Non-Homeopathic Belladonna

[Rodney]

I didn't mean to imply that RCT's have not been studied in the manner you suggested, just not the exact comparison you suggested (it wouldn't be as useful as other comparisons).

And where might I find an overall (useful) analysis of RCT's?

Yes. But it isn't only pre-study odds that influences the evaluation. Bias and power are also important. And that is why the results of the Ganzfeld aren't generally accepted, not because of the pre-study odds and the signficance level.

So what would it take for you to accept the results of Ganzfeld trials?

I didn't say that there is no scientific establishment. I was talking about the flow of ideas - a bottom-up rather than top-down model.

I understand, but I still maintain that, throughout history the scientific establishment has done its best to thwart new ideas that it finds too far out of the mainstream, and nothing has changed recently.

The list provided was meant to give you an opportunity to search for some actual gain. Do you need me to look up the budget for the NCCAM, too?

I'm not sure what the relevance of that would be, but I'm still looking for evidence to support your claim that the "results from the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine shows hardly any gain for a large loss in opportunity."

RCT's showing that Cayce's suggested treatments for specific conditions were effective, and that these suggestions were novel rather than treatments that had been previously suggested or could be readily inferred.

Are you saying that you would be willing to accept, for example, RCT's of Cayce's recommended psoriasis treatment, if they showed his treatment was superior to placebo?

 

[fls]

And where might I find an overall (useful) analysis of RCT's?

The Cochrane Collaboration would be a good start. The review on each topic essentially consists of an analysis of the relevant RCT's.

So what would it take for you to accept the results of Ganzfeld trials?

I think a study design that included a control group, and highly powered trials performed by researchers that weren't heavily invested in obtaining a positive result would go a long way towards giving me confidence that there is something worth pursuing if significant results are reproducibly found.

I understand, but I still maintain that, throughout history the scientific establishment has done its best to thwart new ideas that it finds too far out of the mainstream, and nothing has changed recently.

I explained why and provided examples for my idea that the rejection of new ideas is much better explained by the degree of evidence associated with the idea than by its distance from the mainstream. What am I supposed to do when you simply repeat your initial assertion (without providing any support) instead of addressing what I said?

I'm not sure what the relevance of that would be, but I'm still looking for evidence to support your claim that the "results from the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine shows hardly any gain for a large loss in opportunity."

Money spent on research at the NCCAM is money that is taken away from pursuing other areas of research (the budget would provide a dollar amount for the loss in opportunity). The publications show a paucity of useful information, and I provided the list so you could see this directly. Of course, I can't force you to actually look at the publications on the list (or even look at the list), but it's hardly fair for you to claim that you are still waiting for evidence simply because you refuse to look at or don't understand what I have handed to you.

Are you saying that you would be willing to accept, for example, RCT's of Cayce's recommended psoriasis treatment, if they showed his treatment was superior to placebo?

Yes, that is the kind of thing I am talking about. Along with a demonstration that his recommended treatment was not something that was already being used or could be readily inferred (e.g. that it was not a treatment that was being used for other types of skin disease).

Linda

 

[Mojo]

I'm not sure what the relevance of that would be, but I'm still looking for evidence to support your claim that the "results from the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine shows hardly any gain for a large loss in opportunity."

Early this morning, I fell into a trance. While in this trance it was revealed to me by my spirit guide, Dr. Wesley Hokum, that Edgar Cayce gave a reading in which he said, "between the years of 1987 and 2008 a power called Encam will arise, but it will show hardly any gain for a large loss in opportunity". He appears to have given this reading in the early years of the 20th century, before Cayce employed a secretary, which is why there has been no record of this until now.

What more evidence can you possibly want?

 

[Rodney]

The Cochrane Collaboration would be a good start. The review on each topic essentially consists of an analysis of the relevant RCT's.

But I'm looking for an analysis of how RCT results have held up over time.

I think a study design that included a control group, and highly powered trials performed by researchers that weren't heavily invested in obtaining a positive result would go a long way towards giving me confidence that there is something worth pursuing if significant results are reproducibly found.

When you say, "if significant results are reproducibly found," how dissimilar can the results be, and still be valid, in your opinion?

I explained why and provided examples for my idea that the rejection of new ideas is much better explained by the degree of evidence associated with the idea than by its distance from the mainstream. What am I supposed to do when you simply repeat your initial assertion (without providing any support) instead of addressing what I said?

You're missing the point that, when an idea is too far from the mainstream, it is ridiculed, rather than investigated. How can evidence be developed for an idea when the scientific establishment refuses to investigate it and disbelieves "anecdotes"?

Money spent on research at the NCCAM is money that is taken away from pursuing other areas of research (the budget would provide a dollar amount for the loss in opportunity). The publications show a paucity of useful information, and I provided the list so you could see this directly. Of course, I can't force you to actually look at the publications on the list (or even look at the list), but it's hardly fair for you to claim that you are still waiting for evidence simply because you refuse to look at or don't understand what I have handed to you.

I just checked out the NCCAM web page and find that the first two articles listed are:

"(1) Tai Chi Boosts Immunity to Shingles Virus in Older Adults
The study is the first rigorous clinical trial to suggest that a behavioral intervention, alone or together with a vaccine, can help protect older adults from the varicella virus, which causes both chickenpox and shingles.

"(2) Study compares year-long effectiveness of four weight-loss plans
The Atkins diet may contribute to greater weight loss than higher carbohydrate plans without negative effects such as increased cholesterol."

Do those study results support or contradict the prior conventional medical wisdom?

Yes, that is the kind of thing I am talking about. Along with a demonstration that his recommended treatment was not something that was already being used or could be readily inferred (e.g. that it was not a treatment that was being used for other types of skin disease).

Linda

Hey, we agree on something. Now if we can get someone to fund those RCT's . . .

 

[Rodney]

Early this morning, I fell into a trance. While in this trance it was revealed to me by my spirit guide, Dr. Wesley Hokum, that Edgar Cayce gave a reading in which he said, "between the years of 1987 and 2008 a power called Encam will arise, but it will show hardly any gain for a large loss in opportunity". He appears to have given this reading in the early years of the 20th century, before Cayce employed a secretary, which is why there has been no record of this until now.

What more evidence can you possibly want?

How about some quantification of this elusive "large loss in opportunity"?

 

[Slimething]

How about some quantification of this elusive "large loss in opportunity"?

Brilliant argument, rodney. It's tantamount to proving a negative because you're asking someone to predict what would have happened if whatever prevented it had never existed. Oh, I forgot you believe in psychics.

You seem to be bobbing and weaving at this point in the thread, rodney. That's a nice stalling tactic but it can't last forever. Even you don't have an endless supply of facile questions.

Why haven't you answered any questions with something other than "because I believe it's true"? For example, what would you propose to be superior to double-blind random testing? Why don't you get funding to try it? I'm sure you and your fellow believers can put your collective minds together and devise a simple experiment to test your new system. Or, how would you propose that the scientific establishment is organized and how do they reject something like peach bark and belladonna while embracing quantum mechanics and nuclear physics. (There really is nothing more mind-bending than those two subjects. The simplest predictions from those two areas of study leave anything Cayce ever said in the dust.)

So, please, make our day. Say something constructive or credible or testable (falsifiable). Or, put your money where your mouth is. For $49 per year, all ten of the members of Dupes for Cayce should be able to find a simple experiment (proof of concept) that would justify listening to you.

 

[Mojo]

How about some quantification of this elusive "large loss in opportunity"?

How about some quantification of the elusive "measured dose of belladonna" administered to Tommy House?

Anyway, aren't you prepared to take Edgar Cayce's word for it that the loss of opportunity was "large"?

 

[Mongrel]

I understand, but I still maintain that, throughout history the scientific establishment has done its best to thwart new ideas that it finds too far out of the mainstream, and nothing has changed recently.

So what about Barry J. Marshall and J. Robin Warren?

 

[Rodney]

Brilliant argument, rodney. It's tantamount to proving a negative because you're asking someone to predict what would have happened if whatever prevented it had never existed. Oh, I forgot you believe in psychics.

Linda is the one who brought up the "large loss in opportunity" argument. I'm simply asking her to document it.

You seem to be bobbing and weaving at this point in the thread, rodney. That's a nice stalling tactic but it can't last forever. Even you don't have an endless supply of facile questions.

Why haven't you answered any questions with something other than "because I believe it's true"? For example, what would you propose to be superior to double-blind random testing? Why don't you get funding to try it? I'm sure you and your fellow believers can put your collective minds together and devise a simple experiment to test your new system.

I support double-blind random testing; however, I think bias can still creep in, which is why I would like to see a study of how accurate such testing has been historically.

Or, how would you propose that the scientific establishment is organized and how do they reject something like peach bark and belladonna while embracing quantum mechanics and nuclear physics. (There really is nothing more mind-bending than those two subjects. The simplest predictions from those two areas of study leave anything Cayce ever said in the dust.)

"Mind-bending" is not the same as "is inconsistent with the fundamental assumptions of the scientific establishment."

So, please, make our day. Say something constructive or credible or testable (falsifiable). Or, put your money where your mouth is. For $49 per year, all ten of the members of Dupes for Cayce should be able to find a simple experiment (proof of concept) that would justify listening to you.

Unfortunately for you, I think you'll find that there are more members of Cayce's organization than Randi's. Again, however, I would like to see Cayce's remedies scientifically examined.

 

[Rodney]

So what about Barry J. Marshall and J. Robin Warren?

Very interesting work, but again, not inconsistent with the fundamental assumptions of the scientific establishment.

 

[Rodney]

How about some quantification of the elusive "measured dose of belladonna" administered to Tommy House?

If I am eventually able to quantify it I will, but I haven't been able to obtain that information.

Anyway, aren't you prepared to take Edgar Cayce's word for it that the loss of opportunity was "large"?

Please clarify what you mean.

 

[Mojo]

Please clarify what you mean.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2670200#post2670200

 

[Mojo]

I support double-blind random testing; however, I think bias can still creep in, which is why I would like to see a study of how accurate such testing has been historically.

Nobody denies that bias (whether conscious or unconscious) can "creep in" to any study if given a chance. That is precisely what double blinding is designed to prevent: if the people recording the results and processing the data don't know which sets of results are supposed to positive and which are not, they can't bias the results towards what they want, even unconsciously.

 

[Slimething]

Linda is the one who brought up the "large loss in opportunity" argument. I'm simply asking her to document it.

I don't believe you. What I do believe is that you're at an end of your information and have decided to worry at phraseology. You are now quibbling over semantics. If you can't understand the concept of losing an opportunity to study for the math test because you decided to go to the movies, then you really don't belong in an intelligent discussion. Basically, that's all it is. Pumping money into the study of phenomena whose mere existence is questionable denies the use of those same funds into verifiable phenomena. In addition, having invested money into that nonsense to begin with encourages the belief of many of the duped in that phenomenon. What is so difficult to understand about that, rodney?

I support double-blind random testing; however, I think bias can still creep in, which is why I would like to see a study of how accurate such testing has been historically.

Again, you are being disingenuous. You now admit that there is currently no better system at testing therapeutic effect than double-blind testing. OTOH, you are questioning its validity. Bias is the Achilles' Heel of every testing system. People from all walks of life spend years learning techniques and devising testing protocols to minimize bias. DBT is the culmination of these efforts with regard to tests where placebo and nocebo effects threaten to introduce considerable bias.

I find it very strange that a member in good standing of Cayce International is here requesting historical accounting of any type of scientific testing. If such an organization has doubts about the ways any branch of science tests its hyptheses, they have every opportunity to examine the historical record and produce a report suggesting uncontrolled sources of bias or better methods of testing. Cayce International, founded in 1931, has been silent on this issue for 76 years now. Perhaps, rodney, instead of bothering another group to do your organization's research for them, you should instead impose on CI to answer your questions. Get something for those $48 per year other than a royal dumbing-down.

"Mind-bending" is not the same as "is inconsistent with the fundamental assumptions of the scientific establishment."

OK, rodney, please explain to me how Einstein's work on relativity extended the fundamental assumptions of the scientific establishment at the time. Do the same for Niels Bohr. How about Rutherford? Pasteur? Galileo was nearly burned alive for extending the fundamental assumptions of the scientific establisment?

You seem to want to rewrite history, rodney. It's a free country so, you may. However, I regret to inform you that your publication will be limited to yourself and anyone else suffering from the same delusions.

Unfortunately for you, I think you'll find that there are more members of Cayce's organization than Randi's.

Evidence, rodney?

Again, however, I would like to see Cayce's remedies scientifically examined.

As I've written before, that's easy. You and your formidable Cayce International merely have to put up the funds. Given the tremendous membership you claim for CI, that should be no trouble at all. PM me when you have the funds together if you need advice on where to find capable research facilities for these tests.

 

[Rodney]

I don't believe you. What I do believe is that you're at an end of your information and have decided to worry at phraseology. You are now quibbling over semantics. If you can't understand the concept of losing an opportunity to study for the math test because you decided to go to the movies, then you really don't belong in an intelligent discussion. Basically, that's all it is. Pumping money into the study of phenomena whose mere existence is questionable denies the use of those same funds into verifiable phenomena. In addition, having invested money into that nonsense to begin with encourages the belief of many of the duped in that phenomenon. What is so difficult to understand about that, rodney?

Neither you, Mojo, or Linda has offered a shred of evidence that investigating alternative medicine has somehow been detrimental to the progress of conventional medicine. If you can find a study that shows that, please supply a link to it.

Again, you are being disingenuous. You now admit that there is currently no better system at testing therapeutic effect than double-blind testing. OTOH, you are questioning its validity. Bias is the Achilles' Heel of every testing system. People from all walks of life spend years learning techniques and devising testing protocols to minimize bias. DBT is the culmination of these efforts with regard to tests where placebo and nocebo effects threaten to introduce considerable bias.

The point is that, as valuable as DBTs are, you can't simply assume that a DBT is the last word on a subject.

I find it very strange that a member in good standing of Cayce International

To be in good standing requires that you pay the $48 annual fee -- even a Randi Foundation member can join Cayce's organization.

is here requesting historical accounting of any type of scientific testing. If such an organization has doubts about the ways any branch of science tests its hyptheses, they have every opportunity to examine the historical record and produce a report suggesting uncontrolled sources of bias or better methods of testing. Cayce International, founded in 1931, has been silent on this issue for 76 years now. Perhaps, rodney, instead of bothering another group to do your organization's research for them, you should instead impose on CI to answer your questions. Get something for those $48 per year other than a royal dumbing-down.

From my perspective, it would be nice if Cayce's organization would fund medical research, but they prefer to fund other types of research, such as archeological.

OK, rodney, please explain to me how Einstein's work on relativity extended the fundamental assumptions of the scientific establishment at the time. Do the same for Niels Bohr. How about Rutherford? Pasteur? Galileo was nearly burned alive for extending the fundamental assumptions of the scientific establisment?

Galileo is a great example of how the scientific establishment tries to block ideas that contradict the conventional wisdom. Back in his time, that establishment was the Church, now it's the anti-Church.

Evidence, rodney?

According to -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_for_Research_and_Enlightenment --
"Founded in 1931, the A.R.E. now boasts several tens of thousands of members, and probably many more who participate in its activities in some way. While most of its members are American, the A.R.E. is represented in more than 60 other countries."

Maybe someone here knows how many Randi Foundation members there are.

 

[fls]

But I'm looking for an analysis of how RCT results have held up over time.

Yes, and each of those would be an example.

When you say, "if significant results are reproducibly found," how dissimilar can the results be, and still be valid, in your opinion?

A distribution that is different from that expected by chance.

You're missing the point that, when an idea is too far from the mainstream, it is ridiculed, rather than investigated. How can evidence be developed for an idea when the scientific establishment refuses to investigate it and disbelieves "anecdotes"?

I understand that was your point. You are implying that a scientific establishment, acting as a single body, determines what particular subjects and areas will be investigated and scientists follow their assignments - a top down approach. I am suggesting that it follows more of a bottom up approach - that individual scientists and researchers pursue areas that they find interesting and potentially fruitful. And that it is the gathering of evidence that gradually increases the interest level of more and more scientists and researchers (which leads of course to more and more evidence, presumably). It is up to those who are initially interested in the idea to get others interested. And the surest way to get scientists and other researchers interested is to actually gather compelling information, not whining about how nobody else is interested in doing the work for you.

I just checked out the NCCAM web page and find that the first two articles listed are:

"(1) Tai Chi Boosts Immunity to Shingles Virus in Older Adults
The study is the first rigorous clinical trial to suggest that a behavioral intervention, alone or together with a vaccine, can help protect older adults from the varicella virus, which causes both chickenpox and shingles.

"(2) Study compares year-long effectiveness of four weight-loss plans
The Atkins diet may contribute to greater weight loss than higher carbohydrate plans without negative effects such as increased cholesterol."

Do those study results support or contradict the prior conventional medical wisdom?

They reiterate what is already known, or cover areas that are already investigated through conventional research. The information from these studies is not uniquely stimulated by the process of following suggestions from CAM. For example, we already know that programs involving physical activity and flexibility improve the health of older adults. To take a program that incorporates those features, and test it for a series of different outcomes is hardly groundbreaking work, regardless of how the NCCAM wants to puff it up.

Linda

 

[Slimething]

Neither you, Mojo, or Linda has offered a shred of evidence that investigating alternative medicine has somehow been detrimental to the progress of conventional medicine. If you can find a study that shows that, please supply a link to it.

No, rodney, there are not studies that demonstrate that a dollar can't be spent twice. That is what we call a trivial observation, some might even call it common sense. I also can't produce a study that concludes that an object won't ever fall away from a gravitational field or that fruit don't dance around when you close the refrigerator door. Do you have a study you can cite that demonstrates how unique resources can be used for two diametrically opposed purposes at the same time?

But, in a way, you can prove yourself wrong, rodney. Think of this this way. Two therapies are tested. The one that wins is then "conventional" and the one that loses is "alternative". Pretty neat concept, huh? Discredited therapies don't simply disappear after a thorough debunking. They still have the credulous asking dumb questions on forums long afterward.

The point is that, as valuable as DBTs are, you can't simply assume that a DBT is the last word on a subject.

Good point, rodney. No one ever has stated that DBT is the "last word" in testing. Even you admitted that it's the best we have right now. That's why I asked you to post a better system, remember? You couldn't. Deal with it.

From my perspective, it would be nice if Cayce's organization would fund medical research, but they prefer to fund other types of research, such as archeological.

Why is that, rodney? If Cayce International can't be bothered to challenge the medical professoin for giving Cayce the attention he so richly deserves, why do you feel comfortable asking skeptics to do it? Skeptics go with the evidence. If CI can't be bothered to produce any, I would conclude that such a battle is very low on their agenda. As it is with ours.

Galileo is a great example of how the scientific establishment tries to block ideas that contradict the conventional wisdom. Back in his time, that establishment was the Church, now it's the anti-Church.

Wow, you really have your head turned around, rodney. Not only do you not know medical science, the scientfic method or logic but now you're accusing whomever you think of being your amorphous "scientific establishment" to be a conniving bunch of anti-religious activists. I won't even ask you for evidence on this one because I know you don't have a shred of it.

Regardless, why was it rejected at first, rodney? That was my question. Why? I know about this case in history but you haven't told anyone why Galileo's hypothesis was rejected. Please do so.

Maybe someone here knows how many Randi Foundation members there are.

Still using skeptics to do your research, I see. Nothing ever changes for the intellectually lazy. Let me point out to you that even if Randi himself told you that the membership was, say, 22,000, that would still not answer the question. "Tens of thousands" could be 20,000.

Rodney, cayce is bunk. Sorry. Since 1931, cayce's followers have not been able to demonstrate any systematic knowledge concerning medicine that rivals what is used today. And, they keep getting further and further behind in this field. If you don't like it, suggest to the board at CI that they mount a challenge. Hell, you've paid your $48, right? In the meantime, stop wasting other people's time.

 

[Rodney]

Yes, and each of those would be an example.

How so? If someone wants to demonstrate that 48-hour weather forecasts for, say, Vancouver, British Columbia, have almost always been accurate over the past 20 years, the entire 20-year record must be examined. It won't do to show that only selected forecasts have been accurate.

A distribution that is different from that expected by chance.

Most ganzfeld experiments have produced results that differ significantly from chance. According to p. 120 of Dean Radin's "Entangled Minds": "From 1974 through 2004 a total of 88 ganzfeld experiments reporting 1,008 hits in 3,145 trials were conducted. The combined hit rate was 32% as compared to the chance-expected rate of 25%."

I understand that was your point. You are implying that a scientific establishment, acting as a single body, determines what particular subjects and areas will be investigated and scientists follow their assignments - a top down approach. I am suggesting that it follows more of a bottom up approach - that individual scientists and researchers pursue areas that they find interesting and potentially fruitful. And that it is the gathering of evidence that gradually increases the interest level of more and more scientists and researchers (which leads of course to more and more evidence, presumably). It is up to those who are initially interested in the idea to get others interested. And the surest way to get scientists and other researchers interested is to actually gather compelling information, not whining about how nobody else is interested in doing the work for you.

That's fine for most areas of scientific research, but not for scientific research into the paranormal. That goes over about as well with the current scientific establishment as challenging geocentrism did with the Middle Ages' establishment.

They reiterate what is already known, or cover areas that are already investigated through conventional research. The information from these studies is not uniquely stimulated by the process of following suggestions from CAM. For example, we already know that programs involving physical activity and flexibility improve the health of older adults. To take a program that incorporates those features, and test it for a series of different outcomes is hardly groundbreaking work, regardless of how the NCCAM wants to puff it up.

Linda

Assuming what you say is true (which I don't ), I'm still trying to figure out how society would be better off today if this unconventional research had not been done. If we had put the money spent on this research into conventional research, would we have cured cancer, the common cold, acid indigestion, or what?

 

[Slimething]

How so? If someone wants to demonstrate that 48-hour weather forecasts for, say, Vancouver, British Columbia, have almost always been accurate over the past 20 years, the entire 20-year record must be examined. It won't do to show that only selected forecasts have been accurate.

Following your "logic", if the first year of forecasts in the last 20 years where grossly inaccurate, that would completely invalidate whatever came afterwards? Despite significant technological advancements? Apples and oranges, rodney.

That's fine for most areas of scientific research, but not for scientific research into the paranormal. That goes over about as well with the current scientific establishment as challenging geocentrism did with the Middle Ages' establishment.

You're absolutely wrong here, rodney. All you have to do to have any topic considered is to do the research. All you need is the funding. For enough moolah, you can have geocentrism researched. All you need is the backing. The going rate is about $1000/tech-day. As I wrote you before, get Cayce International to foot the bill. Stop complaining to us that your own organization doesn't care enough about your delusions to back them up with research.

[qyote]Assuming what you say is true (which I don't ), I'm still trying to figure out how society would be better off today if this unconventional research had not been done. If we had put the money spent on this research into conventional research, would we have cured cancer, the common cold, acid indigestion, or what?[/quote]

Or determine how many angels would dance on the head of a pin? Seriously, rodney, you can't expect most people to care if the followers of Cayce don't care. If they did, they would fund the research. The rest of us know that what you believe is beneficial is absolute bull. Prove us wrong.

 

[BillyJoe]

If we had put the money spent on this research into conventional research, would we have cured cancer, the common cold, acid indigestion, or what?

Off the top of my head, some of these have already been achieved...


cancer:

- childhood leukaemia can be cured;
- cancer of the kidney can be cured (even if you have a metastasis in the lung) - you lose your kidney but you get to keep your life.
- lung cancer if caught early enough.
- bowel cancer can be prevented by removing polyps via colonoscopy (if you have a family history)

common cold:

- nope. The bloody thing keeps changing its spots!

acid indigestion:

- 95% are caused by an organism discovered by a couple of Australian medical researchers. It can be cured with a course of treatment in one week.


Who knows what else could have been achieved if funds devoted to alt med (eg homoeopathy) had have been available for evidence based medical research?