Homeopathy does work

[Kumar]

And just where did I suggest that you had to do repeated tests on the same remedy, or do the tests at a set time, or indeed that the ratio of real remedies to blanks wasn't 50-50?

Your pathetic stream of excuses for the self-evident fact that your pet remedies do absolutely nothing is simply embarrassing.

Rolfe.

By the way, Vikram, while debating with that idiot Michael Anda about the GSIC, Kramer confirmed that for a simple yes/no determination, 9 correct out of 10 would be acceptable for the preliminary phase. So if he sticks by that, the same would presumably apply to a yes/no identification of a potentised remedy.

My own preferred protocol, for simplicity, would be for the applicant to state what remedy they wanted, then to be given either that or a placebo, in whatever quantity they stipulated. Then they can do what they like to tell if they've been given the real thing or not. Repeat ten times - it can be the same remedy each time, or different ones, and the method used (proving, trial on selected patients, NMR, mass spectroscopy, whatever) can be the same or different every time. Just get it right 9 times, and you've passed the preliminary.

What does it means?

 

[Rolfe]

My own preferred protocol, for simplicity, would be for the applicant to state what remedy they wanted, then to be given either that or a placebo, in whatever quantity they stipulated. Then they can do what they like to tell if they've been given the real thing or not. Repeat ten times - it can be the same remedy each time, or different ones, and the method used (proving, trial on selected patients, NMR, mass spectroscopy, whatever) can be the same or different every time. Just get it right 9 times, and you've passed the preliminary.

What does it means?

It means

The applicant should state what remedy they want, then they are given either that or a placebo, in whatever quantity they stipulate (to clarify, a 50/50 chance, decided by the toss of a coin). Then they can do what they like to tell if they've been given the real thing or not. Repeat ten times - it can be the same remedy each time, or different ones, and the method used (proving, trial on selected patients, NMR, mass spectroscopy, whatever) can be the same or different every time. Just get it right 9 times, and you've passed the preliminary.

Which part of that do you not understand?

Rolfe.

 

[Mojo]

From what I've seen of his answers to questions posed to him in this forum, I imagine Kumar's testing for the prize going something like this:

Superviser: Here are the vials. Tell me which one has the real remedy in it.

Kumar: Please tell me, which vial has the remedy?

S: No, you're supposed to tell me.

K: But which one has real remedy?

S: I can't tell you, because it would invalidate the test.

K: Please tell me, which vial has real remedy?

S: Look, it's a double blinded test. I couldn't tell you even if I wanted to, because I don't know myself.

K: Perhaps you are not telling me due to vested interest?

S: I can't tell you because I don't know.

K: You can test them according to your methods, and tell me, which is real remedy?

S: No, the whole point of the test is for you to tell me which has the real remedy. In any case, as far as I'm aware there isn't any difference, and there are therefore no tests capable of telling the difference.

K: Perhaps you can tell the difference because of isomerisation of the solvent [or whatever daft idea he's pushing at the time].

S: No, you have to tell me!

K: You have a duty to carry out the test for the good of mankind.

S: The whole point of the test is that you are supposed to tell me which is the real remedy.

K: You can carry out the test because you have been funded by your government to do this.

S: No, in this test, you have to tell me....

Continue ad nauseam...

 

[wahrheit]

From what I've seen of his answers to questions posed to him in this forum, I imagine Kumar's testing for the prize going something like this:

Superviser: Here are the vials. Tell me which one has the real remedy in it.

Kumar: Please tell me, which vial has the remedy?

S: No, you're supposed to tell me.

K: But which one has real remedy?

S: I can't tell you, because it would invalidate the test.

K: Please tell me, which vial has real remedy?

S: Look, it's a double blinded test. I couldn't tell you even if I wanted to, because I don't know myself.

K: Perhaps you are not telling me due to vested interest?

S: I can't tell you because I don't know.

K: You can test them according to your methods, and tell me, which is real remedy?

S: No, the whole point of the test is for you to tell me which has the real remedy. In any case, as far as I'm aware there isn't any difference, and there are therefore no tests capable of telling the difference.

K: Perhaps you can tell the difference because of isomerisation of the solvent [or whatever daft idea he's pushing at the time].

S: No, you have to tell me!

K: You have a duty to carry out the test for the good of mankind.

S: The whole point of the test is that you are supposed to tell me which is the real remedy.

K: You can carry out the test because you have been funded by your government to do this.

S: No, in this test, you have to tell me....

Continue ad nauseam...

 

[Jocce]

No some people just try to justify themselves or to their pro-systems, not to contribute anything.

Look up introspection

 

[Jocce]

As I discussed previously, these remedies are very delicate & can be effective, if you open your mouth completely to these with belief & hunger.

So you need to believe? Placebo then...

I have mentioned many scientific laws, whose words also justify that effects are not similar in repeated/excess dose.

You have not. All you did was copy and paste some random textsnippets that you don't understand. Why you did it is very unclear.

But I don't think that 1:1 ratio with 30-50% positive verbal reports can not be acceptable for the prize, because this can also be treated as 'by chance'. But since it was indicated during THESE DISCUSSIONS & still got me exicited, I reacted accordingly.

Lots of things gets you excited my dear, that's for sure. It's the bliss of being intellectually underpriviliged.

Then, it tells that:
Due to less preferances, means, supports etc. are given to "other systems", those may not have so much dicipilined/tuned results/theories as modern systems can have. So their 30 to 50% positives or in ratio, these are supported in comparisn to modern systems, should/can be treated as valid. BUT????

Ahh...ok, I understand now. Conventional medicine works better because of vested interest and that's unfair to HP remedies? Maybe they get shy when they have to perform and therefore fail? Yeah...as likely as any other theory you've come up with.

 

[flume]

I should point out that a long time ago I did post the link to abstract which talked about grinding lactose in a ball mill, which is a means of trituration used by at least one homeopathic company. This may be what Kumar is remembering. If they started out with either alpha lactose or beta lactose, there was some change in the relative amounts of alpha lactose and beta lactose after trituration (at least in this one paper). I was not able to tell whether there was a difference between alpha and beta lactose digestion. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1675269

J Pharm Pharmacol. 1991 Mar;43(3):148-53.
Isomerization of lactose in solid-state by mechanical stress during grinding.
Otsuka M, Ohtani H, Kaneniwa N, Higuchi S.
...After 10 h grinding of alpha-monohydrate and alpha-anhydrate, 10 and 15%, respectively, of alpha-lactose was transformed into beta-lactose by the mechanical treatment. After 10 h grinding of beta-lactose, 20% of beta-lactose was transformed into alpha-lactose. The results suggest that crystalline lactose was transformed into a non-crystalline solid, and water was adsorbed on the non-crystalline lactose. The non-crystalline solids of alpha- or beta-lactose were then transformed into their counterparts by the mechanochemical effects of grinding

It would be useful to know what the natural occurrence of alpha and beta lactose is in milk products and also in the commercial lactose used by homeopathic companies. If there is already some mix of alpha and beta, then additional trituration in this way during remedy preparation would not make any difference. Could it possibly matter? Lots of people have trouble digesting lactose anyway.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Funnily enough, I don't need to look up Wikipedia to find out what an isomer is.

I can tell you that nothing of that sort occurs due to shaking or grinding, no matter how vigorous. As you have been told many times, the most that will happen to the substance is that it will get very slightly warmer. Give it up.

Interesting how Mas was at one stage trying to portray succussion as such a gentle agitation that it was quite conceivable mixing of the solution would not be uniform, but Kumar wants so much energy that major chemical reactions can occur!

Rolfe.

Hah! Chemical reactions are childsplay. Remember Tim Kelleher? He wanted nuclear fusion to occur when water is shaken!

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Ok, can you tell any geomatrical change in inter ot intra molecules of a laticce of water, alcohol or lactose effected by potentisation process?

No. You need to do smoething first before you can understand the answer to that question, i.e.;

If you want to make progress then explain why;

"Somewhat alike H2O>>OH2"

" O2+H2O= H2O3 or HO+H2O
H2O3+H2O=H4O4 or HO+H2O
H4O4+H2O=H6O5...
.......so on."

and

"1M H2O, 1M HOH, IM OHH or .1M H2O, 1.9M HOH, 1MOHH"

are so misconceived.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

By the way, Vikram, while debating with that idiot Michael Anda about the GSIC, Kramer confirmed that for a simple yes/no determination, 9 correct out of 10 would be acceptable for the preliminary phase. So if he sticks by that, the same would presumably apply to a yes/no identification of a potentised remedy.

My own preferred protocol, for simplicity, would be for the applicant to state what remedy they wanted, then to be given either that or a placebo, in whatever quantity they stipulated. Then they can do what they like to tell if they've been given the real thing or not. Repeat ten times - it can be the same remedy each time, or different ones, and the method used (proving, trial on selected patients, NMR, mass spectroscopy, whatever) can be the same or different every time. Just get it right 9 times, and you've passed the preliminary.

What does it means?

I think our poor innumerate friend has a problem with the ratios implicit in the protocol. He thinks that he's going to get the $1M for a test that has an overall 30-50% chance of being passed and something has prompted even him to realise that Randi is not going to give away $1M on the basis of odds that are about the same as a coin-toss.

I think this particular muddle arises from confusing a. the ratio of real to placebo; b. the ratio of correct to incorrect identifications and c. the overall probability of obtaining b. given a.

He thinks a. is 30-50%

Edited to correct that last line:

He thinks c. is 30-50%!

 

[Vikram]

By the way, Vikram, while debating with that idiot Michael Anda about the GSIC, Kramer confirmed that for a simple yes/no determination, 9 correct out of 10 would be acceptable for the preliminary phase. So if he sticks by that, the same would presumably apply to a yes/no identification of a potentised remedy.

Rolfe,

You're absolutely right, of course. However, Kumar would certainly balk at a protocol like this and reject it because it demands "90% accuracy", while he can only reach "30%-50%". I tried to give him a protocol that would require him to be right only 50% of the time. I thought perhaps that might appeal to him. I was wrong.

Kumar has such a poor understanding of simple arithmetic (eg: he expects the JREF to offer the million for 50% accuracy on a yes/no determination test) that attempting to explain probability to him would be an impossible task. The existence of Kumar is perhaps the strongest argument there is for the existence of a God with a bizarre sense of humor.

Your protocol is succinct and economical and should ideally be accepted instantly by homeopaths who are not yet clinically insane. I wonder why MAS and the others don't grab it.

As for Kumar, I've put him on ignore because reading his ignorant ramblings has actually become a migraine-inducing chore for me.

 

[Mojo]

Your protocol is succinct and economical and should ideally be accepted instantly by homeopaths who are not yet clinically insane.

I disagree. A homeopath would have to be totally bonkers to take it up!

 

[Dirk Gently]

The problem, Dr MAS is that science cannot reliably explain how the homeopathic effect works.

 

[Rolfe]

Rolfe,

You're absolutely right, of course. However, Kumar would certainly balk at a protocol like this and reject it because it demands "90% accuracy", while he can only reach "30%-50%". I tried to give him a protocol that would require him to be right only 50% of the time. I thought perhaps that might appeal to him. I was wrong.

Yes, I realised that's what you were doing. I thought it was very elegant. I just wanted to see what would happen if we put the question back to the simple yes/no determination, after Kumar demonstrated that he didn't have a clue what you were getting at.

Kumar has such a poor understanding of simple arithmetic (eg: he expects the JREF to offer the million for 50% accuracy on a yes/no determination test) that attempting to explain probability to him would be an impossible task. The existence of Kumar is perhaps the strongest argument there is for the existence of a God with a bizarre sense of humor.

There are moments when I wonder if it's actually "Kumar" who has the bizarre sense of humour, and we're all playing up to him like mad.

Your protocol is succinct and economical and should ideally be accepted instantly by homeopaths who are not yet clinically insane. I wonder why MAS and the others don't grab it.

Gosh, I don't know, really. When I put it straight to a veterinary homoeopath colleague of mine (after he had urged me to take some 30C belladonna myself and be instantly amazed by the striking effects I'd experience) he came up with the classic get-out that Randi is a stage magician and therefore not to be trusted.

Given that they claim these striking "proving" effects on healthy people from the magic sugar pills, and that these provings are in fact the very bedrock of their clinical practice, I'd have thought it would be simplicity itself to win the Challenge that way. No need for real patients with real conditions and individualisation and so on, just demonstrate that you can really recognise these incredibly striking effects (so striking you actually expect sceptics to experience them and be converted), and walk away with the million.

But dearie me, if they couldn't do it, it wouldn't just be a little embarrassment to be explained away by poor individualisation or refractory disease, it would actually show that the basis of their entire theory and practice is imaginary. Oops.

As for Kumar, I've put him on ignore because reading his ignorant ramblings has actually become a migraine-inducing chore for me.

The only problem with that is the "view this post" button. Now, if there were only some way to get that removed, it would be better.

Rolfe.

 

[Perpetual Notion]

I've discovered that I can no longer read Kumar's posts on their own. I can only read them in the context of other's replies. I have to have them diluted and successed otherwise it leads to an overwhelming desire to fly to Pakistan and take a hammer to his computer.

Excellent protocol Rolfe. I wouldn't see any problem with a reputable homeopath accepting this challenge. Has Barbrae ever weighed in on it?

 

[Donks]

The problem, Dr MAS is that science cannot reliably explain how the homeopathic effect works.

The problem is that there is no homeopathic effect to speak of.

 

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*
Excellent protocol Rolfe. I wouldn't see any problem with a reputable homeopath accepting this challenge. Has Barbrae ever weighed in on it?

That is because deep down they know they would fail.

Hans

 

[Perpetual Notion]

Do you really think that all homeopaths know that what they're doing is bunk? Surely there are True Believers out there.

 

[Dirk Gently]

The problem is that there is no homeopathic effect to speak of.

Well that's not quite true. We know that there are homeopathic effects, there is argument about how and what, not existence of effect.

 

[Ashles]

Well that's not quite true. We know that there are homeopathic effects, there is argument about how and what, not existence of effect.

Do you mean 'Placebo' effect?

There is no known homeopathic effect.
Unless you have some new studies that we don't know about...