many times already, but apparently I have to say it again. Nothing is absolute and final. That includes your "homeopathy", which is why we demand evidence before accepting something. No matter how much evidence there is, nothing will be "absolute and final", except in the practical sense.

First, you say that nothing is absolute and final, so homeopathy could be true. Then you say that homeopathy is absolute and final, and science can't prove your wrong because it isn't absolute and final. You cannot have it both ways, Kumar. As I've already explained, if you wish to talk about 'absolute and final', you must apply the same criteria to homeopathy as you apply to science.

Further, there is no burden on science to be 'absolute and final' to disprove homeopathy. The entire weight of burden of proof lies on your shoulders. You are the one making the claim, you must support your claim with evidence.

I'll help you out: there is no evidence for homeopathy.
 
I didn't say enerything is absolute & final in homeopathy. So it is at par to other half cooked evidances & with complexicities. But still many things in it esp in Dr. Sch.'s tissue salt system are consistent since their introduction. I think only few antacids are consistent in your case. Are there any other?

Following quotes(also read many other studies at PubMed) can give some idea that something is there in homeopathy, there can be some weakness or miss of science & it is just not blank as you claim:-

The Status of Homeopathy Research
Most analyses of the research on homeopathy have concluded that there is little evidence to support homeopathy as an effective treatment for any specific condition, and that many of the studies have been flawed. However, there are some individual observational studies, randomized placebo-controlled trials, and laboratory research that report positive effects or unique physical and chemical properties of homeopathic remedies.

Research Challenges
Homeopathy is difficult to study using current scientific methods because highly diluted substances (known as ultra-high dilutions or UHDs) cannot be readily measured, making it difficult to design or replicate studies. In addition, homeopathic treatments are highly individualized and there is no uniform prescribing standard for homeopaths. There are hundreds of different homeopathic remedies, which can be prescribed in a variety of different dilutions to treat thousands of symptoms. On the other hand, many aspects of the interactions between the homeopathic practitioner and his or her patients may be quite beneficial, and can be studied more easily.

Side Effects and Risks
Although the side effects and risks of homeopathic treatments are not well researched outside of observational studies, some general points can be made about the safety of these treatments:

A systematic review found that homeopathic remedies in high dilution, taken under the supervision of trained professionals, are generally considered safe and unlikely to cause severe adverse reactions...

Homeopathic remedies are not known to interfere with conventional drugs; however, if you are considering using homeopathic remedies, you should discuss this with your health care provider first.
http://nccam.nih.gov/health/homeopathy/

CONCLUSIONS: At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homoeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1825800
Click to expand...

Hope this will help further.
 
Kumar said:
I didn't say enerything is absolute & final in homeopathy. So it is at par to other half cooked evidances & with complexicities. But still many things in it esp in Dr. Sch.'s tissue salt system are consistent since their introduction. I think only few antacids are consistent in your case. Are there any other?

Following quotes(also read many other studies at PubMed) can give some idea that something is there in homeopathy, there can be some weakness or miss of science & it is just not blank as you claim:-



Hope this will help further.
Click to expand...

Kumar, yet again you have posted an 'article' which is just a review. The cited article provides no new evidence. Its conclusions are only as reliable as the studies it reviews. Please provide citations from the original studies, not from reviews.
 
Taffer said:
Kumar, yet again you have posted an 'article' which is just a review. The cited article provides no new evidence. Its conclusions are only as reliable as the studies it reviews. Please provide citations from the original studies, not from reviews.
Click to expand...


Or even better, find a review that says that it works. The one Kumar cited doesn't.
 
Taffer said:
Kumar, yet again you have posted an 'article' which is just a review. The cited article provides no new evidence. Its conclusions are only as reliable as the studies it reviews. Please provide citations from the original studies, not from reviews.
Click to expand...

I think following drug was your needed evidance based. I also used but remained God graced:-

Phenformin is an anti-diabetic drug from the biguanide class. It was marketed as DBI by Ciba-Geigy but was withdrawn from most markets in the late 1970s due to a high risk of lactic acidosis, which was fatal in 50% of cases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenformin

Others here:-
LIST OF DRUGS BANNED FOR MARKETING

http://www.drugscontrol.org/ban_drugs.htm
Click to expand...

Simply avoid posing, imposiing, discrediting & one sided advocating on half cooked things. I know you being "skeptic, sceptic, doubter (someone who habitually doubts accepted beliefs)" can have questioning & doubting attidude but it should be all sided.
 
Last edited:
Kumar said:
I think following drug was your needed evidance based. I also used but remained God graced:-
Click to expand...

Thank you, but I don't need evidence for medicine. I want evidence for homeopathy, which you claim works.

Simply avoid posing, imposiing, discrediting & one sided advocating on half cooked things. I know you being "skeptic, sceptic, doubter (someone who habitually doubts accepted beliefs)" can have questioning & doubting attidude but it should be all sided.
Click to expand...

I'm not imposing, discrediting, or one side advocating anything, Kumar. The burden of proof is on you, entirely on you, and will always be on you. We have evidence that homeopathy does nothing. You claim it works. That's fine, nothing wrong with a claim, but you need to support your claim with evidence. Actual studies which provide evidence for homeopathy are what we are after. Not reviews of previous material. Not quotes from Wikipedia. Actual, accurate, scientific, studies.

Can you do that for us?
 
Kumar said:
I think following drug was your needed evidance based. I also used but remained God graced:-

Phenformin is an anti-diabetic drug from the biguanide class. It was marketed as DBI by Ciba-Geigy but was withdrawn from most markets in the late 1970s due to a high risk of lactic acidosis, which was fatal in 50% of cases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenformin

Others here:-
LIST OF DRUGS BANNED FOR MARKETING

http://www.drugscontrol.org/ban_drugs.htm
Click to expand...

Simply avoid posing, imposiing, discrediting & one sided advocating on half cooked things. I know you being "skeptic, sceptic, doubter (someone who habitually doubts accepted beliefs)" can have questioning & doubting attidude but it should be all sided.
Click to expand...


Some medicines have been withdrawn because there was evidence that they were harmful. Using your approach of ignoring inconvenient evidence and demanding unreasonable standards of "absolute and final" proof, you would, presumably, be in favour of them remaining in use.
 
Mojo said:
Some medicines have been withdrawn because there was evidence that they were harmful. Using your approach of ignoring inconvenient evidence and demanding unreasonable standards of "absolute and final" proof, you would, presumably, be in favour of them remaining in use.
Click to expand...

No false representation. It had shown much adversities on field applications. If such adversities would have been evalued during strict studies, it would had not allowed for field application. Otherwise, you are saying they were just experimenting on innocent people. Other sister drug to it in mass application may also land similarily.
 
Taffer said:
Thank you, but I don't need evidence for medicine. I want evidence for homeopathy, which you claim works.



I'm not imposing, discrediting, or one side advocating anything, Kumar. The burden of proof is on you, entirely on you, and will always be on you. We have evidence that homeopathy does nothing. You claim it works. That's fine, nothing wrong with a claim, but you need to support your claim with evidence. Actual studies which provide evidence for homeopathy are what we are after. Not reviews of previous material. Not quotes from Wikipedia. Actual, accurate, scientific, studies.

Can you do that for us?
Click to expand...

No when you are saying real medicines you are claiming their A & F working because you use real. I think you are trying to run from this fact.

Burden to show live evidances is on homeopathy which areavailable in mass in homeopathic clinics(just survey) but burden to show its science is on you/scientific community because they want to see it from their eyes & also they are entrusted for this by giving most of public money & means. If they can't it is just your/their miss or weakness, if not just ignoring due to some commercial interests. Even if homeopaths know its science, why they will show & allow you to hijeck it alike other hijeckings.
 
Kumar said:
No false representation. It had shown much adversities on field applications. If such adversities would have been evalued during strict studies, it would had not allowed for field application. Otherwise, you are saying they were just experimenting on innocent people. Other sister drug to it in mass application may also land similarily.
Click to expand...

Whether a drug has been safely tested before being used has absolutely no bearing on whether homeopathy works. Try again.
 
Kumar said:
No when you are saying real medicines you are claiming their A & F working because you use real. I think you are trying to run from this fact.
Click to expand...

No, Kumar. That is not what I mean. I mean it is real medicine because it has been shown to be effective in scientific studies. Homeopathy has not.

Burden to show live evidances is on homeopathy...
Click to expand...

Correct.

...which areavailable in mass in homeopathic clinics(just survey) but burden to show its science is on you/scientific community because they want to see it from their eyes & also they are entrusted for this by giving most of public money & means. If they can't it is just your/their miss or weakness, if not just ignoring due to some commercial interests. Even if homeopaths know its science, why they will show & allow you to hijeck it alike other hijeckings.
Click to expand...

I will say this only once more, Kumar. Just because people think they get better does not mean they do. Just because people get better after taking homeopathic medicine does not mean the homeopathic medicine made them better. You are committing a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Further, the burden of all evidence is on the homeopaths, not on the scientists. Scientific studies of controlled trials is the only accepted evidence.
 
Kumar said:
No false representation. It had shown much adversities on field applications. If such adversities would have been evalued during strict studies, it would had not allowed for field application.
Click to expand...


Yes, if serious side effects show up in testing a drug will not get licensed. But you can't always detect all the possible side effects during testing. Many side effects that don't show up often enough to be picked up at that stage. That is why drug regulation schemes are set up to monitor side effects in the general population, for example via the "yellow card" system in the UK.
 
Taffer said:
Whether a drug has been safely tested before being used has absolutely no bearing on whether homeopathy works. Try again.
Click to expand...

Because it looks not working to you, because it does not show apperant side effects whereas toxic quantities can easily show.
 
Taffer said:
No, Kumar. That is not what I mean. I mean it is real medicine because it has been shown to be effective in scientific studies. Homeopathy has not.



Correct.



I will say this only once more, Kumar. Just because people think they get better does not mean they do. Just because people get better after taking homeopathic medicine does not mean the homeopathic medicine made them better. You are committing a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Further, the burden of all evidence is on the homeopaths, not on the scientists. Scientific studies of controlled trials is the only accepted evidence.
Click to expand...

Real medicines should be with least or no adversities. Half cooked medicines can't be said as rela medicines.

True, valid & practical purpose of any healing agent is to get cure but not to make theories. If science want to know as it duty or for curiosity or for vested interests(hijecking), burden of proof lie on science. Homeopath even if having evidances will tend to avoid it for commercial interests. You may not like to show your house to others who can rob.
 
Mojo said:
Yes, if serious side effects show up in testing a drug will not get licensed. But you can't always detect all the possible side effects during testing. Many side effects that don't show up often enough to be picked up at that stage. That is why drug regulation schemes are set up to monitor side effects in the general population, for example via the "yellow card" system in the UK.
Click to expand...

Ir proves half cooking. Does it mean that we are just on experimenting stage that too on live humans?

Controlling & goverment authorities also gave licence to homeopathy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom