1,800 Studies Later, Scientists Conclude Homeopathy Doesn’t Work

[MRC_Hans]

Most not all. Somewhat like 20 organically grown apple in my example. Then what, if this number is not 100. Lesser outcome should also be seen with least direct side effects.

What ARE you talking about?



Hans

 

[steenkh]

What ARE you talking about?

I think he is referring to a new brilliant argument he has devised that says that if apple growing methods have different yields but still produce apples, then homoeopathy works.

The argument is so subtle that I have completely missed the point.

 

[Kumar]

What ARE you talking about?



Hans

I mean. lower numbers can also have validity. An elenphant is a live being an ant also and both have pecularities, pros & cons.

Btw, have you seen stastics of positive and negative outcome from these 1800 studies in meta-study in absolute sense?

Frankly, it will not satisfy me unless I can get atleast following details of 1800 studies:-

Total positive outcome of homeopathy.

Total Negative outcome of homeopathy.

Total numbers of Placebo outcome.

Total numbers of participants.

Potencies used.

If I don't get it, I shall not be satisfied and will have no option but to believe on them who condusted the study. I thing I am quite justified.

 

[Kumar]

I think he is referring to a new brilliant argument he has devised that says that if apple growing methods have different yields but still produce apples, then homoeopathy works.

The argument is so subtle that I have completely missed the point.

Is i8t illogical or lie to call trees as apple trees if they are producing just 5 or 20 apples(may not be 100)?

Is it illogical to say an ant as a live being in front of an elephant who is also called a live being? Obiously with different shape, size and qualities. Then what, both do not loose their entity as an apple tree or as an ant.

 

[Kumar]

Hahnemann did acknowledge that his remedies might not contain any molecules. He assumed that some essence was left.

How could he able to know/check/calculate it?



9quote0No. The problem is that the recorded proving symptoms have little to do with the know pharmacological effects of the substances. Salt does not cause Nat Mur symptoms, sulphur does not cause Sulph symptoms, etc, etc.

You can't just assume the pharmacological effect from either a small or big dose. There is no connection.

Don't take my word for it, look in a Materia Medica for yourself. There are several online.

Hans[/QUOTE]

Actually, many type of substances are used in homeopathy. Probably mosts were tried in enthusiasm. Can't say, if it made it a mess. Dr, Sch. selected gems in all these coloured stones. Broadly, homegenous and hetrogenous, simple and complex, more or less toxic, more or less diluting etc.. So they used few isopathically as "same" and other as "similar". Other factors toxicity etc are also suitably taken care accordingly.

 

[fagin]

I mean. lower numbers can also have validity. An elenphant is a live being an ant also and both have pecularities, pros & cons.

Btw, have you seen stastics of positive and negative outcome from these 1800 studies in meta-study in absolute sense?

Frankly, it will not satisfy me unless I can get atleast following details of 1800 studies:-

Total positive outcome of homeopathy.

Total Negative outcome of homeopathy.

Total numbers of Placebo outcome.

Total numbers of participants.

Potencies used.

If I don't get it, I shall not be satisfied and will have no option but to believe on them who condusted the study. I thing I am quite justified.

So do your homework. Check out all studies and report back.

Is i8t illogical or lie to call trees as apple trees if they are producing just 5 or 20 apples(may not be 100)?

Is it illogical to say an ant as a live being in front of an elephant who is also called a live being? Obiously with different shape, size and qualities. Then what, both do not loose their entity as an apple tree or as an ant.

Apple trees, ants and elephants are not homeopathic.

Unless you drown them I guess, and drink the water.

 

[steenkh]

Is i8t illogical or lie to call trees as apple trees if they are producing just 5 or 20 apples(may not be 100)?

No. What is the connection to homoeopathy?

Is it illogical to say an ant as a live being in front of an elephant who is also called a live being? Obiously with different shape, size and qualities. Then what, both do not loose their entity as an apple tree or as an ant.[/QUOTE]
No. What is the connection to homoeopathy?

 

[MRC_Hans]

I mean. lower numbers can also have validity. An elenphant is a live being an ant also and both have pecularities, pros & cons.

Btw, have you seen stastics of positive and negative outcome from these 1800 studies in meta-study in absolute sense?

Frankly, it will not satisfy me unless I can get atleast following details of 1800 studies:-

Total positive outcome of homeopathy.

Total Negative outcome of homeopathy.

Total numbers of Placebo outcome.

Total numbers of participants.

Potencies used.

If I don't get it, I shall not be satisfied and will have no option but to believe on them who condusted the study. I thing I am quite justified.

Well, good luck in your research, then.

Kumar, I'm not doing your work for you. I'm not trying to convice you, remember? YOU are trying to convince me. You dig up the evidence.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

How could he able to know/check/calculate it?

Hahnemann could not calculate it, but he knew that there is a finite number of molecules in a given sample.

No. The problem is that the recorded proving symptoms have little to do with the know pharmacological effects of the substances. Salt does not cause Nat Mur symptoms, sulphur does not cause Sulph symptoms, etc, etc.

You can't just assume the pharmacological effect from either a small or big dose. There is no connection.

Don't take my word for it, look in a Materia Medica for yourself. There are several online.

Hans

Actually, many type of substances are used in homeopathy. Probably mosts were tried in enthusiasm. Can't say, if it made it a mess. Dr, Sch. selected gems in all these coloured stones. Broadly, homegenous and hetrogenous, simple and complex, more or less toxic, more or less diluting etc.. So they used few isopathically as "same" and other as "similar". Other factors toxicity etc are also suitably taken care accordingly.

Kumar, read my lips: The recorded symptoms have little to do with pharmacological effects known for the actual substances. And like does not cure like.

The whole foundation for homeopathy is missing.

No amount of intentional gibberish and strained analogies about apples and elephants will change that.

Hans

 

[Kumar]

Well, good luck in your research, then.

Kumar, I'm not doing your work for you. I'm not trying to convice you, remember? YOU are trying to convince me. You dig up the evidence.

Hans

One such:-

The evidence base

Up to the end of 2014, there have been 189 peer-reviewed papers, with useable data, that reported randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in homeopathy. Of these, 104 papers were placebo-controlled and were eligible for our detailed review programme: this literature represents research in 61 different medical conditions. Of these 104 RCT papers, 43 (41%) reported positive findings, 5 (5%) were negative and 56 (54%) were non-conclusive – see section Randomised controlled trials in homeopathy.
http://facultyofhomeopathy.org/research/

If you want to go into deep, you can dig up. Don't blame, it is from homeopathy since study for homeopathy can be done by homeopaths like science studies are conducted by scientists, pharma by pharmacies.

In some sense as per my apple example, these are somewhat 41 apples, instead.

 

[Kumar]

Hahnemann could not calculate it, but he knew that there is a finite number of molecules in a given sample.





Kumar, read my lips: The recorded symptoms have little to do with pharmacological effects known for the actual substances. And like does not cure like.

The whole foundation for homeopathy is missing.

No amount of intentional gibberish and strained analogies about apples and elephants will change that.

Hans

Ok, if you say so. I felt there could be many types.

 

[MRC_Hans]

One such:-


If you want to go into deep, you can dig up. Don't blame, it is from homeopathy since study for homeopathy can be done by homeopaths like science studies are conducted by scientists, pharma by pharmacies.

In some sense as per my apple example, these are somewhat 41 apples, instead.

Of course, I can dig them up. But I won't do it for you.

For two reasons:

1) You can do it as well as I can, and it's your interest.

2) Frankly, I don't believe you will be able to use such data for anything.

Hans

 

[Giordano]

I would never insult anyone else for not having a good command of a given language. I am very, very dreadful in my ability to acquire what, to me, are foreign languages. But I had forgotten the level of Kumar's difficulty in getting his (?) ideas across in English. It is not just problems with grammar or language structure, but I really can not follow his arguments here at a very basic level. So with all due respect to Kumar in terms of the language problem (I am certain that I would be even less able to participate in a forum in his inherent language) there is no point for me to continue in this thread.

 

[sackett]

English isn't Kumar's problem.

B'golly, I think 'nuff said right there.

 

[Reality Check]

One such:-

Sounds like homeopaths lying about science. This is Kumar linking to propaganda, not science. When doctors who actually cure diseases and know what they are doing look we get 1,800 Studies Later, Scientists Conclude Homeopathy Doesn’t Work

After assessing more than 1,800 studies on homeopathy, Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council was only able to find 225 that were rigorous enough to analyze. And a systematic review of these studies revealed “no good quality evidence to support the claim that homeopathy is effective in treating health conditions.”

So we immediately know that the Faculty of Homeopathy is lying somehow - there are 121 studies that they do not list.

 

[Kumar]

I would never insult anyone else for not having a good command of a given language. I am very, very dreadful in my ability to acquire what, to me, are foreign languages. But I had forgotten the level of Kumar's difficulty in getting his (?) ideas across in English. It is not just problems with grammar or language structure, but I really can not follow his arguments here at a very basic level. So with all due respect to Kumar in terms of the language problem (I am certain that I would be even less able to participate in a forum in his inherent language) there is no point for me to continue in this thread.

Sorry.

 

[Mojo]

The ombudsman has reported:

Our investigation did not result in any adverse findings about the review or the NHMRC.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

The ombudsman has reported:

Our investigation did not result in any adverse findings about the review or the NHMRC.

What an immense strain the poor ombudsmen went through to birth that gnat.

 

[Mojo]

Dana Ullman is not amused:

Please note that the Ombudsman would have had to call into question a federal agency, the NHMRC. It is no surprise that they instead chose the easy way out…and that was to pretend to be deaf, dumb, and blind. In doing so, the Ombudman chose to be all 3 blind mice.

It isn’t enough to call this Ombudsman report to be ******** because it is more awful than that…it isn’t even elephant ◊◊◊◊…it is bigger than that: it is brontosaurus-****. Yeah, that big…and putrid…all in clear evidence except to those people who prefer to be deaf, blind, and very dumb.

Here's what he was hoping for:

The Commonwealth Ombudsman is presently investigating the NHMRC, and if they find misconduct and unethical actions, it may be appropriate for the NHMRC to retract this report, to discipline those involved in this report, to apologize to the Australian people, and to reach out and accurately educate those governments in the world that are presently seeking to evaluate what role homeopathic medicine should have in health and medical care.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Anything which upsets Dana has to be A Good Thing.

Has he identified that magical lab which can distinguish a homeopathic "remedy" from plain water yet?