Homeopathy is everywhere!

[SteveGrenard]

Did you see armed guards or policeman/security officers accompany the specimens? Were they at all times under the unbroken purview of the TV audience? Were the results
obtained in full view of the audience? Were the sources of
the homeopathic mixtures followed from their certified creation to their use by security forces and under constant video surveillance?

High stakes Martin. Be at least a little skeptical. Look at places where holes could be found. Then look at the results of thousands of trials that have not taken place on TV and ask yourself, eh?

 

[Martin]

Armed guards? Constant surveillance? Ah, you have a sense of humour after all.

 

[CFLarsen]

Sigh....Steve, I see you are falling back to your old vicious gossipping self....

It is indeed the Horizon show to which I refer and the absurdiity to which skeptics who are Randi followers cling to this single trial which failed to produce results compared to the 1000s of trials that ocurred outside of this arena. There were no controls on this trial on television, it was a single experiment as opposed to thousands and was scientifically meaningless. It is as scientifically meaningless as trying, for example, to determine whether television mediums are genuine or not by watching their performances on the tube. Science is not conducted on TV. Sorry.

What do you base your claim that there were "no controls" on this trial?

Did you watch the program at all?

Why can't a scientific experiment be conducted on TV?

What about Schwartz's HBO experiments? They are not scientific, then?

Darat, what I find amazing about so-called organized skeptics who follow the party line of CSICOP, JREF or the other groups is their failure to question to the stakes.

Please point to what the "party line of CSICOP, JREF or the other groups" are.

Please name these "other groups".

The stakes are very very high. Those who screamed the loudest and the longest that aspirin had no effect save for a placebo effect in heart attack had their flames fanned by scientists and medical people who were financed and supported by companies that made treatments such as TPA which, I grant are very effective but which costs millions, maybe nearly hundreds of millions to develop and costs patients or their insurers three thousand+ dollars a pop.

Who are these people who "screamed the loudest and the longest"?

How do you know it has cost the patients or their insurers three thousand+ dollars a pop?

The mere idea that a two cent over the counter product such as aspirin could help prevent coronary thrombosis and heart attack and, in fact, work nearly as well or as well as products costing thousands was just too much for them to swallow. It's called lobbying.

So a case in point: the lengths, for example to which CSICOP and its organizers went to refute the use of aspirin in coronary thrombosis/chest pain victims or as a prophylactic for coronary artery thrombosis never ceases to amaze me and many others. Fortunately and happily CSICOP was wrong and fortunately and happily nobody listened to their rants and aspirin, at two cents a pop, is now the first line of defense against heart attack and is given to every chest pain case that arrives in virtually any emergency room/casualty department. And we didn't need meta-analysis of tens of thousands of cases to back this up. Aspirin's abilities can be neatly confirmed in a test tube with solid physical evidence. I wonder if Randi would admit it if he were taking a kiddie aspirin a day for his own heart condition? Probably not.

Can you point to where CSICOP refuted the use of aspirin in coronary thrombosis/chest pain victims or as a prophylactic for coronary artery thrombosis?
If they did, do they still hold these views?
How do you know the health of Randi?

But the bigger picture Darat is how many people, dissuaded from taking aspirin for their heart problems, died as a result of CSICOP and JREF's efforts to to discredit the treatment for this purpose? I would hazard that many thousands probably died due to this particular skeptic ticket. And its amazing how skeptics try to invoke the "rules" whenever a post is made which sucessfully refutes their position rather than provide a real response. Legal technicalities have no place in medicine and by the way Clausy old boy, the information posted is in the public domain so find a better way to refute it. How pathetic and reflective of the empty arguments made here with respect to real issues such as this.

Please point to where "many thousands probably died" due to CSICOP and JREF's "efforts to to discredit the treatment for this purpose".

Please point to the rule of this board that allows you to post a whole page from another site.

I think it is time for a SteveGrenard list...

(edited for grandmartichal erors...)

 

[Martin]

Why can't a scientific experiment not be conducted on TV?

Heh. Why can't a scientific experiment not fail to be not conducted not on TV?

 

[SteveGrenard]

There are 103 citations in Medline on homeopathy. Some are pro/con pieces, others details of experiments. Not one was done on television.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi

 

[Martin]

There are 103 citations in Medline on homeopathy. Some are pro/con pieces, others details of experiments. Not one was done on television

And obviously the mere presence of a video camera would have completely invalidated their results

 

[SteveGrenard]

martin: And obviously the mere presence of a video camera would have completely invalidated their results

Nope not the camera. The circumstances and format surrounding its presence. A PR stunt by James Randi and the psychic challenge (not that homeopathy really fits the def of psychic in any way). Too much paranoia to deal with as far as many were concerned. Weighing this singular trial against thousands of others. Do you know what a balance scale is? As in the aspirin example, CSICOP and Randi and JREF should try at least to be open minded about medical advances: recognize they are not PR stunts and whether homeopathic principles (which I do have a personal problem with understanding) are valid or not, not get into the business of medical advocacy this treatment or that over another. I guess its impossible for them to butt out of this and they will be correct in some cases and other times they will end up killing people by being wrong.

They need to turn down the funding and back off people and big pharmaceutical companies who have vested interests in using them to advance a lobbying goal. Hopefully one day there will be a congressional investigation of CSICOP's role in the aspirin affair
and then we'll all find out the truth.

 

[CFLarsen]

Heh. Why can't a scientific experiment not fail to be not conducted not on TV?

Gotcha! I fixed it...

 

[Pyrrho]

And its amazing how skeptics try to invoke the "rules" whenever a post is made which sucessfully refutes their position rather than provide a real response. Legal technicalities have no place in medicine and by the way Clausy old boy, the information posted is in the public domain so find a better way to refute it. How pathetic and reflective of the empty arguments made here with respect to real issues such as this.

Steve, even if the materials are in the public domain, which they do not seem to be, you do need to give proper credit to the authors and a link to the original material, if only as a matter of courtesy. Otherwise, you're in the position of representing someone else's work as your own. Nobody respects plagiarism, whether we're skeptics or not. At the end of the day, you only damage your own credibility.

Regarding legalities, please read this page:

http://www.boiron.com/en/htm/service/info_leg1.htm

With the exception of the above provisions, all reproductions, representations, uses or modifications by any means whatsoever and on any support whatsoever, either of all or of part of the "pages" of the site, without having obtained prior authorization from BOIRON are strictly forbidden and constitute an offense of infringement of copyright.

Technically, unless you can show that you have permission from Boiron to reproduct the materials you posted, it's in violation of Forum rules. However, since Fair Use does permit quotations of materials for the purposes of academic discussions, you can edit your post to provide proper attribution and a link to the page you copied the material from.

Please remember to do this in the future.

 

[SteveGrenard]

from the BBC website:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathy.shtml

The programme gathered a team of scientists from among the most respected institutes in the country. The Vice-President of the Royal Society, Professor John Enderby oversaw the experiment, and James Randi flew in from the United States to watch.

As with Benveniste's original experiment, Randi insisted that strict precautions be taken to ensure that none of the experimenters knew whether they were dealing with homeopathic solutions, or with pure water Two independent scientists performed tests to see whether their samples produced a biological effect. Only when the experiment was over was it revealed which samples were real.

To Randi's relief, the experiment was a total failure. The scientists were no better at deciding which samples were homeopathic than pure chance would have been.

Is there something wrong with this picture? Was this a contest to see if a scientist, with a preconceived bias against
a possibly effective alternative treatment, could judge whether a sample used was homeopathic or not? What about
the positive results, did the homeopathic sample work as advertised? regardless of who could or could not judge
which was which. Was this a blindfolded tasting contest?

I have never heard of an experiment like this conducted at this level. Usually the control substance (e.g. pure water) and the allegedly active substance are put into identical formats and labeled with numbers or letter or coded. The code is held by one person and locked in a safe. Both substance A and B or 1 or 2 or whatever are tested. Then the code is broken. Why were there human judges? What happened to Randi's disdain for judging....oh wait, not unless he happens to like the judges. Then its okay.

 

[Pyrrho]

Nope not the camera. The circumstances and format surrounding its presence. A PR stunt by James Randi and the psychic challenge (not that homeopathy really fits the def of psychic in any way). Too much paranoia to deal with as far as many were concerned. Weighing this singular trial against thousands of others. Do you know what a balance scale is? As in the aspirin example, CSICOP and Randi and JREF should try at least to be open minded about medical advances: recognize they are not PR stunts and whether homeopathic principles (which I do have a personal problem with understanding) are valid or not, not get into the business of medical advocacy this treatment or that over another. I guess its impossible for them to butt out of this and they will be correct in some cases and other times they will end up killing people by being wrong.

They need to turn down the funding and back off people and big pharmaceutical companies who have vested interests in using them to advance a lobbying goal. Hopefully one day there will be a congressional investigation of CSICOP's role in the aspirin affair
and then we'll all find out the truth.

Ye olde conspiracy theory rides again...and dark mention of severe legal action against skeptics...I think your frustration is evident, but why shouldn't we question anything that purports to be an important medical treatment? The big pharmaceutical companies, extremely competitive though they are, have to perform properly conducted trials of their drugs, often for years and years, before even being considered for approval by the FDA. They do not get unrestricted permission to sell drugs even if they get approved. While I wouldn't put it past some companies to mount a secret campaign against homeopathy, I think it's more than a bit ridiculous to presume that they'd hire CSICOP.

Regarding "killing people by being wrong", that presumes that people are only able to use one given treatment for their conditions, which is patently false.

When it comes to medical treatments, we have a duty -- whether we are skeptics or not -- to be skeptical and critical, and to thoroughly question any given treatment. In my opinion, homeopathic treatments should have to obtain FDA approval. I'd like the FDA to either enforce that, and require proper clinical trials. Here's an example of why medical treatments should always be severely questioned:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2605109.stm

The Japanese Health Ministry has said it would impose stricter rules on the use of a lung cancer drug, which it said had been linked to the deaths of 124 patients.
The ministry said the dead were among 494 patients who have developed severe side-effects after using the drug, Iressa, which went on sale in Japan in July.

What is not noted in that article is that AstraZeneca wants to conduct more clinical trials using Japanese people to further test Iressa.

No doubt some will say that my analogy is incorrect, that homeopathic medications are absolutely safe, and I might agree on the basis that homeopathic medications are as only as effective as placebos, but if we take homeopathy at its word, which is that it can effect cures, then we're talking about something that falls within FDA guidelines for determining if a substance is a drug, and it needs to go through the same process. Homeopathy has it much too easy.

 

[Martin]

What about
the positive results, did the homeopathic sample work as advertised?

There was no positive result. The outcome was exactly as expected by chance.

I have never heard of an experiment like this conducted at this level. Usually the control substance (e.g. pure water) and the allegedly active substance are put into identical formats and labeled with numbers or letter or coded. The code is held by one person and locked in a safe. Both substance A and B or 1 or 2 or whatever are tested. Then the code is broken

Which is exactly what happened in the Horizon experiment. Are you comprehensionally challenged?

Why were there human judges? What happened to Randi's disdain for judging....oh wait, not unless he happens to like the judges. Then its okay

There was no judging. Only objective testing.

 

[Pyrrho]

from the BBC website:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathy.shtml
Is there something wrong with this picture? Was this a contest to see if a scientist, with a preconceived bias against
a possibly effective alternative treatment, could judge whether a sample used was homeopathic or not? What about
the positive results, did the homeopathic sample work as advertised? regardless of who could or could not judge
which was which. Was this a blindfolded tasting contest?

I have never heard of an experiment like this conducted at this level. Usually the control substance (e.g. pure water) and the allegedly active substance are put into identical formats and labeled with numbers or letter or coded. The code is held by one person and locked in a safe. Both substance A and B or 1 or 2 or whatever are tested. Then the code is broken. Why were there human judges? What happened to Randi's disdain for judging....oh wait, not unless he happens to like the judges. Then its okay.

Oh, come on. It was a properly conducted, properly blinded test. Just because the article writer used the word "decided" does not mean Randi used "judges". It's quite clear that the substances were put through proper testing. If the test is wrong, then subsequent test using the exact same protocols should show an effect for the geniuneness of homeopathy. They took pains to do this correctly. Randi knows very well that every aspect of the test would be scrutinized by the homeopathic community -- it would be self-defeating for him to screw it up by using subjective judging, which he did not use.

 

[Pyrrho]

For reference, the special treatment FDA gives homeopathic preparations:

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/096_home.html

http://www.fda.gov/ora/compliance_ref/cpg/cpgdrg/cpg400-400.html

 

[CFLarsen]

Steve,

The Horizon "Homeopathy" program

• What do you base your claim that there were "no controls" on this trial?
• Did you watch the program at all?
• Why can't a scientific experiment be conducted on TV?
• What about Schwartz's HBO experiments? They are not scientific, then?
• Please show how Randi "engineered" the television stunt to "discredit" homeopathy.
• How do you know that the scientist had a "preconceived bias against a possibly effective alternative treatment"?
• Do you claim that the test was conducted differently than what you said should be done: "Usually the control substance (e.g. pure water) and the allegedly active substance are put into identical formats and labeled with numbers or letter or coded. The code is held by one person and locked in a safe. Both substance A and B or 1 or 2 or whatever are tested. Then the code is broken."?
• Do you maintain that judging was used, and not objective testing?

CSICOP/JREF

• Please point to what the "party line of CSICOP, JREF or the other groups" is.
• Please name the "other groups" you mentioned.
• How do you know the health of Randi?

Aspirin as treatment for coronary thrombosis

• Who are these people who "screamed the loudest and the longest" against the use of aspirin for this?
• How do you know it has cost the patients or their insurers three thousand+ dollars a pop?
• Can you point to where CSICOP refuted the use of aspirin in coronary thrombosis/chest pain victims or as a prophylactic for coronary artery thrombosis?
• If they did, do they still hold these views?
• Please point to where you got the information that "many thousands probably died" due to CSICOP and JREF's "efforts to to discredit the treatment for this purpose".

Misc.

• Please point to the rule of this board that allows you to post a whole page from another site.

Please either:

• address the questions, providing either a retraction or evidence of your claims, or
• state that, despite the evidence to the contrary, you still wish to believe what you claimed, or
• state that you refuse to answer.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Hey, the program had real tight control. Randi and that other guy put that envelope on the ceiling, dontchaknow?

Anything on TV is entertainment. A skeptical presentation of things on TV is still entertainment.

I'll only consider things seriously as non-entertainment if they are presented in respectable peer-reviewed journals.

 

[Martin]

Hey, the program had real tight control. Randi and that other guy put that envelope on the ceiling, dontchaknow?

That was Benveniste's experiment, not the Horizon one. The controls used in the Horizon experiment were exactly what one would expect in any well designed double blind protocol.

 

[SteveGrenard]

The Homeopathic community has taken a hard look at the single trial of 40 samples run on Horizons/Randi's deunking program. The New Scientist published a longer editorial on this but I only append the last three paragraphs:

http://www.homeopathic.org/news1202.htm

Excerpted from:

TV Homeopathy Trial was 'Flawed'

Robert Matthews in The New Scientist

December 7, 2002

On website: http://www.homeopathic.org/news1202.htm

While sceptics seized on the result as proof that homeopathy is nonsense, the study itself has come under attack for being too small to have any hope of confirming the size of effect seen in previous studies. Even Ennis, who is an avowed sceptic, says the Horizon experiment was incapable of making any kind of definitive conclusion. "In our [original] study we had thousands of samples," she points out.

The programme's statistical adviser, Martin Bland of St George's Hospital Medical School in London, declined to comment on the issue of sample size. He did tell New Scientist, however, that "it is obviously true that because one system fails to detect 'memory' in one experiment we cannot infer that there is no 'memory'."

Nathan Williams, the programme's producer, stresses that each of the 40 samples was tested on several different sets of cells, boosting the statistical power of the study. "We weren't attempting to replicate the much larger studies, as there are problems with the counting methods used," he says. (~)
While sceptics seized on the result as proof that homeopathy is nonsense, the study itself has come under attack for being too small to have any hope of confirming the size of effect seen in previous studies. Even Ennis, who is an avowed sceptic, says the Horizon experiment was incapable of making any kind of definitive conclusion. "In our [original] study we had thousands of samples," she points out.

The programme's statistical adviser, Martin Bland of St George's Hospital Medical School in London, declined to comment on the issue of sample size. He did tell New Scientist, however, that "it is obviously true that because one system fails to detect 'memory' in one experiment we cannot infer that there is no 'memory'."

So what have the closed minded skeptics done in response, they replied that this single trial refutes Ennis' thousands of trials and that her numerous trials (and those of others) were statsitically flawed. Okay, SO it becomes a he said, she said ...literally.

The fact is there is no done deal on this yet with evidence racking up on both sides. Insofar as anything Randi does on a singular basis, if you want a definition of useless anecdote, this would be it.

By controls I refer to impartiality of scientific judges and security in the handling of the samples to be tested as well as the products they are to be tested against. Not controls in the sense of a control group and an active group.

Unlike Schwartz who did follow-up experiments off camera to see if he could get similar results with mediumship than he got when they were filming the original trials for HOB, these Horizon people did no pre or post experimental work to back up their findings.
They rested their entire case on this one anecdotal trial. I wonder why?

 

[Pyrrho]

Hey, the program had real tight control. Randi and that other guy put that envelope on the ceiling, dontchaknow?

Anything on TV is entertainment. A skeptical presentation of things on TV is still entertainment.

I'll only consider things seriously as non-entertainment if they are presented in respectable peer-reviewed journals.

Good point, and nice irony...now where have I seen that argument used before...I'm getting an S...and a K...and an E, hmmm....skeptic...nah, couldn't be...

It will probably cause further ire when people realize that the program was also a try to win the JREF Challenge. How disreputable can you get?

 

[Darat]

Steve - should I now assume that you can't support your statement "... Randi engineered television stunt to discredit..."?

My conclusion has to be that it was just a piece of hyperbole because you don't like Randi.