Homeopathic migraine relief

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

[raises hand excitedly]
Please, sir, I got it! (Pretty lame, as I didn't actually answer the post at the time...)

There a few woo-words there, "succussion" is equivalent to saying "we're doing homoeopathy, actually", and "physico-chemical properties" has a nice ring to it but doesn't actually say much, but inded, the word "permanently" absolutely proves over-interpretation.

This is the guy who hasn't yet tried his method blind, as far as we know? Right?

Rolfe.

Xanta,

Two replies.

1. Was it blinded or not? "Permanence" is a subsidiary issue and I'll give you an answer once you supply that information.

2. Read this: http://drambuie.lanl.gov/~bayes/bayes.htm and see whether you can understand why the issue of prior probability is a problem for you and your "p<.0001". Make a fair stab at a sensible answer and I'll give you some more help. Say something smart-arsed and I'll not.

 

[Mojo]

it provides the mechanism for the histamine/basophil papers and all the other in vitro studies that support the idea that SAD's are bioactive, and it supports the numerous DBPC studies that support homeopathy, and it supports the millions of patients and MDs that know it works.

Hey! I thought you said you didn't like to talk about homeopathy:

i really prefer to not even discuss homeopathy because quite frankly it does sound like the biggest load of rubbish ever presented to mankind.

 

[Mojo]

Interesting also that the debating position adopted by Gold, someone you claim not to be, in the thread BSM linked to (initial scepticism because the idea seemed ridiculous)

Originally posted by Gold
the mere thought of homeopathy turned my stomach because it seemed so outlandish.

So closely resembles your style as "Nerr"

Originally posted by Olaf/QII
i really prefer to not even discuss homeopathy because quite frankly it does sound like the biggest load of rubbish ever presented to mankind.

Even down to the lack of capitalisation.

 

[Olaf/QII]

I see you are now ignoring the over-ambitious claim to pemanent effects when it is pointed out that it might threaten the reliability of the study. Ah, well. It's your problem, not mine.

Here we thus show that successive dilutions and succussions can permanently alter the physico-chemical properties of the water solvent.

Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry
Department of Chemistry, University 'Federico II' of Naples, Complesso Universitario di Monte S. Angelo, via Cintia, 80126 Naples


in this study the researchers stored the SAD's for up to 9 months and discovered that the effect still existed.

--and from page 835 of the study

"...the evolution of some physico-chemical parameters with time, that hints at the hypothesis of a trigger effect on the formation of molecular aggregates"


badly shaved monkey ---- do you still have a problem with their use of the word permanent?

 

[Olaf/QII]

.

I see you are now ignoring the over-ambitious claim to pemanent effects when it is pointed out that it might threaten the reliability of the study. Ah, well. It's your problem, not mine.

no, i happened to read the paper whereas you did not. a part of the study was to store these solutions for up to 9 months and at the end of that time remeasure.

BSM -- you are tripping yourself all up by refusing to have an open mind about any of this. this is an emotional issue for you and that is the problem.

you HATE anything to do with ultra-dilute solutions and that clouds your judgement.

 

[Olaf/QII]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...4779&query_hl=1
. Chest. 2005 Mar;127(3):936-41.

Influence of potassium dichromate on tracheal secretions in critically ill patients.

Frass M, Dielacher C, Linkesch M, Endler C, Muchitsch I, Schuster E, Kaye A.


=========================

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...st_uids=7917505&dopt=Abstract&itool=iconabstr

Critical review and meta-analysis of serial agitated dilutions in experimental toxicology.

Linde K, Jonas WB, Melchart D, Worku F, Wagner H, Eitel F.
6. Among the high quality studies, positive effects were reported 50% more often than negative effects


================================


http://www.vhan.nl/documents/Rey.thermoluminescence.pdf

http://www.mercola.com/2003/jun/28/homeopathy.htm



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11737881


CONCLUSIONS: Both Cad Sulph-30 and 200 were able to combat cadmium induced genotoxic effects in mice and that combined pre- and post-feeding mode of administration was found to be most effective in reducing the genotoxic effect of CdCl2 followed by the post-feeding mode.



http://else.hebis.de/cgi-bin/sciser...161813x&issue=v23i0003&article=307_neocigcrcn

Neurotoxicology Vol: 23, Issue: 3, September, 2002

Non-Linear Effects of Cycloheximide in Glutamate-Treated Cultured Rat Cerebellar Neurons

 

[Mojo]

Here we thus show that successive dilutions and succussions can permanently alter the physico-chemical properties of the water solvent.

Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry
Department of Chemistry, University 'Federico II' of Naples, Complesso Universitario di Monte S. Angelo, via Cintia, 80126 Naples

Why do you post the place of work of the authors, rather than the authors' names (Elia and Niccoli if anyone wants to know), the article title or an actual reference? Is it to make it just a little more awkward for people to find and critique the study?

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Xanta,

Two replies.

1. Was it blinded or not? "Permanence" is a subsidiary issue and I'll give you an answer once you supply that information.

2. Read this: http://drambuie.lanl.gov/~bayes/bayes.htm and see whether you can understand why the issue of prior probability is a problem for you and your "p<.0001". Make a fair stab at a sensible answer and I'll give you some more help. Say something smart-arsed and I'll not.

No, I haven't read it. You brought this paper up and should be able to answer the first of these two questions because you have read it and think it is imprtant.

Was it blinded?

Obviously you haven't followed up on the implications of my second question.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

you HATE anything to do with ultra-dilute solutions and that clouds your judgement.

"hate" is a very strong word. I don't hate you or it. I think you are silly, I don't have much of an opinion on these studies, but so far I have seen nothing worth getting excited over. Now, if you could just get over yourself we'll see whether there is anything worth learning from these studies, but it it's like the last time I bothered to read one of your citations in full you are in for a disappointment. Please just answer how the study was randomised, controlled and blinded then we can move on.

If it was not properly controlled and blinded then it is worthless, literally of no worth whatsoever. But, I'll hold judgement until you answer.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Well, Xanta, I have now registered on the SpringerLink site, but all that gives access to is the abstract. I am not paying money to read a reference that you raised to support an case you are presenting, so unless you can show me a free location to read the full text, just answer the damn questions. Was the study properly blinded and how was it controlled?

Rolfe suggested it was unblinded so I think you are just stalling, as ever.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Mwahahahaha! I just looked at the mercola link. It was good for a laugh!

No surprise to see this on HIS site. Sheesh.

 

[Olaf/QII]

.
Homeowatchers would do better to pay attention to a set of odd results have been presented by by V. Elia and M. Niccoli, chemists at the University of Naples, starting with "Thermodynamics of Extremely Diluted Solutions." Ann N Y Acad Sci 1999; 879: 241-248. I believe this got mentioned somewhere in the enormous Homeopathy is everywhere! thread, but unfortunately, I can't be bothered to wade through its 20 pages. I've also been unable to get hold of this paper.

Fortunately, they did a follow-up "New Physico-Chemical Properties of Water Induced by Mechanical Treatments." in the Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry 2000, 61, 527-537, which is easier to get hold of, and a new paper "New physico-chemical properties of extremely diluted aqueous solutions" is due for publication, once again in the J Therm Analysis Calorim. Not out yet, though, so I can only find the abstract. I note that the 2000 paper has only been cited once - by the 2004 paper!

Anyway, in these experiments, the authors claim to have observed permanent changes in physicochemical properties (heats of mixing wtih acid and base, electrical conductivity and pH) of solutions after successive dilution and succussion, ending up with dilutions of 1.e-5 mol/kg.

All in all, highly reminscent of Louis Rey's thermoluminescence work, that we've discussed a couple of times. I can provide more details if anyone's interested.

I agree James. This is very important. Thanks for pointing it out.

 

[Mojo]

I agree James. This is very important. Thanks for pointing it out.

He pointed it out on the 8th May 2004. Couldn't you have thanked him nearer the time? It was in one of your own threads, after all.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Well, Xanta, I have now registered on the SpringerLink site, but all that gives access to is the abstract. I am not paying money to read a reference that you raised to support an case you are presenting, so unless you can show me a free location to read the full text, just answer the damn questions. Was the study properly blinded and how was it controlled?

Rolfe suggested it was unblinded so I think you are just stalling, as ever.

Xanta,

You seem to have trawled up a post from 13months ago but seem to have forgotten to answer about how the controls were set up in that study. You said you 've read it, so please share your wisdom with us, great sage.

 

[Olaf/QII]

Xanta,

You seem to have trawled up a post from 13months ago but seem to have forgotten to answer about how the controls were set up in that study. You said you 've read it, so please share your wisdom with us, great sage.

please refer to me by my correct name --- Nerr, thank you.

Moderator, i request that you return my rightful name to me now that you have had your fun.

BSM,

jamesM has already explained that.

Do not be afraid of the results. science of this type is never meant to cause emotional reactions such as you are displaying. embrace this groundbreaking research.

 

[Zep]

Do not be afraid of the results. science of this type is never meant to cause emotional reactions such as you are displaying. embrace this groundbreaking research.

Yeah yeah, whatever.

Was the study you cited blinded and controlled or not?

We're all on tenterhooks.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Yeah yeah, whatever.

Was the study you cited blinded and controlled or not?

We're all on tenterhooks.

Xanta,

Your continued evasion of this simple question is typical of the dishonest approach we have met in practically every supporter of homeopathy we have ever come across.

There isn't any point in attempting to debate with you unless you stop trying to cheat.

 

[Mojo]

jamesM has already explained that.

So he has:

Posted by JamesM here
Chemists don't do blinding at all under most circumstances, as it's completely unnecessary.

However, if the implications of your research was to overturn the last two hundred years of chemistry, then I would say that blinding was the least you could do. If I had been a referee for this paper, I would have rejected it.

I hadn't realised the paper was 2 years old now - how time flies. But we've now reached the point where the lack of replication relegates this from "interesting, but probably spurious" to "probably spurious".

So, do you agree with JamesM that the study should have been blinded?

 

[Mojo]

For that matter, do you agree with JamesM's other conclusion about the study?

 

[Olaf/QII]

Chemists don't do blinding in these cases. I am sure that if you or others want to fund them for ANOTHER replication they would be more than happy to blind.