Homeopathy is everywhere!

[thaiboxerken]

I listed reasons why I refuted that evidence, specifically the limitations and problems inherent with trying to do science as a discipline on TV.

I think it's best just to ignore T'ai Chi about the "TV" topic. He's just going to keep arguing against this strawman.

Science experiments can be done on TV, that's just a fact.

Ever see Mr. Wizard? I love that show.

Bill Nye the science guy is a good one too.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I found this interesting definition of science at the Samueli Institute Website so I thought I might as well toss it into the ring:

More quackery. But, do you have any real evidence? Something that has withstood scrutiny by the scientific community?

Right now, all you are doing is showing quackery being supported by quacks.

Current clinical research in homeopathy is less promising. Several recent placebo-controlled studies, including one presented at the conference, have been negative

How many studies will it take for these quacks to admit that what they do is quackery?

Right now they are trying to find out the "mechanism" for how homeopathy works, even though they haven't shown that homeopathy works at all. These "scientists" are retarded.

 

[DogB]

I found this interesting definition of science at the Samuellii 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.

This has been applied exhaustively to Homeopathy. Remember Benivistes (sp?) original paper was published in Nature for cripes sake.

We are not out to crush any inquiry into homeopathy but it's benn checked time and time again and every time the trail is correctly designed the results are negative.

We get worked up about this because people are dying, and good research money is being poured into this conn which was adequately disproved years ago.

You really don't understand do you. The first scientist to show conclusively that homeopathy works would be a nobel prize winner before you could blink. It would be the one of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time. Everything we know about physics and chemistry would change. Any scientist worth his salt would give his left leg to prove this.

Homeopathy just doesn't work no matter how much we'd all like it to.

P.

 

[SteveGrenard]

 

[thaiboxerken]

So.. about that evidence. Have any?

Didn't think so. JREF has a million dollars for you if you can get homeopathy to work under controlled conditions.

C'mon, you think it works so great. You won't even need to do it yourself, just buy a homeopathic solution from the store and show the JREF that it works.

 

[DogB]

By far your most intelligent response to date.

 

[FutileJester]

Butting in...

I listed reasons why I refuted that evidence, specifically the limitations and problems inherent with trying to do science as a discipline on TV.

Yes, doing science on TV imposes limitations. Doing science in a politically repressed country is also limiting. Doing science with small budgets is limiting. And so on. This doesn't mean that you can't do science under these conditions, it means that for pragmatic reasons not all investigations are possible.

No one is claiming that all science can be done on TV; some science can be done on TV. You seem to saying that no science can be done on TV, based on the fact that TV imposes restrictions beyond the axioms of science. But all this means is that there are a subset of scientific investigations which are appropriate for popular TV. There are scientific inquiries that can be demonstrated in 30 minutes, are interesting to the public, etc. Putting a camera in front of the process doesn't take away from their scientific legitimacy at all.

 

[DogB]

Steve

I have a story for you about real medical research.

My wife is in cancer researcher and she became aware that some evidence had come to light about the anticancer properties of Thalidomide.

Her area of expertise is in Cancers of the Renal system. RCC (Renal cell carcinoma) is a type of kidney cancer with no known cure so she decided to investigate the effects of Thalidomide on this tumor.

She began her investigations. As time progresses more and more studies came out lauding the effects of this drug. But she had misgivings. The data she was seeing from other trials was not conclusive. Her own trials were worse. They seemed to indicate that in some cases thalidomide could actually accelerate the progress of some cancers. But the drug companies were pushing thalidomide as the new wonder drug. She knew that her finding were controversial. So she made her case airtight and submitted it for publication.

Was she rejected. You bet she was. The first journal she submitted to was the journal which had been publishing the positive trials. She was rejected without explanation.

Did she give up and cry "COVER-UP". No she submitted to another journal which was happy to publish her data. Guess what...within a few months several other papers from all over the world were released confirming her data. Her paper was published by Reuters medical news and was recently quoted in a Nature review of the topic.

Thalidomide is still in trials all over the world but it is becoming increasingly clear that in many cases its effectiveness is questionable.

This is how medical research is carried out. This is why we know homeopathy doesn't work. Because no matter how unpalatable the findings, no matter how controversial the subject, scientists will always pick it apart until the truth is known. That's what science is for.

P.


ps. The paper mentioned above is summarized here
http://cancerpage.com/cancernews/cancernews4293.htm

 

[BTox]

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?

OK, Thaiboxer is right, you are avoiding the facts and instead trying to fudge the data to fit your agenda. Or are you really this dense? There are scores of dose-response clinical studies conducted with methylphenidate in children for the treatment of ADD. As is required for all drugs in the U.S.

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.

Again, you are either misrepresenting or completely misunderstanding the study. They tested 3 doses, 0 (placebo), 10 mg and 20 mg. They found 10 mg effective, 0 was not. 20 was not better than 10. There is no finding in any of the dose response studies to show the lower the dose, the more effective. There is no paradox in the dose response of this drug whatsoever.

 

[Darat]

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.

Let me try and explain again why your comments are irrelevant in determining if your statement

"Science ain't done on TV, no matter the credentials of the doers and the double blind etc. procedures"

is right or wrong.

You made a universal declaration that science isn't done on TV, I provided just one example that showed that science is done by scientists on TV, I only needed to provide one example to show that your universal declaration was wrong.

Therefore your statement:

"Science ain't done on TV, no matter the credentials of the doers and the double blind etc. procedures"

is wrong.

However you seem to have changed the claim you want to make, which of course you are entitled to do so, I would paraphrase your new claim to be:

"Only a very limited subset of science can be done on TV because of the restrictions that arise from the nature of TV."

However this is a new claim and as I keep pointing out my comments are about your original claim i.e.

"Science ain't done on TV, no matter the credentials of the doers and the double blind etc. procedures"

(Which I have shown to be wrong.)

I am trying to keep the line between your original and new claim very distinct as it is your original claim I have been trying to discuss with you not your new claim.



(Edited to make more then one scientist on TV.)

 

[T'ai Chi]

I am confused why you, Darat, 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.

I'll stick to labs and journals and stuff, thanks.

 

[Darat]

I am confused why you, Darat, 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.

I'll stick to labs and journals and stuff, thanks.

And your comments above, as I have shown, relate to a new modified claim you are now making and they may or may not be relevant to your new claim, I have made no statements about that.

However they are not relevant to your original claim

"Science ain't done on TV, no matter the credentials of the doers and the double blind etc. procedures"

which has been shown to be wrong.

 

[T'ai Chi]

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."


In other words, no Science. Science has no such artificial constraints.

 

[CFLarsen]

T'ai Chi,

Do you admit that you have changed your original claim?

From a blanket statement:

"Science ain't done on TV, no matter the credentials of the doers and the double blind etc. procedures"

to:

"one can do very limited science experiments, yes, but not the discipline of Science"?

Just yes or no, please.

Thanks.

 

[RichardR]

A "made up theory".. I like that one. Could you show us a theory that is not made up?

Yes – all of them. Accepted theories are not just made up like Homeopathy; they are backed by huge amounts of evidence. And different aspects of them will have been tested successfully.

An example would be Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity. See if you can spot the difference in how this was worked out, and in the amount of supporting data, in comparison with "quinine gives similar symptoms to malaria, therefore like cures like".

And it is important because when a theory is just made up with no justification, the evidence for it must be stronger than for something that is backed by a huge amount of evidence. The dubious evidence for homeopathy, coupled with its dubious provenance, together mean it is unlikely to be true. And after 180 plus years and still no good evidence it works, it seems about time cut our losses and move on.

 

[T'ai Chi]

The dubious evidence for homeopathy, coupled with its dubious provenance, together mean it is unlikely to be true.

"unlikely", I agree.

But we have to keep determining that, scientifically.

 

[TLN]

"unlikely", I agree.

But we have to keep determining that, scientifically.

So, when do we get to stop, to say finally and unequivocally that is doesn't work?

 

[FutileJester]

Compelled to beat the dead horse...

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."


In other words, no Science. Science has no such artificial constraints.

Science is never, anyplace, free from artificial constraints.

Look inside the best labs and you'll find budget fights, internal politics, personal vendettas and more. To a large degree public sentiment and pure politics limit acceptable research as well (witness stem cell research). Politics and limited funding are artificial constraints placed on the most pure research, done in labs and reported in peer-reviewed journals. By your logic, since these are constraints not mentioned in the axioms of science, then no science can be accomplished under these conditions.

Let me ask you this. Suppose an investigation is done in a top-notch lab by grade-A scientists. It so happens that their experiments would be easy to demonstrate in 30 minutes, would be understandable to a lay audience, and so on. They do their research and publish. Presumably we can agree that this is science.

Now imagine the same scenario - except this time someone films it and shows it to the public. Is this not science now? If not, why not?

 

[T'ai Chi]

So, when do we get to stop, to say finally and unequivocally that is doesn't work?

I, personally don't know.

I do know there there is no magic number or stopping rule.

These things are determined by a lot of good studies and by societal interests and wants.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Re: Compelled to beat the dead horse...

Science is never, anyplace, free from artificial constraints.

I agree. However, I think things like "the experiment must be interesting enough to hold the public's attention" is a completely different constraint than "politics" or "budget fights".

To do science, you must publish and make everything available to scrutinize.