Mojo
Mostly harmless
But where did he get it from in the first place? It's a complete fabrication.
Dr. Sheikh will prove homoeopathy works or quit!
- Thread starter Mojo
- Start date
-
- Tags
- dr. a sheikh homeopathy
Mojo
Mostly harmless
You offered to conduct the test (or to quit homeopathic practice). It's up to you to organise the necessary resources.
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
Prabably been debating a homeopath.
If your head is pulsating, you have a real problem, camphor or no camphor.
Cholera of the face?
Suppressed gonorrhea?
Hot weather?
Ricewater stool is a symptom of cholera. If you give the patient camphor and nothing else, they will very likely die. Which would be a shame, as it is quite easily treated.
Burning Green Urine would be a good name for a rock band.
Are you saying that camphor causes injuries and accidents, or that injury and accidents cause camphor? Just want to make sure I understand you.
Dr. A Sheikh
Muse
- Joined
- May 18, 2005
- Messages
- 612
I have no money for advertisement. I am a government employee.
drfrank
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2005
- Messages
- 445
I like Rolfe's protocol, although I'd personally state specifically that the fake/real remedy should be chosen randomly by picking a number out of a hat or similar (as coin tossing would not be appropriate if there were X real and X fakes), and not leave it to choice.
Although there won't be any feedback in the trials, there is the possible problem of inadequate randomisation (a la the staring experiment): the lawyer may tend to alternate much more than by expected by a proper random process if based on personal choice, so if the homeopath has a lucky first guess they may get significantly over what is expected by chance (although probably not enough to pass the test).
Some quick numerical results to show how this may raise issues (though this considers a case where each there are not necessarily equal numbers of real/fake remedies in the trial for simplicity).
* Lawyer selects first solution randomly
* For subsequent trials, lawyer selects different solution with probability p = 0.8 and same solution with probability q = 0.2
* Homeopath selects first guess randomly
* Homeopath alternates guesses each trial deterministically.
With this scenario and 20 trials, there is about a 10% chance that the homeopath will guess more than 15 correctly, whereas with a properly randomised test this would be only 0.5%. That's a biiiig difference.
For probability of changing of p = 0.7 this value is about 5%, and for p = 0.6 about 2%.
So, my point is that without proper randomisation you probably won't pass the test, but after a few trials you'd probably start hearing about arguments about statistical significance that would be true, but not for the reasons they think
Rolfe
Adult human female
Why?
The point of this protocol is to allow the homoeopath as much freedom as possible. Supposing you insist that belladonna is used for the test, but the homoeopath doesn't have the wherewithal to test for belladonna, and would rather pick something else?
The idea is, maybe a patient comes along, and the homoeopath is certain that if given a dose of 30C arnica, this patient's condition will change markedly. So he asks for 30C arnica, gives it to the patient and then decides if the expected change has happened or not. Not much use if you insist that you want to give him pulsatilla at this point.
We've had so many "of no I can't work under these circumstances" complaints from homoeopaths that over the years the protocol has been refined to put as little constraint on their practices as possible. The only possible complaint about this one is that there may be a time delay in obtaining the desired remedy, but if that is deemed to be very important it can be addressed by using a lawyer very clost to the homoeopath and arranging for speedy delivery.
In what way do you think the test would be invalidated by allowing the homoeopath to decide which remedy he wants to test at any given trial?
Rolfe.
drfrank
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2005
- Messages
- 445
Aha, I wondered what you meant for a second, but I see this is a simple misunderstanding
What I meant was the choice of whether a real homeopathic remedy or fake one is used in a given trial should be random, not the choice of the type of homeopathic remedy itself.
You're right, of course: the homeopath should be given free reign to choose belladonna/arnica or whatever else they think they can identify.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Ah, we're in agreement. Perhaps my wording was poor. What I meant was that the homoeopath tells the lawyer who is keeping the remedies the name of the remedy he wants. The lawyer then flips a coin to see whether he should send the actual remedy or the sham, then sends whichever the coin dictates.
Of course this would cost a little bit of money to do. You'd have to pay for the remedies to be made, and you'd have some legal bills. Not much, and certainly well worth the investment if you're sure of getting a million dollars at the end of it. But enough to deter those who are just sounding off.
Rolfe.
Of course this would cost a little bit of money to do. You'd have to pay for the remedies to be made, and you'd have some legal bills. Not much, and certainly well worth the investment if you're sure of getting a million dollars at the end of it. But enough to deter those who are just sounding off.
Rolfe.
drfrank
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2005
- Messages
- 445
lol I think we both misunderstood what the other meant
My point was that it was important to have the randomness in selection otherwise, even without feedback, you may well observe very different results. Of course, I see now that you intended such randomness in selection even though it wasn't explicitly written in your protocol
Rolfe
Adult human female
You're right, it needs to be added that whether or not the chosen remedy or the sham is sent is decided by coin-toss, and a secret record kept of which was sent each time.
Rolfe.
Rolfe.
Or have the lawyer blinded by having a fourth party code and mix the preparations so that the lawyer simply needs to hand out the preparation and note the code.
Too much blinding? I mean, which party is paying the lawyer?
Too much blinding? I mean, which party is paying the lawyer?
Rolfe
Adult human female
I think it's OK as it stands so long as the lawyer and the applicant don't meet (that is, a messenger or the post is used to deliver the remedies). If you have too many stages, you increase the chance of a mistake.
The applicant is paying the lawyer.
Rolfe.
Ririon
Cool cat
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2005
- Messages
- 2,059
If legal costs and time is an issue, why don't the homeopath just get a batch of numbered bottles/pills/whatever, and the lawyer could just keep a piece of paper with the information about which numbers were real/placebo? From my experience, calling your lawyer a hundred times costs you a lot of money. The homeopath would then use bottle 1 on patient 1 and so on.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Somehow, it has to be arranged that when the homoeopath decides he wants to test a particular remedy, he is given a bottle which has a 50% chance of being the remedy he asked for and a 50% chance of being a sham. How does your protocol allow for that?
This would not be prohibitively expensive to anyone who seriously thought they could win a million dollars. All that would be required would be to explain to the lawyer what he was required to do - that is the whole protocol - and agree a fee to cover the whole thing. There are plenty of small-town solicitors who don't charge enormous fees.
Rolfe.
This would not be prohibitively expensive to anyone who seriously thought they could win a million dollars. All that would be required would be to explain to the lawyer what he was required to do - that is the whole protocol - and agree a fee to cover the whole thing. There are plenty of small-town solicitors who don't charge enormous fees.
Rolfe.
Ririon
Cool cat
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2005
- Messages
- 2,059
In the same way as the original protocol. The lawyer just sends out all the bottles at one time. I assume that we are testing a limited number of remedies that the lawyer has stored in an appropriate place, and that homeopathic remedies don't have a very limited shelf-life (I mean: How would anybody know what the shelf-life was...).
The homeopath can get an assortment of his favourite remedies:
Marked: Beladonna 30C (bottle #1 - bottle #100), Mercury 25X (bottle #1 - bottle #100) etc.
Only the lawyer would know that bottle #1 was real, bottle #2 was real, bottle #3 was placebo etc. Isn't this roughly how it is done with real medicines, (except you don't use lawyers)?
Rolfe
Adult human female
I suppose. It seems more complicated, and might allow more opportunity for the homoeopath to break the blinding, but hey, who cares, it's the principle of the protocol that's important, the exact "how this is achieved" is for working out. Like exactly how the remedies and sham preparations are prepared and numbered and how the blinding code is worked out and kept secret.
Rolfe.
Rolfe.
Ririon
Cool cat
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2005
- Messages
- 2,059
Sure.
My suggestion would make it easier for the lawyer, since he wouldn't be bothered by a homeopath every day (like some people I know...) and make it cheaper for the applicant (one easy out less).
My suggestion would reduce the contact between the homeopath and the lawyer, thus reducing the chance of breaking the blinding. (You could use a lawyer far away from the homeopath if you wanted to.)
My suggestion would also reduce the interference with the normal operation of the homeopath, and the patient could get the "medicine" immediately. (another possible out taken care of.)
Ririon
ChristineR
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2006
- Messages
- 3,180
