One Million Rupees Offer to prove "Homeopathy is Paranormal"

Re: Re: Good Intention

EHocking said:
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...

Thanks but, does it indicate/prove "abosolut nothing" in homeopathic remedies? Moreover, it is not homeopath's report?
 
Re: Re: Re: Good Intention

Kumar said:
Moreover, it is not homeopath's report?
Oh well we'd better discard it then.

I'd hate to think that there might be scientific research out there that hasn't been properly homeopath-reviewed.
 
Re: Re: Re: Good Intention

Kumar said:
Thanks but, does it indicate/prove "abosolut nothing" in homeopathic remedies?
Yes, because of the statistical flaws mentioned the study proves absolutely nothing.
Moreover, it is not homeopath's report?
Yes, from what Rolfe has posted, at least one of the authors of the study is a proponent of homeopathy. And your point is?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Good Intention

Mojo said:
Yes, because of the statistical flaws mentioned the study proves absolutely nothing.Yes, from what Rolfe has posted, at least one of the authors of the study is a proponent of homeopathy. And your point is? [/B]

Results: Fifty patients completed the study. The homoeopathy group had a significant objective improvement in nasal airflow compared with the placebo group (mean difference 19.8 l/min, 95% confidence interval 10.4 to 29.1, P=0.0001). Both groups reported improvement in symptoms, with patients taking homoeopathy reporting more improvement in all but one of the centres, which had more patients with aggravations. On average no significant difference between the groups was seen on visual analogue scale scores. Initial aggravations of rhinitis symptoms were more common with homoeopathy than placebo (7 (30%) v 2 (7%), P=0.04). Addition of these results to those of three previous trials (n=253) showed a mean symptom reduction on visual analogue scores of 28% (10.9 mm) for homoeopathy compared with 3% (1.1 mm) for placebo (95% confidence interval 4.2 to 15.4, P=0.0007).
Conclusion: The objective results reinforce earlier evidence that homoeopathic dilutions differ from placebo. http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/321/7259/471

How it tells that there is nothing? In comparisn to public means & energy devoted to homeopathy with modern system, even 25-40% positive results should also be considered as comparable(Vikram somewhat agreed to it in some topic).
 
Just forget & leave TTT(Trolling Types Talks). ;)

Let us do something for "one million dollers/rupees."

We have two scientific referances:-

Law of conservation of energy: in any given system the amount of energy is constant; energy is neither created nor destroyed, but only transformed from one form to another.

In the natural world, we say that there are systems. For example, the solar system of nine planets orbiting the sun. In the human body, we refer to such systems as the nervous system, the circulatory system, the digestive system, the reproductive system, and the respiratory system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System

How Law of conservation of energy applies to body's systems?:)

How Law of conservation of energy applies to modren, alternative, homeopathic ..systems?
 
Conclusion: The objective results reinforce earlier evidence that homoeopathic dilutions differ from placebo.
Reality check. Whatever he calls it, David Reilly isn't actually doing homoeopathy. He's doing isopathy.

Why does that matter? Well, it matters because quite a lot of the resoundingly negative studies have also used isopathy rather than homoeopathy in their design. And to a man, homoeopaths dismiss these as irrelevant because "that's not homoeopathy". But suddenly, when someone publishes a result that seems to be positive, that's OK because isopathy is somehow suddenly OK again?

It also illustrates Kumar's persistent intellectual dishonesty. Trawl the net for anything that looks positive, and completely ignore any negative studies, of which there are plenty. If you can look at that study through half-closed eyes and imagine that "maybe there's something there", why can't you look straight at the absolutely negative studies and say, well, after all, there isn't?

Because it's all right back to repeatability. How come only David Reilly can seem to get this study to work, and when anyone else tries it, no dice? Maybe for the same reason that only Fleischmann and Pons could get cold fusion to work, and when better physicists tried it, they realised there was nothing there?

Rolfe.
 
Kumar said:
How Law of conservation of energy applies to body's systems?
How Law of conservation of energy applies to modren, alternative, homeopathic ..systems?
Same as it applies to any other system. The energy you input to a system will be equal to the energy output of the system plus the change in energy contained in the system.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Good Intention

Kumar said:
How it tells that there is nothing? In comparisn to public means & energy devoted to homeopathy with modern system, even 25-40% positive results should also be considered as comparable(Vikram somewhat agreed to it in some topic).
Besides you ignoring the point that the results are inaccurate due to the statistical treatment being incorrect....

... the test was NOT controlled . ...

Perhaps you should have read the full text rather than the Abstract, and then you would have noticed this:

Although drugs for rhinitis were stopped two weeks before entry, patients could use them during the trial if required, and asthma drugs were not altered...

So. "Allopathic" allergen drugs were permitted to be used by the test subjects throughout the trial. I can see no mention of when these drugs were used by the test subjects nor where this has been accounted for in any of the results.

Null test.

Null result.

Null conclusions.

In my opinion a blatant misrepresentation.

(ETA - you're welcome, Jocce)
 
Donks said:
Same as it applies to any other system. The energy you input to a system will be equal to the energy output of the system plus the change in energy contained in the system.

Whether human body as a whole is a system or not?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Good Intention

EHocking said:
Besides you ignoring the point that the results are inaccurate due to the statistical treatment being incorrect....

... the test was NOT controlled . ...

Perhaps you should have read the full text rather than the Abstract, and then you would have noticed this:

Although drugs for rhinitis were stopped two weeks before entry, patients could use them during the trial if required, and asthma drugs were not altered...

So. "Allopathic" allergen drugs were permitted to be used by the test subjects throughout the trial. I can see no mention of when these drugs were used by the test subjects nor where this has been accounted for in any of the results.

Null test.

Null result.

Null conclusions.

In my opinion a blatant misrepresentation.

(ETA - you're welcome, Jocce)

How can you be so absolute that it had happened exactly as you assume? It could had happened due to remedies also.
 
Darat said:
I have to disagree, it doesn't matter what goes in!

Silica: It is a very stable compound, as in the only acid it will react with is hydrofluoric acid. Silicon dioxide is an acidic oxide. It is acidic because when in water it produces hydrogen ions from the water. Silicon dioxide also transmits visible and ultraviolet light. Ingestion Low hazard. Inhalation Irritation, long term exposure of the crystalline form causes silicosis.

Why mentioned about spondylitis?
 
Rolfe said:
Reality check. Whatever he calls it, David Reilly isn't actually doing homoeopathy. He's doing isopathy.

Why does that matter? Well, it matters because quite a lot of the resoundingly negative studies have also used isopathy rather than homoeopathy in their design. And to a man, homoeopaths dismiss these as irrelevant because "that's not homoeopathy". But suddenly, when someone publishes a result that seems to be positive, that's OK because isopathy is somehow suddenly OK again?

It also illustrates Kumar's persistent intellectual dishonesty...

Rolfe,

Law of conservation of energy: in any given system the amount of energy is constant; energy is neither created nor destroyed, but only transformed from one form to another.

As per this basic science law, amount of energy in any modern or other older system as homeopathy is constant neither could be created nor destroyed. Why then to try & tell only empity portion of half filled glass?

Pls maintain nature banlance/homeostatis because if you will dig for making mountains for yourself, your can leave a pit for your small children".

By this law, just understand nature's style for balancing itself or maintain hormony among its beings:-

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.

Is it not better to become less inteligent, if we want to do something for our children? Do humans practice this law or not?
 
Originally posted by Kumar: Law of conservation of energy: in any given system the amount of energy is constant; energy is neither created nor destroyed, but only transformed from one form to another.

As per this basic science law, amount of energy in any modern or other older system as homeopathy is constant neither could be created nor destroyed. Why then to try & tell only empity portion of half filled glass?
Why don't you work the answer out for yourself? If you are using the word "system" in the second paragraph the way I think you are using it, then it is not the same meaning as in the first paragraph. If so, your second paragraph has no connection to the law in the first paragraph, so you can't use it to draw any conclusions.

I think you know by now that words in science are carefully defined, so I'm surprised that you are trying to apply them to other situations where the meanings and the situations are different. There is no value in doing that.
 
flume said:
Why don't you work the answer out for yourself? If you are using the word "system" in the second paragraph the way I think you are using it, then it is not the same meaning as in the first paragraph. If so, your second paragraph has no connection to the law in the first paragraph, so you can't use it to draw any conclusions.

I think you know by now that words in science are carefully defined, so I'm surprised that you are trying to apply them to other situations where the meanings and the situations are different. There is no value in doing that.

Whether Law of conservation of energy is not universal or absolute?

"I think you know by now that words in science are carefully defined,"

I am understanding it in another topic. ;)
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom