One Million Rupees Offer to prove "Homeopathy is Paranormal"

[Kumar]

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

No, it indicates, it is still paranormal(not scientifically explainable) , couldn't yet be tested/proved/known by science instead effects are observed positively even with control group. You can see many many such type of conditions & aspects in Merck Mannual or other medical/science information site/referance with these comments"Its reasoning/science/working/cause...couldn't yet be known/found/understood.....so on. Then?

Btw, what do you mean by evidences( note/compare the spelling )?

Dict. definition of evidence (note the spelling): one who bears witness : something that furnishes proof.

Witness & proofs are there in tonnes. Then?
---------
Look how & how much(compare with TRS), we can get effects:-

http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~jrice/geol_311/Chemistry.html

 

[Rolfe]

Since this thread seems to have been dragged completely off topic, I'll try for a moment to drag it back.

In what way is homoeopathy paranormal?

Sceptics do not believe that homoeopathy is paranormal. Sceptics believe that homoeopathy does not work.

Sceptics also note that there is no possible way that homoeopathic remedies can work.

Sceptics therefore observe that any claim that homoeopathy does work is a paranormal claim. It is not the sceptics who are making the paranormal claim, but those who declare that homoeopathy works.

I still don't expect Mas (or Syed or any of his little friends) to get it, but hey, it always bears repetition.

Rolfe.

 

[Mojo]

No, it indicates, it is still paranormal(not scientifically explainable) , couldn't yet be tested/proved/known by science instead effects are observed positively even with control group. You can see many many such type of conditions & aspects in Merck Mannual or other medical/science information site/referance with these comments"Its reasoning/science/working/cause...couldn't yet be known/found/understood.....so on. Then?

Btw, what do you mean by evidences( note/compare the spelling )?

By evidence, I mean reliable infomation which can be used to determine whether a belief is true. "Lacking evidence" means that there is no information supporting the proposition being discussed. Incidentally, you may have noticed that each time I have spelled the word "evidence" with an "a" it has been in quotation marks. This is because I was quoting you, and that is how you spelled it.

Look how & how much(compare with TRS), we can get effects:-

http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~jrice/geol_311/Chemistry.html

This is a page describing the chemical composition of rocks. It has nothing to do with TRS.

 

[Kumar]

Some concepts for future research:-

The chemical compound silicon dioxide, also known as silica, is the oxide of silicon, chemical formula SiO2. It is found in nature in several forms, including quartz and opal. It is manufactured in several forms including glass

Quartz is also a type of piezoelectric crystal that creates electricity through a process called piezoelectricity when mechanical stress is put upon it.

Piezoelectricity is the ability of certain crystals to produce a voltage when subjected to mechanical stress. related property known as pyroelectricity, the ability of certain mineral crystals to generate electrical charge when heated,..the brothers Pierre Curie and Jacques Curie predicted and demonstrated piezoelectricity using tinfoil, glue, wire, magnets, and a jeweler's saw. They showed that crystals of tourmaline, quartz, topaz, cane sugar, and Rochelle salt (sodium potassium tartrate tetrahydrate) generate electrical polarization from mechanical stress. Quartz and Rochelle salt exhibited the most piezoelectricity.

Stress is the internal distribution of forces within a body that balance and react to the loads applied to it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartz

 

[Ashles]

What's he on about now?

I take it we've completely stopped talking about homeopathy and we are now just randomly quoting scientific facts.

 

[Mojo]

Kumar has just noticed crystal therapy being discussed in the "Science always changes" thead in the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology forum.

 

[Kumar]

In what way is homoeopathy paranormal?

Sceptics do not believe that homoeopathy is paranormal. Sceptics believe that homoeopathy does not work.

Sceptics also note that there is no possible way that homoeopathic remedies can work.

Sceptics therefore observe that any claim that homoeopathy does work is a paranormal claim. It is not the sceptics who are making the paranormal claim, but those who declare that homoeopathy works.

Rolfe.

Are you or science sure & "absolute"(free from imperfection/change) on that, homeopathy does not work? If not, homeopathy is "paranormal" in science--means its works in observations by both science & homeopathic people, but its working science couldn't yet be known/found with modern availale testing technologies. So simple.

 

[Kumar]

Kumar has just noticed crystal therapy being discussed in the "Science always changes" thead in the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology forum.

Can you add some other concepts/possibilities/thoughts/imaginations(technical) in view of my various indication of truths? If you are sure, it cann't work "confirm in absolute", otherwise indicate some concepts/possibilities/thoughts/imaginations(technical).

 

[Jocce]

Re: Re: Re: Thougt provoking Indicated theory

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.

A perfect example where you are wrong Kumar. Applying random theories on phenomena they were not intended to describe accomplish nothing. Gravity can not be used to explain the attraction you feel to your loved one.

 

[Kumar]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Thougt provoking Indicated theory

Gravity can not be used to explain the attraction you feel to your loved one.

I will check it when I will go into the space.

New thought: law of gravitation : all bodies attract each other with a force that is directly proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of their distance apart.

When gravity will not be there, no mass--so no attraction.

Anyway, long persistent/absolute laws can be valid as an example in some other mean. You can relate "Newton's third law of motion with many aspects--as "one who dig......, homeopathic theories etc.

Btw, what does it mean:-

Dulong and Petit's law: the atomic heat capacity, the product of the atomic weight and the specific heat per gram, is constant for most elements; boron, carbon, and silicon are notable exceptions at normal temperatures.

Galton's law of regression:- average parents tend to produce average children, but the offspring of extreme parents inherit the parental peculiarities in a less marked degree than the latter were manifested in the parents themselves.

 

[Ashles]

What's he on about now?

I take it we've completely stopped talking about homeopathy and we are now just randomly quoting scientific facts.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

 

[Ashles]

Actually this is just a desperate cry for help now, isn't it.

All his silly theories always come to nothing and people get bored and his threads die so Kumar has to keep throwing out nonsense just to keep people chatting to him.

Are you lonely Kumar? If that's why you are doing all this trolling? It would be better to be honest about your emotional needs. Much healthier for you.

 

[Kumar]

Actually this is just a desperate cry for help now, isn't it.

All his silly theories always come to nothing and people get bored and his threads die so Kumar has to keep throwing out nonsense just to keep people chatting to him.

Are you lonely Kumar? If that's why you are doing all this trolling? It would be better to be honest about your emotional needs. Much healthier for you.

Inputs & outputs are to be balanced to avoid disorders. I just do my duties, not trolling. Trolling others do, who just do TTTT.

 

[Ashles]

I just do my duties, not trolling. Trolling others do

Thank you Yoda.

 

[EHocking]

Re: Good Intention

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

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'.....

Don't get too excited too soon about that study, Kumar, from a letter :

Statistics in study were flawed

EDITOR - Taylor et al come to the conclusion that their study of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis "has failed to confirm our original hypothesis that homeopathy is a placebo."1 Unfortunately, the statistics do not prove that.

The basis for the study was a prestudy power calculation that required 120 patients to prove the hypothesis with a 5% significance and an 80% power.2 In fact, the authors only recruited 51 patients but analysed the results as if they had the required number. Their only conclusion was that they did not have enough data to make a conclusion.

If we accept the availability of only 51 patients at the outset, what are the relevant calculations? The power calculation is only 43%, and to maintain the power calculation at 80% the P value becomes 34%. The only conclusion is that the trial is not able to prove anything.

Barry Miller, consultant anaesthetist.
Royal Oldham Hospital, Oldham...

 

[Jocce]

Re: Re: Good Intention

Statistics in study were flawed

Thank you EHocking, exactly the kind of added knowledge I was looking for.

 

[Jocce]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thougt provoking Indicated theory

Dulong and Petit's law: the atomic heat capacity, the product of the atomic weight and the specific heat per gram, is constant for most elements; boron, carbon, and silicon are notable exceptions at normal temperatures.

Galton's law of regression:- average parents tend to produce average children, but the offspring of extreme parents inherit the parental peculiarities in a less marked degree than the latter were manifested in the parents themselves.

Also, check out Alabama law. It might be extended to be applicable on your current research into homeopathy:
"It is illegal for a driver to be blindfolded while operating a vehicle."[/]

 

[Kumar]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thougt provoking Indicated theory

"It is illegal for a driver to be blindfolded while operating a vehicle."[/]

or "it can be sucide for the people to be blindfolded on road"

Anyway as Rolfe commited, if you are absolute about homeopathy non working & take guarantee that nothing will/can be possible in future also--what is the use of wasting time on it here. Just don't discuss about plain water, alcohol, lactose & cane sugar--if you/science find it accordingly. Let them be florishing & happy.

 

[Mojo]

Re: Re: Good Intention

Statistics in study were flawed

The original article even said so itself:

we did not recruit the number of patients that the power calculation had estimated we required.

I addition, following the links to other articles citing the article, finds two other articles. One is a bibliography of systematic reviews, but the other is Use of ultramolecular potencies of allergen to treat asthmatic people allergic to house dust mite: double blind randomised controlled clinical trial, which found

Conclusion: Homoeopathic immunotherapy is not effective in the treatment of patients with asthma.

There does not seem to be any indication that the Taylor, Reilly et al. study has been successfully followed up.

 

[Rolfe]

The other difficulty with that study is that David Reilly is a very deeply convinced homoeopathy proponent. This of course doesn't prove that he's deliberately massaging results (it's Dr. Miller's letter that proves that), but it does heavily underline the absolute necessity for independent replication. Dr. Reilly claims that his work is repeatable - but it appears only by Dr. Reilly and his mates!

Repeatability by independent scientists is the absolute key before anything can claim to have any sort of scientific acceptability. This is the rock cold fusion foundered on. At first some optimists thought they had found something, and it was all whoopee, but as time went on it was realised that the better researchers with the better equipment and methodology were increasingly finding nothing at all.

The interesting thing is that this is actually happening within the homoeopathic community too. The people who have had the guts to do properly controlled trials (Walach and Lewin, for example), have reported no effect. This hasn't stopped them "believing", but it has led to the weirdest set of explanations as to how come there's an "effect" in the clinic but nothing there when you actually look. However, it is certainly acknowledged by those at the forefront of homoeopathic research that there's no objectively demonstrable effect.

This is, oddly enough, very relevant to the subject of this thread. Walach has in fact concluded that the only way homoeopathy can possibly work (and he believes it does work), is by actual magic. He has written several papers about this, starting with Magic of Signs - a non-local interpretation of homeopathy. This paper is quite remarkable in that it provides, from the pen of a leading homoeopathic researcher himself, quite the most comprehensive and succinct demolition of all the alleged "evidence" in favour of homoeopathy that I have ever seen.

It has become fashionable among homeopaths to lean back and proudly pronounce homeopathy as empirically proven. While this may be true for optimists who are convinced of the efficacy of homeopathy by their experience anyway, it is certainly not true for the scientific community at large....

Although Linde's et al meta-analysis showed a significant odds ratio for all placebo-controlled clinical trials of 2.45, this odds ratio drops to 1.66 (CI 1.33 ± 2.08) for the 26 studies which were considered methodologically good. If one would include recently published studies which showed clear negative results, and use only those which study classical homeopathy and with adequate methodology the odds ratio would drop to insignificance.... A recent re-analysis of the methodologically convincing studies which studied classical homeopathy (leaving out David Reilly's studies which studied, strictly speaking, isopathy) came to the conclusion that classical homeopathy is in fact placebo.

There is little evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy from independent replications. While there are the conceptual replications of the efficacy of isopathic preparation in atopic conditions [this is Reilly], these studies have not been replicated so far by independent groups....

Promising clinical models of homeopathic efficacy generally have failed, when probed for independent replicability....

Fundamental research has not been able to come up with a simple, replicable model so far. Although, taken together, there seems to be some evidence for the claim that ultra-high dilutions can be active, single models have not been able to stand up to independent scrutiny. Benveniste's model of immune reaction, originally promising, could not be replicated....

The pillar of homeopathy, remedy provings or pathogenetic trials, rests on shaky ground. The provings conducted and published since 1945 are not very convincing from a scientific point of view, the ones conducted in the United Kingdom being methodologically slightly more rigorous but not very convincing either. The provings which I have conducted myself do not show a clear pattern of different or more symptoms with homeopathic substance than placebo. Modern homeopathic provers like Jeremy Sherr or David Riley [Reilly, again] admit in personal discussions that very specific symptoms can be observed with placebo. These are rarely published, however....

And so on and so on. Thus, unable or unwilling to consider the obvious, scientific explanation, Walach concludes that the probable explanation is that magic is at work.

Although the original substance is diluted, it is still in some ay 'present' and effective. This presence, I will contend in this paper, is a magical, not a causal presence, like the one described in the text by Scholem. Magical presence and effects are wrought by signs, not by causes. In this sense, homeopathy is effective in a non-local way: it acts by magically activating connectedness.

I did offer this to Mas at the start of the thread as one way of demonstrating that according to at least one leading homoeopath homoeopathy is indeed a magic spell, but for some reason he ignored me.

Rolfe.