Homeopathy is everywhere!

But SG and T'ai Chi just keep repeating the fact that there are some positive studies out there, while ignoring all the contrary evidence they're shown.....



Not true. I have never mentioned a positive test without mentioning negative ones, almost in the same breath save foreinstances where positiives were requested and then the references/abstracts provided. Negatives are not being ignored. What is the problem is how do you decide which one to accept?
 
SteveGrenard said:
What is the problem is how do you decide which one to accept?

You've said that before, too, and it's been answered before. Let's try again.

Well, you could apply a critical mind to the relative quality of the various studies. You could also read the reviews of experienced scientists who have applied critical minds to this issue, and have carefully explained their reasons for the negative opinion they present. You could even look at the tiny number of papers which even try to present a controlled study and which are allegedly "positive", compared to the stonking wodges of decent research showing absolutely bugger-all. Some of the latter even coming form within the homoeopathic community itself.

Bandolier has a short appraisal of study quality (there are links to other useful pages on the page I've linked to - especially this one).

This one here has links to a pretty fair sample of those wodges of null results I mentioned.

And I posted about four other links to places where exactly this was discussed in quite a lot of detail. But you ignore them all.

You seem to think these links have no relevance or are biassed because they are posted by "sceptics". Well, hear this. Homoeopathy is BS. It's such obvious BS that anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see this with any reasonable examination of the available information. Reaching this conclusion, they become "sceptics".

Use the brain cells I'm assuming you have. Go actually look at the evidence and decide for yourself which side is more credible, or look sensibly at the articles presented by others who have done that - they don't just publish their conclusions but their reasoning, for all to see. Evaluate it.

Rolfe.
 
Bandolier is an agenda-based and agenda biased website. Sorry, don't consider them completely objective.

Way back 500 posts ago Pyrrho was kind enough to post "some studies" --- all of which mitigated against homeopathy or declared positive results as a placebo effect. In that same source he got these from he managed to omit about a half dozen or so positive studies. Selection bias? I would say so. Nothing personal Pyrrho but its something we often dont realize we are doing.

This is what you are doing here. You are selecting studies to suit your bias, you are appealing to authority (e.g. Bandolier) and just as you can incorrectly state myself or Tai ignore the negative studies, I could turn around and say the same for you where positive results are concerned. What's the bottom line? Well you may be convinced, and I am happy for you. I am a lot tougher to convince.
 
Rolfe said:

Bandolier has a short appraisal of study quality


So meta-analysis is now suddenly valid, but its not when the results favor homeopathy??


Well, hear this. Homoeopathy is BS. It's such obvious BS that anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see this with any reasonable examination of the available information.


That is just an emotional appeal.

There is no such thing as 'obvious BS'. You have to examine things scientifically.
 
T'ai Chi said:


So meta-analysis is now suddenly valid, but its not when the results favor homeopathy??

[/b]

That is just an emotional appeal.

There is no such thing as 'obvious BS'. You have to examine things scientifically. [/B]

Troll
 
Bandolier is an agenda-based and agenda biased website. Sorry, don't consider them completely objective.

You're correct, their agenda is to inform people of real studies and evidence vice the BS that is out there. They are as objective as it gets.

Way back 500 posts ago Pyrrho was kind enough to post "some studies" --- all of which mitigated against homeopathy or declared positive results as a placebo effect. In that same source he got these from he managed to omit about a half dozen or so positive studies. Selection bias? I would say so.

Yes, the selection is limited to credible studies.


This is what you are doing here. You are selecting studies to suit your bias, you are appealing to authority (e.g. Bandolier) and just as you can incorrectly state myself or Tai ignore the negative studies, I could turn around and say the same for you where positive results are concerned. What's the bottom line? Well you may be convinced, and I am happy for you. I am a lot tougher to convince.


What we're doing here is ignoring faulty studies. Nothing wrong with that.


You are a troll.
 
SteveGrenard said:
Bandolier is an agenda-based and agenda biased website. Sorry, don't consider them completely objective.

Way back 500 posts ago Pyrrho was kind enough to post "some studies" --- all of which mitigated against homeopathy or declared positive results as a placebo effect. In that same source he got these from he managed to omit about a half dozen or so positive studies. Selection bias? I would say so. Nothing personal Pyrrho but its something we often dont realize we are doing.

Oh, but I did realize what I was doing. I was counting on you to post your own biased selection, which you did. I also suggested that people follow the link and read for themselves.

This is what you are doing here. You are selecting studies to suit your bias, you are appealing to authority (e.g. Bandolier) and just as you can incorrectly state myself or Tai ignore the negative studies, I could turn around and say the same for you where positive results are concerned. What's the bottom line? Well you may be convinced, and I am happy for you. I am a lot tougher to convince.
Enough with the studies; it's time to hold homeopathy's feet to the fire and demand that it be treated the same way as any other drug is treated by the FDA. The sooner that happens, the sooner the door will slam shut on homeopathy.
 
Enough with the studies; it's time to hold homeopathy's feet to the fire and demand that it be treated the same way as any other drug is treated by the FDA. The sooner that happens, the sooner the door will slam shut on homeopathy.

If the homeopaths were honest and truly believe their "medicines" are real, they would be fighting for that as well. But, they know that their "alternative" medicines don't carry well int he world of evidence.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Enough with the studies; it's time to hold homeopathy's feet to the fire and demand that it be treated the same way as any other drug is treated by the FDA. The sooner that happens, the sooner the door will slam shut on homeopathy.

If the homeopaths were honest and truly believe their "medicines" are real, they would be fighting for that as well. But, they know that their "alternative" medicines don't carry well int he world of evidence.
Well, it's up to the FDA to enforce the laws equally. We can't single out homeopaths as dishonest, because "allopathic" drug producers aren't all that honest, either. One has only to read some of the warning letters on the FDA website to know this. I've said it before, I'll say it again: if the FDA were to hold homeopathy to the same standard as other drugs, I'd be satisfied that homeopathy was receiving due process. As it stands, the FDA is saying that homeopathy has no pharmacokinetic ingredients on the one hand, yet regulates homeopathic preparations as drugs on the other, only without the same exhaustive approval process required of any other drugs. It just isn't right, and it needs to change.

Then, there's the EdGod Sniff Test: if there were anything at all to homeopathy, one would expect the big drug companies to make the stuff. It would cost them far less than the billions of dollars they currently invest in research and clinical trials, and the profit potential is just as great, if not better. But they don't...
 
Well, it's up to the FDA to enforce the laws equally.

That and make the law equal as well.

We can't single out homeopaths as dishonest, because "allopathic" drug producers aren't all that honest, either.

I can classify ALL homeopaths as dishonest because I don't see ANY of them fighting for equal treatment.

It just isn't right, and it needs to change.

Sure does, but do you really think the homeopaths and alternative medicine people want that? It's only a billion dollar industry being threatened with having to provide evidence for their claims of effectiveness.

Then, there's the EdGod Sniff Test: if there were anything at all to homeopathy, one would expect the big drug companies to make the stuff.

Unfortuneately, they are. It's not due to the effectiveness of homeopathy, but the low overhead cost and popularity.

It would cost them far less than the billions of dollars they currently invest in research and clinical trials, and the profit potential is just as great, if not better. But they don't...

Why do clinical trials when, for believers, anecdotes are good enough?
 
I agree there is no reason the FDA should not insist on RPCTs for determining the the validity of homeopathic indications and claims.
There is certainly a body of literature out there that would support such trials. The Lancet printed the most significant and comprehensive review of homeopathic research ever published in September 20, 1997. It was a meta-analysis of 89 blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials. The authors concluded that clinical effects of homeopathic medicines are not the result of the placebo effect.

They researchers reviewed 186 studies, 119 of which were double-blind and/or randomized placebo-control trials, and 89 of which met pre-defined criteria for inclusion into a pooled meta-analysis. The reseachers found that by pooling the 89 trials together that homeopathic medicines had a 2.45 times greater effect than placebo.

The Lancet concurrently published two critiques of the homeopathic research. One critique by Jan Vandenbroucke, MD, a Dutch professor, who wrote "The meta-analysis is completely state of the art." And yet, despite its results, he asserts that homeopathic medicines "cannot possibly produce any effect."

re involvement of M.D.s on homeopathy:

A survey of primary care physicians who are members of the AMA indicated 49% of them expressed interest in training in homeopathy (British Homeopathic Journal, July, 1997). This survey was conducted by researchers at the University of Maryland. These same researchers also surveyed Maryland family practice doctors and discovered that 69% expressed interest in homeopathic training (Journal of the American Board of Family Practice, 1995, 8, 361-6.

On the placebo effect in animals, thanks for the feedback but I was talking about studies or trials of these drugs in animals, not treatment of them by vets with owners in attendance and
using owner feedback or trumped diagnoses to make a case.
These studies involved induced pathology in lab animals, which were treated by homeopathic drugs and placebos.
 
I think that if true efficacy is to be shown the studies should move out of the meta-analysis stage. If there's some efficacy in homeopathy, it should be given a fair chance to be shown.

It would be interesting to see a complete, phased study of a given homeopathic preparation vs a placebo and an allopathic drug. Of course the homeopathic and the allopathic would have to be indicated for the same physical condition.

It may be of interest to note that adverse events do occur during the placebo stage in all drug trials.

Don't get me wrong...I think homeopathy is a load of hooey. But I also believe in fair chances and equal footing.
 
Pyrrho said:
But I also believe in fair chances and equal footing.

Do you think homeopathy hasn't been given both since it's introduction?
 
TLN said:


Do you think homeopathy hasn't been given both since it's introduction?

I don't think it has, I think it's been given special treatment. It's been given the "no need for evidence" treatment.

SG brings up BS articles and experiments only.

Homeopathy doesn't work, that's a fact.
 
It would be interesting to see a complete, phased study of a given homeopathic preparation vs a placebo and an allopathic drug. Of course the homeopathic and the allopathic would have to be indicated for the same physical condition.


It would be interesting and certainly the efficacy of drugs are compared with one another all the time in practice. However, for this purpose a common standard upon which to gauge the efficacy of a homeopathic preparation would be the use of a placebo.
 
SteveGrenard said:
Yes, darn me ... geez, I do that all the time. I gotta catch myself and make it stop, you hear?

Try sticking with valid experiments that have been replicated by people outside of the homeopath circle of jerks.
 
Fair enough -- let's get away from the circle of jerks then. Since you choose to appeal to authority and personalities rather than qualifications, I think I will do both. How are the following individuals and their backgrounds. Do they meet with your approval? Is it fair not to consider them jerks?





American Technologies Group


Lawrence J. Brady serves as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Brady served as Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Trade Administration in the Reagan Administration. He served in senior staff roles in the Nixon and Ford White Houses. He has represented the United States in trade negotiations in Europe, Japan, and China. He served 12 years in staff positions in the U.S. Senate.

Hugo Pomrehn was President and Chief Operating Officer of ATG until February, 1997, and now serves as Executive Vice President of Special Projects. He was Under Secretary of Energy in the first Bush Administration where he was the third ranking official at the U.S. Department of Energy. He was also Vice President and Manager of the L.A. Office of Bechtel Corporation.

Shui-Yin Lo, PhD. serves of the Director of Research. He is presently a visiting professor at California Institute of Tech nology, and has previously taught at Stanford University, Oxford University, and Berlin University. He has published over 100 papers in peer-review scientific journals, including Physical Review Letters, Physical Review, and Nuclear Physics. He received his doctoral degree in physics at the University of Chicago (1966).

Benjamin Bonavida, PhD has served as professor in the department of microbiology and immunology at UCLA since 1983. He served as interim chair of this department in 1996 and 1997. He has published over 300 papers in peer-review scientific journals, in cluding most of the leading journals in cancer research.

Selim M. Senkan, PhD. has served as the chairman of the department of chemical engineering at UCLA since 1995. He received his doctoral degree at MIT.

List of Board of Directors (in addition to Lawrence Brady and Shui-Yin Lo):

Alfred H. Kingon was the former U.S. Ambassador to the European Union and served in the Reagan Administration as Assistant to the President and Secretary of the Cabinet. He previously was editor of Saturday Review, Financial World, and Money & Credit. Today, he is the principal of Kingon International, an international investment firm.

William E. Odom served as Director of the National Security
Agency from 1985 to 1988. From 1977 to 1981, he served in the White House as Military Assistant to President Carter's Assistant for National Security Affairs, Zbigniew Brzezinski. He is now the director of National Security Studies at the Hudson Institute and is an adjunct professor at Yale.

Terry M. Wachsner is the President of Heitman Properties Ltd, a division of United Assets Management, one of the largest real estate investment and property management firms in the U.S.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now that we have qualified the above persons as non-jerks, let's see what they have come up with (from a free to use public press
release):

A group of California scientists at the American Technologies Group have discovered, identified, and characterized a unique type of stable (non-melting) ice crystals that maintain an electrical field. These nanometer sized, rod-shaped water clusters are created when a substance is placed in distilled water, then vigorously shaken or stirred, and then repeatedly diluted and shaken or stirred.

Shui-Yin Lo, PhD, a senior researcher at American Technologies Group and a visiting professor at the California Institute of Technology, notes, "These water clusters or ice crystals remain stable at high temperatures, and what's intriguing is that the ice crystals still exist with varying fluctuation after repeated dilutions."

The new research by Dr. Lo and the various other scientists who have confirmed it seems to verify the experiences of two centuries of homeopathic physicians. Dr. Lo notes, "There seems to be something unique in water that undergoes extreme dilution, and we now have the laboratory evidence and even the photographic evidence to verify it."

Dr. Lo acknowledges the links between his work and that of homeopathic medicine, but he also asserts, "Thus far, we have only systematically tested substances which have been diluted one to ten 13 times. Homeopathic doctors sometimes use medicines which are diluted one to ten 30, 200, 1,000, or more times, and we have not tested these extreme dilutions yet. However, I would not be surprised if IE crystals are also observed in these doses. Based on our research to date, every dilution beyond the sixth has found IE crystals in them."

When following the traditional homeopathic pharmacological method to diluting and shaking solutions, the American Technology scientists found that approximately 0.1-0.2% of the solution contained IE crystals. These scientists, however, have discovered methods to increase this to 10%.

Dr. Lo concludes, "The homeopaths were definitely onto something, but our discovery of IE crystals may help their medicines become even more powerfulful, and these IE crystals will also probably have significant industrial applications, energy transfer benefits, cleansing uses, and ecological protection."

Dr. Lo's work with IE crystals was initially inspired by earlier research in homeopathy, and his first experiments in using microdoses of substances were derived from the homeopathic pharmacological process of sequential diluting and shaking
substances in distilled water.

references:


Shui-Yin Lo, "Anomalous State of Ice," Modern Physics Letters B, 10,19 (1996):909-919.

Shui-Yin Lo, Angela Lo, Li Wen Chong, et al., "Physical Proper ties of Water with IE Structures," Modern Physics Letters B, 10,19 (1996):921-930.
 

Back
Top Bottom