Homeopathy is everywhere!

[SteveGrenard]

Read Randi's commentaries and you'll see that he considershomeopathy as a paranormal claim. Homeopathy is encompassed in the JREF challenge.

This is not what I asked you. It was a rhetorical question anyway. You have no knowledge or can make no guarantees that anyone you advise to go to the trouble and expense of applying will be accepted. The subject matter is irrelevant.

If you think it has a chance of working, why not just buy some homeopathic "medicine" and try it yourself? There's only a million dollars in it for you.

My my you are pretty loose with your offers for a million dollars of JREF's money. Is this something you learned from others? What you suggest would be anecdotal and does not rise to the level of a controlled scientific drug study which would be costly and beyond my personal expertise in any case. The JREF challenge, as we have repeatedly been told, is not a scientific study so it holds no relevance for me except in cases where a magician or conjuror uses his experience to unmask the claims of someone who is faking.

The FDA has not regulated homeopathy as legitimate medical treatment. Since water has no inherent side-effects, the FDA really has no jurisdiction on it more than water regulations.

This has nothing to do with the FDA regulating the sale and use of these remedies. If you read what I said, you would see that it involves the granting of a 1983 petition to HALT the sale of these products. I believe the basis would be claim related. And by the
way, local health departments do have jursidiction over water
sold to the public. Most homeopathic remedies are no longer water, however. Are you sure water has no inherent side effects?
Think that one over or better yet research it for yourself.

So should we be researching religion as well?

This question hardly deserves an answer. Religious studies and
research, biblical archeology, and many many other fields study and research religion. I do not believe you are living such a sheltered life you were not aware of this. Religion and science has been an issue topic even in the Skeptical Inquirer a few months back. Don't bother searching this, you are apt to get back two or three million URLs on the subject. So to answer your question, we already are.

Homeopathy doesn't work, that has been proven time and again by the medical and scientific community combined. It is an interesting thing to see how trolls like you and T'ai will say anything, and toss out any BS study to demonstrate how homeopathy works. If anyone is close-minded, it would be the two of you. You're closed off to what you call "mainstream" science and medicine for some reason. You seem to have a need to believe that there has to be something beyond the real world.

You still don't know how to read what I and TaiChi have said about this subject. I guess its hard for some people to think about two sides of an issue at the same time. (This applies to the rest of your response as well...you are a living example of what we were trying to demonstrate. Thanks.)

 

[Rolfe]

Read Randi's commentaries and you'll see that he considers homeopathy as a paranormal claim. Homeopathy is encompassed in the JREF challenge.

He restated it very simply a couple of weeks ago. "Can the applicant differentiate between homeopathic and non-homeopathic materials?"

Just like Penta water, really. Any way you like.

A bit tricky lining up all these patients and tracking them all to see who gets better and who doesn't, especially if you have to exclude all possible jiggery-pokery. And in vitro methods don't have a good record on this one - ask Jacques Benveniste and Madeleine Ennis.

If you think it has a chance of working, why not just buy some homeopathic "medicine" and try it yourself? There's only a million dollars in it for you.

He's right. You see, the homoeopaths don't just say the stuff cures patients. They say it produces recognisable signs in healthy people. They call this 'proving' a remedy (nothing at all to do with proving it actually works, oh dearie me no), and they rely absolutely on the results of the volunteers in these provings for the baseline data they use to choose the right remedy for the actual patients.

So, homoeopathic remedies must cause recognisable symptoms in healthy people, or else the whole thing falls apart even by their own logic. So all you have to do to win the million bucks is to show by taking the stuff and observing the symptoms that you can tell whether you've been given the remedy or a sham.

Should be dead easy. And remember, if it can't be done, even the homoeopaths' own theory is in deep doo-doo. Funny nobody's been along to pick up the money yet, don't you think?

Rolfe.

 

[thaiboxerken]

This is not what I asked you. It was a rhetorical question anyway. You have no knowledge or can make no guarantees that anyone you advise to go to the trouble and expense of applying will be accepted. The subject matter is irrelevant.

Expenses of applying for the challenge?! LOL. I guess some people can't risk the 2 dollars it takes to notorize and application.


My my you are pretty loose with your offers for a million dollars of JREF's money. Is this something you learned from others? What you suggest would be anecdotal and does not rise to the level of a controlled scientific drug study which would be costly and beyond my personal expertise in any case. The JREF challenge, as we have repeatedly been told, is not a scientific study so it holds no relevance for me except in cases where a magician or conjuror uses his experience to unmask the claims of someone who is faking.

Homeopaths are fakes. The JREF challenge would expose them as such. If homeopathy really works, the JREF will have one million dollars less. Know any homeopaths? Invite them to try.


This has nothing to do with the FDA regulating the sale and use of these remedies. If you read what I said, you would see that it involves the granting of a 1983 petition to HALT the sale of these products. I believe the basis would be claim related. And by the
way, local health departments do have jursidiction over water
sold to the public. Most homeopathic remedies are no longer water, however.

Homeopathic "medicine" IS nothing but water. The FDA does not ban the sales of things that pose no harm to the general public. Homeopathic medicine is not harmful to the public.. but neither is it beneficial as a medicine.



This question hardly deserves an answer. Religious studies and
research, biblical archeology, and many many other fields study and research religion. I do not believe you are living such a sheltered life you were not aware of this.

I'm demonstrating that your reasoning of "if it's being sold, it should be researched" is flawed. Homeopathy HAS been researched and found to have no more affect than placebo. It can be sold because it's not harmful, not because it works.

You still don't know how to read what I and TaiChi have said about this subject. I guess its hard for some people to think about two sides of an issue at the same time. (This applies to the rest of your response as well...you are a living example of what we were trying to demonstrate. Thanks.)

I understand that you two argue against skeptics for the sake of arguing against skeptics. You're not going to convince this skeptic to abandon reasoning and science just to accept homeopathy.

 

[Rolfe]

What the? That doesn't even make any sense. Are you saying that Steve testing homeopathic medicine on himself will prove something?

Yes, exactly. See my previous post. "Prove" in the sense the homoeopaths use it, and also in the sense the rest of us use it.

And yes, before anyone asks, Hahnemann himself decreed that provings should be done on 30C potencies, and that's way beyond having any substance left in it.

If the basics of homoeopathic theory have any truth at all, these preparations produce real, recognisable, significant symptoms in healthy people. It should be very easy for anyone with the slightest familiarity with the methods to tell a remedy from a sham in this way, and so win the money.

On another little fallacy, it's true that a lot of the over-the-counter homoeopathic remedies are not solute-free. 6C is a common dilution seen in chemists' shops and Internet sites. However, two points. First, even that is so dilute that the chances of it having any effect are pretty theoretical. Second, homoeopaths all agree that this isn't real homoeopathy - in real homoeopathy the remedy must be individualised to the patient. For example, there are 40 remedies for anaemia. Only by having a deep conversation with the patient can the homoeopath divine which one of these is right for that individual. If you do that, go to an actual homoeopath I mean, you'll find that all the remedies they use are way over the nothing-in-them limit. The reason is that these preparations are so much stronger that they're not safe over the counter, and have to be confined to the experts who really know what they're doing.

Yes, really.

Rolfe.

 

[SteveGrenard]

If Rolfe and Thaiboxerken can legally guarantee that I can go out and buy some homeopathic medicine for the pain in my left ear & it gets better then I can submit this to JREF and get a million dollars, they know more about it than I do. But I don't think so guys..............................I know it would take a lot more than a so-called proving to win that prize. If not, send the check. I am better.

 

[Rolfe]

Oh, we're into the cost of the trial now, are we?

Well, the preliminary trial can be done near to where the applicant lives, so travel shouldn't be much. If you can actually pass this, half this board will be putting their hands in their pockets to get you to the definitive test if need be!

All you need is some genuine homoeopathic remedy of your own choosing, prepared in such a way as to satisfy both you and the judges that there's been no hanky-panky. And some other stuff, just the same except it never had any of the original substance in it.

Then you just have to take what you're given, without knowing which it is, and say whether it's the remedy or the sham. Enough times to convince the statisticians you're not just having a run of lucky guesses.

If the basic cost of that is too much for you to risk, with the dead cert of a million bucks at the end, then you're one weird dude.

Mind you, it might be wise to try it privately first, getting a friend to blind and randomise the preparations for you, just so you know you can do it. Should be easy enough. I mean, they use volunteers like you to 'prove' the remedies. You must be able to feel these symptoms, otherwise it's all a load of hooey. And it isn't that, of course!

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

If Rolfe and Thaiboxerken can legally guarantee that I can go out and buy some homeopathic medicine for the pain in my left ear & it gets better then I can submit this to JREF and get a million dollars.....

Go read it again. If you can tell the difference between a homoeopathic preparation and a sham, any way you like, you get the money. Yes, it has to be under controlled conditions, and repeated often enough to show it's not just a lucky guess, but that's not so hard.

Forget the curing the pain in your left ear. Yes, the 'provings' the homoeopaths do ARE within the remit of the challenge. They say the remedies cause obvious signs in healthy people. So, you only need to be one healthy person to show that's true. Under controlled conditions.

On you go, and the best of luck to you.

Rolfe.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I understand that you two argue against skeptics for the sake of arguing against skeptics.

I certainly deny that.

I simply presented links to abstracts of some journal articles on homeopathy that show statistically significant effects, as was requested of me.

You aren't justified in saying that I haven't showed any journal articles so therefore I have no evidence, but then say that I am out to argue for arguements' sake when I do show the articles.

 

[T'ai Chi]

And yes, before anyone asks, Hahnemann himself decreed that provings should be done on 30C potencies, and that's way beyond having any substance left in it.

So if anyone deviates slightly from Hahnemann, then it isn't homeopathy?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Enough times to convince the statisticians you're not just having a run of lucky guesses.

I would think that scientists working on homepathy, for example, would want to go through the standard scientific channels (experiments, peer review, etc.).

You must be able to feel these symptoms, otherwise it's all a load of hooey. And it isn't that, of course!

That is a little strict I think because it is known that not all medicine works all the time, even in more conventional forms of treatment.

 

[Rolfe]

I simply presented links to abstracts of some journal articles on homeopathy that show statistically significant effects, as was requested of me.

You aren't justified in saying that I haven't showed any journal articles so therefore I have no evidence, but then say that I am out to argue for arguements' sake when I do show the articles.

You've said that before. Lots of times. And I've only been on the Forum about three days!

We all know that there are studies in print where the homoeopaths have managed to sweat the statistics to get some sort of marginal apparent effect recorded. We also know that no matter how often these studies are taken to bits by statisticians and shown to be "poor quality" (polite science-speak for a load of b*llsh*t), and how often attempts to replicate them under better conditions fail miserably, the original articles will always be there for you to trot out.

Even the most cutting-edge homoeopathic researchers admit that the better controlled a trial the less effect there is. And that the alleged miracles are all strictly one time only. The paper below is recent, and from a very prominent homoeopath. Read the early bits, what it has to say about the strength of the "rational" evidence.

Magic of signs: a non-local interpretation of homeopathy.

So move on.

We've shown you exactly how to get the prize with only a very modest outlay. I've explained to you that this must work, because if it doesn't the basic theory of homoeopathy is completely mistaken.

So maybe you ought to move fast, before somebody else gets the money.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

So if anyone deviates slightly from Hahnemann, then it isn't homeopathy?

I'm not going there. I was merely pointing out that virtually all the substances 'proved' to date and hence in use by homoeopaths, had their basic data gathered at 30C potencies.

There's nothing left at 30C. Therefore it's covered by the Randi challenge.

Show by taking it and observing the 'proving' symptoms that you can tell a 30C (or any beyond-Avogadro dilution) remedy from a fake. And pick up the money. If that's not possible, virtually all the existing provings are invalid.

So it must be possible, right?

Rolfe.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I'm not going there.

Well, I think it is a very sensible question, considering we are talking about homeopathy, so I'll ask it again:

If anyone deviates from Hahneman, it isn't homeopathy anymore?

I ask this because your criteria of 30C, or whatever, is not universal if there are homeopaths that use less of a dilution factor as a standard.

 

[Rolfe]

That is a little strict I think because it is known that not all medicine works all the time, even in more conventional forms of treatment.

Boy, you do like to evade the issue, don't you.

We're not talking about medicine working. We're talking about the basic theory of homoeopathy. This states that healthy people feel certain things when they take a homoeopathic remedy.

You, as a healthy person, will therefore feel something when you take a remedy. To win the money you only have to tell remedy from non-remedy, you don't even have to be able to tell one remedy from another. You even get to pick which remedy you try, so you can choose one that's known to have very striking effects. It's all there in the homoeopathic literature.

If you can't find even one remedy which causes you to feel the things the homoeopaths say you will feel, well, you must be very unusual. Or maybe the homoeopaths are talking a load of cr*p?

But that's their theory, not mine. It's a very easy and cheap way to test it. If they're right, it's easy.

Look, I get the idea you don't actually know very much about homoeopathy. Go read some of the basic theory up. You'll see I'm right. Either the remedies produce these effects, and the prize is a sure thing, or the whole thing's a load of b*llsh*t.

Guess what I think?

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

.... your criteria of 30C, or whatever, is not universal if there are homeopaths that use less of a dilution factor as a standard.

I'm talking about the provings. Look it up. Virtually all the substances in use, whatever dilution any individual may use for treatment, were 'proved' at 30C.

So if the effects they record and rely on are not actually there at 30C, "like cures like" falls apart.

Rolfe.

 

[T'ai Chi]

You've said that before. Lots of times. And I've only been on the Forum about three days!

Yeah, I agree. You see, people ask me questions and stuff. -And some people misread, probably unintentionally, what I type, and then tell me things I've supposedly said or thought which I haven't, so I have to re-state my position to refresh their memories.

We all know that there are studies in print where the homoeopaths have managed to sweat the statistics ...

What does "sweat the statistics" mean? It seems to me that they've proceeded along the standard channels of the scientific disciplines that use statistics to come to conclusions.

We also know that no matter how often these studies are taken to bits by statisticians and shown to be "poor quality" (polite science-speak for a load of b*llsh*t),

There are some studies (this can be obtained from a PubMed journal article look-up for example) of homeopathy that are randomized, controlled, and double-blinded. If this is poor quality, I don't even want to know the criteria for good quality. I think we also know that no matter how many good studies are done, there will still be some that dismiss it outright because it is a study on homeopathy. Both approaches are wholly incorrect.

Even the most cutting-edge homoeopathic researchers admit that the better controlled a trial the less effect there is.

That might be so. However, if the effect is small, the effect is still there. The mass of an atom is smaller in magnitude than any of the p-values reported in homeopathy studies.

And that the alleged miracles are all strictly one time only.

Kind of like some things in astronomy maybe?

So move on.

I'll read the pro and con journal articles, but thanks for your suggestion.

We've shown you exactly how to get the prize with only a very modest outlay.

Huh? Who said I am competing for the prize?? I am simply reading and reporting on the work that has been done on homeopathy.

As far as scientists working in this field, I'd think that they'd want to go through the standard channels of science (experiment, peer review, etc.).

 

[thaiboxerken]

If Rolfe and Thaiboxerken can legally guarantee that I can go out and buy some homeopathic medicine for the pain in my left ear & it gets better then I can submit this to JREF and get a million dollars, they know more about it than I do. But I don't think so guys..............................I know it would take a lot more than a so-called proving to win that prize. If not, send the check. I am better.

Especially since that is not a blind or controlled experiment at all. C'mon, SG, you can do better than that. If you think homeopathy has a good chance of working, pick your favorite "homeopathic remedy" and work out a test with Randi to prove it.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I'm talking about the provings. Look it up.

Yeah, where do I "look it up"?

If you look it up in Hahneman's writings, then my question is pertinant I feel.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Huh? Who said I am competing for the prize?? I am simply reading and reporting on the work that has been done on homeopathy

Just another excuse as to why, yet, another paranormal claim has failed to beat the JREF challenge.

 

[Rolfe]

You've made it very clear that you don't know much about what you're talking about. You repeat the same thing again and again with no attempt either to understand what's said to you, or to follow the discussion as it moves on.

If you find the subject interesting, go and find out about it for real, rather than just repeating the same half-truths and stalling measures you've been going in for.

You'll see that what I say is true. If there was any truth to homoeopathy's basic theory, anyone could have won the prize any time. Nobody has, so maybe there's a lesson in that?

You cling to the idea of tiny, marginal effects. Medicine isn't about tiny marginal effects. It's about changing people's lives. It's about diabetics not dying now they can have insulin.

Even if your idea were true, what use is a medicine that only reduces the severity of an asthmatic's cough by about one cough every three days? That's about the level of the "effects" they claim in the statistically significant trials. What's the use of a medicine that will only cure one patient in a million - and you don't know which patient that is?

But I think you're only here for the sake of having an argument. Well, thanks, because I wanted some more posts towards getting enough for my own avatar. (Childish, but there you go.) But you're becoming repetitive and boring, and you've begged every interesting question I've asked you. And Thaiboxerken, who was saying some interesting things, seems to have gone home.

So I'm going to do that too. If you really want to know about homoeopathy, go and do some real reading.

Nighty-night.

Rolfe.