Homeopathy is everywhere!

[thaiboxerken]

Do you disagree that scientists are still studying homeopathy?

No credible scientists are actually studying homeopathy to see if it works.


Do you disagree that there are many scientists who think it is important to further study homeopathy?

I'm sure there are real scientists that feel it is still necessary to debunk the homeopathic claims.

There is still NO credible evidence that homeopathy works. The reality is that it doesn't work. Feel free to prove us wrong, bring some homeopathic medicine to the JREF and demonstrate for us. There is only a million dollars waiting for you to do so.

 

[T'ai Chi]

You are claiming that these are real tests that use real science, shouldn't you be the one showing us that they are?

BTox is claiming "poorly designed and conducted". Shouldn't he back up his claim? Why the double-standard, thaiboxerken?

Maybe you should contact those particular homeopaths and have them reproduce their results for the JREF.

We're talking about going through proper science channels here.

It wasn't, BTox is correct. You really are stupid.

Ok, I'm stupid. Perhaps you and Bill can post your degrees for us. You can also come over to the 'math/stat questions for T'ai Chi' thread and demonstrate your vast knowledge and put me in my place.

In any case, directly from the abstract:

"Effective treatment of seborrheic dermatitis using a low dose, oral homeopathic medication consisting of ..."

and

"The purpose of this study was to further evaluate the effect of an orally administered low-dose, homeopathic mineral therapy (Potassium bromide 1X, Sodium bromide 2X, Nickel sulfate 3X, Sodium chloride 6X) on seborrheic dermatitis and chronic dandruff."

and

"Oral therapy using a low-dose homeopathic preparation combining Potassium bromide 1X, Sodium bromide 2X, Nickel sulfate 3X, and Sodium chloride 6X, provides significant improvement ..."


Gee, I guess it had nothing to do at all with homeopathy...

 

[T'ai Chi]

I'm sure there are real scientists that feel it is still necessary to debunk the homeopathic claims.

I'm sure some are. I'd hope the more competent ones are doing it simply to impartially test the claims.

There is still NO credible evidence that homeopathy works. The reality is that it doesn't work.

Anyway... There is some suggestive evidence. This is what science is about Ken, examining data. If you've already convinced yourself that it "doesn't work", fine, let scientists see if you are correct.

Feel free to prove us wrong, bring some homeopathic medicine to the JREF and demonstrate for us.

You are not JREF. You are simply a user here like me. I'd think that homeopaths would simply like to go through the proper science channels.

By the way, as I've stated numerous times, I don't support homeopathy. I'm simply posting abstracts to homeopathy studies that show an 'effect', and showing that many competent scientists are interested in studying it.

There is only a million dollars waiting for you to do so.

Waiting for me? Huh Ken?? I'm not testing any homeopathy claims, I'm just reporting what others have done.

 

[thaiboxerken]

BTox is claiming "poorly designed and conducted". Shouldn't he back up his claim? Why the double-standard, thaiboxerken?



It's not a double-standard. The "scientists" of these homeopathic studies are the ones that need to be submitting their work to peer-reviewed journals, real ones. Until then, it's default to assume that their results are because of improper designs or other errors.


We're talking about going through proper science channels here.

Doesn't matter, if homeopathy is real, they should easily be able to claim the JREF million.


Ok, I'm stupid. Perhaps you and Bill can post your degrees for us.

GW Bush has a degree as well. I only work as a Fuel Cell technician and a Nuclear propulsion technician prior to that. Look up Navy Nuclear on a Google, that school ranks up next to MIT as hardest schools to graduate from.


You can also come over to the 'math/stat questions for T'ai Chi' thread and demonstrate your vast knowledge and put me in my place.

You have yet to show ANYthing that couldn't have been found with a Google search. Also, we're not talking knowledge, we are talking about ability to think critically. You, apparently, do not possess the ability to think critically and you have no grasp on logic.


"Effective treatment of seborrheic dermatitis using a low dose, oral homeopathic medication consisting of ..."

Low dose means that it's not homeopathic, since homeopathic remedies contain NO dose of active ingredient.


"The purpose of this study was to further evaluate the effect of an orally administered low-dose, homeopathic mineral therapy (Potassium bromide 1X, Sodium bromide 2X, Nickel sulfate 3X, Sodium chloride 6X) on seborrheic dermatitis and chronic dandruff."

Again, low-does is not homeopathic.


Gee, I guess it had nothing to do at all with homeopathy...

Not really, it's just a bunch of idiots getting together to torture data in a vain attempt to say that homeopathy needs more research. In other words, they want money.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Anyway... There is some suggestive evidence. This is what science is about Ken, examining data. If you've already convinced yourself that it "doesn't work", fine, let scientists see if you are correct.


There isn't suggestive evidence, these "tests" have not made it to JAMA have they? Why aren't they being peer reviewed outside of the "homeopathic" circles? Scientists and doctors have already determined that homeopathy doesn't work.


You are not JREF. You are simply a user here like me. I'd think that homeopaths would simply like to go through the proper science channels.

I'm not JREF, but I'm absolutely sure that the JREF is willing to give up their prize to a homeopath that shows it works. If the homeopaths would rather go through proper science channels, why haven't they?


By the way, as I've stated numerous times, I don't support homeopathy.

Yet you defend it feverishly. STFU, Whodini. Why do you support giving the homeopaths money to further "research" their claims? Is this the way you "don't" support people, by asking people to fund them?

I'm simply posting abstracts to homeopathy studies that show an 'effect', and showing that many competent scientists are interested in studying it.

Competent scientists? LOL. These people are a club of quacks that confer with each other to justify their claims.


Waiting for me? Huh Ken?? I'm not testing any homeopathy claims, I'm just reporting what others have done.

Yea, and you are believing that they are good tests for some unknown reason. Oh, I know.. it's because you are a woo-woo.

 

[T'ai Chi]

It's not a double-standard. The "scientists" of these homeopathic studies are the ones that need to be submitting their work to peer-reviewed journals, real ones. Until then, it's default to assume that their results are because of improper designs or other errors.

Simply dismissing their work because it is done by "homeopaths" or is "poorly designed and conducted" is not acceptable criticism. The critics need to be VERY specific on the errors to be taken seriously.

Doesn't matter, if homeopathy is real, they should easily be able to claim the JREF million.

That's true, I agree, however I think it is the right to every scientist to have access to, and be interested in, the conventional science channels.

GW Bush has a degree as well. I only work as a Fuel Cell technician and a Nuclear propulsion technician prior to that. Look up Navy Nuclear on a Google, that school ranks up next to MIT as hardest schools to graduate from.

So, why did you feel a need to call me "stupid"?

You have yet to show ANYthing that couldn't have been found with a Google search.

Hardly. I love how you blame that on me... not on Google, and not on Bill's questions. Ken, do you think Bill can answer my questions? Ken, do you think that if Bill critiques my statistical knowledge that that implies that he knows statistics?

You, apparently, do not possess the ability to think critically and you have no grasp on logic.

Right Ken. If you say that enough times, it will still never be true. Keep attacking personalities..

Low dose means that it's not homeopathic, since homeopathic remedies contain NO dose of active ingredient.

So the authors were incorrect in their use of the word "homeopathic"? Just what do you think "6X", etc., means Ken?

Not really, it's just a bunch of idiots getting together to ..

Prove that they are idiots. Prove that they torture data. And prove that what drives them is money. I am interesting in studying the data, not your opinions.

 

[T'ai Chi]

There isn't suggestive evidence, these "tests" have not made it to JAMA have they?

JAMA isn't a holy grail. Saying something isn't evidence because it hasn't been published in JAMA is a poor argument from authority. Heck, homeopathy made it into Nature a bit ago, remember?

Why aren't they being peer reviewed outside of the "homeopathic" circles?

They are in other journals besides homeopathy ones: complementary medicine, pediatrics, midwifery, psychology, and many others. Although, I agree that the majority of the articles are published in homeopathy journals (obviously?).

Scientists and doctors have already determined that homeopathy doesn't work.

We have scientists testing claims of homeopathy and specifically saying that more study needs to be done. That doesn't sound like they have determined that it doesn't work, but rather are impartially investigating its claims as competent scientists should.

I'm not JREF, but I'm absolutely sure that the JREF is willing to give up their prize to a homeopath that shows it works. If the homeopaths would rather go through proper science channels, why haven't they?

They are conducting research and publishing their work in peer reviewed journals for critique.

Yet you defend it feverishly.

I've stated numerous times, the only thing I "defend" is the fact that there are studies out there that show an 'effect' for homepathy. I also admit that there are many that don't show any effect at all. I also "defend" that there are numerous scientists investigating the claims of homeopathy.-all of which are obvious from the quickest of article searches.

Oh gee, I'm all in a fever now.

Why do you support giving the homeopaths money to further "research" their claims? Is this the way you "don't" support people, by asking people to fund them?

I've got no idea what you are talking about here. I've never stated I support giving them money or have I asked people to fund them! All I'm doing is simply doing an abstract search to find 'significant' homeopathy studies. That is all I've said. Anything else is what you read into it.

Competent scientists? LOL. These people are a club of quacks that confer with each other to justify their claims.

Again, the personalities..

Yea, and you are believing that they are good tests for some unknown reason. Oh, I know.. it's because you are a woo-woo.

Again, the personalities..

 

[thaiboxerken]

Simply dismissing their work because it is done by "homeopaths" or is "poorly designed and conducted" is not acceptable criticism. The critics need to be VERY specific on the errors to be taken seriously.


It sure is, as said before, the very fact that they are homeopaths suggests idiocy. Would you trust a known con-man as your banker?


So, why did you feel a need to call me "stupid"?



Because you ignore that mulitudes of evidence against homeopathy.





So the authors were incorrect in their use of the word "homeopathic"? Just what do you think "6X", etc., means Ken?


You tell me.


Prove that they are idiots. Prove that they torture data. And prove that what drives them is money. I am interesting in studying the data, not your opinions.


It's true, no matter how much you wish it not to be.

 

[thaiboxerken]

JAMA isn't a holy grail.

Nope, it's more like a medical bible.

Saying something isn't evidence because it hasn't been published in JAMA is a poor argument from authority.

Arguement from authority is only invalid if that authority is false. The JAMA IS a leading authority on medicine.


Heck, homeopathy made it into Nature a bit ago, remember?



Yes, and the article/experiment published has since been refuted and shown to be false and lacking adequate scientific controls.


They are in other journals besides homeopathy ones: complementary medicine, pediatrics, midwifery, psychology, and many others. Although, I agree that the majority of the articles are published in homeopathy journals (obviously?).


Sure, they show up in other junk journals. The evidence that homeopathy works is still absent and replicability of any "positive" studies are lacking. Lacking so much that they don't exist.


We have scientists testing claims of homeopathy and specifically saying that more study needs to be done.

Of course, they want more money to research... and keep on paying their bills.


That doesn't sound like they have determined that it doesn't work, but rather are impartially investigating its claims as competent scientists should.

I am talking about real scientists, not the homeopaths.


They are conducting research and publishing their work in peer reviewed journals for critique.



No, they are conducting research amongst themselves. They are much like the creationist scientists in that regard.


I've stated numerous times, the only thing I "defend" is the fact that there are studies out there that show an 'effect' for homepathy.

But no credible studies, you have yet to demonstrate that there are.




I've got no idea what you are talking about here. I've never stated I support giving them money or have I asked people to fund them! All I'm doing is simply doing an abstract search to find 'significant' homeopathy studies. That is all I've said. Anything else is what you read into it.



You keep stating that research needs to be done, research involves money. You are supporting the homeopaths when you support research into their claims that have already been debunked.




Again, the personalities..

Yes, you are a troll and that tends to draw insults.

 

[reprise]

Just to change tack for a moment, one problem I see with conducting well constructed protocols for testing the efficacy of homeopathic remedies is that of ethics.

It seems to me that one of the simplest ways to test the claims of homeopaths would be to conduct trials of homeopathic vaccines in Third World countries, where herd immunity is not going to skew results and where the control group is not being exposed to an unacceptable risk level. Children are dying from childhood diseases by the thousands in Third World countries and if homeopathic vaccination is at all effective this is an ideal cohort in which to demonstrate measurable positive results (not to mention that the vaccines are unlikely to be rendered ineffective by Western "contaminants" such as toothpaste.

Similarly, it's relatively simple to establish the currrent mortality rate for childhood illness X in children under 5 and demonstrate very quickly whether or not this is changed when homeopathic vaccination against childhood illness X is administered.

If the homeopathic vaccination is effective, the benefits for those in the Third World would be huge. If it's ineffective, the loss is marginal as there is limited access to conventional vaccines to begin with.

 

[T'ai Chi]

It sure is, as said before, the very fact that they are homeopaths suggests idiocy.

You need to be VERY specific on the errors to have your criticisms be taken seriously.

Because you ignore that mulitudes of evidence against homeopathy.

Are you serious? I have acknowledged the evidence against homeopathy all along. I've stated several times in this thread that there are plenty of studies showing no effects.

(I wrote)
So the authors were incorrect in their use of the word "homeopathic"? Just what do you think "6X", etc., means Ken?

(Ken wrote)
You tell me.

I asked you the question Ken, not the other way around. You can answer the question, or you can state you refuse to answer it. Also, please answer this: Did the authors use the word "homeopathic" incorrectly, or not?

It's true, no matter how much you wish it not to be.

I am interested in coming to that conclusion, if need be, from scientifically studying the data, not from your opinions. I don't wish anything to happen or to not happen. I just look at the studies.

 

[T'ai Chi]

But no credible studies, you have yet to demonstrate that there are.

I've presented studies. You have yet to demonstrate why any of them are not credible. Make sure to be VERY specific with your critique. I'd hope you could do better than things like 'they are homeopaths' and 'poor design'. Can you?

You keep stating that research needs to be done, research involves money. You are supporting the homeopaths when you support research into their claims that have already been debunked.

Well then so is Randi and the Royal Society. Listen, all I've said is that I favor scientifically studying things. That is a far cry from suggesting people send homeopaths money, etc.

Yes, you are a troll ...

Again, the personalities..

 

[BTox]

BTox is claiming "poorly designed and conducted". Shouldn't he back up his claim? Why the double-standard, thaiboxerken?[/B]

Like I said before, read the studies, not just the abstracts. I have. I've also read critiques by independent researchers on the methods used, measurement criteria and clinical relevance of the results. They are poorly designed, conducted and the results are clinically insignificant. If a pharmaceutical company tried to use a study like that to support efficacy for a real drug, they'd have no chance of gaining FDA approval.

In any case, directly from the abstract:

"Effective treatment of seborrheic dermatitis using a low dose, oral homeopathic medication consisting of ..."

and

"The purpose of this study was to further evaluate the effect of an orally administered low-dose, homeopathic mineral therapy (Potassium bromide 1X, Sodium bromide 2X, Nickel sulfate 3X, Sodium chloride 6X) on seborrheic dermatitis and chronic dandruff."

and

"Oral therapy using a low-dose homeopathic preparation combining Potassium bromide 1X, Sodium bromide 2X, Nickel sulfate 3X, and Sodium chloride 6X, provides significant improvement ..."


Gee, I guess it had nothing to do at all with homeopathy... [/B]

Obviously you don't know much about homeopathy. True homeopaths claim only high potency "remedies" are effective, those in the dilution range of 6C and higher. 1X is 10%, 2X is 1%!These are therapeutic dosages, just like coldeze zinc tablets for cold symptoms is a therapeutic dose of zinc. They only claim homeopathy to avoid FDA regulation.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Like I said before, read the studies, not just the abstracts. I have.

You've read the entire articles for all of those studies that I posted? I'd expect more specific criticims than 'homeopaths' and 'poorly designed studies'. Got detail?

Obviously you don't know much about homeopathy.

That's interesting. On Barrett's homeowatch glossary, http://www.homeowatch.org/basic/glossary.html, he has an entry on Decimal Potency. You might want to talk to him and say 'that isn't what true homeopaths do'

They only claim homeopathy to avoid FDA regulation.

Have you obtained this information from the authors of that journal article, or is this your opinion?

6X means "1 part of starting material per 1 million parts of final solution". I'd say that is homeopathic. The authors call it homeopathic. Barrett's glossary on homeowatch lists Decimal Potency.

 

[BTox]

I've presented studies. You have yet to demonstrate why any of them are not credible. Make sure to be VERY specific with your critique. I'd hope you could do better than things like 'they are homeopaths' and 'poor design'. Can you?
[/B]

When one makes extraordinary claims, the burden of proof is on you. Merely listing abstracts does not make the studies valid, you must offer specific evidence as to their validity. Here is one critique of the Jacobs studies, there are others:

Not everyone was so quick to agree with Jacobs et al. For example, two physicians from Massachusetts General Hospital responded by asking whether the change in stool output was due to homeopathic therapy or due to a dietary factor that hadn't been taken into account.12 Another respondent mentioned reports that emphasized how the effects of rice-based or cereal-based oral rehydration solutions varied depending on the quality of a child's previous nutritional status.13 Jacobs et al responded by claiming that the outpatient setting of the trial did not allow for more precise measurements of stool output or nutritional management.14

It was not until Wallace Sampson, MD, and William London, EdD, wrote an analysis of the Jacobs study that Pediatrics presented a thorough critique of the clinical trial's objectives, method, diagnosis, treatment selection, and interpretation of results.15 Concerning the study's outcomes, Wallace and Sampson stated that the treatment and control numbers were "unbalanced by a difference of 50% or more" for seven of the eight compounds expressly listed in the study. For example, eight children in the treatment group were given Chamomilla 30C, but only five children in the control group were given the corresponding placebo. In addition, all diagnostic and treatment groups were lumped together for analysis, making it impossible to determine the efficacy of one particular homeopathic remedy.


Sampson analysis

 

[BTox]

You've read the entire articles for all of those studies that I posted? I'd expect more specific criticims than 'homeopaths' and 'poorly designed studies'. Got detail? [/B]

Not all, but most of them. You claim to be a statistician, what is your opinion on the design?

That's interesting. On Barrett's homeowatch glossary, http://www.homeowatch.org/basic/glossary.html, he has an entry on Decimal Potency. You might want to talk to him and say 'that isn't what true homeopaths do'

6X means "1 part of starting material per 1 million parts of final solution". I'd say that is homeopathic. The authors call it homeopathic. Barrett's glossary on homeowatch lists Decimal Potency. [/B]

Decimal potency is part of homeopathy, it's the dilution that is important. 6X is approaching the level of dilution most homeopaths consider effective, but 1X and 2X are most certainly therapeutic. Do you not know what the 6X ingredient is? And here's another suggestion. Go to a homeopathic remedy supplier site and see the dilutions they sell.

 

[T'ai Chi]

When one makes extraordinary claims, the burden of proof is on you.

Which "extraordinary" claims did I make? That there are studies of homeopathy out there that are statistically significant? How is that in any way "extraordinary"??

Thanks for the critique that you copy and pasted. I found it interesting, but would have preferred a critique in your own words.

 

[T'ai Chi]

You claim to be a statistician, what is your opinion on the design?

From which article?

Decimal potency is part of homeopathy,

Yes, I agree..

And here's another suggestion. Go to a homeopathic remedy supplier site and see the dilutions they sell.

I found many sites. Some of which had things for sale with high potency, and some of which had things for sale with lower potency, and a good mix.

 

[athon]

Tai Chi,

I'm still wondering, do you support the use of homeopathy as a currently available option for use in modern medicine? So far, all I've seen from advocates is an admission that there are some 'interesting statistics'. While we continue to debate this, do you feel that this warrants homeopathy to be used as a drug regiment for various conditions?

Athon

 

[BTox]

Which "extraordinary" claims did I make? That there are studies of homeopathy out there that are statistically significant? How is that in any way "extraordinary"?? [/B]

Perhaps you haven't been paying attention. Claiming that a placebo medicine like homeopathy will give a clinically relevant and statistically significant effect vs true placebo is extraordinary. Otherwise why would there be any debate here?

Thanks for the critique that you copy and pasted. I found it interesting, but would have preferred a critique in your own words. [/B]

Well, since I am a chemist and not a statistician or clinician, I defer to expert opinion on such matters.