One Million Rupees Offer to prove "Homeopathy is Paranormal"

[thaiboxerken]

Moreover, my personal observations satisfy me for the effect different from placebo

Why don't you just announce to the world that you are a fool?

 

[Kumar]

Why don't you just announce to the world that you are a fool?

Can you do that? It is biggest foolishness to assume that anyone can be fool as 'GOD is said to ominipresent & omniscient-in everyone--so noone can be "fool". However differently costituted being & things are there, which can show different properties at gross level.

Btw, how/why , ONE who was nailed, treated & taken at his time & thereafter??????????? Was it a mistake, foolishness, ignorances, vested interests, cruelity, injustice or otherwise of HIS time OR a foolishness, ignorance.....of thereafter & now?

 

[EHocking]

EHocking,

Thanks. Btw, can you brief me, Why third, uncontrolled, variable into the trial was not considered before doing the experiment? Anyway it can be considered as improper experiment, but still it can't be taken as negative.

I read previous trials:-

Could you point me to the full text of these trials?

Not just the extracts.

Whether all four trials were conclusive as you said? Does it look justified that in all trials there was a diference between homeopathic & placebo, somewhat similarily? Sorry but it looks bit fishy to me.

It looks a bit fishy to me as well. The experiments are not examples of a repeatable result, but 4 results by the SAME experimentors.
So.
We have, in the fourth experiment, examples of errors in method and procedure and lack of control of measurement (remeber the *patients* did the measuring, not trianed physicians). Because the flaws are so fundamental, the previous experimental method has to be in question as well. But, that judgement would have to be reserved until I'd read the full accounts.

In addition to this, thepevious trials were not testing the same affliction nor "remedy".

 

[EHocking]

Did you made all this wrong?

No, the experimentors did, but conducting their experiment in a shoddy manner.

What was the point of quoting the conclusions back at me when the discussion was the the conclusions are invalidated by poor experimental practice?

 

[Mojo]

Btw, how/why , ONE who was nailed, treated & taken at his time & thereafter??????????? Was it a mistake, foolishness, ignorances, vested interests, cruelity, injustice or otherwise of HIS time OR a foolishness, ignorance.....of thereafter & now?

Oh Ed, he thinks he's Jesus now!

Has anyone told 1inChrist about this?

Coming soon to this forum: TROLL WARS!

 

[Kumar]

No, the experimentors did, but conducting their experiment in a shoddy manner.

What was the point of quoting the conclusions back at me when the discussion was the the conclusions are invalidated by poor experimental practice?

Whether who conducted the trials & experiments were science people & homeopathic people? Why poor experimental practice was not previously thought? Whether it was not continued by science people to clear the oubts or not? Don't you feel it should have continued reteatedly, if really thought as 'can be much beneficial' to humanity? Was it intentionally discredited & discontinued?

 

[Kumar]

Can homeopaths detect homeopathic medicines? A pilot study for a randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled investigation of the proving hypothesis.

Seventy homeopaths were randomised of whom 50 completed the trial. In the main analysis 60% correctly identified the bottle containing Bryonia (n=40; 95% confidence interval 43%, 75%; P=0.27). There was evidence of an order effect: subjects were much more likely to think they received active Bryonia in the first rather than the second period. In this study a promising trend was observed that symptoms reported by some homeopaths may not be completely attributable to placebo.

Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of homoeopathic 'proving' for Belladonna C30.

..For the secondary outcome measure we analysed the number of individuals who proved to the remedy according to our predefined criteria: 4 out of 19 proved in the Belladonna C30 group and 1 out of 27 in the placebo group (difference not statistically significant). This pilot study does not demonstrate a clear proving reaction for Belladonna C30 versus placebo, but indicates how the question might be further investigated.

"Pubmed links"

We may get many such referances which can tell ' something is/can be there '. Why not continuing is a big question mark?

 

[Mojo]

Whether who conducted the trials & experiments were science people & homeopathic people?

From the paper
MAT's salary was partly paid by the Blackie Foundation Trust, British Homoeopathic Association, and Scottish Homoeopathic Research and Education Trust administered by Glasgow University. She was reimbursed for attending a symposium organised by the Blackie Foundation Trust. DR began this research programme before using homoeopathy or developing education. He uses homoeopathy in clinical care.

Also the address for correspondence is

D Reilly, Academic Departments, Glasgow Homoeopathic Hospital, Glasgow

Would you like to say anything about "vested interests" here, Kumar? It seems to be one of your favorite phrases.

Why poor experimental practice was not previously thought?

EHocking has already provided you with a link to a response indicating the statistical shortcomings, published only a few months after the original paper.

Whether it was not continued by science people to clear the oubts or not? Don't you feel it should have continued reteatedly, if really thought as 'can be much beneficial' to humanity?

Good questions. It is now nearly 5 years since this paper was published. Why hasn't it been followed up using an adequate sample size?

Was it intentionally discredited & discontinued?

This research was carried out with funding from homeopathic organisations, and at least one of the researchers practices homeopathy (see quotation above). Why would they want to discontinue it?

 

[Kumar]

Also the address for correspondence is Would you like to say anything about "vested interests" here, Kumar? It seems to be one of your favorite phrases.

I would have thought about "vested interests" if results of experiments would have been accepted.

EHocking has already provided you with a link to a response indicating the statistical shortcomings, published only a few months after the original paper.

Still it can't be sure, that the results were not by homeopathic remedies. Differance in symtoms between treatment & placebo groups, somewhat indicate homeopathic effect different from placebo, taking third variable(medicines) as constant.

Good questions. It is now nearly 5 years since this paper was published. Why hasn't it been followed up using an adequate sample size?This research was carried out with funding from homeopathic organisations, and at least one of the researchers practices homeopathy (see quotation above). Why would they want to discontinue it?

May be depressed by science attitude or may be 'for the interest of homeopathy'. But it should have continued by science people in the interest of science & humanity.

 

[flume]

We may get many such referances which can tell ' something is/can be there '. Why not continuing is a big question mark?

The statistical results for those pilot studies do not show that 'something is there'.

There IS a larger study following the second pilot study you quoted. It also showed no significant effect of that particular experiment according to the abstract, and no suggestions that 'something was there'.

(someone did criticize the design of the study in a letter to the journal.)

 

[Kumar]

The statistical results for those pilot studies do not show that 'something is there'.

There IS a larger study following the second pilot study you quoted. It also showed no significant effect of that particular experiment according to the abstract, and no suggestions that 'something was there'.

(someone did criticize the design of the study in a letter to the journal.)

Btw, why science people not conducting many studies, when controled studies indicated some positives. Just saying results can't be justified due to third variable is not a proof of no possibilty of proof. Scince people should have taken furthur studies. In view of many positive results by homeopathic community & its mass existance should have attracted science people to do furthur tests--why it is not continuing looks bit fishy.
If science wants that homeopaths should show evidances in inverted commas, they may not be so interested. So science should regularily carry tests as per their need & requirements anf for humanity.

 

[flume]

Btw, why science people not conducting many studies, when controled studies indicated some positives. Just saying results can't be justified due to third variable is not a proof of no possibilty of proof. Scince people should have taken furthur studies. In view of many positive results by homeopathic community & its mass existance should have attracted science people to do furthur tests--why it is not continuing looks bit fishy.
If science wants that homeopaths should show evidances in inverted commas, they may not be so interested. So science should regularily carry tests as per their need & requirements anf for humanity.

• Probably there are some studies on homeopathy going on right now.
• Good studies are very expensive. Each group wanting to fund research must decide which studies might lead to the most benefit (and this might vary depending on the group's goals). Many people want funding for their ideas; only a small fraction of research ideas are able to be funded, even in regular medical science.
• Despite what you think, there is not enough indication of any benefit from homeopathy to make it worth spending a lot of money on, compared to other areas. The two pilot studies you quoted above did NOT show significant results, or results that looked like 'something was there'

 

[Donks]

Btw, why science people not conducting many studies, when controled studies indicated some positives.

Because those positives com from crappy studies.

Just saying results can't be justified due to third variable is not a proof of no possibilty of proof. Scince people should have taken furthur studies.

If homeopaths can come up with some decent evidence, none homeopaths will take notice.

In view of many positive results by homeopathic community & its mass existance should have attracted science people to do furthur tests--why it is not continuing looks bit fishy.

Many? Where? So far the only thing that looks fishy is the protocol homeopaths use.

If science wants that homeopaths should show evidances in inverted commas, they may not be so interested. So science should regularily carry tests as per their need & requirements anf for humanity.

Scientists have carried out tests. They showed no results.

And if you are going to insinuate that medical researchers don't do stuff for the good of humanity, you better be ready to back that up with some evidence. And receive some tongue lashings for being a troll and an idiot.

 

[Mojo]

If science wants that homeopaths should show evidances in inverted commas, they may not be so interested.

What was said about inverted commas applies specifically to Google searches, not to information in general. Are you so stupid that you can't tell the difference? Or are you just a troll?

 

[Kumar]

flume,

It looks alike to science people, as You say, but to get just opposite results than as science tests gets, we may have to involve our maximum efforts & means. However I doubt nature will allow, minimal harming & with least adversities based systems--till we are in accordance with the nature/nature's balance. We/homeopaths or other really good systems are opposed, nailed, remain invisible to most becuse these are not suitable to correct nature's balance or the destructive phase, from its overweight. When we will be under creative/maintainance phase, balanced or underweight, then these sytems will be favoured & visible. Some few however will get its benefits to maitain their existance. It is beyond understanding of most, so just avoid more discussions on this issue. I/even anyone, can't change the direction of nature. Let me try to gain from modern knowledges instead of wasting in TTT or TTTT.

 

[Donks]

It is beyond understanding of most, so just avoid more discussions on this issue.

So we are to stupid to see that homeopathy works, too stupid to even discuss it? And here I was thinking it was a lack of evidence.

 

[Kumar]

So we are to stupid to see that homeopathy works, too stupid to even discuss it? And here I was thinking it was a lack of evidence.

Probably, it may be too stupid to against/interfere the nature's direction. We are therefore not getting any knowledge, but finds that we are so stupid to discuss or look into it.

 

[flume]

Kumar, sorry to be discouraging. I don't share your religious beliefs so you're right, there's no use in discussing.

 

[Kumar]

Kumar, sorry to be discouraging. I don't share your religious beliefs so you're right, there's no use in discussing.

Artificial means can be capable of doing much more than the physical natural capabilties of humans, but we may ultimate need our physical natural capabilties to do, not machines.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

OK. Will MAS show up again? Syed has done a runner! So we only have Kumar to play with.