Homeopathy is everywhere!

[thaiboxerken]

When you decide to quit attacking personalities, and focus more on homeopathy, please let the thread know.

When you decide to quit arguing for arguements' sake, let us know.

 

[T'ai Chi]

But what is considered homeopathy or not IS determined by the person that invented it.

That may be partially correct. I think a lot of researchers are studiyng things not all at 30C or over and combined, both things which Hahneman didn't like (according to BTox). I guess the specifics of homeopathy can change over time just like the specifics of many sciences.

In any case, the modern scientific status of homeopathy, which I am more concerned about, is not determined at all by the person who invented homeopathy.

 

[SteveGrenard]

TaiChi: The scientific status of homeopathy is obviously determined by experiment and peer reviewed studies, not by reading what the originator wrote on homeopathy.


This is not only true of homeopathy but of every field ..... should we go back to Hippocrates and see what he said about medicine? or Galen? Look at the "wee-beasties" is a phrase attributed to Anton vanLeeuenhoek when he peered into his early microscope under which he saw, er, "animacules."? Science constantly moves forward. Originators do a fine job originating if people are still developing new findings based on the original tenets, but beyond basic core principles, a lot of what went on before becomes no longer relevant in the present nor, predictably, in the future.

 

[thaiboxerken]

That may be partially correct. I think a lot of researchers are studiyng things not all at 30C or over and combined, both things which Hahneman didn't like (according to BTox). I guess the specifics of homeopathy can change over time just like the specifics of many sciences.

In any case, the modern scientific status of homeopathy, which I am more concerned about, is not determined at all by the person who invented homeopathy.

1. It's not science.
2. Deviation from the originator's theories make it no longer homeopathy.

 

[TLN]

Well I'm sure it is there if you contact the researchers and politely ask, they could give you the full data-set and experimental design details. Have you contacted any?

No. I asked you to back up your claim that "...there are some well designed studies with significant results". I'm not doing your homework for you.

It's like this: I'm not going Leprechaun hunting because I don't expect to find any. However, if you have a Leprechaun that you'd like to show me I'd be happy to examine it.

Show me the Leprechaun or stop alluding to their existence.

Um, I don't think so, because I have shown that there are well designed studied with significant effects. Unless you are arguing against the use and interpretation of p-values (which are used all over science).

I'm arguing with the fact that I can't see the testing protocol for the tests and the raw data isn't available to us. You can't say these tests are "significant" because we can't scrutinize them.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Originators do a fine job originating if people are still developing new findings based on the original tenets, but beyond basic core principles, a lot of what went on before becomes no longer relevant in the present nor, predictably, in the future.

And what does it mean if someone goes against the basic core principles? By using less than 6X dilution and more than one active ingredient, they are doing just that.

You can't use a flamethrower and claim that you're using magic to produce fire.

 

[T'ai Chi]

1. It's not science.
2. Deviation from the originator's theories make it no longer homeopathy.

What happened to you not educating me anymore...

For 1., I didn't say it is a science, I said its 'scientific status'.

For 2., I disagree. It could be called modern homeopathy, or whatever, but saying that once there is a deviation then it is no longer homeopathy, I don't agree with that. Realms of knowledge are changing all the time.

 

[T'ai Chi]

No. I asked you to back up your claim that "...there are some well designed studies with significant results". I'm not doing your homework for you.

Someone claimed that the studies are incomplete because the articles don't present their full data-set and all their experimental details. This is common practice in MANY scientific fields (and incidently the JREF test results), and to criticize articles on homeopathy for not being this complete is very strange. You think that journals are going to publish entire datasets and minute details of experimental designs for every article??

I have asked researchers (not in homeopathy studies specifically, but I have in some articles on MRI's and surgeries) for their data-sets, and for more details, and they have responded positively by emailing me the information and a file of the data.

It's like this: I'm not going Leprechaun hunting because I don't expect to find any. However, if you have a Leprechaun that you'd like to show me I'd be happy to examine it.

Don't forget to bring up Santa or unicorns to further bolster your views.

I'm arguing with the fact that I can't see the testing protocol for the tests and the raw data isn't available to us. You can't say these tests are "significant" because we can't scrutinize them.

Well, if you want the dataset, there is nothing I can do about that. You'll have to ask the specific researchers for it. We'd also have to assume that you know what to do with the data (analyzing and interpretation) once you get it, which I have no problem assuming.

Hey, you might have to fly to Florida... oops, I mean to the location of the researchers, to ask for more details.. Sound familiar?

(edited to fix a quote tag)

 

[SteveGrenard]

Thaiboxerken: And what does it mean if someone goes against the basic core principles? By using less than 6X dilution and more than one active ingredient, they are doing just that.

Are you saying it is okay for allopathic pharmacology to develop different dosages and potencies as well as combination products and treatments but homeopathic pharmacology is somehow prohibited from doing that because you say it is so? Are you done now? Excuse me while .......I just can't restrain myself anymore

 

[Ratman_tf]

It's like this: I'm not going Leprechaun hunting because I don't expect to find any. However, if you have a Leprechaun that you'd like to show me I'd be happy to examine it.

Don't forget to bring up Santa or unicorns to further bolster your views. [/B]

I do hope you're being serious and not sarcastic here T'ai. I'd hate to think that you're closed minded as to the existence of Leprechauns.

 

[TLN]

Someone claimed that the studies are incomplete because the articles don't present their full data-set and all their experimental details. This is common practice in MANY scientific fields (and incidently the JREF test results), and to criticize articles on homeopathy for not being this complete is very strange. You think that journals are going to publish entire datasets and minute details of experimental designs for every article??

The studies may be complete. I don't know that for sure and neither do you as we can't see the data.

And the testing protocol! You glossed right over this one. What is the testing protocol and can we see it please? It's not listed on the web site. It only says the tests were "double-blind" or used "controls" but doesn't describe the testing method at all.

You cannot claim these references provide evidence of anything at all as they're woefully incomplete.

So, do you have another reference?

Don't forget to bring up Santa or unicorns to further bolster your views.

Do you have a Leprechaun (tests that provide evidence for the claims of homeopathy) for me to scrutinize? Can I see it please?

You can try to turn this into a joke all you like, but it's the heart of the issue. Show me the data.

Hey, you might have to fly to Florida... oops, I mean to the location of the researchers, to ask for more details.. Sound familiar?

You keep trying to deflect this conversation onto the JREF Challenge. It's so sad. We're not discussing that. Get it? The JREF tests are not scientific studies. Get it?

Stay on subject.

 

[T'ai Chi]

The studies may be complete. I don't know that for sure and neither do you as we can't see the data.

Your point applies to basically any study, in any topic, anywhere, in any discipline.

And the testing protocol! You glossed right over this one. What is the testing protocol and can we see it please? It's not listed on the web site. It only says the tests were "double-blind" or used "controls" but doesn't describe the testing method at all.

Right. There might be more information in the actual article as opposed to the abstract. But, it is standard procedure in journals to not list every minute detail. This applies to "paranormal" and non-paranormal disciplines. You have to contact the authors and ask for additional information.

You cannot claim these references provide evidence of anything at all as they're woefully incomplete.

Fine, then by your logic you cannot claim that the non-significant studies prove anything than either, because they are incomplete!

You can try to turn this into a joke all you like, but it's the heart of the issue. Show me the data.

Me joking? You are the one who brought up Leprechans.. Why do you ignore the fact that to get the full data-set and details of a study you have to contact the authors?

You keep trying to deflect this conversation onto the JREF Challenge. It's so sad. We're not discussing that. Get it? The JREF tests are not scientific studies. Get it?

The JREF tests, something you view as solid, contain the very flaws you are accusing more scientificly conducted research of. Do you disagree with that?

You are making the mistake of asking me for the data to some study (you weren't specific one which one). Do you think I have a database of the full dataset on every homeopathy study? I'd hope not.. To get the data you have to contact the people who conducted the study and who therefore have the data!

 

[thaiboxerken]

Are you saying it is okay for allopathic pharmacology to develop different dosages and potencies as well as combination products and treatments but homeopathic pharmacology is somehow prohibited from doing that because you say it is so?
[/B]

Yes, because when they go less than 6X dilution, it is no longer homeopathy but it's in the realm of regular medicine at that point. You can't give someone a tablet of aspirin and claim that it's homeopathy.

What will you do next, call surgery a form of therapeutic touch?

 

[thaiboxerken]

You are making the mistake of asking me for the data to some study (you weren't specific one which one). Do you think I have a database of the full dataset on every homeopathy study? I'd hope not.. To get the data you have to contact the people who conducted the study and who therefore have the data!

When you find studies that have withstood scrutiny by the medical and scientific communities, feel free to post them. I mean community also, not just an isolated bunch of quacks.

 

[T'ai Chi]

When you find studies that have withstood scrutiny by the medical and scientific communities, feel free to post them. I mean community also, not just an isolated bunch of quacks.

Uh, TLN was requesting for me to show him "the data" from some hypothetical study which he didn't specify. I don't have full datasets from all studies. He'd obviously have to contact the researchers of that specific study for that specific information. Do you disagree with that, Thai?

So let's get your ultimate medical efficacy proof critera straight:
1. has to be reviewed positively by JAMA

Any others, Ken?

The "isolated bunch of quacks" is a community of thousands of professionals, by the way.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Uh, TLN was requesting for me to show him "the data" from some hypothetical study which he didn't specify. I don't have full datasets from all studies. He'd obviously have to contact the researchers of that specific study for that specific information. Do you disagree with that, Thai?

Peer reviewed journals often give more than just a synopsis of the studies done.


So let's get your ultimate medical efficacy proof critera straight:
1. has to be reviewed positively by JAMA

Any others, Ken?

Yes, let's include the FDA as well.


The "isolated bunch of quacks" is a community of thousands of professionals, by the way.

Yes, it's sad how many quacks there are out there just preying on people. Making money for calling water medicine should be illegal.

 

[BTox]

That may be partially correct. I think a lot of researchers are studiyng things not all at 30C or over and combined, both things which Hahneman didn't like (according to BTox). I guess the specifics of homeopathy can change over time just like the specifics of many sciences.

Once again, you need to read up on homeopathy. There is a huge range of dilutions (or potencies) available. One major premise of homeopathy is the higher the dilution, the higher the potency. 6X or 3C is the least dilute (and hence least potent) used. This represents 1 part in 1,000,000 of the original material, which is still analytically detected but for all intents and purposes, extremely dilute. 30C is considered a mid range in the potency scale, yet by dilution, is now at 1 part in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000! Others are much higher in "potency" even compared to this (200C, 1M)!

In any case, the modern scientific status of homeopathy, which I am more concerned about, is not determined at all by the person who invented homeopathy.

The scientific status is not, the basic principles that guide it most certainly are, which were all determined by Hahnemann.

 

[BTox]

Are you saying it is okay for allopathic pharmacology to develop different dosages and potencies as well as combination products and treatments but homeopathic pharmacology is somehow prohibited from doing that because you say it is so? Are you done now? Excuse me while .......I just can't restrain myself anymore

Now you're just being silly. Hahnemann was very persistent on these points. Have you also little knowledge of this topic? Each remedy possesses very specific energies or vibrations, and must always be used one at a time. And regarding potencies, there is an immense (almost infinite) range of potencies available. Again, a basic principle of homeopathy is the original substance must be extremely diluted to have healing efficacy. And 6X, or 3C, is the lowest "effective" dilution, even this is rarely used. Sure this is load of crap, but if you question these two foundations of homeopathy, the entire house of cards comes tumbling down (not that it hasn't already).

 

[BTox]

Originators do a fine job originating if people are still developing new findings based on the original tenets, but beyond basic core principles, a lot of what went on before becomes no longer relevant in the present nor, predictably, in the future.

Exactly, and what we are debating are basic core principles.

 

[BTox]

I've been curious about medical research standards, and how well research on various forms of alternative medicine meets those standards. Unfortunately I'm a total idiot on the subject. I don't suppose you know of any sites that describe these phases in layman's terms?

Here's a synopsis of the FDA approval process. It is extremely arduous. Very simply, if any so-called alternative medical practice passes this process, it will no longer be alternative medicine. If you search FDA site there is much more detail, including the specific CFR regulations related to this process.

fda approval process