One Million Rupees Offer to prove "Homeopathy is Paranormal"

[Mojo]

However, homeopathy is also believed to work on animals and babies. Could the placebo effect also explain this?

The apparent effect of a placebo could also be due to other interventions that occur at the same time - changes in diet for instance, or just increased care and attention. There could also be a degree of wishful thinking on behalf of the human observer - believing an animal or baby that received the treatment has improved more than it has because of unconscious bias. There might also be an indirect placebo effect - the treatment makes a carer feel more relaxed and this is picked up by an animal or baby.

How has homeopathy performed in clinical trials?

There have been over 200 trials published that have examined the effectiveness of homeopathic medicines. The majority of these have found some positive effect of homeopathy. However, in such a comparison you have to take into account publication bias: a positive study is more likely to get published than a negative study. Opinions differ as to whether analysing all these studies together is useful and whether the overall evidence comes out significantly in favour of homeopathy.

These also tells positive effects in practice but are assumed as 'can be placebo' or otherwise and are not absolute denial.

That's a nice qoutation, Kumar. Did you actually read it and understand what it said?

Note the words "it is believed" and "opinions differ" and "publication bias." Note what is said about the placebo effect. Do you really think this sounds like a ringing endorsement of homeopathy?

It said, in effect, that there is no conclusive evidence ffrom properly conducted trial (i.e. where observer bias has also been eliminated) that any positive effects observed for homeopathy are due to anything other thsan the placebo effect. This means that the positive effects are due to the patient's (or in the case of babies or animals, the parents' or owner's) belief that the remedy will work. Patients given a "dummy" remedy do just as well as those given the real McCoy.

If this is all that is happening it means that your magic remedies are actually not doing anything at all.

 

[Francois Tremblay]

So just try try again you will gain & behave like a "thirsty crow".

Best wishes for best luck.

After reading weeks of Kumar, I still have no idea what he's going on about. Is he some kind of AI based on chinese fortune cookies ?

 

[Jeff Corey]

No, he's an AI constructed with homeopathic doses of silica, or silicon/mass evidences.

 

[Kumar]

Donks, Mojo,

Your excuses are just like 'removing the skin from hair'. I have shown you so many links which tells 'remedy different from water' even with control group. I don't know inspite anyone shown remedy's effects, why prize was denied. Do you say that, if anyone can show effects of remedies different from water/control--he will still be not entitled for prize in view of he could not show its working science or science of its effects? Then I think you will say, this effect is by placebo, not by remedy. How you are so sure that effects were by placebo when control group was also taken:

In one of the most convincing tests to date, Dr. David Reilly conducted clinical trials on patients suffering from hay fever. Using hundreds of patients, Reilly was able to show a noticeable improvement in patients taking a homeopathic remedy over those in the control group.

Was it not alike DB test?

Why scientist denied:-

Tests on different allergies produced similar results. Yet the scientific community called these results into question because they could not explain how the homeopathic medicines could have worked.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizo...omeopathy.shtml

It is very clear that these were most convincing tests. Why then scientists denied for prize? IS it just a play?

 

[Kumar]

Thougt provoking Indicated theory

Looking at your attitude, I feel you become chronic non/disbeliever with egoistic superierity complexes. It can be a disease or can lead to a disease, if anything(good or bad) is in excess. In this respect I just want to remind you about two pharses of mass......

"Excess of anything/everything is bad" [whether good or bad].

" One who dig pit for others falls into himself".

We have a natural system or nature's balance, which favours/tells "balance is only right", neither more or less, when all beings & things are in pefect harmony to each other, somewhat alike "homeostatis" in your language. God/Nature is most happy with you, when you add to this balance and lighten HIS/nature's work to do that "balance".

Now when you believe your cells learn believing & they perform their duties with belief--more self healigs/placebo. But when belief is in excess, they are chronic believer, so may devoid you to take external help. OTHERSIDE, when you are skeptic, they learn not to belive & remain doubtful. This may lead, they doubt each other, less hormony among them and not perform their duties with perfect hormony effecting homeostatis. In acute stage, it can encourage you to take external help but in chronic stage, you may only depend on "external help" with less/least "self healing/placebo" effects.

I read this type of theory cum practical on some energy healing system's litreture but looks bit logical. One who kept more sweatness, may get diabetes. One who want to kill/harm others, may get self geadly/harming diseases as cancer, autoimmunity.

I don't know & can't say wheter it is right or wrong in science, but it provoke some thought/sense in view of " One who dig pit for others falls into himself". Mean what you do or intend to do for others, your cells learn to do similarily & do for you accordingly. Better you discuss this thought in other thread for your benefit.

Best wishes.

 

[thaiboxerken]

But did you have scientific evidence that says homeopathy has ever worked?

I didn't think so, Kumar.

 

[Jocce]

But did you have scientific evidence that says homeopathy has ever worked?

To be fair, there is actually one study performed where the scientific community has agreed that the trial seems to be performed as a proper DBPC. That is Reilly et. al. doing clinical trials on hay fever patients.

The study concluded that there was a difference between the results from placebo and the homeopathic remedies. Not a big difference, but a difference.

The main critisism against this study is that the group of patients was too small and that it has not been repeated by an independent research group. Also, the objectively measured difference showed a slightly better result for homeopathy but the subjectiv difference did not.

Since acceptance of homeopathy would force us to alter our perception of how things work in a fundamental way, would have enormous impact on medicin, biology etc. the trial has to be repeated and the results confirmed by independent researchers (this was homeopathic doctors payed by homeopathic organisations). The group of patients would also have to be bigger.

Well, I might be wrong about this so anyone who knows better, please correct me. Report from the trial:

Randomised controlled trial of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial series

 

[Kumar]

Good Intention

To be fair, there is actually one study performed where the scientific community has agreed that the trial seems to be performed as a proper DBPC. That is Reilly et. al. doing clinical trials on hay fever patients.

The study concluded that there was a difference between the results from placebo and the homeopathic remedies. Not a big difference, but a difference.

The main critisism against this study is that the group of patients was too small and that it has not been repeated by an independent research group. Also, the objectively measured difference showed a slightly better result for homeopathy but the subjectiv difference did not.

Since acceptance of homeopathy would force us to alter our perception of how things work in a fundamental way, would have enormous impact on medicin, biology etc. the trial has to be repeated and the results confirmed by independent researchers (this was homeopathic doctors payed by homeopathic organisations). The group of patients would also have to be bigger.

Well, I might be wrong about this so anyone who knows better, please correct me. Report from the trial:

Randomised controlled trial of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial series

Jocee,

Thanks. I respect your this fair post. From your above link;

Conclusion: The objective results reinforce earlier evidence that homoeopathic dilutions differ from placebo...

What is already known on this topic

Much scepticism exists about the effectiveness of extreme homoeopathic dilutions

Several trials have suggested that homoeopathic dilutions have more effect than placebo

What this study adds

Patients with allergic rhinitis who received homoeopathy had significantly better nasal air flow than those in the placebo group

More patients in the homoeopathic group had initial symptom aggravations

Overall, no difference was seen in subjective measurements on a visual analogue scale, with both groups showing improvement

When the results are combined with those of three similar studies, homeopathy is different from placebo on both subjective and objective measures.

I don't say that it is final conclusion. But we can/should make up our mind for, something can be there/possible or 'yet pending to know'.

We should there try to add to it. Many science/non-science people are trying, why we souldn't. You know much more than me technically. So you can do much more than me & avoid many TTTT if a aspect pursued by me. It will be in the interest of humanity in tonnes, may not be in the interest of some with vested commercial interest(?) and in homeopathic community. But, interest of humanity should be considered as prefered/moral duty in reality, than all other considerations.

Link about fairness

Best wishes.

 

[Kumar]

Do Ultra-High Dilutions Produce Effects in the Laboratory?

Clinical trials are less sensitive for determining whether ultra-high dilutions have specific effects than laboratory research, where more rigorously controlled conditions are possible. The publication of laboratory investigations of ultra-high dilutions has produced considerable controversy and mixed results on attempted replication (52-54). Still, unusual effects of ultra-high dilutions in rigorous laboratory studies continue to be reported (55-59). Multiple independent replications of this research have not yet been done because there are few investigators in the field (60). Future research should focus on simple clinical or laboratory models that can be easily attempted by multiple investigators. In addition, better data are needed to examine the use and effects of homeopathy by the public and in actual practice (5, 29, 61).
http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/138/5/393
Results
Eighteen out of 22 potentially relevant reviews preselected in the screening process met the inclusion criteria. Six reviews addressed the question whether homeopathy is effective across conditions and interventions. The majority of available trials seem to report positive results but the evidence is not convincing. For isopathic nosodes for allergic conditions, oscillococcinum for influenza-like syndromes and galphimia for pollinosis the evidence is promising while in other areas reviewed the results are equivocal.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=11527508

These links also indicate positive effects with contol but lacking evidances, means something is there. You can read some more by searching at:
http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=homeopathy+pubmed&spell=1

 

[Jocce]

These links also indicate positive effects with contol but lacking evidances, means something is there.

Here you are jumping conclusions Kumar. The indicated positive effects does NOT mean there has to be something there. That's your biased opinion. My biased opinion would be that these effects are the result of deliberate fraud, sloppy practices and/or experimenter bias.

/J

 

[Mojo]

I have shown you so many links which tells 'remedy different from water' even with control group.

No you didn't; you provided a link to a Google search for the words "homeopathic" and "cases", which naturally brought up a lot of anecdotes, and "homeopathic" and "science," which similarly failed to bring up anything useful to your case, at least in the results I had a look at.

I don't know inspite anyone shown remedy's effects, why prize was denied.

Did anyone involved in the tests you claim positive results for actually apply for the prize and agree a protocol?

 

[Kumar]

Jocce

No, sorry you felt like that. My basic indication is that 'something is/can be there in homeopathy other than placebo/blank--so all interested or related can try & remove any preconcieved absolute negative idea from the mind' in view of humanity, science, curiosity etc. I amm pursuing here, because you can think & materialize in better way. This is absolute truth from my side nothing else.

 

[Mojo]

These links also indicate positive effects with contol but lacking evidances, means something is there. You can read some more by searching at:
http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=homeopathy+pubmed&spell=1

Let's have a look at the first hit on your most recent search. The interpretation offered says that

the findings of the available reviews are unlikely to end the controversy on this therapy.

In other words, no conclusive evidence was found that homeopathy works.

Let's also look at what you've just posted here: "These links also indicate positive effects with contol but lacking evidances, means something is there." No, "lacking evidances" means nothing is there.

 

[Kumar]

Jocce

No, sorry you felt like that. My basic indication is that 'something is/can be there in homeopathy other than placebo/blank--so all interested or related can try & remove any preconcieved absolute negative idea from the mind' in view of humanity, science, curiosity etc. Just don't say absolute 'NO'.

I am pursuing here, because you can think & materialize it in better way. This is an "absolute truth" from my side, nothing else.

 

[Jocce]

Kumar, I can understand your motivation for searching but you must understand that you do it in the wrong way. Undisputable evidence will NOT come from randomly selected concepts gatherd on the www. New theories worth exploring will NOT come from debating these concepts on an internet forum and repeatedly fail to admit when you have been overproven.

If you're serious in your mission, get yourself a proper education so you can understand our current world model. Or, target the companies that produce homeopathic remedies and convince them to fund some proper research to prove the efficency of their own products. Products that make them billions of dollars each year.

I don't belive any of this will ever prove that homeopathy works though, because all the evidence point in another direction -->> placebo. That's probably also the reason for the ahem...lukewarm interest from mainstream science. There are other research areas that seems more fruitful to explore.

 

[Rolfe]

Careful, Jocce! Another of Kumar's little foibles is the belief that the word "placebo" describes a real therapeutic effect, rather than a combination of coincidental recovery and wishful thinking. He has in the past declared that placebo is the best of all possible treatments and he wishes to be treated only by this means, himself! One of his recent posts in another thread is a lot more speculation about how this works, but "stimulating self-healing", and the immune response and so on. So, teling Kumar that it's nothing but placebo tends to open a whole new can of worms.

And as I said, lots of us have been suggesting to Kumar that he might benefit from some structured study of the subjects he seems to be interested in, but he has flatly rejected this possibility. After more than 18 months of running on the spot, I've concluded that it's hopeless. He's incapable of taking in the slightest bit of information that might conflict with his pre-conceived ideas.

In fact, some of the recent speculations have become so wild and so irrelevant that I'm seriously considering that this is all the most elaborate wind-up in the history of the Internet. When he starts declaring (apparently in all seriousness) that homoepathic remedies work because the people preparing them deliberately coat all the glassware with remedy substance so that it's released into the final potency from the container, I think that becomes a tenable hypothesis.

Rolfe.

 

[Jocce]

When he starts declaring (apparently in all seriousness) that homoepathic remedies work because the people preparing them deliberately coat all the glassware with remedy substance so that it's released into the final potency from the container, I think that becomes a tenable hypothesis.

Yes, but what about possibility existing in porosity making enabled the transfer of traces in molecular remedies from core to pretending?

Didn't see that one comming did ya

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Donks, Mojo,

Your excuses are just like 'removing the skin from hair'. I have shown you so many links which tells 'remedy different from water' even with control group. I don't know inspite anyone shown remedy's effects, why prize was denied. Do you say that, if anyone can show effects of remedies different from water/control--he will still be not entitled for prize in view of he could not show its working science or science of its effects? Then I think you will say, this effect is by placebo, not by remedy. How you are so sure that effects were by placebo when control group was also taken:



Was it not alike DB test?

Why scientist denied:-



It is very clear that these were most convincing tests. Why then scientists denied for prize? IS it just a play?

They are not convincing tests.

http://www.internationalskeptics.co...6590&highlight=reilly+rhinitis#post1870646590

http://www.internationalskeptics.co...id=1870870481&highlight=ultra*#post1870870481
Just read & explain it.

It doesn't bear explanation:

http://www.internationalskeptics.co...0646608&highlight=containation#post1870646608

 

[Terry]

Re: Thougt provoking Indicated theory

[...]
"Excess of anything/everything is bad" [whether good or bad].

" One who dig pit for others falls into himself".

[...]

I read this type of theory cum practical on some energy healing system's litreture but looks bit logical. One who kept more sweatness, may get diabetes. One who want to kill/harm others, may get self geadly/harming diseases as cancer, autoimmunity.

Oh Kumar, you are a real class act. People get cancer because they want to harm others? Way to blame the victim. A new low in trolling for reaction.

--Terry.

 

[Kumar]

Re: Re: Thougt provoking Indicated theory

Oh Kumar, you are a real class act. People get cancer because they want to harm others? Way to blame the victim. A new low in trolling for reaction.

--Terry.

I forget to mention:-

"For every action there is equal & opposie reaction"

Will it clear dynamic/different understandings? You know, when a law, rule, theory or saying become somewhat "absolute" or persistant, it can be used as an valid example for many or most purposes. I am not sure the consideration for cancer was--desire to kill, secretive, hiding, roaming here or there aimlessly(metastatis), stub-born, indiciplined, self superiority...