Homeopathy is everywhere!
- Thread starter Dub
- Start date
-
- Tags
- homeopathy
SteveGrenard said:
Children being kept caged, Steve?? We're not talking serious research here, we are talking about serious child abuse!
You had better back up your accusation with facts, Steve. Where did you hear this? Who were these kids? Who were the researchers?
If it is unpublished, how do you know about it?
I was going to ask a similar question. He makes it appear he has witnessed this "test". If so, one must also wonder what was really used to "suddenly and completely shut down" these children. Obviously, it is not a sip of diluted caffiene. Were they really given a potent narcotic?
Darat,
To summarize, you haven't addressed the points from your own link why it makes it impossible to do science on television.
Your argument is negated by information from your own link. You are obviously talking about a small family of Mr. Wizard experiments, while I am talking about the discipline of science.
Now, quote me and remove these points again:
Reasons, from Darat's own link, why science can't be done on TV:
1. "the experiment must be interesting enough to hold the public's attention"
2. "the experiment must work on live TV"
3. "the experiment must be comprehensible by a lay audience"
4. "viewers must be able to take part from home and report results over the phone"
5. "the conclusion must be ready before the end of the 30 minute programme."
Darat, science has none of these restrictions.
To summarize, you haven't addressed the points from your own link why it makes it impossible to do science on television.
Your argument is negated by information from your own link. You are obviously talking about a small family of Mr. Wizard experiments, while I am talking about the discipline of science.
Now, quote me and remove these points again:
Reasons, from Darat's own link, why science can't be done on TV:
1. "the experiment must be interesting enough to hold the public's attention"
2. "the experiment must work on live TV"
3. "the experiment must be comprehensible by a lay audience"
4. "viewers must be able to take part from home and report results over the phone"
5. "the conclusion must be ready before the end of the 30 minute programme."
Darat, science has none of these restrictions.
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
BoTox: Could be, but he is sure looking foolish using that study to show that a) the current dosage is not 10 mg, and b) dosages much lower than 10 mg are effective.
Ans: I gave the reference/title of the study. I provided the abstract. The authors names are listed. The study is in the j of the Amer Psych Assoc Probably in Medline but I didnt get it from there. It speaks for itself. Who said the current dosage is not 10 mg? It has always been 10 mg, what I said was that it was 10 mgs before the drug, a stimulant and so-called smart pill also used for weight loss, was discovered of value in treating ADD and hyperactivity in children. I am old enough to remember this, are you? If you were born after the drug was approved and principaly known for treating hyperactivity in children then I understand your tunnel vision. However, does this suggest that another dose might be possible? Are you that closed minded as to accept a dosage established 40 years ago for one purpose as the dosage for another purpose now?
I ask again, and I appreciate the author's abstract was vague when they said between placebo and 10 mgs but if its lower doses, leaning more toward placebo, what are we talking about? A placebo has no drug. A notch above placebo has very little.
A few molecules perhaps? I havent read the full paper so can't tell you right now what strengths were involved. Sorry to speculate but just following what the abstract says. I found it a fascinating choice of terminology given our subject matter.
And so what do we have here? A substance that exemplifies "like cures like" as well as a paradoxical dose/response effect. The lower the dose, the more effective these authors found it to be.
Actually BoTox it wasn't a test. The technique was used by Nurses who were group home owners/operators catering to these children long before I witnessed it. I guess it was a Test for me. No narcotics were involved. No sedatives or sleeping meds were involved save for milk. But milk without the caffeine doesn't do what milk with the caffeine did. Now you can find refs for the paradoxical effects of the stimulant caffeine working in a fashion similar to ritalin and amphetamines. But believe me Roche and the makers of generic methylphenidate don't want to hear about their market being usurped by a couple of dollars annually worth of caffeine compared to $200 per pt monthly for Ritalin or a bit less for the generic. But the point is caffeine is yet another "like cures like" and at miniscule dosages or very high dilutions (e.g. 300 to 1).
Ans: I gave the reference/title of the study. I provided the abstract. The authors names are listed. The study is in the j of the Amer Psych Assoc Probably in Medline but I didnt get it from there. It speaks for itself. Who said the current dosage is not 10 mg? It has always been 10 mg, what I said was that it was 10 mgs before the drug, a stimulant and so-called smart pill also used for weight loss, was discovered of value in treating ADD and hyperactivity in children. I am old enough to remember this, are you? If you were born after the drug was approved and principaly known for treating hyperactivity in children then I understand your tunnel vision. However, does this suggest that another dose might be possible? Are you that closed minded as to accept a dosage established 40 years ago for one purpose as the dosage for another purpose now?
I ask again, and I appreciate the author's abstract was vague when they said between placebo and 10 mgs but if its lower doses, leaning more toward placebo, what are we talking about? A placebo has no drug. A notch above placebo has very little.
A few molecules perhaps? I havent read the full paper so can't tell you right now what strengths were involved. Sorry to speculate but just following what the abstract says. I found it a fascinating choice of terminology given our subject matter.
And so what do we have here? A substance that exemplifies "like cures like" as well as a paradoxical dose/response effect. The lower the dose, the more effective these authors found it to be.
Actually BoTox it wasn't a test. The technique was used by Nurses who were group home owners/operators catering to these children long before I witnessed it. I guess it was a Test for me. No narcotics were involved. No sedatives or sleeping meds were involved save for milk. But milk without the caffeine doesn't do what milk with the caffeine did. Now you can find refs for the paradoxical effects of the stimulant caffeine working in a fashion similar to ritalin and amphetamines. But believe me Roche and the makers of generic methylphenidate don't want to hear about their market being usurped by a couple of dollars annually worth of caffeine compared to $200 per pt monthly for Ritalin or a bit less for the generic. But the point is caffeine is yet another "like cures like" and at miniscule dosages or very high dilutions (e.g. 300 to 1).
T'ai Chi said:
As I said in a post or two ago if you want to change your claim that is fine, after all that is what I have been trying to do by showing you evidence that scientists believe that they can "do" science on TV. But we are discussing your statement that
"Science ain't done on TV, no matter the credentials of the doers and the double blind etc. procedures"
not your new claim.
Posting your comments (which I have said several times before are irrelevant to determining whether the evidence I provided can be used to falsify your statement or not), in a larger, bold text will not make them relevant and will not alter the evidence I provided.
You said:
"Science ain't done on TV, no matter the credentials of the doers and the double blind etc. procedures"
I have shown that scientist consider that can and do "do" science on TV.
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,597
SteveGrenard said:
See, BoTox.. It's not that he doesn't understand the results, it's that he needs to torture the data to support his beliefs. When one doesn't have evidence to support their beliefs, they just make ◊◊◊◊ up.
5-10mg.... Yep, that is between placebo and 10mg.
If they used 15 to 20mg, SG would be saying "between placebo and 20mg".
Get it? Got it?
Good.
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,597
But believe me Roche and the makers of generic methylphenidate don't want to hear about their market being usurped by a couple of dollars annually worth of caffeine compared to $200 per pt monthly for Ritalin or a bit less for the generic. But the point is caffeine is yet another "like cures like" and at miniscule dosages or very high dilutions (e.g. 300 to 1).
Another ingredient to justifiying woo-woo beliefs and lack of evidence.. the conspiracy theory.
NICE.
Another ingredient to justifiying woo-woo beliefs and lack of evidence.. the conspiracy theory.
NICE.
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
TBK: If they used 15 to 20mg, SG would be saying "between placebo and 20mg".
Sigh. I didnt say this. Please do not misattribute. The persons who stated this are listed at the top of the abstract.
Sigh. I didnt say this. Please do not misattribute. The persons who stated this are listed at the top of the abstract.
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,597
SteveGrenard said:
Whatever, you're claiming it as "evidence". I'll hold you responsible for it.
Now, do you have any REAL evidence that homeopathy works?
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
Burp
Darat said:
We are also discussing your statements since they are obviously relevant too.
You have shown that some scientists can do some experiments. However, this is far from qualifying as science, because, from your own link, these are its limitations:
1. "the experiment must be interesting enough to hold the public's attention"
2. "the experiment must work on live TV"
3. "the experiment must be comprehensible by a lay audience"
4. "viewers must be able to take part from home and report results over the phone"
5. "the conclusion must be ready before the end of the 30 minute programme."
Science has none of these restrictions.
We should start our own thread where we both keep posting the same thing over and over.
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,597
T'ai Chi said:
Why do you want him to defend this strawman that you've built for him?
The TV science thing are simple rules for TV. How hard is that to comprehend? It is still science, just "dumbed" down for entertainment value.
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
Homeopathic Remedy to be studied in MDR Tuberculosis
from the WHO website:
http://www.who.int/tb_search/detail/en/?project_id=21If
MDR-TB Research Project Detail
Evaluation of homeopathic drugs in MDR-TB
Countries: India
Principal Investigators: Dr K.K. Goyal, Dr Anjali Miglani
Contact: Dr K.K. Goyal
26 Shyam Nagar
Agra 282010
India
Tel.:
Fax:
Email : kkgoyal@sancharnet.in
Funding Agencies: Dilli Homeopathic Anusandhan Parisad
Keywords: MDR-TB, Homeopathy, Clinical trial, Economical, Effectiveness
Categories: Clinical outcomes, Economics, Fitness, New drugs, Programmatic/Operational
Description: MDR-TB is a major health problem while the existing conventional treatment is long and expensive; hence there is a need for finding out economical alternative to this treatment. Dr Harsh Vardhan, Minister of Health, Government of Delhi addressed a workshop on 2nd April 1996. He said that the usefulness of homeopathy has been reported in the treatment of TB, but there was no well-documented study. Therefore it was desirable to conduct and explore the possibility of using homeopathy in the treatment of MDR-TB. Then Dilli Homeopathic Anusandhan Parisad an autonomous body was established on 1 July 1998. A preliminary study is being conducted at Nerhu Nagar TB hospital New Delhi. TB experts provide us cases of MDR-TB labelled as category 2 failure. Though it is in very preliminary stage yet we find quite encouraging results such as sputum conversion to negative, few useful homeopathic drugs, resistant bacilli becoming sensitive to many conventional drugs, it is a good example of integration. Homeopathic doctors are treating MDR-TB cases under supervision of allopathic doctors in their premises. We are going to start randomised placebo controlled trial very soon.
Last Modified: 2003-03-17 15:33:00
from the WHO website:
http://www.who.int/tb_search/detail/en/?project_id=21If
MDR-TB Research Project Detail
Evaluation of homeopathic drugs in MDR-TB
Countries: India
Principal Investigators: Dr K.K. Goyal, Dr Anjali Miglani
Contact: Dr K.K. Goyal
26 Shyam Nagar
Agra 282010
India
Tel.:
Fax:
Email : kkgoyal@sancharnet.in
Funding Agencies: Dilli Homeopathic Anusandhan Parisad
Keywords: MDR-TB, Homeopathy, Clinical trial, Economical, Effectiveness
Categories: Clinical outcomes, Economics, Fitness, New drugs, Programmatic/Operational
Description: MDR-TB is a major health problem while the existing conventional treatment is long and expensive; hence there is a need for finding out economical alternative to this treatment. Dr Harsh Vardhan, Minister of Health, Government of Delhi addressed a workshop on 2nd April 1996. He said that the usefulness of homeopathy has been reported in the treatment of TB, but there was no well-documented study. Therefore it was desirable to conduct and explore the possibility of using homeopathy in the treatment of MDR-TB. Then Dilli Homeopathic Anusandhan Parisad an autonomous body was established on 1 July 1998. A preliminary study is being conducted at Nerhu Nagar TB hospital New Delhi. TB experts provide us cases of MDR-TB labelled as category 2 failure. Though it is in very preliminary stage yet we find quite encouraging results such as sputum conversion to negative, few useful homeopathic drugs, resistant bacilli becoming sensitive to many conventional drugs, it is a good example of integration. Homeopathic doctors are treating MDR-TB cases under supervision of allopathic doctors in their premises. We are going to start randomised placebo controlled trial very soon.
Last Modified: 2003-03-17 15:33:00
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,597
Re: Homeopathic Remedy to be studied in MDR Tuberculosis
Looks like, yet, another test is gonna take place that will show homeopathy to be nothing but placebo. When did this experiments start? Has it finished yet? Has the results been replicable by scientists outside of India?
No evidence yet, SG. Do you have any?
SteveGrenard said:
Looks like, yet, another test is gonna take place that will show homeopathy to be nothing but placebo. When did this experiments start? Has it finished yet? Has the results been replicable by scientists outside of India?
No evidence yet, SG. Do you have any?
T'ai Chi said:
I have only made two statements or claims if you like in this particular lengthy debate. And they are
1) Your claim "Science ain't done on TV, no matter the credentials of the doers and the double blind etc. procedures" is wrong.
2) There is evidence that supports my statement.
I’ve re-read most of my posts here and have really just been saying that over and over. To remind you of the start of this discussion, here is our first exchange:
T'ai Chi said:
To which I responded:
From the beginning I made it clear that I was asking about the universal declaration you made, i.e. that "Science ain't done on TV...".
My claims where made in this post:
Throughout this lengthy exchange this contains the only substantial claims I have made about the subject under discussion, i.e. that there is evidence that shows your statement
"Science ain't done on TV, no matter the credentials of the doers and the double blind etc. procedures"
is wrong.
That is what we are discussing, however you now seem to want to change that claim and then ask me to discuss your new claim.
T'ai Chi said:
As I mention above these points are irrelevant in a discussion about your original statement and my responses to that claim.
I am confused why you refuse to address any of the points from your own link.
Note my statement:
"You have shown that some scientists can do some experiments. However, this is far from qualifying as science, because, from your own link, these are its limitations:"
and then I list the limitations.
You follow up with:
"As I mention above these points are irrelevant in a discussion about your original statement and my responses to that claim."
They are not irrelevant because you offered that link as evidence that science is being done on TV. You offered that link as a response to my claim!
I listed reasons why I refuted that evidence, specifically the limitations and problems inherent with trying to do science as a discipline on TV.
Note my statement:
"You have shown that some scientists can do some experiments. However, this is far from qualifying as science, because, from your own link, these are its limitations:"
and then I list the limitations.
You follow up with:
"As I mention above these points are irrelevant in a discussion about your original statement and my responses to that claim."
They are not irrelevant because you offered that link as evidence that science is being done on TV. You offered that link as a response to my claim!
I listed reasons why I refuted that evidence, specifically the limitations and problems inherent with trying to do science as a discipline on TV.
SteveGrenard said:
Every source I've seen uses the term interchangeably. Try this...do a google search with the terms DIC and Heparin. See how far down the list you have to go before you find somebody that uses coagulopathy. See what term medscape prefers for example.
SteveGrenard said:
You are correct about the consumption coagulopathy. I sit corrected.
But once again we have a disease who's primary symptom is overactive coagulation and the treatment is an anticoagulant. This isn't like cures like surely... more like opposite cures like.
The hemorrhage is a secondary symptom. If your going to use this argument why don't we treat all bleeding with Heparin??
P.
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
I found this interesting definition of science at the Samueli Institute Website so I thought I might as well toss it into the ring:
"Science is structured curiosity and investigation. It involves a set of methodological rules for inquiry with their honest and rigorous application in the search for truth. The results of this inquiry are then subjected to peer review, publication and public discussion."
Samueli is sponsoring current research in homeopathy and the water information/memory business. . They take it very seriously. Here a report of their first symposium in this area from Jan 2002:
1st European Samueli Symposium
Scientific Basis of Homeopathy
January 17-19 2002
The Samueli Institute, under the leadership of Harald Walach, director of the European Samueli Institute Office, sponsored a meeting of homeopathic researchers from Great Britain, Europe, Scandinavia and Israel January 17-19, 2002. Twenty-six published, scientific investigators from nine countries attended. Participants reviewed the current state of homeopathy research related to physical measures, laboratory research, clinical studies, outcomes and practice-based studies and current theories and models to explain homeopathic effects. The group had frank and extensive discussions about the quality of the current data, the implications of recent studies (which have been both positive and negative) and strategies for the advancement of science in homeopathy.
Physical measures.
Current studies on the measurement of water memory and structure have not provided leads. It was strongly recommended that further research on water structure should follow specific testable theories of how water may carry information rather than simply look for an effect. This will require experts in water structure being involved in developing these theories and studies. The current Samueli Institute sponsored project being conducted by David Anick at Harvard meets these criteria.
More sensitive and dynamic measures are needed for capturing subtle energy and perhaps oscillating effects from homeopathic remedies. A method developed in The Netherlands and Germany called “biophotons” may meet these criteria. The method appears to be able to measure energy exchange between single cells and as such has shown promise in preliminary studies with homeopathic remedies and intention. It also offers promise of providing a method for objectively measuring the relationship between cell and organism coherence and healing processes.
Cellular and laboratory studies.
Madeline Ennis, immunologist from the Queen’s University of Belfast, Ireland, presented a promising model for the study of ultra-high homeopathic dilutions. The method was originally developed in France in the mid 1980’s, and
the French participants explained how her recent work appears to have corrected for difficulties in previous studies. This model may be useful to examine mechanisms of how homeopathic remedies carry information, and also for its usefulness in the treatment of allergies, autoimmune disease and the treatment of drug reactions. We will be looking for opportunities to support research based on this model in the future.
Clinical research.
Current clinical research in homeopathy is less promising. Several recent placebo-controlled studies, including one presented at the conference, have been negative. These results do not align with observations in actual practice and there were extensive discussions as to why not and what to do about it? A well thought out explanation for this problem was presented by Michael Hyland, a psychologist from the University of Plymouth, England. The solution will probably require creation of a small working group to develop a more pragmatic study design than is normally used. Otitis media (ear infection) was suggested as the condition to study because of its public health importance and published evidence about its responsiveness to homeopathy. A large study requiring extensive partnering would be needed to definitively examine this condition; Samueli Institute could pilot such a study at relatively low cost while identifying partner co-funders and sites to support a larger study in the future.
It was suggested by several investigators that clinical research focusing on documenting remedy uses, practice outcomes and patient preferences be done. It addition, that clinical studies based on the homeopathic model of illness and recovery (rather than the conventional model) be conducted. Some examples of such research from Europe were discussed.
Other items.
The French investigators described how excessive claims by a French researcher in the late 1980’s had a markedly negative effect on conventional scientific opinion concerning homeopathic research in France – an effect that persists to this day. The lesson is to conduct research with reputable investigators who only will make conclusions consistent with their data, repeated and verified by other laboratories and investigators and with a willingness to progress incrementally.
Attempts to do the definitive “home run” study are fundamentally anti-thetical to scientific inquiry and have a large potential to backfire on the investigator and the field. That is, less proof of principle and more mechanism or meaningful research is needed.
"Science is structured curiosity and investigation. It involves a set of methodological rules for inquiry with their honest and rigorous application in the search for truth. The results of this inquiry are then subjected to peer review, publication and public discussion."
Samueli is sponsoring current research in homeopathy and the water information/memory business. . They take it very seriously. Here a report of their first symposium in this area from Jan 2002:
1st European Samueli Symposium
Scientific Basis of Homeopathy
January 17-19 2002
The Samueli Institute, under the leadership of Harald Walach, director of the European Samueli Institute Office, sponsored a meeting of homeopathic researchers from Great Britain, Europe, Scandinavia and Israel January 17-19, 2002. Twenty-six published, scientific investigators from nine countries attended. Participants reviewed the current state of homeopathy research related to physical measures, laboratory research, clinical studies, outcomes and practice-based studies and current theories and models to explain homeopathic effects. The group had frank and extensive discussions about the quality of the current data, the implications of recent studies (which have been both positive and negative) and strategies for the advancement of science in homeopathy.
Physical measures.
Current studies on the measurement of water memory and structure have not provided leads. It was strongly recommended that further research on water structure should follow specific testable theories of how water may carry information rather than simply look for an effect. This will require experts in water structure being involved in developing these theories and studies. The current Samueli Institute sponsored project being conducted by David Anick at Harvard meets these criteria.
More sensitive and dynamic measures are needed for capturing subtle energy and perhaps oscillating effects from homeopathic remedies. A method developed in The Netherlands and Germany called “biophotons” may meet these criteria. The method appears to be able to measure energy exchange between single cells and as such has shown promise in preliminary studies with homeopathic remedies and intention. It also offers promise of providing a method for objectively measuring the relationship between cell and organism coherence and healing processes.
Cellular and laboratory studies.
Madeline Ennis, immunologist from the Queen’s University of Belfast, Ireland, presented a promising model for the study of ultra-high homeopathic dilutions. The method was originally developed in France in the mid 1980’s, and
the French participants explained how her recent work appears to have corrected for difficulties in previous studies. This model may be useful to examine mechanisms of how homeopathic remedies carry information, and also for its usefulness in the treatment of allergies, autoimmune disease and the treatment of drug reactions. We will be looking for opportunities to support research based on this model in the future.
Clinical research.
Current clinical research in homeopathy is less promising. Several recent placebo-controlled studies, including one presented at the conference, have been negative. These results do not align with observations in actual practice and there were extensive discussions as to why not and what to do about it? A well thought out explanation for this problem was presented by Michael Hyland, a psychologist from the University of Plymouth, England. The solution will probably require creation of a small working group to develop a more pragmatic study design than is normally used. Otitis media (ear infection) was suggested as the condition to study because of its public health importance and published evidence about its responsiveness to homeopathy. A large study requiring extensive partnering would be needed to definitively examine this condition; Samueli Institute could pilot such a study at relatively low cost while identifying partner co-funders and sites to support a larger study in the future.
It was suggested by several investigators that clinical research focusing on documenting remedy uses, practice outcomes and patient preferences be done. It addition, that clinical studies based on the homeopathic model of illness and recovery (rather than the conventional model) be conducted. Some examples of such research from Europe were discussed.
Other items.
The French investigators described how excessive claims by a French researcher in the late 1980’s had a markedly negative effect on conventional scientific opinion concerning homeopathic research in France – an effect that persists to this day. The lesson is to conduct research with reputable investigators who only will make conclusions consistent with their data, repeated and verified by other laboratories and investigators and with a willingness to progress incrementally.
Attempts to do the definitive “home run” study are fundamentally anti-thetical to scientific inquiry and have a large potential to backfire on the investigator and the field. That is, less proof of principle and more mechanism or meaningful research is needed.
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
Actually the key words here are "consumption coagulopathy." The clotting that occurs intravscularly (and by the way, we can't be sure what causes this condition but is related to shock and overwhelming sepsis) uses all the myriad clotting factors we have to offer. We have none left. Thus we hemorrhage. Heparin extrinsically provokes the body into manufacturing more clotting factors so we can stop hemorrhaging, not stop clotting. As an anticoagulant, by the way, heparin prevents clotting but can't dissolve clots after they are formed. There are other means to do this.
Sorry, I still see this as like cures like. Ditto for alpha-neurotoxin in the control of ALS and MS, ditto for stimulants to control hyperactivity. Ditto for people and there are some who can't go to sleep at night without first having a cup of coffee. And ditto for people with allergies who are densitizied to these allergens by small SC doses of the offedning antigen injected under the skin.
Sorry, I still see this as like cures like. Ditto for alpha-neurotoxin in the control of ALS and MS, ditto for stimulants to control hyperactivity. Ditto for people and there are some who can't go to sleep at night without first having a cup of coffee. And ditto for people with allergies who are densitizied to these allergens by small SC doses of the offedning antigen injected under the skin.