answers to questions

Barbrae said:

Zep, I don't know, first of all I feel like I would be messing with someones road to wellness so to speak and don't feel that would be very ethical. Also, I rarely only give a homeopathic remedy. I focus on nutrition and lifestyle changes as well which is in my literature and information and of course I wouldn't be able to make any recommendations of that sort either cause it would nullify the test.

I am however, considering doing a test on some plants, just to satisfy my curiosity.
Ah ha! You also help with nutrition and lifestyle changes! That throws an entirely new light on the subject, because you are now talking about some additional processes besides homeopathy that indeed most of us skeptics can agree have observable and even fairly measureable results.

You see, the question then becomes: What is making your patients improve? The lifestyle/nutrition change, or homeopathy, or the combination? If some of them make no difference to the patient then why persist with it?

The potential testing becomes more obvious for you also, and also less likely to adversely affect your patients. And it is simply this: For pairs of similar patients with similar lifestyle/nutritional changes you recommend (perhaps for similar illnesses?), give half homeopathic remedies and half not. Then truthfully observe and record any differences in their progress. I would suggest that you might need a lot more patients tested this way in order to see any reliable trends, if they are there.

Again, this is a single-blind testing protocol, but it is a significant and legitimate improvement on relying on homeopathic provings.
 
Zep said:

For pairs of similar patients with similar lifestyle/nutritional changes you recommend (perhaps for similar illnesses?), give half homeopathic remedies and half not.
Ahem, wouldn't it be unethical if the patients are not informed that they are perticipating in a test? Even though we know that in this particular test there is no difference whether they get the remedy or not, it still seems unethical to me.
 
Zep said:
Ah ha! You also help with nutrition and lifestyle changes! That throws an entirely new light on the subject, because you are now talking about some additional processes besides homeopathy that indeed most of us skeptics can agree have observable and even fairly measureable results.

You see, the question then becomes: What is making your patients improve? The lifestyle/nutrition change, or homeopathy, or the combination? If some of them make no difference to the patient then why persist with it?

The potential testing becomes more obvious for you also, and also less likely to adversely affect your patients. And it is simply this: For pairs of similar patients with similar lifestyle/nutritional changes you recommend (perhaps for similar illnesses?), give half homeopathic remedies and half not. Then truthfully observe and record any differences in their progress. I would suggest that you might need a lot more patients tested this way in order to see any reliable trends, if they are there.



Again, this is a single-blind testing protocol, but it is a significant and legitimate improvement on relying on homeopathic provings.

Zep, exarch, hans and bsm,

I want you to understand something. I didn't come tohomeopatyhy believing it would work, it was out of desperation after trying conventional medicine for a long time with no results. When I started using homeopathy I would sometimes get an effect, other times not. It was quite awhile where I was saying that it was certainly possible that the times I got results were coincidence or placebo efffect ( though it would have been nice to have the placebo effect act when I was one one of the bazillion different meds I was on before). This was the way it was for me for a long time. I didn't just one day take a remedy and started seeing stars and hearing angels proclaim it's effectiveness. But after awhile the coincidences seem to many to just be occuring randomly. The placebo effect is possible but when I would treat my bbaby and she almost immediately get better and this occured often enough you begin to doubt that too. I just want you to understand that my strongly held "faith" in homeopathy didn't happen overnight, even after I was seeing results. It took awhile.
 
steenkh said:

Ahem, wouldn't it be unethical if the patients are not informed that they are perticipating in a test? Even though we know that in this particular test there is no difference whether they get the remedy or not, it still seems unethical to me.

I think it would be especially if the person was paying for my services. Another problem with the test is that I more often than not don't get the correct remedy my first consultation. That's common btw, not an indication of my homeopath skills. To be truly fair to homeopathy you would have to take that into account.
 
Barbrae said:
i AM SORRY IF YOU FELT I MADE A STATEMENT ABOUT YOU THAT WAS UNTRUE. I APOLOGISE. NOW, CAN I go back to discussing homeopathy....
That's very nice of you Barb. I'm sorry if I derailed the discussion, it's just that being called a liar does rather upset me. Now, I agree that you're not always rude, and I'd like to get back on better terms. We have managed to interact in the past on friendly terms without scratching each other's eyes out, you know ;) !

If you dislike me so much that you don't want to respond to my posts, then obviously I can't make you. However, I like to discuss homoeopathy too, and I have been known to ask some pertinent questions. You have always seemed to me to be more reasonable than many of the people you keep company with, and I'm sure I'll be very interested in your answers.

So how about we just get on with it and see where it takes us? I can't promise always to be deferential and emollient, but I don't expect that of you either, and if neither of us jumps to take offence, I don't see why we shouldn't get along just fine.

Rolfe.
 
steenkh said:

Ahem, wouldn't it be unethical if the patients are not informed that they are perticipating in a test? Even though we know that in this particular test there is no difference whether they get the remedy or not, it still seems unethical to me.

I don't think you would get it past an ethics comitte. However ther are standard disclaimers avaible.
 
I don't think it's a very good protocol. First, ethically you'd have to explain to the patients what you were doing and get their consent. It's possible many of them might not consent, I suspect. But even if they did, the knowledge that they might not have got their remedy would change the parameters of the test quite significantly - this is a constant problem with blind trials, especially where there is a large subjective or psychological component.

But add to that the fact that Barb would not be blinded and she would be assessing the response of the patients. I don't think it's possible. The patient being in doubt whether or not they got their remedy is one problem, but the homoeopath who questions them and prompts their replies and interprets what's going on not being blinded - I think that's insuperable.

Every time this has been done for a scientific study, a third party has been entrusted with randomising the groups and dispensing the remedies. I don't see how else you can do it.

There was one protocol I liked which involved the supplier sending a lawyer two bottles for each patient - the prescribed individualised remedy, and an identical sham. The lawyer had some random system of deciding who got what, and sent whichever the randomisation code dictated.

I think that's the one where the scientists said they hadn't done anything to discover whether the blinding had been secure, as there seemed to be no way it could have been broken. The result was that there was no difference between the groups. Then a homoeopath wrote to the journal, very irate, criticising the fact that the blinding had not been tested. Er, I thought a breakdown in blinding tended to produce a false positive result!

Rolfe.
 
Let me respond step by step what happened in my opinion (disagree with me if you want):
Originally posted by Barbrae
I want you to understand something. I didn't come tohomeopatyhy believing it would work, it was out of desperation after trying conventional medicine for a long time with no results.
You may have been hoping. Perhaps you were grasping at straws, desperate to see results, who knows?

When I started using homeopathy I would sometimes get an effect, other times not.
Which seems consistent with the usual erratic pattern with which deseases heal all by themselves. One would expect that if something can cure, it can cure every time, not intermittently.

It was quite awhile where I was saying that it was certainly possible that the times I got results were coincidence or placebo efffect ( though it would have been nice to have the placebo effect act when I was one one of the bazillion different meds I was on before).
A bazillion different meds all acting together might also have been a cause why things didn't seem to improve. Stopping (or reducing) the meds might, in itself, already have been part of the reason you felt better. Or perhaps the placebo effect worked in the opposite direction at times (what's it called again), and you expected to feel worse when not taking your regular meds, and you did. Perhaps you had some withdrawal symptoms too, which might explain why you would feel better intermittently, but worse again later on.

This was the way it was for me for a long time. I didn't just one day take a remedy and started seeing stars and hearing angels proclaim it's effectiveness.
Which is what one would expect if it really was the body healing itself the natural way. If you had used a miracle cure, you would have had immediate results ...

But after awhile the coincidences seem to many to just be occuring randomly.
Or you only remembered the coincidences, and forgot or dismissed the occasions when nothing happened. Also, considering the time-span homeopathic effects are suggested to sometimes need to effect a cure, cause and effect might be mistakenly assumed between treatment and improvement

The placebo effect is possible but when I would treat my bbaby and she almost immediately get better and this occured often enough you begin to doubt that too.
Placebo effect is known to work best on third parties, especially pets and non communicating children, since YOU are the one interpreting their condition, and using your own bias to see improvement where there might be none, or miss deterioration of the illness. Basically, the cat or the baby can't tell you they're feeling worse, even if they don't look it.

I just want you to understand that my strongly held "faith" in homeopathy didn't happen overnight, even after I was seeing results. It took awhile.
Granted, and nobody suggested you did change your mind overnight, but we're still interested to find out just how blind your faith really is (or isn't), and if you will insist that what happened could have been nothing else but homeopathy.

Just like it becomes apparent with all the scientific trials, that the miracle cures disappear when the remedies are tested more objectively, so I believe they will also disappear when people examine what they consider to be miracle cures more closely.
 
So Barb says this...


The placebo effect is possible but when I would treat my bbaby and she almost immediately get better and this occured often enough you begin to doubt that too.

This is what really worries me about alt-med-psycho's, especially when babies die unecessarily.

A point that's been made a million times before, I'm sure :(
 
Ernesto said:
So Barb says this...




This is what really worries me about alt-med-psycho's, especially when babies die unecessarily.

A point that's been made a million times before, I'm sure :(

WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA, I have never treated my child with homeopathy for an illness that was lifethreatening. When I spoke of treating her in the above post it was for ear infections (diagnosed by a pediatrician) injuries that do no require medical care, a severe case of pink eye that had n=been treated with conventional drugs that she had a bad reaction to, colds, flus, coughs, etc. I have made it very clear that I have no problem using conventional medicine in serious conditions abnd would do so if the need be.
 
I'm sorry about Ernesto, Barb. He's just joined and I don't think he realises that your practice isn't of the Divina and Albert school.

Can we forget that little digression (and yes, even without clicking the link I know what it's about and we've been all round the houses about whether it was the removal of the anticonvulsants or the homoeopathy that caused the child's death, and whether that was a "true homoeopath" and all the rest of it - see several earlier threads where it was all thrashed out with some of your colleagues)?

What I'd like to know is what grounds you have for some of the statements you were making in earlier posts on this thread. How do you know that homoeopathy will speed up bone healing, or make a cold go away more quickly and so on?

And it would be nice to hear your take on the apparent paradox of you saying that homoeopathy's main effect is to reduce (suppress) these pesky symptoms, as opposed to allopathy, which only - oh, yes, that.

Rolfe.
 
Barbrae I have been lurking in some of the homoeopathy discussions. I wish to say that I am impressed by your responses to this tough crowd, regarding your honesty in answering the ‘10 questions™’ especially this one
I am however, considering doing a test on some plants, just to satisfy my curiosity.
. Believe it or not, but that comment puts you in the same league with some of the greatest scientist ever.
Go for it.
 
I agree, this would be a very good way of testing it. Especially as Barb doesn't think she's sensitive enough to reliably detect a remedy by a self-proving, which is the other obvious possibility.

One problem is that no provings have ever been done on any species other than humans. They're not even done on animals, even though they use homoeopathic remedies on animals. Animals are considered to be similar enough to humans to sort of extrapolate across. But plants? I have a lot of difficulty seeing how you'd pick a remedy by symptom-matching on plants.

On the other hand, there are a few papers where effects of homoeopathic remedies on plands are described. It's all a bit subjective as far as I can see, but there might be something there to base a trial on.

I think the first trick would be actually figuring out which remedy might do what to a plant. Especially given the complexity of homoeopathic theory and the fact that even where you're dealing with humans and doing it by the book, often the first remedy does nothing and you have to try a second or a third and so on. It could get very tedious.

The other problem is that apart from that handful of papers, homoeopathy doesn't claim to be able to affect plants. If it was conclusively proved tomorrow that homoeopathic remedies had absolutely zero influence on plants, that would have no implictions at all for homoeopathic practice. I'd really like to see a repeatable, statistically significant trial on something central to basic homoeopathic theory.

But then that gets us back to treating patients, or being able to recognise a remedy by recognising proving effects.

Difficult one.

Rolfe.
 
Bach flower remedies are supposed to work on plants. Not the same as homeopathy of course, but sometimes there are people who use both, and there's a Bach flower remedy section on the h'pathy board.
 
But if the preparations aren't ultramolar, will anyone be impressed?

Giving a solution that really has some plant molecules in it to plants, and showing that there's an effect - no I don't think I'd cough up the million bucks for that one. (Unless it only worked with shaken-up plant molecules and definitely didn't work with identical-but-not-shaken molecules, maybe.)

Rolfe.
 
Originally posted by Ernesto
This is what really worries me about alt-med-psycho's, especially when babies die unecessarily.
I wonder, with his unreasonable belief in woowoo bunk, could he plead insanity? Think about it, he's nuts, isn't he?
 
Originally posted by Rolfe
I think the first trick would be actually figuring out which remedy might do what to a plant. Especially given the complexity of homoeopathic theory and the fact that even where you're dealing with humans and doing it by the book, often the first remedy does nothing and you have to try a second or a third and so on. It could get very tedious.
I predict that the plants getting homeopathy will live longer than the plants who don't get anything ...


:p :D
 
chance said:
Barbrae I have been lurking in some of the homoeopathy discussions. I wish to say that I am impressed by your responses to this tough crowd, regarding your honesty in answering the ‘10 questions™’ especially this one . Believe it or not, but that comment puts you in the same league with some of the greatest scientist ever.
Go for it.

Thank you very much
 
Rolfe said:
I agree, this would be a very good way of testing it. Especially as Barb doesn't think she's sensitive enough to reliably detect a remedy by a self-proving, which is the other obvious possibility.

One problem is that no provings have ever been done on any species other than humans. They're not even done on animals, even though they use homoeopathic remedies on animals. Animals are considered to be similar enough to humans to sort of extrapolate across. But plants? I have a lot of difficulty seeing how you'd pick a remedy by symptom-matching on plants.

On the other hand, there are a few papers where effects of homoeopathic remedies on plands are described. It's all a bit subjective as far as I can see, but there might be something there to base a trial on.

I think the first trick would be actually figuring out which remedy might do what to a plant. Especially given the complexity of homoeopathic theory and the fact that even where you're dealing with humans and doing it by the book, often the first remedy does nothing and you have to try a second or a third and so on. It could get very tedious.

The other problem is that apart from that handful of papers, homoeopathy doesn't claim to be able to affect plants. If it was conclusively proved tomorrow that homoeopathic remedies had absolutely zero influence on plants, that would have no implictions at all for homoeopathic practice. I'd really like to see a repeatable, statistically significant trial on something central to basic homoeopathic theory.

But then that gets us back to treating patients, or being able to recognise a remedy by recognising proving effects.

Difficult one.

Rolfe.

My first thoughts are choosing a remedy that affects the skin. Perhaps Sulphur?
 

Back
Top Bottom